Made: Cricket Bat Wall Display

Part/Model:Cricket Bat Wall Display
Printer:Tevo Tarantula
Slicer:Simplify3D 4.1
Layer Height:0.16
Infill:20% (Hexagonal)
Extruder Temp:190°C
Notes:Blue tape for bed adhesion; Slowed feed rate down to 70% as printer having a few quality issues.
Link:PLA+ Filament 1.75mm
Print Time:Handle- 2h (approx.); Toe-5h (approx.)
Material Used:150g (approx.)
Final Thoughts:Printed well;
Design is simple and effective, didn’t push quality limits of the Tarantula at all;
Some ghosting on some of the walls of the part;
First parts I’ve printed using Simplify3D slicer, very happy with the results so far.
Design Score:9/10
Print Score:7/10
Final Mark:8/10


Having now finally had some success in dealing in the Tevo Tarantula, which only took 4 months, it was time to actually start making this machine earn its place in the workshop. I received an order from a guy in the US for two sets of my cricket bat display mounts and knew this print would be perfect for the Tevo to tackle.

It was also a first in that I would be using (and learning on the fly) the slicing software, Simplify3D. While most slicing software is pretty much all the same, its more just a case of learning all the functionality and getting used to different layouts. Simplify3D I’m glad to say delivered on its expectations which were set high from the 3D printing community.

This was a relatively simple print in the end, taking the printer about 15 hours or there about to complete the two sets of cricket bat mounts. I did have the feed rate turned down to about 70%, just to try ensure a decent print quality for the customer, so it could have been done much sooner if needed.

PLA was the material used and white was the default choice of colour as there was nothing specified from the customer. The overall print quality was great in the end and I really hope that my mate from the US enjoys his cricket bat mounts.

Welcome to Simplify3D

It would also be a learning curve for myself as well, having recently deciding to stop being a tight-ass, scab and actually purchasing a licence for the slicing software, Simplify3D. While there are many reasons for why I ended up forking out and buying the software, my main motivation was due to my frustrations towards the Cura user interface – which is rubbish. My complains about Cura is a story for a later date, but it gave me the kick up the bum to put some cash towards buying a licence, for a decent piece of software which will aid in my 3D adventures. As I mentioned in my Octoprint post from last year, I am totally for paying software and supporting developers where possible and this one is no exception. For the relatively minimal amount of $150(ish) USD, Simplify3D represents great value and a benchmark in slicing software which is used by much 3D printing community, especially those hobbyist on YouTube.

I ran this print back to back with a part first sliced in Cura, then sliced in Simplify3D. While the results were much of a muchness, there were quirks to the way the code was programmed between the two slicers. For example, Cura tended to have the extruder only travel within the parameters of the part, whereas Simplify3D had a ‘as the crows flies’ approach to moving the tool head, going from point A to point B in a straight line, the shortest possible distance. This approach caused some stringing on the part (which I later didn’t end up using) and was rectified with a combination of increasing the retraction distance and reducing extruder temperature. These two small settings changes fixed whatever stringing issue existed.

Apart from small details, the overall print quality between the two slicers were relatively similar. My only wish is that Simplify3D would include a feature such as ironing on the top surface like Cura does. An ironing option makes the finished part look so much cleaner and unfortunately is absent from Simplify3D. I have (briefly) researched about using custom scripts in Silmply3D but really this is a hack at best and can only be implemented on the highest layer, where as the full blown Cura function allows for ironing on all top surfaces regardless of what layer they are on in the model.


I’m going to be biased about the design of the actual cricket bat mounts, after all it is my own design, but regardless this is a great design. The Idea behind them came to me when I was, unsurprisingly, looking for a way to hang my cricket bats and have them displayed in my office. I didn’t want to have to modify the bat in anyway and I didn’t want to have it so permanently fixed to the wall that I could no longer use the bat for its intended purpose should I suddenly have the urge to go down to the nets and face a few balls. I also wanted the mounts to be held on the wall with 3M Command adhesive strips which are (quoting Snoop Dogg) dope.

What resulted is my cricket bat wall display mounts. A two piece mounting system, where the bat doesn’t need any modifications and can be placed facing either spine out or face out. The two mounts, handle and tow, are then held on the wall using three large size 3M Command adhesive strips and can therefore be removed easily without leaving marks or holes in walls. Best of all, the bat is simply placed in the mount, it doesn’t need to be fixed in or secured, it will just rest there, leaning into the mounts, and not fall out.

For more info on this design, check out the Cricket Bat Wall Display design page here

Print Quality

Finish on this particular print from this machine and using the new slicing software was acceptable. There is definite room for improvement, as there was a tiny bit of ghosting on some of the surfaces, but nothing that ruined the part as a whole.

Layer adhesion was perfect and there didn’t appear to be any issues with under or over extrusions on any of the models parts. I was running a layer height of 0.16mm, this height seems well suited to the shape and design of the part as there is sloping angles which benefit from having the reduced layer height. I did also try this same part with a 0.2mm layer height but the quality just wasn’t good enough as it looked chunky and not really nice at all. While reducing the layer height did impact on the printing time, the pay off in terms of quality was definitely worth the additional hours.

Infill was at 20% as I wanted something strong that would be able to take the weight of a cricket bat. While it doesn’t seem like much, this 20% made the part feel strong and more than capable of supporting a lump of English willow. Even trying to make the part flex in my hands wasn’t possible such was the strength of the part.

Any print quality issues would be more down to the machine rather than in software, the Tarantula is not exactly what I would call a “premium” machine but will still produce prints at a quality most people would be happy with. Myself, having the eye for detail that I do, can see there is room for improvement. Whether this means more upgraded parts to the machine itself, I will have to wait and see.

Leave a Reply