Post by: BrunsNick on April 08, 2007, 08:57:29 PM
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
¡Viva la nación 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
Post by: BrunsNick on April 09, 2007, 05:04:01 PM
This videos will highlight two balls with identical pin positions, radically different cg placements.
No X-holes will be used.
--------------------
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 09, 2007, 05:08:36 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 09, 2007, 05:14:34 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: shelley on April 09, 2007, 05:17:40 PM
quote:
You know what Chumly, I love when you post. You make less sense everytime. Nick is making a video based on the fact that the CG DOESN'T matter. And you want to incorporate how the CG MATTERS when drilling based on top weight. I thought you knew more than all of us. Looks like you don't.
He may be an idiot, I don't know. But you're using "CG doesn't matter" in two different senses which he quite rightly distinguishes.
CG doesn't matter to ball reaction. Grip center, up, down, left, right. I might buy that. I saw the old video.
CG does matter to legality of the ball. CG placement is strongly dependent on starting top weight. The same placement can give you either a ball that is vacuously legal or impossible to make legal or everything in between depending on the starting top weight.
I can appreciate the people who say to ignore the CG when laying out a ball, especially a strong asymmetric where you want to use the MB marking to determine reaction. But you can't simply ignore it just because it doesn't have an effect.
SH
Post by: qstick777 on April 09, 2007, 05:29:49 PM
After you drill the balls up will you give us the ending weights on the balls?
--------------------
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 09, 2007, 06:21:33 PM
quote:
What about static weights? Do they matter?
After you drill the balls up will you give us the ending weights on the balls?
--------------------
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
The ending stactic weight sure don't matter, its good to show on the video too.
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: BrunsNick on April 09, 2007, 06:26:54 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 09, 2007, 06:32:34 PM
quote:
I can appreciate the people who say to ignore the CG when laying out a ball, especially a strong asymmetric where you want to use the MB marking to determine reaction. But you can't simply ignore it just because it doesn't have an effect.
This is exactly the problem I have with the "CG doesn't matter" argument. Maybe it doesn't in a world where USBC side weight requirements don't matter. But they do, at least if you want to use a given ball in sanctioned play.
If no X-Holes are going to be used, I don't know what the videos will show other than a relatively meaningless academic exercise.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: qstick777 on April 09, 2007, 06:37:44 PM
quote:
I'm expecting to end with 1.5-2oz negative side on one ball, and 1.5-2oz positive on the other.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Is that legal? Isn't it no more than 1oz difference?
Will still be interesting to see.
--------------------
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 09, 2007, 06:39:29 PM
quote:quote:
I can appreciate the people who say to ignore the CG when laying out a ball, especially a strong asymmetric where you want to use the MB marking to determine reaction. But you can't simply ignore it just because it doesn't have an effect.
This is exactly the problem I have with the "CG doesn't matter" argument. Maybe it doesn't in a world where USBC side weight requirements don't matter. But they do, at least if you want to use a given ball in sanctioned play.
If no X-Holes are going to be used, I don't know what the videos will show other than a relatively meaningless academic exercise.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Agreed with your point, however what we facing everyday is bowlers coming in to ask for specific side weight because they think there is a difference in reaction.
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: BrunsNick on April 09, 2007, 06:41:20 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!
Edited on 4/9/2007 6:40 PM
Post by: BrunsNick on April 09, 2007, 06:43:38 PM
quote:quote:
I'm expecting to end with 1.5-2oz negative side on one ball, and 1.5-2oz positive on the other.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Is that legal? Isn't it no more than 1oz difference?
Will still be interesting to see.
--------------------
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
If you remember from the X-Hole Demo Video, not a single variable allowed for a legal static weight situation. Having say, 3oz of difference between the two balls will show that folks that say "ball X 1/2oz sideweight will do this different compared to ball Y with 0 sideweight".
--------------------
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 4/9/2007 6:43 PM
Post by: Steven on April 09, 2007, 07:01:56 PM
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: BrunsNick on April 09, 2007, 07:04:08 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 09, 2007, 07:52:31 PM
quote:
Nope.
Well, you do make quality videos, so it should be interesting to watch. However, in fairness, the saying "CG NOMADDAH" should be changed to "CG NOMADDAH if you don't care that the ball is illegal".
At least that would bring more clarity to the debate.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: Strapper_Squared on April 09, 2007, 08:08:06 PM
quote:
the saying "CG NOMADDAH" should be changed to "CG NOMADDAH if you don't care that the ball is illegal".
I think you are missing the point of the video. There are numerous ill-informed shop operators (just in my local area), who would fight you to the end in an aguement because they truly believe that a ball with 1/2 oz of side and 1/2 oz of thumb weight will roll differently that the same ball with the same pin position and 1/2 oz neg side and 1/2 oz of finger. As a matter of fact, I've had a discussion with a local "regional pro" who was convinced that a ball with thumb weight would be his best option for fresh heavy oil (totally ignoring the fact that it was a mild pearl).. simply because of the statics. What is going to be shown here is that REGARDLESS of statics, symmetric-core balls with identical pin positions react identically. Whether the difference is between 1/2 pos and 1/2 neg side weight (or 3 oz pos and 3 oz neg side...or finger... or thumb). This is only to prove a point that it doesn't matter what the ending statics are with regards to reaction.
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: nd300 on April 09, 2007, 08:18:04 PM
Since even the best pros don't throw EXACTLY the same speed,rev rate,tilt,rotation,etc on every shot,will these balls be rolled off of a ramp after being placed in the same exact spot on the ramp AND in the same exact starting position with regards to the placement of the finger holes,etc?????????
Or are they going the be thrown by Brunsnick??????
--------------------
Chris
Lane#1--nothing else hits like 'em.
Post by: MegaMav on April 09, 2007, 08:19:06 PM
http://fear.fiyawerx.net/hairball.jpg
Post by: BrunsNick on April 09, 2007, 08:38:30 PM
www.brunsnick.com/cg1.jpg
nd300, if you need further reference without the variable of human error, see this video.
http://www.brunswickbowling.com/uploads/vids/CG_demo_5-05.wmv
--------------------
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 09, 2007, 08:53:49 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: DP3 on April 09, 2007, 08:56:07 PM
...sorry i had to take a potshot.
--------------------
-DJ Marshall
...The Twelve In a Row Pro Shop
Post by: MegaMav on April 09, 2007, 08:57:12 PM
quote:
I've never rolled a ball out in my life, should I expect that with some Lane#1 stuff?
I roll-out enough for the both of us...
Post by: BrunsNick on April 09, 2007, 08:57:40 PM
quote:
Nick so your going to tell me that the negative drilled CG is going to react the same or different?
--------------------
www.luxorbowlingsupplies.com
Tune in and see!
--------------------
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: Strider on April 09, 2007, 09:06:12 PM
--------------------
Penn State Proud
Special thanks to Dynothane, Visionary, and Lane#1 for donations to the Ballreviews Get Together.
Ron Clifton's Bowling Tip Archive (http://"http://www.bowl4fun.com/ron/roncarchive.htm")
Post by: leftehh- LG on April 09, 2007, 09:13:37 PM
quote:
What is this video going to show that the earlier Brunswick video didn't? I know later Brunswick added a weight hole, but wasn't the first part two of the same ball, one with a bunch of positive weight, one with a bunch of negative? I thought I saw a slight variance of ball reaction, but that might have been from Throbot throwing the ball on the same exact line each time.
--------------------
Penn State Proud
Special thanks to Dynothane, Visionary, and Lane#1 for donations to the Ballreviews Get Together.
Ron Clifton's Bowling Tip Archive (http://"http://www.bowl4fun.com/ron/roncarchive.htm")
LIAR, UR EYES ARE FOOLING U! ^_^ ... but yea no really slight diff.
