BallReviews
Equipment Boards => Storm => Topic started by: thunder on June 08, 2005, 10:27:41 AM
-
http://stormbowling.com/survey/survey.asp
-
cool, thanks
--------------------
------------------
SlickTape Advisory staff member
Track Bowling.com
Evolutionary - Revolutionary
Track Pack
dont forget www.slicktape.com
-
I voted heres the results so far, my votes went with the majority...
Should the USBC proposed equipment specification changes banning Extra Holes be implemented?
Yes 43 votes
No 133 votes
Should the USBC proposed equipment specification changes regarding banning Drillings more than 1" away from the CG be implemented?
Yes 12 votes
No 164 votes
Should these USBC proposed changes be implemented for league play?
Yes 44 votes
No 132 votes
Should these USBC proposed changes be implemented for tournament play only?
Yes 19 votes
No 156 votes
Should the USBC logo be required on all bowling balls?
Yes 16 votes
No 160 votes
What do you believe has the biggest impact on scoring?
Balls 9 votes
Pins 8 votes
Lane conditions (oil patterns) 119 votes
Lane specifications (flat gutters, pin deck tilt) 40 votes
-
My votes also went with the majority
--------------------
Storm
"The bowlers Company"
-
If X-holes are going to be banned, then I think there should be no static weight limitations any longer. In asymmetrical balls, the mass bias plays a very important role in ball reaction. Asymmetrical balls cannot be drilled label (for the sake of keeping static weights legal) as symmetrical cored balls without changing the overall reaction a significant amount.
This was probably discussed before, but seeing as how the survey is playing out, x-holes just may be banned.
quote:
Cool! Thanks for the survey
. I don't understand the "for tournament bowling only" question. Are you supposed to have an ENTIRE new arsenal JUST for tournaments
?
That would be utterly stupid if a rule as this would come into effect.
$800 on league arsenal and $800 on tournament arsenal = $1600
versus
$800 on league AND tournament arsenal.
Now that....is cool 
--------------------
Dino
Evolutionary. Revolutionary.
Track
Edited on 6/9/2005 0:05 AM
-
So what are you saying, they will force everyone to plug the extra holes that were drilled to comply with the static weight to begin with? That makes no sense, and wouldn't it change how the ball reacts?
Edited on 6/9/2005 2:10 AM
-
Looks like ballot box stuffing to me...
quote:
Survey results have been recorded!
Thanks for participating.
Here are the results of the survey to date (600 total votes).
Should the USBC proposed equipment specification changes banning Extra Holes be implemented?
Yes 236 votes
No 364 votes
Should the USBC proposed equipment specification changes regarding banning Drillings more than 1" away from the CG be implemented?
Yes 37 votes
No 528 votes
Should these USBC proposed changes be implemented for league play?
Yes 238 votes
No 361 votes
Should these USBC proposed changes be implemented for tournament play only?
Yes 43 votes
No 555 votes
Should the USBC logo be required on all bowling balls?
Yes 42 votes
No 558 votes
What do you believe has the biggest impact on scoring?
Balls 32 votes
Pins 21 votes
Lane conditions (oil patterns) 344 votes
Lane specifications (flat gutters, pin deck tilt) 202 votes
--------------------
-- The way we see the problem is the problem.