Re: Rico Sidebar
Posted: September 9th, 2017, 6:10 pm
Thank you very much sir for the explanation, I truly appreciate that you are participating in this discussion. No disrespect was meant from my part.
I was waiting for "actual physics" but got none, not surprised.Rico wrote:Anyone that truly understands layouts should also understand layout potentials AND NOT possible absolutions and realize ALL layouts are flare management...controlling the flare for the bowlers, so they respond accordingly (after the ball has slowed down of course) and managing so it misses the drilled holes...anyone that truly understands ball motion wouldn't make the comment - 'saw one on a Cash and all it did was bounce off the pocket'...did you ever consider that it may be the cover over responding to the condition? If I remember correctly, surface dictates 70-75% of motion and the layout truly only effects after the ball has slowed down CORRECTLY...
Yes, Bill Wasserberger was great, rest in peace Bill. Ric where are the numbers?Rico wrote:while I was still at Brunswick, Bill Wasserberger & I dove into the numbers of this layout for shits & giggles...
My contention is, as soon as you remove material from the ball you're altering the final numbers whether your intent is to or not. "Core preservation" usually is a complex from some core designers that think their designs shouldnt be touched. The magic is when you alter the core with deeper holes when the holes are placed strategically. We want to alter the core design to get the desired result. When we drill a balance hole for effect, do we drill it 1 1/8" bit 1 1/2" deep or 3/4" bit 3" deep? Its OK to drill into the core, it wont ruin the ball, it wont "kill" the "alive" dynamics. Asymmetry is directly related to the length of the hook zone. The less asymmetry you end up with the longer the hook zone. We want the ball to rev up to the roll phase before it hits the pins, not after it hits the mechanic.Rico wrote:My contention was & is, by placing the gripping holes 'around' the pin/mass you avoid drilling into the core more than any other layout...leaving the bulk of the dynamics alive...so the undrilled core numbers stay intact...by adding the weight hole at 6.75" from the pin...it increases the asymmetry in the core and thus the overall dynamics of the core...and movement
The current lead rep has a name. Chuck Gardner. Elite rep on tour, has done a lot of great things on tour for the Brunswick staffers, man and woman. Lack of use of "Rico" layout is probably an indication Brunswick has moved on from it and have found better ways to give that shape on the lane without the risk of under tuning and flaring over the fingers. See Shannon O'Keefe's Freakshow Flip. A perfect example of a flare safe, tunable, smooth look. If less asymmetry and a longer hook zone is desired it set up for a P1 and if a shorter hook zone is desired, we can drill the fingers deeper for a low hole.Rico wrote:when Benoit was still the tour rep and I 'helped' on occasion, every staffer had this layout in their bag on multiple covers...the current tour rep does not feel the same thus the lack of use...
Care to clear that up? PAP is not an indication of anything in terms of Tilt, Rotation and Rev Rate to Speed relationship. Is this a magic layout that some how will burn off tilt faster for high tilt players and float thru the front of the lane easier for low tilt players? The PAP is a reference point not a symptom.Rico wrote:Last but not least...understanding the layout and existing pin to pap numbers per players is important but the pap tells the story...it tends to 'help' compensate each players necessity or lack of...
Is that still "Rico" or "Pin in Palm" layout with the adjustment? Or is it now "Pin on Midline" layout?Rico wrote:And yes I have in certain situations adjusted the pin to pap distance to enhance the flare potential for the player/condition...
Part of our mission here is to give good advice to bowlers who seek it.Rico wrote:you don't like it move on...why waste life and energy?
Bowling lost a GREAT scientist and a GREAT individual when Bill Wasserberger went into a state of stillness far, far too soon. Bill was an empiricist- he loved data collection and reaching a rational conclusion based on data. So, in his honor, let us examine data points so we can have the opportunity to reach independent conclusions.Rico wrote:Bill Wasserberger & I dove into the numbers of this layout for shits & giggles...Bill in case you forgot, was before his passing, the smartest guy in bowling and his credentials backed that up...thus I trusted his 'opinion'
Couldn't agree more, and would love to see that data.guruU2 wrote:
Bowling lost a GREAT scientist and a GREAT individual when Bill Wasserberger went into a state of stillness far, far too soon. Bill was an empiricist- he loved data collection and reaching a rational conclusion based on data. So, in his honor, let us examine data points so we can have the opportunity to reach independent conclusions.
I love great debates when they are not reduced to pedestrian arguments.
I did clarify this in post #6.Bahshay wrote:In the spirit of fairness, I also asked for the data surrounding opposing arguments - particularly the data that shows that the majority of people can't use the RICO layout because they will flare over holes. Id still like to see that too.
The players Im referring to are high rev players looking for smoother ball motion. I think everyone can gather that.MegaMav wrote:Most of the players that *could* benefit from it cant use it because its not flare safe. There are not too many high rev guys are out there with PAPs less than 5". Over 5" you're going to have a problem with flaring over the fingers. A similar motion can be accomplished with other layouts that *ARE* flare safe. Instructions on "moving the bowtie" are not consistent and not guaranteed to work.
I'm sorry, but none of this is data. It's blanket statements and generalizations.MegaMav wrote:
I did clarify this in post #6.
The players Im referring to are high rev players looking for smoother ball motion. I think everyone can gather that.
High track players have a problem flaring over the finger holes down the lane when the pin is placed too low.
Its no secret that the majority of power players out there have PAPs above 5" and usually very little vertical component.
They're out clean, fast, early and usually behind the ball.
Its also known that the flare safe zone for high track players is above or on a line drawn from the PAP thru the ring finger.
Rico layout is well below that line. This is the problem.
If you're a lower track high rev guy and want to do this, go for it. You're still stuck with 1 way tuning and risking having not enough asymmetry to PSA lock without a large balance hole. Oscillations in PSA on the Determinator in my experience show inconsistencies in ball motion on the lane. Not good!
Dude, you literally started the thread with a condescending post and personal shots. Again, hold yourself to the same standard you hold others.MegaMav wrote:
Since his tone has gotten condescending I'm going to refrain from commenting on this further as the conversation will start going in circles around personal shots rather than discussing the topic.
.
What you are asking for is impossible to provide and you know this.Bahshay wrote:I'm sorry, but none of this is data. It's blanket statements and generalizations.