win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Using logic in the CG debate  (Read 4484 times)

Russell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5121
Using logic in the CG debate
« on: August 06, 2007, 04:13:30 AM »
I have stayed out of this debate and watched the fire rage on....now it's at epic proportions....

I want to throw a real solution out there that makes sense....

Let's start with a ball that is drilled with at 5" to PAP drilling....

How much difference would there be if that same ball were drilled with a 5 and 1/16" pin to PAP drilling?

Not much at all....right?

So this brings me to the CG-nomaddah argument.  The CG is created by core tilt in the ball.  It is my understanding that the core tilt is VERY minimal in relation to pin to cg distance....somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/16" of core tilt = 5" pin.

With these tolerances, it is safe to assume that core orientation is affected very little by top weight and cg distance.

Now this brings me to my point....if ball reaction is affected so little by tilting the core 1/16" in pin placement, why does it matter so much by moving the CG around?

I understand that there is a difference, my point is that it is MINISCULE and too small for anyone short of Throwbot to notice.
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/rlrussell

The artist formerly known as "jabroni"

Edited on 8/6/2007 12:15 PM
Logged

 

BrunsNick

  • Brunswick Rep
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7306
Re: Using logic in the CG debate
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2007, 12:17:11 PM »
The post-drilling #'s of the CG test balls were indifferent, so CG placement does not have any bearing on core orientation.

Enough said.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.AskTheBowler.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Friends don't let friends drink the Kool-Aid!
Logged
Nick Smith
Digital Media Manager - Brunswick Bowling
http://www.brunswickbowling.com
http://www.youtube.com/c/brunsnick

KDawg77

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11594
Re: Using logic in the CG debate
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2007, 12:20:50 PM »
Logic here?
--------------------
Texas is neither southern nor western. Texas is Texas - Senator William Blakley
http://www.myspace.com/lefthandedhammerpride
http://members.bowl.com/FindAMember/memberView.aspx?mp=418&ms=2006&s=2006-2007
Logged

Russell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5121
Re: Using logic in the CG debate
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2007, 12:21:09 PM »
I'm not talking about post drilling numbers....

Just core orientation.....I'm agreeing with you Nick
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/rlrussell

The artist formerly known as "jabroni"
Logged

triggerman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Using logic in the CG debate
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2007, 12:22:36 PM »
well thought out Russel, BUT the only contention i see here is the definition of CG, it is not the center of gravity of the ball/core combo, it is indeed a "heavy spot" added to the ball, and it is defined by the amount of top weight listed on the box if not mistaken, so the weight is not concentrated on a small spot it is spread out over an area, thus moving north or south of your grip center results in finger/thumb weight, where as moving it right or left of your grip center results in side wieght. (can be seen via moving the cg further to the right results in more side wieght via the dodo scale) or futher left resulting in negative side wieght (same as above)

It is my personal opinion that certain bowler styles mask the effects while other styles will magnify the results.  but all is pretty moot with todays condtions masking most all
--------------------
www.bowlingballexchange.com

Triggerman

F.O.S Loud, F.O.S. Proud

Lane #1 Baby

Logged

MegaMav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Using logic in the CG debate
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2007, 01:09:55 PM »
quote:
Logic here?


There is no logic, only Zool.
--------------------
BowlingChat.net - "Welcome to the Underground"
BowlingWiki.net - "Where Bowlers Write History"
Logged

BrunsNick

  • Brunswick Rep
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7306
Re: Using logic in the CG debate
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2007, 01:17:46 PM »
Core orientation is unaffected by CG location is what I am trying to say.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.AskTheBowler.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Friends don't let friends drink the Kool-Aid!
Logged
Nick Smith
Digital Media Manager - Brunswick Bowling
http://www.brunswickbowling.com
http://www.youtube.com/c/brunsnick

Russell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5121
Re: Using logic in the CG debate
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2007, 01:26:08 PM »
I am saying that the CG is the heavy spot....we all agree with this.  The heavy spot is in place due to the slight tilt of the core in the ball.

This is the basis for my reasoning.

Core tilt = CG
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/rlrussell

The artist formerly known as "jabroni"
Logged

RevZiLLa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 611
Re: Using logic in the CG debate
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2007, 02:00:22 PM »
quote:
Core orientation is unaffected by CG location is what I am trying to say.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.AskTheBowler.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Friends don't let friends drink the Kool-Aid!


http://www.brunswickbowling.com/uploads/vids/CG_demo_5-05.wmv

Look at the 5 min mark in the vid. Brunswick, as always, is honest in what they say. CG placement had a 1/8" change in core orientation in their example.

That is not a lot of difference...it is very little...but it is NOT zero difference. Core orientation is minimally affected by CG placement.




--------------------
RevZ=======================  
\I/
Logged

Russell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5121
Re: Using logic in the CG debate
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2007, 02:20:43 PM »
Exactly Revz....but let's apply that to my point...

Does 1/8" difference in pin really matter to any of us...even the pros?

Do you honestly think you'd ever hear "Man I wish I hadn't drilled that 5" pin...should have been a 5 and 1/8"...."?

It's such a miniscule difference that the whole debate should end.  Brunswick is right....it doesn't make enough difference to matter to USBC or us.
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/rlrussell

The artist formerly known as "jabroni"
Logged

RevZiLLa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 611
Re: Using logic in the CG debate
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2007, 02:34:52 PM »
Honestly, Russell, I don't think I am the best qualified to answer whether that one thing in isolation is useful in creating a ball reaction through drilling.

I do know from experience that in the real world, a CG shift on a pin out symmetrical core ball in combination with the balance hole required to make the ball legal again can make a very useful difference.

Is it the balance hole or is it the CG shift (ergo core angle shift)? Does the answer change if the balance hole is not drilled deeply enough to touch the core?

I am guessing it does, but I have not tested it.

Look at the degree drilling system at www.rollrite.co.uk under the Mario's secrets section. I have done many of those drillings on a bunch of old symmetrical reactives just to check it out. The differences are astonishing!

Then again, a change in hand position, speed, or surface preparation can do a whole lot more to change ball reaction...
--------------------
RevZ=======================  
\I/
Logged

BrunsNick

  • Brunswick Rep
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7306
Re: Using logic in the CG debate
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2007, 02:39:26 PM »
Revz,

Post drilling #'s on the USBC test balls are so minute and unimportant that lenghty testing will show no difference in ball reaction over time. Although there may be a 3/32" shift to create a 4" pin, shifting the CG 90* in these videos is not enough to effect core orientation based on the data. The bowling ball recognizes RG and Differential #'s, and here, they are a match.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.AskTheBowler.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Friends don't let friends drink the Kool-Aid!
Logged
Nick Smith
Digital Media Manager - Brunswick Bowling
http://www.brunswickbowling.com
http://www.youtube.com/c/brunsnick

Russell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5121
Re: Using logic in the CG debate
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2007, 02:41:12 PM »
Right....and the difference in reaction you are seeing revz is due to the weight hole.  The weight hole manipulates the shape of the core, which changes its motion down the lane.

The CG itself plays no part in ball reaction, but it helps you place a weight hole to manipulate it.
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/rlrussell

The artist formerly known as "jabroni"
Logged

RevZiLLa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 611
Re: Using logic in the CG debate
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2007, 02:43:20 PM »
Just a random thought...

Have you ever held a gyroscope as it spun a speed and tried to tilt it?
--------------------
RevZ=======================  
\I/
Logged

triggerman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Using logic in the CG debate
« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2007, 02:44:26 PM »
what about a big shallow hole that does not hit the core. most realize a large shallow hole plays a bigger factor then a small deep hole.

what about a targeted weight hole that does not touch the core?
--------------------
www.bowlingballexchange.com

Triggerman

F.O.S Loud, F.O.S. Proud

Lane #1 Baby

Logged
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »