C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Bowling ball related topics including new products, arsenals and comparisons.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
bowl1820
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1470
Joined: July 9th, 2012, 10:09 pm
Location: Central Florida

C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by bowl1820 »

What do we think? Boy that rubber ball landed like a piece lead.


Published on Aug 21, 2015

Columbia 300's research and development team introduces you to the NEW Swerve with Hypershock Technology.

Host Rich Hanson (Group Marketing Director) is joined by Randy Teitloff (VP of Research and Development) and Nick Tomaszewski (Product Development Manager).

[youtube][/youtube]
"REMEMBER, it isn't how much the ball hooks, it's where."
J_w73
Member
Member
Posts: 915
Joined: January 19th, 2010, 12:53 am
THS Average: 210
Positive Axis Point: 4 3/4" over 1/4" up
Speed: 17 mph
Axis Tilt: 17
Axis Rotation: 45+
Heavy Oil Ball: Idol, Show-off
Medium Oil Ball: Venom Shock, Rhodman,
Light Oil Ball: Phobia, White Hot Badger
Location: Northern California

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by J_w73 »

I applaud them for taking a chance and doing something new. I would like to see more comparison tests with the actual ball instead of with two black balls and a Newton's cradle.
Right Handed, 16-17 mph off hand (14 -15 mph on Qubica reading) ,350 rpm,PAP 4 3/4 x 1/4 up, 17 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
Book Average 210+
User avatar
Mo Pinel
Rest In Peace
Rest In Peace
Posts: 10054
Joined: January 26th, 2010, 6:10 pm
Preferred Company: MoRich, & now RADICAL BT
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by Mo Pinel »

What they're talking about is Coefficient of Restitution of the ball. The USBC has minimum and maximum specs on COR. They have been in effect since 1992. What ever the outer core is effecting on COR can't be showing up on the ball or it would be outside their COR spec. Jury is still out!
Rest In Peace (1942-2021)
User avatar
Plamormick
Member
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: November 25th, 2011, 10:53 pm
THS Average: 215
Positive Axis Point: over 5 1/8", up 3/8"
Speed: 16.4 mph at pins
Axis Tilt: 13*
Heavy Oil Ball: MOTIV Raptor, RG Alliance Tour
Medium Oil Ball: MOTIV Sigma Tour, Storm Victory Road
Light Oil Ball: MOTIV Recon RX1o, MOTIV Primal
Preferred Company: MOTIV
Location: Iowa Falls, IA

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by Plamormick »

I find it curious that they chose the word "Swerve". In wrestling, a Swerve is showing the audience one thing, but then doing the opposite. Hmm...

Words mean things, and this company knows that. Think back to the "Taboo"-- it was 'taboo' to use old technology, and then charge more for it...

I want a hammer made out of that stuff, BTW.
Proprietor, Pla-Mor Bowl
Operator, Lane 13 Pro Shop
J_w73
Member
Member
Posts: 915
Joined: January 19th, 2010, 12:53 am
THS Average: 210
Positive Axis Point: 4 3/4" over 1/4" up
Speed: 17 mph
Axis Tilt: 17
Axis Rotation: 45+
Heavy Oil Ball: Idol, Show-off
Medium Oil Ball: Venom Shock, Rhodman,
Light Oil Ball: Phobia, White Hot Badger
Location: Northern California

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by J_w73 »

Mo Pinel wrote:What they're talking about is Coefficient of Restitution of the ball. The USBC has minimum and maximum specs on COR. They have been in effect since 1992. What ever the outer core is effecting on COR can't be showing up on the ball or it would be outside their COR spec. Jury is still out!
I just watched how they do the COR test. Perhaps the test ramp does not provide enough speed/force for the ball to be out of spec but with the speed on the lane, perhaps it does make a difference? Like a corked bat. If you hit balls with a small force I'm sure it wouldn't make a difference , but if you put enough force then the corked bat will make a big difference.
Right Handed, 16-17 mph off hand (14 -15 mph on Qubica reading) ,350 rpm,PAP 4 3/4 x 1/4 up, 17 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
Book Average 210+
J_w73
Member
Member
Posts: 915
Joined: January 19th, 2010, 12:53 am
THS Average: 210
Positive Axis Point: 4 3/4" over 1/4" up
Speed: 17 mph
Axis Tilt: 17
Axis Rotation: 45+
Heavy Oil Ball: Idol, Show-off
Medium Oil Ball: Venom Shock, Rhodman,
Light Oil Ball: Phobia, White Hot Badger
Location: Northern California

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by J_w73 »

I looked for some sort of patent on the hypershock technology but I couldn't find anything.
Right Handed, 16-17 mph off hand (14 -15 mph on Qubica reading) ,350 rpm,PAP 4 3/4 x 1/4 up, 17 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
Book Average 210+
User avatar
bowl1820
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1470
Joined: July 9th, 2012, 10:09 pm
Location: Central Florida

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by bowl1820 »

J_w73 wrote:I looked for some sort of patent on the hypershock technology but I couldn't find anything.
It's hard to find the patents on some of this stuff, because of how they word the patent. Example Ebonites "Hook Again" system that patent is called : "Method of treating the coverstock of a bowling ball to improve performance"

You can see that one here:
http://www.google.ca/patents/US7473322


and who actually holds the patents, because while they maybe using, they might not have invented it.
"REMEMBER, it isn't how much the ball hooks, it's where."
User avatar
Mo Pinel
Rest In Peace
Rest In Peace
Posts: 10054
Joined: January 26th, 2010, 6:10 pm
Preferred Company: MoRich, & now RADICAL BT
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by Mo Pinel »

J_w73 wrote:
I just watched how they do the COR test. Perhaps the test ramp does not provide enough speed/force for the ball to be out of spec but with the speed on the lane, perhaps it does make a difference? Like a corked bat. If you hit balls with a small force I'm sure it wouldn't make a difference , but if you put enough force then the corked bat will make a big difference.
Let's see what purduepaul says about the USBC COR test. He's done it enough times.
Rest In Peace (1942-2021)
User avatar
snick
BCU Graduate Layouts
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: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by snick »

It's difficult to separate the effects of oil pattern and lane from those of the ball design.
I have entry level reactive bowling balls that hook very much like the C300 demo.
Benchmark Bowling Pro Shop
Byron

RH
PAP: 5.5625 x .625 up
REVRATE: 360
SPEED: 17mph at release
AR: 55º
AT: 17º
J_w73
Member
Member
Posts: 915
Joined: January 19th, 2010, 12:53 am
THS Average: 210
Positive Axis Point: 4 3/4" over 1/4" up
Speed: 17 mph
Axis Tilt: 17
Axis Rotation: 45+
Heavy Oil Ball: Idol, Show-off
Medium Oil Ball: Venom Shock, Rhodman,
Light Oil Ball: Phobia, White Hot Badger
Location: Northern California

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by J_w73 »

snick wrote:It's difficult to separate the effects of oil pattern and lane from those of the ball design.
I have entry level reactive bowling balls that hook very much like the C300 demo.
True. I could put out an oil pattern that would make a ball look like the greatest thing ever..
Right Handed, 16-17 mph off hand (14 -15 mph on Qubica reading) ,350 rpm,PAP 4 3/4 x 1/4 up, 17 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
Book Average 210+
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: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by purduepaul »

The current Coefficient of Restitution specification is 0.650 to 0.750. So whatever the technology's affect on the COR must fall within that range. With that being said, I do not think that this additive adds to the energy transfer to the ball. http://www.polymerambassadors.org/happyandsad.pdf They basically describe the same reaction that occurs with the one rubber ball that does not bounce back. They describe in the link in fact that when a ball dies like that it has a lower COR, which makes logical sense to me.

The definition of COR is the ratio of the amount of energy transferred to the amount of energy available to transfer. So if a ball does not bounce as high, it is not transferring as much energy.
Paul Ridenour
former Sr Research Engineer at USBC
Radical Bowling Technologies Staffer
User avatar
bowl1820
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1470
Joined: July 9th, 2012, 10:09 pm
Location: Central Florida

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by bowl1820 »

Happy Sad Balls

[youtube][/youtube]
"REMEMBER, it isn't how much the ball hooks, it's where."
User avatar
Mo Pinel
Rest In Peace
Rest In Peace
Posts: 10054
Joined: January 26th, 2010, 6:10 pm
Preferred Company: MoRich, & now RADICAL BT
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by Mo Pinel »

bowl1820 wrote:Happy Sad Balls

[youtube][/youtube]
Great demo! Thanks!
Rest In Peace (1942-2021)
J_w73
Member
Member
Posts: 915
Joined: January 19th, 2010, 12:53 am
THS Average: 210
Positive Axis Point: 4 3/4" over 1/4" up
Speed: 17 mph
Axis Tilt: 17
Axis Rotation: 45+
Heavy Oil Ball: Idol, Show-off
Medium Oil Ball: Venom Shock, Rhodman,
Light Oil Ball: Phobia, White Hot Badger
Location: Northern California

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by J_w73 »

purduepaul wrote:The current Coefficient of Restitution specification is 0.650 to 0.750. So whatever the technology's affect on the COR must fall within that range. With that being said, I do not think that this additive adds to the energy transfer to the ball. http://www.polymerambassadors.org/happyandsad.pdf They basically describe the same reaction that occurs with the one rubber ball that does not bounce back. They describe in the link in fact that when a ball dies like that it has a lower COR, which makes logical sense to me.

The definition of COR is the ratio of the amount of energy transferred to the amount of energy available to transfer. So if a ball does not bounce as high, it is not transferring as much energy.
I agree, but the way I look at it the ball will have 15 lbs times it's speed in force. So it I'll be absorbing the impact of the pins and not bouncing off of them and instead continue driving in the direction it was traveling. Imagine a ball made out of reach of those materials the size and weight of a bowlng ball. Imagine the result when each hit an object going at the same speed. I imagine seeing less deflection with the ball that doesn't bounce.
Last edited by J_w73 on August 24th, 2015, 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Right Handed, 16-17 mph off hand (14 -15 mph on Qubica reading) ,350 rpm,PAP 4 3/4 x 1/4 up, 17 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
Book Average 210+
MWhite
Member
Member
Posts: 457
Joined: July 4th, 2012, 11:29 pm
Location: Riverside Ca

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by MWhite »

J_w73 wrote:
I agree but the way I look at it the ball will have 15 lbs times it's stored in force. So it I'll be absorbing the impact of the pins and not bouncing off of them and instead continue driving in the direction it was traveling. Imagine a ball made out of reach of those materials the size and weight of a bowlng ball. Imagine the result when each hit an object going at the save speed. I imagine seeing less deflection with the ball that doesn't bounce.

There is no free lunch.

If the ball is bouncing less off the pins, the pins are bouncing less off the ball.
User avatar
Mo Pinel
Rest In Peace
Rest In Peace
Posts: 10054
Joined: January 26th, 2010, 6:10 pm
Preferred Company: MoRich, & now RADICAL BT
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by Mo Pinel »

MWhite wrote:

There is no free lunch.

If the ball is bouncing less off the pins, the pins are bouncing less off the ball.
Well said!
Rest In Peace (1942-2021)
J_w73
Member
Member
Posts: 915
Joined: January 19th, 2010, 12:53 am
THS Average: 210
Positive Axis Point: 4 3/4" over 1/4" up
Speed: 17 mph
Axis Tilt: 17
Axis Rotation: 45+
Heavy Oil Ball: Idol, Show-off
Medium Oil Ball: Venom Shock, Rhodman,
Light Oil Ball: Phobia, White Hot Badger
Location: Northern California

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by J_w73 »

MWhite wrote:

There is no free lunch.

If the ball is bouncing less off the pins, the pins are bouncing less off the ball.
I understand and completely agree. I just said there would be less deflection with the ball. Would you agree on that? I'm not sold on their experiment with the pin flying farther. Maybe that was just one test where the pin flew farther because it hit a different spot on the pin. But if the ball does not deflect as much, perhaps more of the force from the moving ball could be transferred to the pin? I don't know.

Perhaps something is going on similar to the Pro V1 golf ball. A slow swing speed will not compress the ball enough and the ball will not go as far as most balls. But get someone with a fast pro caliber swing speed that can compress the ball and the ball will definitely go farther than other balls hit with that same swing speed. I know this isn't a 1:1 comparison. I'm just throwing some ideas out there that might be related to what is happening.
Right Handed, 16-17 mph off hand (14 -15 mph on Qubica reading) ,350 rpm,PAP 4 3/4 x 1/4 up, 17 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
Book Average 210+
User avatar
bowl1820
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1470
Joined: July 9th, 2012, 10:09 pm
Location: Central Florida

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by bowl1820 »

J_w73 wrote:
I understand and completely agree. I just said there would be less deflection with the ball. Would you agree on that?

Which is what their claiming in the video, "works to control the influence pins have on the balls motion through the pin deck" which says to me it's reducing the balls deflection or altering it in someway.

I'm not sold on their experiment with the pin flying farther. Maybe that was just one test where the pin flew farther because it hit a different spot on the pin.

The test they showed looked similar to the Coefficient of Restitution test. I would expect if a ball had less give a pin would bounce harder/farther off it, which is what this additive appears to be doing and the video showed it do. The pin bounced a ""little"" farther.

But if the ball does not deflect as much, perhaps more of the force from the moving ball could be transferred to the pin? I don't know.

Which is pretty what they said in the video after about 9:00min. or so in. Where Randy was talking about the ball having longer contact with the pins so it could transfer more energy to the pins.

.
See the Coefficient of Restitution test at about 5:45 mins.

[youtube][/youtube]

okay wait for it..
"REMEMBER, it isn't how much the ball hooks, it's where."
ads
Member
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: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by ads »

MWhite wrote:

There is no free lunch.

If the ball is bouncing less off the pins, the pins are bouncing less off the ball.
Hi MWhite

Is bouncing here equivalent to ball deflection? Does down lane friction encountered by the ball matter?
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*
MWhite
Member
Member
Posts: 457
Joined: July 4th, 2012, 11:29 pm
Location: Riverside Ca

Re: C300s new HyperSHOCK technology any thoughts?

Post by MWhite »

ads wrote:
Hi MWhite

Is bouncing here equivalent to ball deflection? Does down lane friction encountered by the ball matter?
Yes bouncing here is equivalent to ball deflection.

Lets assume the ball is rolling straight down the lane and impacts the head pin on the right side.

Before the impact, the ball has a mass and velocity. Since it is rolling straight down the lane, none of that velocity is in a right to left direction.

The pin has a mass, but a velocity of 0.

After the impact, the sum of the pin's mass and it's velocity, and the ball's mass and it's velocity have to be equal to the mass and velocity of the ball before impact.

Also the mass and velocity of the pin moving to the left has to equal the mass and velocity of the ball moving to the right.

So like I said, the less the ball bounces (less velocity to the right), the less the pin bounces (less velocity to the left)



Yes down lane friction matters, however since the significant change they made was too the core, the friction encountered by this ball should be the same as encountered by the equivalent shelled ball without the new core.
Post Reply