Author Topic: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment? (Read 7091 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?

TheDude · « **Reply #16 on:** April 07, 2007, 10:00:11 AM »

Brunswick coverstocks roll so early to start with, you want them to burn out even more?

Besides if you want an early rolling reaction look at strong asymetricals, they do a better job than low RGs can in some cases.
--------------------
Timothy @Juniors Pro-Shop
Roto-Grip Star Proshop
Etonic Stabilites Dress wearer.

Montreal, Quebec.

102101 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 07, 2007, 10:09:43 AM »

quote:
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!

Pro Pins or balls with different colored pins what is the difference? One has the core out of posistion the other has a coverstock that varies from the 1st quality balls. Not sure how that would be considered pride kinda like the kettle calling the pot black isn't it brunsnick?
--------------------
102101? Hmmmm
Having a closed mind is a terrible way to go through life.
www.blackhawklanes.com

BrunsNick · « **Reply #18 on:** April 07, 2007, 01:05:21 PM »

102101, its all in the way its marketed.

Smokin' Inferno White Pin

The Smokin' Inferno White Pin is a lower hook potential version of the Smokin Inferno. More mid-lane length and a smoother break point make the Smokin' Inferno White Pin a good match-up for medium to medium-dry lane conditions.

If you were one of the many bowlers who loved the original Smokin' Inferno but wanted a little more length with a stronger backend reaction the Smokin' Inferno White Pin is just what you've been looking for

And then the Special Agent Pro Pin (which is a trademark by the way)

STORM's "PRO PIN" technology is taking layouts and ball reaction to the extreme. Once only used on the PBA Tour for condition specific drillings, these balls are now being made available in limited quantities to the general bowling public.

Why? As the requests, requirements, and styles of today's bowler changes to address new lane conditions and patterns, STORM is answering by providing and packaging these items separately from the standard first run items due to their unique nature and value.

Every company will have 2nds and blems from time to time. The problem, in my opinion, comes when you have a 2nd run ball and play it up to the consumer like its the hottest thing since sunburn.... You can't polish a turd.
--------------------
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!

102101 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 07, 2007, 01:58:03 PM »

Either way they are both 2nds
--------------------
102101? Hmmmm
Having a closed mind is a terrible way to go through life.
www.blackhawklanes.com

Xfest · « **Reply #20 on:** April 07, 2007, 02:06:58 PM »

If you consider Pro Pins as seconds, go ahead. But it basically is the same ball produced, with a longer pin to cg point, and however you drill the ball is basically the same.

I call a second when the ball is a different color, mis marked/labeled/different coverstock, etc.

Pro Pins allow bowlers who are fairly into the game and know what they are doing to find the reaction they are looking for. Also, it causes some fun in coming up with a trick layout, and what to use the ball for. To me, pro pins make the game a whole lot more interesting.
--------------------
"Ey, Yo Crank! What ball was that?"
Hammer No Mercy Storm Special Agent
Ebonite WhirlWind Brunswick Spare
It's all about those Benjamins, Baby!

102101 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 07, 2007, 02:16:36 PM »

Your right ThaCrank I just was making a response about brunsnick's comments
--------------------
102101? Hmmmm
Having a closed mind is a terrible way to go through life.
www.blackhawklanes.com

charlest · « **Reply #22 on:** April 07, 2007, 03:34:59 PM »

quote:
To Charlest, I think it matters a lot in fact. Why even find your PAP if it doesn't matter?

Hunh? Your PAP is not related ONLY to a low Rg core.

quote:

It's a big thing I think. It determines how the ball is going to rev.

No, it doesn't, not by itself; that is precisely my point. It only matters with respect to a high RG core WITHIN THE SAME COVERTSOCK< DRILLED THE SAME AND THROWN BY THE SAME BOWLER ON THE SAME OIL PATTERN!

quote:

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.

No! You're taking a core in isolation and you can't do that. Again, you can only compare cores when used inside the same cover, etc., etc., etc.

quote:

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.

No. I didn't even mention differential at all.

quote:

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?

No, you're making too many assumptions. I'm only saying that focusing on balls SOLELY based on how low the RG is laced with potential for failure.

quote:

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.

Again you're making assumptions. I don't know what ball you're talking about. You seem to have one in mind. But you can't assume. YOu have to know the ball's designed in reaction; then, based on your delivery specs and ball speed and lane surface and oil pattern, someone (you, driller, coach, etc.) has to decide how to drill this ball for your best ball reaction.

--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

charlest · « **Reply #23 on:** April 07, 2007, 03:40:06 PM »

quote:
quote:
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.

Actually it does make a difference in and of itself. If you take two balls with the same cover, one High RG mid diff core and one Low RG mid diff core, you are going to get two seperate reactions.

Lane1B0WLER,

Don't realize that you just contradicted yourself?
First you say the core makes THE difference, using my phrase, "in and of itself"; then you say take 2 cores with the same coverstock. You can't have the same coverstock if you're saying the core itself is THE difference.

What I'm saying is you can put the lower RG core in a weak coverstock and put the higher RG in a stronger scoverstock and the higgh RG core + the strong cover can go into a roll earlier than the Low RG core + the weak cover.

--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

laufaye · « **Reply #24 on:** April 07, 2007, 06:58:12 PM »

Next topic going to ask why Brunswick not putting a HIGH RG (2.80) LOW Diff (0.019) core with a High Octane cover. Just for the sake of asking why?

--------------------
Laufaye

NateNice · « **Reply #25 on:** April 07, 2007, 07:03:48 PM »

Well, we know Charlest doesn't make much sense.

Lane1Bowler said that the same ball with different RG's are going to react differently. I'm not sure how he contradicted himself.... He was just refuting what you said, which is in effect the RG doesn't matter in a ball. 99% of bowlers will clearly tell you it does.

I know what're trying to say. You're saying that just because a company doesn't have an ultra low RG ball doesn't mean they can't get the same reaction as another company that does, as they can make this up in coverstocks. This is true and false I believe.

The core determines how the coverstock is going to meat the lane. It's the engine that turns the ball around. So although you could put a stringer coverstock on a higher RG and get a similar effect as a low RG with a weaker coverstock, you'll run into problems.

The coverstock works as a function of revolutions and friction. The core doesn't.

So, to get the same hook with a stronger coverstock, you're going to lose mroe energy. Friction is what moves the ball as the coverstock comes into contact with the lane surface. It should follow that the ball loses velocity and thus momentum (power) symmetrically with how much friction it generates.

A very low RG ball will rotate faster and more with the same amount of force applied to it as a high RG ball. Once agin, consult your physics book. The ball will rotate forever in a vacuum. The only thing slowing it down is the surface of the ball coming into contact with the lane.

So a low RG ball with a weaker coverstock will slide more on less oil and make a bigger move in the backend. A more heavy duty coverstock on a higher RG core will make a move earlier. But it pays for this by losing power.

The idea is to get as much hook as needed to create an ideal angle and retain as much energy in the ball as possible at pin contact.

This is why I prefer peralized balls with a lower RG's. I want a ball from Brunswick, as I like their stuff, that an RG bordering on the lower limits so I don't have to use as strong a coverstock. In theory this ball will slide longer and produce a more skid/snap reaction. It should also, in theory have more power left for the pins.

I guess that's what I'm looking for. I want to be able to drill them to skid, then rev hard and peak as they hit the breakpoint. This saves more energy to make the backend move and to hit the pins with.

RSalas · « **Reply #26 on:** April 07, 2007, 07:24:00 PM »

You realize, of course, that the difference between the low RG of 2.451 in the Total Inferno and the USBC minimum is *two one-hundredths of an inch?*

Using physics, can you actually *quantify* the difference in reaction between two balls with the same cover and a 0.021" difference in RG?

And are you really consistent enough in your shotmaking to where you could notice this difference when you bowl?

This is starting to sound like the CG argument all over again...
--------------------
...formerly "The Curse of Dusty," and "PoÃ¶ter BoÃ¶f" before that...

charlest · « **Reply #27 on:** April 07, 2007, 08:05:47 PM »

quote:
Well, we know Charlest doesn't make much sense.

Lane1Bowler said that the same ball with different RG's are going to react differently. I'm not sure how he contradicted himself....

The RG's size makes no difference alone. Only when it is used with a matching coverstock can it make a difference. He said it makes a difference by itself. It doesn't. Only the core + the cover make a difference. I tried to show that by stating a high RG core with a strong cover will roll earlier than ayour infamous LOW RG core with a weak coverstock, but you chose to ignore that.

If you don't read and listen, what difference does anything I say make.

If you've already made up your mind, whiy discuss it at all?

quote:

He was just refuting what you said, which is in effect the RG doesn't matter in a ball. 99% of bowlers will clearly tell you it does.

Agaian, it only makes a difference under the circumstances that I already explained.

If you give 99% of the bowlers to whom you are referring, a ball and tell them it works SOLELY because it has a lower RG than than some other ball, maybe they'll believe you and maybe they'll ask about that other ball and what other factors are involved: Cover, surface, drill, bowler, lane surface, oil pattern ...

[quote
I know what're trying to say. You're saying that just because a company doesn't have an ultra low RG ball doesn't mean they can't get the same reaction as another company that does, as they can make this up in coverstocks. This is true and false I believe.

The core determines how the coverstock is going to meat the lane. It's the engine that turns the ball around. So although you could put a stronger coverstock on a higher RG and get a similar effect as a low RG with a weaker coverstock, you'll run into problems.

The coverstock works as a function of revolutions and friction. The core doesn't.

So, to get the same hook with a stronger coverstock, you're going to lose mroe energy. Friction is what moves the ball as the coverstock comes into contact with the lane surface. It should follow that the ball loses velocity and thus momentum (power) symmetrically with how much friction it generates.

A very low RG ball will rotate faster and more with the same amount of force applied to it as a high RG ball. Once agin, consult your physics book. The ball will rotate forever in a vacuum. The only thing slowing it down is the surface of the ball coming into contact with the lane.

So a low RG ball with a weaker coverstock will slide more on less oil and make a bigger move in the backend. A more heavy duty coverstock on a higher RG core will make a move earlier. But it pays for this by losing power.

Maybe yes, and maybe no. It all depends on the coverstock AND, as you seem to be saying and seeing what I am saying, it depends on the match up between coverstock and core.

quote:

A more heavy duty coverstock on a higher RG core will make a move earlier. But it pays for this by losing power.
[/quote]

Again, not necessarily true, Again, you're making assumptions.
The matchup of core and cover is one factor in governing the energy retention of any particular ball.

--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Steven · « **Reply #28 on:** April 07, 2007, 10:20:37 PM »

quote:
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.

This whole thread has gone off in too many directions. And statements like those above are misleading with respect to what low-RG balls are about.

Of course cover matters, but the core/drill largely dictates the shape of the hook. In general, lower-RG equipment has more midlane and less backend; in other words, a more controlled reaction. It doesn't necessarily mean 'burnout' on the backend if you have a good release on the right condition. That's what makes a ball like the low-RG Uranium (Brunswick based strong reactive cover) such a versatile ball across more conditions than your backend heavy monsters.

--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

a_ak57 · « **Reply #29 on:** April 07, 2007, 10:38:26 PM »

From charlest's original post, I took it that all he was saying was that you shouldn't discount a ball because of it's RG; other things such as cover are very important too. Apparently some of you took that to mean he's saying RG isn't important, but I believe all he meant was that you can't just look at a ball's RG numbers and know it it will work for you. Core to cover match-up is FAR more important, because as charlest had said, you don't buy a ball (individual parts, i.e. cover or core) you buy a ball reaction. Just because you loved Ball X with an RG of 2.46, it doesn't mean you'll love Ball A with an RG of 2.46, because even though Ball Z has an RG of 2.5 the cover matches up to it to provide a similar reaction to beloved Ball X, while Ball A has a coverstock that makes it perform differently.

Then again, I wouldn't listen to me as I'm kind of a massive idiot.
--------------------
- Andy

NateNice · « **Reply #30 on:** April 08, 2007, 02:58:26 AM »

quote:
From charlest's original post, I took it that all he was saying was that you shouldn't discount a ball because of it's RG; other things such as cover are very important too. Apparently some of you took that to mean he's saying RG isn't important, but I believe all he meant was that you can't just look at a ball's RG numbers and know it it will work for you. Core to cover match-up is FAR more important, because as charlest had said, you don't buy a ball (individual parts, i.e. cover or core) you buy a ball reaction. Just because you loved Ball X with an RG of 2.46, it doesn't mean you'll love Ball A with an RG of 2.46, because even though Ball Z has an RG of 2.5 the cover matches up to it to provide a similar reaction to beloved Ball X, while Ball A has a coverstock that makes it perform differently.

Then again, I wouldn't listen to me as I'm kind of a massive idiot.
--------------------
- Andy

You're probably right in that's what he meant. I couldn't originally comprehend that because I felt this conversation would be well beyond stating that a coverstock/core matchup is really what you're looking for. I mean, who would argue with that? Of course that's the final product.

What I was discussing, and I think missed by some potentially, is a low RG ball with a weaker (but still biteable)coverstock. Why? Because as I stated, the core is only slowed by the coverstock. A core will rotate for ever unless a negative force is applied. In this case, friction from the coverstock. Without as much friction the ball will skid and rotate without losing nearly as much power. There's nothing taking much power away besides air resistance and minimal lane resistance. Compared to a high traction coverstock anyways, which is burning rotational energy to gain traction.

What I'm suggesting is an ultra low RG ball that hooks more than any higher RG ball because with the same force applied to the ball by the bowler, a low RG ball is going to rev more. So the idea is to allow it to rev more and freely in the oil, but begin a flare and start to grab in the backend.

Some others suggested using a heavier coverstock to compensate, but I clearly stated why this might be an inferior design. (power loss.)

I can't do this, besides maybe the Total Inferno, right now with Brunswick equipment. Or can I? I have a Fury drilled strong, which was probably a bad idea. I should probably but the pin higher to get more length out of it. But I haven't got to use it on a PBA/Sport.Tournament pattern yet where it's really flooded.

I guess I'm looking for suggestions. This is the method that seems to make sense to myself.

Probably try it out with a Total. Pin high for some length and not drilled 3 3/8. I want the ball to retain as much energy for the backend as possible so the coverstock can grip more and the pins will fall harder.

Any way to get later flare? That is, an even roll but a flare that begin later down the lane, exclusively?

Author Topic: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment? (Read 7091 times)

NateNice

Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

TheDude

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

102101

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

BrunsNick

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

102101

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

Xfest

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

102101

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

charlest

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

charlest

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

laufaye

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

NateNice

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

RSalas

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

charlest

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

Steven

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

a_ak57

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?

NateNice

Re: Why A Lack Of Ultra Low RG Equipment?