First, apologies if this is the wrong forum for this thread. Perhaps this would be better off in the layouts forum, but since it applies to this particular ball, I feel it is also appropriate here.

I have finally seen a ball with a great reaction for my style... the new Marvel-S. Problem solved, Storm here I come. But wait a minute. I just dropped everything from 15 pounds to 14 pounds, and the %^&* ball jumps from an RG of 2.49 to 2.53 when it goes to 14 pounds. Why!?!

I know that the RG is not necessarily consistent and typically rises .02 per pound of dropped weight, but the amount of variation I continue to find moving down to 14 from 15 is frustrating beyond belief.

I am neither a fan nor basher of Mo Pinel, but he is a good source of information and I have to agree with him on one point. Everybody has CAD software. If one company can get RGs closer between weights, then I do truly believe that the other companies should be able to also. That may be an uninformed viewpoint, but after being in computers for 40 years, I don't think it is a naïve viewpoint. There are plenty of examples on the market where the problem has been resolved, why the H - E - double hockey sticks can't it be consistent across all the manufacturers?

And don't tell me that you can always compensate for the RG difference in the layout. That has just not proven to be true over time. At least for my particular style of release, anything with an RG above 2.50 or 2.51 pushes down the lane too far. Surface changes or layout changes make enough change in the overall ball that it is no longer the same.

So, I bought a First Blood last night.

PS, please be light on the hate mail, this is really a valid  point....

I'm out.

The core is usually the same for 14#, 15# and 16# balls. The rg differences are probably due to the density of the filler material used to create the different weights.

Lefty... My statement about 5 other factors being more critical to ball motion than RG was not an opinion.

The USBC Ball Motion study proved that with real world research and data.

http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/equipandspecs/pdfs/08ballmotionstudy.pdf

I know this may be off subject.....but I am amazed that you picked up a First Blood!
From all that I've seen of that ball, it just naturally tends to push downlane unless you have some hand! 

Another point... since no one throws a bowling ball without holes, why are you obsessing about the numbers of an undrilled ball?

Lefty... My statement about 5 other factors being more critical to ball motion than RG was not an opinion.

The USBC Ball Motion study proved that with real world research and data.

http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/equipandspecs/pdfs/08ballmotionstudy.pdf

+1

It's hilarious how people still don't really get that.  Also, every ball in the marvel line goes from 2.48 to 2.53 from 15 to 14.  If you are that rev deficient,  asym would be more you anyway...just saying.

Lefty punch it up, take the risk, post your results...

If it sucks for you...you win (your point will be made)
If it doesnt suck for you...you still win!

JMac, I think you're completely off base. Perhaps missing the point. For a low rev bowler, there's a large difference between 2.49 and 2.53. I can only go with what  I have paid for in multiple balls. If you disrespect the opinion, fine. Take it somewhere else.
Urban, you misunderstood. I see a ball in the video that, in the "hands" of someone with less than 400 revs, it made a move unlike the other Marvels and similar to a reaction not currently in the bag. Don't try to read more into it than that.
Jesse, you may be right. In this case, I've seen enough of them thrown against me that I'm going to pay up and see for myself, but I am fairly confident from what I've seen so far. It will be interesting to see.
Militant, I see that you understand the point.

He is not off base, and you are not wrong either. That is where the grey area of bowling comes into play. He is correct, in that the ball motion study has confirmed that cover material and surface preparation has a greater influence of ball motion, than what the core shape and densities does.

BUT, with that said, I also see the same issue with the RG of the ball because I throw it slower, but without much tilt. This makes lower RG balls respond early on the front of the lane more so, as the ball doesn't have the "hydroplane" factor when throwing it slower. If you are more speed dominant with lower revs, you WILL see a higher RG ball push further than a lower RG ball.
For my customers who fall into this category, I usually will drill their bowling balls with pins closer to their PAP and down (slightly further pin buffer). This allows the ball to rev up, but not over react at the point of friction. Plus, I genearlly use more surface for them, often times electing to go with scotch brite over abralon, as scotch brite seems to slow the ball down differently, and create less downlane motion.

So basically, it's not that either one of you is "right" or "wrong". you are just seeing it from two different perspectives.

My take on the RG's going up for lower weight balls from Storm (just my opinion) is that the thought may be that a bowler electing to go with a lower weight ball may not have the strength to throw it hard and thus using a higher Rg may allow the ball to retain energy longer, and not slow down as fast and hit soft. Again, just my synopsis.