win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic: Static weight experiment  (Read 7094 times)

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2778
Static weight experiment
« on: August 18, 2018, 08:23:50 PM »
Starting ball was an eruption pro with a 2x2 layout and an axis hole to bring the ball back to 1 oz of positive side weight.   On a 40 foot THS my shot would stand up quickly with poor continuation.  Not surprising since I set this ball up for use on much shorter patterns. 

After plugging the balance hole the ball had over 2.5 oz pos side weight.   With this set up I still get an angular  move , but with much better continuation whether I played close to the oil or fed it a couple of boards to the dry.

Conclusion, the extra static weight allowed under the new rules can have a more noticeable impact than many people believe.  The impact of precession first discussed by Bill Taylor over 50 years ago is a factor,
Logged

 

ignitebowling

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2018, 08:30:29 PM »
Typically many weight holes will cause the ball to shorten the skid phase and have less total hook. How do you know the difference is created by the static weight vs the reduced diff and increased rg from plugging the hole?
« Last Edit: August 18, 2018, 08:57:52 PM by ignitebowling »
Logged
Ignite your game, and set the lanes on fire. www.facebook.com/ignitebowling  or @ignite_bowling

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2778
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2018, 11:03:53 PM »
I dont. Raising the rg possibly had some impact,  but I think such a significant increase in side weight also had an impact.  My axis rotation increased although I did not change my release.  This is something that is explained better by precession, than rg change. 

Not talking about a big impact, but clearly noticeable.  Also, as a lower rev stroker I think I saw mire impact than a higher rev higher speed player would notice.
Logged

bergman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2018, 08:40:30 AM »
In general, a lower rev, lower speed stroker will see the biggest difference because the effect of side weight is much more noticeable the sooner the ball enters into the roll phase. Also, Bill Taylor was definitely right about the significant effect precession has on a ball's ability to hook. In short, more precession = more hook ( again, generally).

Bill Sempsrott did an excellent analysis on the effects of static weight in a recent issue of BTM. It is worth reading. 
Logged

lefty50

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1822
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2018, 11:23:27 AM »
Forgive me, I absolutely do not want this to be construed as a thread hijack, but I am grinning ear to ear right now.  For years and years I have said that static weight still mattered, and all I got was "1 oz in 16 lbs. You are crazy". (3 oz in 16 lbs is no different...) And I stood here proclaiming that people were missing the differences seen by lower rev, lower speed players like myself. And again I was called crazy. That was then, this is now, and people are beginning to realize. I'll bet some will even proclaim it was always understood. I very much look forward to hearing more in this thread, and am fascinated by precession. I just googled it, and it's a bit above me on first reading, but I'll re-read it later...
Logged

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2778
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2018, 11:38:06 AM »
Precession is best explained by the action of a gyroscope.   The spin keeps  the gyroscope on a vertical plane.  If weight is applied on the axis,  the scope doesn't drop from the weight, but rather the axis rotates while remaining vertical.   All dependent on the speed of the rotation and the amount of weight applied. 

The nice thing about precession is that it promotes continuation on the back end for lower speed lower rev players in the modern high friction environment.  While there is intuitively less impact on the modern core heavy balls, the increase from one to three oz while have an impact and lessen the pact of roll out . 

Just one more note.  The pattern and length of buff I was bowling on probably was more conducive to demonstrate the effect than some other patterns
« Last Edit: August 19, 2018, 01:01:31 PM by avabob »
Logged

lefty50

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1822
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2018, 12:56:42 PM »
Thanks Avabob!
Logged

itsallaboutme

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2018, 05:09:01 PM »
Those are neat theories...until the ball flares. 

Do you really think they would change the rule if 3 oz of side weight had more impact on reaction than a weight hole?  They do tests with actual data to back it up, not what you think you see. 
Logged

jasont215

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2018, 06:00:31 PM »
The change was more because of the weight hole / lack of than the static weight itself. You changed the core shape (RG and differential) when you plugged the weight hole... The static weight impact is negligible in comparison to the balance hole change.
Logged

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2778
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2018, 06:13:19 PM »
You would be right if it was just about weight holes.  This rule was aimed entirely at 2 handers and no thumbers,  the perception being that they were able to manipulate the balance hole rules.   The increase to 3 ozs was thrown in to minimize the adverse impact on the rest of us from eliminating balance holes.  Nobody  said that the increase in static weights willl have a large impact, but I believe the impact is noticeable.  Some argue that the elimination of the balance hole changes the reaction by changing the rg and differential.  I think it is more related to the addition of 2 oz of side weight to the original 1 oz.  This was a narrow observation using a symmetrical ball. 

The sad thing is that all this turmoil will have little if any impact on the target group.   Scoring wont be impacted. 2 handers will not be impacted. 
« Last Edit: August 19, 2018, 06:28:10 PM by avabob »
Logged

BowlingForDonuts

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2018, 07:47:42 PM »
Quote from: jkirkerx on August 19, 2018, 07:00:00 PM
How big was the weight hole?
Diameter and depth ?

I’m no expert on the subject but was always lead to believe that drilling into the core such as the thumb hole; changes the initial core design and intent. Like taking a core shaped liked a round sphere, and drilling a hole into it would almost be equal to taking the same sphere and protruding a peg out of it equal in mass and density as the hole.

The Gas Mask Core would be an example, in which hammer removed the masks and took equal mass away in the Taboo core. Or Mo”s LevRG core which he took mass away in the center to simulate 4 huge holes.

Perhaps filling the weight hole with ball plug of known density simply just changes the core shape.

Just a thought

Quote from: avabob on August 18, 2018, 08:23:50 PM
Starting ball was an eruption pro with a 2x2 layout and an axis hole to bring the ball back to 1 oz of positive side weight.   On a 40 foot THS my shot would stand up quickly with poor continuation.  Not surprising since I set this ball up for use on much shorter patterns. 

After plugging the balance hole the ball had over 2.5 oz pos side weight.   With this set up I still get an angular  move , but with much better continuation whether I played close to the oil or fed it a couple of boards to the dry.

Conclusion, the extra static weight allowed under the new rules can have a more noticeable impact than many people believe.  The impact of precession first discussed by Bill Taylor over 50 years ago is a factor,

As many have said on here nothing new under the Sun.  Visionary was making those Anti Mass Bias balls over a decade ago such that drilling the holes you drilled into the coverstock only and not the core.  Pretty easy to see with my AMB Immortal Pearl with its .08 diff and who knows how strong of mass bias that it has a serious engine on the back end even with a relatively weaker (by today's standards) coverstock.  So far on all the balls with motion holes I have plugged I haven't noticed much of a difference.  Easy to lose in the noise of inconsistency though at least at my level.
Logged
Here today.  Gone tomorrow.

tommygn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2018, 12:16:34 PM »
Quote from: itsallaboutme on August 19, 2018, 05:09:01 PM
Those are neat theories...until the ball flares. 

Do you really think they would change the rule if 3 oz of side weight had more impact on reaction than a weight hole?  They do tests with actual data to back it up, not what you think you see. 


I'm not saying 3oz has more or less of an effect over balance holes.


They made the change because of tri-grips, and two handers complaining that they aren't allowed to use balance holes.

They changed the rule because of two handers being able to rotate a ball 180 and have 2 layouts in one.

It all directly impacts the 8 ball limit, too.

They changed the rule because of the Motiv debacle.

It was about streamlining rules, real world effects were very low on their priorities.

Just my opinion.


You can say they used data for their rule change, but think about it. How many teams go to nationals, and blow holes in patterns because of balance holes??? Nada. They use a lot of surface for that, period. A ball at 3000-4000 grit with a balance hole that flares 7 inches will impact the lane less than a ball with 360-500 grit that only flares 4-5 inches, no hole. Think about it.
Logged
God creates us with a blank canvas, and the "picture" we paint is up to us. Paint a picture you like and love!

tommygn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2018, 01:20:28 PM »
Logged
God creates us with a blank canvas, and the "picture" we paint is up to us. Paint a picture you like and love!

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2778
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2018, 02:23:58 PM »
All good points tomygn.  High friction balls have been the problem for close to 20 years.  We have marvelous technolgy for putting out challenging patterns, but guys can take a ball sanded down to charcoal, and blow up any pattern in no time.
Logged

JustRico

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2652
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2018, 03:37:56 PM »
This is the last thing possible from a proven test...first of all you’re basing it off your personal perception of what the ball did and not actual data...secondly nothing scientific is ever based on one single assessment...and lastly, for this to be a test, you’d need a ball with the pin in the same position, to effect flare and a cg in varying ‘static’ weights to compare
Btw static- lacking in movement, action, or change, especially in a way
Logged
Co-author of BowlTec's END GAMES ~ A Bowler's COMPLETE Guide to Bowling; Head Games ~ the MENTAL approach to bowling (and sports) & (r)eVolve
...where knowledge creates striking results...
BowlTEc on facebook...www.iBowlTec.com
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
« previous next »