BallReviews

General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Bowl_Freak on July 06, 2018, 01:13:34 PM

Title: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: Bowl_Freak on July 06, 2018, 01:13:34 PM
With having this rule in effect this coming season, is the new rule gonna give any particular style and advantage with the added side weight allowance? Will it make a noticeable difference in reaction and/or pin carry? Asking for a friend... ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: billdozer on July 06, 2018, 02:12:19 PM
I'm not gonna change a thing. My game typically didn't care for weight holes so I typically never used em unless I needed an OIL monster haha. 

I think there's gonna be a ton of people with illegal equipment come 2020. And people experimenting for the next two years. 

I don't think there will be too much difference until the ball manufacturers develop cores to change the specs again, but I feel once things settle down and get boring again, the USBC will create something to counteract any benefits to the new ruling.

Think about it, there's no huge benefit now, especially with USBC testing it before passing the rule.

Once ball manufacturers get behind this there might some interesting changes, and things being done...

You won't see this CHANGE untill all the balls support this new method.  You might even see the hierarchy change a bit, radical may become more and more popular, being mo knows what to do with this scenario. 

We also might see alot of bowlers quit over having to get new stuff.. I know some older guys will probably hang it up and be angry haha.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: BowlingForDonuts on July 06, 2018, 03:58:55 PM
With having this rule in effect this coming season, is the new rule gonna give any particular style and advantage with the added side weight allowance? Will it make a noticeable difference in reaction and/or pin carry? Asking for a friend... ;) ;) ;)

Plugged the motion hole already on several of my stronger pieces with stacked leverage which I wasn't happy with (one was on the val but other 3 were P4s).  Will report back but so far the one I have thrown I liked the reaction a little more.  Technically on paper you may lose some backend (as can reduce int diff) but not much from what I see and does seem to help slightly with over under (I emphasize slight, could all be in my head even).  Static weight will matter more with pancake cores from what I understand.  Would be curious myself to see if people like 2.5oz finger and side weight on a Scout.  Am holding some NIB stuff back until see how this all shakes out.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: Impending Doom on July 06, 2018, 04:38:35 PM
Side weight = nothing.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: six pack on July 06, 2018, 07:45:09 PM
the only difference I think I'll see is an ugly plug in my pretty HB. >:(
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: BallReviews-Removed0385 on July 06, 2018, 09:11:09 PM
Read between the lines here.  The reason USBC is giving us 3 oz. is because it means LESS than the current rules that allowed extra holes.  Am I upset?  I actually don't care one iota.

It's their other ruling that prohibits the guy whose ball comes ball from the pinsetter with crap all over it from cleaning it with an APPROVED cleaner during play that has me baffled. 

The sooner these idiots learn that you can't "legislate" honesty/integrity the better we'll all be.   If someone wants to destroy their ball's cover by using illegal chemicals to clean with I say let them.  USBC is punishing their whole membership for the actions of a relative few.  Go figure...




Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: Bowler19525 on July 06, 2018, 09:47:27 PM
Read between the lines here.  The reason USBC is giving us 3 oz. is because it means LESS than the current rules that allowed extra holes.  Am I upset?  I actually don't care one iota.

It's their other ruling that prohibits the guy whose ball comes ball from the pinsetter with crap all over it from cleaning it with an APPROVED cleaner during play that has me baffled. 



The USBC has clarified in the FAQ that there will be no Approved Anytime cleaners in 2019.  If a bowler has a situation where a ball has marks or a substance that cannot be removed with a dry towel during sanctioned competition, they can consult with a league or tournament official about cleaning the ball with a cleaner on the approved list.

The biggest issue with the new specs will be with no thumb bowlers, and bowlers who don't use all finger holes all the time.  There have already been words between bowlers at the local center.   The no thumb guys think they will still be allowed "performance holes", and don't understand they cannot have anything other than finger holes.  The bowlers that only put one finger in their ball to pick up spares don't get they cannot do that anymore either. 

The local association has already started spreading the word, and the local center said they will be watching bowlers closely in the fall of 2020 to ensure compliance.  They also said with 2 years notice there will be no excuse for sanctioned bowlers to not be in compliance.  There will also be heavy reliance on PSOs to drill new equipment under the new rules and explain to customers what can and cannot be done.

At the end of the day this is going to be an absolute trainwreck, and there will be a lot of arguments the first few weeks of fall 2020 sanctioned leagues.  If the USBC was smart,  they would mail the FAQ to every sanctioned bowler from the past 3 seasons to the address on file.  Communication is crucial for this type of change, and it hasn't been very well communicated so far. 
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: tburky on July 08, 2018, 05:12:33 PM
When has the usbc done anything smart...never! Weight holes don’t mean anything to me and cleaners I don’t use until after bowling. The whole point of weight hole legislation is meaningless because average bowlers don’t throw the ball consistently to take the advantage of maybe 2 boards total hook at the max. The usbc is and always will be a joke.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: spmcgivern on July 09, 2018, 07:41:06 AM
The biggest issue with the new specs will be with no thumb bowlers, and bowlers who don't use all finger holes all the time.  There have already been words between bowlers at the local center.   The no thumb guys think they will still be allowed "performance holes", and don't understand they cannot have anything other than finger holes.  The bowlers that only put one finger in their ball to pick up spares don't get they cannot do that anymore either. 

The local association has already started spreading the word, and the local center said they will be watching bowlers closely in the fall of 2020 to ensure compliance.  They also said with 2 years notice there will be no excuse for sanctioned bowlers to not be in compliance.  There will also be heavy reliance on PSOs to drill new equipment under the new rules and explain to customers what can and cannot be done.

Why would the bowling center care what the USBC rules are for extra holes?  The center should not be the enforcer of the rules.  Is the center going to tell open play hot shots who throw house balls with two-fingers they have to put their thumb in the finger sized thumb hole?  Of course not. 

It is up to the league members and league officers to enforce the new rules. 
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: BrunsNick on July 09, 2018, 08:02:01 AM
CGSTILLNOMADDAH
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: ignitebowling on July 09, 2018, 08:30:01 AM
I will do a post later this week using blueprint to simulate some different results using side weight….. Just a preview for all you old school pancake weight block guys from back in the day when "static weights mattered".

Testing a plastic ball with 2ozs positive side weight vs 2.3 ozs negative side weight had a hooking difference of just over 1 board in total hook on a 15lb ball.

Also keep in mind on a pancake weight block the cg is the low rg axis.  So when creating these differences in static weight also created big shifts in the pin location. The positive side weight ball had a 2" pin to pap and the negative side weight ball was roughly 6.5" pin to pap.

Will be able to try using the Spare+ which has a core to keep the pin/mb the same and only change the statics with the cg vs a pancake weight block and see the simulated results.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: BeerLeague on July 09, 2018, 10:48:05 AM
The entire reason for this rule change nonsense is the rule bending by the no-thumbers with flipping the ball backwards and drilling thumbholes they don't use.

I still feel they need to deal with the cause of the problem instead on penalizing people who respect the rules instead of creating more problems.

It is a 100% certainty that come Jan 1, 2020 - there will be a lot of "illegal" equipment in play.  There will also be a lot of league vacancies once the rules get "enforced."

I bowl one competitive league and one beer league.  I can see the competitive league conforming and being in the know, but the beer league is another story.  You have no-thumbers using 15 year old stuff that was given to them .... they just don't care since they can score with it on the mega-wall.  Its about a night out.  -- Let's see what happens when they are told they can't use that ball anymore or they need to get the magic thumb they may or may not use plugged. -- if the ball will even scale legal after that.

THe USBC needs to deal with the no-thumb stuff and please leave the rest of us alone.  The USGA has proved you regulate styles of play (anchored putting, head on putting come to mind.) and the USBC should follow.  PGA pros who had to give up the anchored putter are still on tour and competitive.  Belmonte and the rest of the 2 finger wonders will survive too.




Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: DP3 on July 09, 2018, 10:49:24 AM
I'm waiting, with popcorn, for the outrage as soon as a two hander shoots the lights out with 3oz side.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: BeerLeague on July 09, 2018, 10:56:52 AM
I'm waiting, with popcorn, for the outrage as soon as a two hander shoots the lights out with 3oz side.

I agree ... as the increased rev rate generated by the style gives a definite advantage over the field ... no doubt about it.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: Impending Doom on July 09, 2018, 11:02:30 AM
I'm waiting, with popcorn, for the outrage as soon as a two hander shoots the lights out with 3oz side.

I'm waiting for there to be a rule stating that I can't throw the ball.overhand.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: BowlingForDonuts on July 09, 2018, 11:11:15 AM
I will do a post later this week using blueprint to simulate some different results using side weight….. Just a preview for all you old school pancake weight block guys from back in the day when "static weights mattered".

Testing a plastic ball with 2ozs positive side weight vs 2.3 ozs negative side weight had a hooking difference of just over 1 board in total hook on a 15lb ball.

Also keep in mind on a pancake weight block the cg is the low rg axis.  So when creating these differences in static weight also created big shifts in the pin location. The positive side weight ball had a 2" pin to pap and the negative side weight ball was roughly 6.5" pin to pap.

Will be able to try using the Spare+ which has a core to keep the pin/mb the same and only change the statics with the cg vs a pancake weight block and see the simulated results.

Looking forward to this Ignite.  Have same feeling you do that static weight in the end doesn't matter that much which makes it bat sh1t crazy why it was only 1 oz side in the first place.  Nothing like "solutions" causing lots of unintended consequences that have to be "fixed" later.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: DP3 on July 09, 2018, 11:41:51 AM
My only gripe with Blueprint testing is that the factors aren't indicative of real lane play. Often there will be "tests" that show "no visible" or minimal difference in reaction. These tests don't have the factor of 9 other bowlers on a league night creating transition. Especially houses that have older surfaces, use older oils, or mixed league bowlers that see 3-4 bowlers a night that use plastic down the middle of the lane. I highly doubt that static weights will have any noticeable difference in a blueprint test, but other tests... especially those regarding track flare I feel produce inconclusive results because the test environment is too controlled to mimic real time adjustments/reaction in a competitive setting.

It would be a bear of an experiment to do with 10 league bowlers and 1 being the control for a Blueprint experiment, but I would love to see if any of the results change, especially in one ball-multiple layout testing.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: spmcgivern on July 09, 2018, 01:19:28 PM
My only gripe with Blueprint testing is that the factors aren't indicative of real lane play. Often there will be "tests" that show "no visible" or minimal difference in reaction. These tests don't have the factor of 9 other bowlers on a league night creating transition. Especially houses that have older surfaces, use older oils, or mixed league bowlers that see 3-4 bowlers a night that use plastic down the middle of the lane. I highly doubt that static weights will have any noticeable difference in a blueprint test, but other tests... especially those regarding track flare I feel produce inconclusive results because the test environment is too controlled to mimic real time adjustments/reaction in a competitive setting.

It would be a bear of an experiment to do with 10 league bowlers and 1 being the control for a Blueprint experiment, but I would love to see if any of the results change, especially in one ball-multiple layout testing.
Should it matter how many balls are thrown on a shot?  A Blueprint study will show the difference between two balls on the SAME shot.  That is what matters, not the difference between the first shot on fresh of one ball and the last shot on burn of another.  You need identical environments for the study to have any credibility.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: batbowler on July 09, 2018, 02:19:20 PM
I guess the one's that will enforce no over handed releases would be the bowling centers!! lol
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: DP3 on July 09, 2018, 02:35:38 PM
My only gripe with Blueprint testing is that the factors aren't indicative of real lane play. Often there will be "tests" that show "no visible" or minimal difference in reaction. These tests don't have the factor of 9 other bowlers on a league night creating transition. Especially houses that have older surfaces, use older oils, or mixed league bowlers that see 3-4 bowlers a night that use plastic down the middle of the lane. I highly doubt that static weights will have any noticeable difference in a blueprint test, but other tests... especially those regarding track flare I feel produce inconclusive results because the test environment is too controlled to mimic real time adjustments/reaction in a competitive setting.

It would be a bear of an experiment to do with 10 league bowlers and 1 being the control for a Blueprint experiment, but I would love to see if any of the results change, especially in one ball-multiple layout testing.
Should it matter how many balls are thrown on a shot?  A Blueprint study will show the difference between two balls on the SAME shot.  That is what matters, not the difference between the first shot on fresh of one ball and the last shot on burn of another.  You need identical environments for the study to have any credibility.

You kinda made my point. The game isn't played in one static condition on one shot. Yes it's good to know the shape through the lane of that one given shot. These studies with just the proof of the testing environment tell you about the ball path on that one shot. How can you take that information from these tests and apply it to a real scoring environment? This game can get all kinds of screwy and nonsensical once USBC starts making rules that affect everyone's bottom line ($) built out of a robotics test when the benefit or reaction in the test environment means nothing.

RG, Diff, Side-Weight, Track Flare and the scoring pace are mutually exclusive. The tests aren't creating bylaws to level a playing field or setting a benchmark for a scoring pace.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: spmcgivern on July 09, 2018, 04:04:45 PM
My only gripe with Blueprint testing is that the factors aren't indicative of real lane play. Often there will be "tests" that show "no visible" or minimal difference in reaction. These tests don't have the factor of 9 other bowlers on a league night creating transition. Especially houses that have older surfaces, use older oils, or mixed league bowlers that see 3-4 bowlers a night that use plastic down the middle of the lane. I highly doubt that static weights will have any noticeable difference in a blueprint test, but other tests... especially those regarding track flare I feel produce inconclusive results because the test environment is too controlled to mimic real time adjustments/reaction in a competitive setting.

It would be a bear of an experiment to do with 10 league bowlers and 1 being the control for a Blueprint experiment, but I would love to see if any of the results change, especially in one ball-multiple layout testing.
Should it matter how many balls are thrown on a shot?  A Blueprint study will show the difference between two balls on the SAME shot.  That is what matters, not the difference between the first shot on fresh of one ball and the last shot on burn of another.  You need identical environments for the study to have any credibility.

You kinda made my point. The game isn't played in one static condition on one shot. Yes it's good to know the shape through the lane of that one given shot. These studies with just the proof of the testing environment tell you about the ball path on that one shot. How can you take that information from these tests and apply it to a real scoring environment? This game can get all kinds of screwy and nonsensical once USBC starts making rules that affect everyone's bottom line ($) built out of a robotics test when the benefit or reaction in the test environment means nothing.

RG, Diff, Side-Weight, Track Flare and the scoring pace are mutually exclusive. The tests aren't creating bylaws to level a playing field or setting a benchmark for a scoring pace.

I look at like this.  A bowler throws a ball on a shot (any shot) and assuming the bowler does not know which ball is in his hand what would be the difference between the two balls?  If he stands 20 hits 10 with the same release with both balls, what would be the difference?  If you want variety, you can repeat the same experiment on burned up lanes.  This is how I view the importance of Blueprint.  To show the difference between two different balls thrown identically on the exact same condition. 

If you want to bring in pattern degradation along with a smorgasbord of other conditions, then you will have to bring in bowler accuracy and repeatability.  Blueprint can somewhat simulate bowler ability but it can't simulate pattern degradation.  I guess you can try to input a "pattern" that represents a used pattern.

Either way, if you use real people, no one will believe any of the conclusions probably anyway.  I feel people view results based on this hierarchy: #1 Blueprint, #2 Throwbot & #3 Pro Bowler, #4 random Joe.  You see this in the responses to the random Joe video review.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: ignitebowling on July 09, 2018, 04:44:04 PM
Keep in mind my only point is to show differences between the two bowling balls with all things being equal.

Can also show the difference on different patterns such as long, short, and "house" conditions. As someone else was saying, if the difference in said plastic ball is 1.3 boards more or less hook then bowlers from years ago who thought these things mattered then only have perception of what they thought they saw versus what is likely the actual case. After all, this is a plastic ball with no core.

To create large static imbalances with a pancake weight block also means to shift the low rg axis a large amount towards or away from the bowlers pap. In the end these results are minimal. When applied to the real world will likely be the same. It is a plastic ball. Even static imbalances mean little in ball reaction.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: DP3 on July 09, 2018, 07:16:07 PM
I agree. Without the hole there's not going to be much of a difference in a pancake core with huge side weight imbalances.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: Bowler19525 on July 09, 2018, 08:36:10 PM
The biggest issue with the new specs will be with no thumb bowlers, and bowlers who don't use all finger holes all the time.  There have already been words between bowlers at the local center.   The no thumb guys think they will still be allowed "performance holes", and don't understand they cannot have anything other than finger holes.  The bowlers that only put one finger in their ball to pick up spares don't get they cannot do that anymore either. 

The local association has already started spreading the word, and the local center said they will be watching bowlers closely in the fall of 2020 to ensure compliance.  They also said with 2 years notice there will be no excuse for sanctioned bowlers to not be in compliance.  There will also be heavy reliance on PSOs to drill new equipment under the new rules and explain to customers what can and cannot be done.

Why would the bowling center care what the USBC rules are for extra holes?  The center should not be the enforcer of the rules.  Is the center going to tell open play hot shots who throw house balls with two-fingers they have to put their thumb in the finger sized thumb hole?  Of course not. 

It is up to the league members and league officers to enforce the new rules. 

House balls are exempt from the new guidelines.  No thumb bowlers can use a house ball all day long,  even during sanctioned competition,  and it is not illegal under the new rules.

Our house acts as the secretary for several of the sanctioned leagues,  so they have a vested interest in enforcing the rules.   Additionally,  center management is also on the local USBC association board of directors so there is another layer of enforcement of the rules.

Somebody needs to make an effort to enforce the new rules.   Relying on bowlers to self govern themselves and use the honor system doesn't always yield the best results.  I have personally witnessed way too many shouting matches over rules while the league officers sip their beers and look the other way.  If the bowling center wants to step in and take on the much needed role of referee,  that is fine with me.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: ignitebowling on July 09, 2018, 09:03:53 PM
Here are the plastic ball comparisons with the Track 100P pancake weight block and the Track Spare Plus asymmetric core plastic ball.

With the 100P I am limited to only 3ozs top weight and shifting the cg/pin closer or further from the center grip line in order to get 2.8 ozs positive or negative side weight. This also moves the pin towards or away form the PAP when trying to get the static weights desired. The CG marks the low RG axis/pin for the pancake weight block.

With the Spare Plus I can change the cg location in relation to the MB and the pin along with the top weight. This allowed me to keep the exact same layout and shift the pin to create 3ozs positive and negative side weight.

Here are the total boards hook for each on the list lane conditions......

Track spare Plus

drilled 50 x 4 x 30

3ozs positive side

house 12.97
short  16.50
long    08.22

50 x 4 x 30

3ozs negative side

house 12.51
short  15.52
long   07.40


Track P100

2.8 positive side weight 0" pin to pap

house 06.97
short  11.96
long   06.30

2.8 negative side weight 10.5" pin to pap

house 09.80
short  15.65
long   08.84
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: avabob on July 09, 2018, 11:35:18 PM
First, the elimination of weight holes was aimed at perceived abuses by 2 handers.  The new 3 oz limit is very liberal and may yield some interesting reactions as guys experiment.   Kloempkon said as much in the latest BJ.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: spmcgivern on July 10, 2018, 08:09:49 AM
House balls are exempt from the new guidelines.  No thumb bowlers can use a house ball all day long,  even during sanctioned competition,  and it is not illegal under the new rules.

Our house acts as the secretary for several of the sanctioned leagues,  so they have a vested interest in enforcing the rules.   Additionally,  center management is also on the local USBC association board of directors so there is another layer of enforcement of the rules.

Somebody needs to make an effort to enforce the new rules.   Relying on bowlers to self govern themselves and use the honor system doesn't always yield the best results.  I have personally witnessed way too many shouting matches over rules while the league officers sip their beers and look the other way.  If the bowling center wants to step in and take on the much needed role of referee,  that is fine with me.

Not all centers have house balls as defined by the new rule.  Some have left over equipment that bowlers have left on the rack.  I assume someone claiming an old Roto Grip Cell left on the rack as a house ball and not having to conform to the rule would be incorrect.

Also, Secretary and Treasurer duties don't include rule enforcement.  That is the job of the President and possibly a Vice President and Sergeant at Arms.  So if your center acting as the Secretary also has to act as the rules enforcer, then you need a new President.  Plus I would think even if the center performed some of the duties of Secretary or Treasurer, you still have a person from the league assigned to that position. 

You are correct though, someone has to enforce the rules.  It has to be the bowlers though, not the bowling center.  Rule enforcement of a league should only be done by members of the league.  I can't imagine having a third party (center employee) doing it.  Then again, USBC and BPAA are pretty tight so maybe I am wrong.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: Bowler19525 on July 10, 2018, 08:31:07 AM
House balls are exempt from the new guidelines.  No thumb bowlers can use a house ball all day long,  even during sanctioned competition,  and it is not illegal under the new rules.

Our house acts as the secretary for several of the sanctioned leagues,  so they have a vested interest in enforcing the rules.   Additionally,  center management is also on the local USBC association board of directors so there is another layer of enforcement of the rules.

Somebody needs to make an effort to enforce the new rules.   Relying on bowlers to self govern themselves and use the honor system doesn't always yield the best results.  I have personally witnessed way too many shouting matches over rules while the league officers sip their beers and look the other way.  If the bowling center wants to step in and take on the much needed role of referee,  that is fine with me.

Not all centers have house balls as defined by the new rule.  Some have left over equipment that bowlers have left on the rack.  I assume someone claiming an old Roto Grip Cell left on the rack as a house ball and not having to conform to the rule would be incorrect.

Also, Secretary and Treasurer duties don't include rule enforcement.  That is the job of the President and possibly a Vice President and Sergeant at Arms.  So if your center acting as the Secretary also has to act as the rules enforcer, then you need a new President.  Plus I would think even if the center performed some of the duties of Secretary or Treasurer, you still have a person from the league assigned to that position. 

You are correct though, someone has to enforce the rules.  It has to be the bowlers though, not the bowling center.  Rule enforcement of a league should only be done by members of the league.  I can't imagine having a third party (center employee) doing it.  Then again, USBC and BPAA are pretty tight so maybe I am wrong.

The house ball exemption applies to polyester or traditional urethane balls with a differential less than 0.025 and not custom drilled to fit the bowler using it.  Old resin or other performance balls left on the rack are not considered house balls under the new rules.

Unfortunately league presidents tend to do nothing.  When approached for assistance they "don't want to get involved" or they want to "watch the situation and see if it handles itself".  Bowlers themselves don't self govern themselves effectively.  The path of least resistance is to avoid confrontation, so they tend to let infractions go.  I could literally call out 3 or 4 rule infractions every league night but don't just because I don't want to be "that guy".  Even when showing people the rule in the book, the typical response is "whatever.  I have done this before so it is ok.  Mind your own business (insert derogatory name here)!"  The new ball rules will be impossible to enforce and will create huge problems.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: BowlingForDonuts on July 10, 2018, 09:35:03 AM
Thanks Ignite for the data.  Hmm Scout with finger and side weight might be something to look at for kicks but as others said for real cores nothingburger.

>urethane balls with a differential less than 0.025

Oh look at this Tank Rampage just sitting on the rack (funny wasn't here yesterday before the tournament) that the no thumbers can turn either way.  How convenient.  Money can make people act like idiots but have to start somewhere I  suppose.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: DP3 on July 10, 2018, 10:50:30 AM
Here are the plastic ball comparisons with the Track 100P pancake weight block and the Track Spare Plus asymmetric core plastic ball.

With the 100P I am limited to only 3ozs top weight and shifting the cg/pin closer or further from the center grip line in order to get 2.8 ozs positive or negative side weight. This also moves the pin towards or away form the PAP when trying to get the static weights desired. The CG marks the low RG axis/pin for the pancake weight block.

With the Spare Plus I can change the cg location in relation to the MB and the pin along with the top weight. This allowed me to keep the exact same layout and shift the pin to create 3ozs positive and negative side weight.

Here are the total boards hook for each on the list lane conditions......

Track spare Plus

drilled 50 x 4 x 30

3ozs positive side

house 12.97
short  16.50
long    08.22

50 x 4 x 30

3ozs negative side

house 12.51
short  15.52
long   07.40


Track P100

2.8 positive side weight 0" pin to pap

house 06.97
short  11.96
long   06.30

2.8 negative side weight 10.5" pin to pap

house 09.80
short  15.65
long   08.84

Was there any noticable difference in the entry angle? I think the majority of bowlers would be under the impression that a plastic ball with a core is going to spin faster than a pancake counterpart and "hit harder". I don't subscribe to the "plastic w/ core = hit harder" theory as I believe entry angle is what creates carry, not the core.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: ignitebowling on July 10, 2018, 11:08:07 AM
Thanks Ignite for the data.  Hmm Scout with finger and side weight might be something to look at for kicks but as others said for real cores nothingburger.

>urethane balls with a differential less than 0.025

Oh look at this Tank Rampage just sitting on the rack (funny wasn't here yesterday before the tournament) that the no thumbers can turn either way.  How convenient.  Money can make people act like idiots but have to start somewhere I  suppose.

What the numbers do not show. The 0" pin with 2.8 positive side weight had about a 1.5" flare ring around the ball. Imagine the urethane strip on a Quantum Helix. The 10.5" pin 3ozs negative side weight ball had more flare, and it was all covering the bowlers gripping holes.

Placing the pin/cg in the 3.5" to 4" range had the most hook on average of the 3 conditions without flaring over or rolling over any of the holes.

Just as an example since everyone believed that static weight mattered most in balls with no cores from years ago. Given almost 3ozs which was 2ozs over what was allowed in years past did not benefit the bowler or ball reaction.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: BowlingForDonuts on July 10, 2018, 11:30:04 AM
Thanks Ignite for the data.  Hmm Scout with finger and side weight might be something to look at for kicks but as others said for real cores nothingburger.

>urethane balls with a differential less than 0.025

Oh look at this Tank Rampage just sitting on the rack (funny wasn't here yesterday before the tournament) that the no thumbers can turn either way.  How convenient.  Money can make people act like idiots but have to start somewhere I  suppose.

What the numbers do not show. The 0" pin with 2.8 positive side weight had about a 1.5" flare ring around the ball. Imagine the urethane strip on a Quantum Helix. The 10.5" pin 3ozs negative side weight ball had more flare, and it was all covering the bowlers gripping holes.

Placing the pin/cg in the 3.5" to 4" range had the most hook on average of the 3 conditions without flaring over or rolling over any of the holes.

Just as an example since everyone believed that static weight mattered most in balls with no cores from years ago. Given almost 3ozs which was 2ozs over what was allowed in years past did not benefit the bowler or ball reaction.

Ok thanks for the clarification.  Was just noticing the bigger hook difference between the two with a pancake but should have seen the negative side was greater duh.  Oh look the governing body outlawed something that didn't matter (no more than 1 oz side weight) and it had unintended consequences (ie motion holes) down the line.  Stop me if you have heard this one.  All that said realizing its only $10 a ball to plug motion holes made it more an inconvenience than anything especially since modern plug material is way better than years past where cracking could be a concern.  Few of my gems I doubt I will ever plug though as those are fun balls for most part anyway.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: Impending Doom on July 10, 2018, 11:51:00 AM
The USBC is just throwing shit at the wall to see what will stick. *They* know side weight doesn't matter, but they can't just sit around and do nothing, so instead of doing something that matters, they attack static weights. Bravo, USBC. Way to outdate yourself by 30 years.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: Bowler19525 on July 10, 2018, 11:51:35 AM
Thanks Ignite for the data.  Hmm Scout with finger and side weight might be something to look at for kicks but as others said for real cores nothingburger.

>urethane balls with a differential less than 0.025

Oh look at this Tank Rampage just sitting on the rack (funny wasn't here yesterday before the tournament) that the no thumbers can turn either way.  How convenient.  Money can make people act like idiots but have to start somewhere I  suppose.

Per the USBC:  "A ball left in a bowling center by a bowler to be used as a house ball is not considered a house ball."

The "I found it on the rack" argument will not work.   Again,  it all comes down to rule enforcement and people respecting the game and abiding by the rules.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: ignitebowling on July 10, 2018, 12:18:16 PM
Here are the plastic ball comparisons with the Track 100P pancake weight block and the Track Spare Plus asymmetric core plastic ball.

With the 100P I am limited to only 3ozs top weight and shifting the cg/pin closer or further from the center grip line in order to get 2.8 ozs positive or negative side weight. This also moves the pin towards or away form the PAP when trying to get the static weights desired. The CG marks the low RG axis/pin for the pancake weight block.

With the Spare Plus I can change the cg location in relation to the MB and the pin along with the top weight. This allowed me to keep the exact same layout and shift the pin to create 3ozs positive and negative side weight.

Here are the total boards hook for each on the list lane conditions......

Track spare Plus

drilled 50 x 4 x 30

3ozs positive side

house 12.97
short  16.50
long    08.22

50 x 4 x 30

3ozs negative side

house 12.51
short  15.52
long   07.40


Track P100

2.8 positive side weight 0" pin to pap

house 06.97
short  11.96
long   06.30

2.8 negative side weight 10.5" pin to pap

house 09.80
short  15.65
long   08.84

Was there any noticable difference in the entry angle? I think the majority of bowlers would be under the impression that a plastic ball with a core is going to spin faster than a pancake counterpart and "hit harder". I don't subscribe to the "plastic w/ core = hit harder" theory as I believe entry angle is what creates carry, not the core.

I didn't pay attention to entry angle just total hook. Moving the ball into friction had the biggest effect on hook and entry angle changes. I can do a comparison between the Spare+ and the 100P using a 4" pin to PAP for both and screen shot the overall results that show all of the details.

I cannot tell a difference in carry between my Spare+ and a Tzone when using plastic for score during practice.

 I'd assume the better carry potential is with the Spare+ because it has an 8lb core etc vs a pancake weight block. The dynamics of the balls when compared may allow one to deflect less if all other things are equal with the ball is going into the pins. Since the mass for the Spare plus is more central and the pancake cores are not??? Just a guess.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: ignitebowling on July 11, 2018, 12:14:30 PM
Here are the plastic ball comparisons with the Track 100P pancake weight block and the Track Spare Plus asymmetric core plastic ball.

With the 100P I am limited to only 3ozs top weight and shifting the cg/pin closer or further from the center grip line in order to get 2.8 ozs positive or negative side weight. This also moves the pin towards or away form the PAP when trying to get the static weights desired. The CG marks the low RG axis/pin for the pancake weight block.

With the Spare Plus I can change the cg location in relation to the MB and the pin along with the top weight. This allowed me to keep the exact same layout and shift the pin to create 3ozs positive and negative side weight.

Here are the total boards hook for each on the list lane conditions......

Track spare Plus

drilled 50 x 4 x 30

3ozs positive side

house 12.97
short  16.50
long    08.22

50 x 4 x 30

3ozs negative side

house 12.51
short  15.52
long   07.40


Track P100

2.8 positive side weight 0" pin to pap

house 06.97
short  11.96
long   06.30

2.8 negative side weight 10.5" pin to pap

house 09.80
short  15.65
long   08.84

Was there any noticable difference in the entry angle? I think the majority of bowlers would be under the impression that a plastic ball with a core is going to spin faster than a pancake counterpart and "hit harder". I don't subscribe to the "plastic w/ core = hit harder" theory as I believe entry angle is what creates carry, not the core.

Screen shots of the specs when comparing Spare Plus vs 100P for entry angle etc. Both bowling balls drilled with a 30 degree Val and a 4" pin to pap

https://postimg.cc/gallery/2r8umkrx8/ (https://postimg.cc/gallery/2r8umkrx8/)
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: DP3 on July 11, 2018, 01:22:50 PM
I admire your work ethic and attention to detail. I think the biggest takeaway from this is how much the high ratio house pattern negates technical specifications of the ball. I'm sure the margins get even closer on house when you start randomizing any two reactive balls.

USBC knows that preservation of "integrity" starts and ends with the pattern that is bowled on. They also know that if they mandate tougher conditions, that you'll see a large drop off from the majority of the base which are 160-180 avg bowlers. One they start shooting 100-110s on sport compliant patterns, they're just not going to bowl due to bruised ego or not having the physical acumen to get down the mechanics in order to repeat a shot, generate optimal rev rate/ball speed ratio, or simply don't want a challenge.

The ball rules are only in place to bring a close to their years of testing, hundreds of thousands of dollars in research, and thousands of paid man-hours. It's not the solution, but it makes them look like they've "come to a conclusion" and generate more $ for the ball companies & pro shops as bowlers replace equipment that's phasing out due to spec rules.

The ball companies and pro shops increasing revenue is the only silver lining in this.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: ignitebowling on July 11, 2018, 02:06:37 PM
Tougher conditions won't hurt the 160 average bowlers ego as much, it's the 200 plus average bowler it will affect the most. I don't believe the conditions are the issue. Most league bowlers don't want harder conditions. Most are happy to bowl what they do on what most consider easier conditions. Not all house conditions are the same. Not all houses are the same. Too many want to put down "house" conditions by assuming they area ll the same.....easy.

Bowlers that want to bowl more competitively on tougher conditions are low in numbers. This is evident with anytime someone post a "scratch" league or tournament and typically get low turnout. Add the phrase "sport pattern" to any event and watch the bowlers disappear. 

Bowling is different for everyone. The large number of bowlers today like the bowlers 40 years ago want to go bowl and have fun. It is social entertainment. There are very competitive leagues out there as well. They can choose to govern their league like any tournament with tougher or easier conditions. Why make bowlers that have no interest in that bowl on something they do not want to?

USBC can not make the conditions tougher or regulate them past where they are for leagues. They know the proprietors will say no, and in the end USBC cannot fight them. Bowling centers do not need USBC, USBC needs bowling centers.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: BeerLeague on July 24, 2018, 03:24:44 PM
I'm still betting that the USBC will revert the weight hole issue.  The no-thumbers have been flipping us the bird for years ..... why will they stop now or why would anyone call them on it when they haven't in the past?

Come 2020, I'll have weight holes because I'm not plugging my $200 equipment because someone else cheated. The no-thumbers with their "thumb" holes and the mother of all cheating ... flipping the ball around backwards .... that's precious.

I obeyed the rules when I needed a hole to keep legal static weight at 1oz.  I didn't want to add weight holes but was forced too. In 2020, the USBC and anyone else who doesn't like my P2 static balance holes can kiss my @$$.

Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: tkkshop on July 24, 2018, 03:30:02 PM
I'm still betting that the USBC will revert the weight hole issue.  The no-thumbers have been flipping us the bird for years ..... why will they stop now or why would anyone call them on it when they haven't in the past?

Come 2020, I'll have weight holes because I'm not plugging my $200 equipment because someone else cheated. The no-thumbers with their "thumb" holes and the mother of all cheating ... flipping the ball around backwards .... that's precious.

I obeyed the rules when I needed a hole to keep legal static weight at 1oz.  I didn't want to add weight holes but was forced too. In 2020, the USBC and anyone else who doesn't like it can kiss my @$$.
Any ball you drill after 8/1/2018 can be 3 oz side, finger, thumb legal, no hole needed. so you do not have to plug any balls that you drill up now going forward. BUT, if you are still using balls 2 years from now that are already drilled, they will not be worth $200. Those balls may be worth $30. So you can plug your hole in your $30 ball, or just buy a new one.

For the love of me, why are bowlers so cheap!
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: Good Times Good Times on July 24, 2018, 03:40:58 PM
In 2020, the USBC and anyone else who doesn't like my P2 static balance holes can kiss my @$$.

I don't know if it will be so much of them kissing your ass as opposed to simply disqualifying your scores.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: BeerLeague on July 25, 2018, 09:44:57 AM
In 2020, the USBC and anyone else who doesn't like my P2 static balance holes can kiss my @$$.

I don't know if it will be so much of them kissing your ass as opposed to simply disqualifying your scores.

You're right .... I'm just very hot about this.

If I had a nickel for everytime I've seen a no-thumber bowl with illegal equipment, I'd be a rich man.  From the "thumb" holes never used with a weight hole in the ball, to the flipping of the ball around backwards ----- I've never seen any of those scores ever get disqualified......EVER. 


Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: Good Times Good Times on July 25, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
In 2020, the USBC and anyone else who doesn't like my P2 static balance holes can kiss my @$$.

I don't know if it will be so much of them kissing your ass as opposed to simply disqualifying your scores.

You're right .... I'm just very hot about this.

If I had a nickel for everytime I've seen a no-thumber bowl with illegal equipment, I'd be a rich man.  From the "thumb" holes never used with a weight hole in the ball, to the flipping of the ball around backwards ----- I've never seen any of those scores ever get disqualified......EVER.

Did you ever challenge them?  If you clearly pointed to the rule and clearly showed the violation it seems to me those scores would have to be vacated.  If the first point of contact rejected your calling out the violations you could have escalated it up the ladder. 

I'm not trying to "get you" I'm just simply saying that.....because past rules violations occurred (I'll grant that they did) that doesn't justify your future plans to violate rules.  They were wrong then and they will be wrong in the future.  Admittedly, I'm sure it has happened in some of the leagues or tournaments I've participated in but, for one reason or another, I've never been that vociferous about it so I probably didn't notice it. 

My personal integrity wouldn't allow me to willingly throw illegal equipment, but that's just me.  I don't want a single pin or dollar I haven't earned legally. 

If you notice someone breaking the rules call that shit out.  They'll predictably get pissed but realize they have an issue with the rulebook as opposed to an issue with you. 
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: djgook on July 25, 2018, 01:37:05 PM
A lot of two handers use their thumb.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: lefty50 on July 25, 2018, 02:39:17 PM
Well said GT....
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: BowlingForDonuts on July 27, 2018, 03:35:48 PM
Very interesting.  Blueprint to the rescue.

https://www.bowlingthismonth.com/bowling-tips/the-effect-of-static-imbalance-on-bowling-ball-performance/
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: ignitebowling on July 27, 2018, 07:04:20 PM
The results I got differed slightly on positive vs negative side weights. But, this is the case in real life when examining a variety of styles of bowlers.

What I did find interesting more so that I am surprised not to see in this article was the impact on finger weight vs thumb weight that I played with using 2 different bowlers with very similar results.

If I drilled a ball and the ending static weight was around 0 to 1/2 oz of finger weight, then keeping everything on the layout the same and increasing the end results of the finger wight to be in the 2.5 to 3oz range the results were noticeably different. More so then comparing 3oz positive to 3oz negative on side weight. The change in total hook was reduced and the length was increased more then any weight hole option on the software.

At the same time keeping the pin placement the same and increasing the end results for the thumb weight getting closer to 1 to 2ozs resulted in sooner and more overall hook. The difference between finger weight and thumb weight was very unexpected. I almost skipped looking into it because i assumed it was irrelevant. If anything was going to affect ball reaction it would have to be more or less side weight......not so much.

I think it is interesting that USBC was unable to really test this with throwbot "allegedly". Maybe they were hoping no one else would consider it if side wight wasn't a factor. Not sure. I will play with it some more on bp and see if I can get similar results across a variety of styles of bowlers.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: BowlingForDonuts on July 27, 2018, 09:07:22 PM
Grateful to have you number guys around so we have more than gut feelings moving us forward.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: don coyote on July 27, 2018, 09:15:10 PM
Can we still use a Rico drilling with out the weight hole?
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: ignitebowling on July 27, 2018, 09:20:24 PM
Grateful to have you number guys around so we have more than gut feelings moving us forward.  Thank you.

Bought the software a month before usbc announced the changes and doing away with weight holes….. Purpose of buying software…. Seeing and sharing the affects of weight holes to others.  Pros and cons.  Thanks usbc
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: 2handedrook12 on July 28, 2018, 02:59:30 AM
Can we still use a Rico drilling with out the weight hole?
Doesn't do what the creator intended without it.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: imagonman on July 28, 2018, 11:36:53 AM
The results I got differed slightly on positive vs negative side weights. But, this is the case in real life when examining a variety of styles of bowlers.

What I did find interesting more so that I am surprised not to see in this article was the impact on finger weight vs thumb weight that I played with using 2 different bowlers with very similar results.

If I drilled a ball and the ending static weight was around 0 to 1/2 oz of finger weight, then keeping everything on the layout the same and increasing the end results of the finger wight to be in the 2.5 to 3oz range the results were noticeably different. More so then comparing 3oz positive to 3oz negative on side weight. The change in total hook was reduced and the length was increased more then any weight hole option on the software.

At the same time keeping the pin placement the same and increasing the end results for the thumb weight getting closer to 1 to 2ozs resulted in sooner and more overall hook. The difference between finger weight and thumb weight was very unexpected. I almost skipped looking into it because i assumed it was irrelevant. If anything was going to affect ball reaction it would have to be more or less side weight......not so much.

I think it is interesting that USBC was unable to really test this with throwbot "allegedly". Maybe they were hoping no one else would consider it if side wight wasn't a factor. Not sure. I will play with it some more on bp and see if I can get similar results across a variety of styles of bowlers.

Maybe YOU should be running the equipment testing division over @ USBC and writing articles for BTM as well!!!!!! Keep up the great investigative work. More testing for sure from a trusted unbiased source as yourself is what is sorely needed. Thanks
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: avabob on July 28, 2018, 06:55:33 PM
New balance rules will have some possibly interesting,  but minor pacts on ball reaction.  Yhey were clearly intended to impact the 2 handers, but will also have minimal impact on them.   
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: ignitebowling on July 29, 2018, 10:33:38 AM
New balance rules will have some possibly interesting,  but minor pacts on ball reaction.  Yhey were clearly intended to impact the 2 handers, but will also have minimal impact on them.

This could give some advantages in drilling options for two handers to take advantage of with finger weight vs "thumb weight"  but the rev rate is a huge part of what generates it.  At 500+ rpms small things make a bigger difference then at 250 rpms.  Advantage or perception of advantage being the key. More isn't always better.

Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: ignitebowling on July 29, 2018, 10:36:00 AM
The results I got differed slightly on positive vs negative side weights. But, this is the case in real life when examining a variety of styles of bowlers.

What I did find interesting more so that I am surprised not to see in this article was the impact on finger weight vs thumb weight that I played with using 2 different bowlers with very similar results.

If I drilled a ball and the ending static weight was around 0 to 1/2 oz of finger weight, then keeping everything on the layout the same and increasing the end results of the finger wight to be in the 2.5 to 3oz range the results were noticeably different. More so then comparing 3oz positive to 3oz negative on side weight. The change in total hook was reduced and the length was increased more then any weight hole option on the software.

At the same time keeping the pin placement the same and increasing the end results for the thumb weight getting closer to 1 to 2ozs resulted in sooner and more overall hook. The difference between finger weight and thumb weight was very unexpected. I almost skipped looking into it because i assumed it was irrelevant. If anything was going to affect ball reaction it would have to be more or less side weight......not so much.

I think it is interesting that USBC was unable to really test this with throwbot "allegedly". Maybe they were hoping no one else would consider it if side wight wasn't a factor. Not sure. I will play with it some more on bp and see if I can get similar results across a variety of styles of bowlers.

Maybe YOU should be running the equipment testing division over @ USBC and writing articles for BTM as well!!!!!! Keep up the great investigative work. More testing for sure from a trusted unbiased source as yourself is what is sorely needed. Thanks


I'd have a lot of fun if I got the chance to use a throwbot thats for sure….. It wouldn't be for trying to shoot 900.

Just trying to get the most of the software to help with information since my intended purpose for weight hole information is going to be useless in a year or so.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: ignitebowling on July 29, 2018, 10:37:25 AM
Can we still use a Rico drilling with out the weight hole?
Doesn't do what the creator intended without it.


It's still a great layout option for asymmetrical bowling balls without the weight hole.
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: AlonzoHarris on September 04, 2018, 11:05:06 AM
The results I got differed slightly on positive vs negative side weights. But, this is the case in real life when examining a variety of styles of bowlers.

What I did find interesting more so that I am surprised not to see in this article was the impact on finger weight vs thumb weight that I played with using 2 different bowlers with very similar results.

If I drilled a ball and the ending static weight was around 0 to 1/2 oz of finger weight, then keeping everything on the layout the same and increasing the end results of the finger wight to be in the 2.5 to 3oz range the results were noticeably different. More so then comparing 3oz positive to 3oz negative on side weight. The change in total hook was reduced and the length was increased more then any weight hole option on the software.

At the same time keeping the pin placement the same and increasing the end results for the thumb weight getting closer to 1 to 2ozs resulted in sooner and more overall hook. The difference between finger weight and thumb weight was very unexpected. I almost skipped looking into it because i assumed it was irrelevant. If anything was going to affect ball reaction it would have to be more or less side weight......not so much.

I think it is interesting that USBC was unable to really test this with throwbot "allegedly". Maybe they were hoping no one else would consider it if side wight wasn't a factor. Not sure. I will play with it some more on bp and see if I can get similar results across a variety of styles of bowlers.

To recap this - You're seeing more length with high amount of finger weight, and more plus earlier hook with high amount of thumb weight? Also basically zero change from either positive or negative side weight? Have you tested this any further?
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: tburky on September 06, 2018, 06:06:22 AM
What is the cost of blueprint software
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: ignitebowling on September 06, 2018, 09:48:17 PM
500
Title: Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference
Post by: BeerLeague on September 10, 2018, 01:25:55 PM
It's all academic....

I bet the USBC will change the rules again before implementation.  In the end we will be allowed to have up to 3oz static AND weight holes.   It doesn't really matter to me after thinking about it... I started up this past week with the sport shot league and realized I don't really like bowling enough to care anymore.

This ball, that ball, this layout, that layout, this pattern, that pattern .... I'm BURNT.  I just want the game simple again.....call me old fashioned.  A ball with surface and one without ... a 2 ball bag .. and be done with it.  Equipment wasn't as important.  I guess those days are long gone.