win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Core vs. No Core  (Read 11090 times)

  • Guest
Core vs. No Core
« on: February 01, 2009, 05:02:02 AM »
Debate this please. I want to know others opinions.

I have had the best carry, and the highest average with a Hammer Razyr.  I hit the pocket a lot more because this is a very predictable ball motion for me.

So, why is everyone still telling me I'm going to leave a lot of flat and ringing tens with this ball!  If I lay ANY ball in the pocket at a decent entry angle it is going to strike more times than not, so what is the big deal with these guys hooting and hollering about these super charged cores/covers when you can use just about any type of ball on a THS and have success?

I've even dulled up a Razyr to 1000 matt finish and can play on the sport patters with no issues of the ball getting back to the pocket.  Granted I need to play it more directly, but it still gets there and carries.

So again, what is the big deal with a core or no core?
--------------------
Up the boards baby!

 

Dan Belcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3954
Re: Core vs. No Core
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2009, 01:06:31 PM »
If you have no hand (like me), I would be leaving flat 10s all day long with a pancake core ball.  

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24523
Re: Core vs. No Core
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2009, 03:31:07 PM »
mbabjak1981,

Please realize that there has been no pancake core with as strong a cover as the Razyr has. In general, even resin pearls with a pancake core hit fairly poorly in comparison to regular cored resin balls UNLESS you have the oil pattern that allows it to have a strong backend or you have a higher than average rev rate together with a higher than average ball speed that allows that ball to retain more energy.

The Razyr changes all that. It is actually more of a medium oil ball, according to many reviews, ONLY because of the coverstock. As such, most of us will continue to avoid using pancake cores except for the Razyr.

So when you talk about the Razyr, you really can't include it in the set of all pancake cored balls. It doesn't raise the value of other pancake cored balls. In fact, it's more approriate to NOT include the Razyr with them, when you're talking about ball performance.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Edited on 2/1/2009 4:33 PM
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

pate08

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 877
Re: Core vs. No Core
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2009, 12:11:03 PM »
You can use higher end balls for longer than you can with a ball like the Razyr because you can play the oil with higher end balls and then shell down. With the Razyr being a lower end ball, if you use it on a heavy oil condition or even a medium condition at times, it is really easy to throw the ball through the breakpoint.
--------------------




OddBalls

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3119
Re: Core vs. No Core
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2009, 12:31:26 PM »
quote:
Those with hand can also use plastic, rubber, urethane, whatever.

That said, if you look at percentages including the PBA's best in the world, there are many strokers who weren't cashing much before reactives.

On Ths, there are many bloated averages regardless of equipment used because the lanes will do most the work and provide area rather then boards.

Try PBA or conditions league or open  bowled on by a variety of fluffers, you may find the pancake core not quite so friendly.


Dick Weber..HOF..Classic Stroker..next theory, please...
--------------------
Inverted 1 and Dead Flush are my Evil Twins...

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24523
Re: Core vs. No Core
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2009, 03:51:25 PM »
quote:
quote:
Those with hand can also use plastic, rubber, urethane, whatever.

That said, if you look at percentages including the PBA's best in the world, there are many strokers who weren't cashing much before reactives.

On Ths, there are many bloated averages regardless of equipment used because the lanes will do most the work and provide area rather then boards.

Try PBA or conditions league or open  bowled on by a variety of fluffers, you may find the pancake core not quite so friendly.


Dick Weber..HOF..Classic Stroker..next theory, please...
--------------------
Inverted 1 and Dead Flush are my Evil Twins...


The exception proves the rule.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Juggernaut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • Former good bowler, now 3 games a week house hack.
Re: Core vs. No Core
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2009, 06:31:44 PM »
In the BIG picture of things, the core actually means NOTHING as far as striking goes.  The core itsself has NOTHING to do with the pins, the C.O.R., or the pins interacting.  The core makes NO strikes. Strikes are created by the balls interaction with the pins.

  This being said, what the core DOES do, is allow balls to create sharper entry angles from deeper positions on the lane. They let balls take full advantage of the aggressive coverstocks that have been created, also allowing them to do this in much higher volumes and lengths of oil.

  Striking is merely a function of getting the ball into the pocket area at the proper entry angle with enough rolling force to maintain the proper trajectory through the pindeck.  It doesn't matter what the cover is or what the core is.  If you could get it into the pocket with enough angle and roll, anything will strike, cores just make it possible to generate these forces from angles not seen before and with less effort than ever before.

  There were 300's, 800's, and even a 900, long before the advent of reactive resin and gyroscopic weightblocks, just less of them because it was harder to generate enough roll and entry angle with enough force and precision to strike on a day-in day-out basis.

 P.S. You take me back to the 1980's and I'll show you how to score off the five board with a pancake cored Columbia Yellow dot.  ( I miss the 80's )
--------------------
Norm Duke was right

Good transactions list in my profile

My Bowl.com member page



Edited on 2/2/2009 7:33 PM
Learn to laugh, and love, and smile, cause we’re only here for a little while.

JessN16

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
Re: Core vs. No Core
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2009, 06:39:14 PM »
quote:
In the BIG picture of things, the core actually means NOTHING as far as striking goes.  The core itsself has NOTHING to do with the pins, the C.O.R., or the pins interacting.  The core makes NO strikes. Strikes are created by the balls interaction with the pins.

  This being said, what the core DOES do, is allow balls to create sharper entry angles from deeper positions on the lane. They let balls take full advantage of the aggressive coverstocks that have been created, also allowing them to do this in much higher volumes and lengths of oil.

  Striking is merely a function of getting the ball into the pocket area at the proper entry angle with enough rolling force to maintain the proper trajectory through the pindeck.  It doesn't matter what the cover is or what the core is.  If you could get it into the pocket with enough angle and roll, anything will strike, cores just make it possible to generate these forces from angles not seen before and with less effort than ever before.

  There were 300's, 800's, and even a 900, long before the advent of reactive resin and gyroscopic weightblocks, just less of them because it was harder to generate enough roll and entry angle with enough force and precision to strike on a day-in day-out basis.

 P.S. You take me back to the 1980's and I'll show you how to score off the five board with a pancake cored Columbia Yellow dot.  ( I miss the 80's )
--------------------
Norm Duke was right

Good transactions list in my profile

My Bowl.com member page



Edited on 2/2/2009 7:33 PM


Here's the only caveat I'd make to that, and it's something I've still yet to see anyone address with a test: Stability through the roll, core vs. core.

This means simply that, given a ball in the rollout phase, which ball is less likely to be knocked "off-kilter" once it impacts the pins. Common sense would say that a ball with more mass in the center should be able to hold up to the forces of deflection better than one with more mass near the shell -- i.e., the difference between core-heavy balls and pancake core balls.

This is a different measurement than which core promotes a later break/greater entry angle. What I'm talking about is if you take two cars of equal weight, and jack one up so that the center of gravity is raised, it's easier to knock that car on its side because the raised center of gravity makes it less stable. Ergo, if you raise the mass of a core more towards the shell, deflection should have more effect. And at that point, even the position of ball at impact with the pins (i.e., core "behind" the ball or "in front of" or "on top of" the ball at that instant) becomes a factor.

Jess

Juggernaut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • Former good bowler, now 3 games a week house hack.
Re: Core vs. No Core
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2009, 06:52:47 PM »
quote:
quote:
In the BIG picture of things, the core actually means NOTHING as far as striking goes.  The core itsself has NOTHING to do with the pins, the C.O.R., or the pins interacting.  The core makes NO strikes. Strikes are created by the balls interaction with the pins.

  This being said, what the core DOES do, is allow balls to create sharper entry angles from deeper positions on the lane. They let balls take full advantage of the aggressive coverstocks that have been created, also allowing them to do this in much higher volumes and lengths of oil.

  Striking is merely a function of getting the ball into the pocket area at the proper entry angle with enough rolling force to maintain the proper trajectory through the pindeck.  It doesn't matter what the cover is or what the core is.  If you could get it into the pocket with enough angle and roll, anything will strike, cores just make it possible to generate these forces from angles not seen before and with less effort than ever before.

  There were 300's, 800's, and even a 900, long before the advent of reactive resin and gyroscopic weightblocks, just less of them because it was harder to generate enough roll and entry angle with enough force and precision to strike on a day-in day-out basis.

 P.S. You take me back to the 1980's and I'll show you how to score off the five board with a pancake cored Columbia Yellow dot.  ( I miss the 80's )
--------------------
Norm Duke was right

Good transactions list in my profile

My Bowl.com member page



Edited on 2/2/2009 7:33 PM


Here's the only caveat I'd make to that, and it's something I've still yet to see anyone address with a test: Stability through the roll, core vs. core.

This means simply that, given a ball in the rollout phase, which ball is less likely to be knocked "off-kilter" once it impacts the pins. Common sense would say that a ball with more mass in the center should be able to hold up to the forces of deflection better than one with more mass near the shell -- i.e., the difference between core-heavy balls and pancake core balls.

This is a different measurement than which core promotes a later break/greater entry angle. What I'm talking about is if you take two cars of equal weight, and jack one up so that the center of gravity is raised, it's easier to knock that car on its side because the raised center of gravity makes it less stable. Ergo, if you raise the mass of a core more towards the shell, deflection should have more effect. And at that point, even the position of ball at impact with the pins (i.e., core "behind" the ball or "in front of" or "on top of" the ball at that instant) becomes a factor.

Jess


  Jess,

  No caveat needed. In getting a ball to truly roll with enough force to strike was meant to imply the fact that there was enough inherent friction availabe to maintain the balls path through the pins.

  Granted, the core enhances the balls ability to do this in increasingly lower friction environments because of the added stability, but is NOT a necessary function of striking, only an enhancement of technology that allows you to create that roll with much less effort and from greater angles than before, and in far lower friction environments than ever before.

  I guess what my point was is this.  ANY ball, given adequate friction to roll at the proper entry angle, and enough friction to maintain its trajectory through the pin deck, will strike regardless of core construction or coverstock.  You make it dry enough in the right place on the lane and you would be amazed at the strikes you can generate with an old plastic or rubber ball. I promise.
--------------------
Norm Duke was right

Good transactions list in my profile

My Bowl.com member page



Edited on 2/2/2009 7:55 PM
Learn to laugh, and love, and smile, cause we’re only here for a little while.

JessN16

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
Re: Core vs. No Core
« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2009, 07:03:50 PM »
Juggernaut,

I'd still like to see that tested, for the sole purpose of seeing whether you can imbalance a ball enough with a perimeter-oriented core shape as to break that friction. A secondary issue is to get the function of revs into the equation.

I know plastic and rubber can strike a ton -- scores from older eras prove it was possible -- but that's only proof of concept. In addition to the function of rev rate (as demonstrated in a circular saw ... turn off the saw and let it free spin, and it will for awhile until it reaches a point where it can't defeat the friction of the board it's cutting), there is also the issue of accuracy then vs. now. One of the articles in Bowling This Month for February talks about the difference in accuracy measured at Kegel for 220-average bowlers at the arrows -- average accuracy varied by 3.5 inches.

As the writer mentioned, that kind of inaccuracy was unheard of in the pre-resin era. Where that relates back to this discussion is that if you're splitting boards with plastic/rubber, you can put it in a place where even a straight ball is going to carry with reasonable consistency. There's a guy on my current league that throws dead-on straight at around 20-22 mph and carries 185 -- he's also a deadeye.

Jess

nospareball

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 662
Re: Core vs. No Core
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2009, 08:52:15 PM »
quote:

This means simply that, given a ball in the rollout phase, which ball is less likely to be knocked "off-kilter" once it impacts the pins. Common sense would say that a ball with more mass in the center should be able to hold up to the forces of deflection better than one with more mass near the shell -- i.e., the difference between core-heavy balls and pancake core balls.



I'm pretty sure that more weight towards the cover (higher RG) would mean less deflection through the pins.  Think of a bicycle tire (extreme high RG) and how stable it becomes as you spin it, a gyroscopic effect of sorts.
--------------------
-Clint

JessN16

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
Re: Core vs. No Core
« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2009, 10:44:51 PM »
quote:

I'm pretty sure that more weight towards the cover (higher RG) would mean less deflection through the pins.  Think of a bicycle tire (extreme high RG) and how stable it becomes as you spin it, a gyroscopic effect of sorts.
--------------------
-Clint


I'd be curious to see which applies, your example or the one I'm about to give:

Take a ceiling fan, and unbalance it. Put a weight on one of the blades and start the motor. Stability won't be the first thing that crosses your mind. (g)

The difference between a ball with weight near the cover and one without it is the one with it doesn't have weight equally spaced all the way around the cover, as the bike tire does (which is in total balance).

What you're describing, in bowling terms, is a ball with a thick, heavy shell and no weight imbalance inside.

Who's right? Dunno. That's why I'm asking for a test. (g)

Jess

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24523
Re: Core vs. No Core
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2009, 08:00:15 AM »
Jess,

The problem with this analogy (tires on car or bicycle vs a bowling ball) is with human's visualizing what's happening. The imbalance in tires, be it car or bike, is really in 2 dimensions. The imbalance with a bowling ball is in 3 dimensions. The difference is closer to a 9 fold increase in complexity. It is not simple.

Plus the dynamic core counter balancing the static weights adds another level of complexity. The pancake core is simpler than a regular core. STill the 2 dimensional tire picture makes it seem simpler than it really is.

I feel the tire "picture" doesn't give a true picture of what is going on.

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

neb5482

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Core vs. No Core
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2009, 08:02:05 AM »
WOW did you ever hear of a thing called a period?

quote:
well i have a huge rev rate and i like to use a ball that has good physics because i know how it behaves after a few times of using it but i like using a ball without cores because i can know how its going to behave out of the gate first time using it i know what to expect as long as i know how strong the cover is say its the power groove urethane i know i want to be throwing it at around 5 6 or 7 and having the ball break at 5 or 4 on my league condition

nospareball

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 662
Re: Core vs. No Core
« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2009, 09:30:37 AM »
quote:
Jess,

The problem with this analogy (tires on car or bicycle vs a bowling ball) is with human's visualizing what's happening. The imbalance in tires, be it car or bike, is really in 2 dimensions. The imbalance with a bowling ball is in 3 dimensions. The difference is closer to a 9 fold increase in complexity. It is not simple.

Plus the dynamic core counter balancing the static weights adds another level of complexity. The pancake core is simpler than a regular core. STill the 2 dimensional tire picture makes it seem simpler than it really is.

I feel the tire "picture" doesn't give a true picture of what is going on.

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


I would agree with you over the entire lane, there is imbalance in 3 dimensions because of the rotation and the migration of the axis.  But once the ball is in its final rolling stage the imbalance in the 3rd dimension doesn't really come into play.  The ball is rolling on 1 axis at that point so only the imbalance in that axis will matter as far as RG goes.  The bicycle tire is an extreme case in RG, and you'd never see a bowling ball with that high of an RG.  But it can still give you a point of reference, and that is that cover heavy balls are harder to knock off its initial path when entering the pins.  Obviously that would assume that rolling rpms are the same between a core heavy and a cover heavy ball at that moment.

But yes, the number of variables make this experiment tough to visualize.  Two of the same ball with different drillings are going to lead to two different outcomes.  I still think you are better off with a cored ball, most have a strong preferred spin axis and want to roll up by themselves before entering the pins.  You generally don't get that with a pancake cored ball.  If a ball isn't rolling when it enters the pins then knocking it off path becomes easier for the pins.


--------------------
-Clint