Author Topic: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment? (Read 7089 times)

NateNice · « **on:** April 06, 2007, 08:45:04 AM »

I have a couple Brunswick balls and have been generally happy with their equipment. However, as I become more experienced and learn more about laying out a ball and core characteristics, I've become concerned Brunswick won't always be the best choice.

I've noticed a lack of ultra low RG balls in the Brunswick line. They have low RG balls everywhere but nothing really approaching the lower limit of 2.43. And then, they also don't have much in the name of ultra high differential either. Most everything in the performance line is around .42 - .48.

The Total Inferno seems to be the only ball that has strayed away with an RG min @ 2.451 and a differential of .050. But these hardly test the limits.

I look at other manufacturers and they seem to have balls that test these limits. The Storm Special Agent I believe has an RG min that is basically at the lowest legal limit and has a fairly high differential.

But other companies also have balls that are ultra low RG with smaller differentials also. This allows for balls that will rev up easily but not flare so much. So a drilling that goes long with late revs on a ball like this with a strong coverstock allows for a very powerful shot as energy is saved for the backend. The ball will start its smaller flare towards the back end and have a lot of revs left at this point when the coverstock can really begin its grip.

Of course differentials that are big can do this too I believe as you can put the pin close to the PAP and keep it well above the midline.

But this is what I'm looking to do in my next ball. I'm not sure if Brunswick is the best choice for a layout like this: Very aggressive CS with an ultra low RG ball drilled to rev late and go long.

Is there any reason Brunswick doesn't make a ball that would fit this?

MegaMav · « **Reply #1 on:** April 06, 2007, 05:03:00 PM »

Drill one with a low RG pin placement to get close to the minimun RG.

quote:
But this is what I'm looking to do in my next ball. I'm not sure if Brunswick is the best choice for a layout like this: Very aggressive CS with an ultra low RG ball drilled to rev late and go long.

Why are you looking for a low RG ball?
thats a Mid/High RG reaction characteristic.

BrunsNick · « **Reply #2 on:** April 06, 2007, 05:34:46 PM »

The problem with ultra low RG balls comes during manufacturing. Slight errors in placing the core in the mold can yield 6"+ pin outs.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

ChinaManB · « **Reply #3 on:** April 06, 2007, 06:57:20 PM »

quote:
The problem with ultra low RG balls comes during manufacturing. Slight errors in placing the core in the mold can yield 6"+ pin outs.

I guess this is to much to ask from our friends to the South!
--------------------
"Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot."

MegaMav · « **Reply #4 on:** April 06, 2007, 07:06:33 PM »

quote:
ChinaManB

Speak for yourself, you can't even make pet food correctly.

No Open Tenths · « **Reply #5 on:** April 06, 2007, 07:07:33 PM »

Must....not...feed...the...trolls.........
--------------------
Whether you think you can, or whether you think you can't... you're probably right.

charlest · « **Reply #6 on:** April 06, 2007, 07:25:05 PM »

quote:
Must....not...feed...the...trolls.........
--------------------
Whether you think you can, or whether you think you can't... you're probably right.

OK, I will.

Getting up on the soap box -

Low RG, high RG, who the (expletive deleted) cares???

It doesn't make one iota of difference what the RG is, IN AND OF ITSELF. It makes a difference SOLELY in how the coverstock and core match up to provide THE ball reaction.

The ball's reaction makes the ONLY difference. In case you hadn't looked recently, a ball = core + coverstock, not core alone. Period. End of story.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Edited on 4/6/2007 7:25 PM

BrunsNick · « **Reply #7 on:** April 06, 2007, 07:27:45 PM »

quote:
quote:
The problem with ultra low RG balls comes during manufacturing. Slight errors in placing the core in the mold can yield 6"+ pin outs.

I guess this is to much to ask from our friends to the South!
--------------------
"Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot."

Lots of variables in that mix, covers can harden and different rates causing core shifts, you name it.

Besides, they could just box up the bad ones and call them Pro Pins, but they have a little more pride.

--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

« **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2007, 07:33:43 PM »

quote:
Quote
Must....not...feed...the...trolls.........
--------------------
Whether you think you can, or whether you think you can't... you're probably right.

OK, I will.

Getting up on the soap box -

Low RG, high RG, who the (expletive deleted) cares???

It doesn't make one iota of difference what the RG is, IN AND OF ITSELF. It makes a difference SOLELY in how the coverstock and core match up to provide THE ball reaction.

The ball's reaction makes the ONLY difference. In case you hadn't looked recently, a ball = core + coverstock, not core alone. Period. End of story.
--------------------

I have to agree, too.
Today's covers are much stronger, and if you put an ultra low RG core with an extremely strong cover you're just asking for a ball that revs up off your hand and is dead at the pins!
The core by itself is only one third of the equation. The first third is the bowler and what he puts on the ball (release). The second is the coverstock because that's what's in contact with the lane surface, and third in line comes the core design. They're important, but not the crucial reason someone should pick one ball over the other.
--------------------
notclay

NateNice · « **Reply #9 on:** April 06, 2007, 11:54:31 PM »

Thank you for the replies. For the guy who asked if I was a troll, get real.

So Brunsnick, the main reason they don't make an ultra low RG ball is because it's problematic in manufacture? I'd imagine Brunswick could handle it, no?

To Charlest, I think it matters a lot in fact. Why even find your PAP if it doesn't matter? It's a big thing I think. It determines how the ball is going to rev. The coverstock is the grip, but the core is huge. I mean, it's a 1/3rd like someone else here said. Very low RG's cores will rev a lot more. With a large differential they can flare a lot if drilled that way and with a high traction CS they will really move, and probably burn up maybe, if made to flare a lot.

I think what you're saying is differential doesn't matter so much. That is, a ball with a high differential can be drilled where the differential doesn't really matter. A high differential only gives the driller potential flare ability. So when I'm asking for a low differential ball, it's not really a requirement because I can drill it not to wobble and create flare.

So, you all think it's a bad idea to get a ball with a very low RG, and a high traction CS and drilled to go very long? MegaMav suggests it'll burn up right away, but that's not the case at all I believe. It's going to get through the heads and really start to rev in the mindlane. It'll really hit its peak at the beginning of the backend and coupled with a high traction CS, it should really move with a lot of energy.

Am I wrong about that? I would think a higher RG core would get into a roll right away, regardless of the drilling. Faster than a low RG core anyways.

I want a ball that skids, starts to rev half way down and really gets going in the back end where the revs and CS meet up to create maximum backend. Because it didn't waste power early on, it'll hit harder than a typival heavy oil ball that's drilled to start a roll faster.

And my main question was why Brunswick, a company I use a lot for my balls, doesn't have a very low RG ball. Other companies do. I'm just wondering why they don't explore it more.

Edited on 4/6/2007 11:54 PM

MegaMav · « **Reply #10 on:** April 07, 2007, 12:02:50 AM »

quote:
Am I wrong about that? I would think a higher RG core would get into a roll right away, regardless of the drilling. Faster than a low RG core anyways.

You have it backward my friend, HIGH RG rolls up later due to more core weight shifted toward the cover, LOW RG rolls up sooner due to most of the weight being in the absolute center of the ball..

Highly aggressive covers tend to match up better to high-er RG cores, saving the motor for when it counts, on the backend, not wasting energy in the midlane.

BrunsNick · « **Reply #11 on:** April 07, 2007, 01:59:28 AM »

Nate, not necessarily, just saying that there are problems along the way. I'd think the most logical answer would be that a ball with that type of core dynamics doesn't fit on the reaction chart where they need it....yet.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

« **Reply #12 on:** April 07, 2007, 06:07:53 AM »

Quote

Nate, not necessarily, just saying that there are problems along the way. I'd think the most logical answer would be that a ball with that type of core dynamics doesn't fit on the reaction chart where they need it....yet.
--------------------

Although there are some good ideas stated here, this one probably makes the most sense. Thanks, Brunsnick.

What about the Total Inferno? Seems like a low RG to me...
--------------------
notclay

Hamburglar · « **Reply #13 on:** April 07, 2007, 08:31:50 AM »

quote:
I have a couple Brunswick balls and have been generally happy with their equipment. However, as I become more experienced and learn more about laying out a ball and core characteristics, I've become concerned Brunswick won't always be the best choice.

I've noticed a lack of ultra low RG balls in the Brunswick line. They have low RG balls everywhere but nothing really approaching the lower limit of 2.43. And then, they also don't have much in the name of ultra high differential either. Most everything in the performance line is around .42 - .48.

The Total Inferno seems to be the only ball that has strayed away with an RG min @ 2.451 and a differential of .050. But these hardly test the limits.

I look at other manufacturers and they seem to have balls that test these limits. The Storm Special Agent I believe has an RG min that is basically at the lowest legal limit and has a fairly high differential.

Storm Special Agent by the numbers...
16# 2.46 0.052
15# 2.48 0.055
14# 2.51 0.049

Obviously not testing the limits as much as the Total Inferno at 2.451...
--------------------
That which doesn't kill you will only make you stronger, that which doesn't make you stronger is a waste of time!

NateNice · « **Reply #14 on:** April 07, 2007, 09:44:01 AM »

quote:
quote:
I have a couple Brunswick balls and have been generally happy with their equipment. However, as I become more experienced and learn more about laying out a ball and core characteristics, I've become concerned Brunswick won't always be the best choice.

I've noticed a lack of ultra low RG balls in the Brunswick line. They have low RG balls everywhere but nothing really approaching the lower limit of 2.43. And then, they also don't have much in the name of ultra high differential either. Most everything in the performance line is around .42 - .48.

The Total Inferno seems to be the only ball that has strayed away with an RG min @ 2.451 and a differential of .050. But these hardly test the limits.

I look at other manufacturers and they seem to have balls that test these limits. The Storm Special Agent I believe has an RG min that is basically at the lowest legal limit and has a fairly high differential.

Storm Special Agent by the numbers...
16# 2.46 0.052
15# 2.48 0.055
14# 2.51 0.049

Obviously not testing the limits as much as the Total Inferno at 2.451...
--------------------
That which doesn't kill you will only make you stronger, that which doesn't make you stronger is a waste of time!

Hmmm, that's not totally correct. You're looking at the average. To get the lower limit you need to subtract .0275 for the 15# ball.

I thought when I looked at that ball earlier, it was right around the 2.43 limit.... anywho.

I mentioned before it seemed like the Total was the lowest RG ball they had, and it's pretty low RG.

I've thought of picking that ball up for some time and maybe I will.

Anyone have experience drilling that ball to go really long and not flare a whole lot?

Edited on 4/7/2007 9:52 AM

Author Topic: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment? (Read 7089 times)

NateNice

Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

MegaMav

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

BrunsNick

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

ChinaManB

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

MegaMav

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

No Open Tenths

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

charlest

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

BrunsNick

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

NateNice

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

MegaMav

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

BrunsNick

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

Hamburglar

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

NateNice

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?