Post by: bgh on July 31, 2007, 08:44:37 AM
BrunsNick is Famous! (Qualifier : Whichever Viewpoint you take...{fixed})
--------------------
SeriousKeglers.com (http://"http://Seriouskeglers.com")
Recognizing, Sharing; Learning - One Frame at a Time; Saving "Bowling as a Sport"
Edited on 8/6/2007 6:43 PM
Post by: JessN16 on July 31, 2007, 04:54:22 PM
Sounds like it's right down the middle of the two arguments, which is where the truth usually is.
Jess
Post by: kmanestor22 on July 31, 2007, 04:59:52 PM
quote:fixed
Article : USBC Equipment Specifications and Certification - Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it? - By Paul Ridenour, USBC research engineer (http://"http://www.bowlingdigital.com/bowling/node/17294/")
BrunsNick is IMFamous!
--------------------
SeriousKeglers.com (http://"http://Seriouskeglers.com")
Recognizing, Sharing; Learning - One Frame at a Time; Saving "Bowling as a Sport"
Edited on 7/31/2007 4:55 PM
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: kmanestor22 on July 31, 2007, 05:03:59 PM
Four feet longer...sounds like irrefutable proof that cg matters!!!!!
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: Steven on July 31, 2007, 05:07:29 PM
quote:
It is worth noting that even though these are minor differences, they are still differences. Mathematically, the difference in position is roughly only about 10 percent; this is not always easy to tell on the lanes observing from 60 feet away. USBC had thought the balls looked very similar in reaction; however, the math paints a different picture.
AND............
quote:
In closing, both sides of the center of gravity debate should be able to appreciate this study, since it does show a difference between positive weight and side weight; however, that difference only amounts to about a 10 percent difference overall in change of position on the lanes.
Going back to the Brunswick video, you saw the difference that 10% made when the lanes started to settle in -- The Positive went through the nose while the Negative still struck.
10% can be a significant difference to a skilled bowler. I don't know if it's enough to legally require a Brunsnick recall of CGNOMADDAH t-shirts, but at least there is clarity from a neutral third party.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: on July 31, 2007, 05:10:37 PM
P-L-E-A-S-E!! Kill me now...
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"The problem is no that there are problems. The problem is expecting otherwise and thinking that having problems is a problem." ~ Theodore Rubin
Post by: bgh on July 31, 2007, 05:12:20 PM
quote:
P-L-E-A-S-E!! Kill me now...
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"The problem is no that there are problems. The problem is expecting otherwise and thinking that having problems is a problem." ~ Theodore Rubin
Zoltan's Vengeance Pending...--------------------
SeriousKeglers.com (http://"http://Seriouskeglers.com")
Recognizing, Sharing; Learning - One Frame at a Time; Saving "Bowling as a Sport"
Edited on 7/31/2007 5:18 PM
Post by: kmanestor22 on July 31, 2007, 05:14:48 PM
quote:
P-L-E-A-S-E!! Kill me now...
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"The problem is no that there are problems. The problem is expecting otherwise and thinking that having problems is a problem." ~ Theodore Rubin
Do worry. You'll all drink the Kool-Aid together at Nick's party tonight. Zoltan!!! indeed
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: purduepaul on July 31, 2007, 05:25:04 PM
Post by: on July 31, 2007, 05:27:49 PM
Quote:
Do worry. You'll all drink the Kool-Aid together at Nick's party tonight. Zoltan!!! indeed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Party at Nick's? Kill me now...
Just kidding!! I like Nick. Isn't he the fat guy in the red suit who brings presents?
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"The problem is no that there are problems. The problem is expecting otherwise and thinking that having problems is a problem." ~ Theodore Rubin
Post by: bgh on July 31, 2007, 05:30:36 PM
quote:
Just to clarify something, its not four feet in breakpoint, its 4 feet before the first transition. The breakpoint difference is a little over one foot.
Thanks, Paul - Great job on your article, good read. Is this going to be posted on Bowl.com anytime soon! Seems like Herbert Bickel (BowlingDigital.com) seems to get an advance exclusive on most of these USBC Testing and Specification articles. Only can find a few of these on Bowl.com - unless they are buried in the layers of menus on the USBC site.
--------------------
SeriousKeglers.com (http://"http://Seriouskeglers.com")
Recognizing, Sharing; Learning - One Frame at a Time; Saving "Bowling as a Sport"
Edited on 7/31/2007 5:50 PM
Post by: purduepaul on July 31, 2007, 05:37:22 PM
Post by: on July 31, 2007, 05:41:51 PM
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"The problem is no that there are problems. The problem is expecting otherwise and thinking that having problems is a problem." ~ Theodore Rubin
Post by: Juggernaut on July 31, 2007, 06:14:12 PM
quote:
the only substantial difference is that the positive CG ball has positive side weight of 1.25 ounces and the negative CG ball has negative side weight of 1.35 ounces.
I thought the maximum allowable "legal" sideweight was 1 oz. Therefore, the maximum allowable difference for this test should be 2 oz, but they themselves ( U.S.B.C. ) used balls that were, in essence "illegal", so the test results are still null and void.
1.25oz+1.35oz=2.60oz--- Out of tolerance by .60
If you are going to do the test, you should at least stick to the legal ruling you have made yourself. Swinging the CG out to 45 degrees should not be done if it put the ball outside of the "legal" limits. If it is outside those limits, the appropriate weight hole should have been used to bring it back within specs.
If you are going to arbitrarily test balls without regards for the "legal" limits, what good does that data do us in the "real world" environment? You would never be allowed to swing the CG that far, ending up with too much sideweight, and still be allowed to use it in sanctioned competition until the weighthole was applied to bring it back to "legal" specs.
How could they overlook something like that?
--------------------
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
(\ /)
( . .)
c(')(')
My Bowl.com member page (http://"http://members.bowl.com/FindAMember/memberView.aspx?mp=2243&ms=4831&s=2006-2007")
Edited on 7/31/2007 6:15 PM
Post by: Gunny on July 31, 2007, 07:46:17 PM
Post by: DP3 on July 31, 2007, 07:58:41 PM
--------------------
-DJ Marshall
...The Twelve In a Row Pro Shop
Post by: Steven on July 31, 2007, 08:49:09 PM
quote:
It's so easy to see that C.G. has such a minor insignificance inside of legal specs. Anytime someone wants to go prove/disprove it they take the experiments way out of boundaries.
It wasn't CGNOMADDAH inside of legal limits. It was CGNOMADDAH period.
The USBC research shows what many of us already knew, that it does matter to some degree.
The argument with the previous Brunswick video is that the 'test' was sloppy at best; their whole intent was to show a conclusion they had already come to. In doing so, they were less than rigorous. The visual clearly showed different reactions in the last few shots, but they glossed over that by showing a "plot graph" concluding everything was the same. The Brunswick faithful proceeded to trip over their tongues yelling "ignore what you saw, look at the graph !!".
The USBC graph actually seems in sync with what really happened in the Brunswick video. So now, all those who cling to CGNOMADDAH scream "yea, but what about legal limits????".
The denial is amazing, yet at the same time predictable.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: WillynHook on July 31, 2007, 09:19:44 PM
Guess I can post this now...
quote:
From: purduepaul
Received: 7/19/2007 5:48:27 PM
Subject: CG - yeah, you know the topic... & thanks
Message: Dr. Joe-
Thanks for the support, honestly everyone here at the USBC does care about what typical bowlers care about. In the past there was a perception that no one in the general bowling public cared about the technical stuff. That opinion has since been proven wrong with my departments online articles. The CG debate is interesting and the article I wrote is the beginning. Besides my big coaching project the CG project will be my first project of 2008. The CATS data is interesting and the answer is 3 ounces of side weight difference from 1.25 ounces negative to 1.75 positive is about two boards and a foot difference in breakpoint (the negative ball has the longer bp). It would be hard to see with the naked eye. Static weights will be taken into consideration in phase II of the ball motion study. Keep reading and provide feedback since the USBC is the bowler's orginization.
Paul
Paul...
Yes, looking forward to actual numbers and CATS data. It is nice to see
someone at USBC interested in some of the debates that are happening in the
bowling trenches. Sometimes it does get pretty interesting what topics
the common house hacks (like myself) try to get involved in.
