Board index » Mo & Friends » Ball & Layout Advice




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: new layouts for the upcoming USBC 3oz. rule change
 Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:54 am Post Number: #1 Post
Offline
Member

Joined: October 7, 2013
Posts: 2
Reputation: 0
Reputation Power: 1
Good evening all, i was wondering if anyone has experimented with some new layouts for the upcoming USBC rule change allowing 3oz. of side/finger/thumb?
i don't know anyone that intentionally drilled a ball with 3 oz of side and no hole. Anyone messing with this?


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: new layouts for the upcoming USBC 3oz. rule change
 Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 4:24 am Post Number: #2 Post
Offline
Certified Coach

Joined: December 13, 2014
Posts: 1169
Location: San Juan, PR
Reputation: 203
Reputation Power: 3
On symmetrical balls it doesn’t matter where you put the cg as the psa will always be somewhere in the vicinity of the thumb hole. Finger, thumb or side weight will not affect ball reaction significantly even if it’s a 3 oz imbalance. On asymmetrical balls psa placement will be critical the closer the psa (mass bias) is to the VAL (vertical axis line) the earlier the ball will read. Static weights will not affect ball motion in a significant way.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: new layouts for the upcoming USBC 3oz. rule change
 Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 4:27 pm Post Number: #3 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts
User avatar

Joined: April 4, 2011
Posts: 3322
Location: Michigan
Reputation: 295
Reputation Power: 3
Give it some time and there will be people drilling balls with 3 oz positive or negative weight. What we need is throbot to show us wwether or not it has a noticeable effect.

I think there could be an effect on the lighter weight balls 11,12, 13 pounds. Thus the 1 oz imbalance limit for balls under 10 pounds.
Time will tell.

_________________
Eric Hartwell

Right Handed
PAP 4.75" up 1/2"
45* rotation
12* tilt
330 rev rate
16 mph off hand


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: new layouts for the upcoming USBC 3oz. rule change
 Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:06 pm Post Number: #4 Post
Offline
Trusted Source

Joined: January 18, 2010
Posts: 3125
Reputation: 465
Reputation Power: 5
damron801 wrote:
Good evening all, i was wondering if anyone has experimented with some new layouts for the upcoming USBC rule change allowing 3oz. of side/finger/thumb?
i don't know anyone that intentionally drilled a ball with 3 oz of side and no hole. Anyone messing with this?

speed will become more of an issue with 3 oz side from what I can see:
http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net ... cement.pdf

At 17 mph and 350 rpms the test showed these conclusions:
1. Side weight is strongly correlated to Total Angle Change: 0.3645 degrees per ounce
2. Side Weight is strongly related to total hook of the ball: 0.6056 boards per ounce


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: new layouts for the upcoming USBC 3oz. rule change
 Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:37 am Post Number: #5 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts
User avatar

Joined: August 31, 2014
Posts: 673
Location: Tucson, AZ
Reputation: 121
Reputation Power: 2
I think the effect of static weight will have to be measured relative to the PAP and/or track, and NOT the center of grip, in order to accurately determine the true effect on ball motion.

I would conjecture that placing a significant static weight on the PAP would tend to modulate the axis migration path. However small this effect might be, I can't imagine that it would be constructive.

_________________
Benchmark Bowling Pro Shop
Byron

RH
PAP: 5.625" x 0
REVRATE: 360
SPEED: 17mph at release
AR: 55º
AT: 7º


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: new layouts for the upcoming USBC 3oz. rule change
 Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:38 am Post Number: #6 Post
Offline
Member

Joined: October 7, 2013
Posts: 2
Reputation: 0
Reputation Power: 1
After looking up the results Elgavachon posted, it seems clear that positive side weight can have a decent effect on overall hook and entry angle. if you can increase your entry angle by 2 degrees, that can be a huge difference in carry percentage. Even 1 degree of entry angle can be huge for kicking out a 10 pin Or leaving one. i will experiment myself soon and post some results. Look for yourself and see what you think. http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net ... cement.pdf


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: new layouts for the upcoming USBC 3oz. rule change
 Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:40 pm Post Number: #7 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts

Joined: January 24, 2012
Posts: 469
Reputation: 70
Reputation Power: 1
TonyPR wrote:
On symmetrical balls it doesn’t matter where you put the cg as the psa will always be somewhere in the vicinity of the thumb hole. Finger, thumb or side weight will not affect ball reaction significantly even if it’s a 3 oz imbalance. On asymmetrical balls psa placement will be critical the closer the psa (mass bias) is to the VAL (vertical axis line) the earlier the ball will read. Static weights will not affect ball motion in a significant way.

This is probably inaccurate. 3 oz imbalance definitely effects ball motion. Whether or not it's enough to be "significant" can be debated.

elgavachon wrote:
speed will become more of an issue with 3 oz side from what I can see:
http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net ... cement.pdf

At 17 mph and 350 rpms the test showed these conclusions:
1. Side weight is strongly correlated to Total Angle Change: 0.3645 degrees per ounce
2. Side Weight is strongly related to total hook of the ball: 0.6056 boards per ounce


35 ft of oil, 1:1 ratio, 17 mph, 350 rpm... I like how they use conditions that mimic the conditions the average league bowler encounters. :roll:

_________________
James Talley


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: new layouts for the upcoming USBC 3oz. rule change
 Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 9:02 am Post Number: #8 Post
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: June 14, 2013
Posts: 199
Reputation: 37
Reputation Power: 1
My thoughts on the new USBC report

The math (from the report):
1 ounce of side weight correlates (R2: 95.2) to Approximately 0.36 degrees of total angle change
o +/- 1 ounce spec limits the effect to 0.72 degrees
o +/- 3 ounce spec limits the effect to 2.16 degrees
1 ounce of side weight correlates (R2: 84.3) to approximately 0.6 boards of hook
o +/- 1 ounce spec limits the effect to 1.2 boards of hook
o +/- 3 ounce spec limits the effect to 3.6 boards of hook

Notice they provide totals in a range format, so "2.16 degrees" and "3.6 boards" come from comparing their single test ball at -3 oz and +3 oz.

Likely scenario:
If you have a SYM ball with +1 oz of side weight - the current POS limit -, and buy/drill (Pin location) an identical ball with +3 oz side weight (2 oz difference), you MIGHT increase ball motion by 0.72 deg/1.2 boards.

Unlikely scenario:
If you have a SYM ball with -1 oz of side weight - the current NEG limit - and buy/drill an identical ball with +3 oz side weight (4 oz difference), then you MIGHT have a change of 1.44 deg/2.4 boards.

In my opinion, this report has too many deficiencies to be useful. I don't say this because I know everything about Gyroscopic Inertia, but because one of my greatest talents is poking holes in other peoples' theories and ideas (I'm very popular at parties).

They admit BALL SPEED affects the results, but only test at 1 speed.
Does REV RATE affect the results? Unknown
Does PIN-PAP distance affect the results? Unknown
Do any drilled RG/DIFF values affect the results? Unknown
Does anybody care how an undrilled ball rolls? Apparently
They stated at the beginning these variables (and more) would be controlled, but we don't bowl in a vacuum.

I realize this was not intended to be an all-encompassing scientific study like the previous Static Weights Study (which this report essentially renders invalid).

But consider that USBC is willing to increase ball motion by 1 deg/~2 boards (on average) via static weights at the expense of balance holes (because balance holes make puppies cry).

If we're "gaining" this much from Static weights, what are we losing from balance holes?

_________________
Right Handed
Speed: 18 mph (foul line)
Rev Rate: ~350 rpm
Tilt: 10*
Rotation: 55*
PAP: 5 1/8" right, 1/2" up


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: new layouts for the upcoming USBC 3oz. rule change
 Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:34 pm Post Number: #9 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts
User avatar

Joined: April 4, 2011
Posts: 3322
Location: Michigan
Reputation: 295
Reputation Power: 3
I will apologize now for the rant that is to follow...

Sure they gave us some numbers on total hook and angle. What about the effect static weight has on the shape of the ball motion?

I wish they would have just limited the total differential that could be manufactured and kept the balance hole options.

DarkHorse wrote:
If we're "gaining" this much from Static weights, what are we losing from balance holes?

I don't have numbers for total hook and angle but I believe it to be greater than what the static weight has to offer.

We are losing the ability to make a Symmetrical ball highly Asymmetrical after drilling. Also lost, the ability to predict the asymmetry by the position of the balance hole.
I have lost the ability to tune/customize my own ball making me a prisoner to what the manufactures are offering me. Less options at lighter weights.

This whole rule change is akin to taking the ability to tune a golf club to an individuals swing away from golfers. Could you imagine USGA telling them the cant use custom shafts, have the lie angles adjusted, modify the swing weight or limit any of the tricks of the trade to better hit a golf ball. Then IF any of their clubs have been modified they will have to replace them for use in sanctioned competition. Talk about some pissed off customers. That is what the USBC has done to bowlers.

As of now there is no limit on Asymmetry (Intermediate Differential)
Will they limit that next?

I also do not believe that it is the USBC alone making a decision like this.
Notice that there have been no press releases from the Manufactures. Why is that?

I think this is no more than a plan to sell more bowling balls and try to procreate the business.
Short term money grab, trying to cover it up by saying it is to preserve the integrity of the sport in the long term. It will help the manufactures sell what would normally be out of spec balls, less manufacturing waste because the core shifted during production.
I am in agreement about limiting the absorption rates. I do believe the oil suckers were getting out of hand destroying the oil patterns.

I was at a point with my arsenal that I wasn't going to need to purchase another ball for several years barring a catastrophic failure of a ball. I now have to replace 8 balls. Sure I could just fill the balance holes at a minimal cost but I will not have the ball motions I designed into my arsenal. So replacement will be necessary for most of them. And because I roll lighter weight equipment my options are very limited at this time. Hopefully I am correct in my assumptions about the manufactures wanting to sell more balls and will have more options available in the near future.
But they will probably keep the Asymmetricals at the Premium price points so I can pay more too.

_________________
Eric Hartwell

Right Handed
PAP 4.75" up 1/2"
45* rotation
12* tilt
330 rev rate
16 mph off hand


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: new layouts for the upcoming USBC 3oz. rule change
 Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 8:08 pm Post Number: #10 Post
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: June 14, 2013
Posts: 199
Reputation: 37
Reputation Power: 1
EricHartwell wrote:
I will apologize now for the rant that is to follow...

I'm in near-total agreement with you.
I guarantee we are losing angle/total hook; they're not going to change the rule to allow more. I guess USBC doesn't realize some manufacturers take after-drilling numbers into account when designing the core. Or that you can use a layout/balance hole to reduce track flare.

I'm sure USBC took some direction from the manufacturers, but we've been seeing this all over the economy for years - planned obsolescence. I can't sell you a new widget if your old gizmo still works.

Regarding absorption rates, it was claimed every ball USBC tested during this study passed. I believe the new rule will limit the rate to 2:15, but the fastest ball on the market was 2:30ish. They didn't roll back the 1 factor they claimed was costing proprietors the most headache, they just placed a barrier to stop it from going further. Good, but not great.

While I agree some less-than-stellar bowlers shot better-than-expected scores with help from balance holes, the option was available to everybody.
Taking away balance holes is the wrong direction.
Hopefully, with 2 years of either option, bowlers will realize this and the rules will be altered by 2020.

_________________
Right Handed
Speed: 18 mph (foul line)
Rev Rate: ~350 rpm
Tilt: 10*
Rotation: 55*
PAP: 5 1/8" right, 1/2" up


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: new layouts for the upcoming USBC 3oz. rule change
 Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:42 am Post Number: #11 Post
Offline
Member

Joined: April 9, 2010
Posts: 52
Location: Killeen, TX
Reputation: 0
Reputation Power: 1
Today, I drilled a 14lbs Brunswick Nirvana with a 50 degree MB for my senior friend. Ball ended with 1 5/8oz of side weight, no hole. We practice today on 41 ft Pattern for the upcoming Military Tournament in August at South Point. Ball pick up early in the middle with a strong roll on the backend. He had to move left into the middle track.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: new layouts for the upcoming USBC 3oz. rule change
 Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:35 am Post Number: #12 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts
User avatar

Joined: August 31, 2014
Posts: 673
Location: Tucson, AZ
Reputation: 121
Reputation Power: 2
EricHartwell wrote:
...I think this is no more than a plan to sell more bowling balls and try to procreate the business.
Short term money grab, trying to cover it up by saying it is to preserve the integrity of the sport in the long term. It will help the manufactures sell what would normally be out of spec balls, less manufacturing waste because the core shifted during production.
I am in agreement about limiting the absorption rates. I do believe the oil suckers were getting out of hand destroying the oil patterns.


Bingo!

_________________
Benchmark Bowling Pro Shop
Byron

RH
PAP: 5.625" x 0
REVRATE: 360
SPEED: 17mph at release
AR: 55º
AT: 7º


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: new layouts for the upcoming USBC 3oz. rule change
 Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:59 pm Post Number: #13 Post
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: August 11, 2014
Posts: 564
Reputation: 83
Reputation Power: 1
I recently attended one of Mo's PSO (Brunswick/Radical) seminars covering the new rule changes. It was very interesting and informative. Radical will be circulating a group of layouts to PSOs (A to E) that will look familiar and "provide a series of layouts from least hook to most hook that DO NOT require the use of a balance hole."

A few things that jumped out to me.

Mo called the 90 x 2 1/4 x 45 the "layout of the future". Paraphrasing, "use a strong ball, loads of surface (360 or 500), stay right and watch it run over the 8 pin." He didn't go into a lot of detail, but this is basically a low flare layout with a lot of surface for control and smoothing out wet/dry transition.

For increasing differential, he recommended pin up layouts with finger holes < 2" deep and going an extra 1.25" deep on the thumb. Drill the standard thumb, then go to the next smaller bit and add the extra depth. This will not work with some of the removable thumb systems.

He also said that although we're losing 25% of the flare potential with the loss of the balance holes, Radical will be coming out with new core designs that satisfy USBC requirements and will recover almost everything (93%) that was lost. He was very specific here, so I'm guessing that most of the CAD work is mature and it's just a matter of time before they are released.

He talked at length about many things. If you can find a schedule (I couldn't), try to make time to attend.

Steve

_________________
18-19 mph (15.5-16.5 on monitor), 375 rpm, PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8 up, AT: 12*, AR: 45*


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: new layouts for the upcoming USBC 3oz. rule change
 Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:32 pm Post Number: #14 Post
Offline
Member

Joined: October 1, 2016
Posts: 3
Reputation: 0
Reputation Power: 1
I agree with stevespo completely -- I attended Mo's seminar in Rochester NY last week. VERY interesting and informative. Well worth the time if he's near your area


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

Board index » Mo & Friends » Ball & Layout Advice


 
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: