I have been reading this
http://d1msaulk40dheh.cloudfront.net/52 ... ctions.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is my current ball and I just wanted to understand the drilling i have and i stumble across Respond to lane SOONEST + SLOWEST respond to friction etc etc.
Can someone explain how your layout would make your ball respond to lane soonest but respond to friction slowest or vice versa ? This feels like a conundrum for me lol..
EDIT : I just had an Epiphany! Does 'RESPOND TO LANE SOONEST' means the balls will starts trying to achieve equilibrium SOONEST, and 'RESPOND TO FRICTION SLOWEST' means the ball's gonna try to roll according to its axis rotation the slowest ? (hence more length?) So with 'Lane soonest + friction slowest' I would get more length down and a sharp backend (or roll?)
AM I MAKING SENSE ?????
Thanks in advance !
Respond to lane vs Respond to friction
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Respond to lane vs Respond to friction
I've tried and tried to get people to talk about these terms, if they won't do it here I don't think it's going to happen anywhere.
That being said, as used here I believe "responds to lane" is talking about 1st transition. Something that "responds to lane soon" has a shorter skid phase.
"Slow response time to friction" refers to the 2nd transition.
This is why it is possible to have a ball that responds to lane soon, AND has a slow response time to friction. Like urethane.
That being said, as used here I believe "responds to lane" is talking about 1st transition. Something that "responds to lane soon" has a shorter skid phase.
"Slow response time to friction" refers to the 2nd transition.
This is why it is possible to have a ball that responds to lane soon, AND has a slow response time to friction. Like urethane.
- deanchamp
- Trusted Source
- Posts: 455
- Joined: August 4th, 2010, 10:23 am
- THS Average: 220
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Respond to lane vs Respond to friction
That document is from 2012, and I wouldn't be paying much attention to the layouts they recommend as they don't really fit the dual angle system as understood here. Besides allowing for High, Medium and Low track, they are not taking into account a bowler's rev rate, speed, tilt or rotation, which is mentioned in the disclaimer at the bottom of the first page. Or the ball surface.
I can only guess what Brunswick mean with their terminology, but looking at their 'Maximum Hook and Arc' (asymm core) - good for most house shots, it responds to the lane the soonest and has the slowest response to friction.
For a high track bowler like me, they recommend a 45 x 4 1/2" x 70. 115 sum, 1:1.55 ratio. I'm guessing 'responds to the lane the soonest' is the high flare or low ratio as we don't know the ball surface and 'slowest response to friction' is the large VAL angle. Personally I wouldn't be using that layout on a THS, the sum maybe but not the ratio.
Mid-Lane hook and Back-end - a favourite for fresh PBA and sport conditions - 60 x 5 1/2" x 70 (maybe for rev dominant bowlers). 130 sum, 1:1.167. Again only guessing, but 'responds to the lane soon' is the flare or ratio and 'slow response to friction' is the large VAL angle. I'm not sure that angle sum would give the Mid-Lane hook as reported, but the ratio and pin to PAP would be in the ball park for some bowlers.
Then their length and backend layout is 45 x 5 1/2" x 30. I could go on guessing but if I put this layout on a sanded asymm ball I don't know how much length and backend I would get.
These layouts may be quite effective for Brunswick balls or the Brunswick pro bowlers, but from my understanding of the dual angle system, their intentions don't seem to match the suggested layouts.
I can only guess what Brunswick mean with their terminology, but looking at their 'Maximum Hook and Arc' (asymm core) - good for most house shots, it responds to the lane the soonest and has the slowest response to friction.
For a high track bowler like me, they recommend a 45 x 4 1/2" x 70. 115 sum, 1:1.55 ratio. I'm guessing 'responds to the lane the soonest' is the high flare or low ratio as we don't know the ball surface and 'slowest response to friction' is the large VAL angle. Personally I wouldn't be using that layout on a THS, the sum maybe but not the ratio.
Mid-Lane hook and Back-end - a favourite for fresh PBA and sport conditions - 60 x 5 1/2" x 70 (maybe for rev dominant bowlers). 130 sum, 1:1.167. Again only guessing, but 'responds to the lane soon' is the flare or ratio and 'slow response to friction' is the large VAL angle. I'm not sure that angle sum would give the Mid-Lane hook as reported, but the ratio and pin to PAP would be in the ball park for some bowlers.
Then their length and backend layout is 45 x 5 1/2" x 30. I could go on guessing but if I put this layout on a sanded asymm ball I don't know how much length and backend I would get.
These layouts may be quite effective for Brunswick balls or the Brunswick pro bowlers, but from my understanding of the dual angle system, their intentions don't seem to match the suggested layouts.
USBC Silver Level Coach
BCU Graduate - Mastery of Layouts
BTM contributor
BCU Graduate - Mastery of Layouts
BTM contributor
-
- Member
- Posts: 657
- Joined: November 22nd, 2014, 6:07 am
- THS Average: 205
- Positive Axis Point: 5 5/8 up 3/4
- Speed: 14 mph off hand
- Rev Rate: 300
- Axis Tilt: 15
- Axis Rotation: 60
- Location: Hong Kong
Re: Respond to lane vs Respond to friction
If you have your sweet spot calculated, base on it to work out the desired motion.
My asymmetric benchmark is 60-4-40. Total:100* Ratio: 1.5:1
For drier lane condition, I will increase the total to say 120* or more. This will reduce the ball's overall responsiveness to friction. The ratio will be either 1:1 (hook longer to tame the back-end) or 2:1 (skid longer, through the front and turn sharper).
For tighter lane condition, I will reduce the total to 80* or less.
The PAP-PIN distance also matters but I am not very good at it. Generally speaking, shorter (asym only) for drier lane.
My asymmetric benchmark is 60-4-40. Total:100* Ratio: 1.5:1
For drier lane condition, I will increase the total to say 120* or more. This will reduce the ball's overall responsiveness to friction. The ratio will be either 1:1 (hook longer to tame the back-end) or 2:1 (skid longer, through the front and turn sharper).
For tighter lane condition, I will reduce the total to 80* or less.
The PAP-PIN distance also matters but I am not very good at it. Generally speaking, shorter (asym only) for drier lane.
Adrian
Right handed
PAP: 5 1/8 up 3/4
Speed: 15.5 mph (Kegel Specto)
Rev: 350 RPM
Axis tilt: 18-20*
Axis rotation: 60*
Right handed
PAP: 5 1/8 up 3/4
Speed: 15.5 mph (Kegel Specto)
Rev: 350 RPM
Axis tilt: 18-20*
Axis rotation: 60*
Re: Respond to lane vs Respond to friction
Far be it from me to argue with Big B, but I couldn't agree more. Geez, the THS is really supposed to be fairly easy. Since the pocket is almost given to you, wouldn't you want a ball that is quicker in the second transition? Quicker "response to friction"? Less predictable than a slower response to friction layout, yes... but the lane is easy, we don't really need a lot of predictability. We ball motion to take advantage of lane help, and hit.deanchamp wrote:These layouts may be quite effective for Brunswick balls or the Brunswick pro bowlers, but from my understanding of the dual angle system, their intentions don't seem to match the suggested layouts.
- 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: Respond to lane vs Respond to friction
The drill sheet you posted from Brunswick is out of date.
I think those are from around 2007-2012.
I think those are from around 2007-2012.