win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Dual Angle - conflicting goals?!  (Read 11581 times)

1MechEng

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Bowling Nerd Herd member
Dual Angle - conflicting goals?!
« on: July 24, 2012, 12:27:46 PM »
Looking for some advice with respect to the dual angle layout for my new Storm Fire Road. (3-4 pin, 3 oz. TW)

(FYI - my specs. are in my profile)

The problem is in choosing the small angle sum/large angle sum when the bowlers traits conflict.

From the MoRich Dual Angle PDF (page 12): "Smaller angle sums should be used for: speed dominant players, higher axis tilt players, longer oil patterns, and higher oil volumes. Larger angle sums should be used for: rev. dominant players, lower axis tilt players, shorter oil patterns, and lower oil volumes. Medium angle sums should be used when speed and rev rate matches."

Well, the center I bowl in is oiled 35-37 feet, medium oil. I usually bowl first shift, so carry down and burnt heads are not so much of an issue. I have 10-12 degrees of tilt (~11.75 track dia.), and I'm slightly speed dominant (15.25 at 40', 225-250 rpms).

The oil pattern and low axis tilt suggest a larger angle sum, but speed dominant players should use lower angle sums.

OK. So I took a look at the Drilling Angle, and Angle to VAL suggestions.

For the Drilling Angle, small angles roll soonest (10 deg.), large angles roll latest (90 deg.). I was thinking with a high Rg ball, I would want a slightly later roll (50-60 degrees?).

For the Track Flare, I want a strong ball so I was looking at 4-5 inches.

For the Angle to the VAL, larger angles (70 deg. max.) promote a later, sharper breakpoint. Smaller angles (20 deg. min.) are less angular, and sooner. Since I have some smoother, more arcing solids, I want a snappy ball. I was thinking 50-60 degrees again.

This leads me to a ball layout of approx. 55 x 4.5 x 55. It adds up to 110 degrees.

Given my speed dominance, will this ball still be snappy? I was originally thinking my angle sum should be less than 90?!

I haven't laid out a ball in almost 5 years, so I'm trying to refresh myself on this technique.

Thanks in advance for your help and advice.

Regards -
Dan
Dan

 

LookingForALeftyWall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 658
Re: Dual Angle - conflicting goals?!
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2012, 02:03:03 PM »
For the Angle to the VAL, larger angles (70 deg. max.) promote a later, sharper breakpoint. Smaller angles (20 deg. min.) are less angular, and sooner. Since I have some smoother, more arcing solids, I want a snappy ball. I was thinking 50-60 degrees again.

Dan,

You have this backwards - smaller VAL angles produce more snap on the back-end and larger VAL angles produce a more controlled move to the pocket.

I think that will solve your conflict and will get you to a smaller angle sum. 

stormed1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1755
Re: Dual Angle - conflicting goals?!
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2012, 02:06:35 PM »
The larger the angle to the VAL the smoother the ball will be. So for a snappy angular reaction you want a 10-20 degree angle
Current arsenal


Break Down 60x4.5x60 @3k+polish
coming soon X,Desert Ops,Special Ops, Shadow Ops., Truth Pearl ,Drift

1MechEng

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Bowling Nerd Herd member
Re: Dual Angle - conflicting goals?!
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2012, 02:42:17 PM »
Sorry Guys. You're right! I think I misread the paragraph.

Page 12 (again) says "Larger drilling angles in relation to the angle to the VAL will create larger, sharper breakpoints (more backend). Smaller drilling angles in relation to the angle to the VAL will create a sooner, heavier roll (more midlane)."

Back on Page 6, "using the minimum 20 degree angle will result in the drilled ball revving up the quickest and transitioning the fastest at the breakpoint."

I assumed that page 12 was a summary - and it is - but by not reading carefully enough, I misinterpreted it.

Now I'm looking at 50 x 4.5 x 30. Total angle = 80 degrees. Sound better?

Dan
Dan

LookingForALeftyWall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 658
Re: Dual Angle - conflicting goals?!
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2012, 06:06:32 PM »

kidlost2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5789
Re: Dual Angle - conflicting goals?!
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2012, 07:53:00 PM »
Look at the ball characteristics and what it is intended to do then combine your style of bowling and a layout to then help fine tune it.

Fresh medium oil THS and a bowler who is really close to a match for speed and revs. The ball is a pearl reactive that is made for some length with a snap on the backend.

50 x 4.5 x 30 or 40 or 50 should work just fine. You should have no problem fine tuning the ball at that point with a weight hole or light surface prep if needed. The ball is intended to have length so drilling it to start transitioning sooner won't make it hook off your hand, the cover won't let it, especially on a THS or any fresh condition.

For me the VAL on a symmetric is more about getting the cg in a general desired area for a weight hole location more then anything. Since the ball doesn't have a strong MB/PSA if any at all prior to drilling it is likely going to be somewhere near the thumb hole once your done drilling all the finger holes. The weight hole location if added will slightly shift that some and for me is a bigger deciding factor for symmetric.

Even at 55 x 4.5 x 55 would still be a good choice as well.
…… you can't  add a physics term to a bowling term and expect it to mean something.

Xcessive_Evil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1853
Re: Dual Angle - conflicting goals?!
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2012, 05:39:39 PM »
Sorry Guys. You're right! I think I misread the paragraph.

Page 12 (again) says "Larger drilling angles in relation to the angle to the VAL will create larger, sharper breakpoints (more backend). Smaller drilling angles in relation to the angle to the VAL will create a sooner, heavier roll (more midlane)."

Back on Page 6, "using the minimum 20 degree angle will result in the drilled ball revving up the quickest and transitioning the fastest at the breakpoint."

I assumed that page 12 was a summary - and it is - but by not reading carefully enough, I misinterpreted it.

Now I'm looking at 50 x 4.5 x 30. Total angle = 80 degrees. Sound better?

Dan

I made that same mistake when I first read it too.