BallReviews

General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Russell on August 06, 2007, 04:13:30 AM

Title: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: Russell 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
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: BrunsNick 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!
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: KDawg77 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
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: Russell 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"
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: triggerman 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
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: MegaMav on August 06, 2007, 01:09:55 PM
quote:
Logic here?


There is no logic, only Zool.
--------------------
BowlingChat.net (http://"http://www.bowlingchat.net") - "Welcome to the Underground"
BowlingWiki.net (http://"http://www.bowlingwiki.net") - "Where Bowlers Write History"
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: BrunsNick 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!
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: Russell 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"
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: RevZiLLa 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/
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: Russell 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"
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: RevZiLLa 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/
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: BrunsNick 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!
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: Russell 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"
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: RevZiLLa 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/
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: triggerman 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
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: Russell on August 06, 2007, 02:49:04 PM
They manipulate the dynamics of the ball, changing the RG and differential...this manipulates the reaction.
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/rlrussell

The artist formerly known as "jabroni"
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: BrunsNick on August 06, 2007, 02:52:32 PM
Any hole drilled into a ball, regardless of size or depth, will affect the ending RG and Diff.

A 23/32" hole drilled 3 1/2" deep will still have a dramatic effect on your differential #'s.

Large and shallow will ultimately lower the RG of a bowling ball.

Once again, the argument is CG by itself being able to change the reaction of a bowling ball, with no other variables in place.
--------------------
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!
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: RevZiLLa on August 06, 2007, 02:53:17 PM
quote:
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!


Nick,

Look at the vid from Brunswick. It does affect core orientation. You can see it. The difference is quantified. It is small. The change in core orientation may not change RG and Diff much, but the angle of the core is changed nonetheless.

Whether the change in core orientation affects ball reaction is a different question. There is something there...just not a whole lot.


I am so tired of this...please forgive me if I don't stay engaged right now. We really are debating minutia
--------------------
RevZ=======================  
\I/
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: RevZiLLa on August 06, 2007, 02:56:31 PM
quote:
Any hole drilled into a ball, regardless of size or depth, will affect the ending RG and Diff.

A 23/32" hole drilled 3 1/2" deep will still have a dramatic effect on your differential #'s.

Large and shallow will ultimately lower the RG of a bowling ball.

--------------------
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!


I agree
--------------------
RevZ=======================  
\I/
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: Gunny on August 06, 2007, 02:57:45 PM
after you throw some balls during practice, and it starts to hook a little bit more, remember its because of the CG and not the oil drying up!
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: 230-n-up-or-bust on August 06, 2007, 02:58:25 PM
Nick, simply make the next t-shirts, "cgdontmaddahdatmuch", and all will be better in the world.  Russell's spot on.
--------------------
48% of all statistics are ficticious.
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: BrunsNick on August 06, 2007, 03:04:39 PM
Straying off topic here a tad, but what if you drilled 2 balls the exact same. Both cores were the same shape, but one was inverted. After drilling the RG, Diff and Intermediate Diff were absolutely unchanged.

Does the ball react different?
--------------------
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!
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: qstick777 on August 06, 2007, 03:05:24 PM
Ebonite might disagree with those statements.  According to Ebonite:

http://www.ebonite.com/techcenter/RandD_detail.php?PRKey=265
quote:

Note that in order for a ball reaction change to be noticed by most bowlers the balance hole must be at least a 31/32" bit and at least two inches deep.


Of course they also say the same thing about CG:

http://www.ebonite.com/techcenter/roleofthecg.php
quote:
I have met precious few bowlers that can tell the difference between a ball with 1-ounce negative side weight versus 1 ounce of positive side, especially with today's modern core dynamics and constructions. We have done CATS testing on the ball's overall reaction with different static weights and the results showed no measurable difference of ball reaction.

--------------------
Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")

Search Ballreviews entire database here (http://"http://www.bowling-info.com/Search.html")
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: purduepaul on August 06, 2007, 03:12:26 PM
Anytime you drill an extra hole in a bowling ball the rg, total diff, and intermediate differential change.  You have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges here.  

Shifting the cg away from your center of grip does NOT change the rg, total diff, and intermediate diff significantly due to the high rg equator being in the same exact spot.

Paul
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: Dan Belcher on August 06, 2007, 03:15:02 PM
quote:
Straying off topic here a tad, but what if you drilled 2 balls the exact same. Both cores were the same shape, but one was inverted. After drilling the RG, Diff and Intermediate Diff were absolutely unchanged.

Does the ball react different?

So drilling into the opposite side of the core basically is what you mean?  The Storm Spit Fire is just the Storm Fired Up with the core inverted, for example (it has a little earlier roll than the Fired Up does generally).  Is that what you mean?  Or are you thinking more in theoreticals where the holes and their placement don't affect the ball's dynamics?
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: Eddie M on August 06, 2007, 03:27:50 PM
Here is my take on the whole CG (t-shirt) subject...  a smart businessman would have made both CGNOMADDAH and CGMADDAH t-shirts, so as to maximize his profit potential.  And then proceeded to make CGMADDAH2ROBOTZ, CGMADDAHZ2URMOM, CGMADDAH2N00BZ, CGNOMADDAHZ2THROWBOT, etc, etc, as the debate raged on and on and on and on and on and on.....  
--------------------
Visionary Test Staff 07-08
Title: Re: Using logic in the CG debate
Post by: BrunsNick on August 06, 2007, 03:36:54 PM
Dan,

Correct. Theoretically, if you could flip flop those cores and still have the same ending numbers, would the 2 balls react different?
--------------------
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!