Author Topic: Mini Rant, Static weights don't matter??? (Read 1929 times)

imjouster · « **on:** June 10, 2006, 03:12:38 PM »

Ok I know that this has been covered several times, but some people have been recently stating that Static weights do not matter when drilling a bowling ball. I don't believe I understand this. and I was wondering if you wonderful people here at ballreviews can help me understand why supposedly static weights do not matter.

(Rant On)

Point #1

One way people move their track off the fingers of a bowling ball is to drill a X-hole in the lower right hand quadrant of the ball. I tried this and it did indeed lower my track. Putting a weight hole in the ball changed the static weights (go figure) and the static weights changing are what caused the track to get lower. Now if static weights do not matter then how come this changed the track on the ball?

Point #2

I had bought an Original Inferno with a 1 inch pin. I drilled it with Pin above and next to the ring finger, CG stacked right below. The ball was at 1 1/8 ozs. Possitive side weight. so of course I needed an X-Hole. Unfortunately, before the driller had a chance to put the X-hole in the ball, the drill press broke. So I messed around with the ball in practice, on a fresh oil shot, 2 of them to be exact. at one house the ball went real long, about 45 feet, and then just took off on the backend. Very angular. At the other house, the ball didn't go quite so long, probably only 43 or 42 feet before it rolled. Still very long and VERY angular. So I take it into the proshop on Saturday morning before my league, I put the weight hole 1 inch inside of my PAP, we took the side weight down to 5/8 oz... The ball was completely different, Still the exact same shot as before, On the shot where the ball rolled at 45 feet, the Ball rolled atabout 40 ft, and didn't have near the snap on the backend. On the shot where the ball hooked at 42 ft, the ball hooked at least 5 feet earlier, and just like on the other shot, it wasn't as angular. Now can someone explain why just putting a weight hole in the ball will make THAT much of a difference in ball reaction? and all putting the weight hole in the ball did is change the STATIC WEIGHTS.

Point #3

I drilled up a Visionary Green Gargoyle (pin-in), fairly long and had a very strong backend, INSANE pin action, I drilled it pin below bridge with CG right below the pin. Only problem I had with it is that I clippd the finger hole a bunch on it and that made it very inconsistent. So I put a weight hole in the ball 2 inches below my PAP, It did indeed lower my track to where it no longer hit the finger holes, but the ball just isn't the same. Ball rolls much earlier, and the backend is almost nothing, Not only does it roll differently but the pin action that used be so great with that ball is now very dissapointing. Can anybody explain that one to me? remember all I did was put a weight hole in it, and small one at that, 1 inch bit and I'm barely through the coverstock of the ball, No where close to the weight block. If static weights don't matter then the reaction should be the EXACT same from before I drilled the X-hole and after I drilled the X-hole, right?

Point #4

The only main restriction that the USBC and even when it was the ABC/WIBC was that The top weight could have a MAX of 3 ozs. and you could have a MAX of 1 oz side and finger weights. Why would the ABC Put that restriction on bowling balls if it didn't make a difference. Same with why would people go out of their way to drll holes and put in lead weights to give them more side weight?

Point #5

I know times have changed but physics are still physics, If you have more side weight in a bowling ball the ball is GOING to WANT to roll a different way then if you had less side weight in it. its physics 101, if you take a round object that would normally roll straight and add something like say a marble to the side of a basket ball, and it will want to roll towards that side of the ball that the marble is on. Whats the difference between that and a bowling ball with more side weight?

With those 5 points I think I can almost prove that Static weights DO matter. Now can someone prove me wrong?

(rant off)

This is just something that I have been thinking about for a while, I'm not trying to be a pain in anyones butt, I just want some answers. Thanks for understanding

Jeremy
--------------------
"Strive to be perfect, that is afterall the only way to become perfect."

"If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans."

Taken from Desiderata

Proud user of Columbia 300 and Visionary Bowling Products

charlest · « **Reply #16 on:** June 12, 2006, 03:40:15 AM »

quote:
CoachJim,

I understand what your saying, but how do you explain the change in the Green Gargoyle, when the drill bit BARELY went through the coverstock yet the track, reaction, and pin action all changed? (note I had a lot of games on it before, and have a lot of games on it afterward.)

Charlest,

Take a look at the Gargoyle core, It is NOT a pancake weight block and it is actually a fairly dynamic core. I'm not real sure on the relationship between thumb and finger weight vs. top and bottom weight, so I will not say anything about that, but How then Charlest do you explain the fact that I DID NOT change the shape of the core because I only drilled the hole deep enough so that I could still see the coverstock in the bottom of the hole, I could also Barely see where the drill bit went into the core, I know that contradicts what I just said about not changing the core, but lets face it, a little spec out of the core ( probably 1/8 inch deep and 1/2 inch round) isn't going to make a difference in the way the core is reacting, not to mention that technically I didn't touch the core, just the filler .

Jeremy
--------------------

I'd say any change you saw was not due to the hole. You didn't take out enough to make any change in the core OR IN THE STATIC WEIGHTS.

AGAIN, you have to be very careful about keeping all the factors the same when you say you saw xxxx change in a ball's reaction.

--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

CoachJim · « **Reply #17 on:** June 12, 2006, 05:11:41 AM »

Jeremy, check out Bill Taylor's book "Balance", it explains everything you want to know about gyroscopic imballances and how they effect ball motion. That small of a weight hole will still pull the ball slightly off it's regular balance point unless the hole was on the axis, but will still effect the motion once the ball starts to flare even if it is on the axis.

imjouster · « **Reply #18 on:** June 12, 2006, 11:00:59 PM »

Thanks Coach Jim for the book, I'll have to check it out.0

Charlest, It didn't change the static weights much, but it did change them a little bit (1/4 oz if I remember right), although I'm not sure how "accurate" this guy is, a pro shop opperator, who is also on the pro tour right now, told me that supposedly for every 1/4 oz of side weight you add you will add about 3 feet of length to the ball, and visa versa. and as far as keeping factors the same, it is literally impossible for ANYONE to keep the factors the same, even the throwbot, what I am going off of is a compilation of games that I have rolled with the ball both before and after, Every game before the weight hole (except a few where the lanes were fairly dry) the ball would Skate then snap, Every game after the weight hole (except for a few where the lanes were had really good oil up front and flying backends) the ball would roll a little earlier and it still has not had the same carry that it used to have, I have not changed anything in my game (that I am aware of) in the last few months and I had the hole put in 3 months ago.

Jeremy
--------------------
"Strive to be perfect, that is afterall the only way to become perfect."

"If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans."

Taken from Desiderata

Proud user of Columbia 300 and Visionary Bowling Products

Author Topic: Mini Rant, Static weights don't matter??? (Read 1929 times)

imjouster

Mini Rant, Static weights don't matter???

charlest

Re: Mini Rant, Static weights don't matter???

CoachJim

Re: Mini Rant, Static weights don't matter???

imjouster

Re: Mini Rant, Static weights don't matter???