| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
jrog76
80 Posts |
 Posted - 07/10/2008 : 17:22:32
|
Now that them Dawgs advanced as far as they did swinging Nike bats there is increased interest in them from the kids.
So, can anybody speak to their quality, longevity, who really makes them, etc.?
Oh, do they make a drop 5?
Thanks!
|
|
|
ATPP
342 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2008 : 10:20:08
|
| we have used the White aero fuse cx2 -8 for about two months and like it. Very solid and has a composite sound like the exogrid. |
 |
|
|
shadrach
10 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2008 : 17:59:25
|
Here's a good read on Nike and bats, in general. Read on.....
As T.H. notes, this allegation---raised by the Athens Banner-Herald’s John Kaltefleiter, brought to our attention by FisheriesDawg, and furthered by Loran Smith (not the real one!)---is a serious one, so I sent an e-mail to Dr. Russell asking if he would be willing to be interviewed upon the topic.
Dr. Russell promptly and graciously sent me a lengthy response exploring the issue in detail and illustrating, unsurprisingly, that the subject is not as simple as it seems. Because his reply was comprehensive, I will break up his answer into multiple parts, the first of which appears below and has been edited only to correct a couple of minor typographical errors. (In Dr. Russell’s defense, he was writing an e-mail, not a peer-reviewed article for an academic research journal.)
Dr. Russell began his answer as follows:
I didn't watch the entire CWS, but I did see some of the championship game and did notice that Georgia was using Nike bats while their opponents were using Easton bats. I don't watch a lot of college baseball, and when I do watch my primary focus is trying to see what bats each team is using. I was surprised to see Nike bats, mainly because I didn't know they had such high profile teams under contract to play with their bats.
Personally - and this is purely my personal opinion - I don't like the fact that college teams have contracts to use a specific manufacturer's bats. I understand the money game from both the manufacturer's side (smart advertising) and the team side (free bats). But, I wish players were free to use bats they like to play with. Kind of like the pros - each individual player may have a contract with a bat company who supplies their bats, but the whole team does not have to use the same bat - each player has a choice of bat style, color, wood type, and manufacturer. I would prefer to see the same freedom of choice in college sports.
While Nike is relatively new to the bat market, they are not novices. Two of Nike's bat design engineers recently (within the last 2-3 years) migrated to Nike from Easton and Louisville Slugger. I know both of them personally, and can testify that they know what they are doing when it comes to designing and testing bats. Their first few bat models might not have the success of Easton models that have been around for a while, and they may need to work some of the bugs out of their manufacturing processes before their bats gain the same reputation as bats by Easton and other manufacturers. But the brain power and bat design knowledge of Nike guys is not lacking in any way.
All bats used for NCAA college play must pass the NCAA bat performance test that requires the Ball-Exit-Speed-Ratio (which determines the effectiveness of the collision between bat and ball) fall below a set limit and that the Moment-of-Inertia (which affects how quickly a player can swing a bat) be above a set limit. Every Easton composite bat and every Nike aluminum bat must pass this BESR+MOI standard in order to be legal for play. That said, most manufacturers push their bat performance as close to the limit as possible, and from what I have seen, there is very little difference in the performance of the top line bat models from all manufacturers.
The main differences are color and graphics (it is interesting to observe how bat color influences player perception of performance), material - aluminum vs. composite (which affects the sound the bat makes more than anything) and handle stiffness (which does NOT have any effect on performance but does have a significant influence on feel). I have done some testing on both Nike and Easton bats, and for the specific bats I tested, I would expect to see very little difference in their performance.
You also have to understand that an awful lot of the hype around new bat designs (like handle flex, titanium-composite blends, nanoparticles, etc.) is purely marketing hype. Manufacturers want (and need) you to think that the bat you purchased last year is no longer any good, and that you need to throw down the money for a new one, because this year's model is a better color, had some new space age material, or some special new gimmick.
But, the fact is that as long as bats are required to pass the BESR+MOI standard, one high performance bat from one manufacturer is not going to significantly outperform a high performance bat from a different manufacturer. And the bat you thought was awesome last year is still going to be awesome this year.
The quotes from my web article on composite bats that you highlighted in your blog discuss only what is possible, and do not explain why an Easton composite bat might be hotter than a Nike aluminum bat. The quote about composite bats only states that bat designers have more freedom with composites to tune the bending and hoop stiffnesses to produce a much greater range of bending (feel in the hands) and hoop (trampoline effect in barrel) properties. However, the bats still have to pass the BESR+MOI test, which severely restricts and limits what is possible.
The allowed bats are nowhere near as hot as they could be if performance restrictions were lifted. About 4-5 years ago the Georgia Bulldogs field tested a composite prototype from a Canadian bat manufacturer (CE-Composites, makers of the Combat line of bats) with which almost every player on the team was hitting balls 450-500 feet!!! I have one of these bats in my lab and it is very HOT - the elastic properties of the barrel are also very different from the Easton Stealth and Nike Aero - and this HOT prototype is most definitely NOT legal for NCAA play.
With composite materials it is possible to design bats that can perform way better than aluminum. However, composite bats that pass the BESR+MOI performance standard will not perform significantly better than aluminum bats.
To be continued. . . .
|
|
|
|
shadrach
10 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2008 : 18:01:25
|
Part II.
Dr. Russell was kind enough to take the time to write an extensive e-mail in reply, which I am publishing in its entirety here at Dawg Sports, edited only to correct minor typographical errors and add extra emphasis upon a particularly important point. The first part of his response was posted yesterday and the rest of Dr. Russell’s comprehensive answer appears below:
However, I can think of two possible reasons why a composite bat that passes the BESR+MOI performance standard might outperform a similarly high performance aluminum bat. These two possibilities are only conjectures but they are based on factual evidence that I know to be true about composite bats in slow-pitch softball and youth baseball.
(1) Composite bats improve as they are broken in.
As composite bats age, their performance improves. This is especially true in slow-pitch softball, to the extent that the batted-ball speed for a slow-pitch softball bat might increase by 3-5 mph from brand new condition to after 500 hits have been put on it. A 5-mph increase in speed as the ball leaves the bat could make the difference between warning track and over the fence.
The gain in performance for slow-pitch softball bats is so-well known that many players use artificial break-in (ABI) techniques to break their bats in without having to hit 500 balls. Some players hit their bats against a tree (stupid) or squeeze their bat in a vise grip until they hear the fibers crack (more stupid - because they are actually breaking their bats). Other players use a slightly more sophisticated method of rolling their bats (look up "bat rolling" on YouTube).
This practice has become so widespread that the Amateur Softball Association has just begun artificially breaking bats with a rolling machine BEFORE sending them to the lab to be certified for the ASA bat performance standard. Most of the composite slow-pitch softball bats that were legal last year are no longer legal because they exceed the performance standard after being broken in.
I do not know for certain, but it is entirely possible that composite baseball bats may actually be performing better than aluminum in recent college games because these composite bats may be broken in to the point that they perform better than they were originally designed to. I have spoken with someone in the college baseball community who suspects that ABI techniques might be making their way into college baseball. He was commenting on the fact that a surprising number of composite bats were shattering during games in the early part of the CWS playoffs.
Players were hitting balls hard, deep into the outfield or over the wall, but during their third or fourth at-bats their composite bats would shatter. He noted that this had been happening much more frequently than in past years. Some of the artificial break-in techniques weaken the bats (it is called "break"-in for a reason because it literally breaks the carbon fibers that give the barrel its strength) and greatly reduce the durability and longevity of the bats.
(2) Bats can be illegally altered to enhance performance.
Please understand that I am not accusing, nor am I even suggesting, that any teams or players are intentionally cheating. However, illegal alteration of bats is a huge problem in men's slow-pitch softball, and it is quickly becoming a problem in youth baseball. Illegal alteration is different from advanced break-in techniques. Advanced break-in techniques involve changing the elastic properties of the barrel by weakening the composite fibers making up the bat wall. Illegal alteration involves altering the actual structure of the bat.
Two illegal alterations are currently very popular in slow-pitch softball (and are being detected quite often in youth baseball): end-loading and barrel shaving. End-loading involves adding weight to the end of the barrel so that the bat's swing weight increases. Assuming that a player can swing the heavier bat at the same speed, the heavier bat will hit the ball faster. Of course, most players cannot swing a heavier bat as fast as they can swing a lighter bat, and a lower swing speed will remove any gain from using a heavier bat.
The more popular alteration is shaving the barrel - the end cap is removed, and a lathe is used to scrape of some of the material on the inside of the barrel. Making the walls of the barrel thinner makes the trampoline effect greater and can result in a significant increase (in excess of 8-mph) to the batted-ball speed. Barrel shaving can be done for both aluminum and composite bats, with similar increases in performance for both.
In softball it is more frequently encountered for composite bats, mainly because composite bats are more popular at present. In softball this phenomenon has been aggressively attacked through legal means (with bat manufacturers and associations winning some hefty lawsuits against individuals who altered bats for money). I would be very disappointed, and somewhat surprised, to find it happening in college baseball at this level. But, this ugly practice of illegal alteration of bats has recently been appearing with increasing frequency in youth baseball, so it could be possible, though unlikely.
Again, let me reiterate that possibility (2) is very serious, and I am in no way implying (and most definitely do NOT want to be quoted as saying) that teams are cheating. I would be inclined to suspect that reason (1) - composite bats increasing in performance as they are broken in - is a more likely possible reason as to how a BESR+MOI certified composite bat could perform better than a similarly BESR+MOI certified aluminum bat IF THESE BATS ARE IN FACT ACTUALLY PERFORMING BETTER.
Of course, it could be (shame on me for even suggesting it) that the Georgia Bulldogs and the other teams were either simply outplayed, or that they just couldn't manage to get solid hits. I would have to see some pretty serious statistics of team performance for the entire season and through the playoffs before I would be willing to believe that the bats they used are the sole reason why the Bulldogs lost the championship game. Regardless of the bats used, hitters still have to make solid contact and put the ball into play. But, there may be a plausible reason why composite bats could give one good team a slight advantage over an equally good team using aluminum bats.
