Board index » Mo & Friends » General Discussion


Forum rules


Ask Mo Pinel and the bowling industry's best your questions, and get straight answers.
This forum is moderated exclusively by Mo & Friends.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: If there were no USBC static weight rules...
 Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:51 pm Post Number: #1 Post
Offline
Pro Shop
User avatar

Joined: January 26, 2010
Posts: 260
Location: Richmond, VA
Reputation: 17
Reputation Power: 1
If the USBC did away with all static weight rules, we would still drill "balance" holes in balls, but not for the same reasons as before. The hole would change RG, Diff, and Int-Diff.

What would be a better (more descriptve of purpose) name for a "balance hole" under this scenario?

Would there be amounts of side weight that would NOT be good for ball reaction?

Would we ignore CG markings altogether...or even stop putting them on balls?

_________________
=======================================================
RevZ


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: If there were no USBC static weight rules...
 Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:40 am Post Number: #2 Post
Offline
Trusted Source

Joined: January 30, 2010
Posts: 3360
Location: Hawesville KY/Tell City IN
Reputation: 276
Reputation Power: 3
Who knows what USBC will do? I sure don't. But if I were USBC and was considering this to reduce the affect of ball reaction on scoring, here's what I would do. First I would tighten the manufacturing specs so that the cg had to be accurately marked within a max of 1/4" and top weight on balls had to be a max of 3 1/2 oz, enforcing the specs by purchasing balls on the open market and checking them. I would require that the cg marking include a 1 1/2" circle around the cg. Then I would require drillers to place the grip center within the circle, eliminate static weight limits, and outlaw balance holes. -- JohnP


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: If there were no USBC static weight rules...
 Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:47 am Post Number: #3 Post
Offline
Mo Pinel
User avatar

Joined: January 26, 2010
Posts: 10054
Reputation: 642
Reputation Power: 7
RevZiLLa wrote:
If the USBC did away with all static weight rules, we would still drill "balance" holes in balls, but not for the same reasons as before. The hole would change RG, Diff, and Int-Diff.

What would be a better (more descriptve of purpose) name for a "balance hole" under this scenario?

Would there be amounts of side weight that would NOT be good for ball reaction?

Would we ignore CG markings altogether...or even stop putting them on balls?


You must have lots of spare time or you are on an adrenaline rush, but anyway here goes. If you're going to ask that many questions in a single post, please number them on our forum so they are easy to follow for everyone. Role reversal is so much fun.

Balance holes should be drilled into balls to modify ball motion. They must be used, currently, to satisfy static weight rules, also. That's OK for now.

"Dynamic adjusting" holes would be a functional name for them.

I have been on record for two years suggesting two rules to replace static rules to prevent gimmicks in static weights. One, no ball can be manufactured with more than 4 oz. of top weight before drilling. That would prevent someone with weird static weight ideas from producing balls with a pound of top weight so the ball can be drilled to create a pound of side weight. Two, limit balance hole size to a 1" hole, 3" deep to prevent altering the mass properties too much by using a balance hole. Cg markings are necesary to guarantee the manufactured top weight limit.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: If there were no USBC static weight rules...
 Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:52 am Post Number: #4 Post
Offline
Pro Shop
User avatar

Joined: January 26, 2010
Posts: 260
Location: Richmond, VA
Reputation: 17
Reputation Power: 1
JohnP wrote:
Who knows what USBC will do? I sure don't. But if I were USBC and was considering this to reduce the affect of ball reaction on scoring, here's what I would do. First I would tighten the manufacturing specs so that the cg had to be accurately marked within a max of 1/4" and top weight on balls had to be a max of 3 1/2 oz, enforcing the specs by purchasing balls on the open market and checking them. I would require that the cg marking include a 1 1/2" circle around the cg. Then I would require drillers to place the grip center within the circle, eliminate static weight limits, and outlaw balance holes. -- JohnP


We need to keep balance holes because they give the pro shop a way to tweak reaction and make a bowler's investment in new equipment pay off. Otherwise, it would be a VERY expensive game of trial and error.

_________________
=======================================================
RevZ


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: If there were no USBC static weight rules...
 Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:53 am Post Number: #5 Post
Offline
Mo Pinel
User avatar

Joined: January 26, 2010
Posts: 10054
Reputation: 642
Reputation Power: 7
JohnP wrote:
Who knows what USBC will do? I sure don't. But if I were USBC and was considering this to reduce the affect of ball reaction on scoring, here's what I would do. First I would tighten the manufacturing specs so that the cg had to be accurately marked within a max of 1/4" and top weight on balls had to be a max of 3 1/2 oz, enforcing the specs by purchasing balls on the open market and checking them. I would require that the cg marking include a 1 1/2" circle around the cg. Then I would require drillers to place the grip center within the circle, eliminate static weight limits, and outlaw balance holes. -- JohnP


John, please don't go there! That type of rule suggestion lead to the "Little Big Horn" for the USBC. Ball drillers need tools to give their customers the best ball reactions possible for their game. Limiting drilling to cg location got shot down emphatically in 2005 at the "Little Big Horn". Read and think about my post and see that that will work and still give ball drillers tools to create ball motion effectively. Your thoughts after your shower?


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: If there were no USBC static weight rules...
 Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:56 am Post Number: #6 Post
Offline
Pro Shop
User avatar

Joined: January 26, 2010
Posts: 260
Location: Richmond, VA
Reputation: 17
Reputation Power: 1
Mo Pinel wrote:
RevZiLLa wrote:
If the USBC did away with all static weight rules, we would still drill "balance" holes in balls, but not for the same reasons as before. The hole would change RG, Diff, and Int-Diff.

What would be a better (more descriptve of purpose) name for a "balance hole" under this scenario?

Would there be amounts of side weight that would NOT be good for ball reaction?

Would we ignore CG markings altogether...or even stop putting them on balls?


You must have lots of spare time or you are on an adrenaline rush, but anyway here goes. If you're going to ask that many questions in a single post, please number them on our forum so they are easy to follow for everyone. Role reversal is so much fun.

Balance holes should be drilled into balls to modify ball motion. They must be used, currently, to satisfy static weight rules, also. That's OK for now.

"Dynamic adjusting" holes would be a functional name for them.

I have been on record for two years suggesting two rules to replace static rules to prevent gimmicks in static weights. One, no ball can be manufactured with more than 4 oz. of top weight before drilling. That would prevent someone with weird static weight ideas from producing balls with a pound of top weight so the ball can be drilled to create a pound of side weight. Two, limit balance hole size to a 1" hole, 3" deep to prevent altering the mass properties too much by using a balance hole. Cg markings are necesary to guarantee the manufactured top weight limit.


1. Touche on role reversal.

2. Numbers are a good idea.

3. Thanks for the answers.

4. I've been home sick and going stir-crazy!

_________________
=======================================================
RevZ


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: If there were no USBC static weight rules...
 Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:04 am Post Number: #7 Post
Offline
Mo Pinel
User avatar

Joined: January 26, 2010
Posts: 10054
Reputation: 642
Reputation Power: 7
RevZiLLa wrote:
Mo Pinel wrote:
RevZiLLa wrote:
If the USBC did away with all static weight rules, we would still drill "balance" holes in balls, but not for the same reasons as before. The hole would change RG, Diff, and Int-Diff.

What would be a better (more descriptve of purpose) name for a "balance hole" under this scenario?

Would there be amounts of side weight that would NOT be good for ball reaction?

Would we ignore CG markings altogether...or even stop putting them on balls?


You must have lots of spare time or you are on an adrenaline rush, but anyway here goes. If you're going to ask that many questions in a single post, please number them on our forum so they are easy to follow for everyone. Role reversal is so much fun.

Balance holes should be drilled into balls to modify ball motion. They must be used, currently, to satisfy static weight rules, also. That's OK for now.

"Dynamic adjusting" holes would be a functional name for them.

I have been on record for two years suggesting two rules to replace static rules to prevent gimmicks in static weights. One, no ball can be manufactured with more than 4 oz. of top weight before drilling. That would prevent someone with weird static weight ideas from producing balls with a pound of top weight so the ball can be drilled to create a pound of side weight. Two, limit balance hole size to a 1" hole, 3" deep to prevent altering the mass properties too much by using a balance hole. Cg markings are necesary to guarantee the manufactured top weight limit.


1. Touche on role reversal.

2. Numbers are a good idea.

3. Thanks for the answers.

4. I've been home sick and going stir-crazy!


That's obvious now! Don't drive Margaret nuts, please. I'm looking forward to Bonefish in March.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: If there were no USBC static weight rules...
 Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:14 am Post Number: #8 Post
Offline
Certified Coach
User avatar

Joined: January 30, 2010
Posts: 55
Location: Marshfield, WI
Reputation: 0
Reputation Power: 1
While discussing static weight limits in my Bronze certification class, I asked the instructor why static weights are required on a dynamic object?

He just shook his head, and replied "It's old school."

We both knew this was flawed data, but what else is there?


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: If there were no USBC static weight rules...
 Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:23 am Post Number: #9 Post
Offline
Pro Shop
User avatar

Joined: January 26, 2010
Posts: 260
Location: Richmond, VA
Reputation: 17
Reputation Power: 1
Mo Pinel wrote:
That's obvious now! Don't drive Margaret nuts, please. I'm looking forward to Bonefish in March.


She's waiting on me hand and foot, but I think there's something behind her back...it might be a hammer. :shock: See you in March.

_________________
=======================================================
RevZ


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: If there were no USBC static weight rules...
 Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:25 am Post Number: #10 Post
Offline
Trusted Source

Joined: January 30, 2010
Posts: 3360
Location: Hawesville KY/Tell City IN
Reputation: 276
Reputation Power: 3
I don't disagree with you. All I'm saying is this is what I'd do if I were USBC and wanted to minimize the effect of reactive resin balls. -- JohnP

RevZiLLa wrote:
JohnP wrote:
Who knows what USBC will do? I sure don't. But if I were USBC and was considering this to reduce the affect of ball reaction on scoring, here's what I would do. First I would tighten the manufacturing specs so that the cg had to be accurately marked within a max of 1/4" and top weight on balls had to be a max of 3 1/2 oz, enforcing the specs by purchasing balls on the open market and checking them. I would require that the cg marking include a 1 1/2" circle around the cg. Then I would require drillers to place the grip center within the circle, eliminate static weight limits, and outlaw balance holes. -- JohnP


We need to keep balance holes because they give the pro shop a way to tweak reaction and make a bowler's investment in new equipment pay off. Otherwise, it would be a VERY expensive game of trial and error.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

Board index » Mo & Friends » General Discussion


 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: