USBC New Ball Specs

You can post any bowling related topics here.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
EricHartwell
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 3625
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 12:24 am
Positive Axis Point: 4-3/4" and 1/2"up
Speed: 16 off hand
Rev Rate: 330
Axis Tilt: 12
Axis Rotation: 45
Heavy Oil Ball: Radical Tremendous
Medium Oil Ball: Motiv Villain, Hammer Nail, Brunswick True Motion
Light Oil Ball: Blue Hammer, Columbia Nitrous
Location: Michigan

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by EricHartwell » April 25th, 2018, 4:23 pm

MegaMav wrote:
There is no limit on asymmetry.
These bowlers will gravitate toward strong asymmetrical cores now and use surface to get the ball to pick up.
This isnt as big of a deal as many people are making it out to be.
I'm pissed, I have 10 bowlingballs 8 of which have balance holes. Very few Asyms being offered at 13# and when they are they just don't match up to their big brothers. Without the balance holes most of my equipment rolls like crap.
Eric Hartwell

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

User avatar
MegaMav
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4512
Joined: April 27th, 2007, 5:00 am
THS Average: 230
Sport Average: 200
Positive Axis Point: 4 15/16 Over 3/8 Up
Speed: 15.25 MPH - Camera
Rev Rate: 350
Axis Tilt: 14
Axis Rotation: 40
Heavy Oil Ball: Radical - The Closer
Medium Oil Ball: Brunswck - Method Solid
Light Oil Ball: DV8 - Poison Pearl
Preferred Company: Radical Bowling Technologies
Location: Malta, NY

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by MegaMav » April 25th, 2018, 4:23 pm

The Kid wrote:On Saturday I drilled an (asymmetrical) ball for a customer. After throwing a few frames, he asked for just a bit more strength. I drilled a smallish P3 and he loved it.

It's a shame that that fine-tuning measure is being removed. It certainly places an even higher premium on selecting the correct ball and layout, which will inevitably lead to more poorly selected/drilled balls. Even for the PSOs who put in the effort to do that well will occasionally miss, and now it's harder to rectify.
Tuning will still be there, we just have to get closer and dont rely on holes to tune up as much.
We will have surface and extending interchangeable installations and slugs deeper with pilot holes.
Not all is lost.
“When you prepare for everything, you’re ready for anything.” - Bill Walsh

The Kid
Member
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 5:26 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: 2020: no more balance holes...

Post by The Kid » April 25th, 2018, 4:27 pm

MegaMav wrote: He has no data, just conjecture.


I haven't read the article, but he has BluePrint software. I know it's just simulation, but that's some pretty good data. He's shown how BluePrint provides very good real-world simulation. I wouldn't say he has "no data" when making claims about drilling effects on ball motion.

User avatar
imagonman
Member
Member
Posts: 126
Joined: January 21st, 2017, 5:18 pm
Preferred Company: Brunswick
Location: Cleveland Ohio

Re: 2020: no more balance holes...

Post by imagonman » April 25th, 2018, 4:35 pm

MegaMav wrote:
2%.
No.
@ 6:48pm
MegaMav wrote:
If it was 1% at 3oz top, 1oz side, how is changing it to 3oz top and 3oz side opening up pandora's box?
Lets be reasonable here. Its nothing major and it isnt making static weights relevant in ball motion.
Major influencing factors on ball motion are still surface roughness of the coverstock, lane friction factors and oil absorption.
@7:46pm

So in less than 1hr. the value got cut in 1/2?
So much disinfo spread around just confuses things when the actual effect on ball motion as per Paul Ridenour & I quote here from : Ridenour, Paul. “Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?”


"......the only substantial difference is
that the positive CG ball has positive side weight of 1.25
ounces and the negative CG ball has negative side weight of
1.35 ounces..........It is worth noting that even though these are minor
differences, they are still differences. Mathematically,
the difference in position is roughly only about 10
percent; this is not always easy to tell on the lanes
observing from 60 feet away. USBC had thought the balls
looked very similar in reaction; however, the math paints a
different picture. Also realize that this is only one test,
and that additional tests must be conducted to verify that
these results are consistent for most bowling balls. USBC
has performed some calculations to show that the static
measurements of a drilled ball may affect between 3 to 8
percent of overall ball motion.

User avatar
MegaMav
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4512
Joined: April 27th, 2007, 5:00 am
THS Average: 230
Sport Average: 200
Positive Axis Point: 4 15/16 Over 3/8 Up
Speed: 15.25 MPH - Camera
Rev Rate: 350
Axis Tilt: 14
Axis Rotation: 40
Heavy Oil Ball: Radical - The Closer
Medium Oil Ball: Brunswck - Method Solid
Light Oil Ball: DV8 - Poison Pearl
Preferred Company: Radical Bowling Technologies
Location: Malta, NY

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by MegaMav » April 25th, 2018, 4:43 pm

That was from before the ball motion study.
“When you prepare for everything, you’re ready for anything.” - Bill Walsh

User avatar
MegaMav
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4512
Joined: April 27th, 2007, 5:00 am
THS Average: 230
Sport Average: 200
Positive Axis Point: 4 15/16 Over 3/8 Up
Speed: 15.25 MPH - Camera
Rev Rate: 350
Axis Tilt: 14
Axis Rotation: 40
Heavy Oil Ball: Radical - The Closer
Medium Oil Ball: Brunswck - Method Solid
Light Oil Ball: DV8 - Poison Pearl
Preferred Company: Radical Bowling Technologies
Location: Malta, NY

Re: 2020: no more balance holes...

Post by MegaMav » April 25th, 2018, 4:45 pm

imagonman wrote: So in less than 1hr. the value got cut in 1/2?
You're missing context.
The question asked was around the new 3oz top/side/finger specs in 2020.
“When you prepare for everything, you’re ready for anything.” - Bill Walsh

User avatar
imagonman
Member
Member
Posts: 126
Joined: January 21st, 2017, 5:18 pm
Preferred Company: Brunswick
Location: Cleveland Ohio

Re: 2020: no more balance holes...

Post by imagonman » April 25th, 2018, 4:56 pm

MegaMav wrote:
You're missing context.
The question asked was around the new 3oz top/side/finger specs in 2020.
OK like I said b4 Show me where the 1-2% comes from. I can't find any such conclusion from any study that finds statics affect 1%. AND now its tripled, especially in Side wght. which is the most influential of the statics. Ranks above INT Diff. Now x3 puts it above everything except SR-Ra by your additive math methodology you stated on statics to me previous. Question becomes is it a simple linear progression or perhaps logarithmic???
As stated in other posts here where is the conclusive data, not hypothetical conjecture or assumptions.
Last edited by imagonman on April 25th, 2018, 5:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
MegaMav
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4512
Joined: April 27th, 2007, 5:00 am
THS Average: 230
Sport Average: 200
Positive Axis Point: 4 15/16 Over 3/8 Up
Speed: 15.25 MPH - Camera
Rev Rate: 350
Axis Tilt: 14
Axis Rotation: 40
Heavy Oil Ball: Radical - The Closer
Medium Oil Ball: Brunswck - Method Solid
Light Oil Ball: DV8 - Poison Pearl
Preferred Company: Radical Bowling Technologies
Location: Malta, NY

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by MegaMav » April 25th, 2018, 4:56 pm

It may be time to post this video again.
2 3/4oz difference in side weight. More than the 2oz up tick in the rule from 1oz to 3oz
WITH DATA.

[youtube][/youtube]
Mo Pinel wrote:
I was present at the Ball Motion Task force meeting when the second report was given last month. The "white noise" showed up only in extreme cases. In the second set of tests, the "white noise" only showed up in two out of 15 cases and they were extreme imbalances. The "white noise" only showed up at 5.22 oz. of negative side and a combination of 3.5 oz of negative side and 3.5 oz. of bottom. The USBC has not abandoned this project. Because of the data produced, they do have to do additional research before they can propose legislation. This is how science works. It didn't turn out to be as simple as it was first hoped it was, but there is a possible solution after additional research is completed. The goal is still to guarantee consumers that if they have a drilled ball with the USBC approval star on it, the ball cannot be made illegal unless the coverstock is chemically altered. I hope this better explains what is going on.
If you want data on the rationale behind the move to change the static weight rule, I recommend you ask USBC for it.
I think you'll find the above quote is the reason 3oz was selected, as undesirable affect was seen above that.
“When you prepare for everything, you’re ready for anything.” - Bill Walsh

TonyPR
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1324
Joined: December 14th, 2014, 3:08 am
Preferred Company: Radical
Location: San Juan, PR

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by TonyPR » April 25th, 2018, 6:21 pm

I read the center of grip for no thumb bowlers should be marked/engraved where the palm of the hand is to be placed. If I make a mark 2” down from where the finger holes are, would this now be considered my center of grip for static purposes instead of the bridge center? Not that it matters because now we get 3 oz in each direction but this was not made clear.

User avatar
JJakobsen
Certified Coach
Certified Coach
Posts: 271
Joined: March 10th, 2013, 9:59 pm
Sport Average: 180
Positive Axis Point: 3 1/2 right, 1 1/2 up
Speed: 15.5 downlane
Rev Rate: 450
Axis Tilt: 0
Axis Rotation: 30
Heavy Oil Ball: Storm Marvel Pearl
Medium Oil Ball: Brunswick Inferno
Light Oil Ball: Storm Timeless
Preferred Company: 900 Global
Location: Svolvær, Lofoten, Norway

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by JJakobsen » April 25th, 2018, 6:30 pm

I think it is interesting, it (rightly) limits two-finger players to use equipment for just the two fingers. If you spare with the thumb in, you use a separate ball, nothing hard there.

As for TonyPR, did it say that in the USBC news, and I missed it, or is that from somewhere else?
68.2353°N 14.5636°E is where it happens!

User avatar
MeNoRevs
Pro Shop
Pro Shop
Posts: 303
Joined: January 19th, 2010, 11:28 pm
THS Average: 120
Positive Axis Point: 5 3/4 x 1 ^
Preferred Company: I prefer them all
Location: Southern Maryland

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by MeNoRevs » April 25th, 2018, 6:33 pm

TonyPR wrote:I read the center of grip for no thumb bowlers should be marked/engraved where the palm of the hand is to be placed. If I make a mark 2” down from where the finger holes are, would this now be considered my center of grip for static purposes instead of the bridge center? Not that it matters because now we get 3 oz in each direction but this was not made clear.
No, the purpose of the center of grip is so the 2 finger bowler cannot flip the ball 180 degrees and bowl. The center of grip marking must be covered by the palm.

User avatar
JJakobsen
Certified Coach
Certified Coach
Posts: 271
Joined: March 10th, 2013, 9:59 pm
Sport Average: 180
Positive Axis Point: 3 1/2 right, 1 1/2 up
Speed: 15.5 downlane
Rev Rate: 450
Axis Tilt: 0
Axis Rotation: 30
Heavy Oil Ball: Storm Marvel Pearl
Medium Oil Ball: Brunswick Inferno
Light Oil Ball: Storm Timeless
Preferred Company: 900 Global
Location: Svolvær, Lofoten, Norway

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by JJakobsen » April 25th, 2018, 7:02 pm

MeNoRevs wrote:
No, the purpose of the center of grip is so the 2 finger bowler cannot flip the ball 180 degrees and bowl. The center of grip marking must be covered by the palm.
Same as the triangle drilling, just even stricter? Good!
68.2353°N 14.5636°E is where it happens!

User avatar
MeNoRevs
Pro Shop
Pro Shop
Posts: 303
Joined: January 19th, 2010, 11:28 pm
THS Average: 120
Positive Axis Point: 5 3/4 x 1 ^
Preferred Company: I prefer them all
Location: Southern Maryland

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by MeNoRevs » April 25th, 2018, 7:09 pm

JJakobsen wrote: Same as the triangle drilling, just even stricter? Good!
The new rules makes the triangle drilling obsolete.

User avatar
bowl1820
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1416
Joined: July 9th, 2012, 10:09 pm
Location: Central Florida

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by bowl1820 » April 25th, 2018, 7:20 pm

MeNoRevs wrote:
The new rules makes the triangle drilling obsolete.
and the Wi-grip / Duo Grip
"REMEMBER, it isn't how much the ball hooks, it's where."

TonyPR
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1324
Joined: December 14th, 2014, 3:08 am
Preferred Company: Radical
Location: San Juan, PR

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by TonyPR » April 25th, 2018, 7:56 pm

Understood. My question is, for center of grip do we still use center of bridge or do we use center of palm instead?

User avatar
MeNoRevs
Pro Shop
Pro Shop
Posts: 303
Joined: January 19th, 2010, 11:28 pm
THS Average: 120
Positive Axis Point: 5 3/4 x 1 ^
Preferred Company: I prefer them all
Location: Southern Maryland

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by MeNoRevs » April 25th, 2018, 8:33 pm

TonyPR wrote:Understood. My question is, for center of grip do we still use center of bridge or do we use center of palm instead?
Center of bridge. The marking in the palm again, is just used so the bowler cannot flip the ball 180 degrees. That is all its used for.

User avatar
Dustin
BCU Graduate Layouts
BCU Graduate Layouts
Posts: 888
Joined: June 5th, 2010, 11:55 am

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by Dustin » April 26th, 2018, 5:06 pm

With enough negative feed back from bowlers after releasing these new (terrible) ball specifications will the USBC take back the rule change if they get there teeth kicked in like they did a few years ago when they were going to send people into centers to see if the center was within spec? Doubt it but I can dream! Pass the cost onto the members until there are none left. I would still like to see studies about bringing back the old 4 lbs. pins.
* MPH @ aarows
* RPM
AR *
AT *
PAP 3 3/4"
(* rebuilding)

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

User avatar
MeNoRevs
Pro Shop
Pro Shop
Posts: 303
Joined: January 19th, 2010, 11:28 pm
THS Average: 120
Positive Axis Point: 5 3/4 x 1 ^
Preferred Company: I prefer them all
Location: Southern Maryland

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by MeNoRevs » April 26th, 2018, 6:27 pm

Dustin wrote:With enough negative feed back from bowlers after releasing these new (terrible) ball specifications will the USBC take back the rule change if they get there teeth kicked in like they did a few years ago when they were going to send people into centers to see if the center was within spec? Doubt it but I can dream! Pass the cost onto the members until there are none left. I would still like to see studies about bringing back the old 4 lbs. pins.
I dont think USBC mentioned anywhere that they are trying to control the scoring environment, this is more to allow the lane to hold up longer to what it was intended to be. I am not sure what 4lb pins would do for that?

User avatar
Dustin
BCU Graduate Layouts
BCU Graduate Layouts
Posts: 888
Joined: June 5th, 2010, 11:55 am

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by Dustin » April 26th, 2018, 6:47 pm

True, they did state it was about scoring but that it was about trying to help the patterns hold up longer and then threw in the reason was for the "integrity of the game." So are the changes about the oil pattern or the integrity of the game and are they one in the same. Next there will be rev limits on bowlers because high rev bowlers damage the patterns to much. I know not the point either but I'm just continually disappointed in a member based origination that alienates its members and passes the cost on to the members.
* MPH @ aarows
* RPM
AR *
AT *
PAP 3 3/4"
(* rebuilding)

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

User avatar
MeNoRevs
Pro Shop
Pro Shop
Posts: 303
Joined: January 19th, 2010, 11:28 pm
THS Average: 120
Positive Axis Point: 5 3/4 x 1 ^
Preferred Company: I prefer them all
Location: Southern Maryland

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by MeNoRevs » April 26th, 2018, 7:54 pm

Dustin wrote:True, they did state it was about scoring but that it was about trying to help the patterns hold up longer and then threw in the reason was for the "integrity of the game." So are the changes about the oil pattern or the integrity of the game and are they one in the same. Next there will be rev limits on bowlers because high rev bowlers damage the patterns to much. I know not the point either but I'm just continually disappointed in a member based origination that alienates its members and passes the cost on to the members.
In baseball, they can never dictate how hard a human can swing a bat, but they can always move the fences back, change how tightly the ball is wound, etc.

I have a lot of respect for Andrew Cain, Someone that has sat in on positions at USBC and also a world class bowler. I think his input had a lot to do with the changes USBC had to make.

I, myself have a hard time seeing the severity of this, to the point where people want to quit, over weight holes? If that is the case, I believe those people were just looking for a way out anyway.

Post Reply