Author Topic: 3oz side weight (Read 13824 times)

coop1760 · « **on:** August 10, 2018, 06:20:34 PM »

Just curious if anyone has tried the new static weight rules out on a ball for this season and if you have your thoughts on what it causes your ball to do?

ignitebowling · « **Reply #16 on:** August 13, 2018, 09:42:10 PM »

#savebowling

BowlingForDonuts · « **Reply #17 on:** August 13, 2018, 09:56:34 PM »

Scout with static weight will snap a lot harder than a Mix. Still since I have given up on using a 16lb spare ball might redrill my Mix with static weight for heck of it. Ball rolls pretty heavy for a pancake as it is.

BrunsNick · « **Reply #18 on:** August 14, 2018, 01:40:37 PM »

#CGFINALLYNOMADDAH2018

Impending Doom · « **Reply #19 on:** August 14, 2018, 03:38:23 PM »

Quote from: BrunsNick on August 14, 2018, 01:40:37 PM

#CGFINALLYNOMADDAH2018

#CGNOMATTAH needs to go on the next high end DV8 ball.

BowlingForDonuts · « **Reply #20 on:** February 25, 2019, 08:50:18 PM »

Old topic but finally got around to throwing a 16# Scout/R I got drilled with 2.5+ oz. positive side weight today (got on clearance shipped for $40 woot). Was trying it on higher oil volume than I had in mind for it but have to say ball was moving pretty good all things considered (was stronger overall than expected especially for OOB). Had a very controllable motion. It was hitting like a wet fart though. Going to try it in the lower volume house but have a feeling it won't be taking the Purple Hammer's spot but open mind and all that. Kind of matches what I saw with my 16# Mix as well hit wise even on lower volume (liked it at first but then I got a Slate Blue Gargoyle and saw difference core makes). Core matters even in 16#, reactive or not imo. A shame because do like the ball motion of the pancake with positive side. Think might play with surface before I give up though.

BowlingForDonuts · « **Reply #21 on:** March 01, 2019, 04:28:53 PM »

Just as a final postscript finally got to throw that Scout/R at the dry house and was impressed. Ball came alive and had better carry than my Purple Hammer. Purple Hammer was more controllable but being reactive the Scout gave me more miss room to get to pocket (reads midlane better than I expected) but punished misses too. Ideally wouldn't have to keep it polished but this place is a desert. Final verdict is a Scout with 2.5oz side weight for at least some styles is viable instead of having to ball down to urethane and carries well at least in 16#. Can't beat the price which since this place's machines have chewed on a few of my reactives in the past is peace of mind. I just wouldn't recommend it for anything but true dry lanes.

rocky61201 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 01, 2019, 05:06:43 PM »

This confirms what I've been wanting to buy for awhile now. Going to get another Mix and get it drilled up with positive side weight.

I'm hoping it can be a "go to" ball when there is too much traffic in heads/mid-lane and I want to move way right to avoid them. I already use a Mix for a spare ball drilled with the CG in the palm. When I do have to make that move to avoid traffic I get a fairly good reaction throwing straight up around 7/8 with a lot of hand and I can consistently get it in the pocket. I hope the positive side weight will give me the same type of roll in the heads/mid-lane with a little more snap on the back-end to kick out the corners.

And if it doesn't work, the experiment won't cost more than $100 bucks. I can live with that.

BowlingForDonuts · « **Reply #23 on:** March 01, 2019, 06:30:40 PM »

Quote from: rocky61201 on March 01, 2019, 05:06:43 PM

This confirms what I've been wanting to buy for awhile now. Going to get another Mix and get it drilled up with positive side weight.

I'm hoping it can be a "go to" ball when there is too much traffic in heads/mid-lane and I want to move way right to avoid them. I already use a Mix for a spare ball drilled with the CG in the palm. When I do have to make that move to avoid traffic I get a fairly good reaction throwing straight up around 7/8 with a lot of hand and I can consistently get it in the pocket. I hope the positive side weight will give me the same type of roll in the heads/mid-lane with a little more snap on the back-end to kick out the corners.

And if it doesn't work, the experiment won't cost more than $100 bucks. I can live with that.

I say go for it but the side weight depending on style if had to guess will give you maybe 2 to 3 boards more hook from pin in palm tops (1.5 is probably more realistic). It probably won't increase entry angle by more than a degree either. The effect is modest at best and for crankers is actually very minimal according to BTM article. If I am being honest the difference in hit (and there is noticeable difference at least in the dry house) between my 16# Scout/R and my 16# Mix (drilled for spare ball) is probably mostly the cover stock and not the drilling. You might think of trying it with a Scout instead (high RG pearl that gets through the heads very well and isn't super jumpy). Guess what this experiment taught me more than how great positive side weight is how good a Scout can be with positive side weight on the right conditions. Guess there is a reason why ball has been available for 20 years.

ignitebowling · « **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2019, 10:03:27 AM »

You ever consider the only way to create that static weight with a pancake weight block is moving the cg/low rg axis to a stronger position towards your pap then what you normally see with it being in your palm?

The static weight isn't the bigger factor in ball reaction as much as the pin is you are moving to create it.

Impending Doom · « **Reply #25 on:** March 02, 2019, 10:11:26 AM »

Quote from: ignitebowling on March 02, 2019, 10:03:27 AM

You ever consider the only way to create that static weight with a pancake weight block is moving the cg/low rg axis to a stronger position towards your pap then what you normally see with it being in your palm?

The static weight isn't the bigger factor in ball reaction as much as the pin is you are moving to create it.

I would agree if the pancake weight block was poured around the pin, but the pin I'm a pancake has no effect. The CG is the top of the pancake.

BowlingForDonuts · « **Reply #26 on:** March 02, 2019, 10:32:48 AM »

Is weird seeing the pin way off on the right side of the ball (think barely visible from finger hole front view) but first ball I ever cared about static weight. Basically had special use case where it works. A way to be able to use a reactive in a nearly urethane only house. Did notice a lot of folks are using Teal Rhinos and 1st gen reactives in general. Probably should be clear so folks aren't disappointed. Static weight is not a panacea.

ignitebowling · « **Reply #27 on:** March 02, 2019, 10:48:02 AM »

Quote from: Impending Doom on March 02, 2019, 10:11:26 AM

Quote from: ignitebowling on March 02, 2019, 10:03:27 AM
You ever consider the only way to create that static weight with a pancake weight block is moving the cg/low rg axis to a stronger position towards your pap then what you normally see with it being in your palm?

The static weight isn't the bigger factor in ball reaction as much as the pin is you are moving to create it.

I would agree if the pancake weight block was poured around the pin, but the pin I'm a pancake has no effect. The CG is the top of the pancake.

The cg is the low rg axis and when moved off the palm to create the static weight mentioned is putting it in likely a much stronger position. On a Scout the "pin" and cg are next to each other

BowlingForDonuts · « **Reply #28 on:** March 02, 2019, 01:50:09 PM »

Quote from: ignitebowling on March 02, 2019, 10:48:02 AM

Quote from: Impending Doom on March 02, 2019, 10:11:26 AM
Quote from: ignitebowling on March 02, 2019, 10:03:27 AM
You ever consider the only way to create that static weight with a pancake weight block is moving the cg/low rg axis to a stronger position towards your pap then what you normally see with it being in your palm?

The static weight isn't the bigger factor in ball reaction as much as the pin is you are moving to create it.

I would agree if the pancake weight block was poured around the pin, but the pin I'm a pancake has no effect. The CG is the top of the pancake.

The cg is the low rg axis and when moved off the palm to create the static weight mentioned is putting it in likely a much stronger position. On a Scout the "pin" and cg are next to each other

To be frank haven't really compared apples to apples as having a feeling if I got a Scout and drilled it cg in palm probably wouldn't be a huge difference. Just pleasantly surprised how good of reaction (even on a little more volume, though less carry) and good of carry a 16# Scout can be with positive side weight on the very dry but to be fair not sure how much of that is due to drilling. Still my first and only reactive with a pancake. As always YMMV.

rocky61201 · « **Reply #29 on:** March 08, 2019, 12:21:45 PM »

Quote from: rocky61201 on March 01, 2019, 05:06:43 PM

This confirms what I've been wanting to buy for awhile now. Going to get another Mix and get it drilled up with positive side weight.

I'm hoping it can be a "go to" ball when there is too much traffic in heads/mid-lane and I want to move way right to avoid them. I already use a Mix for a spare ball drilled with the CG in the palm. When I do have to make that move to avoid traffic I get a fairly good reaction throwing straight up around 7/8 with a lot of hand and I can consistently get it in the pocket. I hope the positive side weight will give me the same type of roll in the heads/mid-lane with a little more snap on the back-end to kick out the corners.

And if it doesn't work, the experiment won't cost more than $100 bucks. I can live with that.

Picked up my new Mix with the CG about 3 1/2 from my PaP and the verdict is still out. I bought this ball so I could be aggressive and throw down and in and crank on it. Once in awhile when cranking too hard I don't get my thumb out early enough and it will track right over the thumb and have a horrible under reaction. Never had to worry about that with my other Mix or any other ball for that matter but this is something I need to remember when this comes out of the bag.

My other Mix was old and I never touched the cover, only cleaned it with rubbing alcohol after a match once in awhile. Always had a consistent reaction no matter how I rolled it. I hit it with 2k lightly to knock some of the factory polish off but I think I may need to break this new Mix in some.

When thrown correctly it does do what I thought it would. Starts up a bit sooner with a better angle on the back end and better carry. Just gotta be clean with my release.

BowlingForDonuts · « **Reply #30 on:** March 08, 2019, 12:49:47 PM »

Quote from: rocky61201 on March 08, 2019, 12:21:45 PM

Quote from: rocky61201 on March 01, 2019, 05:06:43 PM
This confirms what I've been wanting to buy for awhile now. Going to get another Mix and get it drilled up with positive side weight.

I'm hoping it can be a "go to" ball when there is too much traffic in heads/mid-lane and I want to move way right to avoid them. I already use a Mix for a spare ball drilled with the CG in the palm. When I do have to make that move to avoid traffic I get a fairly good reaction throwing straight up around 7/8 with a lot of hand and I can consistently get it in the pocket. I hope the positive side weight will give me the same type of roll in the heads/mid-lane with a little more snap on the back-end to kick out the corners.

And if it doesn't work, the experiment won't cost more than $100 bucks. I can live with that.

Picked up my new Mix with the CG about 3 1/2 from my PaP and the verdict is still out. I bought this ball so I could be aggressive and throw down and in and crank on it. Once in awhile when cranking too hard I don't get my thumb out early enough and it will track right over the thumb and have a horrible under reaction. Never had to worry about that with my other Mix or any other ball for that matter but this is something I need to remember when this comes out of the bag.

My other Mix was old and I never touched the cover, only cleaned it with rubbing alcohol after a match once in awhile. Always had a consistent reaction no matter how I rolled it. I hit it with 2k lightly to knock some of the factory polish off but I think I may need to break this new Mix in some.

When thrown correctly it does do what I thought it would. Starts up a bit sooner with a better angle on the back end and better carry. Just gotta be clean with my release.

Cool thanks for reporting back. I was worried with a non-reactive it might not do much but that doesn't sound like the case. Yeah guess I should have mentioned I have a pretty low track so thumping holes wasn't on my radar. Scout was good for what I intended it for but decided to try a 15lb Avalanche Pearl I picked up to see if can get away with it at this house. I like the reaction of the side weight but jury still out if it is worth giving up the core hit as I don't have a ton of revs and if I should throw 16 when keeping score. Shall see this afternoon.

(Postscript: Didn't like look Avalanche gave at all. Both too strong and over/under. Might play with cover but Scout might win after all. So predictable even on a patchy desert.)

Author Topic: 3oz side weight (Read 13824 times)

coop1760

3oz side weight

ignitebowling

Re: 3oz side weight

BowlingForDonuts

Re: 3oz side weight

BrunsNick

Re: 3oz side weight

Impending Doom

Re: 3oz side weight

BowlingForDonuts

Re: 3oz side weight

BowlingForDonuts

Re: 3oz side weight

rocky61201

Re: 3oz side weight

BowlingForDonuts

Re: 3oz side weight

ignitebowling

Re: 3oz side weight

Impending Doom

Re: 3oz side weight

BowlingForDonuts

Re: 3oz side weight

ignitebowling

Re: 3oz side weight

BowlingForDonuts

Re: 3oz side weight

rocky61201

Re: 3oz side weight

BowlingForDonuts

Re: 3oz side weight