On a recent trip up to the Brunswick plant, to work out my plans for new product for the upcoming season, I asked if we could use the Throwbot. I had questions about their findings that CG didn't matter.
It is my belief and my company's belief that the ending CG and static weights do matter, which is the purpose of our Gravity Balance System product. I had some reservations on how Brunswicks test was administered and wanted to set up the test a bit differently to prove my point.
The boys at Brunswick(Ray Edwards and Billy Orlikowski) were happy and eager to accommodate my request.
The lane was freshly oiled with a blend of oil from the center gradually tapering out to 5 units on the gutter, roughly 42 ft in length with clean backends.
My contention with the Brunswick test was that because balls were only thrown from 15 at the arrows out to 5 down the lane, they weren't covering enough boards to maximize the balls potential. Thus, you couldn't get true results. The static weights/CG didn't come into play yet.
When the ball is in the oil and sliding, static weights or ending CG placement don't have an effect on the ball. Weights only come into play when the ball is gripping the lane and hooking.
What I proposed was to move the throwbot as far left as possible, covering more boards, sending it wider down the lane and letting the ball react to it's fullest potential.
The first test we did with the same pin in the leverage position, 1 positive side weight(pos. CG placement)and 1 with negative side(neg. CG position).
Both balls basically made it back to the pocket. Brunswick's contention was that both balls covered the same amount of boards. This statement is basically true.
But, what we found was that the positive side ball struck every time. While the negative side ball did strike some, it was rolled out at the pocket, leaving a bunch of 10's and 7's.
Billy Orlikowski said to me, and I quote "this is the biggest difference I've ever seen doing this test".
It's up to you on how you want to interpret this. Yes, both balls covered the same amount of boards to the pocket, but the positive side weight covered more boards thru the pocket, rolling off the deck in back of the 5 pin, carrying everytime. Whereas the negative side ball deflected more after it hit the pocket, leaving 10's and 7's.
I wasn't finished with the test. I went on to say that the CG was more important than the pin, in symmetrical balls. This is impossible you say.
Well, we did the test again with 2 balls. One had a leverage pin and negative CG, the other with a pin 6 3/4" from the PAP and positive CG in the leverage position.
Most bowlers would expect the ball with the pin in your track(6 3/4" pin to PAP) to go straight as an arrow. But, to their surprise, this ball hooked as much as the leverage pin ball, and carried just as well.
So, which is more important?
Proof that the CG matters is right in Brunswick's own video. As I stated and proved that until the ball starts gripping the lane and hooking more, you won't see much difference.
You can see this proof in Brunswick's video.
http://www.brunswickbowling.com/uploads/vids/CG_demo_5-05.wmvThere are going to be 8 shots bowled, switching between the positive CG and negative CG. Both balls react about the same in the first few shots on the FRESH OIL. You can see both balls coming in about half pocket, kicking the 10 pin out late.
If you watch closely at the first 2 shots, the 10 pin goes out easier on the first shot thrown with the positive CG. The second shot is thrown with the neg. CG and the 10 "barely" goes out.
As the lanes break down, you can see both balls gradually hooking more, flushing higher in the pocket.
NOW COMES THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE AS THE LANES BREAK DOWN EVEN MORE.
In shots number 6 and seven, both balls went thru the beak, luckily breaking up a split. Both of these balls were thrown with positive side weight.
You would expect the next ball to also go high, because the lanes are breaking down and hooking more. But, the next shot is thrown with the negative CG, and the ball holds the pocket, laying off a bit on the backend and striking, tripping out the 4 pin.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE WITH STATIC WEIGHTS/CG PLACEMENT.
I'd like to thank Brunswick for providing us with this footage. I hope this puts an end to the CG/static weight debate.
Sincerely,
Richie Sposato
President/CEO Lane #1
Edited on 3/30/2006 12:54 PM
