Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Ask Mo Pinel and the bowling industry's best your general questions, and get straight answers.

Moderators: Mo Pinel, purduepaul, MathIsTruth, ballspinner

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.
User avatar
Triplicate
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 1410
Joined: September 2nd, 2010, 12:04 am
THS Average: 220
Positive Axis Point: 5 1/2 x 1 1/2
Speed: 16-18 at Foul Line
Rev Rate: 300
Axis Tilt: 7-10
Axis Rotation: 45+-
Location: Canada

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by Triplicate »

xclusix wrote:I have been playing around with the software, i cant get any ball motion changes by changing the drill angle, BUT, i can make a layout legal or not just by playing with this angle.....

Is that what you are saying?
As you keep changing the Drilling Angel you'll see changes in the static weights. It's not until you add a balance hole that you will change the mass properties of the ball.

Again... the Drill Angle charges the position of the CG so kick it out an inch or more as to allow for a balance hole at P3 for example. This is now what will change the ball motion due to mass property changes.


Enjoy the trial :!:
High Game - 300 (20), 299 (10), 298 (2), 11 in a row (18)
High Series - (278 Triplicate) = 834 (9)
HOF induction - 2 (1 Local and 1 Provincial)
Is this helpful? Then Click the Image on the bottom right.
jpj6780
Member
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: June 23rd, 2011, 3:47 pm
Positive Axis Point: 4-5/8" over 1/2"up
Speed: 17 hand
Rev Rate: 300
Axis Tilt: 16
Axis Rotation: 50
Heavy Oil Ball: Roto Grip Theory 48/4.25/47 p3
Medium Oil Ball: Perpetual Motion 65/2.25/25 p3
Light Oil Ball: Mojave 70/4.25/47
Preferred Company: Morich
Location: Lowcountry SC

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by jpj6780 »

MegaMav wrote: The FINAL drill angle is relevant in symmetrics.
You will only find the final drill angle with a determinator, or by an educated guess based on experience with a determinator and hole depths.

6 3/4" Pin thru CG is merely a reference line, not the true drill angle.
"The PSA on a drilled symmetrical ball without a balance hole falls 6 3/4" from the true low RG axis about 1/2 from the center of grip line"

I think the confusion is based on the fact that we use the term "drilling angle" on symmetrics, when a more appropriate term would be "pre-drilling angle" or "CG angle".

If I may make a suggestion, we could use some sort of short hand for this.

When prescribing a layout for someone, differentiate between the "CG angle" and drilling angle -- we could use something such as the ` or ^ symbol to specifically denote the angle from cg-pin to pin-pap and then reserve the * symbol to denote the actual or approximate drilling angle on symmetrics (or asyms for that matter).

For example:

Drill the symmetric 20`/4.25"/50* and add a balance hole 2" down the VAL to target a 50*/4.25"/50* layout.

Thoughts?

More confusing, less confusing?


Humbly submitted,

Jeremy
User avatar
kellytehuna
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 2891
Joined: January 18th, 2010, 11:11 pm
THS Average: 195
Positive Axis Point: 3.75", 1" up
Speed: 18
Rev Rate: 480
Axis Tilt: 17
Axis Rotation: 40
Heavy Oil Ball: Morich DestroyR
Medium Oil Ball: Morich Perpetual Motion
Light Oil Ball: Morich Mojave
Preferred Company: Morich
Location: Hazard, KY

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by kellytehuna »

I think the nomenclature is pretty clear. The problem is understanding the concept. You will notice that everyone who is comfortable with the concept of the PSA ending in the thumb hole (or very close to it) on syms before the use of a balance hole will ALWAYS make recommendations for a balance hole as well. It's rare to see a layout recommendation for a sym on these boards that doesn't include a balance hole placement as well.
Father, Husband, Bowler, Web developer

15lb Morich DestroyR, Mania, Perpetual Motion, Craze, Frenzy, Mojave
15lb Radical Yeti
15lb Brunswick Slingshot, Avalanche Urethane

Highest score: 279
Highest series: 818
xclusix
Member
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: April 9th, 2012, 3:52 am

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by xclusix »

Finally understood!

Im now starting to worry because my balls are likely to be illegal, both with double thumb layout, will have to go to the proshop guy that drilled my ball all-wrong, because he is the only one with the scale.....

Back to topic:

Great software, awesome study......

I wonder if it would be possible releasing a Ball Design module, so that the community could add balls to the software......
The Kid
Member
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 5:26 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by The Kid »

Based on the "why" behind the drilling angle: the higher the differential ratio, the stronger the effect of the drilling angle on the first transition.

This is because the drilling angle places the PAP "x degrees" from the minor axis of the RG contour. Objects in elliptical orbit (the PAP in this case) increase linear velocity once they cross the minor axis of the elliptical path, with maximum velocity at the major axis. So, the effect is that once the PAP migrates across the pin-to-PSA line (minor axis), the precession increases.

However, the shape of the RG contours are dependent on the differential ratio. A perfectly symmetrical ball has circular RG contours. As the differential ratio increases, the contours become more elliptical. The more elliptical the contours, the greater the increase in the precessional rate (also, circular orbits have no increase).

Thus, on symmetrical balls (very mild asymmetricals post-drilling) the drilling angle hardly changes when precession increases. Increasing the asymmetry would increase the effect (using a P3, P4, or balance hole 2" down the VAL from the midline). Or a larger change to the drilling angle needs to happen to noticeably affect the first transition (balance joke 2"down the VAL).
User avatar
kellytehuna
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 2891
Joined: January 18th, 2010, 11:11 pm
THS Average: 195
Positive Axis Point: 3.75", 1" up
Speed: 18
Rev Rate: 480
Axis Tilt: 17
Axis Rotation: 40
Heavy Oil Ball: Morich DestroyR
Medium Oil Ball: Morich Perpetual Motion
Light Oil Ball: Morich Mojave
Preferred Company: Morich
Location: Hazard, KY

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by kellytehuna »

That's great explanation of the detail behind axis migration and its relationship to the drilling angle! Good job!
Father, Husband, Bowler, Web developer

15lb Morich DestroyR, Mania, Perpetual Motion, Craze, Frenzy, Mojave
15lb Radical Yeti
15lb Brunswick Slingshot, Avalanche Urethane

Highest score: 279
Highest series: 818
jpj6780
Member
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: June 23rd, 2011, 3:47 pm
Positive Axis Point: 4-5/8" over 1/2"up
Speed: 17 hand
Rev Rate: 300
Axis Tilt: 16
Axis Rotation: 50
Heavy Oil Ball: Roto Grip Theory 48/4.25/47 p3
Medium Oil Ball: Perpetual Motion 65/2.25/25 p3
Light Oil Ball: Mojave 70/4.25/47
Preferred Company: Morich
Location: Lowcountry SC

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by jpj6780 »

xclusix wrote:Finally understood!

Im now starting to worry because my balls are likely to be illegal, both with double thumb layout, .

Just because it looks illegal, doesn't mean it is. I have a Mojave with the cg very close to the thumb hole that doesn't have a balance hole and it's completely legal. It started with a very low top weight (~1oz, if I remember correctly). you might also see a ball with a big double thumb hole that's legal even though the cg isn't far below the midline because of higher topweight.

Only a dodo scale can tell you for sure. When you know the statics before you start drilling, in most cases, it's not hard to make some small adjustments to keep things within legal limits just by drilling the holes a little deeper or shallower than "normal" (as long as fingers and thumb still can fit) to prevent excessive weight imbalance and leave room for balance holes if needed.

Jeremy
elgavachon
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 3174
Joined: January 18th, 2010, 9:21 pm

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by elgavachon »

The Kid wrote:Based on the "why" behind the drilling angle: the higher the differential ratio, the stronger the effect of the drilling angle on the first transition.

This is because the drilling angle places the PAP "x degrees" from the minor axis of the RG contour. Objects in elliptical orbit (the PAP in this case) increase linear velocity once they cross the minor axis of the elliptical path, with maximum velocity at the major axis. So, the effect is that once the PAP migrates across the pin-to-PSA line (minor axis), the precession increases.

However, the shape of the RG contours are dependent on the differential ratio. A perfectly symmetrical ball has circular RG contours. As the differential ratio increases, the contours become more elliptical. The more elliptical the contours, the greater the increase in the precessional rate (also, circular orbits have no increase).

Thus, on symmetrical balls (very mild asymmetricals post-drilling) the drilling angle hardly changes when precession increases. Increasing the asymmetry would increase the effect (using a P3, P4, or balance hole 2" down the VAL from the midline). Or a larger change to the drilling angle needs to happen to noticeably affect the first transition (balance joke 2"down the VAL).
Here are some pictures to help visualize this: (see #50 & #52)
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=69&hilit=diet+dew&start=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
russelldean
BCU Graduate Layouts
BCU Graduate Layouts
Posts: 877
Joined: February 14th, 2011, 6:09 am
THS Average: 230
Positive Axis Point: 5 up 1/4
Speed: 20
Rev Rate: 400
Axis Tilt: 15
Axis Rotation: 60
Preferred Company: Brunswick
Location: pasco wa

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by russelldean »

Blueprint,
Any chance of plugging in the numbers for the short pin to pap? Is your system set up to do it without much time and effort? If not, totally understandable.
Please click the Green Button, If i have been helpful..
User avatar
Triplicate
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 1410
Joined: September 2nd, 2010, 12:04 am
THS Average: 220
Positive Axis Point: 5 1/2 x 1 1/2
Speed: 16-18 at Foul Line
Rev Rate: 300
Axis Tilt: 7-10
Axis Rotation: 45+-
Location: Canada

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by Triplicate »

russelldean wrote:Blueprint,
Any chance of plugging in the numbers for the short pin to pap? Is your system set up to do it without much time and effort? If not, totally understandable.
If you have not already given the trial of BluePrint a shot then go for it. You'll have plenty of time to do your short pin experiments and you'll get better results on your own when you enter in your specific grip and delivery specs.
High Game - 300 (20), 299 (10), 298 (2), 11 in a row (18)
High Series - (278 Triplicate) = 834 (9)
HOF induction - 2 (1 Local and 1 Provincial)
Is this helpful? Then Click the Image on the bottom right.
User avatar
Mo Pinel
Rest In Peace
Rest In Peace
Posts: 10054
Joined: January 26th, 2010, 6:10 pm
Preferred Company: MoRich, & now RADICAL BT
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by Mo Pinel »

russelldean wrote:Blueprint,
Any chance of plugging in the numbers for the short pin to pap? Is your system set up to do it without much time and effort? If not, totally understandable.

There are short pin to PAP distances in the study. Look at the charts at the end.
Rest In Peace (1942-2021)
Blueprint
Industry Professional
Industry Professional
Posts: 60
Joined: August 30th, 2011, 10:02 am
Preferred Company: NA

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by Blueprint »

Triplicate wrote: As you keep changing the Drilling Angel you'll see changes in the static weights. It's not until you add a balance hole that you will change the mass properties of the ball.

Again... the Drill Angle charges the position of the CG so kick it out an inch or more as to allow for a balance hole at P3 for example. This is now what will change the ball motion due to mass property changes.


Enjoy the trial :!:
It sounds like some of the comments made already have cleared up the confusion with respect to drilling angle on symmetricals, but I thought I'd contribute an example to drive the point home even further.
Columbia300_Omen_Balance_Hole_Example.jpg
In this example, the ball is initially drilled with a fairly long pin distance low-flare layout. The addition of the balance hole simultaneously increases the total differential, increases the intermediate differential, and moves the high RG axis to a higher-flaring position. This really strengthens the ball's reaction down-lane.

It might be that you fully intended for the ball to have very low flare...in that case, just don't add the balance hole. If, however, the ball ends up much weaker than you intended, you can simply add the balance hole (starting small and working up in diameter until you dial in the exact reaction you want), saving you from having to plug / re-drill to get the reaction you want.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Mo Pinel
Rest In Peace
Rest In Peace
Posts: 10054
Joined: January 26th, 2010, 6:10 pm
Preferred Company: MoRich, & now RADICAL BT
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by Mo Pinel »

Blueprint wrote: It sounds like some of the comments made already have cleared up the confusion with respect to drilling angle on symmetricals, but I thought I'd contribute an example to drive the point home even further.
Columbia300_Omen_Balance_Hole_Example.jpg
In this example, the ball is initially drilled with a fairly long pin distance low-flare layout. The addition of the balance hole simultaneously increases the total differential, increases the intermediate differential, and moves the high RG axis to a higher-flaring position. This really strengthens the ball's reaction down-lane.

It might be that you fully intended for the ball to have very low flare...in that case, just don't add the balance hole. If, however, the ball ends up much weaker than you intended, you can simply add the balance hole (starting small and working up in diameter until you dial in the exact reaction you want), saving you from having to plug / re-drill to get the reaction you want.

Thanks, Blueprint, for taking the time to show the results of using a balance hole in the "double thumb" position. Everyone should keep in mind to start with a small diameter hole and gradually in crease the size 'til you get the strength of reaction you are looking for.

See that the PSA moved 1.8" closer to the PAP with the hole size in the diagram. That changed the drilling angle of the drilled ball, also.
Rest In Peace (1942-2021)
User avatar
JJKinGA
Member
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 11:09 am
THS Average: 170
Speed: 16.75 MPH (Camera)
Rev Rate: 275
Axis Tilt: 20
Axis Rotation: 55
Medium Oil Ball: Columbia 300 Ransom Demand 30 x 4.25 x 654 P3
Light Oil Ball: Track 706A
Preferred Company: Columbia 300
Location: Roswell, GA

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by JJKinGA »

This is a very good study. Thank you for taking the time to write it up so well.

I would like to suggest a study that indicates how much the core shape matters. I believe that the Ransom Demand and Taboo Jet Black have very simialr specifications (at least at 14# which is where I do my shopping at). I am sure there are others that have very similar undrilled mass properties. I would like to know if the Rg, differential and int. differential describe the net effect for the various drillng angles. And differences would be due to the unique core shape and would indicate how muc influence that shape has on the final ball motion.
User avatar
Triplicate
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 1410
Joined: September 2nd, 2010, 12:04 am
THS Average: 220
Positive Axis Point: 5 1/2 x 1 1/2
Speed: 16-18 at Foul Line
Rev Rate: 300
Axis Tilt: 7-10
Axis Rotation: 45+-
Location: Canada

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by Triplicate »

JJKinGA wrote:I would like to suggest a study that indicates how much the core shape matters. I believe that the Ransom Demand and Taboo Jet Black have very simialr specifications (at least at 14# which is where I do my shopping at). I am sure there are others that have very similar undrilled mass properties. I would like to know if the Rg, differential and int. differential describe the net effect for the various drillng angles.
Yes, having similar mass properties between balls will make them similar in nature but to be exact you'd have to run a comparison between two specific balls with your grip specifications to be able to see the difference.

The mass properties will indeed change given different core designs since you'll be taking out more weight out of the gripping holes if the core is closer to the surface. :idea: We already know the mass properties will vary. :idea: Exactly how much this will differ will depend on your specific grip specs, PAP, and the surface friction between the two balls to mention a few.

The shape of the shot will also vary depending on these details as well. How that shape will end up is once again dependent on your grip specifications.

I could say this will make a big difference or that it would not result in much of a change at all but this has no meaning what so ever to reply in this fashion. :roll:

No one is going to do this for you since there are too many unknowns. If you really want specific details, give the trial of BluePrint a try. You'll have plenty of time to do your experiment and you'll get accurate results using your own gripping and delivery specs. Click on the link below. :!:

http://blueprintbowling.com/freeTrial.aspx

If you choose to do this then why not report your findings back to us here? I'm sure others would be interested as well. :)

I hope this helps :!:
High Game - 300 (20), 299 (10), 298 (2), 11 in a row (18)
High Series - (278 Triplicate) = 834 (9)
HOF induction - 2 (1 Local and 1 Provincial)
Is this helpful? Then Click the Image on the bottom right.
User avatar
Mo Pinel
Rest In Peace
Rest In Peace
Posts: 10054
Joined: January 26th, 2010, 6:10 pm
Preferred Company: MoRich, & now RADICAL BT
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by Mo Pinel »


You guys are just beginning to understand the intricacies of core design. I live in that world. It's very convoluted and even some pretty good engineers don't understand it very well.
Rest In Peace (1942-2021)
User avatar
Triplicate
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 1410
Joined: September 2nd, 2010, 12:04 am
THS Average: 220
Positive Axis Point: 5 1/2 x 1 1/2
Speed: 16-18 at Foul Line
Rev Rate: 300
Axis Tilt: 7-10
Axis Rotation: 45+-
Location: Canada

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by Triplicate »

It's just a hunch but I'll bet this will be the area where the next big advancement in bowling ball technology will come from. Time will tell but I don't think we'll have long to wait.

Remember the Ebonite Gyro rubber balls with the graph on the ball as to where they suggested the holes be drilled. See image below. I would not be surprised when these sophisticated cores come out they will have to be labeled to help you find specific spots to drill for given reactions. :shock:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
High Game - 300 (20), 299 (10), 298 (2), 11 in a row (18)
High Series - (278 Triplicate) = 834 (9)
HOF induction - 2 (1 Local and 1 Provincial)
Is this helpful? Then Click the Image on the bottom right.
User avatar
russelldean
BCU Graduate Layouts
BCU Graduate Layouts
Posts: 877
Joined: February 14th, 2011, 6:09 am
THS Average: 230
Positive Axis Point: 5 up 1/4
Speed: 20
Rev Rate: 400
Axis Tilt: 15
Axis Rotation: 60
Preferred Company: Brunswick
Location: pasco wa

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by russelldean »

Mo,
I see the short pin to pap in the mass properties table, but not with the variables like figures 9 and 12?
Please click the Green Button, If i have been helpful..
User avatar
JJKinGA
Member
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 11:09 am
THS Average: 170
Speed: 16.75 MPH (Camera)
Rev Rate: 275
Axis Tilt: 20
Axis Rotation: 55
Medium Oil Ball: Columbia 300 Ransom Demand 30 x 4.25 x 654 P3
Light Oil Ball: Track 706A
Preferred Company: Columbia 300
Location: Roswell, GA

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by JJKinGA »

Triplicate wrote: Yes, having similar mass properties between balls will make them similar in nature but to be exact you'd have to run a comparison between two specific balls with your grip specifications to be able to see the difference.

The mass properties will indeed change given different core designs since you'll be taking out more weight out of the gripping holes if the core is closer to the surface. :idea: We already know the mass properties will vary. :idea: Exactly how much this will differ will depend on your specific grip specs, PAP, and the surface friction between the two balls to mention a few.

The shape of the shot will also vary depending on these details as well. How that shape will end up is once again dependent on your grip specifications.

I could say this will make a big difference or that it would not result in much of a change at all but this has no meaning what so ever to reply in this fashion. :roll:

No one is going to do this for you since there are too many unknowns. If you really want specific details, give the trial of BluePrint a try. You'll have plenty of time to do your experiment and you'll get accurate results using your own gripping and delivery specs. Click on the link below. :!:

http://blueprintbowling.com/freeTrial.aspx

If you choose to do this then why not report your findings back to us here? I'm sure others would be interested as well. :)

I hope this helps :!:
Not really in that the trial version only have 4 very dis-similar cores. Also, i was not trying to have someone help me choose, but get an understanding for the magnitude of difference. Often in my field one can get 80 - 95% of the correct answer with very simple assumptions. and getting beyond that requires tremendous amount of computation. I was simply suggesting that a study like this may help everyone understand how close the simplest model (Rg, diff. and int diff/diff ratio) along with the dual angle system comes to capturing the ball mass properties. Surface friction is a whole different beast.

I am still curious, so when I go to purchase a new ball or two in the fall, I will see if Dannial can run some similar balls through blueprint with my specs and see what the mass properties are. If that works out, i will definately post the results.

Mo, just out of curiousity, how many different grip specs do you simulate when you are designing a core shape?
User avatar
Mo Pinel
Rest In Peace
Rest In Peace
Posts: 10054
Joined: January 26th, 2010, 6:10 pm
Preferred Company: MoRich, & now RADICAL BT
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Bowling Ball Track Flare Study

Post by Mo Pinel »

JJKinGA wrote: Not really in that the trial version only have 4 very dis-similar cores. Also, i was not trying to have someone help me choose, but get an understanding for the magnitude of difference. Often in my field one can get 80 - 95% of the correct answer with very simple assumptions. and getting beyond that requires tremendous amount of computation. I was simply suggesting that a study like this may help everyone understand how close the simplest model (Rg, diff. and int diff/diff ratio) along with the dual angle system comes to capturing the ball mass properties. Surface friction is a whole different beast.

I am still curious, so when I go to purchase a new ball or two in the fall, I will see if Dannial can run some similar balls through blueprint with my specs and see what the mass properties are. If that works out, i will definately post the results.

Mo, just out of curiousity, how many different grip specs do you simulate when you are designing a core shape?
We start with three basic layouts and, then, expand on that as the core comes to fruition.
Rest In Peace (1942-2021)
Locked