Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

You can post any bowling related topics here.

Moderator: Moderators

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

Re: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by bowl1820 » October 8th, 2018, 11:06 pm

TheJesus wrote:Thanks for the info bowl1820 !

So you say Storm doesn't use it because Mo wont allow it ? Meaning he allows every other company except Storm? .
No, I don't say that.

I don't know why they just use the Pin Buffer system, I would hazard a guess that.

That their probably not keen on promoting MO's or another companies technology. Also since That's the system they probably started with and it works, they see no reason to change it.

Something to note is Storm isn't the only company not using dual angle in their drill sheets or info, Example companies under the Ebonite banner don't show DA layouts on their drill sheets (Really they don't particularly use Pin Buffer either.)

Motiv they give you a choice they show you both.

A lot of smaller companies like say Pyramid they use Pin Buffer (Pyramid calls it Relation Weight Drilling) on their sheets.
"REMEMBER, it isn't how much the ball hooks, it's where."

User avatar
TheJesus
Member
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: July 14th, 2017, 11:00 am

Re: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by TheJesus » October 9th, 2018, 12:27 pm

Ok thanks for the clarification and info. :)

vicsmyth
Member
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: March 22nd, 2014, 10:23 am

Re: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by vicsmyth » October 9th, 2018, 2:27 pm

I saw Mo on Youtube recently addressing the new USBC no xhole rules. Mo said that he developed the Pin Buffer system when he worked at Storm. When he left Storm they owned the shop rights to it, so Mo developed the Dual Layout system. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by MeNoRevs » October 9th, 2018, 7:03 pm

vicsmyth wrote:I saw Mo on Youtube recently addressing the new USBC no xhole rules. Mo said that he developed the Pin Buffer system when he worked at Storm. When he left Storm they owned the shop rights to it, so Mo developed the Dual Layout system. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Are you sure you got your story right?

guruU2
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1046
Joined: March 31st, 2010, 7:27 pm
Location: Camp Springs MD

Re: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by guruU2 » October 9th, 2018, 10:34 pm

vicsmyth wrote:I saw Mo on Youtube recently addressing the new USBC no xhole rules. Mo said that he developed the Pin Buffer system when he worked at Storm. When he left Storm they owned the shop rights to it, so Mo developed the Dual Layout system. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
MeNoRevs wrote:Are you sure you got your story right?
I agree with MeNoRevs- did you get your story right?
-Gary Parsons
If one does not know one's product, one can not manage nor promote the product one does not know.

User avatar
Mongo
Certified Coach
Certified Coach
Posts: 471
Joined: March 13th, 2014, 5:33 am
THS Average: 225
Positive Axis Point: 4 1/2" over, 1 1/2" up
Speed: 18 MPH
Rev Rate: 375
Axis Tilt: 12
Axis Rotation: 80
Preferred Company: DV8/Radical

Re: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by Mongo » August 11th, 2019, 3:14 am

College buddy of mine is a sales rep for Storm and I asked him why pin buffer vs. dual angle.

He fired back, "Here's a ball, how far is your pin from you VAL?"

I thought about it and said, see that's too long.


I've watched the videos twice, still haven't figured out how they calculate pin puffer distance.
USBC Silver Certified Coach
JMerrell wrote:Mongo,
We need to work on getting that teddy bear body of yours more open throughout the approach.

Glenn
Member
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: May 11th, 2015, 11:00 pm
THS Average: 170
Positive Axis Point: 4.375 over & .5 up
Speed: 15.2 (foul line)
Rev Rate: 184
Axis Tilt: 10
Axis Rotation: 50
Light Oil Ball: Columbia 300 Nitrous
Preferred Company: Roto Grip
Location: Mid-west

Re: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by Glenn » August 12th, 2019, 12:35 am

Mongo,

The short answer is that from the elements you enter in VLS for RG Value (C15), PSA Diff (C17), RG Diff (C16), Pattern Length (C11), Volume of Oil (C12), Reaction Length (E11), Reaction Strength (E6), Transition Length (E8), Rev Rate (C5), Hi/Lo RG Layout (E7), Axis Tilt (C6), Axis Rotation (C7), PAP Over (E4), PAP Up (E5), and Ball Speed C(4) is processed by a piece of complex code involving this input, constants, lookup tables, Pin Buffer variables (Transition Length, Axis Tilt, and Axis Rotation), and calculations to derive a value for Pin Buffer.

"The VLS™ has been designed specifically for asymmetric balls (e. g. Sync), but will work for symmetric balls, too." – Victor Marion, Storm. And, I remember some of the Pro Shops using it questioned/complained that they didn't get results expected for sym balls. Seems like they felt it didn't return a 4x4x2, etc. layouts when they expected it (idk). In my (limited) experience, VLS never generated any pin-down layouts.

The VLS was developed in collaboration with people from Buddies Pro Shop and Weber State University (Physics). Probably the only way to know the thinking behind the calculations is to have access to the design document for the VLS (doubtful as it is copy-righted material).

If I remember correctly, Storm staff commented that the VLS is similar to Dual Angle except that it takes the ball core shape into account (alluded to above).

User avatar
Mongo
Certified Coach
Certified Coach
Posts: 471
Joined: March 13th, 2014, 5:33 am
THS Average: 225
Positive Axis Point: 4 1/2" over, 1 1/2" up
Speed: 18 MPH
Rev Rate: 375
Axis Tilt: 12
Axis Rotation: 80
Preferred Company: DV8/Radical

Re: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by Mongo » August 19th, 2019, 6:46 am

Glenn wrote:Mongo,

The short answer is that from the elements you enter in VLS for RG Value (C15), PSA Diff (C17), RG Diff (C16), Pattern Length (C11), Volume of Oil (C12), Reaction Length (E11), Reaction Strength (E6), Transition Length (E8), Rev Rate (C5), Hi/Lo RG Layout (E7), Axis Tilt (C6), Axis Rotation (C7), PAP Over (E4), PAP Up (E5), and Ball Speed C(4) is processed by a piece of complex code involving this input, constants, lookup tables, Pin Buffer variables (Transition Length, Axis Tilt, and Axis Rotation), and calculations to derive a value for Pin Buffer.

"The VLS™ has been designed specifically for asymmetric balls (e. g. Sync), but will work for symmetric balls, too." – Victor Marion, Storm. And, I remember some of the Pro Shops using it questioned/complained that they didn't get results expected for sym balls. Seems like they felt it didn't return a 4x4x2, etc. layouts when they expected it (idk). In my (limited) experience, VLS never generated any pin-down layouts.

The VLS was developed in collaboration with people from Buddies Pro Shop and Weber State University (Physics). Probably the only way to know the thinking behind the calculations is to have access to the design document for the VLS (doubtful as it is copy-righted material).

If I remember correctly, Storm staff commented that the VLS is similar to Dual Angle except that it takes the ball core shape into account (alluded to above).

So, yeah, I'll stick with dual angle. Thx.
USBC Silver Certified Coach
JMerrell wrote:Mongo,
We need to work on getting that teddy bear body of yours more open throughout the approach.

gunso
Member
Member
Posts: 291
Joined: April 4th, 2015, 11:47 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by gunso » August 19th, 2019, 9:43 am

I think their logic is that the MB distance is constant in their system while the mb distance is not always the same with the drill angle but is dependant on how long the pin to pap is.

The VAL changes as well depending on pin distance but I don't think that is as big a deal for them the psa to pap distance since the VAL angle really only changes where the drilled holes end up but are not related to how the core is angled within the bowling ball

5*5*2 = 65*5*30
4*5*2 = 60*4*35
3*5*2 = 52*3*45

5*4*2 = 50*5*30
4*4*2 = 42*4*35

I think the difference lies in that MO believes that when the axis crosses the "pin to spin line" it will accelerate but Storm believes that the PSA works similiar as a pin to pap distance (I am not equipped to explain their scientific differences in this area) Below is an explanation I got a few years back from emailing Alex Hoskins at Storm

"Placing the PSA at 3 3/8” from the PAP will generate the maximum amount of flare out of the asymmetrical weight block. Even with longer Pin-to-PAP distances, the ball will flare more if the PSA is in this unstable position. Of course, all of this depends on how much intermediate differential exists in the weight block to begin with. The more intermediate differential there is and the more unstable the position, the faster it is going to want to line up."

KYBOB
Member
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: January 26th, 2010, 3:31 am
THS Average: 214
Positive Axis Point: 4" Left - 1"^
Speed: 18-19 (off hand)
Rev Rate: 275
Axis Tilt: 23*
Axis Rotation: 50+-
Preferred Company: Morich, Radical
Location: Nicholasville, KY

Re: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by KYBOB » August 19th, 2019, 12:47 pm

vicsmyth wrote:
I saw Mo on Youtube recently addressing the new USBC no xhole rules. Mo said that he developed the Pin Buffer system when he worked at Storm. When he left Storm they owned the shop rights to it, so Mo developed the Dual Layout system. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MeNoRevs wrote:
Are you sure you got your story right?
guruU2 wrote:


I agree with MeNoRevs- did you get your story right?
viewtopic.php?p=64692#p64692" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



as far as the "Vector Layout System" goes read this topic:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11899&hilit=vector+layout" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As of now the Dual Angle Layout system is the most up to date system to use.
KyBOB
________________________________

STATS:

LH
PAP = 4"< x 1"^
Speed = 18-19 off hand
Rev Rate = 250-275
AR = 45*-50*
AT = 23*

User avatar
snick
BCU Graduate Layouts
BCU Graduate Layouts
Posts: 756
Joined: August 31st, 2014, 8:00 pm
THS Average: 190
Positive Axis Point: 5.625" x 0
Speed: 17 off hand
Rev Rate: 360
Axis Tilt: 7
Axis Rotation: 55
Heavy Oil Ball: Radical Fix
Medium Oil Ball: Storm JoyRide
Light Oil Ball: Storm Tropical Breeze
Preferred Company: Storm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by snick » August 20th, 2019, 7:21 am

I am currently struggling with a dual-angle conundrum.
Lets say I have two bowlers with very similar metrics, but different PAP coordinates. If they both calculate to 60x4x40 layouts, the gripping holes will intersect the core differently for these two bowlers, and thus change the shape of the core differently, and thus result in different post-drilling DIFF and RG values.
Benchmark Bowling Pro Shop
Byron

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

TomaHawk
Pro Shop
Pro Shop
Posts: 355
Joined: July 19th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Preferred Company: Hammer

Re: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by TomaHawk » August 20th, 2019, 1:15 pm

snick wrote:I am currently struggling with a dual-angle conundrum.
Lets say I have two bowlers with very similar metrics, but different PAP coordinates. If they both calculate to 60x4x40 layouts, the gripping holes will intersect the core differently for these two bowlers, and thus change the shape of the core differently, and thus result in different post-drilling DIFF and RG values.
If two people use the same layout, but one person utilizes a conventional grip, span of 3 7/8, and the other a fingertip grip, 5 1/4, the effect on the core will be significantly different.

As much as we hate to say it, regardless of the layout system utilized, there are no guarantees the ball reaction will be as expected.

guruU2
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1046
Joined: March 31st, 2010, 7:27 pm
Location: Camp Springs MD

Re: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by guruU2 » August 21st, 2019, 3:37 am

snick wrote: As much as we hate to say it, regardless of the layout system utilized, there are no guarantees the ball reaction will be as expected.
Better yet- Let us assume we have two bowlers with identical specs (ball speed, rev rate, tilt, axis rotation, etc) and both are using the same ball with identical specs and utilizing the same layout but the only difference is bowler A has a 5 3/4" span and bowler B has a 4 1/4" span. Does any one expect the given ball reaction to be similar? I do think the position of the holes relative to the core alters the ball reaction. We are limited to an understanding of a given reality and given the most sophisticated science and technology, human beings will always remain epistemologically incomplete and therefore, in the long run, wrong on any given position one takes. We will always be incomplete in understanding reality and this includes bowling-as-a-science.
Last edited by guruU2 on August 23rd, 2019, 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
-Gary Parsons
If one does not know one's product, one can not manage nor promote the product one does not know.

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

Re: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by The Kid » August 22nd, 2019, 9:07 pm

snick wrote:I am currently struggling with a dual-angle conundrum.
Lets say I have two bowlers with very similar metrics, but different PAP coordinates. If they both calculate to 60x4x40 layouts, the gripping holes will intersect the core differently for these two bowlers, and thus change the shape of the core differently, and thus result in different post-drilling DIFF and RG values.
I mentioned the same thought on this forum in 2010.

For Dual Angle, it seems like VAL angle needs the biggest adjustment based on PAP and span. Pin-to-PAP could probably do with an adjustment in some cases, too. I think the drilling angle needs little/no adjustment.

LPOliver
Member
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: August 23rd, 2011, 6:04 pm
Speed: Hand to arrows 15.3-15.7
Rev Rate: 217
Axis Tilt: 17.5
Axis Rotation: 62.5
Preferred Company: Storm

Re: Storm | Pin Buffer Layout System - Part 1 & 2 & 3

Post by LPOliver » September 22nd, 2019, 10:47 pm

Well, this quickly became a "whose on first base" discussion.
However, I want to say that I believe that it would have been easier to follow had the same ball been used in the three videos, either a symmetrical or an Asymmetrical ball. After all there is a difference between the two types of balls. Thin, I have always found the KISS method to be the better method, there is no reason to muddy the waters when you are trying to explain things.

Post Reply