Author Topic: Phase II motion study (Read 5282 times)

Moon57 · « **on:** December 05, 2008, 09:33:40 PM »

Has anybody looked over the Phase II Motion Study on bowl.com? Some interesting results about what affects a balls motion the most. Maybe static weights do matter a little.
--------------------
Moon
--------------------
So many questions, so little time but I''m having fun.

Maine Man · « **Reply #1 on:** December 06, 2008, 05:54:15 AM »

Yeah.....a VERY little. I read through the whole thing, and there are 9 factors that have significantly greater effect on ball motion before you even get to talking about static weights. Here is a direct quote from the article:

quote:
As shown, the top 5 factors affecting the ball path are related to coverstock. SR-Ra, On-Lane Friction, SR-RS and the ballâ€™s ability to absorb oil affect the ball path in a direct form. For example, the greater the surface roughness of a bowling ball or the greater on-lane friction that a ball has will yield higher values in intended path, sooner transitions in the phases of ball motion, and thus be considered to be more aggressive. The next few factors that affect the ball path are related to core properties such as RG and Total Differential. Finally, the lesser contributing factors to the ball path are diameter, static weights, intermediate differential (Mass Bias Strength), and the controlled environmental conditions.

Here is the link to the variable chart showing just how little static weights affect ball motion when compared to all the factors that come before it:

http://www.bowl.com/Downloads/pdf/Specs/08ballmotionstudy.pdf

If you want to argue that static weights have a greater affect on ball motion when compared to the humidity in the room, or the temperature of the lane surface, then I'm on board with you. Otherwise, for all intensive purposes, static weights are a VERY insignificant piece of bowling ball motion from everything I have read and seen with my own two eyes. Just my .02.

--------------------
James Goulding
Moores Pro Shop
Ball Driller / Consultant
USBC Blogger

purduepaul · « **Reply #2 on:** December 06, 2008, 06:48:08 AM »

acvar,

Actually before the phase II results came out, there was no scientific proof at all about what affected ball motion. The human factors were all held constant in order to show the affect of only the bowling ball. That's what the study was talking about that's why its called the Ball motion study instead of the human factors study. The purpose of the study was to work with ball manufacturers, which every single one participated in, to see what in the future needs regulation, and what in the future needs to be deregulated. We are currently working on static weight testing, and are introducing a surface roughness specification in April 2009 based on the study. Calling the only scientific study ever to weigh the factors of ball motion however is not correct. I should know, since I coauthored the study.

Paul Ridenour
Senior Research Engineer
USBC
--------------------
"Oops, Looks like we are going to need another timmy." -Dr Lizard, "Dinosaurs"

Kid Jete · « **Reply #3 on:** December 06, 2008, 06:58:32 AM »

quote:
The study was complete BS. How can you have a study of what most effects ball motion and not look at rev rate, ball speed, axis rotation, axis tilt, and volume of oil. If they looked at any of these factors however it would undermine the purpose of the study which was to justify more ball regulation. Its all a lie. Yes the things they studied do effect ball motion, but the most important thing was, is, and always will be human factors. Just another example of the USBC wasting your money. Really who did not already know what the concluded?

The study was done to see what are the greatest factors of a bowling balls CONTRUCTS that effect its motion. What in the heck does the human factors have with the study? Of course rev rate, speed, etc. effect the balls motion we already new that, the study was to find out what properties of the ball have the biggest influence on its motion. Thanks for trying, come again.

RevZiLLa · « **Reply #4 on:** December 06, 2008, 05:31:46 PM »

quote:
acvar,

Actually before the phase II results came out, there was no scientific proof at all about what affected ball motion. The human factors were all held constant in order to show the affect of only the bowling ball. That's what the study was talking about that's why its called the Ball motion study instead of the human factors study. The purpose of the study was to work with ball manufacturers, which every single one participated in, to see what in the future needs regulation, and what in the future needs to be deregulated. We are currently working on static weight testing, and are introducing a surface roughness specification in April 2009 based on the study. Calling the only scientific study ever to weigh the factors of ball motion however is not correct. I should know, since I coauthored the study.

Paul Ridenour
Senior Research Engineer
USBC
--------------------
"Oops, Looks like we are going to need another timmy." -Dr Lizard, "Dinosaurs"

Sounds scientific to me. I would like to know, however, whether this was tested on various oil patterns, because I suspect (unscientifically) that certain factors can make a ball's reaction to a transition from very wet to very dry (wall shot) more or less dramatic.

It is also interesting to note that a high RG and low Diff ball can hook much more aggressively on the backend on a drier/burned out oil pattern than it would on a wet pattern.

Perhaps different aspects of the ball have more or less effect under different conditions. Bowling is very very complex and the USBC motion studies are a great start. I'm sure there are plans to learn more.
--------------------
RevZ=======================

\I/

Edited on 12/6/2008 6:32 PM

Moon57 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 07, 2008, 07:21:12 AM »

I was very surprised to see that side weight had more of an effect on ball motion than the strength of the mas bias. Also that the diameter of the ball had an effect at all. The only question is smaller better or worse? It doesn't say in the study unless I missed it.
--------------------
Moon
--------------------
So many questions, so little time but I'm having fun.

JustRico · « **Reply #6 on:** December 07, 2008, 07:38:49 AM »

Quote

Calling the only scientific study ever to weigh the factors of ball motion however is not correct. I should know, since I coauthored the study.

Paul Ridenour
Senior Research Engineer
USBC
Quote

The only disagreement I have towards this is that Bill Wasserberger (RIP) and Ray Edwards of Brunswick's R & D division had done many of these studies years ago.
Not to debate whether these are relative factors, but I personally think that the USBC should be spending more monies on attracting more people back to bowling (or new bowlers) and increasing the ever shrinking membership, trying to get the numbers back to where they were in the 80's. The population is not shrinking, only the USBC membership. Not sure how this is doing anything other than justifying a position or division.
--------------------
Formerly BrunsRico

Moon57 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 07, 2008, 07:52:07 AM »

JustRico - Your right. Money spent attracting new bowlers would be more productive. When you stop and think about it what percentage of the bowling population even cares about the motion study? I think we get on this forum and think everybody gets as involved as we do, but that's not the case. As far as attracting new bowlers, I blame that on the alleys. If I had a bowling alley I would have a monitor set up someplace around by the desk that played an endless loop of bowling etiquette, proper delivery, advantages of joining a league, etc. Cost would be almost nothing. Also local tournaments don't get advertised. Some flyers on the desk is all there is.
--------------------
Moon
--------------------
So many questions, so little time but I'm having fun.

purduepaul · « **Reply #8 on:** December 07, 2008, 03:09:06 PM »

First Ric, Bill and Ray were/are part of the process of the ball motion study, in fact Bill before he passed away praised the study due to its point of view and its conclusions. Every ball manufacturer had a representative on the task force.

The lane condition we use is a low volume, flat pattern that is 53' in length. It was our believe by this pattern we could virtually eliminate the bowling ball being steered by the pattern, and that we wanted to test what happened in the oil not out of the oil.

Again with the players statistics, of course if one adds revolutions the overall ball motion is to be greater. Again common sense things, but as we as bowlers know everyone believes whatever they believe that green balls don't hook as much, I have to have the psa upside down for good ball reaction etc. The study answered a lot of those type of questions. We are educating bowlers about what affects the ball motion, not what can you do as a player to increase your ball motion, that would be the coaching department.

As to spending money in other places, trust me they are with the new USBC youth department and with the help of BPAA's youth department and resources they are working on building a lot of great programs. With that being said, as the department I work for, USBC's overall goal is to grow the sport of bowling, our job is to grow the sport by regulating the sport and educating bowlers on the sport by scientific studies. That's my job. I am just trying to further educate the bowlers who want to be educated.

Paul
--------------------
"Oops, Looks like we are going to need another timmy." -Dr Lizard, "Dinosaurs"

RevZiLLa · « **Reply #9 on:** December 07, 2008, 04:07:28 PM »

quote:

The lane condition we use is a low volume, flat pattern that is 53' in length. It was our believe by this pattern we could virtually eliminate the bowling ball being steered by the pattern, and that we wanted to test what happened in the oil not out of the oil.

Until the USBC requires oil patterns that do not steer the ball to the pocket, the results of your study are less than applicable in the real world. Even the professionals seldom bowl on a flat pattern. If you had put enough conditioner on the lane, you would have concluded that NOTHING has an effect on ball motion other than the trajectory at which the ball was launched.

This is not meant as a criticism, but more as an acknowledgment that the Ball Motion Study has whetted my appetite for more.

Do you plan to study what factors are most influential in a ball's reaction to a change in friction?
Will you try it on a THS?
Will you study what influences the shape of a ball's motion in a high friction (burned out ths) environment and where on the lane the ball releases the energy imparted to it based upon these variables?

The above questions pertain to the real world in which we currently bowl. I'm sure there are more and better questions to answer than those I have posed.

--------------------
RevZ=======================

\I/

Edited on 12/7/2008 5:18 PM

purduepaul · « **Reply #10 on:** December 07, 2008, 06:52:26 PM »

Revzilla-

The Ball Motion Study does apply to your general THS as well, however you do not always want the strongest ball motion on a THS since some of the people do not like the hook stop reaction. Sometimes on certain patterns, you want a ball with the weakest ball motion possible. But friction is one of our hottest research subjects in our area, and we are always looking to develop new research and technology in order better understand on lane friction. That is one of the things that I enjoy about reading the bowling boards is wondering what everyday bowlers enjoy learning about to better inform the masses.

--------------------
"Oops, Looks like we are going to need another timmy." -Dr Lizard, "Dinosaurs"

RevZiLLa · « **Reply #11 on:** December 07, 2008, 09:29:40 PM »

Paul,

Thank you for taking the time out of your Sunday to respond. Keep up the good work.
--------------------
RevZ=======================

\I/

Mark T. Trgovac · « **Reply #12 on:** December 08, 2008, 02:56:32 AM »

quote:
And the BS continues. If it was all about how the ball effects motion then why were things like lane, and atmospheric temperature tested? Well for controls of course, but why were these obviously low factors used as controls instead of something that is actually significant like rev rate? Because the goal was not to determine what effects ball motion (we already knew that), but to show that certain things "needed" regulation. This unfortunately is the state of modern "science". Its not about finding the truth, but about pushing an agenda through obfuscated experiments. Post all you want. Repeating lies does not make them true.

The reason the temperature was in the study is because even though a low volume amount of oil was used, if the center is cold the lower volume of oil will become thicker and be more dense and if it is hotter it gets thinner. This will result in how easy a ball can make its friction. So because Temperature can be a direct result of where your bowling and not a human only factor it needed to be tested.
--------------------
Mark "scoot" Trgovac
C-G Pro Shop
Official "Spokesman"
Youngstown, Ohio
Track HITMAN.

Tag Team Coaching Success Story.

Happily distributing the red pills of CGNOMADDA. "if you take this pill, YOUR MIND WILL BE OPEN TO A WORLD OF NEW IDEAS."

http://www.c-gproshop.com/

Edited on 12/8/2008 3:57 AM

jensm · « **Reply #13 on:** December 08, 2008, 03:07:50 AM »

I think the ball motion study was necessary in order to really know which properties of the bowling ball itself should be regulated - and how.

Before the ball motion study was conducted, the USBC sent up a test balloon in 2005 with a few ideas for new rules and specifications.

"1. Eliminate all balance holes in all balls manufactured or drilled after Jan. 1, 2006.
2. Require all balls drilled after Jan. 1, 2006 to have the center of gravity (CG) mark to be within one inch of the center of grip.
3. Require all balls to be manufactured with the USBC logo and year made as of Jan. 1, 2006."

1 and 2 was dropped due to feedback from the manufacturers and pro-shops. 3 went forward.

Starting in April 2009 a new set of specifications for the ball manufacturers will regulate the properties of new bowling balls which the ball motion study found most important.

Before the ball motion study my view of the sport was that the organizations guarding and developing the sport of bowling had left the playing field entirely open for the manufacturers. First time I got that feeling was in 1996 when I tried a reactive bowling ball for the first time. Now, after the ball motion study, it feels like we can start getting a better feeling for where the manufacturers will be going with the equipment.

My 2 bits.

--------------------
Regards,

jensm

purduepaul · « **Reply #14 on:** December 08, 2008, 06:52:45 AM »

Thank you jensm, you are right on the money.

Before, I started at USBC, they tried the three rules that came at bowlexpo in Orlando in 2005, they had such a negative following from the ball manufacturers. That we decided to work together to do the ball motion study. Every manufacturer agreed on the test conditions and experimental design. They knew that if something was important and it was not currently controlled that we would control it and we have with the specification in April of 2009 on surface roughness-Ra.

One of the ideas that I have said in numerous seminars on this topic I have given is that our department is dedicated to let the "Science dictate Specification." That's our goal, plain and simple. The science and data will dictate what direction we take in specifications.
--------------------
"Oops, Looks like we are going to need another timmy." -Dr Lizard, "Dinosaurs"

Author Topic: Phase II motion study (Read 5282 times)

Moon57

Phase II motion study

Maine Man

Re: Phase II motion study

purduepaul

Re: Phase II motion study

Kid Jete

Re: Phase II motion study

RevZiLLa

Re: Phase II motion study

Moon57

Re: Phase II motion study

JustRico

Re: Phase II motion study

Moon57

Re: Phase II motion study

purduepaul

Re: Phase II motion study

RevZiLLa

Re: Phase II motion study

purduepaul

Re: Phase II motion study

RevZiLLa

Re: Phase II motion study

Mark T. Trgovac

Re: Phase II motion study

jensm

Re: Phase II motion study

purduepaul

Re: Phase II motion study