BallReviews
General Category => Drilling & Layouts => Topic started by: Brickguy221 on October 01, 2015, 10:18:22 PM
-
Here are 2 different descriptions for drilling Gradient Line Balance Holes and they are different.
Which one is supposed to be the correct one?
http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/images/c/c6/GradientLine.pdf
http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/images/4/4a/Gradient_Line_Hand_Out.pdf
__________________
-
I think the first link is for the original theory and the second was the revised version because I remember seeing both before but the second one lately on Radical drill sheets.
-
MI 2 AZ is correct.
The second one is the version currently adhered to.
-
I think the first link is for the original theory and the second was the revised version because I remember seeing both before but the second one lately on Radical drill sheets.
D*mn, I never knew about the second one (newer one) until a couple of days ago when I came across it by accident, so it appears I have been having my drillers putting my P3 holes in the wrong place all of this time.... sigh ... >:(
-
I don't think I would let it bother me too much. The data in the first link is still applicable and correct, it just doesn't reflect the up the VAL coordinates that allow for the flare decreasing hole placement.
In many practical applications, there won't be a ton of difference in where the old P3 coordinates were VS where the new P3 coordinates would be.
On the old system, having a P3 would put it 2/3 the distance from your pap to the psa, and with a 6in measurement there, would put it 4in from your pap, while the new system would put it 3in from your pap.
Smaller pap to psa differences would mean smaller differences in the hole placement. Most balls are drilled with about a 4in measurement there, and would result in the hole only being off by approximately 2/3 in.
The P3 is still a flare increasing hole in either system, it is just that system #2 allows for a flare decreasing hole up the VAL, while system #1 didn't.
-
I think they did some blueprint and CAD analysis and found the second version to be more accurate. That is my distant memory from a thread on BowlingChat.
-
With my being 78 and "not much hand", I like my hole placed where it will give me the most flare and differential, especially on low differential balls.
-
I think the first link is for the original theory and the second was the revised version because I remember seeing both before but the second one lately on Radical drill sheets.
D*mn, I never knew about the second one (newer one) until a couple of days ago when I came across it by accident, so it appears I have been having my drillers putting my P3 holes in the wrong place all of this time.... sigh ... >:(
I would have thought that your drillers would have known exactly where to place your P3 hole. But, in the real world, it seems finding capable drillers is a difficult task - I know from experience.
-
I would have thought that your drillers would have known exactly where to place your P3 hole. But, in the real world, it seems finding capable drillers is a difficult task - I know from experience.
There is a shortage of knowledgeable drillers here in the OKC area. A driller I used off and on for quite some time puts the hole on people's balls by drawing a line from center of grip thru cg and down x inches and drills the hole. The one I used the past 1 1/2 to 2 years put the P1 hole on the pap and then drew a line from the pap to the psa, then divided that distance by 3 and x 2 for a P3 hole. A third driller put the hole where I told him to and of coarse I used the old method to tell him where to put it.
In reality though, with my inconsistency and not that great of accuracy any more, I seriously doubt the difference of a P3 hole by old method and new method makes that much difference, but I could be wrong here.
-
The "old" system would put the P3 hole 2/3 the distance from the pap to the psa. The "new" system puts the P3 1/2 way between the pap and the psa.
Change them into fractions with common denominators: 2/3=4/6 and 1/2=3/6
That means there is only 1/6 of the pap to psa difference in the location of the hole. If the distance is 3in, the difference in placement is only 1/2in. If the distance is 4in, the difference is only 2/3in.
Will that make some difference? Sure, but I don't think even Mo Pinel would sweat over moving a weighthole 1/2 inch. He even recommends moving it a bit to keep it in flare safe positions in many instances, so I don't think that MINOR differences are that critical.
In the "old" system, you ended up with the hole closer to the psa anyway (2/3 the distance from pap to psa) and if I understand correctly, the closer the hole is to the psa, the stronger the psa effect gets, so using the old system might be giving you slightly stronger weighthole positions in the first place. If you want them "maxed out", you are probably pretty close.
-
Here's the Bowlingchat thread where this is talked about back when the new guidelines came out.
http://forum.bowlingchat.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2454 (http://forum.bowlingchat.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2454)