Author Topic: Enlarging weight hole on RICO (Read 4137 times)

lefty50 · « **on:** February 08, 2008, 02:08:21 AM »

I had a Resurgence that just wasn't matched to my low rev style. I RICO'd the ball as an experiment and have to say it's the most laid back mellow smooth arcing ball I've seen. However, it's too smooth and neds a wake-up call. Is it possible to enhance the reaction of a RICO drill by enlarging the weight hole?
--------------------
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature...

Verbs · « **Reply #1 on:** February 08, 2008, 10:10:53 AM »

What is the size and depth of the weight hole currently?
--------------------
Larry Verble

lefty50 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2008, 08:12:34 PM »

I appreciate the question, but it's a very minimal hole right now. The question is theoretical. Does enlarging the hole help the reaction?
--------------------
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature...

novawagonmaster · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2008, 08:15:27 PM »

Theoretical answer: Yes. You are creating more asymmetry.
--------------------
Jon (in Ohio)

T-GOD · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2008, 08:21:26 PM »

I say no, you will not wake the ball up on the backend. If you remove all the side weight, possibly going to negative, the ball will roll earlier and probably quit on the backend. =:^D

Verbs · « **Reply #5 on:** February 08, 2008, 08:52:50 PM »

By making the weight hole larger (at least 1" diameter) AND at least 3" deep, you will increase the asymmetry.

By creating more asymmetry you will tighten the bowties. Which is one of the characteristics of asymmetrical cores. What tightening the bowties does is it keeps the ball from rolling over the other oil rings, which retards ball reaction (creating your own carrydown).

My only concern is the benefit of a "Rico" drilling is the smoothness of the reaction.

So if you are trying to increase overall reation, a larger weight hole will do that. But if you are looking to create more length and backend reaction with the size and depth of the weight hole, this will not happen.

If you are looking to increase length & backend reaction, I would suggest playing more with the surface. If it is factory finish (1000 Abralon), I would take it up to 2000 BEFORE changing the size and depth of the weight hole, and see if that gives you what you are looking for.

Let us know how that works.

Verbs

--------------------
Larry Verble

charlest · « **Reply #6 on:** February 08, 2008, 09:04:37 PM »

Take the cover higher to 2000 grit or 4000 grit, if it's still at its stock surface. Otherwise, add some polish to get some length and store some energy.

Rico makes a smooth ball smoother, in general.

Instead of a Rico, you might have need either to move the pin closer for more flare or higher. Not sure how it was drilled. Profile says you have 90 degrees of rotation and 250 rpms. That is NOT low revs.

A larger AND deeper hole will affect the core dimensions, usually, if placed properly for the Rico drill, resulting in a larger RG Differential. This results in more flare and earlier flare. This, in turn, results in earlier hook and more overall hook AND LESS BACKEND.

This is why I suggested making the surface finer in "grit" level or adding polish.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Unofficial Ballreviews.com FAQ

Edited on 2/9/2008 11:50 AM

T-GOD · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2008, 09:15:15 AM »

Verbs,

quote:
By creating more asymmetry you will tighten the bowties. Which is one of the characteristics of asymmetrical cores. What tightening the bowties does is it keeps the ball from rolling over the other oil rings, which retards ball reaction (creating your own carrydown).

This is a very misleading statement if I understand it correctly and had to read this twice myself to hopefully understand what you're saying.

What most bowlers will take your statement to mean is tightening the width of the flare rings, which would make your statement un-true. A bowtie is the whole tie, the knot and the width of the tie at the ends (flare rings).

By tightening the bowtie, what you'e really saying is tightening the "knot" of the bowtie, correct..? If this is correct, then the flare rings will get wider, not closer together, which then makes your statment correct. But, like I said, the way you've said it is very mis-leading.

quote:
So if you are trying to increase overall reation, a larger weight hole will do that.

Again, this is a misleading statement. Most bowlers think that increasing the reaction, means increasing the overall hook and backend reaction.

quote:
Increasing the reaction of a rico layout will increase the smoothness of the ball reaction. So if you are trying to increase overall reation, a larger weight hole will do that.

This is correct. Bowlers need to understand that increasing the reaction with a larger of deeper weight hole on a "Rico layout" means increasing the smoothness of the ball reaction.

quote:
you will not wake the ball up on the backend. If you remove all the side weight, possibly going to negative, the ball will roll earlier and probably quit on the backend.

Verbs, why can't you just agree with me..? Did I say something that wasn't true..?

This is what happens when increasing the size and depth of the weight hole on a rico layout, as I stated in my response and pointed out above. You go into a whole schpeal about asymmetry and what not, to say the same thing I answered with in a round about way. On top of that, you're basically confusing bowlers with all your asymmetry BS.

quote:
By making the weight hole larger (at least 1" diameter) AND at least 3" deep, you will increase the asymmetry.

Again, you are misleading bowlers. When you increase the asymmetry of a core/ball, the ball is more reactive to the dry causing the ball to flip harder. That is what asymm ball do. They react more/flip more/hook quicker off the dry boards, because the core is un-balanced.

quote:
By making the weight hole larger (at least 1" diameter) AND at least 3" deep, you will increase the asymmetry.

So, in the context of this thread, this is statement is incorrect..!!

Verbs/BrunsRicOH... In the future, please try to simplify things for the bowlers so they can understand things correctly..!! And, it wouldn't hurt to agree with me once in a while either. =:^D

Edited on 2/9/2008 10:19 AM

Verbs · « **Reply #8 on:** February 09, 2008, 10:23:27 AM »

T-god,

If you are having trouble understanding the way I present my answers, I apologize. I suppose that I assume that if a person is asking a technical question, they do have some idea of what can change ball reaction.

But the person that asked the question, lefty50, so far doesn't seem to have an issue with the answer's I have given.

I was trying to educate as much as answer the question.

And yes, you did say something(s) that aren't true. The most glaring false statement is about side weight.

With the extensive testing that Brunswick & Ebonite/Hammer/Columbia 300/Track have done concerning side weight, within the USBC legal limits, there is no measurable difference in reaction between 1 oz. negative side weight and 1 oz. positive side weight in the hands of even the most talented athletes.

For instance, you place the pin in 2 same brand and make of balls at the same distance from axis with one ball having 1 oz. positive and the other having 1 oz. negative, I venture to say that NO ONE will be able to distinguish a difference in reaction.

I know Ritchie has a video stating that there is a difference between balls with the cg's at 45 degrees to the positive and 45 degrees to the negative, with the same pin to axis distance in both balls. But I would venture a guess that in Ritchie's test, the side weight of each ball was outside the USBC legal limits.

In closing, it is my contention that the majority of viewers of BallReviews.com appreciate the answers that the ball reps. and former ball reps. give, as there is at least some education, testing and data behind their statements. Rather than mainly assumptions of outdated information.

Lefty50, I am sorry that this thread was basically hijacked. I hope you were able to get the answer(s) you were looking for.

Verbs

--------------------
Larry Verble

Edited on 2/9/2008 11:46 AM

T-GOD · « **Reply #9 on:** February 09, 2008, 06:01:55 PM »

Verbs, there you go dodging all the statements I made about your post. You are a true blue big B rep, because that's what they do..!! =:^D

quote:
I was trying to educate as much as answer the question.

I don't know what you're trying to teach, because the way you're saying it, doesn't make much sense.

quote:
If you are having trouble understanding the way I present my answers, I apologize.

If I'm having trouble understanding the way you present your answers, imagine what everyone else is going through.

quote:
I suppose that I assume that if a person is asking a technical question, they do have some idea of what can change ball reaction.

That's not always the case. Change maybe, but change to what or how is another story. =:^D

charlest · « **Reply #10 on:** February 09, 2008, 06:19:30 PM »

T-God, Verbs,

How about taking your "difference of opinion" off line and stop confusing the author?

It seems more a discussion of what terms mean and what you want them to mean and you're almost confusing me.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Unofficial Ballreviews.com FAQ

Verbs · « **Reply #11 on:** February 09, 2008, 06:48:19 PM »

Charlest,

I'm done with responding in this thread. I'm done with responding to T-god altogether.

While I may be longwinded, I am at least trying to educate and answer a persons question. Then I have someone like T-god come on hear and tear apart everything I say.

I have learned, and will continue to learn, from the best minds in the industry.

Verbs

--------------------
Larry Verble

charlest · « **Reply #12 on:** February 09, 2008, 08:17:34 PM »

Verbs,

Sorry if I offended you. I have done the same thing, virtually ignored the poor ignored author and have had to be reminded of why we're posting in any one thread.

Just trying to get Lefty50 at least a tentative start to working a solution to his problem.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Unofficial Ballreviews.com FAQ

Verbs · « **Reply #13 on:** February 09, 2008, 08:30:57 PM »

charlest,

No worries my friend.

Verbs
--------------------
Larry Verble

lefty50 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2008, 07:22:22 AM »

Sorry guys, but you hijacked it so badly, I can't even figure the answer to the question, and I'm not a rank novice at this either...
So far, sounds like it either does or doesn't and probably will or won't.
Jeez. I see what they say now about this place going downhill.

Go ahead, hijack away. I'm simply gratified that I can provide a foundation for you to fuel the fantasies of adequacy that must be missing in your normal life.

I'll post elsewhere.
--------------------
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature...

Edited on 2/10/2008 8:31 AM

Author Topic: Enlarging weight hole on RICO (Read 4137 times)

lefty50

Enlarging weight hole on RICO

Verbs

Re: Enlarging weight hole on RICO

lefty50

Re: Enlarging weight hole on RICO

novawagonmaster

Re: Enlarging weight hole on RICO

T-GOD

Re: Enlarging weight hole on RICO

Verbs

Re: Enlarging weight hole on RICO

charlest

Re: Enlarging weight hole on RICO

T-GOD

Re: Enlarging weight hole on RICO

Verbs

Re: Enlarging weight hole on RICO

T-GOD

Re: Enlarging weight hole on RICO

charlest

Re: Enlarging weight hole on RICO

Verbs

Re: Enlarging weight hole on RICO

charlest

Re: Enlarging weight hole on RICO

Verbs

Re: Enlarging weight hole on RICO

lefty50

Re: Enlarging weight hole on RICO