Read the bylaws.  By becoming a USBC member you have agreed to this-

Upon obtaining membership in USBC each member agrees to be bound by all final decisions of USBC concerning application or interpretation of USBC Bylaws, playing rules, and all other matters relating to the sport of bowling as governed by USBC.

Quote from: timw on April 24, 2022, 08:40:19 AM

https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo

This is very interesting and educational.  It does appear that USBC testing is a joke and masks an underlying motive to throw sand in our eyes due to the lack of USBC transparency on faulty hardness testing.

The test maybe garbage but the USBC and PBA used it for years and Storm had no issues passing previously. They even had a ball pass in their own smear campaign video with a 74. Storm even post the numbers for all of their equipment on their website. 73-75, 74-76 etc. So they must have some idea of how it works to be in compliance.

USBC then post a link with their testing procedures and how manufactures are allowed to match their testing equipment to USBC device blah blah blah to get the same results etc.   

Once again if no other manufactures are failing and it is just Strom, which has now been running their smear campaign in the court of public opinion online, Im starting to think Storm screwed up and is playing the bitter ex girlfriend roll.

Then the following day Storm gets rid of their most popular ball finish using polish. Which polish was one of the excuses they gave for why their equipment was failing. Im not a Storm guy so maybe I dont feel personally attacked like others. Storm is taking a huge hit in this which sucks. That is a very very expensive problem to deal with.


https://www.bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337531

Maybe it’s as simple as the USBC is using one testing process for approvals and a second for spot checks.

Balls for approval are submitted at 500 grit sanded.

Spot checks are at out of box finish. The USBC used the spot checks to determine out of conformity.

That right there is an inconsistency. Their own processes should be the same for approval as well as determine final conformity.

Why wasn’t it a problem before, ask the USBC how many balls they’ve spot checked before that tested below 73D did they let go and continue to be usd in tournaments?new they using an unwritten “allowance” that wasn’t in the rules for spot checks vs approvals? We don’t know. They will not share any data pints or sets.

The few public instances they have say they’ve let stuff go in the last. See the original purple hammer saga. In its entirety.

That’s what prompted all of this. Their bungling of that matter. Their continued bungling of that matter until they ban hammered it all. Then it became about making a point.

Tell me it doesn’t look like the USBC decide to now to get petty and test for exact conformity.

They almost bankrupted Motiv. Seems like they went lenient on Hammer because of that. Of course, Ebonite ended up sold of, so you have to believe that factored into the decision as well. Because of all the backlash about Hammer, they decided to go scorched earth with Storm.

Quote from: bradl on April 24, 2022, 01:21:52 PM

Quote from: timw on April 24, 2022, 08:40:19 AM

https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo

This is very interesting and educational.  It does appear that USBC testing is a joke and masks an underlying motive to throw sand in our eyes due to the lack of USBC transparency on faulty hardness testing.

Posting a link directly from the manufacturer who can easily be claimed as biased (because they are a direct party in the matter) does not make what the USBC has done a joke. Again, a 3rd party needs to conduct tests using both the manufacturer’s equipment as well as the USBC’s equipment, then their own and compare the metrics.

Outside of that, of course the manufacturer is going to paint their equipment in holy light; and by saying that the USBC’s testing is a joke, your own bias is being shown.

BL.

The manufacturer of the durometer is the one telling folks there will be variances between properly calibrated units. In the same room, testing the same item. Please allow for that.

The same can be said for Storm's manufacturing process.  Account for durometer variance.    It's naive to think they weren't manufacturing balls pushing the legal limit because they performed better.  If they rolled the same at 76 or 77 there would be no reason to manufacture at 73.   And from all my dealing with them they are arrogant enough to think they would never be caught if they were too soft. 

Could be as simple as:
Ball: *is 74*
Storm: *measures with +2 durometer* 76! Awesome!
USBC: *measures with -2 durometer* 72  BANNED
Storm: wtf

LOL I didn't actually mean to post that but +/- 2 being considered acceptable durometer variance is kind of a lot it seems to me (who tests stuff for a living, not hardness though)

Someone want to copy and paste the article im not paying to read that lol

An awful lot of Storm lovers out there.  Everybody must be scared Santa in the brown truck is gonna stop showing up when cutbacks are necessary.

An awful lot of Storm lovers out there.  Everybody must be scared Santa in the brown truck is gonna stop showing up when cutbacks are necessary.

I like SPI products that’s well known. However, Jeff Richgels is NOT a guy I would listen to. He oozes bias and agenda in his “reporting” and I use the term very loosely.

Where has it been said Storm didn’t get the test results?