Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't matter

You can post any bowling related topics here.

Moderator: Moderators

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

Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't matter

Post by vicsmyth » February 22nd, 2019, 9:37 pm

I have a question about Mo Pinel's statement in a few recent youtube videos that on a symmetric core ball as long as you have the desired pin to PAP and VAL angle, that you can place the cg anywhere that the customer wants. I think he said (correct me if I'm wrong) that is because the PSA will always migrate to the thumb hole regardless where you put the cg?

Does anyone know what Mo's basis for this statement is? Is it based on putting balls with various cg placements on a determinator?

With all due respect to Mo Pinel, the statement strikes me as counter intuitive. Can someone to explain this to me? Am I misunderstanding something?

44boyd
Member
Member
Posts: 560
Joined: January 25th, 2017, 3:10 am
Preferred Company: Radical, Brunswick
Location: Valrico Florida

Re: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by 44boyd » February 22nd, 2019, 10:12 pm

[youtube][/youtube]

He has videos explaining and demonstrating why, not sure what you’re wanting to hear.
Stacy

User avatar
EricHartwell
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 3638
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: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by EricHartwell » February 22nd, 2019, 10:34 pm

vicsmyth wrote:I have a question about Mo Pinel's statement in a few recent youtube videos that on a symmetric core ball as long as you have the desired pin to PAP and VAL angle, that you can place the cg anywhere that the customer wants. I think he said (correct me if I'm wrong) that is because the PSA will always migrate to the thumb hole regardless where you put the cg?

Does anyone know what Mo's basis for this statement is? Is it based on putting balls with various cg placements on a determinator?

With all due respect to Mo Pinel, the statement strikes me as counter intuitive. Can someone to explain this to me? Am I misunderstanding something?
counter intuitive?
I don't understand what you think is counter intuitive.

It has been said for years here at BowlingChat the Cg placement does not matter to ball motion.
It used to matter if you were going to use a balance hole to maintain static weight limits. But now with balance holes being made illegal it really does not matter.

Ball motion is affected by the shape of the core. Putting the Cg in different places does not affect the core shape so it doesn't affect the ball motion.

The new rules do not allow the 3 oz imbalance on the lighter weight 10# balls and under. I believe this because the weight imbalance will affect the lighter balls. If you are throwing 14# or greater it is not enough of an imbalance to affect the motion.
Eric Hartwell

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

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

Re: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by vicsmyth » February 23rd, 2019, 12:37 am

44boyd wrote:He has videos explaining and demonstrating why, not sure what you’re wanting to hear.
This is EXACTLY what I was wanting to hear, thank-you.

guruU2
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1048
Joined: March 31st, 2010, 7:27 pm
Location: Camp Springs MD

Re: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by guruU2 » February 23rd, 2019, 4:04 am

I have heard of research showing cg placement does effect carry. e.g., cgs in the finger/negative quadrant do leave more 10 pins. I wonder if this "research" has validity? Anybody care to comment?
-Gary Parsons
If one does not know one's product, one can not manage nor promote the product one does not know.

User avatar
MegaMav
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4528
Joined: April 27th, 2007, 5:00 am
THS Average: 230
Sport Average: 200
Positive Axis Point: 5.25 Over 5/8 Up
Speed: 15.25 MPH - Camera
Rev Rate: 350
Axis Tilt: 20
Axis Rotation: 45
Heavy Oil Ball: Radical - The Closer
Medium Oil Ball: Brunswck - Forest Quantum
Light Oil Ball: DV8 - Poison Pearl
Preferred Company: Radical Bowling Technologies
Location: Malta, NY

Re: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by MegaMav » February 23rd, 2019, 4:53 am

I'll throw this into the pool for fun, even though i dont believe it.
From the most recent static weight study in the engineering summary.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
“When you prepare for everything, you’re ready for anything.” - Bill Walsh

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: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by snick » February 23rd, 2019, 5:31 am

The center of grip is an arbitrary measurement location with no specific relationship to the initial axis of rotation.

The minor hooking effect of static weight imbalance is a different phenomenon than the hook phase in core dynamics, and may actually conflict with core dynamics.
Benchmark Bowling Pro Shop
Byron

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

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

Re: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by vicsmyth » February 23rd, 2019, 4:38 pm

I have come to the conclusion that discussing whether static weight has any significant effect on a bowling ball is like having a discussion about religion or politics. Sooner or later the dialogue between conflicting parties will devolve to, "My dogma is better than your dogma."

I learn something about bowling by listening to both sides of the story and evaluating evidence from both sides. Then I compare it to my own experiences and, with all due respect to those with opposing views, make up my own mind about what to try or not try next to better my game.

And so I encourage both sides to present their evidence, we'll all gain a little more knowledge because of it.

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

Re: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by imagonman » February 23rd, 2019, 4:59 pm

snick wrote:The center of grip is an arbitrary measurement location with no specific relationship to the initial axis of rotation.
HUH?
THE initial PAP is taken from CoG. Not understanding what you mean here, help.

I would like to know where are the different PAP tendencies for hi track, med & low track spinners, in general? Such as , do low track 'spin biscuits' PAP closer & lower on the VAL ( 4-1/4" & 3/4" down)opposed to a classic hi track further ( 5-1/2" & 3/4"up). Does it matter or mean anything??

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: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by snick » February 23rd, 2019, 6:34 pm

3oz of static side weight relative to the center of grip will result in the same absolute CG location for rollers (high track) and spinners (low track), but the location of the CG relative to their respective PAPs will be very different. The effect, if any, would be different for the two styles.

It's essentially no different than "pin over the ring finger" (pin location relative to the grip) being different for the two styles.
Spinners might be 50x3x25, while rollers would be more like 75x4.5x40
Benchmark Bowling Pro Shop
Byron

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

User avatar
EricHartwell
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 3638
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: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by EricHartwell » February 23rd, 2019, 7:03 pm

guruU2 wrote:I have heard of research showing cg placement does effect carry. e.g., cgs in the finger/negative quadrant do leave more 10 pins. I wonder if this "research" has validity? Anybody care to comment?
My daughter is in her 1st season of bowling learning the 2 handed no thumb release. She is rolling an old ball of mine .030 differential that was a pin down drilling. She had the thumb plugged. The pin down layout xx-4.25-105 hooked too early. So she turned it over rolling it pin up xx-5.75-70.
I contributed this to the 5 3/4" pin to PAP with very little flare giving her more length.

Flipping the ball over moved the Cg from positive thumb to negative finger weight. ~2.5 oz.

Several times this season she has strung together strikes at the beginning of a game,4,5,6 strikes getting the attention of the men in the league next to her. As far as I know she is the only 2 handed female bowler in our area. I was able to witness her 6 in a row start, her miss in the 7th was a solid 9 pin. The few times I have been able to watch her bowl sure she is leaving some 10 pins but I didn't see it as anything out of the ordinary.

Hopefully she will continue to improve and stay with bowling long enough for me to study her layouts and results.
MegaMav wrote:I'll throw this into the pool for fun, even though i dont believe it.
From the most recent static weight study in the engineering summary.
I will join this fun as I am on the same page as you.
Here is the link to the engineering study MegaMav took the chart from...

http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net ... cement.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

links for the full study ...
https://www.bowl.com/BowlingTechnologyStudy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Intrepreting the chart I assume a 1.8168 board difference from balanced to 3 oz negative and 3 oz positive side weight. I also assume that the ball used did Not have gripping holes drilled.
I believe the results are skewed in MegaMMav's example to make you think that you can get 3.6336 more boards of hook by maxing out the positive side weight. It is only half of that.

Also the study failed to identify what ball was used in the study. The differential of the test ball was not given. If it was a low differential ball with the given 5" pin to PAP it would be a very low flare set up and the imbalance would stay on the side it was delivered from. With a high flare set up the Cg will migrate to a different quadrant of the ball as it transitions.

Quote from the study...
"A single ball was chosen that had 2.6 ounces of top weight and a 6.5-inch pin to CG distance. The ball was thrown with E.A.R.L., we kept the
pin directly in the center of grip with a PAP of 5 inches over and zero up. The center of grip was rotated in 45-degree increments such that
the side weights and thumb weights of the ball would change without changing the pin to PAP distance."

With this method a ball balanced with zero side And zero finger or thumb weight was not measured.
All variables were not tested.

Because of the way E.A.R.L. and Throbot deliver a ball by spinning it up to the desired rpm's first the delivery had to be compensated for the imbalances. E.A.R.L. had to move his feet to hit his mark. What else was affected? I believe this induces error in the results. This is blown off as being ok in the study.

The ball companies had to justify the new rules to sell more expensive Asymmetrical bowling balls and I truly believe the manufactures colluded with the USBC and this study when adopting the new rules.

This is another incomplete study just like in the 2011 ball motion study when Brunswick stepped in and said no to the rule changes at that time.
Eric Hartwell

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

MWhite
Member
Member
Posts: 457
Joined: July 4th, 2012, 11:29 pm
Location: Riverside Ca

Re: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by MWhite » February 25th, 2019, 3:37 am

guruU2 wrote:I have heard of research showing cg placement does effect carry. e.g., cgs in the finger/negative quadrant do leave more 10 pins. I wonder if this "research" has validity? Anybody care to comment?
Lets assume you drill up a ball with 0 top, 0 finger and 3 oz positive side.
Lets also assume the ball will flare 6.5" from release to contact with the pins.
As the ball travels down the lane, due to axis migration, that 3 oz of side weight will decrease and the top weight will increase until at the point of pin contact, the ball will have 3 oz top and 0 oz side.

Any gain from side weight is quickly lost due to migration.

