BallReviews

Equipment Boards => Brunswick => Topic started by: legend4life95 on December 12, 2006, 12:13:27 PM

Title: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 12, 2006, 12:13:27 PM: I drilled my Total tonight and threw it a few games before drilling the weight hole. It had 1.5 oz. of positive side weight and 1/4 oz. thumb prior to x-hole.

It was ok but very long and mild off the dry. I went back in and let the driller put a x-hole to bring the side back to 1/2 oz. positive. Took it back out and it killed it. It now goes longer than my Smokin White Pin with even less backend! I couldn't believe it. I then scuffed it with a green pad by hand and it started checking up a tad bit earlier but still had nothing on the backend.

It is drilled with the pin 4-1/4" from my PAP with it below the bridge. CG is kicked right about 1-1/2". I came home and changed the surface on the spinner. I took it down to 360 abralon and then hit it with a nice coat of Brunswick Factory Finish Polish. I will try it again tomorrow at league and see if that will give it a little more reaction.

If not, I am planning to plug the x-hole and redrill it in a different location. Any suggestions where?

I will post a picture soon.

Edit: Pics added I circled the cg in the pics to be seen easier and also marked my PAP.

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4238816

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4238815

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4238814

--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****

Edited on 12/12/2006 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 12, 2006, 08:31:34 PM: Pics added!
--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 12, 2006, 08:49:03 PM: His reason for putting the x-hole above my pap was b/c I only had 1/4 oz thumb weight and he said if he put it below the pap it would cause it to go even longer by taking away more thumb weight.

And if you had read my post you would have seen that I changed the surface and added polish when i got home. Thats not OOB.

--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: UpTheLeftGutta on December 12, 2006, 08:55:03 PM: I have a cherry bomb drilled the same....we didnt drill a weight hole to see what reaction we were working with...ended up going down. The heavy side weight killed the reaction before having the weight hole; made a terrible read on the lanes. After weight hole, it was a beauty. Made it even better with a rough buff finish and hitting the back flares with a pad. Still, for a ball that gets 7 inches of flare (almost hitting the weight hole), the ball doesnt impress me. My pap is in the same location.
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 12, 2006, 09:07:24 PM: quote:
guys, wake up here. There is no reason WHAT SO EVER that this ball shouldn't kick huge a** on the backends unless there is a TON of carrydown. Try it on a fresh shot, if it's still dead I'd call bunswick. The wieght hole should not have made much of an impact in overall hook, just overall shape of the hook.
--------------------
I refuse to use the spell checker. i just wom't do it.

Thats the thing. I was playing on a fresh THS with dry outside. Everything else I threw hooked more. My Smokin White Pin out hooked it by at least 5 boards!

--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 12, 2006, 09:09:30 PM: quote:
The wieght hole should not have made much of an impact in overall hook, just overall shape of the hook.

It did make a big difference though. It was not super strong before the x-hole, but the x-hole killed it.

--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: Monster Stitch on December 12, 2006, 09:17:01 PM: If the star is your PAP, you should of either put the
x-hole 2 inches down to get more mid lane or 2 inches past PAP
drawing a line from the pin through your pap which will give it more
flare on the backend. I would suggest to plug the weight hole and do one of those two. Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 12, 2006, 09:22:45 PM: quote:
If the star is your PAP, you should of either put the
x-hole 2 inches down to get more mid lane or 2 inches past PAP
drawing a line from the pin through your pap which will give it more
flare on the backend. I would suggest to plug the weight hole and do one of those two. Just my opinion.

Thats what I wanted to do, but he was scared I would flare over the finger holes then. I usually track about 3" left of my thumb and fingers. But for some reason when i drill the pin under bridge or below, my track goes inverted with the first line about 3" left of thumb, but I started tracking about a half inch left of my middle finger with the bowtie just beside and above it. He said kicking the x-hole too far past my pap might cause me to hit the fingers.

--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: Dynoboy on December 12, 2006, 09:39:49 PM: Placing the Cg below the center line on low Rg balls, kills them. Unless you have a lot of oil in the heads. Low RG balls are design to rev, early if you place the Cg low, then you ball will become stable at mid lane, again, unless you have a bunch of oil in the heads.
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: BrunsNick on December 12, 2006, 09:47:29 PM: I would have put the X-hole 2 1/4 down the VAL. Going up will cause the ball to go longer and flare LESS.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-06
http://www.BrunsNick.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: charlest on December 12, 2006, 10:14:08 PM: legend4life,

You already anaswered your own question.
If "My Smokin White Pin out hooked it by at least 5 boards!" is true, then you sure as heck didn't have enough oil for a Total Inf!!!

C'mon. Get with the program.

--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: BrunsBob on December 12, 2006, 10:17:52 PM: Exactly what Nick said.

The statement about the "cg down kills the reaction on low rg balls" is incorrect. The statement about the "ball going longer by taking out the thumb weight" is incorrect. Both are irrelevant. What matters is pin distance from PAP and extra hole placement. The position of your extra hole is not in a beneficial spot. Also, if it's going that straight why would you polish it more? Did you feel it was burning up early? Also, you said you gave it a nice coat of Brunswick Factory Finish Polish. Which one, High Gloss (blue bottle) or Rough Buff (red bottle)?

I would recommend plugging the extra hole and moving it to where Nick mentioned. I would also recommend hitting it with a 500 abralon and leaving it at that to start with, then go to 1000 or higher if needed. Please let us know what you try and how things progress.

Regards,

RoB LaW

--------------------
I'm gettin' old, I'm hurtin', but I've got Brunswick balls.......Color me competitive.
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: BrunsNick on December 13, 2006, 01:10:38 AM: I'm also beginning to think that maybe his PAP is not correct. Since he is thumbless, there is a chance he could be inverted, making that x-hole further up his VAL, causing a weaker reaction.

Maybe the first ever variable PAP?!
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-06
http://www.BrunsNick.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 13, 2006, 06:42:35 AM: quote:
You already answered your own question.
If "My Smokin White Pin out hooked it by at least 5 boards!" is true, then you sure as heck didn't have enough oil for a Total Inf!!!

C'mon. Get with the program.

It was only that dry outside. It was fairly wet everywhere else. I was trying to play through the oil with the total and even when I hit the dry it was mild.
The SIWP I was playing up the boards in the dry.

quote:
The position of your extra hole is not in a beneficial spot. Also, if it's going that straight why would you polish it more? Did you feel it was burning up early? Also, you said you gave it a nice coat of Brunswick Factory Finish Polish. Which one, High Gloss (blue bottle) or Rough Buff (red bottle)?

I polished it after I got home last night to try tonight and see if it was burning up. I am pretty sure it was not, but figured I would try it first.

I sanded it with 360 abralon and then a coat of BFF High Polish(blue bottle)since it is gritless and would keep the 360 underneath.

quote:
would recommend plugging the extra hole and moving it to where Nick mentioned. I would also recommend hitting it with a 500 abralon and leaving it at that to start with, then go to 1000 or higher if needed. Please let us know what you try and how things progress.

If it don't react better tonight, I plan to do that. My question is would I be better off to go down 2-1/4 on the val or better if I went 2-1/4 past pap to increase the flare?

As I stated before, I threw it before we added the x-hole and it was flaring nice with about 5" of rings. After adding the x-hole, I now get almost no flare. Maybe 2 rings and they are right on each other.

quote:
I hate to correct BrunsNick but if you place the extra hole 2 1/4" down the VAL, it will open up the flares more and the ball will want to start up earlier.
To cut down the flare you want to go 2 1/4" inside the PAP towards the pin. Also, not knowing your rev rate but 4 1/4" pin to PAP might be too strong. Too close to leverage. This could another factor.

I as pretty sure it is not trying to over flare. And 4-1/4 pin to pap was not too strong for this lane condition. I drilled my Scorchin 3-1/4" (even closer to leverage)pin to pap last night as well and it was a beast covering most the lane without burn out.

quote:
I'm also beginning to think that maybe his PAP is not correct. Since he is thumbless, there is a chance he could be inverted, making that x-hole further up his VAL, causing a weaker reaction.

I based my pap off of what it is on most all my equipment. However, after drilling this one it seems having the pin down causes my track to invert. With this ball I was tracking 3" left of thumb but only 1/2" left of middle finger. The bowtie was just barely left and above the middle finger as well. My bowtie is usually much higher above the fingers and my track on other equipment is always 3" to 4" left of fingers and thumb and is not inverted.

