Two CF4's have broken in the last few days and will need to be returned. Our varsity kids received the bats less than two weeks ago...it looks like the BBCOR is going to be utilized much sooner than originally anticipated?
Not good, but good input for us who have not broken down and bought a new bat yet for 2011.
Thinking about it today, our son's first HS game is not unitl the first of March. In BP they swing wood or wood/comp anyway. So I am waiting it out another month before we make the purchase. Seems like new BBCOR bats are coming out every week now. Go figure...
I wonder what the industry would do if we all went wood this season, leaving all the BBCOR bats sitting on the shelf...
Thinking about it today, our son's first HS game is not unitl the first of March. In BP they swing wood or wood/comp anyway. So I am waiting it out another month before we make the purchase. Seems like new BBCOR bats are coming out every week now. Go figure...
I wonder what the industry would do if we all went wood this season, leaving all the BBCOR bats sitting on the shelf...
The CF4 seems good, it's getting better now that it's been used a few weeks. Son also has the Surge BBCOR which is pretty good as well, not as good as the CF4.
Went to our umpire association meeting last evening. The "policing" of bats in California is still fluid; however, it looks like umpires will be asking each head coach before the game, two questions. "Can you identify the bats currently on the waiver list? And do your teams bats comply?"
If a bat comes into the game that does not comply and the other team asks for a "rule clarification" then the umpires will ajudicate the bat issue.
It will be the coaches that run the risk of ejection if they "know and allow" bat into the game that do not comply with the rules.
If the coach can not identify BESR bats that are on the waiver list then NO BESR bats will be allowed into the game for that team.
As I said; this is still fluid and may likely change as the waiver list changes.
If a bat comes into the game that does not comply and the other team asks for a "rule clarification" then the umpires will ajudicate the bat issue.
It will be the coaches that run the risk of ejection if they "know and allow" bat into the game that do not comply with the rules.
If the coach can not identify BESR bats that are on the waiver list then NO BESR bats will be allowed into the game for that team.
As I said; this is still fluid and may likely change as the waiver list changes.
I have a question to any of those who have purchased new CF4's. If you look online you see the model numbers for new bats as "DXB CFB" If you look at the approved bats on the waiver list they specifically call out CFB 10 and CFB 11.
Do the new bats have this model number on them or do they have the DXB CFB?
I am thinking there may be a chance that an umpire will look for the model number and say they are not on the list.
Thanks
Late edit: I went to ebay and look at some pictures and they have the DXB CFB model listed and when you look at detailed pictures they show the CFB 11 model so I have already answered the question.
Do the new bats have this model number on them or do they have the DXB CFB?
I am thinking there may be a chance that an umpire will look for the model number and say they are not on the list.
Thanks
Late edit: I went to ebay and look at some pictures and they have the DXB CFB model listed and when you look at detailed pictures they show the CFB 11 model so I have already answered the question.
I think the 10 11 are the that years model. CFB 10 is a 2010 bat CFB 11 is a 2011 bat
Just went out on the CIF State website and they have changed to BBCOR list. It now is a link to Washington State University.
Eldest son had a JUCO game today. He has been swinging the VooDoo BBCOR and swinging well the first few games. Today, his first AB he took the second pitch deep - HR. Plus a couple of singles, all hit hard. Ugly game with a couple to bad innings, but over all it looks like the boys have made the adjustment.
Lefty...
Lefty...
quote:It will be the coaches that run the risk of ejection if they "know and allow" bat into the game that do not comply with the rules.
---Gotta watch this very closely, especially in California. Ejection or possibly game-forfeit would be the penalty for a bat violation that caused no obvious harm to anyone.
The next time someone gets injured by a batted ball in California, the bat that launched it had better be a legal one or there may be a lawsuit the size of the Grand Canyon coming along...maybe even criminal liability?
