We are starting a new batch within the current ruleset limit 58+/-0.5mm
Last batch was still @ Ø57 according to some previous ruleset.
Oh no… I think making scooping easier is a mistake. We should be going the other way. Sad day for bike polo.
“Double cap everything counts…” Pete Abram.
I’m with Pete 100%.
It’s hard for me to complain about bending a rule as my bike isn’t legal but I think larger scoop openings significantly change the nature of the game without making it more interesting. We are just heading toward bike lacrosse and that is a significant change that I’d prefer we discuss as a community rather than creep towards one millimeter at a time…
1 Like
A bit dramatic maybe?
The 58 ID is here since “long” time now and I don’t see it going wider.
Even Stubborn is going back to 58 (from their 62ish) if I’m not wrong.
Note that I’ll be happy to play double cap head, we made prototype few years ago:
Was part of testing some rings:
Edit: i think @morganxvx tested one of them and the cap “poped” at the first shoot. #prototype
4 Likes
What are forums for if not a little hyperbole. ; )
But in all seriousness, I think opening up the mallet head for easier scoop/doop/poop is a mistake.
Mo and I chatted about the cap. I was thinking carbon but inserted into a recess much like you’ve done rather than using threaded fixings a la Creamy.
1 Like
Nice, both ends same finish for consistency ? Like you do a dual opened head an you add caps.
In my prototypes i’ve done few variation: flat thin, flat thick, concave, slightly inside the head (allowing to unstuck the ball from the board, but this one is a bit meh).
Caps stuck in the head is the way to go for me but it requires fine tuning to make it stay in place (as i said my current prototype pops out on @morganxvx first shoot).
Also it’s not meant to be replaced, which is ok to me.
That’s said before our first batch of SIMPLE and SIMPLE CAP (with integrated cap) in 2011 i made these drawings (prototypes that never was made), on of them included ends that was like a giant screw meant to be swapped when too worn or to try different “game-style” :
1100801_tete_1.pdf (122.6 KB)
1100802_tete_2V1.pdf (144.9 KB)
3 Likes
I hadn’t considered both ends using the same finish to be honest. I think that a small lip as you suggest for collecting a ball on the boards is a good idea. @morganxvx tells me that he thought the small lip was useful.
The double cap thing might be a dead end. Initially, I liked the idea of more reliable shots and passes from the alternate end to the cap. As my dribbling game has gotten faster, and way more frantic, I find myself striking the ball with the open end more than ever. I rarely ever scoop as I don’t want to influence the newer players toward that style early in their development as I find it delays their learning curve greatly when it comes to straight passes and dribbling. I’m not sure about double cap now because I’m leaning toward making my mallet as light as possible given that the limitation to more complex ball handling seems to be the speed at which you can move the heavy bit at the end ; ) Double cap appears heavy but maybe the small sacrifice is worth it if I can use either end without much variation in shot/pass accuracy and energy transfer.
At some point I’d love to design a mallet head that does not have rotational symmetry that is cut on a 5 or 6 axis machine and cut some cleverly designed patterns on the inside surface of the head. I think if someone was very good at doing generative design in one of the new design suites that use whiz-bang offsite processing to solve difficult structural design problems then we could see radical reductions in weight without significant losses in durability. Probably wouldn’t be financially viable as a product intitally but I’d like to know how light you could go and whether it would open up the edges of ones ball handling capability. I do like the reduced weight of the stubby heads but I lose so much dribbling ability when I shed 10-20 mm off my head length. 120-130mm around 60g would be ace IMO. Under 60g? That might be a whole different experience…
1 Like
Hey, you are the first one who has asked me directly in this conversation so thanks for that.
At the time i made the heads, from my perspective an open end of the head is not the same then a hole, but anyway there will be a, if we say so, “legal” version of 58mm Stubborn Heads in color soon.
There also will be Stubborn Aluminium Shafts made in Europe soon.
In my opinion there are less and less people providing affordable equipment for the Bikepolo community. Im trying my best to be a part of this.
Take care
Christoph
8 Likes
Please don’t take my candour as disrespect. I apologise if that’s the way it came across. I hoped you’d chime in but felt that addressing you directly might look like I was calling you out.
I’m a bit tender on the subject of open-end dimensions as there was an undemocratic decision made at the refs meeting in Cordoba 2019 to allow heads that exceeded the dimensions set by the rules. Subsequent to this decision, I had to argue for the inclusion of my oversized top tube pad which I openly agree contravenes the rules. The eventual vote went 7-5 in my favour. I was dismayed by the lack of consistency but kept my mouth shut because, in the end, I got my way by a single vote. This is assuming that a tie would have given the organisers the final word combined with the knowledge of how the locals voted.
I did a complete mallet for AUD$50 so we are on the same page with regard to affordability.
Looking forward to seeing the new head and shaft! Love the colours of the head. White is boring.