BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: avabob on August 18, 2018, 08:23:50 PM
-
Starting ball was an eruption pro with a 2x2 layout and an axis hole to bring the ball back to 1 oz of positive side weight. On a 40 foot THS my shot would stand up quickly with poor continuation. Not surprising since I set this ball up for use on much shorter patterns.
After plugging the balance hole the ball had over 2.5 oz pos side weight. With this set up I still get an angular move , but with much better continuation whether I played close to the oil or fed it a couple of boards to the dry.
Conclusion, the extra static weight allowed under the new rules can have a more noticeable impact than many people believe. The impact of precession first discussed by Bill Taylor over 50 years ago is a factor,
-
Typically many weight holes will cause the ball to shorten the skid phase and have less total hook. How do you know the difference is created by the static weight vs the reduced diff and increased rg from plugging the hole?
-
I dont. Raising the rg possibly had some impact, but I think such a significant increase in side weight also had an impact. My axis rotation increased although I did not change my release. This is something that is explained better by precession, than rg change.
Not talking about a big impact, but clearly noticeable. Also, as a lower rev stroker I think I saw mire impact than a higher rev higher speed player would notice.
-
In general, a lower rev, lower speed stroker will see the biggest difference because the effect of side weight is much more noticeable the sooner the ball enters into the roll phase. Also, Bill Taylor was definitely right about the significant effect precession has on a ball's ability to hook. In short, more precession = more hook ( again, generally).
Bill Sempsrott did an excellent analysis on the effects of static weight in a recent issue of BTM. It is worth reading.
-
Forgive me, I absolutely do not want this to be construed as a thread hijack, but I am grinning ear to ear right now. For years and years I have said that static weight still mattered, and all I got was "1 oz in 16 lbs. You are crazy". (3 oz in 16 lbs is no different...) And I stood here proclaiming that people were missing the differences seen by lower rev, lower speed players like myself. And again I was called crazy. That was then, this is now, and people are beginning to realize. I'll bet some will even proclaim it was always understood. I very much look forward to hearing more in this thread, and am fascinated by precession. I just googled it, and it's a bit above me on first reading, but I'll re-read it later...
-
Precession is best explained by the action of a gyroscope. The spin keeps the gyroscope on a vertical plane. If weight is applied on the axis, the scope doesn't drop from the weight, but rather the axis rotates while remaining vertical. All dependent on the speed of the rotation and the amount of weight applied.
The nice thing about precession is that it promotes continuation on the back end for lower speed lower rev players in the modern high friction environment. While there is intuitively less impact on the modern core heavy balls, the increase from one to three oz while have an impact and lessen the pact of roll out .
Just one more note. The pattern and length of buff I was bowling on probably was more conducive to demonstrate the effect than some other patterns
-
Thanks Avabob!
-
Those are neat theories...until the ball flares.
Do you really think they would change the rule if 3 oz of side weight had more impact on reaction than a weight hole? They do tests with actual data to back it up, not what you think you see.
-
The change was more because of the weight hole / lack of than the static weight itself. You changed the core shape (RG and differential) when you plugged the weight hole... The static weight impact is negligible in comparison to the balance hole change.
-
You would be right if it was just about weight holes. This rule was aimed entirely at 2 handers and no thumbers, the perception being that they were able to manipulate the balance hole rules. The increase to 3 ozs was thrown in to minimize the adverse impact on the rest of us from eliminating balance holes. Nobody said that the increase in static weights willl have a large impact, but I believe the impact is noticeable. Some argue that the elimination of the balance hole changes the reaction by changing the rg and differential. I think it is more related to the addition of 2 oz of side weight to the original 1 oz. This was a narrow observation using a symmetrical ball.
The sad thing is that all this turmoil will have little if any impact on the target group. Scoring wont be impacted. 2 handers will not be impacted.
-
How big was the weight hole?
Diameter and depth ?
I’m no expert on the subject but was always lead to believe that drilling into the core such as the thumb hole; changes the initial core design and intent. Like taking a core shaped liked a round sphere, and drilling a hole into it would almost be equal to taking the same sphere and protruding a peg out of it equal in mass and density as the hole.
The Gas Mask Core would be an example, in which hammer removed the masks and took equal mass away in the Taboo core. Or Moâ€s LevRG core which he took mass away in the center to simulate 4 huge holes.
Perhaps filling the weight hole with ball plug of known density simply just changes the core shape.
Just a thought
Starting ball was an eruption pro with a 2x2 layout and an axis hole to bring the ball back to 1 oz of positive side weight. On a 40 foot THS my shot would stand up quickly with poor continuation. Not surprising since I set this ball up for use on much shorter patterns.
After plugging the balance hole the ball had over 2.5 oz pos side weight. With this set up I still get an angular move , but with much better continuation whether I played close to the oil or fed it a couple of boards to the dry.
Conclusion, the extra static weight allowed under the new rules can have a more noticeable impact than many people believe. The impact of precession first discussed by Bill Taylor over 50 years ago is a factor,
As many have said on here nothing new under the Sun. Visionary was making those Anti Mass Bias balls over a decade ago such that drilling the holes you drilled into the coverstock only and not the core. Pretty easy to see with my AMB Immortal Pearl with its .08 diff and who knows how strong of mass bias that it has a serious engine on the back end even with a relatively weaker (by today's standards) coverstock. So far on all the balls with motion holes I have plugged I haven't noticed much of a difference. Easy to lose in the noise of inconsistency though at least at my level.
-
Those are neat theories...until the ball flares.
Do you really think they would change the rule if 3 oz of side weight had more impact on reaction than a weight hole? They do tests with actual data to back it up, not what you think you see.
I'm not saying 3oz has more or less of an effect over balance holes.
They made the change because of tri-grips, and two handers complaining that they aren't allowed to use balance holes.
They changed the rule because of two handers being able to rotate a ball 180 and have 2 layouts in one.
It all directly impacts the 8 ball limit, too.
They changed the rule because of the Motiv debacle.
It was about streamlining rules, real world effects were very low on their priorities.
Just my opinion.
You can say they used data for their rule change, but think about it. How many teams go to nationals, and blow holes in patterns because of balance holes??? Nada. They use a lot of surface for that, period. A ball at 3000-4000 grit with a balance hole that flares 7 inches will impact the lane less than a ball with 360-500 grit that only flares 4-5 inches, no hole. Think about it.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9zahj7etws
-
All good points tomygn. High friction balls have been the problem for close to 20 years. We have marvelous technolgy for putting out challenging patterns, but guys can take a ball sanded down to charcoal, and blow up any pattern in no time.
-
This is the last thing possible from a proven test...first of all you’re basing it off your personal perception of what the ball did and not actual data...secondly nothing scientific is ever based on one single assessment...and lastly, for this to be a test, you’d need a ball with the pin in the same position, to effect flare and a cg in varying ‘static’ weights to compare
Btw static- lacking in movement, action, or change, especially in a way
-
Definition of static
1 : exerting force by reason of weight alone without motion
2 : of or relating to bodies at rest or forces in equilibrium
3 : showing little change - a static population
4 a : characterized by a lack of movement, animation, or progression
4 b : producing an effect of repose or quiescence - a static design
5 a : standing or fixed in one place : stationary
5 b of water : stored in a tank but not under pressure
6 : of, relating to, or producing stationary charges of electricity : electrostatic
7 : of, relating to, or caused by radio static
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/static
-
Totally agree Rico. Nothing totally scientific about my experiment. Remember, you are talking to a guy who believes release is a bigger factor in ball reaction than surface or core.
Just saying that while common sense tells me static weight has less impact on a modern core heavy ball, it still has some. Therefore 3 oz of side weight will have 3 times the impact of one oz, regardless of the amount 1 oz has
-
Even in a non-scientific, subjective test, the conclusion doesn’t make sense.
The correct conclusion should’ve been that plugging a weight hole can have a noticeable effect on ball motion. You didn’t test static weights, you tested plugging a weight hole. Still doesn’t make it a scientific test, but at least it draws the correct conclusion from the unscientific test.
As for the rule change, USBC had previously done studies that concluded that static weights have little impact on ball motion, so it seems unlikely they’d believe that using static weights would make up for taking away weight holes. I thought they made it pretty clear that they took them away because no thumbers abused them.
-
The correct conclusion should’ve been that plugging a weight hole can have a noticeable effect on ball motion.
It has actually surprised me how little plugging motion holes has changed ball reaction for me so far. Then again I tend to have mostly between 3 and 4" pin to pap drillings as well. Might be style dependent too.
-
Because you already reshaped the core to the point that the lower density plug isn't making any difference on the increased RG and increased differential that the crater/Motion hole creates.
-
With a pin in the 3-4" range most weight holes will have diminishing returns. More flare doesn't mean more hook. Everyone thinks a lower rg and higher diff created by weight holes will create more flare and more total hook. It typically won't.
-
With a pin in the 3-4" range most weight holes will have diminishing returns. More flare doesn't mean more hook. Everyone thinks a lower rg and higher diff created by weight holes will create more flare and more total hook. It typically won't.
Way I understand it motion holes were better for increasing int diff (with say a P4) and getting more angle but not more hook unless you have something crazy like a 1" pin to pap.
-
Because you already reshaped the core to the point that the lower density plug isn't making any difference on the increased RG and increased differential that the crater/Motion hole creates.
I was hoping that was the case but the following BTM article kind of disputes that. Even with a ball plugged and redrilled 5x in massively different spots the RG, int diff and diff were hardly affected.
https://www.bowlingthismonth.com/bowling-tips/the-effect-of-plugging-and-redrilling-on-bowling-ball-mass-properties/
-
Obviously the only variable I was able to measure was the static weight change from plugging the balance hole. I will leave it to someone else to say how much the plugging changed the rg and diff. My gut feel is not much, but to conclude that either change had minimal impact on the observed change in reaction is subject to debate. Remember I am not talking about a big change here.
-
Forgive me, I absolutely do not want this to be construed as a thread hijack, but I am grinning ear to ear right now. For years and years I have said that static weight still mattered, and all I got was "1 oz in 16 lbs. You are crazy". (3 oz in 16 lbs is no different...) And I stood here proclaiming that people were missing the differences seen by lower rev, lower speed players like myself. And again I was called crazy. That was then, this is now, and people are beginning to realize. I'll bet some will even proclaim it was always understood. I very much look forward to hearing more in this thread, and am fascinated by precession. I just googled it, and it's a bit above me on first reading, but I'll re-read it later...
I think the issue was that in today's game, for the average competitive bowler, static weights didn't matter. The core, cover, flare and rpms had more of an impact than the static weights could. But get a 70 year old bowler with 11 mph and very little revs and side rotation and you will see that 1 oz of weight will make a ton of difference. 3 oz is going to make even a bigger difference.
-
You would be right if it was just about weight holes. This rule was aimed entirely at 2 handers and no thumbers, the perception being that they were able to manipulate the balance hole rules. The increase to 3 ozs was thrown in to minimize the adverse impact on the rest of us from eliminating balance holes. Nobody said that the increase in static weights willl have a large impact, but I believe the impact is noticeable. Some argue that the elimination of the balance hole changes the reaction by changing the rg and differential. I think it is more related to the addition of 2 oz of side weight to the original 1 oz. This was a narrow observation using a symmetrical ball.
The sad thing is that all this turmoil will have little if any impact on the target group. Scoring wont be impacted. 2 handers will not be impacted.
Until someone does a throw bot test with an undrilled symetrical ball, with the weight in different positions (same pin to pap), we will not know if it is the static weight location causing the change in reaction or the weight hole changing the core dynamics.
-
36 weeks of this coming up is about to be such a jolly good time.
-
I dont think 90% of bowlers can make consistent enough releases to see a difference if there is one
-
The correct conclusion should’ve been that plugging a weight hole can have a noticeable effect on ball motion.
It has actually surprised me how little plugging motion holes has changed ball reaction for me so far. Then again I tend to have mostly between 3 and 4" pin to pap drillings as well. Might be style dependent too.
Sorry, I worded that poorly. I meant to say that as HIS conclusion based on his test - as in, in his case, plugging the weight hole made a noticeable difference. The only thing he changed intentionally between test 1 and test 2 is the hole being plugged - therefore, for him on that ball, plugging the weight hole made a difference.