Good to see someone turning their degrees in science into a work/dreamjob
situation.
Cheers.
Dr. Joe
Post by: nospareball on July 31, 2007, 11:00:43 PM
quote:
First of all, in the opening credits, it states that Nick's video is on Brunswick's website, that is incorrect, it is BrunsNick's website.
Secondly, they tested 2 Columbia balls. They did not test 2 Brunswick bowling balls or Ebonite or any other compnay for that matter. Therefore, how can you state anything more than the CG apparently matters in Columbia bowling balls, nothing else. All companies manufacture bowling balls differently, including infrastructure.
It is a valid test in reference to Columbia balls and really nothing else.
--------------------
Ric Hamlin
Pacific Northwest Product Specialist
Brunswick Bowling
AKA "Rico" and L.I.M.O.M.
By that logic you could state that Cg only matters in Columbia Wraith SF's and nothing else!
It's physics. Sure there will be some core+cover+bowler combinations where CG plays less of a role, but this test was to show whether or not CG placement and side weight had any effect on the reaction of a bowling ball.
I've always thought that CG mattered. Side weight is offset weight in a round object. Offset weight will affect the roll of a ball to some degree. Those that say 1oz makes no difference in a 16lb bowling ball should look at some of the other stats listed for balls that are seemingly small. Can people tell the difference between an RG of 2.49 and 2.54? Most here would say yes I would think, but really that's only a difference of .05 of an inch (1/20" for you drillers). Small numbers become big forces once an object is spun at 300rpm.
--------------------
-Clint
Post by: LuckyLefty on July 31, 2007, 11:16:10 PM
But not this
guy....
Rotopop
--------------------
Paul
That you may retain your self-respect, it is better to displease the people by doing what you know is right, than to temporarily please them by doing what you know is wrong.
--William J. H. Boetcker
But maybe....
REgards,
Luckylefty
CGNOMADDEH except on Rotogrip balls thrown by Luckylefty or Lane 1 balls thrown by Richie Sposato. But yes Matters on Brunswick balls thrown by Walter Ray Williams but not now...that they've changed their manufacturing process for their cores. but sometimes matters when thrown by Parker Bohn...but did matter when thrown by Mike Scroggins till he signed with Track...and then...
--------------------
Open the door...see what's possible...and just walk right on through...that's how easy success feels..
Post by: GTX on August 01, 2007, 10:21:40 AM
more amazing when Lane1 bowlers were denying the concept of the CGNOMADDAH and were called idiots .. etc ... and now we see those who believe in CGNOMADDAH are in complete denial ...
if this test said CG doesn't matter, this thread would have been at least 4-5 pages by now
like I said before .. visual test fails when numbers are talking
--------------------
Member of F.O.S.
Post by: Fluff E Bunnie on August 01, 2007, 10:26:54 AM
--------------------
Malkovich? Malkovich Malcovich Malkovich.
Post by: Fluff E Bunnie on August 01, 2007, 10:31:48 AM
--------------------
Malkovich? Malkovich Malcovich Malkovich.
Post by: SKIDSNAP on August 01, 2007, 10:39:14 AM
Secondly, they tested 2 Columbia balls. They did not test 2 Brunswick bowling balls or Ebonite or any other compnay for that matter. Therefore, how can you state anything more than the CG apparently matters in Columbia bowling balls, nothing else. All companies manufacture bowling balls differently, including infrastructure.
It is a valid test in reference to Columbia balls and really nothing else.
--------------------
Ric Hamlin
Pacific Northwest Product Specialist
Brunswick Bowling
Your credebility in my mind has been reduced to nil. "CG only matters in Columbia balls" LOL I cannot believe you actually typed that. I now must assume that your knowledge of bowling balls and physics is at a Pre-K level.
I think the Fisher-Price website has a forum you can participate in.
Post by: Fluff E Bunnie on August 01, 2007, 10:41:20 AM
--------------------
Malkovich? Malkovich Malcovich Malkovich.
Post by: Steven on August 01, 2007, 10:45:55 AM
Nice work on the study. I have a question for clarification regarding the following:
quote:
One eight-shot test was used as a break-in period for the two balls in the study.
Does this mean that eight shots were taken on the target lanes before the measurable test started?
Thanks.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: on August 01, 2007, 10:57:10 AM
quote:
Just to clarify something, its not four feet in breakpoint, its 4 feet before the first transition. The breakpoint difference is a little over one foot.
______________________________________________________________________________
The effect of CG in this study with a robot (not a bowler) was H-U-G-E!!! A whopping 1 foot (approx.) difference at breakpoint!
Imagine what would happen if a real bowler (who is much more accurate than the robot) threw the ball, WOW!!! Most bowlers, including the ones on this site, and I include myself, would never see the difference...
If you think you can see the difference, you probably will. But don't forget to put a tooth under your pillow tonight for the Tooth Fairy...
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Post by: chitown on August 01, 2007, 10:59:28 AM
quote:
The effect of CG in this study with a robot (not a bowler) was H-U-G-E!!! A whopping 1 foot (approx.) difference at breakpoint!
Imagine what would happen if a real bowler (who is much more accurate than the robot) threw the ball, WOW!!! Most bowlers, including the ones on this site, and I include myself, would never see the difference...
If you think you can see the difference, you probably will. But don't forget to put a tooth under your pillow tonight for the Tooth Fairy...
--------------------
The ball get's into it's roll 4ft sooner which makes a big difference. This makes a difference when it comes down to the ball reading the pattern.
Face the facts, the CG does matter! You guys were wrong!
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!
Post by: on August 01, 2007, 11:01:54 AM
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Post by: chitown on August 01, 2007, 11:03:45 AM
quote:
Don't forget to put out your Easter basket, too.
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Typical response from the CG don't matter crowd!
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!
Post by: Fluff E Bunnie on August 01, 2007, 11:04:20 AM
--------------------
Malkovich? Malkovich Malcovich Malkovich.
Post by: Dan Belcher on August 01, 2007, 11:04:36 AM
quote:
The ball get's into it's roll 4ft sooner which makes a big difference.
With an illegal CG. That distance would be of course smaller with a ball that actually was drilled within legal USBC limits.
CG DOES matter to a degree, but not as much as pin placement or coverstock for example.
Post by: on August 01, 2007, 11:04:56 AM
P-L-E-A-S-E.... Kill... me... now...
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Post by: on August 01, 2007, 11:09:20 AM
Quote
CGMADDAHSALITTLEBUTONLYIFTHROWNBYAROBOTUSINGCOLUMBIA. The Shirt.
--------------------
I'll take one! But I'm going to test it for accuracy. It better be symmetrical, too...
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Post by: Steven on August 01, 2007, 11:13:06 AM
quote:
If you think you can see the difference, you probably will. But don't forget to put a tooth under your pillow tonight for the Tooth Fairy...
notclay: We saw the difference in the Brunswick video over the last few shots. It was not imagined, but very real. Most would consider positive going through the nose while the the negative still struck a meaningful difference.
Where there is 'difference', there is area for a better bowler to consider when setting up equipment. Even though it's relatively minor, it appears to be enough to at least think about.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: Joe Jr on August 01, 2007, 11:18:24 AM
Nice test!
--------------------
My Vid (http://"http://media.putfile.com/new-48-28")
Formerly Brunswick Lefty & Richard Cranium
Quote from Conspirator300:
And yeah, I do know it all.. I don't spend 30+ hours a week learning more about bowling for my heatlh... I do it so I know more than all of you.. which I do. (besides the random few that are staffers/work in the bowling business.. which that population is decreasing little by little)
Post by: on August 01, 2007, 11:19:42 AM
That's why this argument is so insane. It took a robot to decide the difference in 1 foot at the breakpoint.
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Post by: RSalas on August 01, 2007, 11:21:32 AM
quote:
Where there is 'difference', there is area for a better bowler to consider when setting up equipment. Even though it's relatively minor, it appears to be enough to at least think about.
Point taken. But for the vastest majority of us (myself included at the forefront), it would be a better use of our time to practice our shotmaking and our spare shooting than to worry about ending statics.
--------------------
...formerly "The Curse of Dusty," and "Poöter Boöf" before that...
