win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Interesting.  (Read 2025 times)

trash heap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2648
Interesting.
« on: May 29, 2008, 04:59:19 AM »
http://www.bowlingball.com/wordpress/2008/05/24/rough-bowling-balls-lend-unfair-edge/


quote:
Rough Bowling Balls Lend Unfair Edge
Golf has oversized drivers. Baseball has corked bats. Bowling has rough balls.

The United States Bowling Congress recently released the results of a two-year study on the science of bowling balls that found that the roughness of a bowling ball, not the shape of its core or the oil on its lane, is more likely to result in strikes and higher scores.

The study was originally undertaken to restore what many feel is a lost balance between engineering know-how and player skill that saw a steady rise in the number of perfect 300 games and the overall rise in players’ scores.

“Over the past 20 years, the technological advancements in bowling…[have] jeopardized the credibility of the sport of bowling,” reads the introduction to the 16 page-long USBC report.

The battle over bowling balls began in June 2005, when the USBC issued new specifications to limit the technology in bowling balls. Bowling ball manufacturers objected to the new regulations.

“They felt the new specifications were kind of made up, that there wasn’t a lot of hard scientific data behind them,” said Paul Ridenour, a researcher at the USBC.

To combat those concerns, the USBC formed the Bowling Ball Specifications Task Force. Staffed with representatives from each ball manufacturer and the USBC, the BBSTF’s goal was to study the science behind bowling and create new science-based ball standards, instead of the original arbitrary standards initially proposed.

Over the next two years the BBSTF tested more than 75 bowling balls at the USBC’s testing facility in Greendale, Wisc.

A robotic bowling ball thrower, nicknamed Harry, threw each ball past 23 cameras linked to a computer. The scientists studied 18 different bowling ball characteristics, from the amount of oil the outer ball coating absorbs to the shape of the inner core, searching for their effect on a ball’s speed, spin and direction.

The variable that most affected bowling ball performance, the USBC discovered, was bowling ball surface roughness.

A bowling ball might look and feel smooth, but under a microscope tiny ridges and valleys appear. These are the result of chemicals and resins used to manufacture the balls.

Those ridges and valleys determine how much grip the ball has on the lane. The more grip a ball has, the easier it is for it to curve, resulting in more strikes and higher scores.

Based on data from the study, the USBC made several new ball regulations, the most important of which caps ball roughness at 50 micro inches (1 micro inch is one millionth of an inch), slightly above the average of the balls tested.

The new specifications are ‘”our way of controlling the technology in bowling,” said Ridenour.

The new regulations won’t go in effect until April 2009, but ball manufacturers are already adjusting.

“This definitely has an effect on what could do,” said Steve Kloempken of Storm Bowling Balls.

While Kloempken wouldn’t discuss any specific changes Storm was making to their bowling balls, he reiterated Storm’s support for the new specifications.

“We want player scores to reflect their physical ability and not let the technology outweigh the skill of the bowler,” said Klompken.

Eric Bland, Discovery News




I wonder if there are any current bowling balls that above the 2009 regulation?
Logged
Talkin' Trash!

 

9andaWiggle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13414
Re: Interesting.
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2008, 01:20:33 PM »
Seems moot to me.  So the manufacturer makes the ball to the new specifications, who's going to check your equipment after an honor score to make sure you didn't rough the surface up yourself?  We (bowlers) have been doing surface modifications already for years.  Or am I missing something in the technology end of it regarding the materials used (quite possible)?

--------------------
9~

It's a Sheep thing... You wouldn't understand!
Logged
Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep...

I wonder where they went? ;)

Dan Belcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3954
Re: Interesting.
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2008, 01:46:40 PM »
quote:
Or am I missing something in the technology end of it regarding the materials used (quite possible)?
yeah, I think this goes beyond just the level of how rough sanded you can go.  This is more on the microscopic level and more directly related to coefficient of friction, etc. I assume.  I won't pretend to understand the details, however.
Logged

trash heap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2648
Re: Interesting.
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2008, 01:47:01 PM »
quote:
“We want player scores to reflect their physical ability and not let the technology outweigh the skill of the bowler,” said Klompken.


This is statement that I find most interesting.

Its the ball manufactures fault for all this in the first place. As soon as the USBC or PBA put specifications in place they find a loop hole and everything starts all over again. They are always going to be one step ahead.
Logged
Talkin' Trash!

Madiballz23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
Re: Interesting.
« Reply #4 on: May 29, 2008, 02:42:57 PM »
If I'm not mistaken (and I did read that exact study) all of those balls that they did the roughness test on were sanded down to 500 grit. I'm thinking not too big a percentage of people bowling are going to regularly use a ball that is sanded below that. Not to mention the fact that the measurement is taken off the materials put into the coverstock and the "valleys and ridges" they create naturally and not the  added or decreased roughness created by sanding and/or polishing.

If you notice, 50 was just above the average roughness, which probably allows for people who make surface adjustments and will further rough up the ball. There was one ball in the study that was leaps and bounds above the others in the roughness category. I just wish I knew what it was (all the balls are labeled with some sort of code)
--------------------
First one to leave 15 ten pins wins!
Logged

JessN16

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
Re: Interesting.
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2008, 12:44:57 AM »
What's important here (unless I'm misreading the report) is that the standard will  be set for all balls based on how they test when sanded to 500 grit. In other words, just like when NHTSA crash-tests cars, everyone is going to have to submit test mules, one of them prepped to 500 (even if it's something like a Tropical Storm). If it fails the 500-grit test, it's out.

That doesn't mean companies won't be able to sell balls at 500 or people won't be able to sand balls down to 500 or even below. What it means is that if the ball isn't performing within a certain range of spec at 500 -- even if it is sold to the public at 2000 Abralon plus polish -- it won't be approved.

Now, which balls will fail that test? One of the ones submitted for the ball motion report failed it badly, and without knowing, I would *assume* it's more likely that high-load solid particles are going to have a tough time getting through the new standards. So stuff like the BVP Mammoth may be a thing of the past, but that's just a guess.

Jess
Logged

dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7610
Re: Interesting.
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2008, 03:04:55 AM »
I find the formulation a bit misleading, but it shows the source of today's hooking potential and traction ability of modern balls/coverstocks. Even though the surface prep might tune a good deal of the ball's reaction shape and utility, the texture of the coverstock material itself, its "porosity" and probably the shape of the surface structure create this traction ability.

Additives to the resin during the production pouring process cause this porosity - there had been a great post about this topic some weeks ago. It also "explains" why modern versions of old basic coverstocks like PK18 can have a much different or even higher traction potential than previous generations - simply add different stuff, create a different basic surface structure, and there you go.

I welcome the idea of putting a rule on maximum surface structure, since this factor seems to be very influential at the moment - it even looks as if reactive resins have become so "grippy" through texture tweeking that particle balls become moer and more obsolete?

Nevertheless, I am on the other side sceptical about quality/legal control. You can weigh a ball for statics, but how - beyond production quality control - is surface texture to be controlled, and how could it be guaranteed that there are no "special competition pieces" with some extra grip, e. g. for staffers or sponsored players, to make them look a bit "better" than the rest?

From a different angle, this is surely the source of the ball durability problems we face since 2 or 3 years - the porous coverstocks have a great performnace and traction ability, but at a price of maintenance and I would not wonder if it was also on the cost of overall durability. Higher traction must IMO mean greater pores or a more open surface, so its structural integrity could suffer more easily than conservative materials.

Tough times. Even though I feel the "problem" has been pinpointed, it will be a long way to work out a solution - and the public won't even understand what we are talking about, because the mechanics are so sophisticated! Again, not good for the sport of bowling.
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section
Secrets revealed: What's a fugu?


Edited on 5/30/2008 3:11 AM
Logged
DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany

Martin710

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
Re: Interesting.
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2008, 08:21:39 AM »
quote:
Seems moot to me.  So the manufacturer makes the ball to the new specifications, who's going to check your equipment after an honor score to make sure you didn't rough the surface up yourself?  We (bowlers) have been doing surface modifications already for years.  Or am I missing something in the technology end of it regarding the materials used (quite possible)?




I agree with you. I know some high average bowlers who scuff their balls. I'm sure their performance would not be as good if they did not. The reason I say that is that I know one guy in particular who everytime he buys a new ball, even one of the most agressive ones on the market, he complains that the ball does not hook enough. However, after a while you see the same guy throwing the same ball with a monstrous hook. If you ask him how come, his answer is "I just got used to the ball, this ball needs getting used to it" As I got to know the guy better, he confided to me that he scuffs the balls with sand paper. Of course, he does not publicize that because he's not sure if it's legal. I wonder how this can be controlled.
Bowling is not like golf. There is nothing you can do to a golf ball to increase its distance off the tee.

Edited on 5/30/2008 8:34 AM
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »