So, did we actually land on the Moon, or not?   

Quote from: psycaz on April 07, 2022, 02:05:41 PM

The initial balls submitted for approval are provided by the company. Thus the company is responsible for getting the surface to 500.

Where did these other balls come from? Directly from Storm or where they purchased from the open market to spot check?

From the FAQ:

Quote

The manual states: “It is the manufacturers responsibility to ensure that all USBC approved balls comply with all specifications at time of manufacture.” The manual also states that spot-checking balls will be purchased from distribution. Manufacturers know balls will be tested out of the box.

So these balls come from the distributors' warehouses, not directly from the manufacturer, the PSO, or the bowler. These should all be new undrilled balls, at OOB finish.

Quote

If just purchased from the open market, it’s on the USBC to sand them. Storm didn’t provide them directly. They may not even know they’re being checked.

Sorry, you can’t say sanding would make them harder, then say it wouldn’t have made a difference. Some of the balls tested 72.8. How much harder does sanding make them? 0.2 maybe?

Think about it from the opposite way: If a ball came in at 72.7 at 500 grit, then sanding it up to 360 grit to bring it up to 73.2 isn't going to make a difference if the ball came in under 73D regardless.

Quote

How about actually sanding them and testing? Or at least say how much of a difference sanding makes. They brought it up themselves.

I do agree..

FIASCO

Ron Hickland/Creating the Difference just dropped another video talking about all of this as well, and gives a really good explanation as to what happened and relative to the numbers.

BL.

You’ve missed the point that these balls weren’t sanded at all. All tested at OOB finish. Contrary to what is supposed to be done for testing.

Sanded 500 surface = Ball tested for approval by everyone per spec

Ball tested at OOB finish = how these were tested to decide to exclude

Their own procedures say they needed to be sanded.

The USBC excluded sic bowling balls mid tournament. It was too much to ask to perform a proper test so the results were as accurate and reflective as possible?

They say it makes no difference. How about just sand the damn thing and retest, publicly. At least record it with Storm reps present.

It’s not that hard to alleviate a ton of the remaining issues on this.

You never recover from the stupidity of making the move after day one of the Masters. They can try to spin all they want. That was a complete clusterfudge.

Balls don't need to be sanded during spot checks.  They only need to be sanded to 500 grit for certification approval. I don't disagree that to keep things as consistent as possible, testing at 500 grit during all tests would be advisable.  However, balls used for spot checks could not go back into inventory at that point, which would be very costly. The USBC isn't being contradictory, but there is a lack of consistency.  Unfortunately, the solution is expensive and the USBC has tried to be cognizant of that.  The easy, obvious answer does have that large caveat of excessive cost.

The timing of the announcement was still awful, though.  No way around that one.

The spot-checking process then identified that six additional models of Storm Products
manufactured balls measured out of USBC specifications. USBC shared this information with Storm.

Wow, certainly can't tell who the Storm guys are by the comments. Once a ball is made, it has to stay legal. I've never seen a lab controlled alley that doesn't have humidity and temperature variables. Knowing the USBC, I doubt their testing lab does either. With one exception, I don't know anyone that throws anything 500 grit. That is a continuity thing, polishes and different grits have zero to do with hardness. Once a company develops a ball, they are supposed to test extensively. I've thrown test balls before,  and it's not "Hey this is coming out in a month, try it out". It's try it for a month, here's a survey of what information we need along with dates, scores, locations, and when you're done we might need the ball back.
Does anyone remember Motiv's Jackel debacle? That one was approved and in stores and on tour. Throwbot doesn't use holes, and when they actually tested one with holes, the core was way out of spec. No one with Motiv had melt downs ( granted it was 1 ball), they dropped it and moved on. Now I believe they should let guys throw them until August when Storm has had a chance to roll replacements out and since people have already thrown them, and since they're still legal in most tournaments and leagues. But it was a compromise to try not to screw over a bunch of people.

Quote from: acread on April 10, 2022, 12:25:25 PM

Quote from: Journey82 on April 10, 2022, 11:20:44 AM

But it was a compromise to try not to screw over a bunch of people.

That's EXACTLY what it was.  The USBC would have banned the six balls, but they realized that if they did that on top of the Spectre being banned, they would financially cripple one of the two biggest suppliers in the industry (and a really good sponsor as well).  They also knew that Storm guys would throw up a massive stink no matter what since people these days only believe what they want to believe.  So, the USBC and Storm worked out a compromise together to try and minimize the impact of the announcement while simultaneously admitting the problem.  The net result was a ton of confusion, but it was all done to try and help Storm, not hurt them.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that none of this would be happening if Storm didn't release illegal balls into the marketplace.  That is Storm's fault, nobody else's.  Everything else is just an offshoot of the massive problem they created.

Compromise? They did what they had to to make sure the company survived

The Spectre was full ban. If they full banned these 6 p,yes kept going? They could have put Storm out of business. Storm could fight it in the courts, but that can, and most probably would, take years.

Is it much of a compromise to accept a finding that lets you stay in business?

Yes, there are affected Storm balls in my household. Haven’t hidden that fact. Doesn’t actually change my opinion on the timing of the exclusion and transparency. Add my issue with consistency on the procedures for testing in regards to banning.

Both of those are on the USBC.