--------------------
Bowl to Win!
Post by: BrunsNick on April 09, 2007, 09:14:49 PM
Multiple angles.
--------------------
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: Eddie M on April 09, 2007, 09:26:57 PM
Post by: BrunsNick on April 09, 2007, 09:33:13 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: Eddie M on April 09, 2007, 09:42:11 PM
Post by: qstick777 on April 09, 2007, 09:57:59 PM
quote:
I think you are missing the point of the video. There are numerous ill-informed shop operators (just in my local area), who would fight you to the end in an aguement because they truly believe that a ball with 1/2 oz of side and 1/2 oz of thumb weight will roll differently that the same ball with the same pin position and 1/2 oz neg side and 1/2 oz of finger. As a matter of fact, I've had a discussion with a local "regional pro" who was convinced that a ball with thumb weight would be his best option for fresh heavy oil (totally ignoring the fact that it was a mild pearl).. simply because of the statics. What is going to be shown here is that REGARDLESS of statics, symmetric-core balls with identical pin positions react identically. Whether the difference is between 1/2 pos and 1/2 neg side weight (or 3 oz pos and 3 oz neg side...or finger... or thumb). This is only to prove a point that it doesn't matter what the ending statics are with regards to reaction.
S^2
--------------------
Does that mean that statics DO matter on asymmetrically core balls?
I'm just curious because I had an asymm ball that wouldn't move for me. Took it in and found 1 oz of pos side weight. Pro shop drilled existing x-hole deeper and took it to 1/2 oz pos side weight. Ball worked much better for me.
Now, I'm just trying to understand the "why" so that I don't become one of those people that starts to believe that I NEED to have a specific side weight.
--------------------
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: BrunsNick on April 09, 2007, 10:48:22 PM
Eddie M, they didn't pass that rule just because of the conflicts it would create between laying out new balls, and bowlers with equipment "out of spec" that would need to be redrilled.
--------------------
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: nospareball on April 10, 2007, 01:05:06 AM
I've seen the throwbot video, and really if they wanted to be scientific they should have stripped and oiled the lanes between each shot. The video doesn't show anything since the oil is moving and drying up, and each ball thrown reacts differently.
Post by: jhutch769 on April 10, 2007, 01:24:15 AM
Two different definitions from dictionary.com
7. Physics. acting by mere weight without producing motion: static pressure.
adjective
1. not in physical motion; "the inertia of an object at rest"
What good does an ounce of thumb/finger weight, pos/neg side weight, do to a 14-16 lb object traveling at 12-20 mph with 150-400 rpms really mean??? Jack squat... 16 lbs = 256 ounces.. move an ounce here or there it will not make a difference in the new high tech/multi density cores on the market today.. Maneuver a pancake weight block in a rubber shell, then you might see a difference..
Just my opinion, and I have no scientific proof or data to back it up..
Edited on 4/10/2007 1:24 AM
Post by: laufaye on April 10, 2007, 01:48:21 AM
quote:quote:
I think you are missing the point of the video. There are numerous ill-informed shop operators (just in my local area), who would fight you to the end in an aguement because they truly believe that a ball with 1/2 oz of side and 1/2 oz of thumb weight will roll differently that the same ball with the same pin position and 1/2 oz neg side and 1/2 oz of finger. As a matter of fact, I've had a discussion with a local "regional pro" who was convinced that a ball with thumb weight would be his best option for fresh heavy oil (totally ignoring the fact that it was a mild pearl).. simply because of the statics. What is going to be shown here is that REGARDLESS of statics, symmetric-core balls with identical pin positions react identically. Whether the difference is between 1/2 pos and 1/2 neg side weight (or 3 oz pos and 3 oz neg side...or finger... or thumb). This is only to prove a point that it doesn't matter what the ending statics are with regards to reaction.
S^2
--------------------
Does that mean that statics DO matter on asymmetrically core balls?
I'm just curious because I had an asymm ball that wouldn't move for me. Took it in and found 1 oz of pos side weight. Pro shop drilled existing x-hole deeper and took it to 1/2 oz pos side weight. Ball worked much better for me.
Now, I'm just trying to understand the "why" so that I don't become one of those people that starts to believe that I NEED to have a specific side weight.
--------------------
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
If you layout 2 same assymetric ball with the same Pin and MB position, regardless of CG position and legal or not it will react the same, however, because of that layout called for a weight hole to make it legal, the position and size/depth of the weight hole will have the effect on flare potential, hence different in ball reacton. But that different ball reaction is not cause by static weight positive/negative or finger/thumb, Is all cause by the X-hole position.
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: laufaye on April 10, 2007, 01:52:38 AM
quote:
If CG really doesn't matter then why even bother laying out a symmetrical ball? Why do people lay out balls with the CG moved all over the place, label, stacked, kicked out?
I've seen the throwbot video, and really if they wanted to be scientific they should have stripped and oiled the lanes between each shot. The video doesn't show anything since the oil is moving and drying up, and each ball thrown reacts differently.
By different layout driller can plan ahead whether a weight hole is called for or not, on a symetrical core ball, we can use the weight hole to change the ending PSA by removing core mass from the weight hole. Again, the change of ball motion is not cause by the static weight.
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: erh300 on April 10, 2007, 09:56:08 AM
Post by: strikealot on April 10, 2007, 10:08:44 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
black ice
MEMBER OF THE F.O.S.
Post by: Steven on April 10, 2007, 10:18:39 AM
quote:
I think you are missing the point of the video.
Strapper: I guess I have to a certain point. I get it now. If Nick wants to emphasize Brunswick's stance on "CG NOMADDAH" using different video, that's cool. I don't think it's coincidence he's using Lane#1 balls for the demonstration. I'm guessing he wants to stick it to the diamond heads he's done battle with. I'm sure at some point, T-GOD will chime in, and the fun will begin.
My issue with the whole "CG NOMADDAH" thing is that it's rarely discussed in context. Many of the bowlers here really believe "CG NOMADDAH" in an absolute sense. They think that they can place the pin anywhere they want, forget about the CG, and when all is said and done (even if a large X-Hole for USBC compliance is required), it doesn't matter -- because reaction is totally dictated by the pin. In this case, Brunswick is doing a disservice to Joe Bowler who reads these debates.
Otherwise, I'm going to kick back and enjoy the show.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Edited on 4/10/2007 10:18 AM
Post by: nospareball on April 10, 2007, 10:31:06 AM
quote:quote:
If CG really doesn't matter then why even bother laying out a symmetrical ball? Why do people lay out balls with the CG moved all over the place, label, stacked, kicked out?
I've seen the throwbot video, and really if they wanted to be scientific they should have stripped and oiled the lanes between each shot. The video doesn't show anything since the oil is moving and drying up, and each ball thrown reacts differently.
By different layout driller can plan ahead whether a weight hole is called for or not, on a symetrical core ball, we can use the weight hole to change the ending PSA by removing core mass from the weight hole. Again, the change of ball motion is not cause by the static weight.
--------------------
Laufaye
So lets say you set up two balls, one label without a weight hole and one with the CG kicked out with a weight hole. And lets say for grins that the weight hole on the 2nd ball doesn't hit the core. So essentially you are just taking out side weight to make the ball legal without affecting the dynamics of the core. Will both balls react the same? Or does that ounce taken out by the weight hole affect it?
According to the CG no matter rule, the weight hole shouldn't affect anything in this case. So once again, why even bother with a layout?
I'm still not convinced. Everybody here has felt what a out of balance wheel feels like on a car. In that case a tiny weight at the edge of the rim can affect how a 35lb wheel rolls. Why can't an ounce or two in a bowling ball affect the roll?
*Edit* After quick search it looks like the largest wheel weight they make is 3oz. The smallest I could find is .25 of an ounce. So comparable to the numbers we are talking about with a bowling ball.
Some quick math - a 26" tall tire (typical for a car) is doing 517rpms at 40mph. Taller truck and suv tires will be doing less rpms at the same speed.
Edited on 4/10/2007 10:56 AM
Post by: shelley on April 10, 2007, 10:47:23 AM
quote:
7. Physics. acting by mere weight without producing motion: static pressure.
adjective
1. not in physical motion; "the inertia of an object at rest"
But static weight set up dynamic imbalances. No, the static weights don't matter much when the ball is sitting on the rack. Start it moving and that's a different story.
quote:
What good does an ounce of thumb/finger weight, pos/neg side weight, do to a 14-16 lb object traveling at 12-20 mph with 150-400 rpms really mean??? Jack squat... 16 lbs = 256 ounces.. move an ounce here or there it will not make a difference in the new high tech/multi density cores on the market today.. Maneuver a pancake weight block in a rubber shell, then you might see a difference..
Just my opinion, and I have no scientific proof or data to back it up..
Take the lead weights off your car tires if you really don't believe a very small fraction of the weight makes a difference. Does a 1-2gram weight on a wheel/tire that weighs well over 30# matter while the car is sitting in your driveway? You could put the thing on a rod and balance it perfectly, and add/remove the lead weights and probably not make much difference.
Start rotating the tire at 60mph and see if you're still convinced that that 1-2g weight can't possibly affect something thousands of times heavier.
Oh, shelley, but that's a car travelling at 60mph, not a bowling ball travelling at 15mph. It's also a few grams out of a few hundred thousand grams versus an ounce against 220+ ounces. One of those is 0.000001%, one of them is more like 0.3%. And just to make things even more interesting, consider that a 215/60R15 tire (moderately common size, certainly an "average" tire) travelling 60mph will spin at around 800rpm. Only three or four times what a typical bowler will do to a bowling ball. You're not looking at rev rates that are extremely far apart.
"No scientific proof" indeed. Hmmph.
Are there other factors in ball motion that swamp the effects of the static weights? Absolutely. Which you even acknowledge when you suggest taking a rubber ball with a pancake core. There's no core dynamics, no preferred spin axes, no oil-coverstock-lane surface friction to make things interesting. Modern balls have those in spades, and any effect of the CG I believe will be easily turned into noise once you start measuring ball reactions.
SH
Edited on 4/10/2007 10:47 AM
Post by: laufaye on April 10, 2007, 11:36:48 AM
quote:
So lets say you set up two balls, one label without a weight hole and one with the CG kicked out with a weight hole. And lets say for grins that the weight hole on the 2nd ball doesn't hit the core. So essentially you are just taking out side weight to make the ball legal without affecting the dynamics of the core. Will both balls react the same? Or does that ounce taken out by the weight hole affect it?
According to the CG no matter rule, the weight hole shouldn't affect anything in this case. So once again, why even bother with a layout?
They ball motion should be the same, or I should say not noticable.
quote:
I'm still not convinced. Everybody here has felt what a out of balance wheel feels like on a car. In that case a tiny weight at the edge of the rim can affect how a 35lb wheel rolls. Why can't an ounce or two in a bowling ball affect the roll?
*Edit* After quick search it looks like the largest wheel weight they make is 3oz. The smallest I could find is .25 of an ounce. So comparable to the numbers we are talking about with a bowling ball.
Some quick math - a 26" tall tire (typical for a car) is doing 517rpms at 40mph. Taller truck and suv tires will be doing less rpms at the same speed.
Stactic imbalance is Mass X Distance
Dynamic Imbalance is Mass X Distance Square
For a tire the weight is hung on the edge of the rim, for a bowling ball the RG is within the distance of 2.43" to 2.8" from the center of the ball. Big difference there. Physically there should be a difference, but whether you can see it or feel it thats the argument.
I am not good in physics, and what you are suggesting is also just a concept. What Brunsnick going to do is show and tell without any scientific methodogy, what we will see from the video is going to be raw data. We need someone with physics background to prove it, which I am sure Brunswick have people like that, but whats good for them to make a statement so technical that most of the bowlers won't understand all the technical jargons.
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: qstick777 on April 10, 2007, 09:29:11 PM
quote:
If you layout 2 same assymetric ball with the same Pin and MB position, regardless of CG position and legal or not it will react the same, however, because of that layout called for a weight hole to make it legal, the position and size/depth of the weight hole will have the effect on flare potential, hence different in ball reacton. But that different ball reaction is not cause by static weight positive/negative or finger/thumb, Is all cause by the X-hole position.
--------------------
Laufaye
Okay, so if the x-hole didn't move position, to what can I attribute the difference in ball reaction?
I don't remember if the x-hole was drilled deeper, or if the guy drilled it bigger. Either way, I'm pretty sure the hole did not take out any material from the core. So, the only thing removed was the ball filler that made up 1/2 ounce.
The lanes did not change in the time the guy watched me throw the ball, took it back and weighed it, and then removed the 1/2 ounce. Clearly I did not suddenly start throwing the ball better. I did however see a major difference in ball reaction.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand how statics do not play a part in reaction. I only know what I experienced. Maybe when I take the 2 day pro shop class I'll understand better.
--------------------
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 10, 2007, 10:15:46 PM
quote:quote:
If you layout 2 same assymetric ball with the same Pin and MB position, regardless of CG position and legal or not it will react the same, however, because of that layout called for a weight hole to make it legal, the position and size/depth of the weight hole will have the effect on flare potential, hence different in ball reacton. But that different ball reaction is not cause by static weight positive/negative or finger/thumb, Is all cause by the X-hole position.
--------------------
Laufaye
Okay, so if the x-hole didn't move position, to what can I attribute the difference in ball reaction?
I don't remember if the x-hole was drilled deeper, or if the guy drilled it bigger. Either way, I'm pretty sure the hole did not take out any material from the core. So, the only thing removed was the ball filler that made up 1/2 ounce.
The lanes did not change in the time the guy watched me throw the ball, took it back and weighed it, and then removed the 1/2 ounce. Clearly I did not suddenly start throwing the ball better. I did however see a major difference in ball reaction.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand how statics do not play a part in reaction. I only know what I experienced. Maybe when I take the 2 day pro shop class I'll understand better.
--------------------
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
You cannot ignore what you saw and what you experienced, however thats not mesearable. Be honest with you, I am just stating what I learned and what I understand, I do not have a lot of knowledge in physic. I have been reading some articles about RG and moment of inertia, also trying to understand more on axis migration.
I really hope some more expert can get on this site to explain more. Brunsnick is just a bowler, a Brunswick staffer, I don't know how good he is in physic, but he is trying to go an extra mile to test something for the public, Brunswick put up the video last year, great job. But where is the other big boys? Like Del Warren, Ron Hickland, Hank Boomershine and more, they all come to this site from time to time, where is there input?
Well lets kick back and watch the video and start the debate all over again.
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: L o G on April 10, 2007, 10:28:54 PM
Thanks, Daniel
--------------------
"And Shepherds we shall be
For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand
Our feet may swiftly carry out Thy commands.
So we shall flow a river forth to Thee
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
In Nomeni Patri Et Fili Et Spiritus Sancti."
Edited on 4/10/2007 10:31 PM
Post by: RealBowler on April 10, 2007, 11:17:42 PM
The thing nobody has mentioned is that by keeping the pin in a stationary position - say 4" from PAP - and moving the CG around, you are shifting the orientation of the core inside the ball.
That might not matter if the core was a circle, but that doesn't happen!
So, if you shift the core around, how can that not have any effect on the balls reaction?
http://www.bowlingfans.com/jeff/ballreactionbasics.html
--------------------
Haywood
**************************
I don't need a stupid
signature. This is enough.
