win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: The 14lb. question  (Read 4116 times)

Hand of God

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
The 14lb. question
« on: June 26, 2006, 03:28:55 PM »
I have been hearing that LM/L 14lb balls lack the power of a 16 or 15 lb core.
Is this true?
Are 14lb LM/L balls always gonna be Higher RG?

Or did LM/L make all 3 weights very similar? and thus worth buying?
Logged

 

Brickguy221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9918
Re: The 14lb. question
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2006, 11:55:32 PM »
The rumor has it that L/LM reduces the weight of their balls by reducing the weight of the core because having solid cover stocks all the way to the core, there is no other way to reduce the weight. In other words, the core in a 14# bll weighs 2# less than the core in a 16# ball.

I E-mailed Galen about this last week and to date I have not received a response. If he answers, I'll post his response in the L/LM Forum for all to see. If he doesn't, then I would advise to stay away from their 14# balls.

--------------------
Brick
Logged
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away"

wick3d

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
Re: The 14lb. question
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2006, 12:27:31 AM »
i dunno about that but Galen will give you the sure answer....im using the buzz and the new standard in 14 and i dont have a problem with power/carry...now im just guessing "lack of power" means ur talking about how the ball carries?
Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24523
Re: The 14lb. question
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2006, 09:02:11 AM »
quote:
I have been hearing that LM/L 14lb balls lack the power of a 16 or 15 lb core.
Is this true?
Are 14lb LM/L balls always gonna be Higher RG?

Or did LM/L make all 3 weights very similar? and thus worth buying?


This is getting nauseating now; kind of like a bad politician trying to hit below the belt one too many times. Call and ask the people who make them instead of trying to start a smear campaign.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7605
Re: The 14lb. question
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2006, 09:23:33 AM »
quote:

14lbs is 14lbs.  Once the coverstock gets hard,the ball becomes one solid 14lb object.



Just some general thoughts... If you look at the object's weight, that's correct.It is also of no matter as long as you look at a ball statically. Things change when the ball rolls. then the mass distribution through the core comes into play, and the a 14 lbs. pancake block makes a huge difference to a center-heavy ultra-low RG core.

I cannot tell how strong the RG difference influence between a 14 and 15 lbs. ball might be, but shifting the weight into the core (given the solid coverstock material without a filler with a different density to compensate is the same for any ball) should IMHO make noticeable difference in ball reaction, and probably (but to a minor degree) pin carry. The lower the weight, the higher the RG must become and the less the ball will rev up in the back end.
--------------------

DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany
UPDATED, NEW DESIGN & ENGLISH --- Team "X" website & more about me: http://web.mac.com/timlinked/iWeb/X/Thomas.html
"All that we see or seem, is but a dream within a dream..." - Edgar Allen Poe
Logged
DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany

Brickguy221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9918
Re: The 14lb. question
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2006, 10:26:03 AM »
To me, Bowling 300 900's explaination makes no sense at all, whereas dizzyfugu's makes a lot of sense.

 
quote:
This is getting nauseating now; kind of like a bad politician trying to hit below the belt one too many times. Call and ask the people who make them instead of trying to start a smear campaign.
 


The way I read it, Hand of God wasn't trying to start a smear campaign, he was asking a simple question. Thats one of the the purposes of having this Ball Reviews site.

As for someone calling and asking them, I posted that I E-mailed them last week about this and to date haven't received an answer. I also said I would post their response if/when they answer my E-mail. Nothing has been posted under this topic yet, for anyone to get all bent out of shape.

--------------------
Brick
Logged
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away"

Brickguy221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9918
Re: The 14lb. question
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2006, 10:54:53 AM »
quote:
The size and shape of the core effects preformance more than the overall weight of the core.
 


As you say, the size and shape of the core......Now, if they reduce the weight of the ball by reducing the weight of the core, did they reduce the size and shape, or leave it the same and just hollow the core out a bit? If they reduced the size to reduce the weight, then it is going to change the performance.

--------------------
Brick
Logged
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away"

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: The 14lb. question
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2006, 11:01:27 AM »
If the core has no weight(higher density than the cover), it has no effect..!! Size and shape mean nothing if there's no density involved.

What makes a core a core, is because it's more dense than the rest of the ball.  
quote:
There comes a point where the mass of the core is at it's max and it does not matter how much heaver it is.
This is totally untrue. The denser the core, the more effect it has on the ball.

If 14lbs. was the maximum threshold for LM cores, then a 13lb. ball and/or 12 lb. could be made, becasue taking 1 or 2 lbs. out of the core wouldn't wouldn't be a big deal. But we all know that's not the case. =:^D




Edited on 7/4/2006 1:19 PM
Logged

Brickguy221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9918
Re: The 14lb. question
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2006, 11:06:54 AM »
quote:
Every core is going to have a threshold on it's strength vs. it's size. I don't work form Legends so I don't know what they have tested, but it's possiable that the reduced weight core is already at it's max preformance size in a 14lb ball.
 


Basically, what has brought this 14# thing out in the L/LM line is that there have been reports of their 14# balls not performing as well as 14# balls in other Manufacturers balls. I have heard it from other people, these same people have heard it from others and I have seen indication of this myself where I bowl, so whether it is the cores or what I don't know what causes it. I never did say it was the cores, only that it was rumored thats what it was.

--------------------
Brick

Edited on 6/27/2006 11:04 AM
Logged
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away"

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: The 14lb. question
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2006, 11:12:49 AM »
quote:
Do you think the preformace would increase if you put 2lbs back into the insides, and made the coverstock 2lbs lighter?
Yes, you would be lowering the RG of the ball. This will have an effect on the way it rolls. =:^D
Logged

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: The 14lb. question
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2006, 11:18:37 AM »
quote:
There comes a point where the poundage of the core does not matter to preformance. What poundage that is? Legends must know if they chose to reduce the weight by taking it out of the core.
Every other manufacturer used to manufacture balls like this, but all of them switched to wrapping the cores with lighter materials. They know this is better, keeping the density of the core.

Lane Masters doesn't do this because they can't and/or won't because they don't know how. If they could, they would be making lighter weight balls with real cores inside. =:^D
Logged

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: The 14lb. question
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2006, 11:26:37 AM »
quote:
How much does a weight shift from cover stock to core effect the ball do you think % wide.
The RG's get down to the 2.45 range instead of 2.65 where LM is at or about. That's quite a bit of difference. =:^D
Logged

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: The 14lb. question
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2006, 11:37:35 AM »
I haven't seen RG and Diff numbers of all of the weights(14-15-16) and how they change. It would be nice if LM posted these numbers.

The higher the RG, the more they will "poop" on heavier and or longer oils, and/or on "off hits".

It's like having a 3-piece (pancake core) ball compared to a high density 2-piece core ball. The 2-piece will work better on heavier oil. =:^D

Edited on 6/27/2006 11:34 AM
Logged

Brickguy221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9918
Re: The 14lb. question
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2006, 12:07:50 PM »
quote:
It's possiable the overall specs of the ball don't allow this ball to work well in 14lbs.


Exactly my point. Thats what a lot of people are saying is that the 14# balls don't work well. I have seen it myself.


--------------------
Brick
Logged
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away"

Brickguy221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9918
Re: The 14lb. question
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2006, 12:16:38 PM »
quote:
some blame for the bowlers not using it on the right type of lane conditions.


It's possible in some cases, but I have seen the failure in all types of conditions with L/LM 14# balls, so I feel it is more the 14# ball more than the bowlers. Especially when bowlers bowling on the same lanes with the same balls in 15# & 16# L/LM do well while the 14# L/LM balls struggle. For what ever it's worth, from what I have seen, L/LM has great balls that will stand up to and match other Manufacturers balls in 15# & 16# balls, but not 14# balls.

--------------------
Brick
Logged
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away"
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »