Author Topic: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better? (Read 9945 times)

Bjaardker · « **on:** May 04, 2003, 10:32:15 PM »

Since we've been discussing the high tech of bowling a lot lately I was lead to ponder this question.

How is it that the new bowling balls carry better?

I've always been lead to believe that the less energy the ball expends getting down the lane, the more potential energy it will have to hit the pins with, thus making for more pin smashing power & in theory more carry.

If this is true, then a highly shined plastic ball with a perfectly symmetrical & spherical core should have the most energy when it gets to the pins & therefore the best carry.

It's then my assumption that it is a misnomer when people say the new technology in bowling balls gives more carry. I would think that in actuality the new technology in bowling balls leads an increase in the margin of error at the EXPENSE of actual carrying energy. Meaning, new technology will allow a person to enter into the pocket at a higher entry angle, however in order to get that entry angle some energy was spent along the way.

So maybe the next plateau to greatness in bowling would be to achieve perfection in throwing a rocket to the pocket from the 1 board (or whatever board you would need to throw from to get the "perfect" angle as outlined in the ABC magazine a few months ago)

Maybe I'm just missing something, any ideas?

Bjaardker · « **Reply #1 on:** May 05, 2003, 02:14:22 PM »

quote:
The reason why the new bowling balls hit harder and create better carry is because they drive through the pins. Think of a bike tire in the mud. It is thin and slick so there is no traction. Now use a monster truck tire with lower tire pressure and you run right through. It is the same with bowling balls. The coverstock grabs the line while with a plastic ball it just slides. This slide create difflection and limits the ability to carry since energy is lost. When the newer ball drives through the pins it puts all of its energy into them. I agree that some of this energy may be lost because of the high degree of entry angle created but it is still a lot better than the deflection the plastic ball would give. Even if it is thrown at 40 mph.

Both balls are hard, round & the same weight. I find it hard to see where the plastic ball will be deflected off of the pins anymore than the reactive ball. Set each ball on the lane, hold it in your hands slide it over the surface, as much as it is an entertaining analogy we aren't talking about tires.

The plastic ball wouldn't be skidding toward the pins either. To throw this ideal rocket to the pocket you would have to throw it full roller style right over the thumbhole. You would be rolling & driving right into the pocket.

Constantine · « **Reply #2 on:** May 05, 2003, 02:16:22 PM »

Carry is more raw energy hitting the pins. Good carry has the proper entry angle into the pins and the proper roll for deflection of the ball off the pocket, through the 5 and into the 9 (or 8 for lefties). Good carry also keeps the pins low to maximize their effective size. Too much speed, too sharp an entry angle, too much drive actuall reduce your carry.

To answer your primary question, why do new balls carry better--(as compared to the urethane balls of the 80s such as the original Black Hammer)

1) Resin is tacky. A resin coverstock has a low coeffient of friction on oil, so it skids easier. However, it is very tacky so it grabs the dry boards. The skid then grab provides more energy in the backend of the lane plus a sharper entry angle than most bowlers could create before resin. (FYI-plastic grips less on dry so you can't create the same entry angle or drive into the pocket.)

2) Particles add control. While pure resin coverstocks have the most power, they can be hard to control. Ading particles to the resin, gives the ball more traction in oil without diminishing much of the hitting power.

3) Flare adds potential reaction. To maximize the possibilities in the coverstock, new balls have cores with differentials that create flare. The flare increases the amount of coverstock used. This allow you to control the amount and shape of the hook.

4) Mass bias fine tunes reaction. Cores designed with enhanced mass bias add the ability to be very specific with the shape of the breakpoint. This is another step for controlling the entry angle.
--------------------
Good luck & good bowling

NevadaBowl · « **Reply #3 on:** May 05, 2003, 02:33:01 PM »

Fencer and Constantine pretty much have the answer. The only thing I can add is that when a ball with a hard surface like plastic makes its turn, it uses up energy. It stops turning and although it hits the pins, possibly at the same angle as a high-tech ball, it does so with zero drive. It is just rolling.

A high-tech ball, with the fancy coverstocks and cores, make the same turn, but they aren't done yet with expending energy. They are still driving when they hit the pins. It's still working.

Not to say you can score well with the old stuff, I still have some urethane in my closet that I pull out for some conditions, but normally the more modern stuff will carry more.

Bjaardker · « **Reply #4 on:** May 05, 2003, 02:34:06 PM »

quote:
1) Resin is tacky. A resin coverstock has a low coeffient of friction on oil, so it skids easier. However, it is very tacky so it grabs the dry boards. The skid then grab provides more energy in the backend of the lane plus a sharper entry angle than most bowlers could create before resin. (FYI-plastic grips less on dry so you can't create the same entry angle or drive into the pocket.)

2) Particles add control. While pure resin coverstocks have the most power, they can be hard to control. Ading particles to the resin, gives the ball more traction in oil without diminishing much of the hitting power.

I'm pretty on top of the coverstocks & what they do. You may recall the particles 101 thread from a while ago.

It was found that the ideal entry angle for maximum carry was 6 degrees I believe. Is this angle not possible to get by drawing a straight line from the far edge of the foul line to the pocket? If it is then the new balls are expending potential energy in "turning the corner" on the dry, when it could have been used for hitting the pins.

quote:

3) Flare adds potential reaction. To maximize the possibilities in the coverstock, new balls have cores with differentials that create flare. The flare increases the amount of coverstock used. This allow you to control the amount and shape of the hook.

Flare also expends energy, not just from the core burning the energy up in rotation to flare the ball, but now dry coverstock is exposed with every rotation & that much more "grip" helps hook the ball, but burn energy.

quote:

4) Mass bias fine tunes reaction. Cores designed with enhanced mass bias add the ability to be very specific with the shape of the breakpoint. This is another step for controlling the entry angle.

Simply due to the nature of an asymmetrical object in motion, it's using up even MORE energy before it gets to the pins.

I guess I should clarify my point. If one could roll a shiny ball, straight into the pocket close to the "perfect" angle as determined by the ABC, wouldn't that carry better than the same hit from a high tech ball that has hooked 1/2 of the lane?

And therefore carry itself isn't really improved with the new balls, but the error for margin to achieve that carry is. In effect, the new balls allow us to be sloppier bowlers.

Bjaardker · « **Reply #5 on:** May 05, 2003, 02:41:20 PM »

quote:
Fencer and Constantine pretty much have the answer. The only thing I can add is that when a ball with a hard surface like plastic makes its turn, it uses up energy. It stops turning and although it hits the pins, possibly at the same angle as a high-tech ball, it does so with zero drive. It is just rolling.

A high-tech ball, with the fancy coverstocks and cores, make the same turn, but they aren't done yet with expending energy. They are still driving when they hit the pins. It's still working.

You say that the plastic hits with "zero drive". In your scenario that's because it is still skidding. I understand that if hooking the ball a resin or particle will "get into it's roll" sooned & drive through the pins.

however you are assuming you would need to "make the turn". If you are not throwing a hook with the plastic ball, there is no turn that needs to be made & therefore no energy spent. In effect, you are actually getting better "drive" with the plastic because the ball has not lost as much speed & used up the energy to make a turn.

Bjaardker · « **Reply #6 on:** May 05, 2003, 02:52:50 PM »

quote:
No ball hits harder than any other, including hard rubber. The new high tec balls do two things better than the old balls. The cores allow more of the energy from your lift to be transferred in creating revolutions. The surfaces have a friction characteristic that allows more of the rotational energy to be released at an optimum point down the lane. These factors create better entry angle and less deflection, both of which contribute to a better carrying percentage over a broader range of high to light pocket hits. An old Black Diamond will carry just as good as an Inferno, but on a much narrower range of hits. As an example I shot 270 with a black diamond the other night with one solid 10. Not likely I could have done any better with any of my high tech stuff. However in another game if I had needed to make a 1 and 1 move I might have had trouble shooting 210 with every ball in the hole. However my high tech stuff would have had a good chance of continuing to carry at a pretty high percentage.

Nice game with that Black Diamond.

So I guess my question would still have to be this, can the optimum entry angle (around 6 degrees) be achieved by throwing a straight ball to the pocket. If it can, wouldn't one have great success by perfecting this shot & using a ball that uses little to no energy to get down the lane?

And as a side discussion, since it sounds like the new equipment just allows us to make more mistakes to be made yet still get score high, wouldn't a best bowler be the one who can consistantly shoot high scores with just a plastic ball?

Constantine · « **Reply #7 on:** May 05, 2003, 04:06:59 PM »

quote:
In effect, the new balls allow us to be sloppier bowlers.

You could say that, but I prefer to compare it to advancements in other sports like tennis rackets & golf clubs. Newer equipment has just created a bigger "sweet spot". The key difference is that in tennis & gof the "sweet spot" is on the equipment, while in bolwing the "sweet spot" is the pocket.

BTW: I wasn't trying to belittle anyone in my prior post & I apologize if I inadvertantly insulted you. I generally answer all questions on the board as if everyone is going to read it, which is why I listed the coverstock issue with an attempt at detail.
--------------------
Good luck & good bowling

Bjaardker · « **Reply #8 on:** May 05, 2003, 04:29:53 PM »

quote:
BTW: I wasn't trying to belittle anyone in my prior post & I apologize if I inadvertantly insulted you. I generally answer all questions on the board as if everyone is going to read it, which is why I listed the coverstock issue with an attempt at detail.

Not a problem at all. I took no offense.

Really the whole point of this was to try and get to the bottom of the "new balls carry better" argument.

Maybe we can get someone good at geometry here to find out if the "magic" 6 degree angle is possible without hooking the ball.

da Shiv · « **Reply #9 on:** May 05, 2003, 04:37:52 PM »

The angle into the pocket that you get from throwing straight at it from the corner of the lane at the foul line is somewhat less than 2 degrees--about 1 2/3 degrees, I think. If I can find some trig tables, I'll figure it out. I'm sure somebody out there has one of those scientific calculators that'll do it in seconds. Whether your ball is rolling or skidding, fast or slow, carry percentage will be lower at such an angle.

That's not to say that great scores can't be shot doing this...it's just much harder.

Shiv

Great explanations from Bob Hanson and Constantine, as usual.

da Shiv · « **Reply #10 on:** May 05, 2003, 04:38:43 PM »

Well, Peri, I was close.

Shiv

Bjaardker · « **Reply #11 on:** May 05, 2003, 04:52:55 PM »

OK, then I guess that solves it & says why new equipment is that much better. I'm wondering if it's even possible to get the magic 6 degrees without a reactive ball, but even if it was, you wouldn't get into the roll you needed.

It all makes sense now, thanks guys.

Constantine · « **Reply #12 on:** May 05, 2003, 05:29:38 PM »

quote:
The angle into the pocket that you get from throwing straight at it from the corner of the lane at the foul line is somewhat less than 2 degrees--about 1 2/3 degrees, I think. If I can find some trig tables, I'll figure it out. I'm sure somebody out there has one of those scientific calculators that'll do it in seconds. Whether your ball is rolling or skidding, fast or slow, carry percentage will be lower at such an angle.

That's not to say that great scores can't be shot doing this...it's just much harder.

Shiv

Great explanations from Bob Hanson and Constantine, as usual.

Let's see...right triangle with the long side of 60' and a short side of 16" (distance from pocket to gutter)...

AÂ²+BÂ²=CÂ²...60'Â² + (16"/12")Â² = CÂ²...C = 60.014813
Sin Âº = Opp/Hyp...sin Âº = (21"/12") / 60.014813...sin Âº = .0222167...Âº = 1.27303

I'm sure there's a faster way, but trig was a long time ago and that's what I remembered first.

I'd say 6Âº is a lot different than 1.27Âº, so you gotta hook the ball.

Edited on 5/5/2003 5:38 PM

Rodimus · « **Reply #13 on:** May 05, 2003, 06:15:28 PM »

from a physics standpoint, Bob has hit this nail squarely on the head. Newer balls with offset and assymetrical cores and center of gravity points further from the epicenter of the ball are better at conserving the energy that you put into the ball. No ball "uses up" energy, but they all lose some amount due to the friction of the lane. Those plastic balls have a lot less core torque than the modern ones, and as a result they seem to hit "softer" than modern ones.

Urethane Game · « **Reply #14 on:** May 05, 2003, 06:31:14 PM »

Bjaardker, I'm not a Physics professor nor do I play one on TV but a simple experiment would be to bowl a season with an original LT-48 and a Yellow Dot. If your average increases then we've all been spending way too much money on bowling balls.

Or you can study this: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/energy/u5l1d.html

Author Topic: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better? (Read 9945 times)

Bjaardker

Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Bjaardker

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Constantine

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

NevadaBowl

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Bjaardker

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Bjaardker

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Bjaardker

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Constantine

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Bjaardker

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

da Shiv

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

da Shiv

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Bjaardker

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Constantine

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Rodimus

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Urethane Game

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?