Post by: chitown on August 01, 2007, 11:22:39 AM
quote:
I agree that there is a very slight difference. The average bowler would probably never see it because he can't hit his target twice in a row with the approximate same speed.
That's why this argument is so insane. It took a robot to decide the difference in 1 foot at the breakpoint.
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
You keep saying one foot at the break point. What about getting into it's roll 4ft earlier?
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!
Edited on 8/1/2007 11:25 AM
Post by: on August 01, 2007, 11:24:02 AM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shot making? In bowling? That's for golfers!
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Post by: on August 01, 2007, 11:30:04 AM
Quote:
You keep saying one foot at the break pint. What about getting into it's roll 4ft earlier?
------------------------------------------------------
Actually I was talking about breakpoint. Some bowlers do break pints, however.
Regarding the four feet of earlier roll, that's nice.
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Post by: on August 01, 2007, 11:33:24 AM
Point taken. But for the vastest majority of us (myself included at the forefront), it would be a better use of our time to practice our shotmaking and our spare shooting than to worry about ending statics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Practice? Practice, not the game, but practice...
What you talkin' 'bout Willis?
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Post by: nospareball on August 01, 2007, 12:06:02 PM
A 2" swing of the pin up or down with the same pin to pap distance probably won't make more than a foot or 2 difference. But you can't go a day without seeing a thread about someone worrying about pin up or pin down. "OMG, pin up and it will never turn the corner!" or "I don't want the ball to start up too soon with a pin down drill!"
--------------------
-Clint
Post by: Fluff E Bunnie on August 01, 2007, 12:15:31 PM
quote:
Like I said earlier in this post:
P-L-E-A-S-E.... Kill... me... now...
I'm checking out some stuff on suicidegunreviews.com. You can have mine when I am done.
--------------------
Malkovich? Malkovich Malcovich Malkovich.
Post by: RealBowler on August 01, 2007, 12:32:59 PM
quote:
First of all, in the opening credits, it states that Nick's video is on Brunswick's website, that is incorrect, it is BrunsNick's website.
Secondly, they tested 2 Columbia balls. They did not test 2 Brunswick bowling balls or Ebonite or any other compnay for that matter. Therefore, how can you state anything more than the CG apparently matters in Columbia bowling balls, nothing else. All companies manufacture bowling balls differently, including infrastructure.
It is a valid test in reference to Columbia balls and really nothing else.
--------------------
Ric Hamlin
Pacific Northwest Product Specialist
Brunswick Bowling
AKA "Rico" and L.I.M.O.M.
WOW! Care to let us know how the Brunswick manufacturing process is able to eliminate the CG "difference"?
Once again, this just goes to show how this whole argument will never be settled. You will always have somebody that says:
- You only tested one manufacturer;
- You only threw it on one lane condition;
- You only threw it on one type of lane, using one type of oil;
- What was the humidity in the room at the time? My center has more/less humidity and that might make a difference
etc, etc, etc.
Then to top it all off, we can't even have a decent discussion without the moronic kiddies like notclay and Fluff E Bunnie interjecting their childish remarks. Even now, half of the posts in this thread are irrelevant to the discussion.
--------------------
Haywood
**************************
I don't need a stupid
signature. This is enough.
**************************
Post by: Fluff E Bunnie on August 01, 2007, 12:45:01 PM
quote:
Then to top it all off, we can't even have a decent discussion without the moronic kiddies like notclay and Fluff E Bunnie interjecting their childish remarks. Even now, half of the posts in this thread are irrelevant to the discussion.
Haha! Pleased to be of service! It's funny how many people on here can't take a joke. Of course there is a double irony there because my childish remarks are a reference to the earlier childish/mudslinging CG debate threads.
Here's an intelligent question for you. Why is it that in the first videos people said that they wouldn't trust anything until a robot threw the balls and then now the criticism is that only a robot could produce those results?
So here's the only way we can settle this debate. Take the poor robot and have him/her/it throw every single ball made and re-oil the lane in between each shot. Results should be available shortly so that everyone can argue again.
--------------------
Malkovich? Malkovich Malcovich Malkovich.
Post by: qstick777 on August 01, 2007, 12:49:20 PM
quote:quote:
the only substantial difference is that the positive CG ball has positive side weight of 1.25 ounces and the negative CG ball has negative side weight of 1.35 ounces.
I thought the maximum allowable "legal" sideweight was 1 oz. Therefore, the maximum allowable difference for this test should be 2 oz, but they themselves ( U.S.B.C. ) used balls that were, in essence "illegal", so the test results are still null and void.
1.25oz+1.35oz=2.60oz--- Out of tolerance by .60
If you are going to do the test, you should at least stick to the legal ruling you have made yourself. Swinging the CG out to 45 degrees should not be done if it put the ball outside of the "legal" limits. If it is outside those limits, the appropriate weight hole should have been used to bring it back within specs.
If you are going to arbitrarily test balls without regards for the "legal" limits, what good does that data do us in the "real world" environment? You would never be allowed to swing the CG that far, ending up with too much sideweight, and still be allowed to use it in sanctioned competition until the weighthole was applied to bring it back to "legal" specs.
How could they overlook something like that?
--------------------
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
(\ /)
( . .)
c(')(')
My Bowl.com member page (http://"http://members.bowl.com/FindAMember/memberView.aspx?mp=2243&ms=4831&s=2006-2007")
Edited on 7/31/2007 6:15 PM
Your point has been asked multiple times, but nobody will respond. Some will say that the x-hole will affect the reaction, but according to Ebonite and Brunswick, you'll need a hole 31/32" x 2" deep or 1" x 3" deep to affect reaction. So, anything smaller than that will just remove weight. Shouldn't be any problem removing the .25 and .35 of weight to make the balls legal.
ebonite's view of balance hole:
The location of a balance hole is a method of manipulating primarily the differential or track flare potential in a drilled ball. By changing the differential with the use of a balance hole, a pro shop operator can increase or decrease the hook potential of a bowling ball. Note that in order for a ball reaction change to be noticed by most bowlers the balance hole must be at least a 31/32" bit and at least two inches deep.
According to Jayhawk's weight removal chart, 31/32" x 2" hole will remove 1.2 oz.
Brunswick:
Brunswick is recommending a simplified one-hole size / two-hole position technique that
covers the vast majority of ball reaction changes that can be accomplished by drilling an X-hole.
• Use a 1†drill bit, 3†deep, to both increase or decrease track flare.
Note: Larger and deeper X-holes result in only slightly greater increases or decreases in track flare. The one-hole size technique has
the added advantage of avoiding problems with illegal static weights. As long as the ball was originally laid out with at least ¾ oz. of
positive side weight and a small amount of finger/thumb weight, the 1†X 3†hole using either of Brunswick’s recommended X-hole
positions will keep you out of static weight trouble.
According to Jayhawk's weight removal chart, 1" x 3" hole will remove 1.95 oz.
--------------------
Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")
Search Ballreviews entire database here (http://"http://www.bowling-info.com/Search.html")
Post by: chitown on August 01, 2007, 01:04:30 PM
quote:
Your point has been asked multiple times, but nobody will respond. Some will say that the x-hole will affect the reaction, but according to Ebonite and Brunswick, you'll need a hole 31/32" x 2" deep or 1" x 3" deep to affect reaction. So, anything smaller than that will just remove weight. Shouldn't be any problem removing the .25 and .35 of weight to make the balls legal.
ebonite's view of balance hole:
The location of a balance hole is a method of manipulating primarily the differential or track flare potential in a drilled ball. By changing the differential with the use of a balance hole, a pro shop operator can increase or decrease the hook potential of a bowling ball. Note that in order for a ball reaction change to be noticed by most bowlers the balance hole must be at least a 31/32" bit and at least two inches deep.
According to Jayhawk's weight removal chart, 31/32" x 2" hole will remove 1.2 oz.
Brunswick:
Brunswick is recommending a simplified one-hole size / two-hole position technique that
covers the vast majority of ball reaction changes that can be accomplished by drilling an X-hole.
• Use a 1†drill bit, 3†deep, to both increase or decrease track flare.
Note: Larger and deeper X-holes result in only slightly greater increases or decreases in track flare. The one-hole size technique has
the added advantage of avoiding problems with illegal static weights. As long as the ball was originally laid out with at least ¾ oz. of
positive side weight and a small amount of finger/thumb weight, the 1†X 3†hole using either of Brunswick’s recommended X-hole
positions will keep you out of static weight trouble.
According to Jayhawk's weight removal chart, 1" x 3" hole will remove 1.95 oz.
Wouldn't Brunswicks weight hole suggestions make a ball illegal? I mean if your ball is originaly laid out with 3/4 oz of side and you drill a balance hole 1" in diameter, 3" deep, it would give you an ending static of over the 1oz negative! This makes no sense and why would Brunswick suggest this?
I will say this, you don't need to drill the balance hole that deep to get a difference in reaction from the use of the balance hole.
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!
Post by: J_Mac on August 01, 2007, 01:10:25 PM
quote:
According to Jayhawk's weight removal chart, 1" x 3" hole will remove 1.95 oz.
I wouldn't trust that chart anymore since most balls today are made with denser cores and light weight filler material between the coverstock and core. This chart might get close on L/LM equipment where the balls are mostly just coverstock on core.
--------------------
"A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need the advice." Bill Cosby
"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Post by: qstick777 on August 01, 2007, 01:32:29 PM
quote:quote:
According to Jayhawk's weight removal chart, 1" x 3" hole will remove 1.95 oz.
I wouldn't trust that chart anymore since most balls today are made with denser cores and light weight filler material between the coverstock and core. This chart might get close on L/LM equipment where the balls are mostly just coverstock on core.
--------------------
"A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need the advice." Bill Cosby
"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Possibly. I don't expect it to be 100% given different densities, coverstock thickness, ball weight (14-16), etc. I've found it fairly accurate when estimating size and depth.
--------------------
Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")
Search Ballreviews entire database here (http://"http://www.bowling-info.com/Search.html")
Post by: on August 01, 2007, 03:38:15 PM
Then to top it all off, we can't even have a decent discussion without the moronic kiddies like notclay and Fluff E Bunnie interjecting their childish remarks. Even now, half of the posts in this thread are irrelevant to the discussion.
Haywood
_____________________________________________________________________________
Dear Haywood,
Sorry you have zero sense of humor. We've heard this all before, and you're right, no one's convincing anyone with their arguments. Some of us like to have some fun once in awhile. This is not life or death, it's fricking bowling!
Go home. Kiss your wife and kids. Pet the dog. Relax with some incense. Do whatever you need. But remember, it's just bowling.
Sincerely, Your moron,
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Edited on 8/1/2007 3:49 PM
Post by: qstick777 on August 02, 2007, 10:34:40 AM
quote:
Quote:
Then to top it all off, we can't even have a decent discussion without the moronic kiddies like notclay and Fluff E Bunnie interjecting their childish remarks. Even now, half of the posts in this thread are irrelevant to the discussion.
Haywood
_____________________________________________________________________________
Dear Haywood,
Sorry you have zero sense of humor. We've heard this all before, and you're right, no one's convincing anyone with their arguments. Some of us like to have some fun once in awhile. This is not life or death, it's fricking bowling!
Go home. Kiss your wife and kids. Pet the dog. Relax with some incense. Do whatever you need. But remember, it's just bowling.
Sincerely, Your moron,
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Edited on 8/1/2007 3:49 PM
These threads are too funny!
I don't think the "half the posts" was accurate. I went through and counted both of their posts and they only have 1/3 of the posts - 18 out of 54!
If it really bothers you just put them on "ignore" while you read the post!
--------------------
Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")
Search Ballreviews entire database here (http://"http://www.bowling-info.com/Search.html")
Post by: on August 02, 2007, 10:44:06 AM
Other subjects are still "open play".
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Post by: Fluff E Bunnie on August 02, 2007, 12:28:47 PM
Post by: Juggernaut on August 06, 2007, 06:41:16 PM
CG NOMADDAH in Brunswick balls due to the manufacturing techniques used to keep core orientation stable so that, despite the different pin/cg orientation, the core orientation stays static in relation to the pin ( I.E. No tilting of the core to create pin-out positions )
CG MAYMADDAH in balls produced by other companies that have differing manufacture processes and techniques than Brunswick, especially if core orientation is manipulated to produce differing pin positions in relation to the CG positions ( I.E. tilted cores )
I think I understand the concept of CGNOMADDAH. It doesn't matter due to the fact that there is NO DIS-ORIENTATION of the core in Brunswick balls, but I further contend that it doesn't matter no matter WHAT brand of ball you are throwing, due to the fact that, if it is shifted far enough to the side to need a weighthole, then drilling the weighthole moves the actual CG location back close enough to the grip of the ball that it become irrelevant. And, if it is in the palm to begin with ( the CG), then it was inconsequential to start with.
This is why I wasn't satisfied with the testing that Paul did. On the test balls, without appropriate weightholes to bring them into static "legal", the CG position would almost have to make some difference, albeit a small one, but if the weightholes had been drilled, the balls would have ended up with ACTUAL CG placements close enough to one another to have become inconsequential to the balls reaction as a whole.
I sent Paul a message saying that, if the tests had been done both without and with weightholes, I would have found that to be much more conclusive than the way it was done. He replied that there was much more testing to come in the future in this area.
--------------------
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
(\ /)
( . .)
c(')(')
My Bowl.com member page (http://"http://members.bowl.com/FindAMember/memberView.aspx?mp=2243&ms=4831&s=2006-2007")
Post by: purduepaul on August 06, 2007, 09:21:32 PM
You are right, and we are going to be doing both legal and illegal side weights to see the difference if its linear or not. One of the absolute critical things was no weight holes. If you read Nick Siefers' article, one of the subtests he performs shows how the radius of gyration about the pap can change dramatically with a weight hole. We try to keep as many of the other variables as constant as possible. Honestly, no cg test we will perform will have weight holes because of the difference in performance with weight holes added.
Post by: CoachJim on August 06, 2007, 10:10:41 PM
quote:
You are right, and we are going to be doing both legal and illegal side weights to see the difference if its linear or not. One of the absolute critical things was no weight holes. If you read Nick Siefers' article, one of the subtests he performs shows how the radius of gyration about the pap can change dramatically with a weight hole. We try to keep as many of the other variables as constant as possible. Honestly, no cg test we will perform will have weight holes because of the difference in performance with weight holes added.
So Paul, you are saying that the cg placement in a ball doesn't effect ball motion as much as weight hole placement.
That being the case, there is no need to test any cg placements beyond 1oz pos or neg due to the fact that anything past that will require a weight hole to make the ball leagle and the weight hole will take presidence in ball motion over cg placement.
I would like to see the results of a series of tests: one oz pos cg placement vs. one oz. neg cg placement, then test one oz pos vs cg on grip center with one oz pos weight hole vs oz neg cg placement with 2oz positive weight hole vs two oz pos cg placement with one oz neg weight hole vs 3 oz pos cg placement with 2oz weight hole.
This kind of info would help me layout equipment for different reactions and prevent laying out some elaborate drill pattern when all I really needed to do would be to move the cg one way or the other. I am not sure how this reads, but I am not trying to be a smart @$$, I appreciate the hard work and look forward to your future tests.
Post by: Moon57 on August 07, 2007, 10:11:57 AM
Back in the plastic ball era the CG meant alot more because there were no cores in the ball, only a weight block located right under the cover of the ball to compensate for the drilling of the grip. From what I understand, on a ball with a core, the core is tilted a very slight amount to make one side of the ball heavier than the other. This heavier spot is located at various distances from the center of the ball depending on the dia of the core. All the term CG means is somewhere on a line from the CG mark to the center of the ball is a heavy spot. The closer to the cover this heavy spot is the more of an effect it will have on the ball. I think this is the same principal that works for the weight hole. The cover weighs more than the filler, so the weight balance point of the weight hole would be closer to the cover thus having a greater effect on the ball, which it does.
In conclusion, I think the effect of CG is dictated to a small degree by the dia of the core.
Could be everything I've said here is a load crap, half right, who knows. I'm sure I'll be thusly informed.
--------------------
Dick
--------------------
So many questions, so little time but I'm having fun.