You would have to drill up a ball with 3 oz bottom weight for the ball to have 3 oz side weight at pin contact, all while maintaining a layout that will product the 6.5" of flare.

A possibility is to drill up using a low flare layout, and 3 oz side..

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

Re: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by vicsmyth » February 25th, 2019, 3:28 pm

MWhite wrote:Any gain from side weight is quickly lost due to migration.
It is my theory, at least based on my experience in tinkering with static weights on a THS, that in a symmetrical ball for a low speed, low rev, higher tilt bowler (16 mph, 225, 20-25*, 218 avg on a THS) that side weight will help the ball migrate, meaning tip over and go into a heavy forward roll. I don't know if it would have the same effect with someone that's 18mph, 350, 12*. And I am not sure about asymmetric balls because I have only tinkered with one asymm ball and did not notice much difference.

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: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by snick » February 25th, 2019, 7:25 pm

With asymms, you cannot tinker with static weights without also affecting the PSA location, which is more significant than static weights.
Benchmark Bowling Pro Shop
Byron

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

guruU2
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1048
Joined: March 31st, 2010, 7:27 pm
Location: Camp Springs MD

Re: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by guruU2 » February 26th, 2019, 1:28 am

vicsmyth wrote:I have come to the conclusion that discussing whether static weight has any significant effect on a bowling ball is like having a discussion about religion or politics. Sooner or later the dialogue between conflicting parties will devolve to, "My dogma is better than your dogma."

I learn something about bowling by listening to both sides of the story and evaluating evidence from both sides. Then I compare it to my own experiences and, with all due respect to those with opposing views, make up my own mind about what to try or not try next to better my game.

And so I encourage both sides to present their evidence, we'll all gain a little more knowledge because of it.
A sound epistemological position.
-Gary Parsons
If one does not know one's product, one can not manage nor promote the product one does not know.

User avatar
purduepaul
Member
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: June 26th, 2009, 3:13 am
THS Average: 215
Positive Axis Point: 4 5/8 over by 5/8" up
Speed: 19
Rev Rate: 300
Axis Tilt: 13
Axis Rotation: 65
Preferred Company: Radical Bowling

Re: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by purduepaul » February 27th, 2019, 4:28 am

Looks like I may need to dustoff My old center of gravity posts again for this thread. I’ll post a full response tomorrow, but for now. The CG placement on a drilled bowling ball utilizing common layout techniques has a very small affect on the ball motion and the potential for the ball to carry.

Paul Ridenour, yup that one.

User avatar
purduepaul
Member
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: June 26th, 2009, 3:13 am
THS Average: 215
Positive Axis Point: 4 5/8 over by 5/8" up
Speed: 19
Rev Rate: 300
Axis Tilt: 13
Axis Rotation: 65
Preferred Company: Radical Bowling

Re: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by purduepaul » February 28th, 2019, 12:52 am

The USBC test is a valid test for undrilled bowling balls with a layout that most people would consider a "non-traditional" layout. So to say that the effect of static weights are universally the same regardless of layout are unproven at best.

As covered before in other threads, the center of gravity of a bowling ball is not on the outside of the ball but on a line through the center of gravity mark on the ball and the geometric center of the bowling ball. In fact it is way closer to the geographic center of the ball than the outside surface of the bowling ball. There are more important factors in ball motion than the static weights of a drilled bowling ball.

On a symmetrical bowling ball, while utilizing dual angle layout techniques, val angle and pin to pap distance are still more important than drilling angle.

The reason why the high RG migrates towards the thumb hole on true symmetrical cored bowling balls is that by drilling near the circumference of the ball you start making the core taller and narrower thereby moving the high RG close to the thumb hole.
Paul Ridenour
former Sr Research Engineer at USBC
Radical Bowling Technologies Staffer

guruU2
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1048
Joined: March 31st, 2010, 7:27 pm
Location: Camp Springs MD

Re: Mo Pinel's statement that placement of the cg doesn't ma

Post by guruU2 » February 28th, 2019, 6:45 am

purduepaul wrote:The USBC test is a valid test for undrilled bowling balls with a layout that most people would consider a "non-traditional" layout. So to say that the effect of static weights are universally the same regardless of layout are unproven at best.

As covered before in other threads, the center of gravity of a bowling ball is not on the outside of the ball but on a line through the center of gravity mark on the ball and the geometric center of the bowling ball. In fact it is way closer to the geographic center of the ball than the outside surface of the bowling ball. There are more important factors in ball motion than the static weights of a drilled bowling ball.

On a symmetrical bowling ball, while utilizing dual angle layout techniques, val angle and pin to pap distance are still more important than drilling angle.

The reason why the high RG migrates towards the thumb hole on true symmetrical cored bowling balls is that by drilling near the circumference of the ball you start making the core taller and narrower thereby moving the high RG close to the thumb hole.
An elegant observation / response. Thank you Paul.
-Gary Parsons
If one does not know one's product, one can not manage nor promote the product one does not know.

Post Reply