**************************
Edited on 4/10/2007 11:20 PM
Post by: T-GOD on April 10, 2007, 11:27:01 PM
quote:We can all see that every ball went higher and higher in the pocket as the lanes dried out after each shot.
nd300, if you need further reference without the variable of human error, see this video.
But, on the last shot, with negative side, the ball laid off a bit and stayed in the pocket instead of going high. How do you explain that..? =:^D
Post by: BrunsNick on April 11, 2007, 02:00:56 AM
There are obviously a lot of variables in this video. One could infer that because the negative balls were thrown twice in a row early, they picked up more oil on the shell causing them to create length later in the shots. You must have missed the CATS graph plot averaging out the 2 balls for the 8 shots. Do that for 20 shots, and they'd still be right on top of eachother.
In a world where I can't read and you can't see, its no wonder we can't see eye to eye.
--------------------
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 11, 2007, 08:48:21 AM
If you strike a certain way, leave a flat 10, a ringing 10, 4 pin, solid 8, or what ever, the pins tell me what the ball is doing.
quote:Yeah, you can hit your mark 10 times in a row too, and hit the pocket 10 times in a row. But, does that mean you're going to strike 10 times..? No, you can strike 5 times and leave 5 10 pins and still have the graphs right on top of each other.
You must have missed the CATS graph plot averaging out the 2 balls for the 8 shots. Do that for 20 shots, and they'd still be right on top of each other.
So, the point you're trying to make is..? =:^D
Edited on 4/11/2007 9:31 AM
Post by: laufaye on April 11, 2007, 09:11:00 AM
quote:
Nick, I don't care about cats graph or computer numbers. I care about what my eyes see as far as how the ball reacts down the lane and/or goes through the pins.
If you strike a certain way, leave a flat 10, a ringing 10, 4 pin, solid 8, or what ever, the pins tell me what the ball is doing. =:^D
T-God,
Totally agreed with you, you have to trust what you see. But I saw the CATS data too, I cannot just ignore what I saw. No disrespect on ones believe, however there is no point to debate or discuss base on believing.
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: Eddie M on April 11, 2007, 09:38:26 AM
quote:
No disrespect on ones believe, however there is no point to debate or discuss base on believing.
Try telling that to the any really religious person.
Post by: RealBowler on April 11, 2007, 09:51:22 AM
quote:quote:
If static weights don't matter, why do people complain about long ("pro") pins, and low or high top weights?
The thing nobody has mentioned is that by keeping the pin in a stationary position - say 4" from PAP - and moving the CG around, you are shifting the orientation of the core inside the ball.
That might not matter if the core was a circle, but that doesn't happen!
So, if you shift the core around, how can that not have any effect on the balls reaction?
This test will be done with a symmetric core. That's why cgnomaddah.
You are still changing the orientation of the core. Symmetric or not, the core is going to in a different position. If a ball rolls/revs until it reaches its stabilization point, the position of the core is going to affect the way the reaction of the ball.
You can't just say that CG doesn't matter - you might be able to say that statics (ending weights) don't matter - but the pin and CG give you a reference to the way the core is situated in the ball. You really need a clear ball with a core to be able to visualize this.
--------------------
Haywood
**************************
I don't need a stupid
signature. This is enough.
**************************
Post by: Strapper_Squared on April 11, 2007, 10:08:10 AM
quote:
You are still changing the orientation of the core. Symmetric or not, the core is going to in a different position.
See the CAD demo in the Brunswick video (http://"http://www.brunswickbowling.com/uploads/vids/CG_demo_5-05.wmv"). You are rotating the core about the pin (i.e. the top of a symmetric core). Thats the same as screwing a light bulb into a socket...doesn't change the orientation.
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: laufaye on April 11, 2007, 11:09:45 AM
quote:quote:
You are still changing the orientation of the core. Symmetric or not, the core is going to in a different position.
See the CAD demo in the Brunswick video (http://"http://www.brunswickbowling.com/uploads/vids/CG_demo_5-05.wmv"). You are rotating the core about the pin (i.e. the top of a symmetric core). Thats the same as screwing a light bulb into a socket...doesn't change the orientation.
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
Well on a side note, the video is showing a true or close to true symmetrical core. There should be a core orientation difference on a non-symmertical shape core but dynamic symmetrical core, meaning the differential between the Y-axis and the Z-axis are very little or not noticable, and manufacturer still market them as symmetrical core, or some manufacturer market them as LMB core.
In this case core orientation could be a factor, really depends on where we going to put the holes, including the X-hole if called for. And there are no info from any manufacturer to actually pin point the core orientation.
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: T-GOD on April 11, 2007, 01:40:55 PM
Imagine if you put a 1/8" spacer on one of the mounting pins before you put on the wheel. How much wobble would you feel going down the road..? That's no different then having the core of a ball off center by 1/8". =:^D
Post by: BrunsNick on April 11, 2007, 02:09:06 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: imjouster on April 13, 2007, 03:32:53 AM
I have had instances where I have drilled weight holes that didn't even come close to the core and I noticed a change in reaction. I have done it twice, both times taking about about 1/2 oz of sideweight. and both times the balls started reading a little earlier (I'd say 2-3 feet earlier). These 2 bowling balls were completely different from one another. One was a green gargoyle with Pin under bridge (no sideweight), and the other was an original inferno drilled stacked leverage with pin to the right of the fingers, with 1 1/4 oz sideweight.
I can only speak from experience, I have absolutely no proof to my theory other than what I have witnessed, and I do see some problems with my theory that I can't seem to work out. But I still want to see a ball with 0 side weight vs. one with pos. and one with neg.
Jeremy
--------------------
"Strive to be perfect, that is afterall the only way to become perfect."
"If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans."
Taken from Desiderata
Proud user of Columbia 300 and Visionary Bowling Products
Post by: T-GOD on April 13, 2007, 09:06:57 AM
Also, any reasonably intellegent person knows that statics, pin placement, CG placement and core shape don't matter if the surface isn't grabbing the lane. I've yet to see a ball hook on ice with any pin placement, core shape or CG position.
Therefore, because the plot of the graph would all be the same when throwing a ball on ice, nothing matters..!! It's that simple. =:^D
Post by: C-G ProShop-Carl on April 13, 2007, 11:20:31 AM
I do have one question....is it me or does the positive side weighted ball appear to have a lesser grit on the surface?
What is Brunswick's stand on axis hole placement in relation to ball reaction?
I am not jumping in on a debate, I am asking questions.....
-Carl
--------------------
Carl Hurd
C-G Pro Shop (owner/operator)
Youngstown Ohio
Tag Team Member #1
TAG TEAM COACHING!!!!!!/Co-Founder
Post by: Strapper_Squared on April 13, 2007, 11:30:06 AM
quote:
What is Brunswick's stand on axis hole placement in relation to ball reaction?
See nick's x-hole video...
EDIT:
Nick,
I think you should black-out (or purple-out for the HRG's) the labels and make the video, throwing the balls in a random order. Post the video here without telling anyone the results and let the so-called "experts," who can tell the difference between balls with negative and positive static weights, identify which shots belong to which balls.... but then again, statistically, my five year old neice should guess 50%, given two choices.
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
Edited on 4/13/2007 11:40 AM
Post by: C-G ProShop-Carl on April 13, 2007, 12:07:23 PM
Wouldn't shifting the cg far enough to require a weighthole change reaction? MEANING....when you put the weighthole in the ball clearly it makes a difference in reaction and flare. In this instance....cg placment would matter, correct?
--------------------
Carl Hurd
C-G Pro Shop (owner/operator)
Youngstown Ohio
Tag Team Member #1
TAG TEAM COACHING!!!!!!/Co-Founder
Post by: BrunsNick on April 13, 2007, 12:10:39 PM
Any hole placed in the ball will alter the reaction to some degree. However, until you remove the mass, the ball reaction will not change.
--------------------
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: Rev_O on April 13, 2007, 12:18:34 PM
--------------------
Rev-O
Check out www.JeffCarterBowling.com and BOWL UP A STORM!
Post by: Rev_O on April 13, 2007, 12:18:35 PM
--------------------
Rev-O
Check out www.JeffCarterBowling.com and BOWL UP A STORM!
Post by: C-G ProShop-Carl on April 13, 2007, 12:18:38 PM
I understand that.
So if you place identical weightholes in a ball with the cg shifted right and one in a ball with the cg shifted negative those balls are going to do the same thing?
-carl
--------------------
Carl Hurd
C-G Pro Shop (owner/operator)
Youngstown Ohio
Tag Team Member #1
TAG TEAM COACHING!!!!!!/Co-Founder
Post by: BrunsNick on April 13, 2007, 02:26:26 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: T-GOD on April 13, 2007, 04:02:29 PM
quote:
Any hole placed in the ball will alter the reaction to some degree. However, until you remove the mass, the ball reaction will not change.
Talk about a contradicting statement. First you say that any hole placed in a ball(removing any mass from the ball) will alter the reaction. Then you say that until you remove the mass, ball reaction will not change..? Is Brunswick teaching you that the weight of cover and filler material do not have mass..? So, removing 2 oz. of cover and filler material doesn't = removing 2 oz. of core material..? Hmmmm...2 oz. doesn't = 2 oz..? Is that the education you get, working for corporate greed..?
quote:I don't know which school you guys went to, but it's very clear to me that you're the ones with limited knowledge, and, trying to re-write the laws of physics. =:^D
I try, as do certain guys, with there limited, as well as antiquated, beliefs and those that they harm with them. But I digress, what do I know...
Post by: MegaMav on April 13, 2007, 04:17:30 PM
quote:
I don't know which school you guys went to, but it's very clear to me that you're the ones with limited knowledge, and, trying to re-write the laws of physics.
You will eat those words very soon, you outdated fossil.
Post by: BrunsNick on April 13, 2007, 04:18:13 PM
Yes, gripping holes will alter the reaction of the ball as well, thank you for stating the obvious. However, keeping the pin constant in 2 symmetrical core balls, the mass removed will not be a measurable difference.
Onward,
The video will have to be pushed to Wednesday, the 18th. Will need more time working on a side by side, and overlay effects.
--------------------
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: laufaye on April 13, 2007, 04:20:11 PM
quote:
Nick,quote:
Any hole placed in the ball will alter the reaction to some degree. However, until you remove the mass, the ball reaction will not change.
Talk about a contradicting statement. First you say that any hole placed in a ball(removing any mass from the ball) will alter the reaction. Then you say that until you remove the mass, ball reaction will not change..? Is Brunswick teaching you that the weight of cover and filler material do not have mass..? So, removing 2 oz. of cover and filler material doesn't = removing 2 oz. of core material..? Hmmmm...2 oz. doesn't = 2 oz..? Is that the education you get, working for corporate greed..?quote:I don't know which school you guys went to, but it's very clear to me that you're the ones with limited knowledge, and, trying to re-write the laws of physics. =:^D
I try, as do certain guys, with there limited, as well as antiquated, beliefs and those that they harm with them. But I digress, what do I know...
T-God,
You are the one saying what you saw in ball reaction, what you believe, and now talking about someone without education, rewriting law of physics.
I don't have a degree in physics, but I hope you do, and if you do, use the law of physic to educate us. If you know that when that 2oz at the core are not the same as they are at the cover/filler? Dynamic imbalance.
What is the formular for RG?
What is the Formular for moment of inertia?
Educate us please.
I believe in God but not T-God
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: strikealot on April 13, 2007, 06:28:57 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: MegaMav on April 13, 2007, 06:29:12 PM
quote:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ..........will he get up?
<Mike Tyson's Punchout> TKO
TKO (http://"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fi/thumb/8/86/Mike_tyson_punch_out_tko_flamenco.png/200px-Mike_tyson_punch_out_tko_flamenco.png")
Edited on 4/13/2007 6:31 PM
Post by: imjouster on April 13, 2007, 06:53:23 PM
quote:
Therefore, because the plot of the graph would all be the same when throwing a ball on ice, nothing matters..!! It's that simple. =:^D
AMEN to that Brotha
Jeremy
--------------------
"Strive to be perfect, that is afterall the only way to become perfect."
"If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans."
Taken from Desiderata
Proud user of Columbia 300 and Visionary Bowling Products
Post by: chitown on April 13, 2007, 09:07:48 PM
quote:
Carl,
Any hole placed in the ball will alter the reaction to some degree. However, until you remove the mass, the ball reaction will not change.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
If you take 2 identicle bowling balls with the same starting statics ect...
Ball #1: pin above the bridge, let's say 5.5" from ones pap, CG with zero side weight but a balance hole on the VAL 2" under pap. with 1oz of weight removed. This gives the ball 1oz of negative side.
Ball #2: same pin location, same balance hole placement but the CG is 2 oz right with the 1 oz taking out with the balance hole. Now this ball has an ending siode weight of 1 oz positive.
There's not going to be a difference in reaction?
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?
--------------------
HAMMER NO MERCY is Un-freaking real! Using this ball is like cheating!
Edited on 4/13/2007 9:17 PM
Post by: chitown on April 13, 2007, 09:19:51 PM
--------------------
HAMMER NO MERCY is Un-freaking real! Using this ball is like cheating!
Post by: Joe Jr 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 (http://"http://youtube.com/user/BLefty")
Banned under the user name Richard Cranium
Formerly Brunswick Lefty
Post by: pro shop guy on April 13, 2007, 10:43:51 PM
Post by: laufaye 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
Post by: BrunsNick on April 14, 2007, 12:59:11 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: T-GOD on April 14, 2007, 01:27:37 AM
quote: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
Given the same pin location, x-hole location/depth/size, there will be no measurable difference.
Post by: BrunsNick on April 14, 2007, 01:46:58 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!
Edited on 4/14/2007 1:46 AM
Post by: RealBowler 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
¡Viva la nación 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.
**************************
Post by: chitown on April 14, 2007, 01:37:44 PM
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!
Post by: J_Mac on April 14, 2007, 01:40:23 PM
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."
Post by: Joe Jr on April 14, 2007, 02:37:44 PM
--------------------
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: chitown on April 14, 2007, 04:09:26 PM
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!
Post by: Steven 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"
Post by: T-GOD on April 14, 2007, 09:59:15 PM
quote:Good eyes Port.
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
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
Post by: chitown on April 14, 2007, 10:50:14 PM
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!
Post by: Steven 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"
Post by: C-G ProShop-Carl on April 15, 2007, 01:55:12 AM
If I kick the CG out 3 inches from the grip center and a balance hole is required......then the cg location does matter because that balance hole is going to make a difference in the ball's reaction depending on where I place it/pitch it/and its size.
I still think the grits on the coverstocks looked different as well.
--------------------
Carl Hurd
C-G Pro Shop (owner/operator)
Youngstown Ohio
Tag Team Member #1
TAG TEAM COACHING!!!!!!/Co-Founder
Post by: BrunsNick on April 15, 2007, 02:32:07 AM
In the Brunswick video, if the bowling balls were flip flopped in the order they were thrown, I'd be willing to bet the negatives go thru the nose. Of course, that is just speculation...
Shooting video tomorrow night.
--------------------
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: Lillen on April 15, 2007, 05:22:10 AM
Just curious if it's the same as over here in Sweden and here it's 1oz = 28 grams..
Post by: laufaye on April 15, 2007, 10:39:33 AM
quote:
Not to hijack this thread but what's the max legal sideweight on a ball in the US
Just curious if it's the same as over here in Sweden and here it's 1oz = 28 grams..
pos/neg 1oz, fingers/thumb 1 oz, top/bottom 3oz.
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: laufaye on April 15, 2007, 10:46:12 AM
Ball 1 with 1000 grit wet sand.
Ball 2 with 1001 grit wet sand.
After discussion with T-God, we have the conclusion, and believe ball 2 should start sooner, its a no brainer, law of physic. In order to make this video, I need to find a 1001 grit sand paper first.
Test 2
Ball 1 pin to pap 4"
Ball 2 pin to pap 4 1/64"
This test is to find out which ball flare more.
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: T-GOD on April 15, 2007, 12:58:36 PM
quote:Nick, the negative didn't go thru the nose on the 8th and final shot. So, if the neg. ball didn't go thru the nose on the 8th shot, what makes you think it'll go thru the nose on earlier shots..?
In the Brunswick video, if the bowling balls were flip flopped in the order they were thrown, I'd be willing to bet the negatives go thru the nose.
quote:If you use your brain the way it's designed to work, you won't have to speculate. You will conclude based on the data, that the neg. ball won't go high. If it didn't go high in 8 shots, it won't go high in 6 or 7. =:^D
Of course, that is just speculation...
Post by: BrunsNick on April 15, 2007, 01:56:56 PM
So based on 8 shots, we can shut the case on this discussion? Sounds like you're an idiot, but we all knew that. (and I can be insulting without being passive about it)
--------------------
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 15, 2007, 03:27:52 PM
quote:
Notice how my questions got passed over. He answers what he wants, how he wants.
He reminds me of one of my favorite groups...
TOOL.
Ric: T-GOD has been on here for many years -- longer than most. During that time, he's provided a lot of advice to anyone asking questions and looking for legitimate help. I've been conversing with him on this site for a long time, and while we've had on-and-off battles, his advice has been very valuable to me. He's helped me with ball selection, appropriate drill patterns and surface prep with a remarkable level of effectiveness. In the past two years, I've gone from a THS 220 to 235, at least partially due to input he's provided me.
I don't believe T-GOD (or anyone) is under any obligation to lay out their identity and personal life on an Internet forum. It's a crazy world out there, and too many whacos to take chances unless it's your choice to do so. Anyway, I suspect T-GOD is someone prominent in the bowling industry. Regardless, it's his choice what he wants to share about himself.
The bottom line is that I choose to focus little on the bowling shingle someone plasters on the forum, and instead make evaluations based on the quality of input provided. In this case T-GOD passes the test.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: Steven on April 15, 2007, 06:11:13 PM
quote:
So now, let's count how many responses will appear, saying things such as 'more Brunswick BS' or how I didn't answer any questions.
Ric: I hope the above is not the case.
And I don't think anyone is questioning your credentials or background. But to be frank, the way you come across is that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a troll or an uninformed idiot. As a major manufacturer representative, that's not the smartest way to come across.
The effect (or non-effect) of CG placement has always been a controversial subject. There are a lot of smart (and credentialed) people on both sides of the fence that can argue valid points. For that reason alone, when Brunswick stuck their toe in the water to present a 'definitive' video on the subject, they had a professional responsibility to make sure it completely closed the case. Clearly, the video didn't.
As far as your following statement:
quote:
The thing to understand is with any demonstration or test, there will always be unseen variables, especially human error. What Brunswick tried to teach is the simplest way to look at ball reaction and/or motion. You can look at or believe the way you do.
That's just a rationalization for not doing a complete job in this case. They show different flare rings between the balls with different CG placements, and the balls (at least in the last few shots) did not react the same. There should have been some further explanation to leave viewers with some comfort levels regarding these discrepancies. Unfortunately, there weren't.
I do give Nick credit for putting out another video, regardless of his motivations for doing it. I just hope he understands the shortcoming of the Brunswick video, and tries to address them in his.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Edited on 4/15/2007 10:09 PM
Post by: Musky300 on April 15, 2007, 06:49:37 PM
If the position of the CG doesn't matter, then...
...is the whole "degree layout" system bunk???
It would seem to me that this is what it would mean since the degree layout is based on pin-to-PAP and pin-to-CG.
Yes or No??? Just trying to figure this stuff out myself.
Post by: Borincano on April 15, 2007, 07:02:57 PM
This discussion is where the cg will be position. Which I see by the video it does not matter where you put it in relation to the pin it will give the same reaction. But lets say we put the CG in the middle of the grip and move the pin left, right, down and up. I will say that then we have different reactions.
Post by: Strapper_Squared on April 15, 2007, 07:17:20 PM
quote:
As far as your following statement:
quote:
The thing to understand is with any demonstration or test, there will always be unseen variables, especially human error. What Brunswick tried to teach is the simplest way to look at ball reaction and/or motion. You can look at or believe the way you do.
That's just a rationalization for not doing a complete job in this case.
Obviously you have never done anything in a research/laboratory type setting. There are an infinite number of variables, most of which you have no control over, that come into play during any type of experiment. Temperature, humidity, a slight breeze coming through the window that blew a dust particle, natural vibrations of the building you are in, etc., etc. In science there is a general rule that you can never prove anything, only disprove it. As more and more experiments are conducted and come to the same conclusion, then we can say...this is probably how it works. NEVER will you be able to run one experiment and say without a shadow of doubt that this is absolutely true.
However, by saying I think this occurs...or although its not measurable, I can tell the difference.. etc. holds no scientific credential whatsoever. Until you (or anyone else) can set-up a controlled experiment and show that a difference in static weight results in different amounts of "hook", a change in flare, follows a different ball path, or has a different entry angle, or SOMETHING to quantify a difference (and saying its the difference between carrying a 10 pin and not is totally bogus), these statements hold no scientific merit whatsoever.
Now, if Nick's results come out and show that one ball reacts differently (in any measurable sense) than the other, we can conclude that possibly static weights have some sort of measurable effect (or that he threw the ball differently, or that the lane oil changed from one shot to another). If Nick's results show the same results as those presented in the Brunswick video, then we say that here is more proof to support the idea that static weight really have no measurable effect on ball reaction.
So rather than just stating these people are wrong.. or don't know what they are talking about, or they don't know how to properly run an experiment, give it a shot yourself. Run your own experiment and prove them wrong.
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: Steven on April 15, 2007, 08:03:28 PM
quote:
So rather than just stating these people are wrong.. or don't know what they are talking about, or they don't know how to properly run an experiment, give it a shot yourself. Run your own experiment and prove them wrong.
Strapper: By profession, I'm responsible for a segment of software quality assurance testing for a major Investment Management company. We live and die by the accuracy of fund pricing calculations, so in essence there is almost zero tolerance for errors. I more than understand how to set up tests to prove results, so I don't need a lecture on what I don't get in this area.
Even Nick was fumbling to explain the different ball reactions in the 8 tests. To remedy the confusion (and help validate their conclusions), they could have also run the ball tests in a different order to show consistency. A Ph.D. is not needed to understand that few simple additional tweaks could have been included to solidify their presentation.
And I don't need to set up anything myself. Brunswick created this video of their own free will for their own purposes. The reality of all presentations, videos (or whatever) is that they will be critiqued -- your head is in the sand if you don't understand and accept that.
Man, I just don't understand some of the denial that goes on around here.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: laufaye on April 15, 2007, 11:43:52 PM
Ric and Nick, be honest with you, this is not a proper place for you to argue with someone not even able to present themselves. If you guys have hosting a seminar then yes, thats legit. You two have done your part, believe it or not totally up to them, take it or leave it.
--------------------
Laufaye
Post by: ptythefool on April 16, 2007, 12:06:13 AM
lol.. Negative seems to provide a little more length or something.quote:
Here's another tidbit...
In the Brunswick video, if the bowling balls were flip flopped in the order they were thrown, I'd be willing to bet the negatives go thru the nose. Of course, that is just speculation...
Shooting video tomorrow night.
--------------------
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 16, 2007, 12:34:49 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!
Edited on 4/16/2007 0:34 AM
Post by: Steven on April 16, 2007, 10:09:44 AM
quote:
I put it in layman's terms for the people who believe cg matters.. What's so hard to understand?
OK. You're clearly unhappy that posters seemed to ignore you explanations. So I'll humor you. Let's go back the beginning of your last post where you tried to explain things:
quote:
The pictures of the balls that Brunsnick ie the Lane #1 balls is using as you can see has the TW marking 3" pos and 3" neg (roughly).. Pins are in the exact same place on both balls.. Both balls will flare the same, both balls will react the same for now because there are no holes other than the finger holes and the thumb hole to alter reaction..
The premise of your analysis was faulty right off the bat. The flare patterns, while close, were not the same. Additionally, the last few shots of each ball did not react the same.
So far, I've heard these 'anomalies' blamed possibly on temperature, humidity, a slight breeze coming through the window that blew a dust particle, natural vibrations of the building, burnt heads, and coverstock oil absorption (wew!).
If you care to add others, it would at least make for amusing reading. But until we get past these mysteries in the video, the circular arguments will continue.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: Doug Sterner on April 16, 2007, 10:46:50 AM
The cg punch on any ball is there as an indication of how the core is oriented in the ball. When you are dealing with a symmetrical ball it gives you an idea as to how the core is sitting inside the ball. See if you can follow me here....
Take 2 symmetrical balls such as a Special Agent that have identical top weights and pin to cg distances. Drill both of these balls with a 4" pin to PAP layout. Now take one of these balls and swing the cg to 3/4oz positive side and the other with 3/4oz negative side.
The cg kicked right ball will tilt the top of the core away from the pap and therefore give it an earlier roll and the overall hook will be greater in the middle part of the lane with a smoother transition on the backend.
The cg kicked left ball will tilt the top of the core towards the PAP and thus get the ball downlane smoother and have a sharper and more angular backend reaction. This ball will get longer and turn harder out back.
Overall hook may very well be the same but the hook shapes will be drastically different. It's not about statics anymore...it's about dynamics and core orientation creates the dynamic reaction we rely on.
So.....cg itself may not matter but the effect of it's placemnt on core orientation in a symmetrical ball makes all of the difference in the world.
--------------------
Doug Sterner
Doug's Pro Shop
Owego, NY
http://dougsproshop@aol.com
www.dougsproshop.net
Lane 1 Buzzsaw...The Official Power Tool Of Bowling
Post by: RealBowler on April 16, 2007, 12:40:40 PM
quote:
Guys what you all seem to be missing in this entire CG argument is the following.
The cg punch on any ball is there as an indication of how the core is oriented in the ball. When you are dealing with a symmetrical ball it gives you an idea as to how the core is sitting inside the ball. See if you can follow me here....
Take 2 symmetrical balls such as a Special Agent that have identical top weights and pin to cg distances. Drill both of these balls with a 4" pin to PAP layout. Now take one of these balls and swing the cg to 3/4oz positive side and the other with 3/4oz negative side.
The cg kicked right ball will tilt the top of the core away from the pap and therefore give it an earlier roll and the overall hook will be greater in the middle part of the lane with a smoother transition on the backend.
The cg kicked left ball will tilt the top of the core towards the PAP and thus get the ball downlane smoother and have a sharper and more angular backend reaction. This ball will get longer and turn harder out back.
Overall hook may very well be the same but the hook shapes will be drastically different. It's not about statics anymore...it's about dynamics and core orientation creates the dynamic reaction we rely on.
So.....cg itself may not matter but the effect of it's placemnt on core orientation in a symmetrical ball makes all of the difference in the world.
--------------------
Doug Sterner
Doug's Pro Shop
Owego, NY
http://dougsproshop@aol.com
www.dougsproshop.net
Lane 1 Buzzsaw...The Official Power Tool Of Bowling
Exactly! Thanks Doug.
So, what you are saying, is that doing what BrunsNick is doing is really not changing the core orientation?
Since he is aiming to have a ball with identically opposite side weights, the core should be sitting in the same orientation on both balls.
So, maybe what Nick is going to show is that side weights don't matter?
The best thing I can think of is the Lane #1 video "Bowling Research" where to guy built a cardboard core and is twirling it around.
http://lane1bowling.com/videos/
Somebody really needs to make one of those, mark one spot on the core as the CG and then start shifting the CG around while keeping the pin stationary.
--------------------
Haywood
**************************
I don't need a stupid
signature. This is enough.
**************************
Post by: gdsandman on April 16, 2007, 01:04:16 PM
Post by: Strider on April 16, 2007, 02:04:36 PM
--------------------
Penn State Proud
Special thanks to Dynothane, Visionary, and Lane#1 for donations to the Ballreviews Get Together.
Ron Clifton's Bowling Tip Archive (http://"http://www.bowl4fun.com/ron/roncarchive.htm")
Post by: NateNice on April 16, 2007, 02:25:58 PM
The fact the USBC is focusing on this (so it appears they're doing something) is a joke.
Anyone who still thinks they are "tweaking" or changing a balls reaction for any practical purposes by moving the CG, adding positive or negative weight, etc, is fooling themselves. You have to cut into the core to make real changes, via X-holes.
20 years ago there would be noticeable, practical effect. Today, there is not. The cores and coverstocks are just too dominate for this weight to make a practical difference.
I'd agree physically there would be a slight difference. But for practical purposes, you would never benefit from anything it might grant.
The USBC would better serve the game by regulating oil patterns more strongly and by making people more aware what oil patterns are and how they effect the game.
Post by: T-GOD on April 16, 2007, 03:13:05 PM
quote:Can't you tell by the answers I give in all these forums, that I'm a bowler, with SOME experience..? Does it matter if I work in a pro shop..? Maybe I drill my own equipment and did a lot of experimenting to get my knowledge.
I am curious, since you refuse to give any background info on yourself, do you actually work in a pro shop or do you merely spew your BS on here and act as being a silver level coach actually means something? I am just curious how many living, breathing bowlers you have worked with, fit real bowlers hands and/or laid out bowling balls (that react correctly) for?
It's too bad you think my well thought out comments, giving quality advice in all areas in this forum, is "BS being spewed on here." Steven, as well as others, respect my knowledge and my efforts to help bowlers in here, whether he knows who I am or not, because they can read and understand what they read. What I say makes sense to them, because I don't just spew bs, like others do on here.
Seeing as though you see me as "BS SPEWER" on here, it shows me you're threatened by me and my knowledge. You have to stoop to calling me ridicuous names to try to make yourself look better/smarter.
You just want everyone to believe you or Brunswick, because they have a NAME behind them. Even if you're wrong, you must be right because Brunswick says it's so..!! I'm sorry, but I don't operate like that.
Should we just throw out everything physics teaches us, because it doesn't apply to Reactive Resin and Asymmetrical cores..?
By the way Ric, I've helped many bowlers as well as drilling balls for many top pros. I've also been on here much longer than you have, since back in the E-Teams days, not that it matters. =:^D
Post by: MegaMav on April 16, 2007, 03:18:14 PM
quote:
What I say makes sense to them, because I don't just spew bs, like others do on here.
So far you've done nothing to show emperical evidence to back up your claim, besides your :eyes:, which are often only shown what only the brain wants them to see.
BTW, didn't clut leader David Koresh say something similar to the above quote?
Post by: Steven on April 16, 2007, 03:30:37 PM
quote:
So far you've done nothing to show emperical evidence to back up your claim, besides your :eyes:, which are often only shown what only the brain wants them to see.
As opposed to Brunswick, that puts out a flawed video with key segments that even Ric and Nick can't explain.
Talk about about a response from the sheep..........
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: MegaMav on April 16, 2007, 03:48:52 PM
quote:
Talk about about a response from the sheep..........
Has he? or, has he not shown any empirical evidence to back up his claim?
Edited on 4/16/2007 3:50 PM
Post by: MegaMav on April 16, 2007, 04:00:04 PM
quote:
You dodge as well mega...
This topic has reached 7 pages, and I have yet to see any constructive posts from you.
Nothing new here still the same ole' L1B, armchair and cattle prod.
Post by: a_ak57 on April 16, 2007, 04:07:36 PM
Even if seegeemaddah, THSmaddahmore. I know, you'll say "Well what about sport conditions you dope?" to which I'd reply, "If you're good enough to be competitive on sport, you should be able to change your release to give you that extra length or whatever. And even if you can't change it to get the same effect as a different layout, the lane conditions will probably change within 4/5 frames anyways. Pros can go quite a few games during qualifying using the same ball. They switch to balls with different layouts on Sundays because those 4 frames DO matter. But, I remind you, there is only Jeff and a few others on here who don't post, that ever have to worry about that. The rest of us bowling our wall leagues and occasional tourneys shouldn't be splitting hairs about this, because we'll probably throw enough errant shots that the potential advantage becomes almost useless or our friend the THS will cover up our silly mistakes."
Fire away. I probably can't answer any rebuttals, since it's kind of obvious I don't really use any inherent logic to make my statements.
--------------------
- Andy
Post by: Rileybowler on April 16, 2007, 07:23:38 PM
--------------------
Carl
Post by: Steven on April 16, 2007, 08:14:18 PM
quote:
Has he? or, has he not shown any empirical evidence to back up his claim?
Mav: To the best of my knowledge, no he hasn't. At least not for ballreviews consumption.
I'm in his camp on this because I've done my own experimenting with a few ball over the years. The test that comes to mind was on Ebonite Stingers (picked them up cheap on closeout). Both had 3" pins and 3oz starting top weight. For drilling, both balls had the pin placed directly below the ring finger. To test differences, one ball was drilled with the CG in the center grip, and the second with the CG stacked almost directly below. The CG swing was hair above 1", the max I could go without requiring an X-Hole.
What I found was that total hook was about the same, but the respective hook shapes were slightly different. The ball that was more 'CG out' had a little more length and backend. The CG in the center grip line was more archy with slightly less backend.
The reactions weren't drastically different, but visibly different all the same. I asked a few of my practice partners to give me their honest opinion of relative movement, and I was told I was not seeing things.
Now, I don't expect anyone to believe this because they weren't there, and bowlers here are going to believe what they want to believe.
Anyway, if Brunswick can't produce a conclusive video with a Throwbot (without flaws) in the most controlled environment that can possibly be constructed, there will never be a test (other than one you construct for yourself) that will put the issue to rest.
Good luck to Nick. It will be interesting to watch his effort.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: MegaMav on April 16, 2007, 08:26:04 PM
quote:
Mav: To the best of my knowledge, no he hasn't. At least not for ballreviews consumption.
I'm in his camp on this because I've done my own experimenting with a few ball over the years. The test that comes to mind was on Ebonite Stingers (picked them up cheap on closeout). Both had 3" pins and 3oz starting top weight. For drilling, both balls had the pin placed directly below the ring finger. To test differences, one ball was drilled with the CG in the center grip, and the second with the CG stacked almost directly below. The CG swing was hair above 1", the max I could go without requiring an X-Hole.
What I found was that total hook was about the same, but the respective hook shapes were slightly different. The ball that was more 'CG out' had a little more length and backend. The CG in the center grip line was more archy with slightly less backend.
The reactions weren't drastically different, but visibly different all the same. I asked a few of my practice partners to give me their honest opinion of relative movement, and I was told I was not seeing things.
Now, I don't expect anyone to believe this because they weren't there, and bowlers here are going to believe what they want to believe.
Anyway, if Brunswick can't produce a conclusive video with a Throwbot (without flaws) in the most controlled environment that can possibly be constructed, there will never be a test (other than one you construct for yourself) that will put the issue to rest.
Good luck to Nick. It will be interesting to watch his effort.
After reading your post I think there is one more variable here that no one considered, and that is constant depth of drilled holes, they can also have an effect on reaction. Steven states closeness to "legality" for static weight rules, ball drillers arent perfect, if one ball has finger holes drilled deeper to take out finger weight, this has a similar effect to a "flare reducing x-hole", which in effect can make the ball tamer, likewise for thumb holes drilled deeper causing flare to increase. So many variables that need to be controlled, its very hard to manage them all.
Post by: BrunsNick on April 16, 2007, 08:38:01 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: MegaMav on April 16, 2007, 08:39:51 PM
quote:
Why do you guys argue about this stuff? Its not that important of information. BrunsNick has a really good handle on all these concepts, but it doesnt make him bowl any better, I mean he is 62nd in the west region points standings. Most of the users here focus on the wrong things, When Nick posts stuff like this alot of you guys think it is vital information, which it is not.
http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/dysfunction.jpg
Post by: MegaMav on April 16, 2007, 08:41:53 PM
quote:
From: thewatcher
Received: 4/16/2007 8:38:11 PM
Subject: tool
Message: you are such a tool, get a life. Instead of trying to comprehend things that are over your head, why dont you go practice, my girlfriend has more revs and ballspeed than you do,lol,lol,lol.
Nick, make that two 8x10's
Post by: Strider on April 16, 2007, 08:55:02 PM
quote:
After reading your post I think there is one more variable here that no one considered, and that is constant depth of drilled holes, they can also have an effect on reaction. Steven states closeness to "legality" for static weight rules, ball drillers arent perfect, if one ball has finger holes drilled deeper to take out finger weight, this has a similar effect to a "flare reducing x-hole", which in effect can make the ball tamer, likewise for thumb holes drilled deeper causing flare to increase. So many variables that need to be controlled, its very hard to manage them all.
While it's possible, I think you're grasping at straws. Unless you have a need to drill the holes extra deep, no one does. I've seen lines on the drill presses so the holes go to a standard depth. Sure, if they need to to avoid using a weight hole, or reduce the size, they might do it. Steven has posted on here for many years. If he says the two balls were treated the same, I believe him.
--------------------
Penn State Proud
Special thanks to Dynothane, Visionary, and Lane#1 for donations to the Ballreviews Get Together.
Ron Clifton's Bowling Tip Archive (http://"http://www.bowl4fun.com/ron/roncarchive.htm")
Post by: MegaMav on April 16, 2007, 09:07:10 PM
quote:
Mega, please dont put yourself in the same category as Nick. Nick is a good bowler, you are not.
Just feeding... nothing to see here...
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e200/sm0key_27/Haterade.gif
Post by: huskerfan711 on April 18, 2007, 12:11:42 PM
Post by: BrunsNick on April 18, 2007, 12:16:24 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: 302efi on April 18, 2007, 12:20:39 PM
quote:quote:
Mega, please dont put yourself in the same category as Nick. Nick is a good bowler, you are not.
Just feeding... nothing to see here...
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e200/sm0key_27/Haterade.gif
Ahhhh...Refreshing !
--------------------
Roto-Grip
When faced with a difficult situation, Jesus asks himself, "What would Chuck Norris do?"
Robo-Arm bowlers SUCK...