Page 2 of 2

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

Posted: October 8th, 2018, 11:06 pm
by bowl1820
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.

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

Posted: October 9th, 2018, 12:27 pm
by TheJesus
Ok thanks for the clarification and info. :)

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

Posted: October 9th, 2018, 2:27 pm
by vicsmyth
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;

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

Posted: October 9th, 2018, 7:03 pm
by MeNoRevs
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?

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

Posted: October 9th, 2018, 10:34 pm
by guruU2
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?

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

Posted: August 11th, 2019, 3:14 am
by Mongo
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.

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

Posted: August 12th, 2019, 12:35 am
by Glenn
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).

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

Posted: August 19th, 2019, 6:46 am
by Mongo
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.

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

Posted: August 19th, 2019, 9:43 am
by gunso
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."

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

Posted: August 19th, 2019, 12:47 pm
by KYBOB
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.

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

Posted: August 20th, 2019, 7:21 am
by snick
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.

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

Posted: August 20th, 2019, 1:15 pm
by TomaHawk
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.

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

Posted: August 21st, 2019, 3:37 am
by guruU2
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.

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

Posted: August 22nd, 2019, 9:07 pm
by The Kid
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.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2019, 10:47 pm
by LPOliver
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.