--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****

Edited on 12/13/2006 7:48 AM
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: Phoneman on December 13, 2006, 09:30:37 AM: Ok here is what I have with mine the Pin is above the fingers between them. CG is kicked right about 1". No weight hole needed. This is a monster. It is the strongest backend ball in my bags. I have been playing a THS from 20 at the arrows to roughly the 10 board ( give or take based on amount of beer ). I have 7 sets on the ball as of now and I have only one below 700. Low 656 high 763. Shot 756 last night with the thing including the infamous pocket 4 10 split. Yes a blow out 4 10 just like on TV the other week OH BOY!!!
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 13, 2006, 10:18:08 AM: Ok, I decided to locate my PAP again since my track is totally different on this ball. My track on the Total is now inverted. I traced my track and put it back on the spinner to locate the new PAP.

My PAP for this ball is now 4-1/2" over and 1-1/4" down. This changes the layout by 1" pin to pap distance. It is now 5-1/4" pin to pap instead of the original 4-1/4" pin to pap.

I think BrunsNick hit the nail on the head. Since my track is now inverted on this ball, having the x-hole where it is puts it 2" above my pap and a half inch past my pap. I think this is the reason it killed the flare. I still don't understand why my track/PAP changed on this ball vs. any of my other equipment. I got my Scorchin drilled last night as well, and threw it on the same lanes. My track and PAP was was the normal 4" over on that ball.

So ok, I now plan to plug the x-hole and redrill it. My question is would I be best to put the hole 2-1/4" down on my new val, or could I use a combination of 2-1/4 down and 2-1/4 out past the PAP? I just want to get some flare back and get some movement on medium oil.

--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 13, 2006, 10:41:07 AM: Ok, here are some new pics showing where my new PAP is located in reference to my old PAP. It also show the track traced.
I also marked where the new x-hole would go being 2-1/4" down on val. Maybe you experts can tell me if this looks like it would correct the problem. Also will this new hole keep it legal since the statics will be 1.5 oz positive side and 1/4 oz thumb weight after I plug the old hole and prior to drilling the new one.

Here are several pics.

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4244043

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4244047

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4244046

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4244045

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4244044

--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: Mercyless on December 13, 2006, 12:20:27 PM: That Total Inferno looks just like an Absolute Inferno. My Total is drilled EXACTLY the same and it outhooks everything in my bag except for my Special Agent.
--------------------
Representing the Storm Nation.
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 13, 2006, 02:07:56 PM: I'm taking it back to the lanes tonight and probally end up pluging the x-hole. Can one of the Brunswick experts comment on my last post before I redrill the x-hole and make sure that its the right choice?

--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: BrunsNick on December 13, 2006, 02:52:55 PM: Sounds like a plan to me!
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-06
http://www.BrunsNick.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: Djarum on December 13, 2006, 03:01:50 PM: I thought Brunswick proved that xholes are meaningless?

Dj
--------------------
The views and opinions of Djarum expressed on BallReviews.com do not necessarily state or reflect those of the BallReviews.com.
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: WSUstroker on December 13, 2006, 03:03:50 PM: Dj, take a look at the video Nick posted on his website, which shows quite the opposite.
--------------------
Dan Chambers
www.absolutebowling.com
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: shelley on December 13, 2006, 03:04:36 PM: quote:
I thought Brunswick proved that xholes are meaningless?

Hardly. They've shown that they aren't responsible for the kinds of reactions that the USBC was saying caused such an increase in scores. That static weight rules weren't the problem. Looking at Nick's X-hole demo vid pretty conclusively shows that they will alter a ball's reaction.

SH
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: BrunsNick on December 13, 2006, 03:29:09 PM: quote:
I thought Brunswick proved that xholes are meaningless?

Dj
--------------------
The views and opinions of Djarum expressed on BallReviews.com do not necessarily state or reflect those of the BallReviews.com.

CG's yes, X-holes no.

The only way the CG matters is to localize weight for a specific x-hole location.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-06
http://www.BrunsNick.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 13, 2006, 03:32:54 PM: quote:
Sounds like a plan to me!
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-06
http://www.BrunsNick.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

Thanks Nick. I'm out the door now to league and will have it plugged and hopefully re-popped by tomorrow for league.

--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: Kinalyx on December 13, 2006, 08:27:20 PM: I agree with the poster that said that ball doesnt look like a TI. My TI looks nothing like that. That ball looks Pearlized, the TI isnt a pearl....could this be the worst blem in the history of bowling?

Shawn
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: Corey C on December 13, 2006, 10:47:00 PM: Legend,

Throw the ball after you plug the hole and measure your PAP again before you drill the new hole. Putting the weight back in might shift the PAP slightly.
--------------------
Corey Clayton
Brunswick Amateur Staff
Turbo Grips Staff
Team Canada
Check out my arsenal in my profile.
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: leftehh- LG on December 13, 2006, 11:00:26 PM: I'd say change the surface before plugging it.
--------------------
Bowl to Win!
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 14, 2006, 06:15:12 AM: quote:
I'd say change the surface before plugging it.
--------------------
Bowl to Win!

I tried it OOB and then tried it scuffed with a 600 grit pad by hand. Then I came home and put it on the spinner and put it at 360 abralon + BFF High Gloss. Threw it last night and it was still about the same. Its not the surface. I know that for a fact as much as I play with surface preps with all my equipment. I can tell the difference in the flare rings before the x-hole and after. Its being plugged now and I will go to the proshop tonight to re-punch the x-hole 2-1/4" down from my PAP on the VAL.

I will keep everyone updated on my results.

--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 14, 2006, 06:17:08 AM: quote:
I agree with the poster that said that ball doesnt look like a TI. My TI looks nothing like that. That ball looks Pearlized, the TI isnt a pearl....could this be the worst blem in the history of bowling?

Shawn

I am curious what other peoples look like now. Could somebody post pics of their Total so I can see the difference?

--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: Nails on December 14, 2006, 07:01:05 AM: quote:
I tried it OOB and then tried it scuffed with a 600 grit pad by hand. Then I came home and put it on the spinner and put it at 360 abralon + BFF High Gloss. Threw it last night and it was still about the same. Its not the surface. I know that for a fact as much as I play with surface preps with all my equipment. I can tell the difference in the flare rings before the x-hole and after. Its being plugged now and I will go to the proshop tonight to re-punch the x-hole 2-1/4" down from my PAP on the VAL.

If changing the surface that much didn't help, changing the drill will have little difference and changing the X hole location will have almost no difference. Surface is much more important than any of the drilling factors. I'd say the ball might be a bad match up to your style. I'd be more inclined to sell it while it's on it's first driling so it will have more value.
--------------------
Telling it like it is.
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 14, 2006, 10:19:51 AM: quote:
quote:
I tried it OOB and then tried it scuffed with a 600 grit pad by hand. Then I came home and put it on the spinner and put it at 360 abralon + BFF High Gloss. Threw it last night and it was still about the same. Its not the surface. I know that for a fact as much as I play with surface preps with all my equipment. I can tell the difference in the flare rings before the x-hole and after. Its being plugged now and I will go to the proshop tonight to re-punch the x-hole 2-1/4" down from my PAP on the VAL.

If changing the surface that much didn't help, changing the drill will have little difference and changing the X hole location will have almost no difference. Surface is much more important than any of the drilling factors. I'd say the ball might be a bad match up to your style. I'd be more inclined to sell it while it's on it's first driling so it will have more value.
--------------------
Telling it like it is.

Boy...I sure hope you're wrong!
--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: Mercyless on December 14, 2006, 11:25:25 AM: Just look at the ones on Nicks webpage thats what mine looks like, awhat they are supposed to look like.
--------------------
Representing the Storm Nation.
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: Djarum on December 14, 2006, 12:30:40 PM: BTW, there was just a hint of sarcasm there.

I know they make a difference. But I remember looking at the video and they had two balls one with and w/o a weight hole, and they both had almost identical reaction.

Dj
--------------------
The views and opinions of Djarum expressed on BallReviews.com do not necessarily state or reflect those of the BallReviews.com.
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: duvallite on December 14, 2006, 04:27:24 PM: quote:
If changing the surface that much didn't help, changing the drill will have little difference and changing the X hole location will have almost no difference.

I certainly don't agree that changing the x-hole location won't really matter. You should watch Nick's video which clearly demonstrates that x-hole location can significantly influence ball reaction. From where his x-hole originally was (very high) to now going to 2 1/4 below, I bet he sees a big change.
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: Nails on December 14, 2006, 08:22:22 PM: quote:
I certainly don't agree that changing the x-hole location won't really matter. You should watch Nick's video which clearly demonstrates that x-hole location can significantly influence ball reaction. From where his x-hole originally was (very high) to now going to 2 1/4 below, I bet he sees a big change.

I've seen Nick's videos and the ones on Brunswick's site. Anyone, including Nick, will tell you that cover prep means a lot more than any drilling parameter, even comparing a stacked leverage with a pin axis. The X hole more determines the shape of the reaction near the break point and is a fine tuning parameter. After watching a lot of information, I would place the X hole's effect at 2-5% of the ball's total reaction.
--------------------
Telling it like it is.
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 14, 2006, 09:28:37 PM: quote:
After watching a lot of information, I would place the X hole's effect at 2-5% of the ball's total reaction.

Well guess what....You're wrong!!

UPDATE: I picked my Total up today and tossed it on a fresh league shot. The same exact shot that was out the other night when I was trying it. The x-hole made a world of difference! It purely amazed me to see how much change it made.

I placed the weighthole 2-1/4" down on the VAL just as Nick suggested. It actually ended up being the exact location of where the MB would be on a asymmetric ball. 6-3/4 from the pin through the cg. I immediately looked down at the track and noticed that the flare had came back. I am now getting about 5"-6" of flare. The oil rings are about 1/4" apart.

This ball now reads the middle Really good and has a VERY NICE hard arc on the backend. On the same shot I played the other night, it was AT LEAST 10 boards stronger! Remember folks, this is at the same surface as what it was with the x-hole in the other location. I did not change the surface at all. Still at 360 abralon + BFF High Gloss.

I never would have believed a x-hole location could change the ball reaction this drastically! The folks at Brunswick know what the hell they are talking about!!

UNREAL!!!!!!!
--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: Fatboy8 on December 14, 2006, 09:37:03 PM: To me the X hole really fine tunes a ball. If ya don't like the reaction, put a hole in it! I've came to love balls I didn't like at first, just by putting an X hole in it.

Glad to hear you got what you were after!
--------------------
Lane #1-Ebonite-Brunswick
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: Nails on December 14, 2006, 09:43:58 PM: Thar's nice ans I'm glad you're happy, but there is no way that a weight hole made that much of a difference. It's hard to make a 10 board difference with a major cover surface change. Either you were throwing it different/better or the lanes were dressed differently. From day to day, only the pros throw the ball the same way. The rest of us have timing quirks and release inconsistencies that we're not aware of. Certainly a 192 average no thumber doesn't repeat shots well enough to know. Statics don't mean much anymore, and if you originally drilled in to the weight block, you filled it in with a much less dense material than the core is made of.

The second Brunswick video showed a ball with a ton of side weight, then the same ball with a weight hole added to make it legal. There was a difference in reaction, but the overall hook wasn't affected much. A weight hole can't affect the reaction as much as you're implying, so another unseen circumstance has taken affect.
--------------------
Telling it like it is.
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 14, 2006, 09:58:06 PM: quote:
Thar's nice ans I'm glad you're happy, but there is no way that a weight hole made that much of a difference. It's hard to make a 10 board difference with a major cover surface change. Either you were throwing it different/better or the lanes were dressed differently. From day to day, only the pros throw the ball the same way. The rest of us have timing quirks and release inconsistencies that we're not aware of. Certainly a 192 average no thumber doesn't repeat shots well enough to know. Statics don't mean much anymore, and if you originally drilled in to the weight block, you filled it in with a much less dense material than the core is made of.

The second Brunswick video showed a ball with a ton of side weight, then the same ball with a weight hole added to make it legal. There was a difference in reaction, but the overall hook wasn't affected much. A weight hole can't affect the reaction as much as you're implying, so another unseen circumstance has taken affect.
--------------------
Telling it like it is.

Nails, you can think I am dumb and don't know anything because I am a no-thumber if you want. Just b/c I average 192 and don't use my thumb does not mean I don't know the ins and outs of cover preps and drillings and what not. I know that cover prep is around 50% of ball reaction and drilling is probaly 40% and x-holes would account for the other 10%. Lets just say in this ball experience the x-hole made it from a MILD light oil ball to a NICE strong Medium oiler.

I honestly don't give a crap if you feel it was a impossible change. It made At LEAST a 10 board improvement. As I stated before, the shot was THE SAME EXACT fresh shot as the other night. No one had thrown on them since being oiled 30 minutes prior to my practice session.

I also took it to another house tonight where I had league. It was a little more volume there and compared to the same Smokin WP that I compared it to the other night, it out hooked the SIWP by a ton playing in the oil.
--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****

Edited on 12/14/2006 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: BrunsNick on December 15, 2006, 01:32:15 AM: When Petraglia was doing using the X-hole Demo Ultimate Inferno, there was an 8 board difference between the Flare Reducing, and Flare Increasing X-hole.

Glad it worked out for you Legend! I look forward to your 300 Game post.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-06
http://www.BrunsNick.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: Nails on December 15, 2006, 06:19:17 AM: Don't get all bent out of shape legend. I only meant that people who average below 220 on a house shot don't repeat shots in a way that they an say for sure what caused a certain reaction. No thumbing is actually more difficult in my opinion to get the same release each time. Without the thumb as a steering device, axis rotation is difficult to repeat.

Funny how Nick's and Brunswick's show one thing, but then want to talk about something else. The Brunswick video showed about a 2 board difference between no weight hole and after it was added, mostly how the ball behaved at or beyond the break point. On one of Nick's videos you could see a decent difference in moving the X hole, but on some of the other shots, you could barely see a difference. Even Nick might not throw the ball the same enough to tell the difference in the hole. So many things have to identical to know for sure. Rev rate, speed, axis rotation, launch angle, break point, etc. must be the same or you won't know what caused the difference. And if it's not done on a flatter pattern, it means even less. Haven't you seen the sprayers that throw the ball all over the place and tear up a house shot?

Anyway, I already said I'm happy you got the results you wanted. I still say that there's no way a change in a weight hole made 10 boards of difference. Even on a fresh shot, it doesn't always play the same. One of the houses I play at puts a fresh shot for us and claims to never change anything because they want a big wall for big scores. Some days I start at around 25, last night I had to start at 40. Same ball, "same" lane conditions. That's what I meant about not knowing for sure how much can be attributed to the X hole itself.
--------------------
Telling it like it is.
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 15, 2006, 07:55:00 AM: quote:
The Brunswick video showed about a 2 board difference between no weight hole and after it was added, mostly how the ball behaved at or beyond the break point. On one of Nick's videos you could see a decent difference in moving the X hole, but on some of the other shots, you could barely see a difference.

This is where I think you are getting confused or maybe did not read my entire post at the beginning.

I threw the ball before I even added a x-hole when it still had 1.5 oz. of side and 1/4 oz thumb. The ball did move some and was a bit stronger than my Smokin WP. However, my problem came in after adding the x-hole in the location the driller chose. After I threw the ball and found that the weight hole had completely killed it, I decided to trace my track. My track changed to inverted b/c of the pin down drilling, I found my new axis point which moved quite a bit.

My normal PAP for all my other balls and what I had originally layed this one out on was 4" over and 0 up or down. My new inverted track changed my PAP to 4-1/2" over and 1-1/4" down. Thats a major change and it changed the layout from 4-1/4" pin to pap...to 5-1/4" pin to pap.

After all this, I marked my new PAP and found that the x-hole was placed 2" above my axis. That placement had pretty much killed the flare completely. That is what made all the difference. He now plugged it and moved the weight hole 2-1/4" down from my PAP on the VAL as suggested by BrunsNick. Thats when the flare kicked back in. Thats when I noticed the said 10 board improvement.

There was not a 10 board improvement from before x-hole to the final product. Maybe a few boards. However, there was a 10 board gap from the 2" up x-hole vs. 2-1/4" down x-hole.

I'll end this discussion like this....

It's like Ripleys, Believe it or not...its a fact.
--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: legend4life95 on December 15, 2006, 08:10:20 AM: This will be my last post until after Chritmas. I am leaving in an hour to go on my cruise to the western carribean. I did not want anyone to think I am ignoring them in this post to further replys. Take care!

Tim
--------------------

****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Title: Re: Is the Total Inferno suppose to be this weak?
Post by: WSUstroker on December 15, 2006, 08:49:48 AM: Tim, glad everything is working out for you and the ball after the latest change. Enjoy your trip man, I'm sure it will be a blast. I'll be busy taking in the 40 degree temperatures in Minnesota, woohoo!
--------------------
Dan Chambers
www.absolutebowling.com