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

Author Topic: Top weight vs bottom weight  (Read 4919 times)

no300tj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
Top weight vs bottom weight
« on: February 27, 2010, 11:36:45 PM »
I have a question for those that drill. If you take a ball and put a layout on that creates top weight, will it go longer than the same ball drilled to have bottom weight? My guy is telling me this but I have no idea how this affects roll pattern. Please advise, T.J.
--------------------
Crippled but free, I was blind all the time i was leaning to see.
Logged

 

Juggernaut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • Former good bowler, now 3 games a week house hack.
Re: Top weight vs bottom weight
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2010, 08:27:16 AM »
Well, in the "old" days, topweight was something we used to promote length and backend and bottomweight was used to create earlier roll and smoother backends reaction.

 This was all before very dynamic weightblocks, pin placements, mass bias' and pap locations came into relevance. These days, it is thought that static weights have no, or minimal, effect on the rolling characteristics of a ball.

 I, myself, think this may be true of finger/thumb or side weights, but also think that top, or bottom, weight may still have some influence.

 I really don't know the specifics of WHY this happens, only practical experience that it does for me.
--------------------
Good transactions list in my profile

 ILLEGITIMI, NON-CARBORUNDUM!
Logged
Learn to laugh, and love, and smile, cause we’re only here for a little while.

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Top weight vs bottom weight
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2010, 08:31:25 AM »
In a theoretical way, that's true.  Post-drilling top weight promotes length while bottom weight promotes earlier roll.

Historically, before modern dynamic cores  (and certainly before strongly asymmetric cores), when static weights played a larger role in ball reaction, top and bottom weight were pretty important.  Nowadays, though, the layout and surface affect ball movement significantly more than static weights like top/bottom weight and so I wouldn't worry about those weights beyond making sure the ball is legal.

SH
Logged

Strapper_Squared

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
Re: Top weight vs bottom weight
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2010, 08:45:17 AM »
Your only concerns with static weights (for now) should be whether or not they meet the antiquated USBC regulations (+/- 3oz for top and bottom and +/- 1oz for side).  Otherwise they have no discernable impact on ball reaction, whatsoever.

Ball construction/materials, surface preparation, and ball layout will impact reaction to the greatest extend.

S^2
--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
After an 18 mo. hiatus, I'm back...
Logged
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Juggernaut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • Former good bowler, now 3 games a week house hack.
Re: Top weight vs bottom weight
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2010, 09:01:47 AM »
quote:
Your only concerns with static weights (for now) should be whether or not they meet the antiquated USBC regulations (+/- 3oz for top and bottom and +/- 1oz for side).  Otherwise they have no discernable impact on ball reaction, whatsoever.

Ball construction/materials, surface preparation, and ball layout will impact reaction to the greatest extend.

S^2
--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
After an 18 mo. hiatus, I'm back...


 Strapper,

 I appreciate your knowledge and experience, so I want to ask this: If ALL static weights are negligible, including top and bottom weights, then why do proshop guys always say to order a ball with "good" topweight?  Usually told around 2 1/2 to 3 oz minimum, so why?

 I always assumed it was so you would end up still having some topweight after drilling.
--------------------
Good transactions list in my profile

 ILLEGITIMI, NON-CARBORUNDUM!
Logged
Learn to laugh, and love, and smile, cause we’re only here for a little while.

pro shop guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
Re: Top weight vs bottom weight
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2010, 09:23:42 AM »
Most customers do not like big or strange placed balance holes. By getting balls with 2-3 top, usually this will call for no hole or if it does it will be a small one. I must be honest, Im a bit old school....I do like leaving a little side and top after drills (just for the sake of it...lol).
Logged

Gunny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Zombie Hunter
Re: Top weight vs bottom weight
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2010, 10:34:07 AM »
quote:
I must be honest, Im a bit old school....I do like leaving a little side and top after drills (just for the sake of it...lol).


I thought I was the only one who did this
Logged

pro shop guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
Re: Top weight vs bottom weight
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2010, 10:36:56 AM »
lol....really its just for good measure....lol
Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Top weight vs bottom weight
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2010, 03:59:48 PM »
quote:
quote:
Your only concerns with static weights (for now) should be whether or not they meet the antiquated USBC regulations (+/- 3oz for top and bottom and +/- 1oz for side).  Otherwise they have no discernable impact on ball reaction, whatsoever.

Ball construction/materials, surface preparation, and ball layout will impact reaction to the greatest extend.

S^2
--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
After an 18 mo. hiatus, I'm back...


 Strapper,

 I appreciate your knowledge and experience, so I want to ask this: If ALL static weights are negligible, including top and bottom weights, then why do proshop guys always say to order a ball with "good" topweight?  Usually told around 2 1/2 to 3 oz minimum, so why?

 I always assumed it was so you would end up still having some topweight after drilling.
--------------------
Good transactions list in my profile

 ILLEGITIMI, NON-CARBORUNDUM!


I believe the orignal idea was to both have some weight left over after drilling holes (some inserts can wind up removing a lot of weight) and also to have some weight left over to manipulate with a weight hole, if needed. Weight holes seem to be having a larger and larger significance these days.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

no300tj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
Re: Top weight vs bottom weight
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2010, 04:51:08 PM »
Thanks for the replies. I have a ball I am trying to get to rev up sooner. I suggested a P3 hole, but my driller says if we do that it will add top and create more length not less. Seems to me, if you push the mass to the center the ball should try to rev sooner.
--------------------
Crippled but free, I was blind all the time i was learning to see.
Logged

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Top weight vs bottom weight
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2010, 06:32:39 PM »
quote:
I appreciate your knowledge and experience, so I want to ask this: If ALL static weights are negligible, including top and bottom weights, then why do proshop guys always say to order a ball with "good" topweight?  Usually told around 2 1/2 to 3 oz minimum, so why?


The top weight you specify when you order a ball isn't exactly the same as the top weight after drilling.  For one thing, on a pre-drilled ball, the "top" of the ball is north of the equator when the CG (or pin?) is at the north pole.  On a drilled ball, the top of the ball north of the equator when the grip center is placed at the north pole.  The pin or CG may not necessarily be at grip center.  In fact, they rarely are.

The starting top weight is there so that you can remove a few ounces of weight from the top half of the ball by drilling the finger holes, just as your driller said.  

According to Brunswick, on a symmetric ball, static weights help dictate how much fine tuning you can do with weight hole placement.  If the ball has no side weight or negative side weight, you'll have a tough time using a weight hole to fine tune the ball motion.  With some positive side weight and top weight, you have more options for fine tuning.

Likewise for initial layout of the ball.  Very high starting top weight (over about 4oz) and you will have to keep the CG close to the grip center or you will have so much side weight that a very large weight hole will be needed to make the ball legal.  Such a weight hole may affect ball motion more than the bowler or driller want but they have no choice because of the static weight rules.  2-3oz of starting top weight provides more options to the driller and bowler regarding layout and weight holes.

SH
Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Top weight vs bottom weight
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2010, 07:16:16 PM »
quote:
Thanks for the replies. I have a ball I am trying to get to rev up sooner. I suggested a P3 hole, but my driller says if we do that it will add top and create more length not less. Seems to me, if you push the mass to the center the ball should try to rev sooner.
--------------------
Crippled but free, I was blind all the time i was learning to see.


I cannot see how a P3 hole can add top weight. top weight, and most statics do not have a significant effect on ball reaction, UNLESS you are using a pancake core. As fas as I have learned, a P3 hole of significant size generally adds flare by increasing the differential of a drilled ball. This usually increase the ball's reactivity: i.e. more hook and/or more backend.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

JohnP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5819
Re: Top weight vs bottom weight
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2010, 09:08:55 AM »
quote:
I cannot see how a P3 hole can add top weight. top weight, and most statics do not have a significant effect on ball reaction, UNLESS you are using a pancake core. As fas as I have learned, a P3 hole of significant size generally adds flare by increasing the differential of a drilled ball. This usually increase the ball's reactivity: i.e. more hook and/or more backend.


How a P3 hole affects the static weights depends on the location of the hole in relation to the grip centerline and midline, and the equator, plus the pitches used when drilling the hole.  For MOST layouts and pitches normally used, a P3 hole will reduce thumb weight, reduce positive side weight, and reduce top weight.  --  JohnP
Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Top weight vs bottom weight
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2010, 09:27:14 AM »
quote:
quote:
I cannot see how a P3 hole can add top weight. top weight, and most statics do not have a significant effect on ball reaction, UNLESS you are using a pancake core. As fas as I have learned, a P3 hole of significant size generally adds flare by increasing the differential of a drilled ball. This usually increase the ball's reactivity: i.e. more hook and/or more backend.


How a P3 hole affects the static weights depends on the location of the hole in relation to the grip centerline and midline, and the equator, plus the pitches used when drilling the hole.  For MOST layouts and pitches normally used, a P3 hole will reduce thumb weight, reduce positive side weight, and reduce top weight.  --  JohnP


Agreed.
That's why I can't see how a P3 hole will add top weight. It has to be positioned more than 6 3/4" from the grip center to remove bottom weight, thus increasing top weight.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

no300tj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
Re: Top weight vs bottom weight
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2010, 11:15:48 AM »
Charlest and John P, you are on to what I am thinking. Even if we add a small amount of top, the increase in differential will overcome it and allow the ball to rev up sooner. My driller is old school and is basing his analysis on old pancake blocks. Thanks for the input. T.J.
--------------------
Crippled but free, I was blind all the time i was learning to see.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »