Post by: khamûl on May 02, 2008, 03:56:05 AM
cliff notes in the subject line...
for those that would like to keep up with USBCs motion analysis study, here is the final report posted at bowl.com. i recommend some caffeine before reading (sorry Paul), unless discussion of regression analysis excites you
.http://www.bowl.com/Downloads/pdf/Specs/08ballmotionstudy.pdf
for those wishing to delve deeper into this, ibpsia is doing an emerging concepts seminar June 16th-20th in Orlando, for a small tuition fee of $1300 for non-members. you may see me there, look in the bar near the back of the room
.discuss?
--------------------
good luck and good bowling.
Post by: purduepaul on May 02, 2008, 12:06:27 PM
--------------------
"Oops, Looks like we are going to need another timmy." -Dr Lizard, "Dinosaurs"
Post by: khamûl on May 02, 2008, 12:14:22 PM
thank you for clearing that up, Paul. while i cannot make KC, i hope to bump into you in Orlando.
--------------------
good luck and good bowling.
Post by: KDawg77 on May 02, 2008, 12:16:22 PM
--------------------
Ken
Videos at http://www.putfile.com/k-dawg77
http://www.myspace.com/lefthandedhammerpride
http://khlthe2nd.bowlspace.com
http://members.bowl.com/FindAMember/memberView.aspx?mp=418&ms=2006&s=2006-2007
Post by: backswing_aplenty on May 04, 2008, 07:35:14 PM
The coverstock variables are the first 5, the core variables were the next 4, and then it was mixed between ambient temperature and humidity, differential, and ta-da, side, thumb, and top weight. They all had an effect, but were minimal compared to surface friction in and out of oil, and oil absorption.
On page 16 the report says they will be implementing new specifications for surface hardness and will relax the limits on static weights.
About time.
*backswing
--------------------
*...Got the 5 out clean!
To prove I'm real
270-2931 http://members.bowl.com/FindAMember/memberView.aspx?mp=270&ms=2931&s=2005-2006
Post by: 300jd on May 04, 2008, 08:11:13 PM
to a kid who prebowled them
after they did that i hope they get new mangement to restore our faith in creditability of bowlers
sorry for my rant i apolgize
--------------------
member of the fos
long live lane 1 and thier great products
Post by: T-GOD on May 05, 2008, 09:12:21 AM
Post by: LuckyLefty on May 05, 2008, 11:45:29 AM
REgards,
Luckylefty
--------------------
Open the door...see what's possible...and just walk right on through...that's how easy success feels..
Post by: khamûl on May 05, 2008, 02:00:27 PM
quote:
Side weight is more important than Intermediate Diff. Hmmm
and the size of your balls matters more than side weight....
drunken spin time matters even more, of course
.--------------------
good luck and good bowling.
Post by: 98custom on May 14, 2008, 08:26:39 PM
The thing i disagree with is that the numbers don't decrease in a linear fashion across the board. They decrease in differing amounts, tho it is true that the numbers all decrease. Also the intended angle of trajectory at 49 and 60 feet is different, although still half is not numerically the same difference. I'd be interested to see what the differences across the other statistical measures would equate to.
Just some thoughts probably from a more statistical background and perspective than any of you cared to know. But hey, i guess we're all entitled to our 2 cents.
--------------------
When all else fails, become a lefty
Edited on 5/14/2008 8:27 PM
Post by: chitown on May 27, 2008, 09:23:09 AM
Post by: Oskuposer on May 27, 2008, 05:16:25 PM
--------------------
Kiall Hill
Visionary test staff