Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2 (Read 18252 times)

BrunsNick · « **on:** April 08, 2007, 08:57:29 PM »

Amending Brunswick's conclusive data of CG irrelevancy for ball reaction & track flare, using Lane #1 Equipment.

Video debuting 04.16.07
edit: 04.18.07 is the new date
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

Edited on 4/9/2007 4:57 AM

Edited on 4/9/2007 8:43 PM

Edited on 4/13/2007 4:17 PM

Joe Jr · « **Reply #76 on:** April 13, 2007, 09:24:40 PM »

quote:
What I don't understand is why did brunswick make there CG don't matter vid? If it doesn't matter then making it illegal to shift the CG shouldn't be a big deal?

They made it because it would have done away with weight holes also.
--------------------
Back were I belong...with Roto Grip.
My Vid
Banned under the user name Richard Cranium
Formerly Brunswick Lefty

pro shop guy · « **Reply #77 on:** April 13, 2007, 10:43:51 PM »

OK guys...here it is. Before reactive balls lets say the 60's, 70's and early 80's. The true bowlers who actually counted averaged around 180-190..possibly a handful 200's. The game today has been made to score easier. 300's and 800's are a daily thing now. Shouldn't they try to get the game back just a small % of integrity. Lets face it..all unbalanced bowling balls need a balance hole in which changes ball cores to a certain degree...giving the bowler (once again) ANOTHER advantage to score higher. What they should do is just lay out a flat oil condition, use the rule of the cg being 1" of center of grip and then MAYBE people who ARE realy bowlers will show up! Bowlers have it far too easy and something must be done before averages go from 230-240 to 260-270...What a joke! I understand there are still some bowlers that are for real, please take no offense to my reply. Just would like to see the game take a few steps back because before you know it, there wont be any more to take forward!

laufaye · « **Reply #78 on:** April 13, 2007, 11:05:44 PM »

quote:
OK guys...here it is. Before reactive balls lets say the 60's, 70's and early 80's. The true bowlers who actually counted averaged around 180-190..possibly a handful 200's. The game today has been made to score easier. 300's and 800's are a daily thing now. Shouldn't they try to get the game back just a small % of integrity. Lets face it..all unbalanced bowling balls need a balance hole in which changes ball cores to a certain degree...giving the bowler (once again) ANOTHER advantage to score higher. What they should do is just lay out a flat oil condition, use the rule of the cg being 1" of center of grip and then MAYBE people who ARE realy bowlers will show up! Bowlers have it far too easy and something must be done before averages go from 230-240 to 260-270...What a joke! I understand there are still some bowlers that are for real, please take no offense to my reply. Just would like to see the game take a few steps back because before you know it, there wont be any more to take forward!

No disrepect, I can tell you probably from the old days, and cherish the old days geme, respect that. But you are totally hyjacking this post. Flat oil or tougher cndition agreed, CG in grip center within 1 inch, is basically what lead to this post, by you saying that, you probably a firm BELEIVER in stactic weight weight like T-God. But why judge the integrity by the score, you still have to be damn good to average 250, just accept this generation great bowler averaging higher than the old days, they are still great bowlers. Integrity is how people treat this game, how the industry leader leads the industry.

Lets start a new post if you want to discuss more, this post already a mess.

--------------------
Laufaye

BrunsNick · « **Reply #79 on:** April 14, 2007, 12:59:11 AM »

chitown, correct. There will be no difference whatsoever with those bowling balls. Given the same pin location, x-hole location/depth/size, there will be no measurable difference.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

T-GOD · « **Reply #80 on:** April 14, 2007, 01:27:37 AM »

quote:
Given the same pin location, x-hole location/depth/size, there will be no measurable difference.

And there's no measureable difference between a 10 pn and a strike, as far as graph plotting goes. Just because Brunswick can't measure it, does that mean therre isn't a difference..? =:^D

BrunsNick · « **Reply #81 on:** April 14, 2007, 01:46:58 AM »

Find me a bowler that says they can repeat shots well enough to single out slight differences in statics as the only variable, and I'll show you a good liar.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

Edited on 4/14/2007 1:46 AM

RealBowler · « **Reply #82 on:** April 14, 2007, 11:56:32 AM »

quote:
chitown, correct. There will be no difference whatsoever with those bowling balls. Given the same pin location, x-hole location/depth/size, there will be no measurable difference.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

Sounds like a good 2nd part of the video. Lets say you put the x-hole in the same spot on each ball, say a 7/8" hole about 1" deep. You'll end up taking out 1/2 oz. You'd end with 1 ball with about 2 1/2 negative weight, and 1 with 1 1/2 positive weight (assuming you ended with 2 oz as stated previously).

If you actually ended up with 1 1/2 positive and negative (as also suggested), you would end up with one that was actually legal.

Adding the x-hole would then make the balls so that they no longer have the same (but opposite) side weights. It would then help to show whether static weights really make a difference in reaction!
--------------------
Haywood

**************************
I don't need a stupid
signature. This is enough.
**************************

chitown · « **Reply #83 on:** April 14, 2007, 01:37:44 PM »

This entire subject is very confusing. I had 2 Raw Hammer Dooms. Both balls were in box condition.

Doom #1: was drilled stacked leverage 3 3/8 by 3 3/8 pin above the finger to pap line. There was a balance hole on my mid-line 5.5" right of grip center. The statics were drilled back to zero side weight. If I remember correctly, the balance hole was 1.5" deep and 1" in size.

Doom #2: had the pin 4" from pap above the finger to pap line. This ball had the CG kicked far right (25 degree) and a balance hole in the same exact location as the DOOM #1. The balance hole on this ball was 1" diameter drilled 2.5" deep. The statics were brought to 1oz of positive side weight.

There was a noticeable difference between these two balls. The stacked leverage ball went longer than DOOM #2 and had a strong back end reaction. DOOM #2 had a much earlier move to it. This is why I drilled it like this. It had a stronger mid-lane than DOOM#1 and would arc on the back end. It lost it's tilt really quick.

This is why this entire CG don't matter subject is confusing to me. I was able to see a noticeable difference between my DOOMS. I owned 4 of them at one time and each were drilled different. The 2 in this example had the same balance hole placement but drilled different depths. Plus the PINS were not at the same distance from my pap.

--------------------
HAMMER NO MERCY is Un-freaking real! Using this ball is like cheating!

J_Mac · « **Reply #84 on:** April 14, 2007, 01:40:23 PM »

Similar this... no significant difference that...

While everyone feels the need to point out subtle differences about the balls, how much of a difference would the negative weight ball having an inch longer pin out have?

Minimal, I'm sure.

And that's the whole point...

Luck probably plays a larger part in this game than the minimal differences everyone's "discussing" here.
--------------------
"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."

Joe Jr · « **Reply #85 on:** April 14, 2007, 02:37:44 PM »

If we can't even agree that there are differences in the original video with over 2 1/2oz of side weight difference between the 2 balls while using a machine that throws identical shots, can't we just agree that 1/2oz either way for us mere mortals is meaningless?....
--------------------
Back were I belong...with Roto Grip.
My Vid
Banned under the user name Richard Cranium
Formerly Brunswick Lefty

chitown · « **Reply #86 on:** April 14, 2007, 04:09:26 PM »

After watching the VID that Brunswick made it floors me how someone can say that different CG locations make a big difference. In the vid Brunswick states that there is little to no difference in reaction. Then they go on to show a computer model of how little the core changes with different CG locations.

I wish Brunswick would of shown different CG locations with x-holes. One ball with a balance hole and the other without. Then use 2 balls with balance holes in the same location but with different CG placements.

--------------------
HAMMER NO MERCY is Un-freaking real! Using this ball is like cheating!

Steven · « **Reply #87 on:** April 14, 2007, 09:05:57 PM »

quote:
Hey people...look where the flair rings are relative to the thumb and finger holes! The negative track is obviously closer to the thumb and fingers, producing a bigger track that rolls earlier and backs off on the tail,and the positive side produces a smaller track that snaps on the back end.....that's why shots 6 and 7 went through the nose, and #8 held and struck. Also, look at the bowtie location.

portside: Nice observation regarding the Brunswick video. If 'CHNOMADAH', flair ring width and placement should be the same -- they clearly are not in the video. But I guess the answer is that most of us are not good enough bowlers to be affected by the difference.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

T-GOD · « **Reply #88 on:** April 14, 2007, 09:59:15 PM »

portside,

quote:
The negative track is obviously closer to the thumb and fingers, producing a bigger track that rolls earlier and backs off on the tail, and the positive side produces a smaller track that snaps on the back end

Good eyes Port.

By the way, the positive side ball only hit the pocket 2 out of 4 shots, that's 50% strikes. The negative side ball hit the pocket and struck 4 out of 4, for 100% carry.

But, according to Brunswick, there's no noticeable difference... =:^D

chitown · « **Reply #89 on:** April 14, 2007, 10:50:14 PM »

Guys even brunswick says there's LITTLE to NO difference. It's obvious the flare rings are a little different. However is it going to change the reaction much? I think one would see more of a difference on drier lanes. However a big difference would be with the addition of a balance hole.

If the USBC wants to control scoring, they need to look at lane patterns. Lane patterns dictate scoring pace. I don't care what ball you have if the lanes are really difficult scoring will be low. Honor scores would mean something.
--------------------
HAMMER NO MERCY is Un-freaking real! Using this ball is like cheating!

Steven · « **Reply #90 on:** April 15, 2007, 12:12:24 AM »

quote:
B I N G O...

Inverted: LOL. I'm assuming you mean most of us are not good enough to be affected by the difference. Maybe so. I've owned and experimented with a lot of balls over the past several years, and I though I've been able to detect differences in CG placement, even where X-Holes have not been required. But who knows, maybe I was imagining things.

Regardless, after watching the video again, what strikes me is the noticeable difference in oil rings, and the fact (as T-GOD pointed out) that the shots did not all react the same. And the videos didn't (and couldn't) get into the real world scenarios of pocket carry.

For all the work Nick is putting into his video, I hope he does a better job than Brunswick did. Their effort certainly didn't provide anything conclusive.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2 (Read 18252 times)

BrunsNick

CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

Joe Jr

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

pro shop guy

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

laufaye

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

BrunsNick

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

T-GOD

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

BrunsNick

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

RealBowler

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

chitown

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

J_Mac

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

Joe Jr

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

chitown

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

Steven

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

T-GOD

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

chitown

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

Steven

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO *Pic Page 2* (Read 18252 times)

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2 (Read 18252 times)