Page 1 of 1

Low RG vs High RG

Posted: August 26th, 2010, 7:24 pm
by Ramshaw
When choosing a new ball what factor does the RG have for guys like myself? I have found that low RG for my game seems to make the ball stand up down lane. Recently I redrilled my MISSION with 70 x 4 x 35. The ball just revved up and seemed to slide down lane in a tumbling motion. It worked fine before I did this. I was trying to be able to play in heavier part of our THS. So did the RG of the ball + layout + my rev rate (450 rpms) make this ball super weak down lane? I suppose I should mention our house is wood lanes with guardian over the first 20'.

I am looking at purchasing a Complete Bedlam (med rg) and a Burst (very low rg). Any suggestions?

Re: Low RG vs High RG

Posted: August 27th, 2010, 1:37 am
by Ramshaw
all apologies... the guy who drilled my ball used the wrong PAP. I remeasured today and the angles were 38 x 3 x 10. so my ball is just getting into a roll immediately.

Re: Low RG vs High RG

Posted: August 27th, 2010, 4:10 am
by Ramshaw
I would still like to know if lower RG balls are bad for my attributes?

Re: Low RG vs High RG

Posted: August 27th, 2010, 6:54 am
by odddood
Ramshaw wrote:all apologies... the guy who drilled my ball used the wrong PAP. I remeasured today and the angles were 38 x 3 x 10. so my ball is just getting into a roll immediately.

with your rev if is true I say u need to drill it them weaker maybe is burning up. let say what mo say. I say you should start around 80 x 3 x 30

Re: Low RG vs High RG

Posted: August 27th, 2010, 12:32 pm
by Mo Pinel
Ramshaw wrote:all apologies... the guy who drilled my ball used the wrong PAP. I remeasured today and the angles were 38 x 3 x 10. so my ball is just getting into a roll immediately.
That layout will roll early for a rev dominant player.

The importance of the mass properties (starting with the most important) in a drilled ball are:

1) Differential Ratio
2) Total Diff.
3) RG

Guardian is the highest friction surface you can bowl on. You need a large sum of the angles with a lower angle ratio and a medium to low flare pin placement to lengthen the transitions. This is one case where symmetrical balls work better because of the lower diff. ratio of the drilled ball.

Re: Low RG vs High RG

Posted: August 30th, 2010, 5:53 am
by The Kid
Mo, not to cross your authority, but how is RG as low as that? Reading the graph on the ball motion study page 13 has them ranked the opposite of that. I suppose ratio isn't on there. I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this. Thanks!


http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net ... nstudy.pdf

Re: Low RG vs High RG

Posted: August 30th, 2010, 11:27 am
by Mo Pinel
The Kid wrote:Mo, not to cross your authority, but how is RG as low as that? Reading the graph on the ball motion study page 13 has them ranked the opposite of that. I suppose ratio isn't on there. I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this. Thanks!


http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net ... nstudy.pdf

The reality of the latest research says that because of the effect of drilling techniques on ball motion, manipulating the diff. ratio and increasing the total diff. by the layout and the balance hole location far offsets the RG of the designed ball. Remember, cover aggressiveness is still #1. We are truly only interested in the resulting drilled ball. In the ball motion study, ALL the balls had to be drilled the same way to make the comparison accurate.

Re: Low RG vs High RG

Posted: August 31st, 2010, 2:44 pm
by The Kid
Sounds good to me. From my understanding, the diff. ratio changes the shape of the second phase (skid/snap with higher ratio, smoother hook with lower ratio); is that the only thing it does? It seems that you're implying it has a greater effect on ball motion.

Just curious.

Re: Low RG vs High RG

Posted: August 31st, 2010, 6:32 pm
by Ramshaw
The main question was never answered. Should a guy with low tilt and 400+ rev rate ever consider low RG bowling balls?

Re: Low RG vs High RG

Posted: September 1st, 2010, 5:26 pm
by The Kid
Good point...

I think Mo's point would be that Low RG vs. High RG matters less than RG differential and ratio.

Low RGs provide an earlier roll, so I wouldn't suggest it over a ball, all else being equal from cover to core, with a higher RG.

Consider:
1) cover/finish
2) differential ratio (Intermediate Diff./Total Diff.)
3) total diff.
4) RG

Remember again that only the drilled ball's specs matter; you can alter the core specs through changed layouts.

That's my synopsis anyway.

Re: Low RG vs High RG

Posted: September 1st, 2010, 7:27 pm
by elgavachon
Ramshaw wrote:The main question was never answered. Should a guy with low tilt and 400+ rev rate ever consider low RG bowling balls?
I think the answer you are looking for has more to do with spin times. Mo says that is actually the measurement you are looking for

Re: Low RG vs High RG

Posted: September 1st, 2010, 10:48 pm
by Mo Pinel
The Kid wrote:Good point...

I think Mo's point would be that Low RG vs. High RG matters less than RG differential and ratio.

Low RGs provide an earlier roll, so I wouldn't suggest it over a ball, all else being equal from cover to core, with a higher RG.

Consider:
1) cover/finish
2) differential ratio (Intermediate Diff./Total Diff.)
3) total diff.
4) RG

Remember again that only the drilled ball's specs matter; you can alter the core specs through changed layouts.

That's my synopsis anyway.
CORRECT! Thanks.

Re: Low RG vs High RG

Posted: September 1st, 2010, 10:52 pm
by Mo Pinel
elgavachon wrote: I think the answer you are looking for has more to do with spin times. Mo says that is actually the measurement you are looking for
Correct, again! In order, the factors are:

1) Cover
2) Diff. ratio
3) Total diff.
4) RG

I think I just re-iterated was has been said. And I'm not changing my mind. Thanks for the support guys.