Author Topic: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference (Read 12337 times)

Bowl_Freak · « **on:** July 06, 2018, 01:13:34 PM »

With having this rule in effect this coming season, is the new rule gonna give any particular style and advantage with the added side weight allowance? Will it make a noticeable difference in reaction and/or pin carry? Asking for a friend...

ignitebowling · « **Reply #31 on:** July 10, 2018, 11:08:07 AM »

Quote from: BowlingForDonuts on July 10, 2018, 09:35:03 AM

Thanks Ignite for the data. Hmm Scout with finger and side weight might be something to look at for kicks but as others said for real cores nothingburger.

>urethane balls with a differential less than 0.025

Oh look at this Tank Rampage just sitting on the rack (funny wasn't here yesterday before the tournament) that the no thumbers can turn either way. How convenient. Money can make people act like idiots but have to start somewhere I suppose.

What the numbers do not show. The 0" pin with 2.8 positive side weight had about a 1.5" flare ring around the ball. Imagine the urethane strip on a Quantum Helix. The 10.5" pin 3ozs negative side weight ball had more flare, and it was all covering the bowlers gripping holes.

Placing the pin/cg in the 3.5" to 4" range had the most hook on average of the 3 conditions without flaring over or rolling over any of the holes.

Just as an example since everyone believed that static weight mattered most in balls with no cores from years ago. Given almost 3ozs which was 2ozs over what was allowed in years past did not benefit the bowler or ball reaction.

BowlingForDonuts · « **Reply #32 on:** July 10, 2018, 11:30:04 AM »

Quote from: ignitebowling on July 10, 2018, 11:08:07 AM

Quote from: BowlingForDonuts on July 10, 2018, 09:35:03 AM
Thanks Ignite for the data. Hmm Scout with finger and side weight might be something to look at for kicks but as others said for real cores nothingburger.

>urethane balls with a differential less than 0.025

Oh look at this Tank Rampage just sitting on the rack (funny wasn't here yesterday before the tournament) that the no thumbers can turn either way. How convenient. Money can make people act like idiots but have to start somewhere I suppose.

What the numbers do not show. The 0" pin with 2.8 positive side weight had about a 1.5" flare ring around the ball. Imagine the urethane strip on a Quantum Helix. The 10.5" pin 3ozs negative side weight ball had more flare, and it was all covering the bowlers gripping holes.

Placing the pin/cg in the 3.5" to 4" range had the most hook on average of the 3 conditions without flaring over or rolling over any of the holes.

Just as an example since everyone believed that static weight mattered most in balls with no cores from years ago. Given almost 3ozs which was 2ozs over what was allowed in years past did not benefit the bowler or ball reaction.

Ok thanks for the clarification. Was just noticing the bigger hook difference between the two with a pancake but should have seen the negative side was greater duh. Oh look the governing body outlawed something that didn't matter (no more than 1 oz side weight) and it had unintended consequences (ie motion holes) down the line. Stop me if you have heard this one. All that said realizing its only $10 a ball to plug motion holes made it more an inconvenience than anything especially since modern plug material is way better than years past where cracking could be a concern. Few of my gems I doubt I will ever plug though as those are fun balls for most part anyway.

Impending Doom · « **Reply #33 on:** July 10, 2018, 11:51:00 AM »

The USBC is just throwing shit at the wall to see what will stick. *They* know side weight doesn't matter, but they can't just sit around and do nothing, so instead of doing something that matters, they attack static weights. Bravo, USBC. Way to outdate yourself by 30 years.

Bowler19525 · « **Reply #34 on:** July 10, 2018, 11:51:35 AM »

Quote from: BowlingForDonuts on July 10, 2018, 09:35:03 AM

Thanks Ignite for the data. Hmm Scout with finger and side weight might be something to look at for kicks but as others said for real cores nothingburger.

>urethane balls with a differential less than 0.025

Oh look at this Tank Rampage just sitting on the rack (funny wasn't here yesterday before the tournament) that the no thumbers can turn either way. How convenient. Money can make people act like idiots but have to start somewhere I suppose.

Per the USBC: "A ball left in a bowling center by a bowler to be used as a house ball is not considered a house ball."

The "I found it on the rack" argument will not work. Again, it all comes down to rule enforcement and people respecting the game and abiding by the rules.

ignitebowling · « **Reply #35 on:** July 10, 2018, 12:18:16 PM »

Quote from: DP3 on July 10, 2018, 10:50:30 AM

Quote from: ignitebowling on July 09, 2018, 09:03:53 PM
Here are the plastic ball comparisons with the Track 100P pancake weight block and the Track Spare Plus asymmetric core plastic ball.

With the 100P I am limited to only 3ozs top weight and shifting the cg/pin closer or further from the center grip line in order to get 2.8 ozs positive or negative side weight. This also moves the pin towards or away form the PAP when trying to get the static weights desired. The CG marks the low RG axis/pin for the pancake weight block.

With the Spare Plus I can change the cg location in relation to the MB and the pin along with the top weight. This allowed me to keep the exact same layout and shift the pin to create 3ozs positive and negative side weight.

Here are the total boards hook for each on the list lane conditions......

Track spare Plus

drilled 50 x 4 x 30

3ozs positive side

house 12.97
short 16.50
long 08.22

50 x 4 x 30

3ozs negative side

house 12.51
short 15.52
long 07.40

Track P100

2.8 positive side weight 0" pin to pap

house 06.97
short 11.96
long 06.30

2.8 negative side weight 10.5" pin to pap

house 09.80
short 15.65
long 08.84

Was there any noticable difference in the entry angle? I think the majority of bowlers would be under the impression that a plastic ball with a core is going to spin faster than a pancake counterpart and "hit harder". I don't subscribe to the "plastic w/ core = hit harder" theory as I believe entry angle is what creates carry, not the core.

I didn't pay attention to entry angle just total hook. Moving the ball into friction had the biggest effect on hook and entry angle changes. I can do a comparison between the Spare+ and the 100P using a 4" pin to PAP for both and screen shot the overall results that show all of the details.

I cannot tell a difference in carry between my Spare+ and a Tzone when using plastic for score during practice.

I'd assume the better carry potential is with the Spare+ because it has an 8lb core etc vs a pancake weight block. The dynamics of the balls when compared may allow one to deflect less if all other things are equal with the ball is going into the pins. Since the mass for the Spare plus is more central and the pancake cores are not??? Just a guess.

ignitebowling · « **Reply #36 on:** July 11, 2018, 12:14:30 PM »

Quote from: DP3 on July 10, 2018, 10:50:30 AM

Quote from: ignitebowling on July 09, 2018, 09:03:53 PM
Here are the plastic ball comparisons with the Track 100P pancake weight block and the Track Spare Plus asymmetric core plastic ball.

With the 100P I am limited to only 3ozs top weight and shifting the cg/pin closer or further from the center grip line in order to get 2.8 ozs positive or negative side weight. This also moves the pin towards or away form the PAP when trying to get the static weights desired. The CG marks the low RG axis/pin for the pancake weight block.

With the Spare Plus I can change the cg location in relation to the MB and the pin along with the top weight. This allowed me to keep the exact same layout and shift the pin to create 3ozs positive and negative side weight.

Here are the total boards hook for each on the list lane conditions......

Track spare Plus

drilled 50 x 4 x 30

3ozs positive side

house 12.97
short 16.50
long 08.22

50 x 4 x 30

3ozs negative side

house 12.51
short 15.52
long 07.40

Track P100

2.8 positive side weight 0" pin to pap

house 06.97
short 11.96
long 06.30

2.8 negative side weight 10.5" pin to pap

house 09.80
short 15.65
long 08.84

Was there any noticable difference in the entry angle? I think the majority of bowlers would be under the impression that a plastic ball with a core is going to spin faster than a pancake counterpart and "hit harder". I don't subscribe to the "plastic w/ core = hit harder" theory as I believe entry angle is what creates carry, not the core.

Screen shots of the specs when comparing Spare Plus vs 100P for entry angle etc. Both bowling balls drilled with a 30 degree Val and a 4" pin to pap

https://postimg.cc/gallery/2r8umkrx8/

DP3 · « **Reply #37 on:** July 11, 2018, 01:22:50 PM »

I admire your work ethic and attention to detail. I think the biggest takeaway from this is how much the high ratio house pattern negates technical specifications of the ball. I'm sure the margins get even closer on house when you start randomizing any two reactive balls.

USBC knows that preservation of "integrity" starts and ends with the pattern that is bowled on. They also know that if they mandate tougher conditions, that you'll see a large drop off from the majority of the base which are 160-180 avg bowlers. One they start shooting 100-110s on sport compliant patterns, they're just not going to bowl due to bruised ego or not having the physical acumen to get down the mechanics in order to repeat a shot, generate optimal rev rate/ball speed ratio, or simply don't want a challenge.

The ball rules are only in place to bring a close to their years of testing, hundreds of thousands of dollars in research, and thousands of paid man-hours. It's not the solution, but it makes them look like they've "come to a conclusion" and generate more $ for the ball companies & pro shops as bowlers replace equipment that's phasing out due to spec rules.

The ball companies and pro shops increasing revenue is the only silver lining in this.

ignitebowling · « **Reply #38 on:** July 11, 2018, 02:06:37 PM »

Tougher conditions won't hurt the 160 average bowlers ego as much, it's the 200 plus average bowler it will affect the most. I don't believe the conditions are the issue. Most league bowlers don't want harder conditions. Most are happy to bowl what they do on what most consider easier conditions. Not all house conditions are the same. Not all houses are the same. Too many want to put down "house" conditions by assuming they area ll the same.....easy.

Bowlers that want to bowl more competitively on tougher conditions are low in numbers. This is evident with anytime someone post a "scratch" league or tournament and typically get low turnout. Add the phrase "sport pattern" to any event and watch the bowlers disappear.

Bowling is different for everyone. The large number of bowlers today like the bowlers 40 years ago want to go bowl and have fun. It is social entertainment. There are very competitive leagues out there as well. They can choose to govern their league like any tournament with tougher or easier conditions. Why make bowlers that have no interest in that bowl on something they do not want to?

USBC can not make the conditions tougher or regulate them past where they are for leagues. They know the proprietors will say no, and in the end USBC cannot fight them. Bowling centers do not need USBC, USBC needs bowling centers.

BeerLeague · « **Reply #39 on:** July 24, 2018, 03:24:44 PM »

I'm still betting that the USBC will revert the weight hole issue. The no-thumbers have been flipping us the bird for years ..... why will they stop now or why would anyone call them on it when they haven't in the past?

Come 2020, I'll have weight holes because I'm not plugging my $200 equipment because someone else cheated. The no-thumbers with their "thumb" holes and the mother of all cheating ... flipping the ball around backwards .... that's precious.

I obeyed the rules when I needed a hole to keep legal static weight at 1oz. I didn't want to add weight holes but was forced too. In 2020, the USBC and anyone else who doesn't like my P2 static balance holes can kiss my @$$.

tkkshop · « **Reply #40 on:** July 24, 2018, 03:30:02 PM »

Quote from: BeerLeague on July 24, 2018, 03:24:44 PM

I'm still betting that the USBC will revert the weight hole issue. The no-thumbers have been flipping us the bird for years ..... why will they stop now or why would anyone call them on it when they haven't in the past?

Come 2020, I'll have weight holes because I'm not plugging my $200 equipment because someone else cheated. The no-thumbers with their "thumb" holes and the mother of all cheating ... flipping the ball around backwards .... that's precious.

I obeyed the rules when I needed a hole to keep legal static weight at 1oz. I didn't want to add weight holes but was forced too. In 2020, the USBC and anyone else who doesn't like it can kiss my @$$.

Any ball you drill after 8/1/2018 can be 3 oz side, finger, thumb legal, no hole needed. so you do not have to plug any balls that you drill up now going forward. BUT, if you are still using balls 2 years from now that are already drilled, they will not be worth $200. Those balls may be worth $30. So you can plug your hole in your $30 ball, or just buy a new one.

For the love of me, why are bowlers so cheap!

Good Times Good Times · « **Reply #41 on:** July 24, 2018, 03:40:58 PM »

Quote from: BeerLeague on July 24, 2018, 03:24:44 PM

In 2020, the USBC and anyone else who doesn't like my P2 static balance holes can kiss my @$$.

I don't know if it will be so much of them kissing your ass as opposed to simply disqualifying your scores.

BeerLeague · « **Reply #42 on:** July 25, 2018, 09:44:57 AM »

Quote from: Good Times Good Times on July 24, 2018, 03:40:58 PM

Quote from: BeerLeague on July 24, 2018, 03:24:44 PM
In 2020, the USBC and anyone else who doesn't like my P2 static balance holes can kiss my @$$.

I don't know if it will be so much of them kissing your ass as opposed to simply disqualifying your scores.

You're right .... I'm just very hot about this.

If I had a nickel for everytime I've seen a no-thumber bowl with illegal equipment, I'd be a rich man. From the "thumb" holes never used with a weight hole in the ball, to the flipping of the ball around backwards ----- I've never seen any of those scores ever get disqualified......EVER.

Good Times Good Times · « **Reply #43 on:** July 25, 2018, 09:59:31 AM »

Quote from: BeerLeague on July 25, 2018, 09:44:57 AM

Quote from: Good Times Good Times on July 24, 2018, 03:40:58 PM
Quote from: BeerLeague on July 24, 2018, 03:24:44 PM
In 2020, the USBC and anyone else who doesn't like my P2 static balance holes can kiss my @$$.

I don't know if it will be so much of them kissing your ass as opposed to simply disqualifying your scores.

You're right .... I'm just very hot about this.

If I had a nickel for everytime I've seen a no-thumber bowl with illegal equipment, I'd be a rich man. From the "thumb" holes never used with a weight hole in the ball, to the flipping of the ball around backwards ----- I've never seen any of those scores ever get disqualified......EVER.

Did you ever challenge them? If you clearly pointed to the rule and clearly showed the violation it seems to me those scores would have to be vacated. If the first point of contact rejected your calling out the violations you could have escalated it up the ladder.

I'm not trying to "get you" I'm just simply saying that.....because past rules violations occurred (I'll grant that they did) that doesn't justify your future plans to violate rules. They were wrong then and they will be wrong in the future. Admittedly, I'm sure it has happened in some of the leagues or tournaments I've participated in but, for one reason or another, I've never been that vociferous about it so I probably didn't notice it.

My personal integrity wouldn't allow me to willingly throw illegal equipment, but that's just me. I don't want a single pin or dollar I haven't earned legally.

If you notice someone breaking the rules call that shit out. They'll predictably get pissed but realize they have an issue with the rulebook as opposed to an issue with you.

djgook · « **Reply #44 on:** July 25, 2018, 01:37:05 PM »

A lot of two handers use their thumb.

lefty50 · « **Reply #45 on:** July 25, 2018, 02:39:17 PM »

Well said GT....

Author Topic: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference (Read 12337 times)

Bowl_Freak

Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

ignitebowling

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

BowlingForDonuts

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

Impending Doom

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

Bowler19525

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

ignitebowling

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

ignitebowling

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

DP3

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

ignitebowling

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

BeerLeague

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

tkkshop

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

Good Times Good Times

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

BeerLeague

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

Good Times Good Times

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

djgook

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference

lefty50

Re: Side/Top/Finger weight rule...much difference