Author Topic: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better? (Read 11312 times)

Bjaardker · « **on:** May 04, 2003, 10:32:15 PM »

Since we've been discussing the high tech of bowling a lot lately I was lead to ponder this question.

How is it that the new bowling balls carry better?

I've always been lead to believe that the less energy the ball expends getting down the lane, the more potential energy it will have to hit the pins with, thus making for more pin smashing power & in theory more carry.

If this is true, then a highly shined plastic ball with a perfectly symmetrical & spherical core should have the most energy when it gets to the pins & therefore the best carry.

It's then my assumption that it is a misnomer when people say the new technology in bowling balls gives more carry. I would think that in actuality the new technology in bowling balls leads an increase in the margin of error at the EXPENSE of actual carrying energy. Meaning, new technology will allow a person to enter into the pocket at a higher entry angle, however in order to get that entry angle some energy was spent along the way.

So maybe the next plateau to greatness in bowling would be to achieve perfection in throwing a rocket to the pocket from the 1 board (or whatever board you would need to throw from to get the "perfect" angle as outlined in the ABC magazine a few months ago)

Maybe I'm just missing something, any ideas?

Magic Carpet · « **Reply #16 on:** May 05, 2003, 06:37:08 PM »

I can't see that the balls make much difference at all. It's today's oil and how we apply it to the lane that has run scores up. Here is my proof.
In 1975 we were using plastic (Yellow Dot)balls on oil that was about as slick as water and went away as fast as water would. A good bowler had a 180 average (200 today) A really good bowler averaged 200 (220 or more today) High average on tour was Mark Roth (same yellow dot) at 220.
Now lets jump to today.
Oil the lanes flat (sport shot)just like they did in 1975 and todays league bowlers with the new high tech balls will average 180 again. The better bowlers that were 220 will average 200 or less on the sport shot. Now the modern bowler still has an advantage with the new oil even if it is flat. Because the oil is so slick and stays so long. So the modern bowler gets to throw his plastic ball at spares. Even on what we call a "dry" condition today, a plastic ball will sid most of the way down the lane and make it MUCH easier to pick up that 10 pin.
We did not have that in 1975. I did not know how to throw a ball straight like I can now. So making a 10 pin for me was a 50/50 shot. To make it closer let's make the modern bowler use his high tech strike ball on all his spares. The averages will drop even more.
How about the pro tour now you ask. Well even with the new balls and super slick oil the high averages are only like 227. Thats not much of a difference and again they are using plastic on their spares.
So it looks like to me that a bowlers on flat oil still bowl about the same scores.
I know people think that the new balls carry better but I doubt that. I know on a league shot they can hit lite and still carry but again thats the oil pattern helping you out. Flatten the pattern you will see carry go out the door. Yes you may carry a lite hit...but that shot where you saw the 4 pin fall a little slow...will be through the nose for a big 4 on a flat pattern.
Plus a lot of those lite hits will not even hit the head pin and wash out on a flat pattern.
Ron Clifton

Bujo · « **Reply #17 on:** May 05, 2003, 06:48:01 PM »

Ron, you make a strong point. Heres an example to back you up. What if you tried to use a yellow dot on todays conditions? Or a modern ball on a 70's condition?

Yellow dot: Skid, simply put. You could two finger for 500 rpm, but it still wont be worth it. Perhaps when a line dries up you can use that somehow.

Modern (EX. Wicked): 10 shots of decent angle and hit, then the oil is GONE. One roll out after another (unless you have monster speed).

Essentialy same results with each only in reverse. You cant compare the two! Reason? The oil has evolved with the ball. Modern balls match modern patterns and oil just as well as the poly's matched thier's. Nuf said
--------------------
"Isn't Bowling supposed to be scored like Golf?"

Bjaardker · « **Reply #18 on:** May 05, 2003, 09:28:19 PM »

quote:
from a physics standpoint, Bob has hit this nail squarely on the head. Newer balls with offset and assymetrical cores and center of gravity points further from the epicenter of the ball are better at conserving the energy that you put into the ball. No ball "uses up" energy, but they all lose some amount due to the friction of the lane. Those plastic balls have a lot less core torque than the modern ones, and as a result they seem to hit "softer" than modern ones.

Rod, Those offset & assymetrical cores dont conserve energy, they do the exact opposite, they expend energy. However in return for epending that energy we get more hook & the ball flares.

Bjaardker · « **Reply #19 on:** May 05, 2003, 09:41:49 PM »

quote:
Bjaardker, I'm not a Physics professor nor do I play one on TV but a simple experiment would be to bowl a season with an original LT-48 and a Yellow Dot. If your average increases then we've all been spending way too much money on bowling balls.

Or you can study this: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/energy/u5l1d.html

Thanks for the physics lesson, but I've got a pretty good grasp on kinetic & potential energy. Since it's been stated that the only way one can reach the optimum entry angle is by hooking the ball it's obvious the straight ball I was proposing wouldn't work.

Magic Carpet pretty much wrapped up what I was trying to get at. I dont think that the balls today have any better carry than an older poly ball, I really think that is a misnomer.

HamPster · « **Reply #20 on:** May 05, 2003, 09:46:50 PM »

Reactives should hit harder because of the reaction off the dry boards of the backend. The ball accelerates off the backend, diagrammed best by a pearl ball, and shoots the ball towards the pins harder. On the other side, I'll carry every mixer with a plastic ball that I will with a reactive ball if they're both the same weight. Plastic balls don't seem to have the charge sometimes to set up in the pocket. 10's are more prevalent with plastic, but if a ball is thrown straight, both plastic and reactive will hit the same. Hit doesn't necessarily equal carry. I will guarantee you, however, that plastic will carry more 8's and 9's though, because it doesn't drive so hard through the pocket, everything deflects like it's supposed to most of the time, unless you have backends that are like sticky insect pads. I think that people have a harder time getting to the pocket with plastic though, and that the dynamics of reactives make them hit the pins with more energy. Plastic balls don't produce energy to begin with, the cores of the reactives create energy by the rotation. Plastic doesn't have anything to get it going.
--------------------
This post is A+ Hamster certified!

Kung Fu Hamster X, Jujitsu Guinea Pig, or Legend of Drunken Ferret? New names still being pondered . . .

Bjaardker · « **Reply #21 on:** May 05, 2003, 10:57:45 PM »

quote:
I think that people have a harder time getting to the pocket with plastic though, and that the dynamics of reactives make them hit the pins with more energy. Plastic balls don't produce energy to begin with, the cores of the reactives create energy by the rotation. Plastic doesn't have anything to get it going.

Hammy,

Read the link that Urethane Game posted, it's a good link on physics 101 & will explain kinetic & potential energy.

Physics would say that reactive balls hit the pins with LESS energy than a plastic ball due to the reactive ball using some of it's potential energy when it hooks.

Also, Neither plastic nor reactive balls produce energy, your arm transfers the same amount of potential energy to the ball whether its plastic or reactive, it how the ball converts that potential into kinetic that makes the difference.

Like Magic Carpet & Bob Hanson have said, today's balls dont actually hit any harder than balls from the past do. The only difference is entry angle & how much of a roll the ball is in Vs. skidding through the pins.

HamPster · « **Reply #22 on:** May 05, 2003, 11:36:55 PM »

Good point. The tricks our eyes play on us. Entry angle would be the most important thing then, yes? I can say, however, that each ball has a shot that it works great on. If I have a drier shot, my plastic ball will do everything just as well as say my Scream/R would do on a medium shot. But on an oily shot, one will not "hit" better than the other.
--------------------
This post is A+ Hamster certified!

Kung Fu Hamster X, Jujitsu Guinea Pig, or Legend of Drunken Ferret? New names still being pondered . . .

Bjaardker · « **Reply #23 on:** May 06, 2003, 06:47:43 AM »

quote:
Once the ball does this, it has accumulated all the potential energy of the roll and threw gravity and the laws of potential energy, applied it to the new direction after the break point.

No matter what the core or ball, you can only LOSE potential energy once that ball leaves your hand.

quote:
This means, there is actually very little time between the point where the ball begins its trip to the pocket (after the breakpoint) until it hits the pocket, which means it has had ALOT less time to lose energy, whereas the plastic ball would have lost alot, meaning MORE energy at the pocket.

NO WAY. There's 2 little things called inertia & friction here. First, an object in motion tends to stay in motion. That means it takes a LOT of energy to change the direction of the path of a 15 LB mass. Second, it's already been stated that resins are tackier than plastic. That increased friction is also using up energy once it hits the dry.

quote:
And second,
The entry angle needed to strike as reported in the ABC magazine, just isnt possible playing a straight line, even from the one board. You would have to stand a couple lanes over and loft it about 35 feet.

That being said I realized that and admitted the reason resins work so well is simply because of the hook & angle, not because of some magic energy saver. A resin ball is hitting with less energy, plain & simple. it's just the angle.

da Shiv · « **Reply #24 on:** May 06, 2003, 07:02:00 AM »

This seems like a good place to introduce another element to this discussion. I have only during this past year or so heard of another measurable characteristic of bowling balls about which I have yet to get a good explanation. It's called Coefficient of Restitution. It's regulated by the ABC, but I don't really know what it means. I'm about to make a guess, based on the words involved. It sounds like it has something to do with how fast the surface of the ball returns to normal shape after being compressed slightly when striking the pins. If this is correct, this should have some effect on how the pins react upon being struck by the ball--fly faster, slower, higher, lower, etc. Does Coefficient of Restitution have something to do with why pins struck by resin balls seems to stay lower to the pindeck than pins struck by other kinds of balls, or is that simply because resin balls are softer--or some combination of both?

If Coefficient of Restitution is what I described above, it introduces another energy element into the picture. Besides ball speed and angle, does how quickly the ball surface returns to normal shape after compression affect carry? It seems to me it would.

Does anyone know for sure what Coefficient of Restitution is?

Shiv

da Shiv · « **Reply #25 on:** May 06, 2003, 08:07:37 AM »

Uh, oh...I think I killed this thread.

Shiv

Bjaardker · « **Reply #26 on:** May 06, 2003, 08:18:23 AM »

quote:
Uh, oh...I think I killed this thread.

Shiv

Nah, I just dont know enough about that component to really be able to add. I Though about it, & thought that the actual contact time would be so minute that we would really be splitting hairs to add in this element.

Aristotle · « **Reply #27 on:** May 06, 2003, 08:22:52 AM »

quote:
To make it closer let's make the modern bowler use his high tech strike ball on all his spares. The averages will drop even more.

Carpet: I dunno about everyone else, and maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I've gone and taught myself how to use whatever ball i'm currently throwing at ALL of my spares, and I think that I have done that for at least the last 10 years.. And yes, this does include 10-pins, and at a pretty darn good percentage.

Author Topic: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better? (Read 11312 times)

Bjaardker

Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Magic Carpet

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Bujo

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Bjaardker

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Bjaardker

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

HamPster

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Bjaardker

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

HamPster

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Bjaardker

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

da Shiv

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

da Shiv

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Bjaardker

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?

Aristotle

Re: Do the new high tech bowling balls really carry better?