win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Static weights...  (Read 2146 times)

leftyinsnellville

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
Static weights...
« on: August 25, 2009, 03:02:39 AM »
I'm not really sure of the effect of thumb weight vs. finger weight or positive side weight vs. negative side weight...or for that matter, even top weight vs. bottom weight. Any one got a link to an explanation of the effects of static weights on how the ball rolls/reacts?

--------------------
A flute with no holes is not a flute, and a donut with no hole is a danish.

http://averagebolwersballreviews.com/
Logged

 

Doug Sterner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Static weights...
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2009, 11:31:35 AM »
You are going to have all kinds of people tell you that statics don't matter anymore. In many cases this may be true considering the high friction coverstocks and high flaring cores BUT in the cases of older cores and less aggressive coverstocks....

Thumb weight...a type of negative weight, tends to get the ball rolling earlier
Finger weight...a positive weight, tends to get the ball further downlane and is also said to increase hitting power.

Positive side weight...increases hook potential and hitting power & drive
Negative side weight...decreases hook potential and decreases hit and drive

Top weight...again increases hook potential, hit and drive
Bottom weight...again decreases hook, hit and drive

Again with today's modern covers and cores the effect of statics is minimal but even if they account for 5% of ball reaction it may help carry that one extra 10 pin and win you the tournament.
--------------------
Doug Sterner
Doug's Pro Shop
Owego, NY
http://dougsproshop@aol.com
www.dougsproshop.net
Lane 1 Buzzsaw...The Official Power Tool Of Bowling
For Real Time Interactive Bowling Conversation:
BowlingChat.net
Logged
Doug Sterner
Doug's Pro Shop
Owego, NY

Proud Member of the NRA
Fighting to uphold the Constitution of the U.S.

bluerrpilot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Static weights...
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2009, 03:01:51 PM »
I know this doesn’t answer your question but…..

15 years ago the performance increase of 100mhz for you pc was quite significant. In today’s machines, that same increase is not even noticeable.

Static weights in a bowling ball are the same way. 15 years ago they played a much larger role in the changing ball reactions. In today’s equipment, it’s barely even measurable.

--------------------
"USBC is concerned that technology has overtaken player skill in determining success in the sport of bowling"
Logged

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7680
Re: Static weights...
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2009, 03:19:08 PM »
The USBC recently conducted an indepth study on subject:

http://www.bowlingdigital.com/bowl/node/2814

The conclusion was as follows:

quote:
In closing, both sides of the center of gravity debate should be able to appreciate this study, since it does show a difference between positive weight and side weight however, that difference only amounts to about a 10 percent difference overall in change of position on the lanes.
 


To Doug's point, a good bowler will use this knowledge to his bowling advantage. It's not the dominant factor in ball reaction, but still significant enough not to ignore.
Logged

LuckyLefty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17348
Re: Static weights...
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2009, 03:29:54 PM »
Ahhhhhhhh......rationality and a well measured response!  I've heard of it!  Just not usually on THIS site!

REgards,

Luckylefty
--------------------
Open the door...see what's possible...and just walk right on through...that's how easy success feels..
Logged
It takes Courage to have Faith, and Faith to have Courage.

James M. McCurley, New Orleans, Louisiana

MI 2 AZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8159
Re: Static weights...
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2009, 04:04:40 PM »
http://www.bowlingfans.com/jeff/ballreactionbasics.html

--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this:  BR FAQ
Logged
_________________________________________
Six decades of league bowling and still learning.

ABC/USBC Lifetime Member since Aug 1995.

Juggernaut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • Former good bowler, now 3 games a week house hack.
Re: Static weights...
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2009, 05:39:48 PM »
quote:
Ahhhhhhhh......rationality and a well measured response!  I've heard of it!  Just not usually on THIS site!

REgards,

Luckylefty
--------------------
Open the door...see what's possible...and just walk right on through...that's how easy success feels..


  Yes LL, I too expected to open this thread to a barrage of people either ridiculing the question, or responding with the standard "static weights don't matter at all" statements.  It was refreshing to find that was not the case.

  Lefty, in response to your initial query, in years past and in practicle application, these were my findings.

 Thumb weight--Tended to make the ball roll sooner, and smoother, than non thumb weighted balls. I liked thumb weight to help me control the breakpoint.

 Finger weight--Tended to make the balls length longer, and flippier, than non finger weighted balls. I liked finger weight when I needed to get through broken down heads.

 Positive side weight--Tended to make the balls reaction a bit stronger overall than non positively side weighted balls. Also seemed to make the ball "arcier" at/after the breakpoint for me. I didn't use much positive sideweight, it made the ball stronger in the wrong places for me.

 Negative side weight--Tended to make the balls reaction a bit more subdued than non negatively side weighted balls. Also, for me, seemed to make the backend sharper. I think because it took a bit longer for the rotation to overtake the negative side before it reacted, then my revs let it still "snap".
 Used it quite a bit to help control my reaction by making the ball more predictable for me.


 Top weight--Seemed to be the most important weight in the ball. By manipulating the placement of the topweight, you could create any of the static weights you desired. It also seemed to allow the ball to conserve energy for the breakpoint and beyond.

 Bottom weight--For me, it tended to cause early roll of the ball, and a very subdued type reaction on the backends. Never liked a bottom weighted ball much.

  Back when static weights "counted", my favorite balls were a black u-dot with 1 1/2 oz top, 1/2oz finger and no side, along with a black turbo with 2 oz top, 1/4 oz thumb and 1/2 negative side (which was accomplished with an x-hole on my axis).  I would start out using the turbo on the fresh, then switch to the u-dot as the shot dried up.
--------------------
Good transactions list in my profile

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein



Logged
Learn to laugh, and love, and smile, cause we’re only here for a little while.
Pages: [1]
« previous next »