Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO (Read 32809 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!

Mike Austin · « **Reply #151 on:** April 22, 2007, 01:29:21 PM »

quote:
Brunswick, as well as Nic, fell into the quicksand pit of inadequate controls.

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.

Your "test" was just as inadequate if not more. No video...

quote:

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.

How many games on your first Uranium? The new uranium was just that, brand new, that would account for the new ball setting up sooner on the lane, than the old one.

quote:

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.

[/i]

Your "test" did nothing to convince that static weights make a difference in ball reaction or hook shape, no matter what "level" you are at.

Without some witnesses, we don't know you did the "test" at all.

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

strikealot · « **Reply #152 on:** April 22, 2007, 01:33:45 PM »

i went to the edge of the flat earth but forgot to video or bring someone with me....but trust me..i did..
--------------------
Hard work pays off in the future, laziness pays off now!
myspace profile...
http://www.myspace.com/chad__gordon

http://

current arsenal

super carbide bomb
solid cobalt
tsunami
black xxxl
raw toxic
total NV
smashtime pearl
black ice

MEMBER OF THE F.O.S.

Steven · « **Reply #153 on:** April 22, 2007, 01:58:21 PM »

quote:
Without some witnesses, we don't know you did the "test" at all.

I knew this kind of stuff was coming......

Yes, I had witnesses, but what does that prove? I could give names with notarized statements, but no-one would care. The background, ability and character of those individuals would be challenged, so it would be a waste of time. Regardless, there are people on this site who know me personally, so I'm not going to defend myself as to weather or not I conducted the test in the first place.

I'm not going to video anything, because we've seen from the Brunswick video that you can't conclusively 'prove' results that way, at least not without going to a level of effort no-one has attempted so far (even Brusnwick). That's why I was skeptical when Nic said he was going round #2. Regardless, as I said, I don't care that much.

And Mike, you may have drilled thousands of balls for thousands of people (and are probably good at it), but that doesn't mean you've at least tried an obscure test like this yourself. If you have, at least speak up and provide something worth considering other than your credentials. It's easy to take shots when you don't have any skin in the game.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

J_Mac · « **Reply #154 on:** April 22, 2007, 02:14:05 PM »

quote:

And Mike, you may have drilled thousands of balls for thousands of people (and are probably good at it), but that doesn't mean you've at least tried an obscure test like this yourself. If you have, at least speak up and provide something worth considering other than your credentials. It's easy to take shots when you don't have any skin in the game.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

Steven, I'm sure if he did do this sort of test he'd be sure to use 2 NIB balls to eliminate the coverstock grit surface and freshness variable. I guess you didn't think it would matter though, even though the coverstock is the most crucial piece in the ball reaction puzzle.
--------------------
"A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need the advice." Bill Cosby
"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Steven · « **Reply #155 on:** April 22, 2007, 02:14:30 PM »

quote:
And we fell short in our test. I guess we could have merely passed the word by possibly whispering it to one another. But hell, to think if we could have used the internet back then. No really it didn't 'hook' more, really. Take my word for it. No really there was this robotic arm that throws bowling balls and it throws it the same every time. And we threw a lot of shots with it and there was no different between the shots.

Gee Ric, I thought you would have taken an least some comfort in the fact I admitted it mattered minimally. But it always seems to come back to "how dare you challenge my background as well the brain trust at Brunswick?" Heaven forbid if you ever worked in a corporate environment where your presentations are held under intense scrutiny, regardless of what you've achieved in the past.

There were significant differences in reaction between Throwbot shots 7 and 8, and your explanations have been given. While possible, there are at least equally compelling explanations that point to core dynamics. So instead of Brunswick recognizing the potential confusion and providing additional shots to show consistency, it was "just move on and ignore the differences". If my pointing that out makes me a bad guy, so be it.

If you can't see that, there is no basis for discussion.

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

Steven · « **Reply #156 on:** April 22, 2007, 02:27:09 PM »

quote:
Steven, I'm sure if he did do this sort of test he'd be sure to use 2 NIB balls to eliminate the coverstock grit surface and freshness variable. I guess you didn't think it would matter though, even though the coverstock is the most crucial piece in the ball reaction puzzle.

JMac: My older ball has a lot of games on it, no question. What I did prior to going to the alley was to take the older ball down to 600 grit using a new green scotchbrite pad. My experience with the solid Uranium has been that 600 grit without polish brings the ball back very close to NIB condition. I try to maintain the ball the best I possibly can (it's my favorite piece), so my sense is that loss of reaction (if any) was not a factor in the test.

And unlike the Brunswick/BrunsNick tests, I threw on a lane with a little more breakdown to make sure I was able to create more friction and mid-lane reaction.

Much of this stuff comes down to what you see and feel. I would encourage others to at least try it before definitively coming down on one side or another.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

Edited on 4/22/2007 2:26 PM

Edited on 4/22/2007 2:30 PM

BrunsNick · « **Reply #157 on:** April 22, 2007, 02:44:00 PM »

quote:
For the rest of you, there is the Flat Earth Society (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)

A+++++ Will Read Again!
--------------------
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!

Steven · « **Reply #158 on:** April 22, 2007, 02:59:49 PM »

Ric: I criticize a few aspects of the Brunswick test, and make a few recommendations for clearing up confusion, and you act like I've kidnapped your first born child and I'm holding it for ransom. Just an honest acknowledgment of the obvious problems of would have been sufficient.

You seem to want it both ways. You post that "We have stated that the video was done for those to view it for what it is, an educational video". But when the completeness of the effort is discussed, you want everything evaluated from the perspective of a complete effort that's beyond reproach or challenge.

As far as my own test, I'm the first to admit if fails the standards I've held BrunsNick to. My conclusions have more to do with what I personally experienced, taking everything I could into consideration, rather than an effort that would hold up to outside analysis. As I've said, this just isn't important enough to me to go to that extreme. I've said CG effect is minimal, but believe there is enough there to at least influence pin placement if an X-Hole is not going to be required. If you believe different, so be it.

I apologize if you you've taken any of this personally. My intent was not personal attacks, but to analyze tests presented. I'll leave it at that.

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

Mike Austin · « **Reply #159 on:** April 22, 2007, 04:23:24 PM »

quote:
Ric: I criticize a few aspects of the Brunswick test, and make a few recommendations for clearing up confusion, and you act like I've kidnapped your first born child and I'm holding it for ransom. Just an honest acknowledgment of the obvious problems of would have been sufficient.

And you have what qualifications that qualify you to have your criticism taken seriously? Who are you to say that there any problems in Brunswick's test, the test was designed by professionals, and performed with a one of a kind, very expensive machine.

Maybe Ric is getting defensive because he takes his work personally and loves the company he works for. His time and effort invested make it somewhat personal when a few people want to discredit what his company and the large majority have shown to be true.

quote:

You seem to want it both ways. You post that "We have stated that the video was done for those to view it for what it is, an educational video". But when the completeness of the effort is discussed, you want everything evaluated from the perspective of a complete effort that's beyond reproach or challenge.

As far as my own test, I'm the first to admit if fails the standards I've held BrunsNick to. My conclusions have more to do with what I personally experienced, taking everything I could into consideration, rather than an effort that would hold up to outside analysis. As I've said, this just isn't important enough to me to go to that extreme. I've said CG effect is minimal, but believe there is enough there to at least influence pin placement if an X-Hole is not going to be required. If you believe different, so be it.

I apologize if you you've taken any of this personally. My intent was not personal attacks, but to analyze tests presented. I'll leave it at that.

Don't believe you to be qualified to criticize what leading industry professionals presented, because you "feel" or "experienced" something different. You don't feel the argument is important enough to go to any extremes, but yet you keep on posting critical statements about the subject. Then you make some comment about my skin invested or under my skin, or something.... I have similar number of years and hours invested in this industry because I love helping bowlers get better. I spend every minute I can educating bowlers, many of the readers of this site are just like my customers, thirsting for knowledge. Since I can't see/meet many of the readers here, I have to do the best I can to stop the spread of false information and/or help them read what will help them the most. I'm not gonna list my credentials that you question, because I have been criticized on this site other times for tooting my own horn. I just may have to make this a project and put it on my mikeaustinbowling.com when it gets going. I have alot of time and effort invested in my pro shop business and competitive bowling and it irks me when lesser qualified people keep spouting misinformation about things that they "feel" or "have experienced". I did acid once over 20 years ago when I was a kid, that "experience" doesn't qualify me to speak with an authoritative opinion on drug use and abuse LOL!! (I in no way condone drug use)(it scared the crap out of me, never did it or any other again)

Sorry for the ramble, you shouldn't watch baseball and type at the same time.

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

Steven · « **Reply #160 on:** April 22, 2007, 06:14:53 PM »

quote:

Care to take a guess which company it is?

Hey Steven, what ball company do your pledge your oath to?

Are they one and the same??

Inverted: I'm not going to get in that, because it has nothing to do with this topic. I use a lot of Lane#1 now, but so what. If Lane#1 had put out this same video, I'd ask the same questions. Nice try.

Ric/Mike: I hear what you're saying, and it's sad. The minute you take a subject and make it personal, you've lost the ability to think clearly and be subjective. If you want to pick and choose who are 'qualified' to ask questions, and smear those who fall outside your 'approved' circle, you'll end up talking to yourselves and few select others (mostly those who will automatically agree with you). But if that's the way you like it, carry on.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

strikealot · « **Reply #161 on:** April 22, 2007, 06:23:20 PM »

this is where this will lead, into personal attacks...this will never get anywhere with you steven...you are very good with words, but thats it...words..you cannot disprove what they say or show with words...ric obviously has alot of experience and has worked with this subject for a long time...i don't know what experience you have although you sound knowledgeable.....i have read somewhere that the other companies agree that cg has little effect and static weights really don't matter...someone needs to produce something showing where cg matters, until then ill just sit back and watch...
--------------------
Hard work pays off in the future, laziness pays off now!
myspace profile...
http://www.myspace.com/chad__gordon

http://

current arsenal

super carbide bomb
solid cobalt
tsunami
black xxxl
raw toxic
total NV
smashtime pearl
black ice

MEMBER OF THE F.O.S.

Edited on 4/22/2007 6:24 PM

kmanestor22 · « **Reply #162 on:** April 22, 2007, 08:30:48 PM »

Let's get real. Brunswick did this test so they could sell us balls with 1/2 inch pin-outs. If cg matters a lot, which I have admitted it usually doesn't, then people get picky about their pin-outs. If you don't have the right pin-out, you lose a sale. Isn't it convenient that cgnomaddah now? Would you cgnomaddah guys be willing to trade out balls for others with better pin-outs?
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer

BrunsNick · « **Reply #163 on:** April 22, 2007, 08:45:28 PM »

Get rid of the USBC weight allowances and then pin outs wouldn't matter.

--------------------
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!

leftehh- LG · « **Reply #164 on:** April 22, 2007, 09:58:01 PM »

quote:
Let's get real. Brunswick did this test so they could sell us balls with 1/2 inch pin-outs. If cg matters a lot, which I have admitted it usually doesn't, then people get picky about their pin-outs. If you don't have the right pin-out, you lose a sale. Isn't it convenient that cgnomaddah now? Would you cgnomaddah guys be willing to trade out balls for others with better pin-outs?
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer

WHY would moving the center of gravity in a SYMETRICAL ball less than a MILLIMETER and basically having the SAME CORE PLACEMENT EFFECT THE BALL MUCH?
--------------------
Bowl to Win!

Ishmael · « **Reply #165 on:** April 23, 2007, 09:13:48 AM »

quote:
We have stated in ball reaction and motion that the placement of the starting CG has little to no effect on it, as well as static weights. Approx 5-7% and as the rev rate increases, it is closer to the 7%.

End of discussion.

If proper cg placement gives me a reaction that's 5% better, I'll sure as hell take it.

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO (Read 32809 times)

BrunsNick

CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Mike Austin

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

strikealot

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Steven

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

J_Mac

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Steven

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Steven

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

BrunsNick

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Steven

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Mike Austin

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Steven

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

strikealot

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

kmanestor22

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

BrunsNick

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

leftehh- LG

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Ishmael

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO*** (Read 32809 times)

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO (Read 32809 times)