win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Static weight experiment  (Read 7092 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,

 

MI 2 AZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8153
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #16 on: August 22, 2018, 04:22:23 PM »
Definition of static
1 : exerting force by reason of weight alone without motion
2 : of or relating to bodies at rest or forces in equilibrium
3 : showing little change - a static population

4 a : characterized by a lack of movement, animation, or progression
4 b : producing an effect of repose or quiescence - a static design

5 a : standing or fixed in one place : stationary
5 b of water : stored in a tank but not under pressure
6 : of, relating to, or producing stationary charges of electricity : electrostatic
7 : of, relating to, or caused by radio static

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/static
_________________________________________
Six decades of league bowling and still learning.

ABC/USBC Lifetime Member since Aug 1995.

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2778
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2018, 12:05:24 AM »
Totally agree Rico.  Nothing totally scientific about my experiment.   Remember, you are talking to a guy who believes release is a bigger factor in ball reaction than surface or core.   

Just saying that while common sense tells me static weight has less impact on  a modern core heavy ball, it still has some.  Therefore 3 oz of side weight will have 3 times the impact of one oz, regardless of the amount 1 oz has

HankScorpio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2018, 07:22:28 AM »
Even in a non-scientific, subjective test, the conclusion doesn’t make sense.

The correct conclusion should’ve been that plugging a weight hole can have a noticeable effect on ball motion. You didn’t test static weights, you tested plugging a weight hole. Still doesn’t make it a scientific test, but at least it draws the correct conclusion from the unscientific test.

As for the rule change, USBC had previously done studies that concluded that static weights have little impact on ball motion, so it seems unlikely they’d believe that using static weights would make up for taking away weight holes. I thought they made it pretty clear that they took them away because no thumbers abused them.


BowlingForDonuts

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2018, 10:50:32 AM »
The correct conclusion should’ve been that plugging a weight hole can have a noticeable effect on ball motion.


It has actually surprised me how little plugging motion holes has changed ball reaction for me so far.  Then again I tend to have mostly between 3 and 4" pin to pap drillings as well.  Might be style dependent too.
Here today.  Gone tomorrow.

DP3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6093
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #20 on: August 24, 2018, 11:36:13 AM »
Because you already reshaped the core to the point that the lower density plug isn't making any difference on the increased RG and increased differential that the crater/Motion hole creates.

ignitebowling

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2018, 12:35:13 PM »
With a pin in the 3-4" range most weight holes will have diminishing returns. More flare doesn't mean more hook.  Everyone thinks a lower rg and higher diff created by weight holes will create more flare and more total hook. It typically won't.
Ignite your game, and set the lanes on fire. www.facebook.com/ignitebowling  or @ignite_bowling

BowlingForDonuts

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2018, 12:37:36 PM »
With a pin in the 3-4" range most weight holes will have diminishing returns. More flare doesn't mean more hook.  Everyone thinks a lower rg and higher diff created by weight holes will create more flare and more total hook. It typically won't.

Way I understand it motion holes were better for increasing int diff (with say a P4) and getting more angle but not more hook unless you have something crazy like a 1" pin to pap.
Here today.  Gone tomorrow.

BowlingForDonuts

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2018, 12:41:40 PM »
Because you already reshaped the core to the point that the lower density plug isn't making any difference on the increased RG and increased differential that the crater/Motion hole creates.

I was hoping that was the case but the following BTM article kind of disputes that.  Even with a ball plugged and redrilled 5x in massively different spots the RG, int diff and diff were hardly affected.

https://www.bowlingthismonth.com/bowling-tips/the-effect-of-plugging-and-redrilling-on-bowling-ball-mass-properties/
Here today.  Gone tomorrow.

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2778
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2018, 01:12:20 PM »
Obviously the only variable I was able to measure was the static weight change from plugging the balance hole.  I will leave it to someone else to say how much the plugging changed the rg and diff.  My gut feel is not much, but to conclude that either change had minimal impact on the observed change in reaction is subject to debate.  Remember I am not talking about a big change here. 

J_w73

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2540
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2018, 02:38:57 PM »
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...

I think the issue was that in today's game, for the average competitive bowler, static weights didn't matter. The core, cover, flare and rpms had more of an impact than the static weights could.  But get a 70 year old bowler with 11 mph and very little revs and side rotation and you will see that 1 oz of weight will make a ton of difference.  3 oz is going to make even a bigger difference.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2018, 02:46:42 PM by J_w73 »
375 RPM, 17-18 MPH, 45+ DEG AXIS ROTATION, 17 DEG TILT

J_w73

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2540
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2018, 02:43:17 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. 

Until someone does a throw bot test with an undrilled symetrical ball, with the weight in different positions (same pin to pap), we will not know if it is the static weight location causing the change in reaction or the weight hole changing the core dynamics.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2018, 02:48:09 PM by J_w73 »
375 RPM, 17-18 MPH, 45+ DEG AXIS ROTATION, 17 DEG TILT

DP3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6093
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2018, 03:06:35 PM »
36 weeks of this coming up is about to be such a jolly good time.

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2778
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2018, 09:17:51 PM »
I dont think 90% of bowlers can make consistent enough releases to see a difference if there is one

HankScorpio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2018, 10:36:00 PM »
The correct conclusion should’ve been that plugging a weight hole can have a noticeable effect on ball motion.


It has actually surprised me how little plugging motion holes has changed ball reaction for me so far.  Then again I tend to have mostly between 3 and 4" pin to pap drillings as well.  Might be style dependent too.

Sorry, I worded that poorly. I meant to say that as HIS conclusion based on his test - as in, in his case, plugging the weight hole made a noticeable difference. The only thing he changed intentionally between test 1 and test 2 is the hole being plugged - therefore, for him on that ball, plugging the weight hole made a difference.

I actually agree with you, plugging the hole rarely makes a big difference for me except for extreme situations when the hole was causing the ball to puke.

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2778
Re: Static weight experiment
« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2018, 02:07:47 PM »
I also chsnged the static weight from 1 oz to 3 oz.  Your assimption is that static weight makes no difference, therefore any observed difference must be attributable  to plugging the balance hole.  My assimption was that static weight as at least minimal impact, therefore a 3 fold increase will have more impact than a 1 oz hole