Compression teating

vlcmstnaz

vlcmstnaz

volcom stone az
Compression TESTING

Local leagues are finally doing compression testing. About time. Saw several new-looking OGs fail. No surprise. Dbags. My Juggy and Mercy are relatively new. Maybe 100 hits on the Juggy and 300 on the Mercy. Both BARELY passed. Didn't get numbers because I didn't want to make him take a second look (both looked like they were below the minimum to me). Really wondering how there were so many worn J3As that still got stickers every dugout.

Anyway, the 2014 DeMarini's come HOT out of the wrapper. They are really walking a fine line. So don't BP them before you get them tested.
 
Last edited:
B

B-radical

Addicted to Softballfans
This is old news...but when yours fail are you going to call yourself a Dbag?

Just cause theirs failed it makes them a dbag? You'll be one soon enough.........

Oh, and this is old news about the BP thing.
 
vlcmstnaz

vlcmstnaz

volcom stone az
B-radical said:
This is old news...but when yours fail are you going to call yourself a Dbag?

Just cause theirs failed it makes them a dbag? You'll be one soon enough.........

Oh, and this is old news about the BP thing.
Click to expand...

True on the old news comment. Leagues here just started testing, so it's new to me.

And, re. the dbag comment, I was referring to the altered state of their bats. OGs shouldn't fail compression practically NOW. That's all.
 
B

B-radical

Addicted to Softballfans
Never know what's altered and what's not with the tester.....it's junk.


I've seen legit bats fail NIW, barely NOW and shaved bats pass with flying colors.....
 
vlcmstnaz

vlcmstnaz

volcom stone az
B-radical said:
Never know what's altered and what's not with the tester.....it's junk.


I've seen legit bats fail NIW, barely NOW and shaved bats pass with flying colors.....
Click to expand...

True. I am making some assumptions. True. I'm comfortable with my assumption in this case though, given his lack of reaction and general demeanor.
 
natedawg87

natedawg87

Baller
All I could think when I saw the name of the thread...
teats_zpsf5b29b25.gif
 
DUNNY51

DUNNY51

Addicted to Softballfans
B-radical said:
Never know what's altered and what's not with the tester.....it's junk.


I've seen legit bats fail NIW, barely NOW and shaved bats pass with flying colors.....
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding x2!

To add to this. I had a bat fail one weekend and pass the following weekend. Same machine different person using it. Also there was a 30oz Z that weighs 27.7 on scale and it passed. Plus there were Zs that were all webbed that passed and my clean one failed (again my Z passed the following weekend)

Too much human error involved imo
 
fierce_gt

fierce_gt

Addicted to Softballfans
I've still never seen a single test(or even scientific explanation) that shows a direct correlation between barrel compression and BBS...

I'm sure we can agree that barrels get softer when they break in, but not all bats start off equal, are made the same way, or will have the same compression when they reach the max performance limit. at BEST the value they deem the limit is an average that doesn't work for some bats. At worst, it's a sample taken from one model and won't work for most bats.

by now, there should be at LEAST one test that shows a relationship between compression test results and BBS that is consistent across the board. otherwise, every single model should have its own 'acceptable range', much like different vehicles have different specs for brake pad wear, tire pressure, etc. in fact, if we compared this to vehicles, it's like enforcing the speed limit by monitoring engine rpms. of course there is a connection(higher revs would indicate a higher speed) but they really don't have a direct connection(4000rpms on vehicle A could be way faster than 4000rpms on vehicle B)

anyway, I've only had 3 bats compression tested, and that was already enough to show the numbers don't mean anything in terms of BBS. I had an Easton ssr2 that nearly failed(I believe around 1600) that was a couple km/h lower than a juggy that passed fairly easily(above 1800). and the fse that tested at 2500 was actually pretty close to the ssr2... basically nothing made sence, other than the fse had the stiffest feel and the ssr2 had the softest barrel
 
vlcmstnaz

vlcmstnaz

volcom stone az
I just now realized why that gif was added to the thread. Oops. That's funny. Compression TESTING.
 
chrometip78

chrometip78

The Hungarian Barbarian
fierce_gt said:
I've still never seen a single test(or even scientific explanation) that shows a direct correlation between barrel compression and BBS...

I'm sure we can agree that barrels get softer when they break in, but not all bats start off equal, are made the same way, or will have the same compression when they reach the max performance limit. at BEST the value they deem the limit is an average that doesn't work for some bats. At worst, it's a sample taken from one model and won't work for most bats.

by now, there should be at LEAST one test that shows a relationship between compression test results and BBS that is consistent across the board. otherwise, every single model should have its own 'acceptable range', much like different vehicles have different specs for brake pad wear, tire pressure, etc. in fact, if we compared this to vehicles, it's like enforcing the speed limit by monitoring engine rpms. of course there is a connection(higher revs would indicate a higher speed) but they really don't have a direct connection(4000rpms on vehicle A could be way faster than 4000rpms on vehicle B)

anyway, I've only had 3 bats compression tested, and that was already enough to show the numbers don't mean anything in terms of BBS. I had an Easton ssr2 that nearly failed(I believe around 1600) that was a couple km/h lower than a juggy that passed fairly easily(above 1800). and the fse that tested at 2500 was actually pretty close to the ssr2... basically nothing made sence, other than the fse had the stiffest feel and the ssr2 had the softest barrel
Click to expand...


I agree there are too many variables to correlate compression directly to BBS. But I imagine there was some testing done to get pretty close for the general population of bats before compression testers were made a viable measuring tool. There are ways to get doctored bats to pass and very feasible that legit but well used bats can fail.

Also, your measurents of bbs are somewhat scientific for your own purpose but they are highly subjective to compare against a mechanical measurement such as compression testing. Your tests still just measures what is best for you and your swing, there's a good chance it doesn't directly correlate to a mechanically tested bbs.
 
chrometip78

chrometip78

The Hungarian Barbarian
Since I opened my mouth about nobody compression testing around here, I got invited to an ASA tournwy next weekend that will test, hope my Futures pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top