FYI - I was in Sports Authority yesterday and they had all the top of the line BBCOR bats. Voodoo, Omaha etc.... plus they had waiver list bats... CF4s etc...
quote:Originally posted by Hawghauler:
FYI - I was in Sports Authority yesterday and they had all the top of the line BBCOR bats. Voodoo, Omaha etc.... plus they had waiver list bats... CF4s etc...
We called the 3 closest Sport's Authorities last night and none had the 32" Voodoo. Had to order it online. We waited until now so my 2014 could swing all his teammates bats first and use them in scrimmages - Omaha, Vexxum, Surge, and Voodoo. He picked the Voodoo as the favorite.
But we also ordered an Easton Typhoon to see how it would compare. For the $60 it can just be the cage bat after the voodoo is worked in.
bballdad175,
Are there any more specifics you can offer up in the comparison between the Omaha, Vexxum, Surge and Voodoo?
Are there any more specifics you can offer up in the comparison between the Omaha, Vexxum, Surge and Voodoo?
Our team has the voodoo and the surge bbcor, they all like the surge better. But in reality in the games they are all swinging cf4's.
VooDoo and Vexxum are the same type of bats. Composite handle and Aluminium barrel.
The Voodoo has their top of the line composite and metal, that's why the VooDoo is $100 more.
Both the Omaha and Surge are one piece aluminium.
Our high school got Omahas and Easton Omens (BBCOR composite).
The Voodoo has their top of the line composite and metal, that's why the VooDoo is $100 more.
Both the Omaha and Surge are one piece aluminium.
Our high school got Omahas and Easton Omens (BBCOR composite).
FYI- last night at practice a player's Vexxum broke. Right where the barrel and handle joins.
Now the handle slides into the barrel.
One scrimmage and batting practice.... he got it about a month ago.
Now the handle slides into the barrel.
One scrimmage and batting practice.... he got it about a month ago.
After watching high school games and college on TV I think the NCAA blew it. BBCOR bats don't even have the pop of wood. I was also talking to a guy that runs a BB academy and he's hearing from the college players...the bats are dead.
I am hearing from the college guys that they are dead also, but I think the bat Mfg. are going to figure it out and over time the performance will improve some.
If not, just think of all the money schools will save on Real Estate. They can bring the fences in to about 275 feet. 
I think the next generation bbcor bats will be better. The manufacturers will get the most out of the bats they can. Lets say the manufacturers get 5% more out of the bats, they tweek the sweet spot (make it a bit bigger)and balance out the bats. Assuming that can happen I think it will turn out well for everyone involved.
If they stay as is, at least at the high school level the outfielders are going to be playing way in.....the 9-3 put out will be routine.
If they stay as is, at least at the high school level the outfielders are going to be playing way in.....the 9-3 put out will be routine.
quote:I think the next generation bbcor bats will be better. The manufacturers will get the most out of the bats they can.
---I believe that is pretty much a false hope. The BBCOR standard is specifically designed to prevent metal bats from performing any better than wood.
The BESR standard actually did allow conforming bats to perform about 5% better than wood. But more than that, some BESR bats got much hotter with normal use or when people "rolled" them or compression-treated them in various ways. BBCOR is meant to prevent all of that baloney, and the 5% starting advantage is also gone from BBCOR.
Durability is the only BBCOR advantage over wood that I can think of. Better balance and sweet spot, I don't buy it because wood bats are crafted in many different designs: Some are barrel-loaded with thin whip-like handles and some have a 2 1/2 barrel with a thicker handle to provide a more evenly balanced bat.
Wood bats can break but my son and I decided that the "feel" and sound of wood is worth paying for.
Somehow, we just can't stomach the process of buying a $300 tarted-up lead pipe--a pig-iron bat with lipstick, so to speak--that has a killer name and a fancy paint-job.
I disagree somewhat. Read PG staffs post in another thread. The rawlings 5150 is supposed to better than the others based on tests. All the manufacturers will get the most they can out of these new standards. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that they will be better next year. 5% better...just a guess. They will never be like the BESR bats but they will be better than the first generation BBCOR.
My sons team is using the BBCORE Omaha this season. So far so good, first game out of the box our 4 hole frehsmen slugger hit a bomb his first at bat. 360ft to left field, cleard the fence by 15ft, looks like the Omaha has some pop!
I agree, last night two of our kids hit HRs with the Omaha BBCOR and a couple of long doubles.
I have also seen a few home runs this season from BBCOR swings. However, after having researched the manfacturing standards and physics discussions concerning BBCOR bats a little (okay, actually quite a lot)...at this point I'm willing to give full credit to the hitter for any BBCOR homeruns....if he jacked one with a BBCOR, he could have done the same with wood.
That is, all signs suggest that BBCOR = wood, so it was probably not the "Omaha" or the "Rawlings" that supplied the pop--it was the hitter.
As for manufacturers squeezing out 5% more performance in next-generation BBCORs, I don't buy that for a second. The new standard says you can't legally manufacture bats to perform any better than wood, and you can't manufacture bats that "improve" with use or rolling. If I were a bat manufacturer, I wouldn't even try to circumvent the BBCOR rules--the next time someone gets seriously injured from a batted ball the bat that hit it will be tested, for sure. If it exceeds the BBCOR standard, but is labeled as BBCOR, the manufacturer will probably be held liable.
Instead, BBCOR bat manufacturers are kind of stuck with the hope that brand loyalty, nice paint-jobs, killer model names, better-than-wood-durability, and the placebo effect will keep hitters buying their product. Who can blame them? I don't, it's a very competitive business market and business people gotta do what they gotta do.
On the other hand wood sounds better, "feels" better in the hands, has a glorious tradition in baseball, and performs the same as BBCOR. I don't care enough about limited durability to switch back to metal at this point--wood is too much fun now that the playing field has been leveled.
That is, all signs suggest that BBCOR = wood, so it was probably not the "Omaha" or the "Rawlings" that supplied the pop--it was the hitter.
As for manufacturers squeezing out 5% more performance in next-generation BBCORs, I don't buy that for a second. The new standard says you can't legally manufacture bats to perform any better than wood, and you can't manufacture bats that "improve" with use or rolling. If I were a bat manufacturer, I wouldn't even try to circumvent the BBCOR rules--the next time someone gets seriously injured from a batted ball the bat that hit it will be tested, for sure. If it exceeds the BBCOR standard, but is labeled as BBCOR, the manufacturer will probably be held liable.
Instead, BBCOR bat manufacturers are kind of stuck with the hope that brand loyalty, nice paint-jobs, killer model names, better-than-wood-durability, and the placebo effect will keep hitters buying their product. Who can blame them? I don't, it's a very competitive business market and business people gotta do what they gotta do.
On the other hand wood sounds better, "feels" better in the hands, has a glorious tradition in baseball, and performs the same as BBCOR. I don't care enough about limited durability to switch back to metal at this point--wood is too much fun now that the playing field has been leveled.
Well almost. When they set the BBCOR "limits" they tested the best wood they could get, real MLB stuff and they took the best performing wood they had and bumped it 5% knowing they could never say they got the best wood bat there is. This way any wood bat will always meet the BBCOR standards. So a BBCOR bat should be hotter than any wood we could possible get from suppliers, or sporting good stores. Then they added in the engineering to give the bat a bigger sweat spot. IMHO the bat makers in their haste to get the bats to market may not have done the best they could to get it as close as possible to the BBCOR standard without going over. So I think next years bats will be slightly hotter. Could be why LS isn't releasing the EXO BBCOR until next year.
Hawg: So you know this for a fact? Are you just making it all up on the fly cause it sounds good ? .....
BTW I agree that the bats will get better, but probably in the area of balance and uniformity, etc.
BTW I agree that the bats will get better, but probably in the area of balance and uniformity, etc.
quote:Originally posted by Hawghauler:
Well almost. When they set the BBCOR "limits" they tested the best wood they could get, real MLB stuff and they took the best performing wood they had and bumped it 5% knowing they could never say they got the best wood bat there is. This way any wood bat will always meet the BBCOR standards. So a BBCOR bat should be hotter than any wood we could possible get from suppliers, or sporting good stores. Then they added in the engineering to give the bat a bigger sweat spot. IMHO the bat makers in their haste to get the bats to market may not have done the best they could to get it as close as possible to the BBCOR standard without going over. So I think next years bats will be slightly hotter. Could be why LS isn't releasing the EXO BBCOR until next year.
I think we need to remember that some of the bat manufacturers have been around for a long time, which did not happen by accident. Their business is to sell bats and make money, and they do that with technology. As new technology comes out, they will go to their R&D departments to develop new products.
The BBCOR products over time will change, paint, balance, sound and even pop slighlty. Just like BOF stated LS is coming out with their EXO version later, and there should be no question that it will out perform the first BBCOR bats that came to market.
Lefty...
The BBCOR products over time will change, paint, balance, sound and even pop slighlty. Just like BOF stated LS is coming out with their EXO version later, and there should be no question that it will out perform the first BBCOR bats that came to market.
Lefty...
Here's an excerpt from physicist Alan Nathan's recent interview in Collegiate Baseball:
Performance Of New Bats
Nathan was asked what reduction
in performance the new BBCOR
bats will yield to hitters in 2011?
“With the previous standard
(BESR), the best performing nonwood
bat outperformed wood by
about five percent and maybe as
much as six percent.
“That five or six percent will
now be reduced to zero percent with
the new BBCOR bats. Roughly
speaking, that translates to about
five miles per hour less off the new
bats which is the same as wood
bats. Currently, BESR certified nonwood
bats outperform wood bats by
five miles per hour. In effect, what
we are doing is removing that five
miles per hour gap. Non-wood and
wood will perform at the same level
in terms of batted ball speed with
the BBCOR standard in place.”
Performance Of New Bats
Nathan was asked what reduction
in performance the new BBCOR
bats will yield to hitters in 2011?
“With the previous standard
(BESR), the best performing nonwood
bat outperformed wood by
about five percent and maybe as
much as six percent.
“That five or six percent will
now be reduced to zero percent with
the new BBCOR bats. Roughly
speaking, that translates to about
five miles per hour less off the new
bats which is the same as wood
bats. Currently, BESR certified nonwood
bats outperform wood bats by
five miles per hour. In effect, what
we are doing is removing that five
miles per hour gap. Non-wood and
wood will perform at the same level
in terms of batted ball speed with
the BBCOR standard in place.”
Nathan was simplifying a bit (and he knows that). A good value for the normalized BBCOR for a wood bat is 0.47. The limit for non-wood bats is 0.50, although most aluminum bats right now are at about 0.48. Compare that to 0.57 and sometimes more for BESR bats.
So, at the moment about 90% of the difference between BESR and wood has been removed for BBCOR bats. We can expect that bat manufacturers will strive to get closer to 0.50. Perhaps they will manage to consistently get 0.49, so a little bit will be gained back. If that happens then BBCOR bats will have lost about 80% of the difference between wood and BESR. So BBCOR bats will (when they are refined and batters find the optimal weight/MOI) be slightly better than wood bats--maybe 1 or 2% in ball speed.
The second simplification Nathan made is to assume that the trampoline effect will be nearly zero for all batters. In fact, since the bats are still hollow, there is some trampoline effect. BBCOR is measured at an impact speed of 136 mph. Higher end college pitchers can achieve around 87 mph at the plate, so a swing speed of 50 mph corresponds to the measurement condition. Measuring the speed with which a bat is swung is challenging, because the speed is higher at the end of the bat than at, say, the middle. But 50 mph is definitely on the low side. Batters who can swing at 70-80 mph while facing a 95mph pitcher will get some additional trampoline effect from hollow bats, because the bats deform more at high impact speeds. It may amount to a 5% advantage over wooden bats when top batter face flame throwers.
