New Ball Specs, Collusion?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Trusted Source
- Posts: 1386
- Joined: December 14th, 2014, 3:08 am
- Preferred Company: Radical
- Location: San Juan, PR
Re: New Ball Specs, Collusion?
Well call it what you want but a 3.5” deep 15/16 diameter hole 4.5” down from the finger holes and 2” to the right makes a significant difference in flare on my symmetrical balls especially on low differential balls.
Silver Level Coach
Kegel KCMP1 and KCMP2 Completed /Approved Exam
Kegel KCMP3 Completed
Kegel Certified Pro Shop Operator
Free agent
Kegel KCMP1 and KCMP2 Completed /Approved Exam
Kegel KCMP3 Completed
Kegel Certified Pro Shop Operator
Free agent
Re: New Ball Specs, Collusion?
"There was no collusion, just cooperation."
This is an interesting read. I am undecided but somewhat skeptical. Having worked in in many large organizations (private and government) over time, it is easy to claim cooperation and reach a consensus when you limit your input to those who agree with your intended goal. I have seen it done over and over in decision-making, requests for proposals, issue papers, etc.
If I understand it correctly, Mo Pinel was not invited to participate in this effort - he has indicated so in several presentations. Perhaps Paul can shed some light on the why of this point - was he the only naysayer? I would think that with Mo's depth-of-knowledge and being a subject matter expert, he would have something to contribute to a collaborative effort of this importance to the bowling community.
How many others with expertise were left out of the process?
This is an interesting read. I am undecided but somewhat skeptical. Having worked in in many large organizations (private and government) over time, it is easy to claim cooperation and reach a consensus when you limit your input to those who agree with your intended goal. I have seen it done over and over in decision-making, requests for proposals, issue papers, etc.
If I understand it correctly, Mo Pinel was not invited to participate in this effort - he has indicated so in several presentations. Perhaps Paul can shed some light on the why of this point - was he the only naysayer? I would think that with Mo's depth-of-knowledge and being a subject matter expert, he would have something to contribute to a collaborative effort of this importance to the bowling community.
How many others with expertise were left out of the process?
- snick
- BCU Graduate Layouts
- Posts: 759
- Joined: August 31st, 2014, 8:00 pm
- THS Average: 196
- Sport Average: 180
- Positive Axis Point: 5.5625" x .625 up
- Speed: 17 off hand
- Rev Rate: 360
- Axis Tilt: 17
- Axis Rotation: 55
- Heavy Oil Ball: Storm Physix
- Medium Oil Ball: Storm Streetfight
- Light Oil Ball: Rotogrip Hustle Pearl
- Preferred Company: Rotogrip
- Location: Tucson, AZ
Re: New Ball Specs, Collusion?
If Mo's next ball is named "Collusion"...
Benchmark Bowling Pro Shop
Byron
RH
PAP: 5.5625 x .625 up
REVRATE: 360
SPEED: 17mph at release
AR: 55º
AT: 17º
Byron
RH
PAP: 5.5625 x .625 up
REVRATE: 360
SPEED: 17mph at release
AR: 55º
AT: 17º
- purduepaul
- 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: New Ball Specs, Collusion?
Glenn wrote:"There was no collusion, just cooperation."
This is an interesting read. I am undecided but somewhat skeptical. Having worked in in many large organizations (private and government) over time, it is easy to claim cooperation and reach a consensus when you limit your input to those who agree with your intended goal. I have seen it done over and over in decision-making, requests for proposals, issue papers, etc.
If I understand it correctly, Mo Pinel was not invited to participate in this effort - he has indicated so in several presentations. Perhaps Paul can shed some light on the why of this point - was he the only naysayer? I would think that with Mo's depth-of-knowledge and being a subject matter expert, he would have something to contribute to a collaborative effort of this importance to the bowling community.
How many others with expertise were left out of the process?
I would think more about it this way. Specifications, especially specifications this far reaching, are a result of a long term goal or vision of the USBC. In this case, it was to reduce oil absorption on lane surfaces IMO. The first round of specification suggestions were an attempt by the bowling purists to reign back bowling back to its "golden age". The intended goal by the first round was not only to reduce oil absorption but reign in technology in bowling balls.
There are a lot of very smart people that work in bowling in general. However, have you ever been in a meeting at your workplace where you get a bunch of smart people in a room together and nothing gets accomplished? The more people you get involved in this process, the more opinions you will get that are out on the fringes of the study and work to their self-serving goals.
During my time at USBC, I was apart of another reigning in of a specification with the low RG specification. I told my superiors that how far you reign in the specification isn't based in science, but was political in nature. In a closed door meeting, they shot too high, and ended up back where I thought it would end up. This specification was based on a statistic that for all purposes justified the means to put the number in the politically accepted place it is today.