Obviously, Dr. Russell’s closing point (which was anticipated and echoed by deanpat92) is important to remember; Fresno State won the College World Series finals because the West Coast Bulldogs were the better team over the final two games, period, and there is no basis whatsoever for believing any rules were broken or even bent by the N.C.A.A. champions. F.S.U. won, fair and square.
In a game of inches, however, little things can mean a lot. In the last game of the 2008 college baseball season, two crucial plays stand out in this regard: Steve Detwiler’s first home run only barely cleared the wall and Danny Muno’s rally-killing double play in the ninth inning narrowly missed getting by him.
|
|
|
|
yarddog
48 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2008 : 03:23:26
|
| Nike does not make a -5 drop. However, the World Series champs from Fresno were swinging Easton bats and it seemed they were dropping bombs at will against the Dawgs. I believe Easton makes several types of -5 drops if you're interested. :-) |
|
|
|
shadrach
10 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2008 : 11:32:43
|
Here's a thread on Nike bats, and bats in general, from a PhD guy who is an expert on the topic. This popped up after some griping from current UGA players about the Nike bats vs. Easton. The general question is, are the Easton bats better....This guy is an acknowledged expert...
Dr. Russell began his answer as follows:
I didn't watch the entire CWS, but I did see some of the championship game and did notice that Georgia was using Nike bats while their opponents were using Easton bats. I don't watch a lot of college baseball, and when I do watch my primary focus is trying to see what bats each team is using. I was surprised to see Nike bats, mainly because I didn't know they had such high profile teams under contract to play with their bats.
Personally - and this is purely my personal opinion - I don't like the fact that college teams have contracts to use a specific manufacturer's bats. I understand the money game from both the manufacturer's side (smart advertising) and the team side (free bats). But, I wish players were free to use bats they like to play with. Kind of like the pros - each individual player may have a contract with a bat company who supplies their bats, but the whole team does not have to use the same bat - each player has a choice of bat style, color, wood type, and manufacturer. I would prefer to see the same freedom of choice in college sports.
While Nike is relatively new to the bat market, they are not novices. Two of Nike's bat design engineers recently (within the last 2-3 years) migrated to Nike from Easton and Louisville Slugger. I know both of them personally, and can testify that they know what they are doing when it comes to designing and testing bats. Their first few bat models might not have the success of Easton models that have been around for a while, and they may need to work some of the bugs out of their manufacturing processes before their bats gain the same reputation as bats by Easton and other manufacturers. But the brain power and bat design knowledge of Nike guys is not lacking in any way.
All bats used for NCAA college play must pass the NCAA bat performance test that requires the Ball-Exit-Speed-Ratio (which determines the effectiveness of the collision between bat and ball) fall below a set limit and that the Moment-of-Inertia (which affects how quickly a player can swing a bat) be above a set limit. Every Easton composite bat and every Nike aluminum bat must pass this BESR+MOI standard in order to be legal for play. That said, most manufacturers push their bat performance as close to the limit as possible, and from what I have seen, there is very little difference in the performance of the top line bat models from all manufacturers.
The main differences are color and graphics (it is interesting to observe how bat color influences player perception of performance), material - aluminum vs. composite (which affects the sound the bat makes more than anything) and handle stiffness (which does NOT have any effect on performance but does have a significant influence on feel). I have done some testing on both Nike and Easton bats, and for the specific bats I tested, I would expect to see very little difference in their performance.
You also have to understand that an awful lot of the hype around new bat designs (like handle flex, titanium-composite blends, nanoparticles, etc.) is purely marketing hype. Manufacturers want (and need) you to think that the bat you purchased last year is no longer any good, and that you need to throw down the money for a new one, because this year's model is a better color, had some new space age material, or some special new gimmick.
But, the fact is that as long as bats are required to pass the BESR+MOI standard, one high performance bat from one manufacturer is not going to significantly outperform a high performance bat from a different manufacturer. And the bat you thought was awesome last year is still going to be awesome this year.
The quotes from my web article on composite bats that you highlighted in your blog discuss only what is possible, and do not explain why an Easton composite bat might be hotter than a Nike aluminum bat. The quote about composite bats only states that bat designers have more freedom with composites to tune the bending and hoop stiffnesses to produce a much greater range of bending (feel in the hands) and hoop (trampoline effect in barrel) properties. However, the bats still have to pass the BESR+MOI test, which severely restricts and limits what is possible.
The allowed bats are nowhere near as hot as they could be if performance restrictions were lifted. About 4-5 years ago the Georgia Bulldogs field tested a composite prototype from a Canadian bat manufacturer (CE-Composites, makers of the Combat line of bats) with which almost every player on the team was hitting balls 450-500 feet!!! I have one of these bats in my lab and it is very HOT - the elastic properties of the barrel are also very different from the Easton Stealth and Nike Aero - and this HOT prototype is most definitely NOT legal for NCAA play.
With composite materials it is possible to design bats that can perform way better than aluminum. However, composite bats that pass the BESR+MOI performance standard will not perform significantly better than aluminum bats.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Nike Bats
