Author Topic: How is this possible? About the Detour (Read 5016 times)

Ric Clint · « **on:** July 27, 2004, 01:39:45 PM »

Please check ling below for another post on some similar stuff:

http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?CategoryID=5&ForumID=16&TopicID=59040

"Bowling This Month" gave the DETOUR like 16 on Backend rating!! The most they've ever given! Columbia lists the 16lb Detour as having an RG of 2.488 and Differential of 0.037 and the 15lb having 2.521 and 0.037 ... with this low of an RG, how can this ball store up energy and is a Differential of only .037 really enough to get this ball to turn over hard on the backend?

And the WIRED, is suppose to be a strong backending ball... but the RG is 2.46 !!! How is this ball going to store energy? It's got a good Differential of .046 and that helps... but the RG is very low.

In the link above to another post, a guy says (by the name of DP3), "Numbers don't mean as much as they used to. Core Shape dictates motion, don't forget that."

So does that hold true here with the DETOUR and WIRED to???

jensm · « **Reply #1 on:** July 28, 2004, 07:39:21 AM »

Although I agree that this is confusing I guess that BTM could have based a high backend rating for the Detour on factors like these:

* The coverstock is SuperFlex, which is known to slide well in oil and grip well on the dry.

* With its relatively low differential of 0.037, the Detour flares the most where it is needed the most, in the backend.

I haven't seen the BTM review of the Detour myself. Did it get the same kind of rating from the stroker, the tweener and the cranker?

--------------------
Regards,

jensm

charlest · « **Reply #2 on:** July 28, 2004, 08:00:15 AM »

This is worth repeating, to my mind. (Sorry it it offends anyone.)

Stop looking at only the core's specifications in order to see what a ball is capable of doing!

The coverstock's effect, in general, on a ball's reaction is approximately 2.5 times as great as the core's effect, if only those 2 factors are taken into account. The bowler's release and the oil pattern/amount/lane surface all have much greater effect on the entire picture. That is why some people can use a particular ball on only medium light oil patterns, while others can't use it on anything less than medium-heavy. There is a HUGE difference between medium-light and medium-heavy.

{I now step off the podium.

}

--------------------
"We get old too fast, and too late, smart."

Jeffrevs · « **Reply #3 on:** July 28, 2004, 08:18:51 AM »

I responded to Ric's post in the Misc section on this too.

charlest, once again, bingo, and thanks for helping me understand this too, because I once had a very similar question on a different ball.

I used to concentrate too much on the numbers, and that is what "can" get you in trouble.

I understand where Ric is coming from though...IF you focus too much on RG numbers....

another example of this is the Roto Silver Streak Pearl...2.52 but considered a flippy ball......
--------------------
JEFF
There is doing in not doing

jensm · « **Reply #4 on:** July 28, 2004, 08:58:00 AM »

One useful feature in Chip Zielke's book Revolutions 2 is a small table ranking the key technical elements of bowling balls and their influence on ball reaction. It goes something like this:

1. Coverstock/Surface Prep 65-70%
2. Weight Block/Core Design 15-20%
3. Dynamic Balance 10-15%
4. Balance Holes 0-5%
5. Mass Bias 0-5%
6. Static Weights 0-5%

This table is useful since it kind of tells you what to focus on in bowling
balls.

--------------------
Regards,

jensm

LuckyLefty · « **Reply #5 on:** July 28, 2004, 12:21:29 PM »

Again compare compare shape too.

Look at the Detour core it is narrow in middle which means not much of a midlane ball. Also this ball can be drilled real strong and get medium to not a ton of midlane and then have a lot left for the backend. Based on core shape.

Look at the wired a little more midlane and lower rg this ball is going to be a little more down the whole lane but then will flip due to the energy retention of the harder pearl coverstock compared to the solid softer cover detour!

REgards,

Luckylefty

charlest · « **Reply #6 on:** July 28, 2004, 01:22:29 PM »

Yes, I agree completely, cores can be more influential these days, with more knowledge and matching of cores and coverstock being much better accomplished today than "yesteryear". However, as a general rule of thumb, the average of 70%/30% is very good, accurate and very honest. The percentages can vary from 15% to as much as 40% or even 45% is some rare cases; still I must believe that the influence of the cover far outweighs that of the core/drilling, IN EVERY CASE.
--------------------
"We get old too fast, and too late, smart."

LuckyLefty · « **Reply #7 on:** July 28, 2004, 04:30:24 PM »

The higher percentage influence of the core is for strong axis rotation players or what I call Reaction Maximizers.

The higher percentage influence of the cover is for low axis rotation players (reaction minimizers a la Walter Ray).

REgards,

Luckylefty

mrbowlingnut · « **Reply #8 on:** July 28, 2004, 04:44:19 PM »

have all three columbia balls detour,wired,ego all drilled pin under ring finger cg kicked with weight holes all have a huge backend, so low rgs and good length even with these drillings. The wired and ego are very similar almost too close to see the difference in my case, the detour is actually longer and holds more until 45 ft area and then boom left. The detour is actually a pretty dull ball and you would think it be an earlier ball but i find it too be opposite, all great balls for from medium to light medium these are far from weak balls though. I would recommend any of these three balls but having all like me is just too much overlap, superflex and ufd coverstocks are winners and i will pickup a shock sometime in the future when the right price comes along-barry

Edited on 7/28/2004 4:43 PM

LuckyLefty · « **Reply #9 on:** July 28, 2004, 05:33:14 PM »

and I think what Mr. Bowlingnut says makes sense,
For the Detour,Stronger coverstock, higher rg, lower flare (but good flip blocks) and a narrower core in the center adds up to move length (even with more surface) less midlane and then a sharp break because of less midlane.

Makes sense to me.

REgards,

Luckylefty

Steven · « **Reply #10 on:** July 28, 2004, 06:09:51 PM »

quote:
I must believe that the influence of the cover far outweighs that of the core/drilling, IN EVERY CASE.

Assuming you have the correct cover match to the condition at hand, core/drilling in fact becomes the dominant factor in ball reaction.

Frankly, after my own experimentation, I've never bought into this 70(cover) / 30(core) nonsense. Over time for testing, I've purchased two each of the following model balls:

1) Ebonite Navy Stinger
2) Storm Thunder Flash Pro
3) Track Silencer

For each pair, I drilled one with a 1:30 setup, and the second with a 10:30 setup. Initially leaving each pair in box condition, the inherent hook shapes were distinctly different in every case. And more important, no amount of surface prep resulted in changing one to achieve the hook shape as the other.

So the conclusion was clear: To achieve the desired hook shape (priority #1), core/drill became the dominant factor. Thereafter, the role of surface prep became one of fine tuning reaction.

In rebuttal to this, some will say that none of this matters unless you match the right cover to the condition in the first place. That's all fine, but this first step is probably the easiest to get right -- frankly, a no-brainer in most cases. And even if you make a 'match mistake', most resin/particle surfaces are extremely versatile with respect to adjustments (sanding, polishing, etc.).
--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

charlest · « **Reply #11 on:** July 28, 2004, 07:36:02 PM »

quote:

Assuming you have the correct cover match to the condition at hand, core/drilling in fact becomes the dominant factor in ball reaction.

And that's what the cover is more important than the core by a large ratio implies. I'm glad we agree. Steven.

quote:

Frankly, after my own experimentation, I've never bought into this 70(cover) / 30(core) nonsense. Over time for testing, I've purchased two each of the following model balls:

1) Ebonite Navy Stinger
2) Storm Thunder Flash Pro
3) Track Silencer

For each pair, I drilled one with a 1:30 setup, and the second with a 10:30 setup. Initially leaving each pair in box condition, the inherent hook shapes were distinctly different in every case. And more important, no amount of surface prep resulted in changing one to achieve the hook shape as the other.

Nor should it. The cover of the ball was already in place as the major factor. Remember that changing the cover by sanding or polishing still only places the ball's ability within a certain range. Some coverstocks are more versatile than others; some are extremely limited. This i soften shown by people trying to polish a major oiler in order to use it on a medium or drier condition. This rarely works, although sometimes it does.

quote:

So the conclusion was clear: To achieve the desired hook shape (priority #1), core/drill became the dominant factor. Thereafter, the role of surface prep became one of fine tuning reaction.

Sounds reasonable. I agree.
--------------------
"We get old too fast, and too late, smart."

Steven · « **Reply #12 on:** July 28, 2004, 08:24:06 PM »

charlest: Maybe I have a problem with understanding the phrase "what's most important" when it comes to cover vs. core/drill.

In a pure sense, I do understand that cover is the most important aspect of ball reaction. However, there is a danger in focusing too much on cover, because I would argue that core/drill is the most critical decision to be made.

Let me give the Ebonite Savage sanded as example. The cover can handle everything from medium dry (2000 grit sand w/Control It) up to the flood of your choice (400 grit sand, no polish). I state this with some assurance because I've had the ball in both states and most everything in between. Currently, I have the ball at 400 grit sanded for the PBA Pattern 'B' (43 feet) that we're currently facing. For whatever reason, this Savage resin handles oil better than any particle ball I own -- go figure.

Anyway, while the state of the cover is important, all is not lost if I have it wrong -- I just alter it to what it should be! However, if I get the drill pattern wrong relative to my speed/release, I have a major problem. I can't run to the proshop for a plug/redrill every time I have the wrong hook shape (for obvious reasons).

So while cover is important, I would still argue it's not the most critical decision to be made. And that's the problem I have with too much focus on the 70/30 rule.

--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

charlest · « **Reply #13 on:** July 28, 2004, 09:56:52 PM »

Steven,

While I agree that the proper coverstock is a more simple choice to make than the proper drilling, which can get complex, it is still more important. If you make a mistake, often a cover change cannot make it right, which was one point I was making with the oiler example.

Yes, if you are in the right neighborhood of having the correct coverstock, then minor surface adjustments can make the ball react properly. Like, in your Savage example. If you bought the Pantera instead of the Savage for medium to medium-heavy oil pattern, then you'd probably still be in good shape.

But also, using your Savage example, I wonder if everyone can make the same use of it as you did. As I stated before, not every cover is that versatile. (Also, I am not a believer in taking a dull, sanded ball to a superfine 2000 grit and then polishing it up to use on 2 levels less oil than it was intended, UNLESS you made a big mistake, or were sold the wrong ball by your driller or some other serious cause preventing you from buying the right ball for that condition. Yes, sometimes there are balls and release that allow that, as your Savage allowed you to do.)

On the other hand:
"However, if I get the drill pattern wrong relative to my speed/release, I have a major problem. "
While other drill patterns may be better suited, if you have the right cover, something can almost always be done. The hook shape is not an essential for the vast majority of people. Actually, for extremes of very heavy oil to very light/dry conditions, I wonder just how important a drilling is, if at all.

As we get closer to the huge variety of medium conditions, I think we all get more and more fussy about the way we want the ball's path to look. For those of us more fussy, myself included, for those of us spoiled by excellent drillers, I think the right drill pattern on the wrong ball is worse than the wrong drill pattern on the right ball.

The 70/30 rule is just a generic label, a way to reference the ratio; I'd wonder if it's ever 70/30. It might be as low as 15/85 or it might be as high as 45/55, for some newer, very fussy balls. I think the bell curve has its effect here with more clustered around whatever is the true number.

As far as our discussion here, unless we tested a huge number of balls and a huge number of drillings, I think we each can site examples and we can say how we feel about the way balls and drillings have affected how we bowled. But I think, in the end, neither of us will have proof enough to satisfy the other. It just comes down to a feeling, after doing x number of drillings and Y number of surface changes. It may be one of those moot points we come across in bowling every so often.

--------------------
"We get old too fast, and too late, smart."

Steven · « **Reply #14 on:** July 29, 2004, 12:54:37 PM »

charlest: In many respects, debating cover vs. core/drill is a lot like debating religion and politics -- it's usually impossible to get agreement. We are both a little psycho about experimentation and evaluating results, so the process of going back an forth is is still interesting. Before finishing, I do have a few comments about some of your last statements:

quote:
While other drill patterns may be better suited, if you have the right cover, something can almost always be done.

On the contrary, there are many drills (such as stacked leverage) that give you few if any cover options for change. If you have a flippy drill pattern (and it's not working), you can't polish or sand your way out of the dilemma. You can certainly alter the cover to affect distance to breakpoint, but if the hook shape is wrong to achieve optimum carry, you're out of options.

quote:
The hook shape is not an essential for the vast majority of people.

If it's not, it should be. This is probably the subject for another topic, but I would argue that the right hook shape, in many cases, is the difference between a 205 and 220 THS average. I wish I had a dollar for everytime I hear someone blame the lanes for ringing another 10 pin. The problem usually isn't the lane or even the right cover match; they have the wrong hook shape, and consequently the wrong angle of entry for optimum carry.

quote:
Actually, for extremes of very heavy oil to very light/dry conditions, I wonder just how important a drilling is, if at all.

On the contrary, it's the extreme conditions where drilling becomes more of a factor. On a long PBA pattern, it's crucial how the ball reacts off the oil when it finally hits the dry. This is a primary reason why most PBA players use non aggressive drill patterns -- they want predictability in hook shape and overall reaction.

If you have any additional thoughts, I welcome them.

--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

Author Topic: How is this possible? About the Detour (Read 5016 times)

Ric Clint

How is this possible? About the Detour

jensm

Re: How is this possible? About the Detour

charlest

Re: How is this possible? About the Detour

Jeffrevs

Re: How is this possible? About the Detour

jensm

Re: How is this possible? About the Detour

LuckyLefty

Re: How is this possible? About the Detour

charlest

Re: How is this possible? About the Detour

LuckyLefty

Re: How is this possible? About the Detour

mrbowlingnut

Re: How is this possible? About the Detour

LuckyLefty

Re: How is this possible? About the Detour

Steven

Re: How is this possible? About the Detour

charlest

Re: How is this possible? About the Detour

Steven

Re: How is this possible? About the Detour

charlest

Re: How is this possible? About the Detour

Steven

Re: How is this possible? About the Detour