win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?  (Read 13302 times)

chitown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5876
Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« on: March 07, 2008, 02:36:50 AM »
I have not been on the Brunswick forum in some time.  I have not been on the Lane 1 forum until just recently.  I noticed a lot of bashing of the Lane 1 brand by the Brunswick guys.  I thought Brunswick made Lane 1 covers?  Isn't that like bashing the same company?

 

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #31 on: March 09, 2008, 08:32:01 PM »
quote:
the Lane #1 guys follow those around and make sure to post about how what Brunswick say is BS.
Brunswick guys are the ones who started follwoing Lane #1 guys around. Get your facts straight. I don't post about that what brunswick says is BS. I just post WHEN BRUNSWICK SAYS BS..!!

quote:
Brunswick is concerned with getting things right, and educating people with the correct information.
I follow you around to make sure of this. But, you make way too many mistakes, so I must correct them or the bowling world will be in big trouble.
quote:
I say what I say and I can back it up.
Then why is it when I call you on an error you've made, you just run and hide..? Also, why aren't you man enough to admit you've errored and acknowledge it..?

quote:
World does not revolve around Lane #1.
It obviously does with you guys. You worry about everything we say. You guys are in our forum all the time. Whenever Lane #1 speaks, you guys are there listening. For some reason, you don't like what we say. And then argue about it..!!

quote:
Lane #1 follows, distantly I might add, Brunswick in sales.
So then why do you care so much about what we say..? We're just the little guy on the totum pole. =:^D

Edited on 3/9/2008 8:34 PM

Verbs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #32 on: March 09, 2008, 08:46:18 PM »
Please click on the line below. This is from a source other than Brunswick.

http://www.ebonite.com/techcenter/roleofthecg.php

Verbs


--------------------
Larry Verble


Edited on 3/9/2008 8:56 PM

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #33 on: March 09, 2008, 10:39:31 PM »
Thanks verbs just checked to see what's on there and took this off Ebo's website...

Effects of static weights are as follows:

Positive side weight
 Increase amount of hook
Negative side weight
 Decrease amount of hook
Finger weight
 Delays breakpoint
Thumb weight
 Causes an earlier breakpoint
Higher topweight
 Delays breakpoint, creates sharper backend
Lower topweight
 Causes an earlier breakpoint, creates smoother backend
=:^D

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #34 on: March 09, 2008, 11:08:55 PM »
You might want to take a look at this also...

Here is another outside source, Visionary...
http://www.visionarybowling.com/drillOGRE.html

Step #3 - Balance Hole Location

The weight hole should be placed to obtain the desired static weights. Although many people believe static weights don't matter any more this is not true. The weights in a ball can have a big effect. The reason they aren't treated the same as with older, more conventional balls is because - as the balls flare, the weight locations relative to the axis and track migrate. What might start as top weight may become side weight depending on the person and layout, etc. The complexity of the flare and axis migration is too much to explain here but understand that two balls with identical layouts will have different reactions if their static weights are different. Weight holes placed off the axis can exaggerate the differential that causes the flare and may make the ball livelier. If you have certain weights in other balls that produce good reactions for you then you should try to match the layouts with what works for your game. What is great for one bowler may be terrible for another.
=:^D

Verbs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #35 on: March 09, 2008, 11:12:45 PM »
t-god,

Then copy & paste the whole thing. Not just what you want. This is what t-god didn't bring over from the Ebonite website:

"As the core's RG differential gets larger (ABC maximum is .080), the effects of static weights lessen. Lower differential cores, like 3 piece pancake cores (Maxims and Gyros), are affected greater by static weights. I have met precious few bowlers that can tell the difference between a ball with 1-ounce negative side weight versus 1 ounce of positive side, especially with today's modern core dynamics and constructions. We have done CATS testing on the ball's overall reaction with different static weights and the results showed no measurable difference of ball reaction. There were far greater reaction differences involved by the bowler's inconsistency of ball speed, rev rate, axis rotation and tilt. The greatest reaction differences came when altering the surface friction of the coverstock."

