Placing the PSA on the opposite side of the thumb hole is likely putting it very far from your PAP. The further away you place the PSA, the less you take advantage of the Intermediate Differential potential of the core. As such, that COULD help you make a strong asym more controllable. However, as PSA-to-PAP distance is only one of three layout factors (pin-to-PAP distance and pin buffer being the other two), it's certainly no guarantee that you'd be getting what you want.

Since I've been drilling my own stuff, I've used Storm's Pin-Buffer Layout System as my guide, and I've found their layouts to perform as advertised. Therefore, it if were me, I'd suggest you use something like their 5x4x3 layout. That will likely be pin down, and it will place the PSA close to or on the VAL three inches from your PAP. They say that that layout produces good length, late midlane, is a control type of layout, and does well on low volume or wet/dry.

You could also consider a short-pin layout like 1.5x6x1. I've used that on a couple of stronger asyms (PhysiX and Gravity Evolve), and they are really, really good at offering control but not puking and hitting like crap.

However, your pin-to-PAP distance will have an impact on that too due to it determining the amount of flare you're going to get.

Okay, that makes more sense. Well, again, the placement of the PSA is only one element of the ball motion/reaction equation. If you place it that far away from the PAP, it's going to render the Int. Diff. pretty much a non-factor. From there, you'd have to look at where you put the pin in relation to the PAP in order to determine flare potential, and you'd have to come up with a pin-buffer length to determine how quickly the ball is going to transition from skid, to hook, to roll.

If most of your asyms seem to burn up too quickly, I would go with a longer pin to PAP (5-6") and/or a longer pin buffer. If you watch Storm's 3-part video series on the different elements of the pin buffer layout system, it may give you some ideas as to which factors to manipulate in order to get the ball to store more energy than what you're seeing.

A MB placement on the track side of the thumb isn't necessarily weak if you track low enough.

Thanks to all for the feedback.  It's greatly appreciated.

SMAC, tell me a bit more about "sweeping motion". I would interpret that to mean that you would not consider them weak, in addition to describing the motion itself. Would you consider them able to handle the "original" amount of oil the specific ball was made for, or would you say they were toned down to be a step or more below the original condition they were built for? As a low rev lefty, my main problem is continuation, and I've seen some evidence to support exactly what you describe, although the condition was not known. If you beleive they still handle the same amount of oil, then I've found my next asym layout.

I haven't found many asyms to look that great on the left side to begin with . . there's already extra shape down lane on the left and virtually anything asym tends to stand up for me because it's just shape on top of shape on top of shape, after forcing you deeper than you need to be, and that's a bad idea on top of another bad idea on the left too.  RST has been about the only thing so far for me that's been remotely usable, so I just wouldn't go out of your way to try and use asyms on the left side, seems to be angle issues for days. 

General question. How many of you actually use a layout with the MB on the "opposite" side of the thumb hole, and why? Considering this as a low track player with strong asyms that seem to burn up quickly.
Thanks
L50