I Have a C System 3.5....

A total dud after redrill.  But I had picked it up for a song.  Got it setup like 5 1/4 X 50 X 35.  The weighthole was at first put up on the VAL up from the PAP.

So I took and put a more dynamic weighthole at 8 inches from grip center and had I still had virtually no hook or flare.  So I took another path and had the surface of this purchased used ball, rehit to 1000 grt then 3000 grit then polish.

AH....maybe I had added 4000 at first on top of polish then more polish at first.  This new underlying 1000 now has added 7 inches of toal hook at least.  Yesterday on a non league(dryer heads) I could get a little more push and play AND strike outside of my goto Mission X.

I am not convinced this ball has all of its original horsepower(as is true of many balls with switch thumbs that are dramatically redrilled).  But this surface change has kept it out of the dumpster!

Regards,

Luckylefty
PS thanks to this site and the information presented I often come up with ideas on surface weightholes etc to get balls to work.

I never liked the look of the 3.5's reaction.  It reminded me of the Ebonite V2 Particle.  Needs a lot of head oil, and fairly clean back ends.  Not enough head oil and it pukes immediately.  Way too rolly for many people.  Could be a good piece for someone with a ton of axis rotation looking for a control piece.

The xhole location would definitely kill some of the reaction in a hurry. The other problem is after the plugs you really need a determinator to relocate the new high and low rg axis. No doubt the core has been strongly modified.

Shape of core, strength of core. It hits more dense material it will have a bigger affect on the outcome.

Like many weightholes these did strike the core but very moderately.  I have never been that convinced of the "nick the core part of weightholes" reactions.

I have never gotten the impression that the Brunswick weighthole method is really based on nicking the core.  I have never gotten the impression that Lane 1's gravity balance system talks about nicking the core.  Yet their similarly positioned weightholes often increase reaction when placed in similar places  or decrease reaction when set in similar locations.

I wonder how come the Mission X is still so lively and yet this Brunswick core was deadened so much by a weighthole UP the Val line?

REgards,

Luckylefty

Kid,

I beg to differ.

I believe the discussions of weightholes and drill bits hitting heavy cores has been around this site for a long time.

Here is just one post in the past 3 years which I quickly reviewed.

There are a minimum of at least 3 comments by posters who have been around for awhile noting how drill bits hit the cores, in this post and rapidly scanned.
Comments by
1. Impending doom
2. Juggernaut
3. Direct Drill
in this post
http://www.ballreviews.com/drilling-layouts/motion-hole-is-no-joke-t296785.0.html

I believe in much of Mo's Gradient hole educational pieces the reference to holes in different places hitting the cores and adjusting the rg and diff seems to be a part of the discussion.

Finally a couple of questions I have asked a bunch of times and I believe in the post above.

This is directed to the "Nick the core crowd".  I call these the questions "the questions that will never be answered."

1.  It is generally accepted that weightholes that are angled away from the grip center 1 inch in pitch increase ball reaction from holes placed in the same spot and drilled in at 0 pitch.  Yet these weightholes are much less likely to touch, nick, or strike the core?  Also they are the same distance from the pap, so how do they increase reaction?

2.  Many gradient line holes such as hole P3 or P4 are often shallow because of a cg that is near the midline.  Thus why is there so much reaction increase with the P4 hole or Double Thumb?
See this video  and it's shallow P4 gradient hole
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqzRTBpXuEE

Regards,

Luckylefty

Kid,

I beg to differ.

I believe the discussions of weightholes and drill bits hitting heavy cores has been around this site for a long time.

Here is just one post in the past 3 years which I quickly reviewed.

There are a minimum of at least 3 comments by posters who have been around for awhile noting how drill bits hit the cores, in this post and rapidly scanned.
Comments by
1. Impending doom
2. Juggernaut
3. Direct Drill
in this post
http://www.ballreviews.com/drilling-layouts/motion-hole-is-no-joke-t296785.0.html

I believe in much of Mo's Gradient hole educational pieces the reference to holes in different places hitting the cores and adjusting the rg and diff seems to be a part of the discussion.

Finally a couple of questions I have asked a bunch of times and I believe in the post above.

This is directed to the "Nick the core crowd".  I call these the questions "the questions that will never be answered."

1.  It is generally accepted that weightholes that are angled away from the grip center 1 inch in pitch increase ball reaction from holes placed in the same spot and drilled in at 0 pitch.  Yet these weightholes are much less likely to touch, nick, or strike the core?  Also they are the same distance from the pap, so how do they increase reaction?

2.  Many gradient line holes such as hole P3 or P4 are often shallow because of a cg that is near the midline.  Thus why is there so much reaction increase with the P4 hole or Double Thumb?
See this video  and it's shallow P4 gradient hole
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqzRTBpXuEE

Regards,

Luckylefty

Hitting and removing core vs "nicking the core" in no way sound the same. You make it sound as if you are intentionally just "nicking" part of the core versus trying to remove mass.

Mo refers often to how he prefers smaller holes that go deeper then larger holes that are shallow. The deeper the hole the more likely to remove core and have a greater impact on the ball dynamics in one way or another.

In reference to your questions.

#1 is no,

#2 You make the assumptions on weight holes and assume for some reason this is how everyone is doing them.

When you read the info put out by Mo on the G-line x-hole system the holes are drilled with depth to increase cores dynamics by removing core. In his examples the x-holes are typically 3.5" in depth for that reason. When wanting to successfully add a weight hole of this style you have to make sure you have the static weight to do so. If not it will effect the size and depth of hole you can go with to work. If using a larger hole and going 2" in depth the effects will not be as dynamic as using a smaller hole and going 3.5" in depth thus removing dense core from the ball.

After watching the short video I see nothing mentioning the p4 x-hole is shallow. It is not apparent from watching the video either. If it is done correctly for effect it will be drilled deep.

Shallow holes are best to remove weight and make the ball legal with minimal effect, deep holes to remove core and have a larger impact on ball reaction.

Sure.

1.  It is generally accepted that weightholes that are angled away from the grip center 1 inch in pitch increase ball reaction from holes placed in the same spot and drilled in at 0 pitch. 

I've not read anywhere where this is generally accepted. Mo states and I believe others have posted results, that there are no benefits to angling a weight hole except when needed to avoid interesting another hole.

If you were to do a p3 hole as an example, one with no pitch and one with any pitch. The zero pitch will have the greater affects because of its removal of more core. The only way I could see that possibly not being the case was if by chance due to the shape of the core that zero pitch never strikes core going 3.5" to 4" in depth and some how the angled hole was able to catch a piece of core else where. I think these odds are slim and none.

I always pitch my x-hole at zero and I have always removed core when drilling them 3.5" to 4" in depth.



http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=Gradient_Line_Balance_Hole