While the difference in statics may not be absolutely zero, the difference is very small. Once you factor in all the other variables that is listed on Ebonite's website, plus the everchanging lane conditions, the difference shrinks even further.

Personally, I think we have all spent way too much time on this.

Can't we all just say we agree to disagree and let our respective results speak for themselves.



quote:
Thanks verbs just checked to see what's on there and took this off Ebo's website...

Effects of static weights are as follows:

Positive side weight
 Increase amount of hook
Negative side weight
 Decrease amount of hook
Finger weight
 Delays breakpoint
Thumb weight
 Causes an earlier breakpoint
Higher topweight
 Delays breakpoint, creates sharper backend
Lower topweight
 Causes an earlier breakpoint, creates smoother backend
=:^D


--------------------
Larry Verble


Edited on 3/9/2008 11:14 PM

Verbs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #36 on: March 09, 2008, 11:31:22 PM »
Chris,

There are rumors floating that the USBC is going to eliminate the static weight rule in the future. When that happens, you may just see that happen.

Quote

Better yet, a company that believes cgnomaddah.. I want them to bring out a ball with no cg marking and advertise it that way and see how it sells. Otherwise, cg matters!!!!!!!!!!!


--------------------
Larry Verble

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #37 on: March 09, 2008, 11:32:44 PM »
Verbs, if your using 2 of the same ball, there is no difference in RG Differential.

You can use a different pin position to change the differential. But now, you can FINE TUNE the reaction, similar to they way you do with weight holes, by re-positioning the ending CG/changing the static weights.

For whatever reason, you guys just want to ignore static weights all together. If you understood how they work and how the ending CG moves and it's position in relation to the PAP and/or to the PSA and/or to the Mass Bias marking, you will then truly get 100% of the ball total potential.

Do you think NASCAR drivers would want a 2% or whatever, boost in power if they can get it..?

Why don't you want to get this boost in your bowling ball if you can..? Please explain this to us. =:^D

Mike Austin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2057
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #38 on: March 09, 2008, 11:33:31 PM »
quote:
I'm sure Lane #1 jumped ship because of the poor quality control.

Nick demonstrated how poor the quality being produced truly was with his videos of teh Cg nomadah. That wasn't an isolated incident.

I'm sure most companies that care about their customers and want to stand behind their product would look elsewhere.

Ric - I'm not hiding behind any screen name. I'm not Lane #1, but I'd invest my money and have in their product long before putting a penny into a Brunswick product ever again.

Nick trolls around the Lane #1 forums hijacking topics and skewing the focus off what the topic was created for. The rest of the Brunswick faithful join right in.



Deadmoney, when you troll, could you use correct information?

The Lane 1 HRG bowling balls used in Nick's videos were not made by Brunswick.  The HRG's were one of the first balls made by Columbia for Lane #1.

As far as Brunswick Q control and Lane 1, I know my sales of Lane 1 balls went down when they stopped using Brunswick covers.  I myself liked the Lane 1 balls made by Brunswick.  The HRG was not one of them, though a decent ball in it's own right.
--------------------
www.myspace.com/strikes4days

Check out Tony's Journals - they are FREE!!
http://www.allbowling.com/journal/public.php?uid=67&leagueid=563


Edited on 3/9/2008 11:35 PM
Mike Austin's Bowling Dynamix Pro Shops
Inside Emerald Bowl
Inside Tomball Bowl
Track Pro Staff Member
Vise Grips Staff Member

Verbs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #39 on: March 10, 2008, 12:05:38 AM »
t-god,

As I stated above. Can't we just agree to disagree?!?

You are NEVER going to convince me that, within USBC legal limits, you can PREDICTABLY increase my carry through the manipulation of the statics.

Nor am I going to convince you that statics mean virtually nothing in overall ball reaction, hitting power and carry.

I'm willing to let it go and, as I stated above, agree to disagree.

Verbs
--------------------
Larry Verble

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #40 on: March 10, 2008, 12:17:09 AM »
Verbs, if you put a hole in the ball and don't hit the core, are you going to get a different ball reaction..? Yes or No..?

Are you changing the statics in the ball with this type of hole..? Yes or No..?

Are you changing the weight block shape/core shape..? Yes or No..?

Please don't run and hide... =:^D

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #41 on: March 10, 2008, 12:22:57 AM »
Mike, deadmoney is not trolling and he does have the correct info. These are the balls deadmoney is talking about. They were the first balls sent to Nick for the test.

Oh you mean these?

www.brunsnick.com/buzz2.jpg
www.brunsnick.com/buzz3.jpg
www.brunsnick.com/buzz4.jpg

I'll never know why this happened. My only guess is a factory worker "creating" longer pins to fill a quota.
=:^D

BrunsNick

  • Brunswick Rep
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7306
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #42 on: March 10, 2008, 03:26:25 AM »
quote:
As well as following my posts, Lane #1 follows, distantly I might add, Brunswick in sales.


Wow, now THAT is the funniest thing I've read in a while.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. <@8o(
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-08
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.AskTheBowler.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Friends don't let friends drink the Kool-Aid!
Nick Smith
Digital Media Manager - Brunswick Bowling
http://www.brunswickbowling.com
http://www.youtube.com/c/brunsnick

Sir Track

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #43 on: March 10, 2008, 03:40:47 AM »
quote:
Unfortunately I'm held to secreacy...
but I am honestly not lying when I say that Mexico isn't the reason..

The only way you'd find out if someone from Brunswick of Lane #1 said it, since I know I won't.


I can also confirm that Mexico was´ent the reason

sdbowler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4066
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #44 on: March 10, 2008, 04:57:12 AM »
Who cares why Lane #1 is not using Brunswick anymore? I know I don't and there are many people who don't. This whole I know but I can't say anything crap is old.
As far as the whole argument cg, static weights, or whatever if they matter who cares. Everyone will believe what they want to believe. This is no different then Ford guys saying they are the best because of X, and Chevy guys saying they are the best because X is a joke and Z is better. Lane #1 guys will think what they want to and Brunswick will think what they want to so on and so on. There are 3 pages in this forum of back and forth and 6 pages in another one over in the Lane #1 area going back and forth. LEt's do waht Verbs said and agree to disagree and let it go. Part of the reason why I joined this site years ago was because of the GOOD bowling info that was being posted, none of the we believe this and if you don't believe you are wrong stuff. I have said it many times when it comes to bowling I am not the smartest person so I have no say in any of this. Let's let it go and get back to helping other bowlers out.
--------------------
Brunswick
Kyle

Edited on 3/10/2008 4:57 AM

Verbs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
Re: Brunswick guys bashing the same company?
« Reply #45 on: March 10, 2008, 05:36:23 AM »
Okay, my last responses to this whole debate

quote:
Verbs, if you put a hole in the ball and don't hit the core, are you going to get a different ball reaction..? Yes or No..? depends on the size and depth of the hole.

Are you changing the statics in the ball with this type of hole..? Yes or No..? yes

Are you changing the weight block shape/core shape..? Yes or No..? Again depends on the size and depth of the hole.

Please don't run and hide... =:^D


I am not hiding. I am just tired of beating a dead horse. If you beleive that statics, within USBC regualtions, can increase your carry, change ball reaction, etc., then fine. I don't agree with you, but beleive what you want.

As I stated before, you are NEVER going to convince me that your can PREDICTABLY increase my carry by manipulating statics within USBC regulations.

I have better things to do with my time than try and convince you that I/we are correct.

If you don't have better things to do with YOUR time, than I truly feel sorry for you.

Verbs
--------------------
Larry Verble