Still, Nathan's point is that the BBCOR standard is much better than the BESR standard, and that's very true.
So, at the moment about 90% of the difference between BESR and wood has been removed for BBCOR bats. We can expect that bat manufacturers will strive to get closer to 0.50. Perhaps they will manage to consistently get 0.49, so a little bit will be gained back. If that happens then BBCOR bats will have lost about 80% of the difference between wood and BESR. So BBCOR bats will (when they are refined and batters find the optimal weight/MOI) be slightly better than wood bats--maybe 1 or 2% in ball speed.
The second simplification Nathan made is to assume that the trampoline effect will be nearly zero for all batters. In fact, since the bats are still hollow, there is some trampoline effect. BBCOR is measured at an impact speed of 136 mph. Higher end college pitchers can achieve around 87 mph at the plate, so a swing speed of 50 mph corresponds to the measurement condition. Measuring the speed with which a bat is swung is challenging, because the speed is higher at the end of the bat than at, say, the middle. But 50 mph is definitely on the low side. Batters who can swing at 70-80 mph while facing a 95mph pitcher will get some additional trampoline effect from hollow bats, because the bats deform more at high impact speeds. It may amount to a 5% advantage over wooden bats when top batter face flame throwers.
Still, Nathan's point is that the BBCOR standard is much better than the BESR standard, and that's very true.
Nice job 3FG on the explanation.
You analysis is based on squared contact. The other difference not mentioned is that the BBCOR bats will probably have a slightly larger sweet spot. (just a guess on my part) and they will certainly be better with balls hit off the handle area.
You analysis is based on squared contact. The other difference not mentioned is that the BBCOR bats will probably have a slightly larger sweet spot. (just a guess on my part) and they will certainly be better with balls hit off the handle area.
Yes, the BBCOR bats will have a larger sweet spot, at least until the players and bat manufacturers realize that bats with a high MOI give more batted ball speed. That's been experimentally verified for professional baseball players, and women's fast pitch (good athletes with fast twitch muscles) and men's slow pitch (by far, the highest bat speed). The aluminum BESR bats allowed players to use low MOI bats (quicker swings), and make up the BBS with trampoline effect.
If they start using bats with a MOI like wood, the sweet spot will act more like wood. Probably still some advantage for the hollow bats though.
If they start using bats with a MOI like wood, the sweet spot will act more like wood. Probably still some advantage for the hollow bats though.
3FingeredGlove:
Excellent discussion and great inside knowledge!
I'd be very interested to look at the reference material you are using, if it's publicly available.
One question I had for you right off the bat is: How can you be sure that BBCOR bats will respond in a non-linear fashion to ball-bat collisions that occur at speeds higher than the test spec?
Also, if there is a speed-dependent, non-linear trampoline effect how can you be sure that it isn't an inverse relationship, rather than the directly proportional relationship you are assuming?
It would be almost incomprehensible to me if that question hasn't already been studied experimentally by one of the labs designated by NCAA for testing baseball equipment.
If you have data from any such studies, I'd love to take a look at it.
Thanks!
Excellent discussion and great inside knowledge!
I'd be very interested to look at the reference material you are using, if it's publicly available.
One question I had for you right off the bat is: How can you be sure that BBCOR bats will respond in a non-linear fashion to ball-bat collisions that occur at speeds higher than the test spec?
Also, if there is a speed-dependent, non-linear trampoline effect how can you be sure that it isn't an inverse relationship, rather than the directly proportional relationship you are assuming?
It would be almost incomprehensible to me if that question hasn't already been studied experimentally by one of the labs designated by NCAA for testing baseball equipment.
If you have data from any such studies, I'd love to take a look at it.
Thanks!
How do I know?!!! I read... The NCAA came out with a letter and explained their process. They did this right after the pitcher was put into a coma and they wanted to clarify their process. And they wanted to explain their BBCOR tests.
Plus there were a whole bunch of news articles that came out with the explanation of their tests.
Mostly because the father and the lawmaker were coming out and talking about "double walled aluminum bats" and how the bats had something around a -10 drop (in High School?) so they had to come out with facts about the bats to calm down the hysteria or they would have tried to ban baseball.
Yeah right... I just make it up.
Plus there were a whole bunch of news articles that came out with the explanation of their tests.
Mostly because the father and the lawmaker were coming out and talking about "double walled aluminum bats" and how the bats had something around a -10 drop (in High School?) so they had to come out with facts about the bats to calm down the hysteria or they would have tried to ban baseball.
Yeah right... I just make it up.
Kettering's Russel
For this particular discussion, the article "Why do aluminum bats outperform wood?" has good info.
Illinois' Nathan
"Effect of Ball Properties on the Ball-Bat Coefficient of Restitution" addresses some of the issues discussed here.
Faber dissertation
This is a Masters Thesis, so it gives a lot of details.
NCAA Baseball Bat Page
The actual testing protocol is available under Certification Protocols.
Both metal and wooden bats are linear in response--both are highly elastic, which means that any energy which goes into momentarily deforming the barrel (yes, even a wood bat deforms, but not very much) will be returned to the ball-bat system during the rebound.
The ball however, is not very elastic, and converts much of the energy of deforming the ball into heat. One way to express this is to look at the COR of the baseball itself. At bunting speeds, (85 feet/sec or 58mph) the COR is 0.565 corresponding to a rebound speed from ash boards backed by concrete of 48 feet/sec. So for a ball hitting a massive hard surface, almost 70% of the ball's energy turns into heat! But at 125mph impact speed on a rigid wall the COR has fallen to 0.45, and the energy returned during rebound has fallen to about 20%. That happens because at higher impact speeds the deformation of the ball is larger. Ball CORs from Adair's "The Physics of Baseball."
The trampoline effect works because when the bat deforms momentarily, the ball doesn't have to slow as quickly, the deformation is less, and the ball's COR is better.
So both the wood and metal bats behave linearly with impact speed, but for impact speeds above the test speed the COR of the combined ball bat system (BBCOR) is higher for hollow bats. Hollow bats deform the ball less than a wood bat.
For this particular discussion, the article "Why do aluminum bats outperform wood?" has good info.
Illinois' Nathan
"Effect of Ball Properties on the Ball-Bat Coefficient of Restitution" addresses some of the issues discussed here.
Faber dissertation
This is a Masters Thesis, so it gives a lot of details.
NCAA Baseball Bat Page
The actual testing protocol is available under Certification Protocols.
quote:How can you be sure that BBCOR bats will respond in a non-linear fashion to ball-bat collisions that occur at speeds higher than the test spec?
Both metal and wooden bats are linear in response--both are highly elastic, which means that any energy which goes into momentarily deforming the barrel (yes, even a wood bat deforms, but not very much) will be returned to the ball-bat system during the rebound.
The ball however, is not very elastic, and converts much of the energy of deforming the ball into heat. One way to express this is to look at the COR of the baseball itself. At bunting speeds, (85 feet/sec or 58mph) the COR is 0.565 corresponding to a rebound speed from ash boards backed by concrete of 48 feet/sec. So for a ball hitting a massive hard surface, almost 70% of the ball's energy turns into heat! But at 125mph impact speed on a rigid wall the COR has fallen to 0.45, and the energy returned during rebound has fallen to about 20%. That happens because at higher impact speeds the deformation of the ball is larger. Ball CORs from Adair's "The Physics of Baseball."
The trampoline effect works because when the bat deforms momentarily, the ball doesn't have to slow as quickly, the deformation is less, and the ball's COR is better.
So both the wood and metal bats behave linearly with impact speed, but for impact speeds above the test speed the COR of the combined ball bat system (BBCOR) is higher for hollow bats. Hollow bats deform the ball less than a wood bat.
