elgavachon

I have gone through IBPSIA''s Advanced Certification class with Mo Pinel. One of his industry experts was Paul Ridenour who was the lead engineer on the ball motion study. I can tell you USBC did the most extensive testing ever done on ball motion. So I would say they did give it a true test. Static weights do have some effect on ball motion but it so small in comparison to the cores and cover stock that are being used you can''t notice it.

I had a conversation with a guy that drills his own stuff a while back about this same thing. He was convinced that changing the side weight made a difference in his reaction. Going from 2oz positive to 1/2oz posiitive, he saw less reaction out of the ball with 1/2oz than he did with 2oz.

I tried to explain that placing the hole on his PAP as he did can reduce the overall reaction of your ball by up to around 20% by how he is changing the core dynamics. He wouldn''t buy it, so I told him to plug the weight hole and I would show him. I spun the ball on my DeTerminator and marked the PSA and the P3 location on the gradient line. I also told him to throw the ball again so he can see the reaction without the hole and then put the weight hole in the P3 location and take the weight back to 1/2oz positive.

He then went down and threw the ball again. He had a sizeable increase in reaction from the ball without a weight hole and a dramatic increase from the ball with the weight hole in the PAP.

He couldn''t believe it, I told him as I tried to explain before it''s all about changing the core dynamics to achieve what your looking for by the use of weight holes in the proper location and that statics don''t really mean anything.
--------------------
Rick Guined

Owner/Operator: New Millennium Proshop: http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/ff183/Guined/
Vise PBA Regional Staff Player
IBPSIA Certified Technician
USBC Bronze Certified Instructor
www.viseinserts.com



Edited on 2/26/2010 5:37 PM

Rick
I also have had several conversations with Paul. He is for sure one of the most intelligent people I know. I am sure he would be the first person to tell you they need more balls and a lot more time to test every single variable. What I meant was every ball had too many variables to test only one variable at a time. If you wanted to test positive wt, all the other variables should remain constant. Very hard to test the positive wt. variable with a different texture on every single ball. Very hard to test the extremes 3 oz top vs 3 oz bottom weights if every ball has 2 2 1/2 top wt before drilling.etc. Brunswick did a study with Harry where he threw 8 times( 4 times with a positive cg and 4 times with a negative) they weren't thrown in any order,but the first 2 positive got strikes and the second 2 went through the nose. All 4 with the negetive balls held the line and got strikes. I asked Paul several times what had happened and he never answered me. I'm sure He has a very good answer, but since he didn't tell me I had to come to my own conclusion. I figure Robot Harry is so accurate that he burned a dry spot on the lanes. The positive balls grabed and went left after that while all four negative held the line and got strikes. I will be the first to admit to the naked eye none of us throw the ball that accurate and we will probably not notice the difference. I just wish Paul and the rest of his people could have the unlimited resources to test each variable and only that variable at a time. I apologize if I gave the impression that the study was worthless. I am very pleased with what they concluded, I just don't think the study should be etched in stone.