BallReviews

General Category => Drilling & Layouts => Topic started by: Dave81644 on January 01, 2015, 04:22:28 PM

Title: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: Dave81644 on January 01, 2015, 04:22:28 PM
all things being equal
weight, surface, etc
for arguments sake, it will a new symmetrical piece with 2000 OBB finish
layout 1 55x5x50 - which puts the pin in my middle finger

layout 2 - 75x5x25 - pin above ring finger

how much added length can i expect to see from #2
on a normal THS pattern
1' or 2' or?

Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: JohnP on January 01, 2015, 05:01:09 PM
None.  The drill angle for a symmetrical ball is used only to position the cg for use of a balance hole or for USBC static weight legality.  After drilling, the psa for a symmetrical ball will always be located close to the thumb hole.  So the distance to the first transition will be the same, but the response to friction at the end of the pattern will be quicker.  --  JohnP
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: Dave81644 on January 01, 2015, 05:13:19 PM
im a bit confused by this, wont a higher pin give additional length?
i do understand the quicker response to friction part of the layout
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: tdub36tjt on January 01, 2015, 05:32:17 PM
The 2nd layout should read the lane faster. The difference will be minimal tho. Doubt you can even see the difference on a ths.....Higher pins don't add length. Higher pins make the ball transition faster through the hook phase of ball motion. This will create a sharper move while the lower pin will be slower and more gradual....
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: kidlost2000 on January 01, 2015, 08:51:43 PM
Will also depend on the balls core and how much higher the pin is in one layout vs the other. As mentioned the affects may be minimal to none. If it has a scoop core even less lol.

The pin to pap is the more important factor along with ball surface. Also as mentioned the drill angle on symmetric balls means nothing other then where the cg may end up.

I've seen Mo and others give layout suggestions that puts the pin in the fingers and they suggest moving it up or down enough to drill safely or just drill it out.
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: JustRico on January 01, 2015, 09:17:03 PM
Pin to pap dictates potential flare
Pin height has a very minimal effect on overall reaction if any at all...if you place a pin say 2" above the finger holes and 2" below the finger holes, you may see a total of a board at the me of the lane but very minimal
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: Dave81644 on January 01, 2015, 10:21:51 PM
i had thought the drill angle dictated length
this current layout is 55 degrees and pin in middle finger
the new layout would be 75 degrees and the pin approx 1.5 - 1.75" above ring finger

i know i can adjust the surface to create a bit more length if need be, im just focusing on the difference in the layouts.
this is one fo those pieces, for me, that i would want to have more than 1 of in my bag.
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: JustRico on January 01, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
Quit believing their is some magic drill angle or voodoo
The pin to PAP distance dictates the potential amount of flare
Surface dictates how where & when the bowling ball slows down and then the flare effects the reaction
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: northface28 on January 01, 2015, 10:31:44 PM
Quit believing their is some magic drill angle or voodoo
The pin to PAP distance dictates the potential amount of flare
Surface dictates how where & when the bowling ball slows down and then the flare effects the reaction

Well said.
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: Dave81644 on January 02, 2015, 08:21:21 AM
Appreciate the feedback, im learning about this as well
i have never thought there was a magic anything when it comes to layouts
i understand that surface is the primary influence in ball motion
the answers above are the reason I like to post and read on this site, good stuff
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: JohnP on January 02, 2015, 05:25:45 PM
Quote
i had thought the drill angle dictated length

Correct, the drill angle after drilling does affect the length.  But for a symmetrical ball, after drilling, the psa will always be near the thumb hole so both drill angles will be the same (the angle between the psa, the pin, and the PAP) .  For asymmetric balls the psa after drilling stays very near where it was before drilling, so the post drilling angle is the same as when it was laid out.  --  JohnP
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: JustRico on January 02, 2015, 05:32:49 PM
Length is dictated by surface
Pin to PAP dictate potential flare
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: scotts33 on January 02, 2015, 05:34:13 PM
For those that would like to see an image of how much the drilling angle changes when a gradient line x hole is added and spun on a DeTerminator.  Symmetrical AMF Bullwhip SE 14 lb. 2.54 .051 PSA in thumb P2 then added PSA right of thumb changes drilling angle from 80* to 63* VAL angle stays the same.

(https://www.ballreviews.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi132.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq29%2Fscotts33%2FBowling%2520Equipment%2FAMFBullwhipSE_zpsdadb36a1.jpg&hash=c8f12e6102e07e2411b4eb964ba49b4d243abca0)
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: kidlost2000 on January 02, 2015, 05:41:46 PM
High rg axis moves towards holes, low rg axis moves away from them.
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: charlest on January 02, 2015, 06:50:50 PM
Quote
i had thought the drill angle dictated length

Correct, the drill angle after drilling does affect the length.  But for a symmetrical ball, after drilling, the psa will always be near the thumb hole so both drill angles will be the same (the angle between the psa, the pin, and the PAP) .  For asymmetric balls the psa after drilling stays very near where it was before drilling, so the post drilling angle is the same as when it was laid out.  --  JohnP

Drill angle does not "DICTATE" length. It never did.
It is one potential factor in drilling that can affect length to some degree.
The pin-PAP distance also affects length.
Surface has a much greater effect on length.
The bowler's delivery has a large effect on length.
The oil amount AND the friction of the lane surface also affects length.
Drill angle is pretty far down the list of factors having a significant effect on ball length.
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: Dave81644 on January 02, 2015, 11:45:45 PM
great stuff, thanks to all who take the time to answer
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: JohnP on January 03, 2015, 08:37:45 PM
Charlest, everything you said is true.  However, I was replying to the original conditions posted:

Quote
all things being equal
weight, surface, etc for arguments sake, it will a new symmetrical piece with 2000 OBB finish
layout 1 55x5x50 - which puts the pin in my middle finger

layout 2 - 75x5x25 - pin above ring finger

how much added length can i expect to see from #2
on a normal THS pattern
1' or 2' or?

The OP seemed to be interested in the factors that influence ball reaction according to the dual angle layout procedure, so that's all I addressed.  --  JohnP
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: JustRico on January 03, 2015, 08:58:07 PM
This is the problem with this type of voodoo or BS....the layout does NOT create length...it affects the flare and it's potential...surface dictates length and the core effects reaction after it's slowed down...more flare creates more traction and less minimizes...plain & simple
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: charlest on January 03, 2015, 09:05:08 PM
Charlest, everything you said is true.  However, I was replying to the original conditions posted:

Quote
all things being equal
weight, surface, etc for arguments sake, it will a new symmetrical piece with 2000 OBB finish
layout 1 55x5x50 - which puts the pin in my middle finger

layout 2 - 75x5x25 - pin above ring finger

how much added length can i expect to see from #2
on a normal THS pattern
1' or 2' or?

The OP seemed to be interested in the factors that influence ball reaction according to the dual angle layout procedure, so that's all I addressed.  --  JohnP

Sorry for the confusion, John, I wasn't directing my comments at you, but embellishing your comments to Dave81644, who said "Drill angle DICTATED length."

I wanted to make it clear that the Drill angle was only one small factor involved.
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: tdub36tjt on January 03, 2015, 09:20:55 PM
This is the problem with this type of voodoo or BS....the layout does NOT create length...it affects the flare and it's potential...surface dictates length and the core effects reaction after it's slowed down...more flare creates more traction and less minimizes...plain & simple
[/quot
This is the problem with this type of voodoo or BS....the layout does NOT create length...it affects the flare and it's potential...surface dictates length and the core effects reaction after it's slowed down...more flare creates more traction and less minimizes...plain & simple

The VAL angle also effects flare. Having a bigger VAL angle decreases the differential thus decreasing flare. But I agree the surface and strength of the cover are far bigger factors in ball reaction.
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: Dave81644 on January 03, 2015, 10:47:03 PM
that's actually something i read from Mo a while back on his dual angle layout instructions
A bit of a light bulb went on during all this, i have been to several seminars from some great folks in the industry and every one fo them talks about surface being the most important influence on ball motion, you guys just re-affirmed what i had heard a while ago.

with bowling being a hobby, I don't always remember these details like you guys do,
thanks again
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: JustRico on January 03, 2015, 10:52:11 PM
Surface is the easiest controller of ball reaction
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: bergman on January 04, 2015, 10:51:07 AM
Ball surface is the biggest factor in creating a specific ball motion but layout indeed will create more length too. A larger drilling angle will absolutely do that.
In this case, layout # 2 will create more length in the same ball/core/surface.
Far from being a "voodoo" concept. Mo Pinel was one of the very best when it comes to ball drillings and he is well respected in the business.
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: kidlost2000 on January 04, 2015, 11:05:56 AM
How are you going to make the drilling angle larger on a symmetric core ball? No matter where you set the drill angle the actual end results of the PSA will be in the ball park of the thumb. (draw a line from the pin 6 3/4" through the thumb hole and the psa will be in the ball park after drilling)

The only difference between layout #1 and #2 are the Val angle and the ending location of the cg. The drill angle for both will be almost identical unless a weight hole is added. The weight hole will only move the PSA a small amount changing the drill angle maybe a 1/4" to 1/2" which is making the drill angle smaller.
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: Dave81644 on January 07, 2015, 07:30:01 AM
Follow up: i ended up drilling a 2nd gamebreaker2 with the layout as described earlier in this thread, knowing full well what i could expect
i put a fresh 3000 on both pieces
from my eye, the pin up layout is about 1 foot longer and a much quicker response to the friction. the pin in middle finger layout reads sooner and is a bit more of a slower arcing continuous motion.
the differences aren't major, but the estimated extra length s what i was hoping for.
i will probably put the pin in finger back to 2000 and take the higher pin to 4000 or 1000 + polish so i can carry both in my bag
thanks again for the insight
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: itsallaboutme on January 07, 2015, 09:00:42 AM
a foot?  Really. 

That is right up there in entertainment value with the guy in the pro shop that insisted  he would be able to tell a difference if his 5/8 inch weight hole was pitched 3/4" instead of 1".
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: JustRico on January 07, 2015, 09:09:02 AM
^^^^^B I N G O^^^^^
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: Impending Doom on January 07, 2015, 09:13:42 AM
Couldn't these changes in ball roll be made with hand position changes?
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: JustRico on January 07, 2015, 09:19:33 AM
Ya know this is really close but I need like one more foot out of it...move your feet
Title: Re: expected difference between these 2 layouts
Post by: itsallaboutme on January 07, 2015, 10:03:45 AM
I just want to meet the person who's rev rate and left/right miss variance is small enough to see a 1 foot difference in ball reaction, especially when watching their own ball reaction from the foul line.