Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO (Read 32815 times)

BrunsNick · « **on:** April 18, 2007, 12:10:11 PM »

The CGNOMADDAH video is up and running on www.brunsnick.com

Enjoy.

--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

MegaMav · « **Reply #136 on:** April 21, 2007, 04:50:55 PM »

quote:

otherwise Universities will award students Ph.D. degrees within 1 month of their enrollment .. have a theory, one example, now you can generalize it .. Ph.D.

VERY poor example.
Degrees take talent, and effort to achieve.
Not just time and money.

GTX · « **Reply #137 on:** April 21, 2007, 05:32:43 PM »

theory is a theory .. in everyday work or in university

and yes, in university, it takes time and money to do it ... to defend your theory ( it takes talent ) even for this CG issue .. which BigB and others so far have failed to do so

I fail to see how it is poor ... you already accepted the BigB proof based on one (and just one) sample
--------------------

Member of F.O.S.

Edited on 4/21/2007 5:33 PM

jgreenwd · « **Reply #138 on:** April 21, 2007, 05:52:04 PM »

quote:
theory is a theory .. in everyday work or in university

and yes, in university, it takes time and money to do it ... to defend your theory ( it takes talent ) even for this CG issue .. which BigB and others so far have failed to do so

I fail to see how it is poor ... you already accepted the BigB proof based on one (and just one) sample

So, it seems to me that your biggest beef is just that we only get to see the one sampling. I suppose that's a valid viewpoint. Given recent marketing practices in this country, I'm also wary of companies that don't give full disclosure on their testing procedures and the results. With that said, I can't really come up with any reason to doubt Brunswick's claims. I just don't see them gaining anything from any deception there. So, unless some folks want to pony up hard numbers to quell the masses, I'll continue to be content with operating under the auspices that CG is an insignificant factor when compared to other parts of the equation.

MegaMav · « **Reply #139 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:04:55 PM »

quote:
I'll continue to be content with operating under the auspices that CG is an insignificant factor when compared to other parts of the equation.

I think there is a reason brunswick calls it a "heavy spot".
Its a less decieving phrase.
I think "center of gravity" just sounds important.
Where in this case it is insignificant.

GTX · « **Reply #140 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:34:46 PM »

quote:
I'm also wary of companies that don't give full disclosure on their testing procedures and the results

that's different story .. they are not after proving anything. they can just tell you this ball for for this condition and that's it.

when you talk about something that belongs to everyone and you want to make a general statement such as this CG issue .. this is a theory

so doesn't matter or insignificant ?? there is a difference between them

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

Member of F.O.S.

jgreenwd · « **Reply #141 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:01:02 PM »

quote:
quote:
I'm also wary of companies that don't give full disclosure on their testing procedures and the results

that's different story .. they are not after proving anything. they can just tell you this ball for for this condition and that's it.

<snip snip>

so doesn't matter or insignificant ?? there is a difference between them

It goes back to the premise of the original video then. Was it to actually prove the limitations of the effect of the CG or was it to briefly demonstrate the limitations observed in their other experiements? I think it was the latter.

In the video, Brunswick specifically stated that it was "statistically insignificant." It seems that folks here are the only ones to say that it "doesn't matter." The logical course of this, then, is a very drawn out argument over semantics.

GTX · « **Reply #142 on:** April 21, 2007, 08:23:51 PM »

quote:

It goes back to the premise of the original video then. Was it to actually prove the limitations of the effect of the CG or was it to briefly demonstrate the limitations observed in their other experiements? I think it was the latter.

In the video, Brunswick specifically stated that it was "statistically insignificant." It seems that folks here are the only ones to say that it "doesn't matter." The logical course of this, then, is a very drawn out argument over semantics.

totally agree with you on the first part, BigB meant to show a sample. Even though some consider it not very convincing yet

and yes, BigB chose their words carefully and it seems bowlers here switched it to "doesn't matter" which is another story.

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

Member of F.O.S.

gnlover16 · « **Reply #143 on:** April 21, 2007, 09:05:36 PM »

I read through this whole post intrigued about this subject, but i noticed everyone missed something

Quote

Eric Stratton

Rush President, Damn glad to meet you.
quote]

He was the Rush CHAIRMAN lol.

BTW, from what I have seen here, I agree that it makes so small of a difference that it doesnt matter to the avgerage league bowler.
--------------------
GO STORM!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cant wait to get up to Buffalo

I have a NIB 15 lb "Original" Original Inferno (made in USA) for trade/sale, PM me for any questions

a_ak57 · « **Reply #144 on:** April 21, 2007, 09:18:53 PM »

I'll post what I had earlier (but much more longwinded). If I can use two bowling balls such as a Big Bang at 1200 grit (a significantly strong particle ball) and Blue Sparkle Gryphon at 4000 grit (not an overly strong reactive) on nearly the same line, am I *really* going to see that much of a difference by moving the CG, that won't be nullified due to the fact that I have 10 boards of miss room to strike anyways? I still stand by WhoCaresIfCGmaddahOrNomaddah, HouseShotMakeEverythingLookTheSame, and IfYou'reBowlingOnSportYouShouldWorryAboutMakingGoodShotsOtherwiseYou'reDoomedRegardlessOfTheBloodyDrillingPattern.
--------------------
- Andy

WSUstroker · « **Reply #145 on:** April 21, 2007, 09:29:51 PM »

Andy, don't try to bring that whole "everythingnomaddah" approach to this debate. Don't you got some pie to eat or something?

--------------------
Dan Chambers
www.absolutebowling.com
"Bowling on a house shot is like going to a whore house, you're going to score, but it ain't going to be pretty" - Tonx

rabbit_sla · « **Reply #146 on:** April 21, 2007, 10:48:11 PM »

I just got done reading through this whole post and it makes me laugh because people are stubborn and will believe what they want to believe. I have kept my mouth shut about the whole ordeal and will keep my thoughts about if it matters or not to myself. I will continue to buy and drill equipment to what I think I would like the ball to do. I will also make sure that the ball is within the limits that the usbc still has.
--------------------
Your bowling is only as good as your spare making ability.

Mike Austin · « **Reply #147 on:** April 22, 2007, 01:11:15 AM »

quote:
Laufeye your assumptions are inaccurate and if you have taken time to actually look at this issue before or research some of it, especially with MB, especially regarding theoretical mass bias' on symmetrical balls I might give you the satisfaction of answering you. But as it stands now, there is no point. I'm sorry dynamic imbalance of an object in motion and the changes it causes on that rotation are physical law.

Lane1- you are confused here. CG has nothing to do with Dynamic imbalance of the bowling ball, the imbalance of the ball as it is moving,. Center of Gravity pertains to the Static Weights, the static imbalance of the bowling ball, the imbalance of the ball as it is sitting.

I have worked with people from most every ball company, not just Brunswick, and all of them are on record as saying the static weights have very little effect on the motion or performance of a bowling ball. You can believe what you want and talk about "laws" and theories.

What has been lost and what this hole argument boils down to is: Static weights only make up about 5% of a balls total reaction. So, you can say yes, they do have effect. BUT, the effect is statistically unimportant. The CG mark only makes an indicator of where the Mass Bias approximately is in a symmetrical ball. It also lets the driller know where and how big an extra hole he will have to use to get the ball to USBC legal. Static weights no maddah. You guys that think they do, go right ahead and worry about that, I'm gonna worry about the other 95% for me and my customers, namely surface (type and preparation), pin to PAP, and mass bias position, pretty much in that order.

The extra hole is the key, when drilled deep enough it changes the shape of the core, in the right place it changes the RG of the ball. The extra hole changes the roll of the bowling ball. Static weights don't do much of anything, and I say nothing at all.

I've been very lucky to have worked with and learned from a number of the top minds in this industry. I've drilled 100's of bowling balls from every manufacturer. Physics is physics no matter who made the ball, what cover is on it or what lane condition you do it on. If you want to say the test is no good because Nick threw the ball, well you are just looking for reasons to make your own argument look good. I'm gonna have to do this test with more shots and make a video, cuz while I'm no Billy O, I am prettier than Nick!! LOL!!

Onward through the night.....

--------------------
Driller to many "Stars" and Tony Melendez too!

ONLINE and building products: www.mikeaustinproshop.com
COMING SOON!!! www.mikeaustinbowling.com

Check out my Ebay Store! http://stores.ebay.com/mikeaustinproshop

http://www.allbowling.com/journal/public.php?uid=67&leagueid=1270

Brutal Bowler · « **Reply #148 on:** April 22, 2007, 09:34:09 AM »

After following this debate since it started, i just hope for the love of everything that is holy, please BTBA (British Tenpin Bowling Association) dont bring this rule to our shores.

--------------------
Phil AKA DeForce
(A STORM DOMINATION IS COMING MY WAY SOON!!!)

http://bowlingtracker.no-ip.org:2222/personalstats/ViewPublicStats.asp?Country=US&State=NV&City=Reno (BTW I dont play at Reno)

English & proud -- God save the Queen

Come on Birmingham City F.C!!

Current Arsenal:
Ebonite XXXCEL, Storm Paradigm (skip/ snap aggressive), Storm Paradigm (mild/ straight), Raw Hammer Toxic, AMF Sumo, Brunswick Groove Reactive, Regency 300, Ebonite Maxim

High Game - 269, High Series - 691

Steven · « **Reply #149 on:** April 22, 2007, 01:11:44 PM »

Like all debates, this one has been going in a million different directions. My personal interest has been to analyze testing methodologies used in the original Brunswick test and the follow-up Nick test. I find it fascinating in the real world how the brightest and most credentialed can have major flaws in testing methodology (regardless of discipline), and Brunswick, as well as Nic, fell into the quicksand pit of inadequate controls.

The whole CGNOMADDAH thing is a nit in the overall scheme of things. There are at least a half a dozen items more important in setting up a ball, so this whole argument is an academic exercise in the obscure and insignificant.

However, if Brunswick is going to bring it up in videos, and if Nic is going to build a career out of peddling CGNOMADDAH cups and t-shirts

, then it's a challenge to look further into it.

I've done a CGNOMADDAH test in the past on Stingers. Yesterday, I had a second solid Uranium drilled up identical to my first to revisit the issue. Both of my Uraniums are drilled with the pin 4.5" from PAP (below the ring). On my first the CG is 5.5" from PAP (label leverage in grip, no X-hole required). On the new second, went with the CG 3.5" from PAP. Before drilling an X-hole the second for USBC legality, I took it out to lanes for a comparison test.

In fairness, there was little difference between the two Uraniums. But however small, there was a difference. The new CG-out Uranium did set up slightly sooner in the mid-lane. Not much, but there all the same. And the flare lines, while very similar, were slightly different. On the CG-out drill, the inside oil line was slightly further out from the thumb than on the label leverage drill.

I know the nay sayers will point out the uncontrolled variables in the test, my lack of skill, inconsistent shot making, failing eye sight, etc. But one of the advantages of being a 230 house hack, using a ball you know intimately, and testing in a house where you know the reaction characteristics of every lane and every shift, you know subtle variances when you experience them.

Are the differences large enough to make a big impact in the overall scheme of things? No. Are the differences large enough to consider when setting a ball up for the reaction (hook shape) you want to achieve? Yes, at least when you get to certain level.

--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

jgreenwd · « **Reply #150 on:** April 22, 2007, 01:27:10 PM »

quote:
I've done a CGNOMADDAH test in the past on Stingers. Yesterday, I had a second solid Uranium drilled up identical to my first to revisit the issue. Both of my Uraniums are drilled with the pin 4.5" from PAP (below the ring). On my first the CG is 5.5" from PAP (label leverage in grip, no X-hole required). On the new second, went with the CG 3.5" from PAP. Before drilling an X-hole the second for USBC legality, I took it out to lanes for a comparison test.

In fairness, there was little difference between the two Uraniums. But however small, there was a difference. The new CG-out Uranium did set up slightly sooner in the mid-lane. Not much, but there all the same. And the flare lines, while very similar, were slightly different. On the CG-out drill, the inside oil line was slightly further out from the thumb than on the label leverage drill.

I know the nay sayers will point out the uncontrolled variables in the test, my lack of skill, inconsistent shot making, failing eye sight, etc. But one of the advantages of being a 230 house hack, using a ball you know intimately, and testing in a house where you know the reaction characteristics of every lane and every shift, you know subtle variances when you experience them.

Are the differences large enough to make a big impact in the overall scheme of things? No. Are the differences large enough to consider when setting a ball up for the reaction (hook shape) you want to achieve? Yes, at least when you get to certain level.

It seems to me that you now have the perfect opportunity to make a CGMADDAH video! Unless you've already punched that balance hole out...

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO (Read 32815 times)

BrunsNick

CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

MegaMav

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

GTX

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

jgreenwd

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

MegaMav

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

GTX

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

jgreenwd

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

GTX

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

gnlover16

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

a_ak57

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

WSUstroker

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

rabbit_sla

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Mike Austin

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Brutal Bowler

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Steven

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

jgreenwd

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO*** (Read 32815 times)

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO (Read 32815 times)