win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Brunswick's cg propaganda  (Read 12518 times)

sammy the sage

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Brunswick's cg propaganda
« on: July 06, 2005, 01:30:49 PM »
would do any nation proud...http://www.brunswickbowling.com/uploads/vids/CG_demo_5-05.wmv

excellent video...but they left out a few details....

1st as pointed out by many...why compare a legal to an illegal ball...where's the the weight-hole to take out the thumb-weight/side-weight???? oops that might have produced something you don't want the USBC to see on film...

2nd speaking of film...lane-dressing for said video...we all know lanes can be dressed to increase/decrease reaction....have seen house shots or floods make all equipment look identical...but put them on a sport shot...and one can easily see things much quicker...obviously the video producers kept that "little" secret in the dark....don't think the usbc or higher ave. bowler is fooled by that video at all...

3rd/final...brunswick left hand should tell the right hand what it's doing....ie. on the brunswick insiders site...RICK BENOIT...brunswick's own ACKNOWLEDGED QURU goes into great detail about when and when not to use stacked leverage (you can look it up for youselves)...i.e the position of the cg in relation to pin and pap...A DIRECT CONTRADICTION to brunswick's OWN-HYPED video...

This all coming from a company who exhibits nothing but greed...LET'S move to MEXICO....they have NO CREDIBILITY

 

Klugh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2005, 11:41:43 PM »
Sammy, I'm sorry, but I have to tell you, I agree with Andy on this one . . . This matter has been discussed, and it is a topic that has, like he says, been beaten to death. When you see this, I know you're going to cry, "Brunswick person! Agh!" and defame the Nation as using me to attack you simply because they don't agree with your view . . . However, this would be incorrect, as I do not belong to the nation, and have disagreed with them repeatedly. Please move on to a new topic.

On Edit: I would not only like to reaffirm my statement, but I would also like to mention that when you say
quote:
This all coming from a company who exhibits nothing but greed...LET'S move to MEXICO....they have NO CREDIBILITY
you forget to mention the fact that many other companies are moving production outside of the U.S. border. Just thought I'd point that out . . . It's not greed, it's smart business.
--------------------
Bowl. Eat. Sleep. Repeat.
A member of www.bowlinballexchange.com, www.ballreviews.com, and www.bowlingballreviews.com . . . Check out the others!
"Insert Ball Manufacturer here" Amateur Staff Member wanna-be.


Edited on 7/7/2005 11:39 PM

C-G ProShop-Carl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5825
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2005, 11:43:25 PM »
quote:
BTW, Morich has also made a statement basically reaffirming brunswicks stand.



This does not really prove much. Generally Mo Pinel's beliefs are MoRich's beliefs. Mo is a big believer in asymmetrical equipment and he will tell you that CG positioning on asymmetricals means nothing. MoRich didn't comment on symmetrical equipment. So MoRich was not really reaffirming Brunswick's stand.
Carl Hurd

Austintown Ohio (Wedgewood Lanes)

900 Global, AMF Staff Bowler

Tag Team Member #1

<b><i>TAG TEAM COACHING!!!!!!</i></b>/

LuckyLefty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17343
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2005, 10:13:05 AM »
Excaliber....

A....greed.

I'd love a confirmation on the terms core orientation (ie brunswick)...Not important and core axis orientation(mor rich) = important(I know assymetric).

Because I have always been talking in my own mind about core Axis ANGLE.

Though I know this quote is referring to assymetric Morich balls not symmetric brunswick balls I found it interesting that Morich made it.

"MoRich, as well as many other manufacturers, has proven that CG location has a minimal effect, if any, on ball reaction (refer to the video on the Brunswick website). The CG does not represent any particular portion of the core. Therefore, it does not affect core axis angle. The CG is merely the heavy spot and will not affect ball reaction. We have been teaching and explaining this to pro shops for 8 years"

So even though they are saying that CG doesn't matter they are saying core axis angle DOES matter but I'm sure this only relates to their asymmetric balls.

HOWEVER.  On a symmetric ball the pin cg line is the WAY we find core axis angle rotation.  While I will agree the affect is less on a symmetric block as that is the nature of assymetric balls...THEY magnify ball movement with different drillings versus symmetric.

My testing (without my personal throwbot) shows the same but lessor effects of cores axis rotation with my symmetric equipment.

When I lay a tall skinny weightblock with a flip block down on its side it now is oriented differently with in relation to it's track then a stacked drilling and seems to lose a lot of it's flip potential.

There are two ways to do this.  One way Brunswick acknowledges smooths reaction.
This would be to orient a weight block for a 1 1/2 X 5 drilling.  This is acknowledged by all to have little but early flare and a very smooth backend.
No weighthole needed.
The second way to lay a weightblock on its side is to drill a 5 X 0 with pin down under ring.  This ball will also have very similar almost perpindicular to track orientation of the weightblock to the track.  This again while having later flare will have reduced flare and very little flip as the weightblock has less potential than when vertical.

One method acknowledged by Brunswick the other not.  But most would agree that both drillings have less flip that a stacked 4 1/2 X 4 1/2 drilling.

The weightblock especially with a dense flip block at the top when the ball reaches its friction point seens to slam hard and jump to the hole.  Much like a book shelf with only books in the top shelf seems to be very unstable and wants to fall so it is with a dense flip block high differential weightblock when placed to maximize instability.  The core axis angle of this drilling is at a 45 degree angle to the track.

So to summarize morich is supporting the position that core axis angle is important but brunswick is saying core orientation is miminal..

But I don't see how a 1 1/2 X 0 drilling core orientation is not important when it is vertially perpindicular to the track.  Similar to laying a rolling pin on its side versus the 4 1/2 X 4 1/2 is similar to placing a rolling pin vertical.

This last set of images provided from the book Revolutions II by Chip Zielke a former Brunswick employee.  HE now is involved with Circle.

These images make sense to me and confirm what I see in my ball throwing and drilling.

Core orientation = Core Axis Angle?  Hmmm.  Terminology.

REgards,

Luckylefty
PS again I do agree that the cg is a lessor influence than pin position, like a weighthole it can be an important tool in finalizing reaction.  However when I say CG I have meant core axis angle.
PPS source of above Morich core discussion this post
http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=90619&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5

Edited on 7/8/2005 10:11 AM
It takes Courage to have Faith, and Faith to have Courage.

James M. McCurley, New Orleans, Louisiana

BackToBasics

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #34 on: July 08, 2005, 11:00:10 AM »
Mo has designed non asymmetrical balls so I'm sure his comments about the CG also refer to those balls.  Does anyone remember Mo's "Power" system?  It was basically a system (1-5 IIRC) that changed the reaction solely based on weighthole placement and not CG location.  The weighthole varied from inside the VAL to about 3" below VAL.  I remember drilling Nitros and Purple Hammers with this system.  This was like 15years ago so my memory could be a little off

sammy the sage

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #35 on: July 08, 2005, 01:00:18 PM »
SO AGAIN....

What about dressing the lanes to "GET" the reaction you want....? The video obviously doesn't address this issue...and neither has brunswick or anyone giving me grief in this thread...RE-READ the original statement...and then put up some "LOGICAL" thoughts....

AND...what about "Benoit" and his approach to the tour players concerning cg/pin placement....esp. if the pin placement is in the same spot but cg swung totally different....for the same shot...but different player "STYLES"....any comments there? ANYBODY

BackToBasics

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #36 on: July 08, 2005, 01:27:02 PM »
It's too time consuming to address ever possible lane condition.  First people wanted proof, and Brunswick gives a video.  Then they complain about the condition used in the video.  Guess you can't please everyone.  As noted a month or so ago when these threads first started, I did the experiment several times on different conditions and reached the conclusion a long time ago.

The CG placement by Rick is used to determine the size and depth of the weighthole.  Larger shifts require larger and deeper holes which change reaction more drastically.  Different roll types require different looks given the same pin placement.

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7677
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #37 on: July 08, 2005, 01:45:28 PM »
achappy: As for the following:

 
quote:
Larger (CG) shifts require larger and deeper holes which change reaction more drastically.  


Doesn't this imply that CG placement can have indirect (but major) affect on reaction? If so, that's all many of us are getting at.
--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

a_ak57

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10584
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #38 on: July 08, 2005, 01:57:17 PM »
quote:
achappy: As for the following:

 
quote:
Larger (CG) shifts require larger and deeper holes which change reaction more drastically.  


Doesn't this imply that CG placement can have indirect (but major) affect on reaction? If so, that's all many of us are getting at.
--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

Yes.  Maybe that's what YOU are getting at, but most of the pro-CG arguers are saying that moving the cg out, with NO weighthole, directly influences reaction greatly, which we (other side) disagree with.
--------------------
- Andy


Brunswick...........'nuff said.

LuckyLefty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17343
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #39 on: July 08, 2005, 01:58:56 PM »
I believe it is best to ignore my comments and Morich's comments regarding core axis rotation it makes a more consistent and logical path of thought if one wants to stay on that path.

All of sudden I think most agree it is important on Mass bias balls but not on symmetric balls.  hmmmm.

Any comments on the terms and differences between core orientation and core axis rotation.

Why is Chip Zielke wrong in thinking that a weighblock laying on its side somehow rolls different than a weightblock standing up.

Does a rolling pin on its side(his example in Revolutions II) intuitively travel down a lane differently on its side versus one that is stood up?  And flipped down the lane end over end!

You know the answer!

Why is it acknowledged that a 1 1/2 X 5 drilling rolls different from a 5 X 5 but a drilling that puts the weighblock in the almost same position say a pin down 5 X 0(both the 1/1/2 X 5 and the 5 X 0) both put the weightblock laying almost perpindicular to the track.  Both drillings are noted for their great abilities on flying backends but inablility to carry with oil in the back(carrydown)???

Hmmmmm.

Please continue this thread and ignore these questions as they may cause irreversible thinking.(when I worked for a large corporation a long time ago I was afraid of thinking as I thought it could cause hemorrages).

REgards,

Luckylefty



It takes Courage to have Faith, and Faith to have Courage.

James M. McCurley, New Orleans, Louisiana

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7677
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2005, 02:12:01 PM »
quote:
Yes. Maybe that's what YOU are getting at, but most of the pro-CG arguers are saying that moving the cg out, with NO weighthole, directly influences reaction greatly, which we (other side) disagree with.
 


Andy: I believe that for most "pro-CG arguers", the existence of a weight hole is assumed when they post their rebuttals. That's because most bowlers never throw a 'CG out' ball without an extra hole -- the driller won't let it out of the shop without one. So unless a ball is legal, it's pointless to argue comparative roll characteristics. That's why this topic keep rearing it's ugly head.

I could certainly argue that my car gets better gas mileage than advertised (if I disabled required California smog equipment), but the car would be illegal, and I'd eventually get busted, so what's the point?
--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

Edited on 7/8/2005 2:06 PM

BackToBasics

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #41 on: July 08, 2005, 02:13:43 PM »
Steven:  The resulting mass displacement from the weighthole is what causes the difference in reaction and not the location of the CG.

Lucky:  It's very hard to follow your writing style but it seems as though you are a saying a 5x0 and a 1 1/2 x 5 put the core in the same angle.  It doesn't which is why they roll differently. You are also failing to mention the weighthole location when you give just a 2 dimensional layout system.  5x0 with a weighthole on the axis or below?

Edited on 7/8/2005 2:10 PM

a_ak57

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10584
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #42 on: July 08, 2005, 02:14:29 PM »
quote:
quote:
Yes. Maybe that's what YOU are getting at, but most of the pro-CG arguers are saying that moving the cg out, with NO weighthole, directly influences reaction greatly, which we (other side) disagree with.
 


Andy: I believe that for most "pro-CG arguers", the existence of a weight hole is assumed when they post their rebuttals. That's because most bowlers never throw a 'CG out' ball without an extra hole -- the driller won't let it out of the shop without one. So unless a ball is legal, it's pointless to argue comparative roll characteristics. That's why this topic keep rearing it's ugly head.

I could certainly argue that my car gets better gas mileage than advertised (if I disabled required California smog equipment), but the car would be illegal, and I'd eventually get busted, so what's the point?
--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

Edited on 7/8/2005 2:06 PM

Exactly steven, that's why this whole discussion is so useless.  The whole basis of this was without weightholes.  CG's are tool used to indirectly affect reaction, but not directly.
--------------------
- Andy


Brunswick...........'nuff said.

EL

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #43 on: July 08, 2005, 02:24:47 PM »
Geez guys don't we have better things to do??

Like how long the marriage between Jennifer and Ben will last?

BAPS_Eric

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #44 on: July 08, 2005, 02:40:12 PM »
Forget about Cg's, MB's, PSA's, and X-Holes.  If you don't have the correct surface on a ball to achieve your desired reactions then none of those matter.  Weight holes are used for FINE TUNING also, but the human eye really can't see the 1/2 board difference this could possibly make if any.  Pin placement according to PAP, coverstock prep, and lane conditions being bowled on are the main factors in determining TRUE REACTION.  Man this topic has been beaten, tossed, burned, flogged, ran-over, hung, shot, and multilated.
--------------------
Bowling and women are one in the same....you never know what you gonna get from night to night.....www.chatbowling.com

LuckyLefty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17343
Re: Brunswick's cg propaganda
« Reply #45 on: July 08, 2005, 02:41:33 PM »
Yes, bad puncuation.

My point.  It would be acknowledged by ALL!  Including Brunswick that a 1 1/2 X 4 with no weighthole rolls differently than a 5 X 5 or a 4 X 4 with the weightblock straight up.  One drilling puts the weighblock on virutually it's side(1 1/2 X 4) and the weightblock virtually perpindicular to the track.

The other drilling the 5 X 5 puts the weightblock straight up and at approximately puts the weightblock at a 45 degree angle to the track.
It would be acknowledged that most companies including Brunswick would attribute to the first ball without a weighthole and even and smooth reaction very suitable for fresh and very clean dry backends.

Brunswick at this point would say that it is the pin position difference.

Now a 3rd drilling a 5 or 5 1/2 X 0 with the pin down say 1 inch from the fingers is now also laying the weightblock virtually on its side!  The core axis angle is very similar(not the same but closer to laying down than standing up) to the 1 1/2 X 0.  Most companies would also claim that this drilling is also good for fresh backends and lacks the follow thru necessary for wetter backends.  

While the roll is not exactly the same as a 1 1/2 X 4 it would be usually described as smooth, not flippy.  Some would say that is because of the probable weighhole on PAP.  However I have used this approximate drilling 5 X 0 and put weighholes past the pap and found the ball to definitely not be called Flippy!

So the point is If core axis angle is of paramount importance in mass bias balls, doesn't it make sense that this same concept has some important(but reduced role)in ball layout for symmetric balls.

It is a key point in a very well respected book written by a former Brunswick staffer.  Weightblocks(picture rolling pins) on their sides and weightblocks(picture rolling pins) in a vertical position.

REgards,

Luckylefty
PS it is my believe that Brunswick may be about the only company that is currently telling us a 5 X 0 = a 5 X 5 while however they do agree that a 1 1/2 X 4 is a very rolly and smooth reacting drilling.  I however see the 1 1/2 X 4 and the 5 X 0 as having a similar roll(but not the same) but closer to each other than a 5 X 5 is to either.
It takes Courage to have Faith, and Faith to have Courage.

James M. McCurley, New Orleans, Louisiana