Hawghauler,
Check out the NCAA link in the previous post. I think you'll see that timeline associated with the BBCOR standard is much earlier than you posted.
Check out the NCAA link in the previous post. I think you'll see that timeline associated with the BBCOR standard is much earlier than you posted.
The articles that came out also had links to the NCAA standards. Listen, I never said they came out with the BBCOR standard after the kid was hit. In fact the colleges were already planning on 2011 season using BBCOR and High Schools 2012. But then because athe parents of the kid and a lawmaker got involved they upped the schedule for CA high schools to 2011 (and why the waivered bats were included is still a mystery). If you think I'm wrong...Whatever!
3FingeredGlove,
Thanks for the citations. After taking a look back at Adair's graph of ball COR vs impact velocity it is apparent that COR is non-linear; however, in the context of our discussion, I wonder how meaningful the slope of that curve really is.
The data for ~105 mph was specifically for a 1938 vintage ball, and it is slightly off the curve that was extrapolated for modern balls. However, the bigger point is, for the modern balls Adair only shows three points (just under 25 mph, just over 25 mph, and about 55 mph or so). From these sparse low-speed data points, he extrapolates all the way out to 150 mph.
Even if we accept that the somewhat questionable curve-fitting is the best that can be done with available data, some further issues come to light: The major one is, at the higher end of the COR vs impact velo curve, say between 125 mph and 150 mph, the slope is very small--maybe even meaningless(?).
In fact, the curvature in Adair's graph makes it look like the only meaningful differences in ball COR versus impact velo are seen when the velocity is at least doubled.
All that being said, we were discussing the properties of bats, not the ball. I don't know about you, but I would really like to see a graph of experimental data that illustrates bat-COR vs impact speed (with a fixed, non-compressible object over a range of realistic game speeds) for both wood and BBCOR-legal bats.
Thanks for the citations. After taking a look back at Adair's graph of ball COR vs impact velocity it is apparent that COR is non-linear; however, in the context of our discussion, I wonder how meaningful the slope of that curve really is.
The data for ~105 mph was specifically for a 1938 vintage ball, and it is slightly off the curve that was extrapolated for modern balls. However, the bigger point is, for the modern balls Adair only shows three points (just under 25 mph, just over 25 mph, and about 55 mph or so). From these sparse low-speed data points, he extrapolates all the way out to 150 mph.
Even if we accept that the somewhat questionable curve-fitting is the best that can be done with available data, some further issues come to light: The major one is, at the higher end of the COR vs impact velo curve, say between 125 mph and 150 mph, the slope is very small--maybe even meaningless(?).
In fact, the curvature in Adair's graph makes it look like the only meaningful differences in ball COR versus impact velo are seen when the velocity is at least doubled.
All that being said, we were discussing the properties of bats, not the ball. I don't know about you, but I would really like to see a graph of experimental data that illustrates bat-COR vs impact speed (with a fixed, non-compressible object over a range of realistic game speeds) for both wood and BBCOR-legal bats.
quote:Originally posted by BOF:
Hawg: So you know this for a fact? Are you just making it all up on the fly cause it sounds good ? .....
BTW I agree that the bats will get better, but probably in the area of balance and uniformity, etc.quote:Originally posted by Hawghauler:
Well almost. When they set the BBCOR "limits" they tested the best wood they could get, real MLB stuff and they took the best performing wood they had and bumped it 5% knowing they could never say they got the best wood bat there is. This way any wood bat will always meet the BBCOR standards. So a BBCOR bat should be hotter than any wood we could possible get from suppliers, or sporting good stores. Then they added in the engineering to give the bat a bigger sweat spot. IMHO the bat makers in their haste to get the bats to market may not have done the best they could to get it as close as possible to the BBCOR standard without going over. So I think next years bats will be slightly hotter. Could be why LS isn't releasing the EXO BBCOR until next year.
Came across this looking up the MOI limits:
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/...nnouncement.9.05.pdf