Paul Ridenour
former Sr Research Engineer at USBC
Radical Bowling Technologies Staffer
former Sr Research Engineer at USBC
Radical Bowling Technologies Staffer
-
- Member
- Posts: 305
- Joined: October 5th, 2012, 3:47 pm
- THS Average: 200
- Positive Axis Point: 6 3/16 x 1/2 up
- Speed: 13.8 at pindeck
- Rev Rate: 230
- Preferred Company: Storm (it smells pretty)
Re: New Ball Specs, Collusion?
Not just in your opinion - that was pretty explicit in the report. The explanation was that oil absorption wrecks oil patterns - limit oil absorption, preserve oil patterns (to some extent - carry down, etc. notwithstanding)In this case, it was to reduce oil absorption on lane surfaces IMO.
And you can't get every expert in on a project. While I don't actually like the way they designed and performed their experiments (lack of actual controls, small sample size, etc.) I'm not against their presumptions or goals. The fact that bowling ball companies were cooperating with it also doesn't bother me - they are going to sell balls one way or another. Will this provide a surge? Probably so - but I honestly don't think it will stay that way, and large companies have to think in the long(ish) term.
- MegaMav
- Moderator
- Posts: 4694
- Joined: April 27th, 2007, 5:00 am
- THS Average: 225
- Sport Average: 200
- Positive Axis Point: 5.5 Over & 1 Up
- Speed: 16.0 MPH - Camera
- Rev Rate: 375
- Axis Tilt: 14
- Axis Rotation: 45
- Heavy Oil Ball: Radical - Informer
- Medium Oil Ball: Brunswick - Fearless
- Light Oil Ball: Radical - Bonus Pearl
- Preferred Company: Radical Bowling Technologies
- Location: Malta, NY
Re: New Ball Specs, Collusion?
I've never bought into the oil absorption premise.
Urethane balls destroy oil patterns in the front of the lane and dont absorb hardly anything.
Its all scooped up with texture.
Urethane balls destroy oil patterns in the front of the lane and dont absorb hardly anything.
Its all scooped up with texture.
- purduepaul
- 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: New Ball Specs, Collusion?
Right but they destroy the pattern by moving the oil, not absorbing the oil. The USBC accomplished what it wanted to with the specifications, for now.MegaMav wrote:I've never bought into the oil absorption premise.
Urethane balls destroy oil patterns in the front of the lane and dont absorb hardly anything.
Its all scooped up with texture.
Paul Ridenour
former Sr Research Engineer at USBC
Radical Bowling Technologies Staffer
former Sr Research Engineer at USBC
Radical Bowling Technologies Staffer
Re: New Ball Specs, Collusion?
Too many folks use the word "science" to loosely. The use of science, as a method to obtain facts and reach a valid and/or credible conclusion, often is grounded in values of the investigator or the institution and that is TRUTH.purduepaul wrote: how far you reign in the specification isn't based in science, but was political in nature.
-Gary Parsons
If one does not know one's product, one can not manage nor promote the product one does not know.
If one does not know one's product, one can not manage nor promote the product one does not know.
-
- Member
- Posts: 135
- Joined: June 2nd, 2013, 4:38 pm
- THS Average: 217
- Positive Axis Point: 5" over, 3/8" up
- Speed: 15.5 at Camera
- Rev Rate: 300
- Axis Tilt: 10
- Axis Rotation: 45
- Heavy Oil Ball: Jackal Ghost, Mythic Jackal
- Medium Oil Ball: Rogue Blade, Ripcord Flight
- Light Oil Ball: Purple Tank
- Preferred Company: Motiv
- Location: Danville PA
Re: New Ball Specs, Collusion?
I voted "dont care".
At one point I was in the Yes crowd, but after looking into it and talking to some PSOs and other bowlers (tournament and elite level) I will just adapt. Alot of suggested layouts I have received here required no MoHoles, those that did I will have some studying to do, and will come here for advice of course.
Though I find it humorous that my Red Legend Solid I did up with the Short Sport Layout Eric suggested last year required a 1/2 oz P3 hole, now I can plug it and make it legal under the new rule. Kind of weird but ok USBC, whatever.
At one point I was in the Yes crowd, but after looking into it and talking to some PSOs and other bowlers (tournament and elite level) I will just adapt. Alot of suggested layouts I have received here required no MoHoles, those that did I will have some studying to do, and will come here for advice of course.
Though I find it humorous that my Red Legend Solid I did up with the Short Sport Layout Eric suggested last year required a 1/2 oz P3 hole, now I can plug it and make it legal under the new rule. Kind of weird but ok USBC, whatever.