I actually agree with you, plugging the hole rarely makes a big difference for me except for extreme situations when the hole was causing the ball to puke.
-
I also chsnged the static weight from 1 oz to 3 oz. Your assimption is that static weight makes no difference, therefore any observed difference must be attributable to plugging the balance hole. My assimption was that static weight as at least minimal impact, therefore a 3 fold increase will have more impact than a 1 oz hole
-
Again it has zero to do with a perceived weight than it does with position of core in regards to abt possible flare created...when a weight hole is used in almost every situation, it is to increase flare...increasing flare slows the ball down...you plug the weight hole you’ve in theory tightened the flares and creating more length with potential angularity...
It’s physics and static weights are not part of the equation
Come to whatever conclusion you wish...it’s physics not perception
-
The weight change may or may not be influential, but it is real and measurable, not "perceived "
-
It is measured on a scale in a static sense...not in a dynamic sense
Believe what you will but it’s been proven
-
I agree. That is why I called it static weight. the discussion in my mind is whether static weight has an impact on ball reaction. I dont believe it is much, but I think 3 oz has more impact than 1 oz on the side.
-
And you’re assuming that 3 has to be bigger than 1 due to a scale reading but it’s not...thus my reference to physics...you obviously do not understand or care to, how a pin out or a marking on the surface, 4.25†from the center of the bowling ball is created or it’s actual impact
This has been a misconception for most of time even in the pre-core days
-
Brunsnick made videos on this subject years ago...
Impact of weight holes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPJSmtr75Ts
Impact of static weights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnRWoQ2P0tI
-
Many of the points made on the subject are correct:
!. Static weight has at BEST, a MINIMAL effect on overall ball motion
2. 3 oz of static weight WILL have a larger effect than will 1 oz of static weight
3. Still, there will be little difference (between 3 oz v 1 oz static weight) In fact, a higher speed player could see a DECREASE if he really, really, REALLY has a very good eye.
4. What little difference there is will be most noticeable among lower-rev- slower speed bowlers ( it's all in the physics).
5. It's the orientation of the core that makes the biggest difference (disregarding all other variables, such as coverstock, lane oil, lane topography, etc. etc.)
6. It is track flare that has by far, the biggest impact on hook (see #5, core orientation).
7. Track flare is caused by precession, (#5)
8. Track flare slows down the ball's velocity.
9. When it comes to the many variables (besides the ball, itself) affecting hook, it is the bowler's release that plays the biggest factor.
9. When it comes to the reason (s) FOR the rule change ( to minimize the so- called advantage that the 2 -handers allegedly have), when it comes to the physics, the 2 -hander enjoys NO INCREASE in advantage in having the SAME amount of extra holes than the traditional bowler has. (perhaps this is an appropriate topic for a separate thread).
Back in the days of pancake weight blocks, bowlers would ask me to drill their balls with all different varieties of static weight imbalances. The results then were the same as they are today. Static weights made only a very slight difference in ball reaction IF AT ALL. In most cases, they made no difference in affecting ball motion. The only exception again, was that static imbalances did make a very, very SLIGHT difference among slower speed- low-rev players.
To see a noticeable effect of static imbalance on ball motion, you would need to extend the length of the lane beyond 60 feet and require all bowlers to reduce their revs and ball speeds (if they are already higher speed, higher rev players now).
Years ago, ball manufacturers figured this out. They understood the extreme limitations static weight had on ball motion. Thanks (or maybe, no thanks) , they gave us 2 piece cores, knowing that it is dynamic imbalance that rules the game and not static weights. Again, it's all in the physics.
-
I cant argue with much Bergman says except to make note of one thing. In the days of pancake blocks, most players were slower speed and lower rev rstes by todays standards. In the late 70s, you coukd easily see the lope from high top weight or the hook stop look from negative side weight.
-
I used weight holes going back to the 80s. Used an axis hole on my angles to get the reaction I was looking for playing outside on short patterns. I used flare increasing holes on lots of symetricals in the late 90s. I haven't used balance holes much the last few years. Exception was the 2x2 layout that I put on the eruption which required a balance hole to get my sideweight down. I put it on my PAP. I decided to plug the hole to see where I would end up on side weight, and if I would be able to see a difference. Side weight ended up at 2.5+.
I thought I saw a small increase in continuation coming off the end of the oil on a 40 foot house shot. Some say what I saw was totally from the elimination of the hole. They could be right. My experience says the large increase in static sideweight also had some impact.
-
It was a pin in ball, and the hole was required to meet the old static weight rule with the 2x2 layout
-
Exception was the 2x2 layout that I put on the eruption which required a balance hole to get my side weight down.
Out of curiosity; did you go too far on core orientation causing the static weight to exceed the rule spec, and then compensated that with a balance hole?
I'll ask my PSO about the different holes to gain a bit more knowledge about it.
Thanks Avabob for the reply!
I'm hesitate on extra holes. My last 2 balls I laid out and drilled (HCF, Hot Cell), I was warned by my lead PSO to weigh it on the scale before drilling as a check. I thought for sure I was way over 2 1/2oz of side weight but was a little over a 1oz. After drilling and reweighing it, I was at 1oz.
I'm not an expert at all on gyroscopic motion and persistence and have focused more on cover stock polymers and how they work. Something I have thought about is taking a new fresh manufactured ball, and determining that holes are required to dial in the motion (in which I must add that the bowler simply enhances the intended design motion) and modifying that motion based on how the ball looks in the moment. I think this is a mistake and should be avoided (IMHO) with a little more foresight in planning.
When I consider how much indifference 1oz can make in side weight versus the flexibility of the cover stocks rA peaks being able to flex for more traction and sharper cornering, the latter outweighs the weight. The ball motion will continue to change anyways and perhaps cancel out any modifications made.
But if your a pro and that's how you earn your income, then the moment is now; to gain that edge in competition, then the ball will quickly be disposed of / or gifted anyways.
At this point I'd say the heck with learning much about balance holes since they will be illegal in what..like a year? I'm more interested in learning what to do going forward with my 35-4.5-30 layout that always seems to require a P2 hole
-
Why does it require a p2 hole?
-
Yeah any layout you have ever used before should be legal now as long as your ball doesn't have 5oz of top weight or something.
-
Anybody on here that subscribes to Bowling This Month should read the articles done by owner Bill Semprott on weight holes. It's very interesting reading.
-
Wouldn't the added backend motion and continuation be more attributed to the filling of material and the movement of the PSA and time to spin? You'd be moving the PSA closer to the biggest hole thereby increasing the drill angle, lengthening the time it takes for the ball to spin up and changing the differential. Correct?
-
Why does it require a p2 hole?
1 oz rule b/c of longer Pap/high track. I'll be interested to what the Static side weight/top weight are once I have to plug the hole. How many ounces are we going to be talking about here ya know?
-
Unless it is a monster hole it would be hard to add 2oz
-
I'm looking forward to not having to put extra holes in anything anymore! #newgearcoming
-
I'm looking forward to not having to put extra holes in anything anymore! #newgearcoming
Did you FINALLY put your order in? :P
-
I'm looking forward to not having to put extra holes in anything anymore! #newgearcoming
Did you FINALLY put your order in? :P
New job, so SOON!!!!! The plant is going to be so happy! I don't know what's going to happen when I walk in the shop with 12 bowling balls and say "I want holes in these", but it's gonna be fun!!
-
I just found out this week that CTF has decided to wait on the new rules. They usually follow whatever USBC does. This is what the executive director had to say:
The Canadian Tenpin Federation (CTF) would like to advise that at the time of publishing this article, CTF has not adopted these changes, preferring to wait until the World Bowling Technical Committee weighs in on this matter. In light of this, Chapter VI of the 2018-19 rule book is being revised and will be distributed in the near future.
The problem is, a lot of Canadians go and bowl in USBC events, especially Nationals. She followed up with this:
However, for any of our bowlers who compete in USBC-sanctioned leagues or tournaments, you should be aware of the new USBC ball specification rules to ensure that your equipment complies.
I'm assuming they will eventually follow suit, but the issue is right now. I had all my summer balls drilled without a weight hole. Most still fall within current specs or are slightly over. I am not putting holes in the ones that are over though. If someone decides to call me out in league - though how would they really know - so be it.
-
I just found out this week that CTF has decided to wait on the new rules. They usually follow whatever USBC does. This is what the executive director had to say:
The Canadian Tenpin Federation (CTF) would like to advise that at the time of publishing this article, CTF has not adopted these changes, preferring to wait until the World Bowling Technical Committee weighs in on this matter. In light of this, Chapter VI of the 2018-19 rule book is being revised and will be distributed in the near future.
The problem is, a lot of Canadians go and bowl in USBC events, especially Nationals. She followed up with this:
However, for any of our bowlers who compete in USBC-sanctioned leagues or tournaments, you should be aware of the new USBC ball specification rules to ensure that your equipment complies.
I'm assuming they will eventually follow suit, but the issue is right now. I had all my summer balls drilled without a weight hole. Most still fall within current specs or are slightly over. I am not putting holes in the ones that are over though. If someone decides to call me out in league - though how would they really know - so be it.
Depends on how close they are with the pro shop if there is one in the house to check your equipment on the spot based on their allegations. Just don't beat any teams and no one will care lol.
-
I just found out this week that CTF has decided to wait on the new rules. They usually follow whatever USBC does. This is what the executive director had to say:
The Canadian Tenpin Federation (CTF) would like to advise that at the time of publishing this article, CTF has not adopted these changes, preferring to wait until the World Bowling Technical Committee weighs in on this matter. In light of this, Chapter VI of the 2018-19 rule book is being revised and will be distributed in the near future.
The problem is, a lot of Canadians go and bowl in USBC events, especially Nationals. She followed up with this:
However, for any of our bowlers who compete in USBC-sanctioned leagues or tournaments, you should be aware of the new USBC ball specification rules to ensure that your equipment complies.
I'm assuming they will eventually follow suit, but the issue is right now. I had all my summer balls drilled without a weight hole. Most still fall within current specs or are slightly over. I am not putting holes in the ones that are over though. If someone decides to call me out in league - though how would they really know - so be it.
That sucks. King Chad has spoken though so who cares about the knock on effects? Not him certainly.
-
I just found out this week that CTF has decided to wait on the new rules. They usually follow whatever USBC does. This is what the executive director had to say:
The Canadian Tenpin Federation (CTF) would like to advise that at the time of publishing this article, CTF has not adopted these changes, preferring to wait until the World Bowling Technical Committee weighs in on this matter. In light of this, Chapter VI of the 2018-19 rule book is being revised and will be distributed in the near future.
The problem is, a lot of Canadians go and bowl in USBC events, especially Nationals. She followed up with this:
However, for any of our bowlers who compete in USBC-sanctioned leagues or tournaments, you should be aware of the new USBC ball specification rules to ensure that your equipment complies.
I'm assuming they will eventually follow suit, but the issue is right now. I had all my summer balls drilled without a weight hole. Most still fall within current specs or are slightly over. I am not putting holes in the ones that are over though. If someone decides to call me out in league - though how would they really know - so be it.
Depends on how close they are with the pro shop if there is one in the house to check your equipment on the spot based on their allegations. Just don't beat any teams and no one will care lol.
Well the two guys who are fully aware about it have already spoken to my PSO about it. One definitely is the type to call someone out. Textbook bowler if there ever was one. The other guy, I bowled with the last two seasons. Also someone who will point out rules. I'm not bowling with him this year. We are on pretty good terms though. I can't see him getting on my case.
The issue is that my PSO was also under the assumption that CTF would follow USBC. Other than for myself, he has also gone the no weight hole route with a few other regular customers - unless they requested a hole. I don't know if the two bowlers above are aware of this though.
The first guy above does bowl Nationals every year. One of his teammates was in the shop complaining about CTF's decision yesterday. I know several bowlers who also bowl leagues in Detroit. Obviously you can still use holes for another two years. But some people like the idea of not having to when buying new balls now.
In my opinion, based on seeing my new balls and my older ones with holes, these new rules are very much a non-factor. I'm not seeing much difference, especially on house shots. I feel like balance holes/static weight are way down on the list when it comes to ball motion. The majority of bowlers will not be consistent enough to have these things come into play.