Post by: BrunsNick on April 18, 2007, 12:10:11 PM
Enjoy.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: Leonidas on April 18, 2007, 08:18:00 PM
Post by: Raven829 on April 18, 2007, 08:26:02 PM
no the cg doesn't matter, but even this won't convince the naysayers
--------------------
"On-base percentage is great if you can score runs and do something with that on-base percentage. Clogging up the bases isn't that great to me. The problem we have to address more than anything is the home run problem."
~Dusty Baker being a total fool
Post by: Eddie M on April 18, 2007, 08:28:18 PM
If the labels weren't so visible though, I would never have been able to tell them apart.
Post by: JohnnyRocket on April 18, 2007, 08:32:28 PM
Post by: JohnnyRocket on April 18, 2007, 08:38:00 PM
Post by: rabbit_sla on April 18, 2007, 08:53:52 PM
--------------------
Your bowling is only as good as your spare making ability.
Post by: MegaMav on April 18, 2007, 09:04:19 PM
Post by: cmoore3wins on April 18, 2007, 09:23:35 PM
--------------------
MoRich World Order
mWo for life - It's a "HOLE" new game....
I flip out ten pins, you flip them off....
Mos cores = Mo scores....
Edited on 4/18/2007 10:19 PM
Post by: DP3 on April 18, 2007, 09:51:55 PM
quote:
I think no matter what, both will roll like crap.
I think my prediction held true.
--------------------
-DJ Marshall
...The Twelve In a Row Pro Shop
Post by: RealBowler on April 18, 2007, 10:36:44 PM
Now, since you need to take at least 3/4 oz of positive weight out of that one ball to make it legal, put a huge x-hole in each ball - same location of course! - and throw those bad boys again!
Prove us all wrong again!
--------------------
Haywood
**************************
I don't need a stupid
signature. This is enough.
**************************
Post by: BrunsNick on April 18, 2007, 10:42:47 PM
quote:
Smoking!
Now, since you need to take at least 3/4 oz of positive weight out of that one ball to make it legal, put a huge x-hole in each ball - same location of course! - and throw those bad boys again!
Prove us all wrong again!
--------------------
Haywood
**************************
I don't need a stupid
signature. This is enough.
**************************
Doable!
I could pop a 1" x 2 1/2" on my axis for both and film the results. It'd be a tough time for whoever bought the negative weighted ball after!
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: The Bowlers Edge 2 on April 18, 2007, 11:28:34 PM
quote:Quote
Doable!
It'd be a tough time for whoever bought the negative weighted ball after!
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Sign it and give it away with the next shirt raffle winner
--------------------
The Bowler's Edge Pro Shop
Post by: qstick777 on April 18, 2007, 11:49:53 PM
quote:quote:
Smoking!
Now, since you need to take at least 3/4 oz of positive weight out of that one ball to make it legal, put a huge x-hole in each ball - same location of course! - and throw those bad boys again!
Prove us all wrong again!
--------------------
Haywood
**************************
I don't need a stupid
signature. This is enough.
**************************
Doable!
I could pop a 1" x 2 1/2" on my axis for both and film the results. It'd be a tough time for whoever bought the negative weighted ball after!
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
A plugged ball is a plugged ball!
Hey, it's a Lane #1, single drill.......it's gotta be worth at least $200!
--------------------
FAQ:http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5
Search Ballreviews entire database here: http://www.bowling-info.com/Search.html
Post by: laufaye on April 18, 2007, 11:55:35 PM
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: pate08 on April 19, 2007, 12:18:15 AM
--------------------
V2 Particle
Power Machine
Smash Time Pearl
Awesome Revs
UT spares
Phoenix - for sale
High Game - 296
High Series - 748
Post by: BrunsNick on April 19, 2007, 12:22:29 AM
quote:
IMHO, I think there would be a difference if you had one stacked under the fingers and one with pin under the fingers and the cg at 45 degrees.
--------------------
V2 Particle
Power Machine
Smash Time Pearl
Awesome Revs
UT spares
Phoenix - for sale
High Game - 296
High Series - 748
You've gotta be kidding me!
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: pate08 on April 19, 2007, 12:28:35 AM
quote:quote:
IMHO, I think there would be a difference if you had one stacked under the fingers and one with pin under the fingers and the cg at 45 degrees.
--------------------
V2 Particle
Power Machine
Smash Time Pearl
Awesome Revs
UT spares
Phoenix - for sale
High Game - 296
High Series - 748
You've gotta be kidding me!
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
About what?
--------------------
V2 Particle
Power Machine
Smash Time Pearl
Awesome Revs
UT spares
Phoenix - for sale
High Game - 296
High Series - 748
Post by: BrunsNick on April 19, 2007, 12:56:43 AM
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: NateNice on April 19, 2007, 01:11:43 AM
quote:
You're saying that if you moved the pin to a new, but constant position, that the cg location would then have an effect?
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Perhaps he forgot to watch the movie?
Post by: NateNice on April 19, 2007, 01:13:52 AM
quote:
In a statically ignorant world, you are right, placement doesn't matter. However, the second you pop a hole and start to shift around the mass inside the ball to ensure legality, CG placement begins to matter a whole lot.
The point of the video is to point out that the rules that make a ball legal or not are pretty stupid. And then to make things worse the USBC wants to make even more restrictions on where a CG can be?!
The whole point of this video is to prove that "kicking out the CG" is a dated idea that has absolutely no effect on a bowling ball.
Post by: BrunsNick on April 19, 2007, 01:16:38 AM
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: C-G ProShop-Carl on April 19, 2007, 01:23:13 AM
quote:
The whole point of this video is to prove that "kicking out the CG" is a dated idea that has absolutely no effect on a bowling ball.
Kicking the CG out does matter once you put the hole in the proper spot to tweak reaction. I do not believe that is being contested at all.
--------------------
Carl Hurd
C-G Pro Shop (owner/operator)
Youngstown Ohio
Tag Team Member #1
TAG TEAM COACHING!!!!!!/Co-Founder
Edited on 4/19/2007 1:22 AM
Post by: BrunsNick on April 19, 2007, 01:29:12 AM
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: pate08 on April 19, 2007, 01:42:51 AM
--------------------
V2 Particle
Power Machine
Smash Time Pearl
Awesome Revs
UT spares
Phoenix - for sale
High Game - 296
High Series - 748
Post by: Joe Jr on April 19, 2007, 01:46:26 AM
PS I bet you felt dirty throwing those things.
--------------------
Back were I belong...with Roto Grip.
My Vid (http://"http://youtube.com/user/BLefty")
Banned under the user name Richard Cranium
Formerly Brunswick Lefty
Post by: BrunsNick on April 19, 2007, 01:48:35 AM
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: Nails on April 19, 2007, 08:00:45 AM
Hard to tell much since the shots you threw were so inconsistent. Either that or the cg makes such a huge difference that it causes one to roll early and go no further than 8, while other get a lot more length and drift the whole way out to 3.
I'm not sure what the second test was supposed to prove. A bunch of balls thrown purposely wide won't look good, no matter how it's drilled.
--------------------
Telling it like it is.
Post by: WSUstroker on April 19, 2007, 08:29:56 AM
--------------------
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
Post by: Nails on April 19, 2007, 08:32:07 AM
quote:
Every shot was good accuracy.. Did you notice when he got it out wide he did that intentionally?
Nick, I guess you should've explained every shot that you were going to throw..
What kind of garbage is that??? He meant to pull some barely inside the second arrow at the break point and others out to 3, and one, I'm supposed to know that he did it intentionally, and two, that the ball won't react differently when it hits more dry?
If you're not going to try to be objective, don't reply. I never said that the shots are dramatically different, so don't try to put words in my mouth. I just don't see enough consistency to make a solid judgement. This just showed the same basic thing as the Brunswick video. CG placement doesn't have a big impact. Does it have some? I'm still not sold one way or the other.
--------------------
Telling it like it is.
Post by: qstick777 on April 19, 2007, 08:43:11 AM
Okay. That means that our whole solar system could be, like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being.
This is too much!
That means, one tiny atom in my fingernail could be, could be one little...tiny universe.
Could I buy some pot from you?
--------------------
FAQ:http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5
Search Ballreviews entire database here: http://www.bowling-info.com/Search.html
Post by: Djarum on April 19, 2007, 08:47:31 AM
Loved the video. Your results are probably very accurate for this day and age. But I think back in the day when reactives first came out and the oil was completly different; there might have been some validity to what some of the old schoolers said. Back in those days, the core mattered more than the coverstock. Nowadays, the coverstock has 60 or more percent of the reaction shape of a ball.
Good vids!
Dj
--------------------
The views and opinions of Djarum expressed on BallReviews.com do not necessarily state or reflect those of the BallReviews.com.
Post by: NateNice on April 19, 2007, 11:31:23 AM
quote:quote:
The whole point of this video is to prove that "kicking out the CG" is a dated idea that has absolutely no effect on a bowling ball.
Kicking the CG out does matter once you put the hole in the proper spot to tweak reaction. I do not believe that is being contested at all.
--------------------
Carl Hurd
C-G Pro Shop (owner/operator)
Youngstown Ohio
Tag Team Member #1
TAG TEAM COACHING!!!!!!/Co-Founder
Edited on 4/19/2007 1:22 AM
You're suggesting an X hole which drills our part of the core. This is the only reason drilling a hole matters. You're changing the symmetric nature of the core so it's going to rotate off balance.
However, a couple ounces of top weight (CG), anywhere on your ball, isn't going to make the slightest difference than any practical bowler can tell. "Kicking out the CG" doesn't do ANYTHING. Nothing any bowler on Earth would notice, anyways.
The coverstock and core dictate so much of the balls reaction that the effect of side weight or top weight are drowned out, unless it was some obscene amount that's unrealistic.
A hole only matters if it's drilled into the core.
Kicking out the CG never changes anything, ever, at all, with modern bowling balls.
Post by: triggerman on April 19, 2007, 11:35:01 AM
quote:quote:quote:
The whole point of this video is to prove that "kicking out the CG" is a dated idea that has absolutely no effect on a bowling ball.
Kicking the CG out does matter once you put the hole in the proper spot to tweak reaction. I do not believe that is being contested at all.
--------------------
Carl Hurd
C-G Pro Shop (owner/operator)
Youngstown Ohio
Tag Team Member #1
TAG TEAM COACHING!!!!!!/Co-Founder
Edited on 4/19/2007 1:22 AM
You're suggesting an X hole which drills our part of the core. This is the only reason drilling a hole matters. You're changing the symmetric nature of the core so it's going to rotate off balance.
However, a couple ounces of top weight (CG), anywhere on your ball, isn't going to make the slightest difference than any practical bowler can tell. "Kicking out the CG" doesn't do ANYTHING. Nothing any bowler on Earth would notice, anyways.
The coverstock and core dictate so much of the balls reaction that the effect of side weight or top weight are drowned out, unless it was some obscene amount that's unrealistic.
A hole only matters if it's drilled into the core.
Kicking out the CG never changes anything, ever, at all, with modern bowling balls.
what about a targeted weight hole that doesnt hit the core
two balls pin under ring ball one cg in palm, ball two cg out. I dont think you could put any kind of x hole in each of them and duplicte the reaction
yes x hole removes mass but it also "MOVES" the mass somewhere else thus changing the STATICS that everyone says doenst matter
--------------------
www.bowlingballexchange.com
Triggerman
F.O.S Loud, F.O.S. Proud
Lane #1 Baby
Post by: Steven on April 19, 2007, 11:50:55 AM
OK, enough of the fluff.
If the purpose of your video is to give your Brunswick Posse something to giggle about between naps, you succeeded. If your purpose is to provide conclusive evidence that CGNOMADDAH, you didn't achieve the goal. Here is some of my reasoning:
quote:
But but but...the lanes had oil!! They would show a difference on dry conditions, so therefore this test was pointless!!
Raven may not get it (or want to admit it), but most of us know that a fresh shot with clean backends can make almost all balls react the same. I can go up and practice on fresh Saturday morning Junior oil, and throw everything ranging from a Stinger Low-Flare to a Stacked Super Carbide Bomb and get almost the same reaction.
quote:
Hard to tell much since the shots you threw were so inconsistent. Either that or the cg makes such a huge difference that it causes one to roll early and go no further than 8, while other get a lot more length and drift the whole way out to 3.
Nails brought up an excellent point here -- you're not Throwbot. I could tell you were making an honest attempt at being consistent as possible, but there were still variations that prevent taking anything to the bank.
A few other notes: Using a high-RG polished pearl is probably not the best choice for this kind of test. Mid-lane reaction is what you want to really compare with the different drills, and skid/flip equipment does not allow for the best comparison. Also, one of the cool things about the original Brunswick video was the display of oil rings on the respective test balls -- that told a story in and of itself. It would have been beneficial for you to do the same, but even if you did, it would have been tough to see the flare pattern on a shinny multi-colored shell.
Still, it was amusing to watch. And that Lane#1 ball actually rolled better off your hand than some of the Brunswick stuff you throw. Maybe you should consider a switch.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Edited on 4/19/2007 11:55 AM
Post by: Let It Bleed on April 19, 2007, 11:59:40 AM
quote:
Nick, I think I figured out what you were trying to prove. Let me see if I have it right:
Okay. That means that our whole solar system could be, like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being.
This is too much!
That means, one tiny atom in my fingernail could be, could be one little...tiny universe.
Could I buy some pot from you?
--------------------
FAQ:http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5
Search Ballreviews entire database here: http://www.bowling-info.com/Search.html
LMAO!
Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
continue on to your regularly scheduled post...
--------------------
"Chicks dig the trip 4" -Randy Pederson
Post by: T-GOD on April 19, 2007, 12:12:39 PM
As stated earlier, the ball needs ot be grabbing the lane for the weights to kick in. You were obviously bowling on higher amounts of oil, with a ball that goes long on top of that. The ball never reached it's full potential, as witnessed by the lack of hook when you're trying to hook the whole lane. On a dry lane, those balls will hook quite a bit and recover quite nicely from deep inside.
Remember, if the ball isn't hooking/gripping the lane, weights won't even come into play. You proved that quite well in your video.
Next time, try sanding the ball, use a more hooking ball and/or have shorter/less oil on the lanes.
Until then, the results are still inconclusive..!! =:^D
Post by: Steven on April 19, 2007, 12:24:16 PM
quote:
Even when done with a throwbot, the results were the same. When the oil broke down, the balls were consistantly reacting the same way.
DeadFlush: Actually, in the Brunswick video, 'positive' shot #7 went through the nose, and 'negative' shot #8 was a pocket strike. From this (and evidence from the flare ring patterns), I can't conclude the results were the same.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: Grayson on April 19, 2007, 12:25:38 PM
quote:
[..] Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
continue on to your regularly scheduled post...
--------------------
"Chicks dig the trip 4" -Randy Pederson
Germany never ever bombed Pearl Habor... that were the Japanese...
... lmao ...
But we did Bomb London if you mean that...
So... now it's my turn:
This Vid is showing me nothing... the Brunswick's is...
Well ok I admit one thing is show.. how consistend Nick can play and how the HRG should not be played except you want to learn how to shoot these splits.
Imho all people complaining that Lane#1 Equipment is crap should be aware that all ball produced before the HRG were poured by Brunswick and are with Brunswick Coverstocks...
And last but not least.. please folks keep cool.. I like Nick's Vids and his tech-vids! Those showed me and explained a lot to me. But this time I am very disapointed.
My oppinion. Now you can bash me!
--------------------
"Have fun and bowl well!" - Grayson
XXXL
Tsunami
Machine NIB
2x Radical Inferno NIB
H2O (on the way)
Coblat Bomb p (on the way)
and by the way... I am a "Fritz" a "Jerry"... I am from Germany! (And please don't call me Kraut! Cause then I call you Dumbarse)
Post by: DP3 on April 19, 2007, 12:33:37 PM
You all sound so silly. If the ball rolls well in your hand on whatever condition you're facing, does it really matter how tweaked out your drilling is? All I care about in my ball reaction is how it reads the lane and the end result.
So keep fine tuning your C.G./X-hole placements and racking your brains until 4 in the morning about how another 1/8th shift of the C.G. and x-hole placement might influence the reaction on your ball. The rest of the bowlers who are running circles around you will be busy hitting a mark with the right coverstock in their hands and taking your money.
In conclusion, scores matter. What you use to achieve these scores isn't really that big of an issue.
--------------------
-DJ Marshall
...The Twelve In a Row Pro Shop
Post by: Grayson on April 19, 2007, 12:45:42 PM
quote:
When will we all be able to shut up about "x" mattering upon "x" conditions with "x" drill/weighthole on "x" surface with "x" oil and "x" amount of traction in "x" part of the lane.
You all sound so silly. If the ball rolls well in your hand on whatever condition you're facing, does it really matter how tweaked out your drilling is? All I care about in my ball reaction is how it reads the lane and the end result.
So keep fine tuning your C.G./X-hole placements and racking your brains until 4 in the morning about how another 1/8th shift of the C.G. and x-hole placement might influence the reaction on your ball. The rest of the bowlers who are running circles around you will be busy hitting a mark with the right coverstock in their hands and taking your money.
In conclusion, scores matter. What you use to achieve these scores isn't really that big of an issue.
--------------------
-DJ Marshall
...The Twelve In a Row Pro Shop
good point you got there... I agree.
--------------------
"Have fun and bowl well!" - Grayson
XXXL
Tsunami
Machine NIB
2x Radical Inferno NIB
H2O (on the way)
Coblat Bomb p (on the way)
and by the way... I am a "Fritz" a "Jerry"... I am from Germany! (And please don't call me Kraut! Cause then I call you Dumbarse)
Post by: Grayson on April 19, 2007, 01:03:24 PM
quote:
[..]
Hey, did you know that there are people that still believe that the earth is flat?
[..]
--------------------
New computer. New office. New ID.
Yes, it be I, the Inverted 1.
What? The earth is not flat?
--------------------
"Have fun and bowl well!" - Grayson
XXXL
Tsunami
Machine NIB
2x Radical Inferno NIB
H2O (on the way)
Coblat Bomb p (on the way)
and by the way... I am a "Fritz" a "Jerry"... I am from Germany! (And please don't call me Kraut! Cause then I call you Dumbarse)
Post by: strikealot on April 19, 2007, 01:05:16 PM
--------------------
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.
Post by: Joe Jr on April 19, 2007, 01:13:40 PM
quote:quote:
[..] Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
continue on to your regularly scheduled post...
--------------------
"Chicks dig the trip 4" -Randy Pederson
Germany never ever bombed Pearl Habor... that were the Japanese...
... lmao ...
But we did Bomb London if you mean that...
That was from the movie Animal House...
--------------------
Back were I belong...with Roto Grip.
My Vid (http://"http://youtube.com/user/BLefty")
Banned under the user name Richard Cranium
Formerly Brunswick Lefty
Post by: Steven on April 19, 2007, 01:48:57 PM
quote:
Hey, did you know that there are people that still believe that the earth is flat?
The moon landing in '69 was staged?
DeadFlush: I guess all the problems pointed out:
1) Brunswick video - Different reactions when the shot started breaking down ( the real test for measuring reaction), and differences in ring flare patterns
and
2) BrunsNick Video - Wrong pattern (too much oil, friction is what tells the story), coupled with the wrong core/cover combination (high RG w/ not enough surface)
are just inconvenient truths? Nick/Ric 'speculated' on the glitches from the Brunswick video. Now you're getting into 'earth is flat' rationalizations for Nick's.
All this video proved is that if you believe CGNOMADDAH, you can put out videos with questions that you can drive Mac trucks through, and that's proof.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: BrunsNick on April 19, 2007, 01:58:34 PM
Tell me how the track flare is different on the two test balls from Brunswick? If they were thrown right after eachother, the amount of oil left on the coverstock will not always be the same. That is the double-edge sword that is called Throwbot.
The track flare separation was IDENTICAL.
The bowtie was IDENTICAL.
With separation being the same, and no variables in the way the balls are thrown, there is no difference in the two. The only thing you cannot control is the oil on the lanes, which is broken down at an accelerated rate with Throwbot.
I'm not quite done with these balls, I think I'll have some more fun with them.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: Joe Jr on April 19, 2007, 02:16:41 PM
Oh and i'm still yet to see a video from you guys that shows the Cg does matter.
--------------------
Back were I belong...with Roto Grip.
My Vid (http://"http://youtube.com/user/BLefty")
Banned under the user name Richard Cranium
Formerly Brunswick Lefty
Post by: MegaMav on April 19, 2007, 02:37:04 PM
quote:
lol too much oil. So now the Cg is going to matter when you have to loft the gutter cap.
Oh and i'm still yet to see a video from you guys that shows the Cg does matter.
I'm glad im not the only one to see the holes in that statement.
quote:
Using a high-RG polished pearl is probably not the best choice for this kind of test.
Grasping.... Grasping...
What do you think plastic 3 piece balls were up until the 1990's?
High RG (no core) and a polished pearl plastic, very little cover friction.
Statics apparently "mattered" then, with your statement, you devalue your own origins of shifting weight around.
Taking the core and cover out of the equation, it should be all about the statics and their effect right?
Afterall, you're looking for an independent variable to judge if there is a statistically signifincant difference in the 2 cases. So taking as many variables out as possible increases the validity of the test.
Post by: Strapper_Squared on April 19, 2007, 02:38:51 PM
I can see them gathering around a table in a smoke-filled room, plotting how they are going to argue this one...
so before with the Brunswick video, it wasn't any good because the Thro-Bot threw the ball exactly the same. Now its no good because Nick didn't throw the ball exactly the same? hmm
Too much oil on the lane to see the differences? Obviously there was some dry as the ball reacted on the backend...
Well everyone knows that the cover was pearl and the core of high RG.. that's why there were no differences... so it only matters with low rg and particle covers? Or is that sanded reactive covers?
Oh.. wait a sec. Its was the house shot.. and all balls react exactly the same on the house shot...
I have a feeling (request) there will another video on a short oil pattern...
and then a few shots with a sanded surface (although you better ask which which grit surface to use) and you will still see no distinguishable difference between balls.
S^2
--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Thank You... Only a Year Late (http://"http://www.newsday.com/sports/ny-spmnf26,0,1066554.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines")!
I was shocked! (http://"http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spbest275147290mar27,0,4157660.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists") says Theismann
Post by: Let It Bleed on April 19, 2007, 02:40:22 PM
quote:quote:quote:
[..] Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
continue on to your regularly scheduled post...
--------------------
"Chicks dig the trip 4" -Randy Pederson
Germany never ever bombed Pearl Habor... that were the Japanese...
... lmao ...
But we did Bomb London if you mean that...
That was from the movie Animal House...
--------------------
Back were I belong...with Roto Grip.
My Vid (http://"http://youtube.com/user/BLefty")
Banned under the user name Richard Cranium
Formerly Brunswick Lefty
Thanks Joe...I was hoping someone would recognize that before I had to defend myself
--------------------
"Chicks dig the trip 4" -Randy Pederson
Post by: Steven on April 19, 2007, 03:27:44 PM
I think we'd agree (at least I hope) that if you flood the lane gutter-to-gutter for 55', it doesn't matter what you throw; the ball is not going to move. Statics won't matter, cover won't matter and drill won't matter because the oil volume will negate anything the ball attempts to do.
Obviously, Nick didn't go to this extreme. But some of this effect was built into his test. High-RG cores with high grit shinny finishes (the Uranium HRG in this case) require a lot of friction, especially in the mid-lane, to expose core/drill characteristics. It was clear from the video that there was too much oil up front for this particular model ball, with any drill, to show it's stuff.
If you go back to the original Brunswick video, some of this effect was exposed. The first 5 shots appeared identical because the oil was heavy and fresh. But apparently Throwbot started to break the line down. That's probably why positive shot #7 went through the nose, and negative shot #8 stayed in the pocket. We were finally able to see the real reaction characteristics shine through.
For Nick's test, it would have been much more convincing if he had selected a lower RG ball with surface. But that's what we appeared to have in the Brunswick video without conclusive evidence, so I'm not sure what the purpose was of any of this.
Regardless, this all seems fairly straight forward. Where are the holes in this logic?
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Edited on 4/19/2007 3:40 PM
Post by: Ragnar on April 19, 2007, 03:29:37 PM
--------------------
"I do desire that we may be better strangers." Willie the Shake, As You Like it(III,ii)
"I'm capable of being just as sorry as you are, Dimitri."
Post by: a_ak57 on April 19, 2007, 03:31:11 PM
--------------------
- Andy
Post by: Steven on April 19, 2007, 03:35:19 PM
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: a_ak57 on April 19, 2007, 03:38:00 PM
--------------------
- Andy
Post by: BrunsNick on April 19, 2007, 03:55:57 PM
I initially chose Solid Uraniums for the test, but after 2 sets of mismarked pins ( www.brunsnick.com/buzz2.jpg ) I had to switch balls. Believe me, it would have been easier to see the track flare and ball roll with a solid ball. It just wasn't in the cards!
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: Keith Frye on April 19, 2007, 04:03:31 PM
quote:
I initially chose Solid Uraniums for the test, but after 2 sets of mismarked pins ( www.brunsnick.com/buzz2.jpg ) I had to switch balls.
How does that happen?
Post by: BrunsNick on April 19, 2007, 04:25:50 PM
Now you know another reason why Brunswick is not making balls in Muskegon anymore.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: Grayson on April 19, 2007, 04:31:47 PM
quote:
Nicholas
Quit being rational. As I told you yesterday, you give them answers and they change the questions and then the answers as well.
This is a pointless discussion, with no winners or losers. Each of you have your beliefs and use them how you may with whatever results you see.
Eric Stratton
Rush President, Damn glad to meet you.
--------------------
Ric Hamlin
Pacific Northwest Product Specialist
Brunswick Bowling
AKA "Rico" and L.I.M.O.M.
ok for me it is very interesting!
Cause I really don't want to believe... I want to know.
.. So you people say Cg doesn't matter as long as no X-hole is drilled. but with an X-hole one can change ball reaction compared to a ball with same Pinposition which also is shown in this Vid:
http://www.brunsnick.com/bowling_ball_x_hole_video.html
(thanks Nick!)
So far so good. (still don't like the Vid with the HRGs....)
quote:
Steven,
I initially chose Solid Uraniums for the test, but after 2 sets of mismarked pins ( www.brunsnick.com/buzz2.jpg ) I had to switch balls. Believe me, it would have been easier to see the track flare and ball roll with a solid ball. It just wasn't in the cards!
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Mismarked Pins? mhh... Solid Us?.... this is BAD!
Isn't the Pin holding the core during the pouring process... so how can it be missmarked? Or am I getting something wrong?
Whatever...
Let me sumup my understanding so far as I understand it:
CG DOES MATTER cause with the USBC rules you want to make it legal and drilling an X-Hole will change the reaction.
So a comparison of two balls...
a label drilled with 0 static weights and
a cg-out drilled also with 0 static weights
would be the thing I am really interested in.
It's half past 11pm now... good night and good fight
--------------------
"Have fun and bowl well!" - Grayson
XXXL
Tsunami
Machine NIB
2x Radical Inferno NIB
H2O (on the way)
Coblat Bomb p (on the way)
and by the way... I am a "Fritz" a "Jerry"... I am from Germany! (And please don't call me Kraut! Cause then I call you Dumbarse)
Post by: strikealot on April 19, 2007, 05:06:13 PM
--------------------
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 4/19/2007 5:07 PM
Post by: Steven on April 19, 2007, 05:37:05 PM
Again, I really like the quality of your video productions. I'm just pointing out stuff I saw that caused me doubt being on the other side of the fence.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: Joebowler98 on April 19, 2007, 05:45:23 PM
--------------------
There's always' hope as long as there is one more ball in the bag!
Post by: a_ak57 on April 19, 2007, 05:47:46 PM
quote:
Nick,
You still have the balls...
Strip the lanes and bowl again!
Lets see if this changes anything....
--------------------
www.absolutebowling.com troll free zone
I agree with this. More info is always great. Bowl on drier conditions from multiple angles and what not. Just get as much info as you can, to see where it takes us.
--------------------
- Andy
Post by: BrunsNick on April 19, 2007, 06:18:29 PM
The pattern I bowled on was no different than any other pattern I've bowl on in my videos for the past year. I film all my videos after a 6pm league, so the lanes are never fresh.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Edited on 4/19/2007 6:17 PM
Post by: MegaMav on April 19, 2007, 06:22:48 PM
CGMATTA people to Potsmokers.
They just enjoy living in an altered mental state.
Leave them alone, dreaming up reactions arent hurting anyone but themselves.
Post by: Steven on April 19, 2007, 06:36:04 PM
quote:
It would be impossible for me to create a video that makes a statement like I'm making, and have the other side of the fence be satisfied.
I don't think that has to be the case. For this video, I think you knew the Solid Uranium, which reacts through much more of the lane than an HRG, would have made for a better demonstration.
I think if the questions already put out were answered, you'd have some more CGNOMADDAH believers.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: Steven on April 19, 2007, 06:39:24 PM
quote:
CGMATTA people to Potsmokers.
They just enjoy living in an altered mental state.
Leave them alone, dreaming up reactions arent hurting anyone but themselves
Hey Mav, back to your old cranky self
I guess it's easier to get on a soap box and come up with cute little zingers than it is to answer a few simple questions I asked of you.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: MegaMav on April 19, 2007, 06:41:24 PM
"look at that CG Pos shot, look at how it blows out the 5 pin into the 8, instead of the ball doing all the work, ugh! what a smart layout!" <pat on the back>
Post by: MegaMav on April 19, 2007, 06:42:51 PM
quote:
Hey Mav, back to your old cranky self
I'm actually quite happy living in reality.
Post by: JessN16 on April 19, 2007, 07:14:48 PM
My browser also wouldn't let me watch the video.
Having said all that, here's what I'd like to see for future tests:
1) Whatever balls were used in this test (again, I couldn't see the video) used on COMPLETELY STRIPPED lanes, for no other reason that to find the exact spot each loses tilt.
2) Same balls, used on a low-volume, short, flat-oiled lane, with re-oil between every five or six shots or so (time-consuming, I know, but if you want to be a scientist...)
3) Then, a comparison test between balls of different companies, syms vs. assyms, and polished pearls vs. sanded reactives.
4) Comparison of balls with different pin-to-CG and pin-to-MB distances from 0" up to 13" to determine whether distance has any bearing.
5) And finally, the biggie: Thrown by a machine and not a person.
All balls would have to be spun with a determinator to confirm markings beforehand. I'd also like to see computer simulations run on each.
Basically, what I'm asking for would cost thousands and wouldn't be practical for anyone to actually do. But if you're looking to make definitive statements, you need definitive evidence, which I don't think you'll be able to get from watching human beings throw limited numbers of equipment on limited selections of conditions.
Jess
Post by: Rileybowler on April 19, 2007, 07:20:16 PM
--------------------
Carl
Post by: JessN16 on April 19, 2007, 07:24:43 PM
quote:
Jess you don't want much do you? Maybe thats what they ought to do every company that makes a new ball make a video of their ball and everyone elses ball with the same drilling to see what the difference is then it really wouldn't make any difference about anything
--------------------
Carl
Yeah, just call me the difficult one. (g)
On the second part of your post, I'd love to see an independent test facility invest in a Throwbot and bench test every ball that came out. I can hear marketing departments cringing already...
Jess
Post by: BrunsNick on April 19, 2007, 07:35:04 PM
quote:
Steven
I'm sorry but what Nick and Mav have said is true. No matter what is done in the video you will attempt to find fault to prove your side or if nothing else, disprove Nick.
Friction is what causes a ball to change direction as does the proper amount of axis rotation, NOTHING ELSE. You believe what you want to believe and I will do the same. Forces applied to the bowling ball help create reaction and friction allows it.
There is no true test that can prove anything, as everytime a ball is thrown down the lane, it changes. The surface of the ball changes-in absorption as well as temperature, the amount of oil on the lane changes as does the lanes surface-residual heat and deteriation. To add to this, so does the amount the earth has rotated (for those of you that realize the earth is round), the location of the sun is different effecting the tides, the weather has changed along with the temperature, the amount of humidity and the barometric pressure. And last but not least, the person throwing the shots is and has aged, as I have through this post. So thank you as I will be unable to get this time back.
What do you argue about when you are not arguing about this?
--------------------
Ric Hamlin
Pacific Northwest Product Specialist
Brunswick Bowling
AKA "Rico" and L.I.M.O.M.
Ok! So all we have to do is:
1) Invent a resin ball that doesn't absorb or move oil, or change tempurature when encountering friction.
2) Invent a machine that keeps the Earth from rotating to keep the tides/temp in check.
3) Then we gotta all drink from the Kool-Aid like in that Tuck Everlasting book, then we won't age a bit.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: Cambumbo on April 19, 2007, 07:37:38 PM
Edited on 4/19/2007 7:43 PM
Post by: leftehh- LG on April 19, 2007, 09:01:43 PM
--------------------
Bowl to Win!
Post by: EL on April 19, 2007, 09:11:40 PM
Post by: Joe Jr on April 19, 2007, 09:18:49 PM
quote:
Damn, now you guys really got me confused. The earth is really flat? So if I walk in one direction will I find the edge and tip over? Any videos out there to prove this?
Feel free to test that yourself...and take Steven with you.
--------------------
Back were I belong...with Roto Grip.
My Vid (http://"http://youtube.com/user/BLefty")
Banned under the user name Richard Cranium
Formerly Brunswick Lefty
Post by: EL on April 19, 2007, 09:34:27 PM
Post by: Mike Austin on April 19, 2007, 09:50:14 PM
Nick the video looked great to me.... the balls looked like they reacted the same to me, in fact they looked like they reacted just like MY balls, seems like a left some form of the 2-4-8-10 combination every shot last weekend on Shark Pattern.
My Lazer Surgery enhanced views:
Back during plastic and urethane days CG still didn't matter in and of itself. But the CG was the indicator of where the pancake weight block was. This pancake was/is very close to the surface of the ball and with a bigger top weight, moving the CG moved the weight mass, and how this mass wobbled down the lane affected the ball motion. Add on a big freakin X hole, which we used to use 1 1/4 holes regularly, and they used larger than that on Tour at times. I haven't used a hole that big in 3-4 years that I can remember.
Now you have basically two piece balls shell and core. The core is so close to the center of the ball it's measured in hundredths of an inch. This stuff about "core orientation" is bunk too, specially with symmetrical cores. To move the pin 1" you only have to move the core about 1/16 of inch away from center. Look at your ruler to see how small that is. So, in Nick's video, with the pins located in the same place on the two balls, the core position difference is very minimal, not even enough to change the flare patterns on the two test balls. I could see getting a small difference in the flare rings if two strong assymmetrical balls were used, but I could also so understand know difference at all.
"use solid resin balls that'll make the difference show up more" blalalaaahhaa. Both balls will be solid, they will grip the same, hello!
This whole argument doesn't matter to 99.8% of bowlers, the other .2% bowl for a living and are good enough players to take advantage of any differences between RG's and all that other junk.
Get your grip right, make the ball fit right so you can repeat shots, match the surface of the ball to your lane condition, and make your spares.
(zips up flame retardent suit, and puts on gloves)
gooday mates!
--------------------
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
Post by: cmoore3wins on April 19, 2007, 10:37:06 PM
quote:
Damn, now you guys really got me confused. The earth is really flat? So if I walk in one direction will I find the edge and tip over? Any videos out there to prove this?
That would depend on your CG!!
LMAO
--------------------
MoRich World Order
mWo for life - It's a "HOLE" new game....
I flip out ten pins, you flip them off....
Mos cores = Mo scores....
Post by: onlybowling on April 20, 2007, 01:03:56 AM
--------------------
OnlyBowling
Post by: CharlieBrown on April 20, 2007, 01:38:01 AM
quote:
Great video - Thanks for your time and effort
--------------------
OnlyBowling
Ditto.
--------------------
The Angry Bowler
Post by: Ishmael on April 20, 2007, 08:44:43 AM
quote:
I'm sorry but what Nick and Mav have said is true. No matter what is done in the video you will attempt to find fault to prove your side or if nothing else, disprove Nick.
Friction is what causes a ball to change direction as does the proper amount of axis rotation, NOTHING ELSE. You believe what you want to believe and I will do the same. Forces applied to the bowling ball help create reaction and friction allows it.
There is no true test that can prove anything, as everytime a ball is thrown down the lane, it changes. The surface of the ball changes-in absorption as well as temperature, the amount of oil on the lane changes as does the lanes surface-residual heat and deteriation. To add to this, so does the amount the earth has rotated (for those of you that realize the earth is round), the location of the sun is different effecting the tides, the weather has changed along with the temperature, the amount of humidity and the barometric pressure. And last but not least, the person throwing the shots is and has aged, as I have through this post. So thank you as I will be unable to get this time back.
If you believe that all these extraneous factors matter, then how can you possibly argue that cg does not matter? Everything matters. The better question is and should be "Does the cg matter enough for the average bowler and driller to be concerned with?" If that is the question, then I might agree with your answer. However, I am an engineer and I KNOW that everything matters. It is possible to mathematically calculate the amount of effect that moving the cg would have on a rotating bowling ball. My physics isn't good enough, nor do I have supercomputer time to do it, but it could be done, and I guarantee that the answer is not zero.
Rename the post "Bruswick believes that the amount of effect that can be achieved by moving the cg is minimal and should be igonored under normal circumstances" and you can end this debate.
Oh, and I'd still like a definitive answer on why positive shot 7 went through the nose and negative shot 8 struck.
Post by: Grayson on April 20, 2007, 09:28:28 AM
cg no matter?
but with x-hole matter (static weight rule), right?
then cg still matter,no?
I believe you... the Brunswick Vid was enough to proove...
so far so good... I'm outta here...
--------------------
"Have fun and bowl well!" - Grayson
XXXL
Tsunami
Machine NIB
2x Radical Inferno NIB
H2O (on the way)
Coblat Bomb p (on the way)
and by the way... I am a "Fritz" a "Jerry"... I am from Germany! (And please don't call me Kraut! Cause then I call you Dumbarse)
Post by: Steven on April 20, 2007, 09:49:23 AM
quote:
I'm sorry but what Nick and Mav have said is true. No matter what is done in the video you will attempt to find fault to prove your side or if nothing else, disprove Nick.
Ric: In your posts, I've tried to respond to you with some respect, and all you do is get arrogant and indignant. Then you pout like the neighborhood bully just took your prized toy away.
All I've asked is that a few discrepancies be answered, and I get a dance from you and Mav. At least Nick makes some attempt.
quote:
Friction is what causes a ball to change direction as does the proper amount of axis rotation, NOTHING ELSE.
I know friction is key, and that's my point. I ask if the right oil pattern to create the appropriate cover/surface friction was used, and I get a rationalization that all his tests are done after 6pm leagues, so what's there is there. In other words, a crap shoot. Does that sound like the makings of a controlled test to you?
quote:
There is no true test that can prove anything, as everytime a ball is thrown down the lane, it changes.
Fine, so be intellectually honest and put that right up front so viewers watch your videos in context.
quote:
What do you argue about when you are not arguing about this?
Why I spend time trying to interact with folks more interested in forming virtual clicks than exploring basic questions.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Edited on 4/20/2007 9:49 AM
Post by: MegaMav on April 20, 2007, 10:03:20 AM
quote:
and I get a dance from you and Mav.
Lets dance to this...
The Badger (http://"http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com")
Post by: strikealot on April 20, 2007, 10:46:38 AM
--------------------
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.
Post by: BrunsNick on April 20, 2007, 01:36:54 PM
CG STILL NOMADDAH!
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: triggerman on April 20, 2007, 02:12:16 PM
--------------------
www.bowlingballexchange.com
Triggerman
F.O.S Loud, F.O.S. Proud
Lane #1 Baby
Post by: Steven on April 20, 2007, 02:18:21 PM
quote:
Lets dance to this...
LOL! Those Badgers are classic.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Edited on 4/20/2007 2:18 PM
Post by: jgreenwd on April 20, 2007, 02:22:07 PM
1. In the original Brunswick video, they didn't actually say that CG placement had NO effect. They stated that CG placement had minimal and/or statistically insignificant effect.
2. I think most folks watched Nick's video looking for the wrong thing. If anything, the variability in ball placement at the arrows and the breakpoint was a more accurate depiction of the effect of CG placement in a real-world environment. No league bowler can duplicate the effects of ThrowBot. Typical league bowlers display the same amount of errancy that Nick's shots displayed. Instead of looking at the line he was playing, watch where the ball loses its axis tilt. Nick's got enough tilt to make it very visible. Pretty much every shot lost its tilt at the same point downlane. After they lost their tilt, they all reacted similarly.
3. As far as the condition being a factor, so long as both balls were used on the same lanes within a reasonable time frame, then the results are still valid. It may not have been the optimum condition for those balls, but they both had the same plus's and minus's for the condition. With regards to testing in general, the only 100% optimal condition would be to test on completely stripped lanes, since there is then 0% chance of lane breakdown or carrydown. In fact, I'd be interested in seeing ThrowBot tested on those conditions, just as a control condition for the previous Brunswick video. Noone would like the ball reaction, so, it probably wouldn't sell any balls by itself, but it would probably more clearly demonstrate and significantly amplify any actual differences in the respective drillings.
4. There's a whole lot of "lack of respect" that gets tossed around this site, especially in threads like this. Have some class, please. I tend to think behavior in public forums is often a reflection of behavior in public places. If people act like this here, it's no wonder league bowling can't attract enough new customers.
Post by: BrunsNick on April 20, 2007, 02:23:25 PM
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: Steven on April 20, 2007, 02:39:34 PM
quote:
As far as the condition being a factor, so long as both balls were used on the same lanes within a reasonable time frame, then the results are still valid.
So according to the above, Nick could have conducted the test with a Lane#1 XXXL (plastic with a diamond core). Both test balls would have gone perfectly straight with possibly a couple boards of flare the last few feet. A valid test? I don't think so.
That was my whole point about the ball cover and lane surface match. Unless the match is such that the core has the ability to kick in, the results are suspect.
Now for the next round of dancing animals and blooming mushrooms!
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: JohnnyRocket on April 20, 2007, 03:27:58 PM
But I do think that Nick did a good job in showing that ITDNTMADDAH. There are just people that like to argue and there are others who want to learn.
JR
Edited on 4/20/2007 3:29 PM
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 20, 2007, 03:28:00 PM
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: jgreenwd on April 20, 2007, 03:41:38 PM
quote:
quote:
As far as the condition being a factor, so long as both balls were used on the same lanes within a reasonable time frame, then the results are still valid.
So according to the above, Nick could have conducted the test with a Lane#1 XXXL (plastic with a diamond core). Both test balls would have gone perfectly straight with possibly a couple boards of flare the last few feet. A valid test? I don't think so.
That was my whole point about the ball cover and lane surface match. Unless the match is such that the core has the ability to kick in, the results are suspect.
Even with the XXXL, the test and results would still be valid. The results aren't invalidated by the condition. The lane condition is just another variable in the equation. In fact, the results would be valid on any condition with any ball. The caveat is that the results from that test are ONLY valid for that condition and the margin of error for applicability towards other conditions increases. If Nick gets the chance to repeat the test on multiple conditions, then, its direct applicability towards other conditions increases and he could narrow down the margin of error.
It boils down to this: was the test instrument used actually testing for the effect he was trying to measure? In simplest terms, yes. Are the results universally uniform and applicable to multiple situations? Not from this specific test run. However, include the original Brunswick test and they begin to apply to more differing conditions. It's the same reason that medical studies do more than one test phase. You have to be able to replicate the results with varying population samples. This specific lane condition and ball combination was just a very small population sample. That doesn't invalidate the results, just limits how much you can use them.
My own personal opinion is that his test holds true for many THS centers. The shot he was playing on seemed rather wet in the middle and amply dry on the outside. That seems the norm around here. So, he seemed to be playing with a pattern that was representative of normal league conditions, with a footnote that it might lean more towards the end of 1st shift, or start of 2nd shift league.
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 20, 2007, 04:31:13 PM
1. If there was little to no lengthwise taper to the pattern, you would see little to no midlane reaction (grip not flare) out of any polished ball. Furthermore, if Nick was bowling on leftovers, which I do every week, the result of the previous leagues wear would be even more of a top hat than fresh oil. There would be two extremes: wet and dry. Under these conditions, I could easily produce a pin nomaddah video because you are only taking the cover into play if the ball has only two choices: skid or grab. If these balls were tested upon a tapered, blended pattern; you would have been better able to tell whether there was a difference or not. I don't know what type of pattern Nick was bowling on, but it would come into play if in fact cgdoesmaddah.
2. I never agreed with the concept of way negative and way positive in the testing. I stated this months ago when he did the x-hole video and hinted at doing this. It is my theory, that I verified for myself, that the cg has properties not unlike the riser pin. While 3-3/8" from the PAP seems to be the sweet spot for most people to get maximum flare, moving past this point or closer to the PAP weakens the reaction (assuming no x-holes). I believe the same to be true for the cg. The "sweet spot" maybe different for everyone, but moving past it or back from it will produce the same weakening result (again no x-hole). Therefore the offsets in Nick's experiment negate each other. It is my belief that a third one drilled with no side weight would provide a different reaction than the first two. Also, I belief than the cg being above or below the midline also plays a role in reaction much like the pin being above, below or even with the fingers. Again, most of the time the difference is not noticed but it is there.
MORE TO COME.......
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: Steven on April 20, 2007, 04:34:50 PM
quote:
Just my opinion but I assume you were the kid in class that made sure that the teacher remembered to give homework EVERYDAY.
Ric: I hated homework. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night!
greenwd: As for the following:
quote:
the results would be valid on any condition with any ball. The caveat is that the results from that test are ONLY valid for that condition and the margin of error for applicability towards other conditions increases. If Nick gets the chance to repeat the test on multiple conditions, then, its direct applicability towards other conditions increases and he could narrow down the margin of error.
You're continuing with the nice analysis. However, the above breaks down to a politically correct way of saying all tests have value, even if they are minimal, as long as they're evaluated in the context of additional tests on other conditions. True, but if all we had to go on was a single Nick test, a XXXL demo would prove almost nothing. And all we've had is one HRG test so far.
You've referenced the first Brunswick demo a few times, so I'd like your input on a few things that I can't get a coherent response to from most who have posted.
1) In the video, 'positive' shots #6 & #7 go through the nose, and 'negative' shot #8 is a pocket strike. Could one reason be that since the shot was starting to break down, the true core characteristics of the two balls were starting to be displayed?
2) While minimal, the flare ring patterns were slightly different. The bowtie seemed the same, but the first ring on the negative weight ball was a little closer to the finger/thumb than the positive ball. Could that have possibly explained some of the difference we saw in the last 2 shots?
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Edited on 4/20/2007 4:45 PM
Post by: MegaMav on April 20, 2007, 04:46:53 PM
Chirp about it all you want, until you come up with proof that something is occuring with variables controled and independent variables isolated, you're wasting keystrokes.
You're playing devil's advocate here, not a scientist.
Post by: Steven on April 20, 2007, 04:56:26 PM
And no waste of key strokes here. I'm asking clarifying questions that folks like you seem allergic to. The original Brunswick test actually had me until some of the question marks popped out toward the end of the test.
Don't get offended because some doesn't automatically take everything Brunswick hook, line and sinker. Extend yourself every once in a while. You might find it invigorating.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 20, 2007, 05:00:55 PM
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: qstick777 on April 20, 2007, 05:05:29 PM
I'm not sure which side to take. I only know what I saw, but then again I see things (http://"http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/scampi/") all the time.
All this arguing has made me hungry. Time for some strawberry pancakes! (http://"http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/Strawberry+Pancakes/")
--------------------
FAQ:http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5
Search Ballreviews entire database here: http://www.bowling-info.com/Search.html
Post by: strikealot on April 20, 2007, 05:11:17 PM
--------------------
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 4/20/2007 5:10 PM
Edited on 4/20/2007 5:11 PM
Post by: jgreenwd on April 20, 2007, 05:11:43 PM
quote:
greenwd: As for the following:
quote:
the results would be valid on any condition with any ball. The caveat is that the results from that test are ONLY valid for that condition and the margin of error for applicability towards other conditions increases. If Nick gets the chance to repeat the test on multiple conditions, then, its direct applicability towards other conditions increases and he could narrow down the margin of error.
You're continuing with the nice analysis. However, the above breaks down to a politically correct way of saying all tests have value, even if they are minimal, as long as they're evaluated in the context of additional tests on other conditions. True, but if all we had to go was a single Nick test, a XXXL demo would prove almost nothing. And all we've had is one Nick test so far.
Don't misconstrue my leanings as being politically correct. I'm just trying to hold true to the tenets of empirical evidence and statistical analysis. On that day, on those lanes, with those balls, the CG placement exhibited no statistical significance. Change any of those variables and who knows. Wacky things happen even under controlled conditions. If you can't reproduce those results, then that day was likely just a fluke - the statistically insignificant result. You can't plan for those kinds of things, and very seldom are able to use them to any advantage or detriment.
quote:
You've referenced the first Brunswick demo a few times, so I'd like your input on a few things that I can't get a coherent response to from most who have posted.
1) In the video, 'positive' shots #6 & #7 go through the nose, and 'negative' shot #8 is a pocket strike. Could one reason be that since the shot was starting to break down, the true core characteristics of the two balls were starting to be displayed?
2) While minimal, the flare ring patterns were slightly different. The bowtie seemed the same, but the first ring on the negative weight ball was a little closer to the finger/thumb than the positive ball. Could that have possibly explained some of the difference we saw in the last 2 shots?
It's been a while since I watched the Brunswick video, but I'll give it a shot. Bear in mind, I only have two affiliations with Brunswick: I throw their equipment (mostly because I can find plenty of it on eBay dirt cheap - and sticking with one manufacturer seems to make ball comparisons easier to me) and I was trained as a ball driller by a pro-shop school which taught using Brunswick's test data and product information.
1. Is it possible that the drilled core characteristics were more amplified in those 2 shots for any reason, including lane breakdown? Sure. Heck, it might even be likely. It could also be just as likely that the previous shot carried enough oil down to give the 2nd shot the length it needed to finish. It goes back to sample size. Everyone seems to be comparing those 2 shots, but they're only 2 shots out of the sample. To really determine if the CG placement was the cause for those 2 particular shots would require more information than you or I have at the moment. What I WILL say though, is that Brunswick has had ThrowBot toss a few hundred - probably few ten thousand - balls. They have a large enough sampling of shots to identify whether or not the CG played a significant role. On some shots, it probably did! Those 2 shots may very well have been examples of those times! But, over the long haul, across a large sampling, the CG placement didn't make enough of a difference to matter to the average bowler.
2. My answer to this is similar to the above. We simply don't have enough information to draw a conclusion. It's possible that the CG was the mitigating factor in the perceived variance of the flare rings. It's also possible that the lighting was just different enough to make a perceived difference where there was none. Here's my guess: assuming the photos were taken after the session, the lack of head oil - due to ThrowBot's ability to split boards - was causing some early lane friction. This could be enough to push it out of line from where it had been throwing and alter the ball's path. This slight alteration would then be enough for the ball to get into some oil on the inside of the line it was traveling - diminishing the volume on this new trajectory as it traveled. On the next shot, it got into that same line of reduced oil. It would be like seeing the ball extract the oil from the lane, one shot at a time by examining the flare rings. This would then, likely, be enough to cause the flare rings to differ in appearance.
Post by: MegaMav on April 20, 2007, 05:16:28 PM
Lets get this out of the way first, Steven you have showed no inclination of experience or education in the matter of controlled, objective, and empiric testing. I laugh whenever I see your uneducated assumptions based on single cases within an entire case sample.
You're pointing out outlyer cases, comparing them, and trying to imply a conclusion based on no knowledge of the ENTIRE shot, or what is going on like ball speed, oil wear, surface friction, coverstock temperature, etc. These assumptions based on a small sample bases are ludicrous, and completely out of line, especially to ignore the core of the experiment and the majority of the cases presented over multiple shots. Did you ever think X shot stayed in the pocket and Y shot didnt because the ball speed was slightly different?
You're grasping at straws here to hold your head above water.
Nick did a damn good job controlling as many variables as possible.
He's not a robot, he doesn't hit the same mark to the millimeter like thro-bot does. You've seen a great human bowler and a robot throw the ball with the same results, its STILL not enough.
There is no statistically significant difference here, I can guarantee it, I've seen many case studies with psychology, statistics, and probability classes. Trust me, if there was a statistically significant difference, the masses would see it.
To pitch out all shot comparisons, only to focus on a single pair, is not only irresponsible, but ignorant.
Post by: BrunsNick on April 20, 2007, 05:17:46 PM
So where is this mysterious cg sweet spot? I'll be glad to keep punching Buzzsaws in order to find it, just contact Lane #1 and have them keep shipping more. Give me 10 more HRG's, I'll show every degree layout to show they don't do anything different.
Steven,
I've already given a theory on the Brunswick video as to why:
1) The track flare looks to start closer on the negative.
2) Why shots 6 & 7 hooked while 8 held.
The balls were thrown once each before the 8 shots to show the track flare. Negative was first, Positive was second. If your setdown point is exactly the same like Throwbot, then you will not pick up the same amount of oil each shot. Flare separation is the same, bowtie is the same, surface is the same, they are identical. You cannot control the breakdown of the lane.
So while the Negative balls were thrown twice early in the 8 shots, and once prior, it had oil left on the track. Imagine what happens to a setdown point when it is absolutely identical everytime. Now take into account that one ball will have a little oil on the first track flare ring, and the other one doesn't. One will chirp early, and the other will glide easier. It isn't the CG positive causing the ball to go thru the face, it is FRICTION.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 20, 2007, 05:20:57 PM
quote:
while nick and brunswick have shown that cg has minimal or no effect on ball motion... all the CGMADDAHS have produced is dialogue..until you(CGMADDAHS) come up with some proof other than words there isnt really much to discuss...
--------------------
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 4/20/2007 5:10 PM
Edited on 4/20/2007 5:11 PM
What PROOF has Brunswick or BrunsNick shown? If there was irrefutable proof, there would be no debate!
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 20, 2007, 05:24:40 PM
quote:
Kman,
So where is this mysterious cg sweet spot? I'll be glad to keep punching Buzzsaws in order to find it, just contact Lane #1 and have them keep shipping more. Give me 10 more HRG's, I'll show every degree layout to show they don't do anything different.
Steven,
I've already given a theory on the Brunswick video as to why:
1) The track flare looks to start closer on the negative.
2) Why shots 6 & 7 hooked while 8 held.
The balls were thrown once each before the 8 shots to show the track flare. Negative was first, Positive was second. If your setdown point is exactly the same like Throwbot, then you will not pick up the same amount of oil each shot. Flare separation is the same, bowtie is the same, surface is the same, they are identical. You cannot control the breakdown of the lane.
So while the Negative balls were thrown twice early in the 8 shots, and once prior, it had oil left on the track. Imagine what happens to a setdown point when it is absolutely identical everytime. Now take into account that one ball will have a little oil on the first track flare ring, and the other one doesn't. One will chirp early, and the other will glide easier. It isn't the CG positive causing the ball to go thru the face, it is FRICTION.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
I'll contact Lane #1 and then you could contact Brunswick to send me a couple Furys and Ebonite to hook me up with a camera and a laptop loaded with DigiTrax so I can make a definitive CGMADDAH video!!!
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: BrunsNick on April 20, 2007, 05:26:52 PM
News to me.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: strikealot on April 20, 2007, 05:50:20 PM
--------------------
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.
Post by: Steven on April 20, 2007, 06:51:26 PM
As far as Mav..............
quote:
Time to lay it all out, forgive me if I offend anyone.
The definitve voice. I knew something was coming.
quote:
Lets get this out of the way first, Steven you have showed no inclination of experience or education in the matter of controlled, objective, and empiric testing. I laugh whenever I see your uneducated assumptions based on single cases within an entire case sample.
LOL. Mav, you know nothing about my "inclination of experience or education in the matter of controlled, objective, and empiric testing". I do this for a living (IT infrasrtucture for institutional investment management), where serious money is at stake if we make errors in systems and infrastructure compliance testing. I run a department with lots CS degreed people who actually enjoy thinking, and we know how to develop test cases and conditions that hold up to the scrutiny of SAS 70 level compliance audits. So please, spare me the school yard lectures.
quote:
You're pointing out outlyer cases, comparing them, and trying to imply a conclusion based on no knowledge of the ENTIRE shot, or what is going on like ball speed, oil wear, surface friction, coverstock temperature, etc. These assumptions based on a small sample bases are ludicrous, and completely out of line, especially to ignore the core of the experiment and the majority of the cases presented over multiple shots.
Mav, you're trying to get eligent. Just a little advice -- simpler is usually better. Anyway, I thought the whole point of using Throwbot was to minimize variables, especially over the short span of 8 shots. I've acknowledged the role that oil and surface friction may have played. But you're going overboard with all the factors you referenced. This isn't a league night with 5 bowlers spraying shots all over the lane. If Brunswick can't manage consistency over the first 8 shots with a Throwbot that should be consistent in every way, there are more issues with the test than I've brought out.
quote:
Did you ever think X shot stayed in the pocket and Y shot didnt because the ball speed was slightly different?
Does Throwbot have those types of variances? You obviously have inside information. Please share.
quote:
Nick did a damn good job controlling as many variables as possible.
He's not a robot, he doesn't hit the same mark to the millimeter like thro-bot does. You've seen a great human bowler and a robot throw the ball with the same results, its STILL not enough.
I've complimented Nick several times on his production. Most of the recent discussion was how the original Brunswick video played into the whole picture. As far as Nick's abilities, you've never heard me slam him. I've bowled side-by-side with him in a few environments (he doesn't know me), so your pronouncements of his ability is old news.
quote:
There is no statistically significant difference here, I can guarantee it, I've seen many case studies with psychology, statistics, and probability classes. Trust me, if there was a statistically significant difference, the masses would see it.
And I'm supposed to accept this from a guy who's major contribution to this thread is a link to animated dancing bears?
Just stop making this so personal and deal with the questions people ask. Nick didn't have a problem formulating and giving answers. In the future, you might want to try the same.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Edited on 4/21/2007 9:06 AM
Post by: DON DRAPER on April 20, 2007, 07:23:10 PM
on 2/12/05 i had my biggest night of bowling----a monster 847 series with games of 289-289-269. my choice of weapon that night was a brunswick zone classic. this ball was appx. 7 months old and had been resurfaced with a haus machine and run through the rejuvenator the day before. the coverstock was finished off with a 2,000 grit abralon pad and a coat of brunswicks high gloss polish. this ball was drilled with the pin butted right up against the ring finger, the cg was swung ever so slighly towards the grip center, and the psa locater pin was just below the middle of the thumbhole. no balance hole.
i knew during shadow balls i was throwing the ball well and i could tell that this ball gave me a great reaction. i was able to use my bread-and-butter style of a down and in shot straight down 6-7, appx. 18mph, and appx. 20-25 degrees axis rotation.
game #1....i had the first 10 and 7 of them were high flush, the other three were a messenger 10, a rip the rack, and a very quick tripped 4. the 11th shot was a ringing 10, probably the best shot all night. the 6 pin went around the bottom of the 10 pin, not around the top of the 10. probably a bad rack or bad luck.
game #2....i had the first 10 and 6 of these were high flush, the others were 2 swishing 7's that fell late, one solid 9 that got tripped out by another pin, and a messenger 10. the 11th shot was another ringing 10, this time where the 6 pin flew around the top of the 10 pin.
game #3....i left a flat 10 in the first frame....probably threw it a little too hard. had the next 6 as they were all high flush. had another flat 10 in the 8th....again, maybe a hair too much speed. then struck out, all high flush
well, that was some night for me. 847 was and is a great night for anybody. everything was in perfect sync that night----me physically and the ball i was using was the perfect choice as well.
would the position of the cg and the addition of a balance hole made enough difference to carry those four 10 pins ? i doubt it very much. i've asked several learned people this question as well. one is a man who bowled at wichita state in the mid 1990's and has coached the national team of a middle eastern country. another man bowled at nebraska and is now the head of r&d for a bowling ball company. both of these men say it wouldn't have made any difference. i tended to agree with their opinions then and i still agree with them now more than ever.
Edited on 4/20/2007 7:24 PM
Post by: MegaMav on April 20, 2007, 07:57:37 PM
Keep living in your static dream, you've convinced yourself its a reality.
Post by: DON DRAPER on April 20, 2007, 08:13:23 PM
Post by: leftehh- LG on April 20, 2007, 10:53:28 PM
--------------------
Bowl to Win!
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 20, 2007, 11:53:07 PM
quote:
DigiTrax > CATS?
News to me.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Never said it was better. Never had the opportunity to use either. Just a more affordable route to go. Like I said before, I commend you, Nick, for doing this to prove to yourself that what you believe is true. Now that you have see that for yourself, I know that there is no amount of arguing or video evidence that would change your mind. I have seen for myself that what I believe is indeed true. That is why I will not accept what you have done as proof nor can I expect anything I do or say to be proof enough for anyone else that hasn't tried it themself. I will say kudos, Nick, on the effort. I will go as far as to say that you might have even done a better job than Brunswick.
To the guys backing Nick without trying it yourself: put up or shut up.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: BrunsNick on April 21, 2007, 04:53:42 AM
Just like with the X-hole video, I didn't need to do the test to find out answers. The point of the video was to display the results to the world. Telling isn't selling, so I make videos to show my art.
In the near future, I'll put out a video showing the correct usage of CG's in modern day equipment. And not too far beyond that, I will be working on some big projects with some guru's and other big wigs in the industry.
Exciting times are ahead!
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: novawagonmaster on April 21, 2007, 06:31:24 AM
I love the Muppets!
Nice vid Nick.
--------------------
Jon (in Ohio)
CHROME WON'T GET YOU HOME!
F.O.S. Proud Saw user...see profile.
Edited on 4/21/2007 6:31 AM
Post by: Steven on April 21, 2007, 09:03:01 AM
quote:
The balls were thrown once each before the 8 shots to show the track flare. Negative was first, Positive was second. If your setdown point is exactly the same like Throwbot, then you will not pick up the same amount of oil each shot. Flare separation is the same, bowtie is the same, surface is the same, they are identical. You cannot control the breakdown of the lane.
So while the Negative balls were thrown twice early in the 8 shots, and once prior, it had oil left on the track. Imagine what happens to a setdown point when it is absolutely identical everytime. Now take into account that one ball will have a little oil on the first track flare ring, and the other one doesn't. One will chirp early, and the other will glide easier. It isn't the CG positive causing the ball to go thru the face, it is FRICTION.
Give Nick credit for an attempt at a credible explanation. The Brunswick groupies who follow him around like lost puppy dogs haven't done anything but toss mud (and play pen toys within reach).
In essence Nick is saying that accumulated oil on the negative ball surface overrode the effect of the drying out track on the lane. In many ways, this defies logic of what we see on lanes in the real world. And worse, Big B's CGNOMADDAH video crumples like a cheap house of cards if he's wrong. That's why I still have doubts. But again, at least give Nick credit for trying.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: T-GOD on April 21, 2007, 09:16:16 AM
If that's the case, then the CG will matter with a 3-piece resin ball. Correct..?
A 3-piece pancake core was just a big round ball with a heavy puddle at the top of the core.
Now, if you shrink that down to a smaller, denser round ball in the center with a higher density puddle/knob on the top, does that automatically mean the CG doesn't matter anymore..? =:^D
Post by: Steven on April 21, 2007, 09:25:12 AM
quote:
Than why, Steven, afterwards, when the balls had been given enough time to be set up next to each other and have a picture taken did they have identical oil rings? Hmmm....interesting.....
Earlier, Ric explained earlier that the rings were actually identical, but that the first ring(s) on the positive ball had already evaporated.
I went back at stared at the pictures for evidence of an evaporated ring. There is no way anyone can conclude from those pictures that evaporation took place, especially considering how heavy the oil was. Who knows, maybe Ric was there and witnessed the disappearance.
Because if the flare rings fit, you must acquit. 
I think what I've gotten out of this 6 pages of misery is that Ric/Nic admit that the tests are not close to 100% perfect, and that there are variables they will never be able to control. Their point was to show 'sufficient' evidence of what they already believed -- not conclusive proof that will hold up to scrutiny and change minds. Although if viewers choose not to dig a little deeper, they're happy to let them think these efforts actually amount to a closed case.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Edited on 4/21/2007 9:57 AM
Post by: laufaye on April 21, 2007, 09:33:23 AM
You believe in or atleast thats what you have seen from your years of experience, static pos/neg has noticiable difference downlane especially when the lane broke down, then why you think the effect of static pos/neg will have less effect on MB ball? Because MB ball has a mark?
A drilled ball with or without MB marked on a ball still have a MB, just that the MB diff. is high or low. High MB diff ball after drilled the MB stays in position, Low MB diff ball, mostly symmetrical, after drilled the MB moves, especially with a x-hole.
If you think static pos/neg has an efect, then it should efect the same on a MB ball.
Lane1bowler, if you think thats the law of physic, it should apply on both type of balls.
Just to clarify, I believe in physic, but the physic you guys talking about are not conclusive, simply we don;t have enough knowledge to take a scientific stand point, however Brunsnick tested it, just that he cannot use a scientific way to explain that, on the contrary, people not holding a PhD in physic just throwing out LAW of physics at him.
--------------------
Laufaye
Edited on 4/21/2007 9:38 AM
Post by: laufaye on April 21, 2007, 09:45:09 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.
--------------------
Rev it! Hook it! Rip it! Pipe it! Stroke it! Be a player of the game
"Small Animal Specialist" Petco, lol
I follow this argument from the very beginning, maybe I skipped some of the posts, as far as MB, I did some research on it. If you want to talk about it start another post. But post a respond saying I am not accurate and not to address to it?
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: RevZiLLa on April 21, 2007, 10:40:59 AM
quote:
Please continue arguing amongst yourselves.
--------------------
Ric Hamlin
Pacific Northwest Product Specialist
Brunswick Bowling
AKA "Rico" and L.I.M.O.M.
Hey, we can do that!
--------------------
ZiLLa=======================
Post by: Steven on April 21, 2007, 11:13:03 AM
quote:
To finish my responses on this never ending matter, Steven please DO NOT merely dismiss my beliefs as insufficient or incorrect. There are many intelligent individuals in this industry, especially the 2 that head up our R and D dept and both of them have degrees in Physics.
Ric: As I've said before, I respect your bowling credentials. And I know there are a lot of smart R&D people at Brunswick. But there are a lot of smart (and credentialed) people on the other side who believe different. For instance, there is research from Dr. Howard on the Lane#1 site that concludes that the shape of a core matters, and that Lane#1's diamond provides advantages. Add to that Lane#1's position that CG does matter, then who do you believe? The point is that you are never going to settle this by counting who has most degrees mounted on the wall.
That's probably why all the emphasis on videos. After all, seeing is believing. Without rehashing everything, I've pointed out 2 areas that are inconclusive to anyone willing to admit it. Yes, you and Nic gave possible explanations, but not conclusive by any stretch. Overall, the efforts were nice and they provided enough evidence for the CGNOMADDAH crowd to get a rise, but that was about it.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Edited on 4/21/2007 11:12 AM
Post by: BrunsNick on April 21, 2007, 11:28:13 AM
To clarify a few things in your post since you obviously didn't take the time to read any of mine:
1) I wasn't bowling on a high volume shot, this shot was no different than any other shot I've filmed videos on. My next video will show a 15 year old ball peeling off the breakpoint, which was filmed right after the CGNOMADDAH testing.
2) The layout I used is not "weak" for me. My PAP is 4 1/4 x 1/2 up, which makes the Pin to PAP 4 1/2. If you took account of the flare separation, this layout was no dog. Typical C300 cover maybe, but the layout was not weak.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: T-GOD on April 21, 2007, 11:29:37 AM
quote:Did they ever matter..?
And T-God No I do not agree that in regards to older 3-piece bowling balls static weights and CG mattered. But that is another discussion.
Why don't you or Brunswick get a petition going to the USBC stating that static weights don't matter. Therefore, they should get get rid of the 1oz. side, finger and 3oz. top static weight rules and allow whatever statics we want to use..?
That would sure make things much easier in the ball manufacturing and ball drilling industry, wouldn't it..? =:^D
Post by: GTX on April 21, 2007, 11:29:58 AM
- why both vidoes hide which ball is thrown ? why not label each ball so the viewer can know which ball is which and do a second clip ??
- why BigB used a "test" ball that only exists in their lab ? why not use a ball that they sell and anyone can buy ?
- why both videos shows oily condition ? why not use meduim and dry condition ?
- why neither video used a heavy oil ball with sanded surface ?
as some have said already ... these videos are really far away from making a general statement.
and I am really surprised that someone like BigB wants to use this few seconds video to proof their idea .. and they know to proof any theory you have to cover all different possibilities regarding ball type and lane condition
--------------------
Member of F.O.S.
Post by: BrunsNick on April 21, 2007, 11:39:35 AM
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: MegaMav on April 21, 2007, 11:51:39 AM
quote:
Wow, T-GOD with a good idea. Somebody pinch me...
I was going to say the same, you just beat me to it.
quote:
Why don't you or Brunswick get a petition going to the USBC stating that static weights don't matter.
I'd be all for that amendment, and I've been thinking that for years now.
Post by: jgreenwd on April 21, 2007, 11:55:22 AM
quote:
just few questions .. I am not really asking for answers .. more like the way I look at this issue :
- why both vidoes hide which ball is thrown ? why not label each ball so the viewer can know which ball is which and do a second clip ??
- why BigB used a "test" ball that only exists in their lab ? why not use a ball that they sell and anyone can buy ?
- why both videos shows oily condition ? why not use meduim and dry condition ?
- why neither video used a heavy oil ball with sanded surface ?
as some have said already ... these videos are really far away from making a general statement.
and I am really surprised that someone like BigB wants to use this few seconds video to proof their idea .. and they know to proof any theory you have to cover all different possibilities regarding ball type and lane condition
1. I don't believe either video hid the ball. Nick rather prominently displayed which ball he was using. The Brunswick video appeared to be using an Absolute that was pulled before the engraving was done. (I guess, why spend money engraving a ball that you won't be able to sell.)
2. See above.
3. I think they were both thrown on a THS. This style of shot and its variations seem to be the most commonly used. Why go with something uncommon?
4. I think pearl reactives are widely regarded as handling the THS better than sanded solids, since the idea is to get the ball to react to the dry on the outside.
5. I'm pretty sure that the limited selection of shots that we saw were FAR from being the entirety of the testing process.
Not referencing the above so much, but I'm astounded at the number of people in this thread that have PASSIONATE opinions about this that continue to attempt to participate in this thread without actually.... reading the thread. That's kinda funny, but not very conducive to a productive dialogue.
Post by: jgreenwd on April 21, 2007, 12:27:26 PM
Post by: GTX on April 21, 2007, 12:45:05 PM
quote:
4. I think pearl reactives are widely regarded as handling the THS better than sanded solids, since the idea is to get the ball to react to the dry on the outside.
when you want to proof a theory .. you can't be selective .. that reply by itself weaken the theory to the point it will be ignored. you can't just choose the conditions that suits your need and ignore others .. you have to cover all conditions, styles .. etc
this is like throwing any ball for 1 frame only and then start talking how bad this ball is and how bad its company is ..
--------------------
Member of F.O.S.
Post by: jgreenwd on April 21, 2007, 01:28:04 PM
quote:quote:
4. I think pearl reactives are widely regarded as handling the THS better than sanded solids, since the idea is to get the ball to react to the dry on the outside.
when you want to proof a theory .. you can't be selective .. that reply by itself weaken the theory to the point it will be ignored. you can't just choose the conditions that suits your need and ignore others .. you have to cover all conditions, styles .. etc
this is like throwing any ball for 1 frame only and then start talking how bad this ball is and how bad its company is ..
You honestly think it weakens the argument that much? Granted, displaying a large cross-section of the balls produced on multiple conditions would be the best approach. You're absolutely correct there. However, there's significant time and money involved. If one were going to produce a 6 minute video that describes the issue, provides examples, and discusses theory and methodology behind the argument, it would not be unheard of to stick with one condition or ball. This would hold doubly true if you had already done the experiment on a large scale and simply wanted to depict your results in a shortened time frame.
I think maybe a lot of folks assumed that what we saw in the video was the only bit of testing Brunswick ever did on the issue. Considering the date of the video's production and the fact that they've been teaching this methodology since 1991, we can infer otherwise.
Post by: GTX on April 21, 2007, 04:37:58 PM
I am only arguing the method that is being used to show their proof.
if it takes time and money to do it, then so be it .. no pain no gain
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.
--------------------
Member of F.O.S.
Post by: MegaMav 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.
Post by: GTX on April 21, 2007, 05:32:43 PM
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
Post by: jgreenwd 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.
Post by: MegaMav 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.
Post by: GTX 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.
Post by: jgreenwd 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.
Post by: GTX 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.
Post by: gnlover16 on April 21, 2007, 09:05:36 PM
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
Post by: a_ak57 on April 21, 2007, 09:18:53 PM
--------------------
- Andy
Post by: WSUstroker on April 21, 2007, 09:29:51 PM
--------------------
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
Post by: rabbit_sla on April 21, 2007, 10:48:11 PM
--------------------
Your bowling is only as good as your spare making ability.
Post by: Mike Austin 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
Post by: Brutal Bowler on April 22, 2007, 09:34:09 AM
--------------------
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
Post by: Steven on April 22, 2007, 01:11:44 PM
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"
Post by: jgreenwd 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...
Post by: Mike Austin 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
Post by: strikealot on April 22, 2007, 01:33:45 PM
--------------------
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.
Post by: Steven 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"
Post by: J_Mac 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."
Post by: Steven 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"
Post by: Steven 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
Post by: BrunsNick 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
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: Steven on April 22, 2007, 02:59:49 PM
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"
Post by: Mike Austin 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
Post by: Steven 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"
Post by: strikealot on April 22, 2007, 06:23:20 PM
--------------------
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
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 22, 2007, 08:30:48 PM
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: BrunsNick on April 22, 2007, 08:45:28 PM
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: leftehh- LG 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!
Post by: Ishmael 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.
Post by: Strapper_Squared on April 23, 2007, 12:16:57 PM
S^2
--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Just because you are a good athelete, does mean that you are a good person (http://"http://www.signonsandiego.com/more/nflarrests/index.html"), especially in the NFL.
Post by: nospareball on April 23, 2007, 02:15:51 PM
After drilling you'd end up with a negative top and negative side depending on where/if you drilled a x-hole. But since statics don't matter, who cares right?
Would the CGNOMADDAH guys be comfortable with that if the weight restrictions were lifted?
Post by: MegaMav on April 23, 2007, 02:58:14 PM
quote:
Would the CGNOMADDAH guys be comfortable with that if the weight restrictions were lifted?
Yes, I would be comfortable without knowing top weight.
But it would still be listed on ball boxes to passify the "old school" ball drillers, whom of course for the most part, blindly, believe it matters.
Post by: nospareball on April 23, 2007, 03:16:35 PM
quote:
Yes, I would be comfortable without knowing top weight.
But it would still be listed on ball boxes to passify the "old school" ball drillers, whom of course for the most part, blindly, believe it matters.
I'm talking about not even having a top weight (which I think means having a 0" pin so that the core is centered in the ball). So just a pin and a mb marker on asymm balls. No more crazy pin outs or off line cg markers to complicate things. I don't know if that means that you'd end up with a negative top after drilling or not, but it shouldn't matter.
Post by: BrunsNick on April 23, 2007, 03:18:49 PM
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: BrunsNick on April 23, 2007, 04:11:20 PM
quote:
.
Or, maybe I do. Drill a ball with the CG directly above the pin. What happens to the flare?
Nothing changes, because the core is still orientated the same.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: MegaMav on April 23, 2007, 04:57:12 PM
quote:
track will migrate away from the fingers, rather than toward them.
Reverse flare... not from CG.
That could be from pin position.
Post by: Mike Austin on April 24, 2007, 12:38:24 AM
quote:quote:
track will migrate away from the fingers, rather than toward them.
Reverse flare... not from CG.
That could be from pin position.
I have a Diablo with the pin right above my thumb hole, and the cg in the center of my grip. This ball does not reverse flare, but it does track higher and hits the middle finger hole just before entering the pins.
--------------------
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
Post by: Steven on April 24, 2007, 11:50:53 AM
Quote
Bump^ because I thought I detected a pulse in this dead horse
--------------------
That pulse you detected was Regulator 'regulating' all over himself when Billy Yinger surfaced.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: BrunsNick on April 24, 2007, 01:30:43 PM
If it my belief that shifting the CG in any such way will not affect track flare or hook potential. Take another HRG with the same pin location, but with a CG directly above, and there will still be no measurable difference.
By the way, thanks for making your way to ballreviews, your input here will definitely be an asset to the community.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: Steven on April 24, 2007, 01:38:50 PM
quote:
By the way, thanks for making your way to ballreviews, your input here will definitely be an asset to the community.
Billy: Ditto on seeing you here. I had mostly Track during the time you were there with Phil. I really liked the line of products you were involved with. I still have my Orange Silencer from those better days.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: shelley on April 24, 2007, 01:42:36 PM
quote:
By the way, thanks for making your way to ballreviews, your input here will definitely be an asset to the community.
He's been here for quite a while, you've just been focussed too much on Brunswick to see him in the DT forum.
SH
Post by: Steven on April 24, 2007, 02:48:18 PM
quote:
orange silencer..Are you taljking about a Hot Coral Triton, or did you get a second?
It was one of the early batches of Silencers. From what I was told, Track produced a few hundred in Orange color w/factory polish, and then stopped producing them. Maybe it was a market test to see how they would be received. Anyway Track stopped the Orange covers and started producing the Blue covers with a dull surface.
I'll never forget when I took it to Nationals in Reno, and how the guy checking in balls picked it up in amazement and passed it around to his buddies -- he'd never seen one before.
I guess I could tell where CG placement is on the ball, but it wouldn't matter.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Edited on 4/24/2007 3:01 PM
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 24, 2007, 05:11:03 PM
Let's define symmetrical: no ball is truely symmetrical
They are either:
1. Asymmetrical
2. Two-sided symmetry - symmetrical on 1 axis like a Fury
3. Four-sided symmetry - symmetrical on 2 axes like a light bulb or mushroom core
Now I can understand your argument that spinning a 4-side around with the pin stationary should produce little change in motion.
Now look at the Fury core:
http://www.ballreviews.com/reviews/reviews.asp?BallID=801&ManufacterID=2
Spinning that around moves the point of the edge of the core around. Now there is no way to know where that point is located within the ball, unless a Determinator is capable of finding it. But don't you think it's orientation could affect motion. If not, please explain.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Edited on 4/24/2007 5:10 PM
Post by: J_Mac on April 24, 2007, 05:56:29 PM
quote:
I'll try my best to breathe new life into this stale topic:
How about trying to stay a little more on topic then?
--------------------
"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."
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 24, 2007, 10:56:07 PM
quote:quote:
I'll try my best to breathe new life into this stale topic:
How about trying to stay a little more on topic then?
--------------------
"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."
The topic is does cg position matter? The test was done with a core symmetrical on two axes. What if the test was done with a core that was only symmetrical on one axis, like the Fury?
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 25, 2007, 12:41:55 AM
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: wasted talent on April 25, 2007, 12:50:41 AM
Thank you for the support.
And to back up, somewhat, of what Mike has said, he was a recent invitee to the Brunswick Pro Shop Symposium, which brings together the most knowledgeable pro shop operators in the country and ask them their views of the industry, where it is going and help in leading us, Brunswick as a company, to be a better supporter of the game. As he stated, eloquently I might add, we are very passionate of what we do and do get defensive when 'arm chair' pro shop operators criticize us. We invest numerous, sometimes unthankful hours learning and educating bowlers of ALL levels. And we take pride in that. Call it thin skinned, we call it pride.
Again, off my soap box.
I now understand why I wasn't invited to the Brunswick Pro Shop Symposium. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I'm either not knowledgeable enough or don't sell enough Brunswick product for y'alls liking.
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 25, 2007, 01:05:17 AM
quote:
k - is the ball asymetrical?
if so, question answered..
--------------------
A former member of the 20/20 Club 'cause sciatica sucks
It is 2 sided symmetrical, not 4 sided.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 25, 2007, 01:13:22 AM
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: Mike Austin on April 25, 2007, 03:12:12 AM
quote:
Hey Mike,
This is probably because your funky voodoo spin has written it's own set of the laws of physics, j/k....
I like that voodoo spin, can I use that???
--------------------
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
Post by: Mike Austin on April 25, 2007, 03:24:39 AM
quote:
I now understand why I wasn't invited to the Brunswick Pro Shop Symposium. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I'm either not knowledgeable enough or don't sell enough Brunswick product for y'alls liking.
Wasted, each Product Rep invited one pro shop guy from his territory. Rob Law invited me that year. Think it was spring of 2005. I didn't get to go again in 2006 or 2007, there were a couple guys from up north that had been before. Ask your rep, if you get a chance to go it is awesome. Of course, you don't get to tour the production facility any longer since it is in Mexico, that place is gigantic and they had whole buildings that they weren't even using. I got to see a line of Time Zones about 40 yards long! They were first class in every facet, and them Big B Boys know how to have some fun too! I got to help decide the color of the Intense Inferno. The colors were that and what later became the Absolute Inferno. That was cool. They never did come out with the solid black Target Zone though, all the pro shop guys liked that idea. Jeff McCorvey was there, he has like 10 shops in Alabama. Keith Spears was there, owner of like 6 shops in Florida and bowlingball.com. Billy O is cool, the Throbot is sweet. Bill Wasserberger is a smart dude. Met some other VP's and such, that trip made be a Big B fan for life!!!
--------------------
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
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 25, 2007, 12:09:28 PM
quote:
Maybe the way I'm stating this idea is confusing. If you take a ball with a light bulb core, put the pin at the top and cut it in half the resulting section would be the same as if you spun it 45 degrees with the pin still on top and cut it. Now if you took the Torsion core or the Rocket core and did the same thing the cross-sections would not be the same depending on whether you hit the wide or narrow portion of these symmetrical cores.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Cgnomaddah guys frantically PMing each other because nobody has an answer yet?
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 25, 2007, 01:26:38 PM
Low Rg = core heavy, High rg = cover heavy
Taller core = Low Rg, Thicker cover = High Rg
In an asymmetrical ball the axis where the core is the tallest, the pin, is the low Rg of the ball. The axis where the core is the smallest, the PSA or mass bias, is the high Rg of the ball. The line between the two, the line of most resistance is where the Rg climbs the fastest from low to high. This is how an asymmetrical ball works. As your axis(PAP) migrates towards this line, Rg increases and the ball fights revving up. Once it crosses this line, Rg decreases and the ball revs up easily.
Now you say I'm getting off topic, but take a look at the Rocket core:
http://www.ballreviews.com/Reviews/Reviews.asp?ManufacterID=2&BallID=769
The portions of the core with the "fins" are wider than the portions without. The Rg is higher in the portions between the fins. As your axis migrates towards one of these fins, is will rev easily. Once it passes one of these fins, it will resist revving until it hits the center of the non-fin area. If the fins are located at 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees, then a 90 degrees shift of the core will give you almost the same orientation. A 45 degree shift, on the other hand, will maximize the change in orientation.
In his experiment, Nick used a ball with a diamond core and no I hope you can see the mistake in choosing that ball. He chose a ball that supports his main defense, spinning the ball around with the pin constant won't change orientation much. The problem is that not every symmetrical ball follows this rule.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Edited on 4/25/2007 1:29 PM
Edited on 4/25/2007 1:38 PM
Post by: BrunsNick on April 25, 2007, 02:08:23 PM
What if I told you that a ball doesn't recognize core shape going down the lane, only RG #s and Differential #s?
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 25, 2007, 02:27:26 PM
quote:
kman,
What if I told you that a ball doesn't recognize core shape going down the lane, only RG #s and Differential #s?
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
I'd say that I have been better informed than you.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 25, 2007, 02:30:15 PM
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: laufaye on April 25, 2007, 02:31:39 PM
I am with you on this for now, coz I still exploring and waiting for answer from Big B. I believe in CG and static don't matter, but core orientation on some cores could make a diff, which I have seen and just that I cannot find out why yet.
So that you know I own a Determinator, I spun a undrilled Fury for 5 full minutes, the ball never stablise. So it spin symmetrically. After drilled? that lies the questions.
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: BrunsNick on April 25, 2007, 02:38:07 PM
quote:quote:
kman,
What if I told you that a ball doesn't recognize core shape going down the lane, only RG #s and Differential #s?
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
I'd say that I have been better informed than you.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Actually, I was quoting Bill Wasserberger.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 25, 2007, 02:38:56 PM
quote:
kman,
I am with you on this for now, coz I still exploring and waiting for answer from Big B. I believe in CG and static don't matter, but core orientation on some cores could make a diff, which I have seen and just that I cannot find out why yet.
So that you know I own a Determinator, I spun a undrilled Fury for 5 full minutes, the ball never stablise. So it spin symmetrically. After drilled? that lies the questions.
--------------------
Laufaye
I don't expect a PSA to show up on a Fury or a Mammoth. In an assymetrical ball, there is one possible high Rg axis. That is why it shows up. On the rocket core, the symmetry provides two axes where the Rg is higher. Therefore it should not spin up. I having trouble picturing the Torsion core in 3-D, but it too has more than one higher axis possible.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 25, 2007, 02:39:57 PM
quote:quote:quote:
kman,
What if I told you that a ball doesn't recognize core shape going down the lane, only RG #s and Differential #s?
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
I'd say that I have been better informed than you.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Actually, I was quoting Bill Wasserberger.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
And my theory here is paraphrasing Mo Pinel's proven laws.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Edited on 4/25/2007 2:40 PM
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 25, 2007, 02:48:47 PM
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: BrunsNick on April 25, 2007, 03:08:54 PM
When the Torsion core is put into motion, spinning it at any degrees will not affect track flare or hook potential. Hell, set up parameters for the next test. We'll use the same pin position, but you can put the CG's anywhere you desire. If the orientation of either of those balls mattered as far as their shapes are concerned, they would engrave the ball with a marking similar to the Zone series... but they don't. WHY?!? Because if you draw a line 6 3/4 from the pin ANYWHERE around the equator, the ball is SYMMETRICAL. This is how symmetry is realized, all your talk on 2 axis 4 axis does not matter. You don't need a physics degree, just common sense.
It's symmetrical, no measureable mass bias differential. NONE. ZILCH. SQUAT. NADA.
Now pardon me while I continue to wave my arms around and scream about CG's.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 25, 2007, 03:25:08 PM
Also, my test was done with 2 Actions: the cores are symmetrical on two axes and I STILL saw a distinctly noticable difference, providing the doubt that I have about cg position and sideweights/thumbweights not making a tangible difference.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: leftehh- LG on April 25, 2007, 03:37:51 PM
--------------------
Bowl to Win!
Edited on 4/25/2007 3:36 PM
Post by: Ragnar on April 25, 2007, 04:24:56 PM
--------------------
"I do desire that we may be better strangers." Willie the Shake, As You Like it(III,ii)
"I'm capable of being just as sorry as you are, Dimitri."
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 25, 2007, 08:40:56 PM
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: DON DRAPER on April 25, 2007, 09:14:07 PM
Post by: Xfest on April 25, 2007, 09:14:47 PM
EX:
---CG---
--------
--0--0--
----P---
--------
----O---
(Drilling ofcoarse)
Post by: MegaMav on April 25, 2007, 09:19:04 PM
quote:
So you all are saying if I can place my CG on the opposite side of the fingers, or above the fingers, the balls reaction shape will be the same if the cg were normal.
EX:
---CG---
--------
--0--0--
----P---
--------
----O---
(Drilling ofcoarse)
If the pin position remains constant, yes, its the same.
Post by: jdhaze on April 25, 2007, 09:25:02 PM
Post by: laufaye on April 25, 2007, 11:56:40 PM
quote:
X-Guy
How are you? Hope all is well with you and the family.
K-Man
To expand upon what BNick has been attemtping to explain...
Symmetry is measured by dividing the core, through the primary pin, measured anywhere 6 3/4" around the equator. It is dynamic numbers, not shape that dictate this.
Now with that being said, ALL balls will or can create a certain amount of asymmetry. This in all honesty would be comparable to CG's and static weights. Brunswick feels, that for the most part, that there are variables, that although present, represent a miniscule amount of effect on ball reaction.
To the point or comment by X-man, is it relevant to 90% (which I think is low) of the current bowlers on 90% of the conditions encountered...NO.
Is it measurable? Yes. Is it relevant to ball reaction or motion? NO.
If the core was perfectly centered, there would be no symmetry in the ball, due to the geometric center of the core and the true center of gravity being one. To create a 1" pin out or 1oz. of top weight, the geometric core center is shifted approx. 1/64"+/- from the true center of gravity. This translates to a 1" pin to CG on the cover of the bowling ball (which is approx. 4 1/4" from the true center of gravity).
What can or will affect symmetry (as well as ball motion and/or reaction) is the addition and/or placement of the gripping holes (as well as weight holes).
If you take 2 bowling balls, same covers and both having IDENTICAL core numbers, RGs and Diffs, but with different core shape and NO holes in the balls, will the core shape dictate reaction or motion differently? NO. It is 'physic'ally impossible, the core numbers dictate motion. What changes? The placement of the gripping holes changes the core values.
PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
When you take into account the strength of the covers (which dictates approx 70-80% of ball reaction) and the core (approx 15-20%) you realize what is worth discussing and what is merely arguing.
Semantics is semantics. I know this will more than likely not solve anything, as I do not have a degree in physics. But I can tell you, I know ball reaction and what dictates it. You can argue what you will and in the long run or at the end of the day, does it truly F'N matter? NO-for the last and hopefully umpteenth time.
--------------------
Ric Hamlin
Pacific Northwest Product Specialist
Brunswick Bowling
AKA "Rico" and L.I.M.O.M.
Ric, thanks for the info, and totally agreed with you, as you say the numbers dictate that 15-20% of reaction, now the problem is once the gripping holes and/or x-hole punched, there lies the problem on a core like Torsion, I have sent Brunsbob an email and now waiting for Billy O for answer. What I think but not sure (thats why I asked) is the holes punched in relation with the core orientation, I have no problem on the ending PSA prediction on the whole Infernos line, but not much luck on the Torsion core yet. But still I like the Fury and bowling good with it and same with my customer. And yes it may not matter as long as it perform well on the lanes, however I am trying to understand more, just for discussion sake. This might be off topic, sorry about that Nick.
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 26, 2007, 01:21:28 AM
Rg numbers are either maximums or averages, but they do very through different areas of the core. The physics is there, but the effect upon motion may not be quantifiable.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: laufaye on April 26, 2007, 11:20:27 PM
quote:
Greg, Ric is correct, 2002-2003. I left for a promise of bigger things, I guess if you never take a chance, you will never know what could have happened, oh well...anyway, back on topic.
Hey Ric, same to you and yours!
Inverted 1 - my sentiments exactly!
I think the problem is that most of you guys are too young to remember making 1/2 board moves trying to get the 10 out....
X-Guy
Its not about how young we are, when most of us spraying all over the lane, how can we adjust 1/2 a board.
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: leftehh- LG on April 26, 2007, 11:41:15 PM
--------------------
Bowl to Win!
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 27, 2007, 12:36:07 AM
quote:
oh plz if your going to move move a board not half!
--------------------
Bowl to Win!
must be same mentality:
cgnoammadah -> halfboardnomaddah
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: Steven on April 27, 2007, 10:37:52 AM
quote:
must be same mentality:
cgnoammadah -> halfboardnomaddah
K: LOL! Actually, since Billy Yinger joined the thread, there has been some sanity injected, and some progress with it. Brunswick acknowledges some measurable effect, so obviously your questions about the physics have some merit.
Regardless, it's now CGDOMADDAH, but only if you're skilled enough to use it to your advantage. That opens up a whole new debate.......
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: jgreenwd on April 27, 2007, 11:41:22 AM
Post by: sdbowler on April 27, 2007, 11:41:35 AM
quote:quote:
oh plz if your going to move move a board not half!
--------------------
Bowl to Win!
must be same mentality:
cgnoammadah -> halfboardnomaddah
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Please I still move little amounts like half board to make small adjustments and that still works. I have not bought into the whole you must make a big move in order to keep up with changes. I just make smaller moves more often IF I have to move.
--------------------
Brunswick
Post by: RSalas on April 27, 2007, 12:22:59 PM
quote:
something needs to be done before all of the skill and accuracy doesnt matter either.
Too late...for most of us, it already doesn't.
--------------------
...formerly "The Curse of Dusty," and "Poöter Boöf" before that...
Post by: Steven on April 27, 2007, 01:02:22 PM
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%.
And now, that disqualifies 98% of THS bowlers. Coming up with such precise numbers is quite an accomplishment. Especially the 98% figure. Regardless, for the purposes here, I'll go with it.
Who do you think comes to ballreviews.com? The 6:00pm mixed league handicap bowler who's main objective is to get through the night without being too drunk to throw the ball? Usually not. A high percentage who come here (I haven't done your precise % studies) might see some of that reaction difference you love to downplay.
Stir the pot? Only if your definition is someone who doesn't automatically agree with you.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Edited on 4/27/2007 1:43 PM
Post by: kmanestor22 on April 27, 2007, 03:34:55 PM
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Post by: Ishmael on April 27, 2007, 03:53:32 PM
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%.
The CGNOMADDAHs have acknowledged that CGDOMADDAH. See quote above. Just remember, you're not good enough to notice.
Post by: Steven on April 27, 2007, 04:01:52 PM
quote:
Just remember, you're not good enough to notice.
Ishmael: I get it. Brunswick has made this clear many times.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: Steven on April 28, 2007, 03:57:13 PM
quote:
I just have issues with those that no matter the topic, they are contradictory.
Ric, you're off on one of your tangents again. I have no idea where you're going with 'contradictory'. I've stated (numerous times) that I think CG placement is minor, but since it has some minor effect, use that knowledge when setting up a ball. I don't know how much simpler it can be than that.
So congratulations on the preciseness of your 5%-7% effect of CG placement, and your evaluation that having this knowledge would only be of use to 2% of bowlers. That's all fine and well (along with you sleeping well at night).
But don't get all bent out of shape when there is discussion about applicability to those in the 2% (or whatever) range. Instead of simply regurgitating tired lowest common denominator numbers such as cover dictates 70%-80% of ball reaction, or that CGNOMADDAH to almost everyone who picks up a ball, provide insights into the exceptions. Use some of that experience you keep reminding us you have to provide information that can't be picked up from any old website.
I, and the others here who don't automatically feed at your trough, just take exception to your continuous efforts to discredit any discussion that falls outside the bounds of your 'educational' video. Maybe if you stepped off your perch for a few minutes, you'd think a little more clearly about this.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Edited on 4/28/2007 3:58 PM
Post by: CharlieBrown on April 29, 2007, 04:49:36 AM
--------------------
The Angry Bowler