win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: V2 CORE  (Read 3712 times)

J_w73

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2555
V2 CORE
« on: February 02, 2010, 03:31:41 AM »
I stepped out of bowling for a while and I think it was when Ebonite released their version of balls with the V2 core. I have heard great things about this core.  What makes this core so special?  Why do people rave about it?
Was it marketed as an asymmetrical ?
--------------------
18 mph,350 rpm,PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8up, 15 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
HighGame 300 x 4, High Series 808
Book Average 205,PBA Xperience
Logged
350 RPM, 17 MPH

 

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: V2 CORE
« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2010, 07:51:05 PM »
quote:
quote:
the min requirement is 2.43 according to USBC ... the cores in the pinslasher and gamebreaker are over that limit.. not sure if they tweeked them from the original V2 core.



It is my understanding that the new low RG limit is 2.48 for USBC specs which led to the Pin Slasher and Playmaker being discontinued.
--------------------
"I don''''''''t want to be remembered, I want to be forgotten"


Due to the date being July, 2010 for the new standards and then for balls first applying (they''d be grandfathered in), I think they got discontinued due to lack of sales.

From the USBC website(http://www.bowl.com/equipandspecs/index.jsp):


USBC Equipment Specifications and Certifications Committee adopts new bowling ball specification as part of continuing effort to reestablish bowling’s credibility

The USBC Equipment Specifications and Certifications Committee has adopted a new specification for all bowling balls approved for competition on or after July 1, 2010. The new specification will raise the allowable lower-limit radius of gyration (RG) measurement to 2.460 inches up from 2.430 inches.
Raising the lower-limit RG specification will delay and weaken overall ball motion, thereby decreasing the amount of inherent aggressiveness bowling ball manufacturers can infuse into their bowling ball product lines.
This specification change, and others that have been recently adopted, which include Surface Roughness – Ra, lane surface hardness and lane conditioner viscosity, is aimed at reestablishing player skill as an equally if not more important factor than technology in determining bowling ball motion.
“Our sport incorporates a multitude of variables relating from the ball to the bowler to the lane and beyond. This new RG specification should be supported by league and tournament players alike because it is another step that USBC is taking to bring results back in line with player performance,” USBC Technical Director Steve Kloempken said. “We will continue addressing this issue and investigating possible specification changes until we get back to the point where player skill is as important as, if not more important than, technology in determining success on the lanes.”
The realization that a new lower-limit RG specification was needed came about after USBC Equipment Specifications and Certifications team members conducted exhaustive analysis of the Ball Motion Study, a two-year, joint research venture conducted by USBC in cooperation with bowling ball manufacturers.
The study, which can be read in its entirety on USBC’s bowl.com Web site, examined and ranked how 18 different variables affect bowling ball motion. The study was completed in March 2008. Since that time, the USBC Equipment Specifications and Certifications Committee has evaluated the results and used the findings to establish and/or modify specifications limiting a bowling ball’s Surface Roughness - Ra and, now, lower-limit RG standard.
All bowling balls approved before the deadline will be grandfathered in under the current RG specifications, making them legal for future USBC-certified competition. The specification change will only apply to balls approved on or after July 1, 2010.
“One of the important things to consider is how research and this new specification benefits our members,” Kloempken said. “Between 2005 and 2008, we gathered critical knowledge and data from the Ball Motion Study. Using that data to modify current specifications like this is critical to educate our members and uphold the credibility of the sport. It is all done in an ongoing effort to balance player skill and technology, and you as a USBC member are a part of it.”
For more information on this and other technical issues, visit the Equipment Specifications and Certifications area of bowl.com.

--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Edited on 2/2/2010 8:53 PM

Edited on 2/2/2010 9:49 PM
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Juggernaut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • Former good bowler, now 3 games a week house hack.
Re: V2 CORE
« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2010, 08:33:09 PM »
quote:
The USBC Equipment Specifications and Certifications Committee has adopted a new specification for all bowling balls approved for competition on or after July 1, 2010. The new specification will raise the allowable lower-limit radius of gyration (RG) measurement to 2.460 inches up from 2.430 inches.
 


 Thank you charlest, for finding and posting that info. It does, however, make me think about it this way.

 They changed the specs by 3/100ths of an inch. 3/100ths, that's it. I have my doubts that I, or anyone here, could actually tell the difference between two balls with the same cover and weightblock with only 3/100ths inch difference in RG.

 3/100ths is slightly less than 1/32 (which is 3/96ths). When we, as bowlers, begin to worry ourselves about such minutia, we are far too worried about what the BALL will do and not what WE will do with it.

 There are specs FAR more worth worrying about that will have FAR more influence on a balls reaction that changing the lower RG limit by 3/100ths of an inch. Quit worrying so much about Diff., RG, RA and the like and start working on COR and COF numbers.

 Put any core dynamics you want to into an 82D hardness polyester shell and then lets see what happens.
--------------------
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.

Brickguy221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9918
Re: V2 CORE
« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2010, 08:53:24 PM »
In regard to the V-2 Core, Ebonite balls dieing, and etc, I have a Gamebreaker and I clean it as well as all of my other balls very religiously....almost to the point of overcleaning if that were ever possible. It has over 200 games on it and it performs as well today as it did the first time I threw it NIB....Now, I also HAD a Playmaker and really loved that ball when it was NIB. I cleaned it the same as the Gamebreaker and my other balls. However, it began to quit performing for me around 40 games or so and got worse everytime I used it after that, so I finally gave up on it and gave it away.

The point I am getting at is it is confusing to me about Ebonite coverstocks dieing when one ball (Gamebreaker) has refused to die while my Playmaker and other peoples Ebonite balls did die. I don't know what the explaination is here.
--------------------
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away."

Brick
Logged
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away"

Brickguy221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9918
Re: V2 CORE
« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2010, 08:58:35 PM »
quote:
They changed the specs by 3/100ths of an inch. 3/100ths, that's it. I have my doubts that I, or anyone here, could actually tell the difference between two balls with the same cover and weightblock with only 3/100ths inch difference in RG.

3/100ths is slightly less than 1/32 (which is 3/96ths). When we, as bowlers, begin to worry ourselves about such minutia, we are far too worried about what the BALL will do and not what WE will do with it.

There are specs FAR more worth worrying about that will have FAR more influence on a balls reaction that changing the lower RG limit by 3/100ths of an inch. Quit worrying so much about Diff., RG, RA and the like and start working on COR and COF numbers.

 


+1....Juggernaut, I am in your boat with you on that. I doubt even a pro can tell the difference between an RG of 2.45 and 2.48, but I could be wrong there.

--------------------
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away."

Brick
Logged
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away"

J_w73

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2555
Re: V2 CORE
« Reply #20 on: February 02, 2010, 11:38:04 PM »
quote:
Jw,

My opinion:
I haven't read all the replies, but it's never the core. It's always the core/coverstock matchup.

The V2 was a great ball. The V2 particle was a great ball but the cover absorbed oil and died in 30 games or less.

The V2 core with the One coverstock (The Gamebreaker) was good, sometimes very good, but again the coverstock was a super-absorber, so it died, really lost a serious amount of performance, very quickly, if it was not cared for very well. The Pin Slasher was even more absorptive.  

Now if they put their XL1200 coverstock on the V2 Core, then they'd have something memorable.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."


the XL1200 is on the mission right? Is that supposed to be a long lasting coverstock like the magic series.. so what are they doing to keep these covers from soaking oil and being longer lasting??
--------------------
18 mph,350 rpm,PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8up, 15 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
HighGame 300 x 4, High Series 808
Book Average 205,PBA Xperience
Logged
350 RPM, 17 MPH

J_w73

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2555
Re: V2 CORE
« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2010, 11:46:06 PM »
quote:
quote:
They changed the specs by 3/100ths of an inch. 3/100ths, that''s it. I have my doubts that I, or anyone here, could actually tell the difference between two balls with the same cover and weightblock with only 3/100ths inch difference in RG.

3/100ths is slightly less than 1/32 (which is 3/96ths). When we, as bowlers, begin to worry ourselves about such minutia, we are far too worried about what the BALL will do and not what WE will do with it.

There are specs FAR more worth worrying about that will have FAR more influence on a balls reaction that changing the lower RG limit by 3/100ths of an inch. Quit worrying so much about Diff., RG, RA and the like and start working on COR and COF numbers.

 


+1....Juggernaut, I am in your boat with you on that. I doubt even a pro can tell the difference between an RG of 2.45 and 2.48, but I could be wrong there.

--------------------
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away."

Brick


even though these figures are small amounts, there is a difference.. look at drilling a ball in a high rg state (long pin to pap up near VAL) vs its lowest with the pin on the pap.. there is a .060 difference in RG at the most and there is a night and day difference in the reaction..
I am still trying to figure out on a scientific level why there is such a big difference in reaction though
--------------------
18 mph,350 rpm,PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8up, 15 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
HighGame 300 x 4, High Series 808
Book Average 205,PBA Xperience


Edited on 2/3/2010 0:52 AM
Logged
350 RPM, 17 MPH

J_w73

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2555
Re: V2 CORE
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2010, 11:51:51 PM »
quote:
quote:

so that V opening in the core isnt really there.. that is just to show the inner flip block?

pic here
http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/bowlersdream_2087_83076086

http://ebonite.com/images/uploads/resources/shelf_talkers/st_pin_slasher.pdf
--------------------

 


 Correct. Just extend that core to complete the sperical shape encompassing the interior pucks and you have it.
--------------------
Good transactions list in my profile

 ILLEGITIMI, NON-CARBORUNDUM!


I want to see a ball with the core just how it is shown in the picture...
--------------------
18 mph,350 rpm,PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8up, 15 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
HighGame 300 x 4, High Series 808
Book Average 205,PBA Xperience
Logged
350 RPM, 17 MPH

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: V2 CORE
« Reply #23 on: February 03, 2010, 07:21:10 AM »
quote:
quote:
Jw,

My opinion:
I haven't read all the replies, but it's never the core. It's always the core/coverstock matchup.

The V2 was a great ball. The V2 particle was a great ball but the cover absorbed oil and died in 30 games or less.

The V2 core with the One coverstock (The Gamebreaker) was good, sometimes very good, but again the coverstock was a super-absorber, so it died, really lost a serious amount of performance, very quickly, if it was not cared for very well. The Pin Slasher was even more absorptive.  

Now if they put their XL1200 coverstock on the V2 Core, then they'd have something memorable.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."


the XL1200 is on the mission right? Is that supposed to be a long lasting coverstock like the magic series.. so what are they doing to keep these covers from soaking oil and being longer lasting??
--------------------
18 mph,350 rpm,PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8up, 15 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
HighGame 300 x 4, High Series 808
Book Average 205,PBA Xperience


What are they doing to make them long lasting, to reduce their oil absorbancy?
I guess you'd really have to ask a resin chemist that question. I understand that these may be older coverstocks that were used on older, mild balls, 6 - 8 years ago and have been modified by their chemists to perform better, read: hook more.

The XL series started with the XL1000 on the Evolve, but even last year, on the Striking Motion, with its Super Shell 1.0, they used a cover that absorbed less oil. Maybe that was the initial reason why it hooked less than people thought it should. (The initial Motiv balls, the SX-1 and the TX-1 supposedly has less oil absorptive coverstock.) So the Striking Motion, the Evolve, the Mission and the whole Magic series (Flexol covers) all have covers that last longer and absorb less oil.

--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

AngloBowler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 619
Re: V2 CORE
« Reply #24 on: February 03, 2010, 07:39:43 AM »
I would assume that they've found a process which reduces the porosity of the material, whilst retaining its friction chracteristics. But I'm not a chemist either.
--------------------
Reporting from England
Logged

Gazoo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
Re: V2 CORE
« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2010, 08:07:43 AM »
Being as the V2 core stills falls below the 2.46 threshold which may lead us not to see it again, I will be stashing a few Pin Slasher's away as I have found the GBV 12.7 cover to be pretty durable.
--------------------
"I don't want to be remembered, I want to be forgotten"
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »