Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

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

Moderator: Moderators

56bird
Member
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: April 18th, 2013, 11:55 am

Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by 56bird » July 29th, 2018, 6:41 pm

Was just told that coverstock oil absorption rate has nothing to do with anything, and nothing to do with ability to generate friction. Pretty dismissively, I might add. I’m wrong fifty times a day (minimum) so I thought I’d come here and ask for reactions.

User avatar
MeNoRevs
Pro Shop
Pro Shop
Posts: 305
Joined: January 19th, 2010, 11:28 pm
THS Average: 120
Positive Axis Point: 5 3/4 x 1 ^
Preferred Company: I prefer them all
Location: Southern Maryland

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by MeNoRevs » July 29th, 2018, 8:19 pm

56bird wrote:Was just told that coverstock oil absorption rate has nothing to do with anything, and nothing to do with ability to generate friction. Pretty dismissively, I might add. I’m wrong fifty times a day (minimum) so I thought I’d come here and ask for reactions.
Is this settee talk or pro shop / industry leader that this is coming from?

Not sure why this really has to become a topic, both the Ball Motion Study that was lead by Mo and the most recent one both concluded that cover (Ra, Rs, etc) has the most impact in ball motion. If it did not, they would not put a limit on oil absorption.

56bird
Member
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: April 18th, 2013, 11:55 am

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by 56bird » July 29th, 2018, 8:29 pm

FB discussion. I was saying after a ball review that I was somewhat worried that I'd have buyer's remorse after buying a top-shelf asym solid but given the recent rule limiting absorption rate, I didn't think today's top-shelf stuff would be surpassed by too much coming out in the future. The response was pretty much the above and that there is still lots of room between the current top-shelf stuff and the new upper limit for absorption rate.
Last edited by 56bird on July 29th, 2018, 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

56bird
Member
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: April 18th, 2013, 11:55 am

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by 56bird » July 29th, 2018, 8:32 pm

To be specific without naming names, this was with a staffer who has developed a following these last few years for his YouTube ball reviews. Part time pso I believe.

User avatar
spmcgivern
Member
Member
Posts: 554
Joined: February 28th, 2011, 7:53 pm
THS Average: 225
Positive Axis Point: 4 3/4" and 1/4" up
Speed: 17-18 at pindeck
Rev Rate: 400
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by spmcgivern » July 30th, 2018, 7:31 pm

MeNoRevs wrote:
Is this settee talk or pro shop / industry leader that this is coming from?

Not sure why this really has to become a topic, both the Ball Motion Study that was lead by Mo and the most recent one both concluded that cover (Ra, Rs, etc) has the most impact in ball motion. If it did not, they would not put a limit on oil absorption.
Out of curiosity, what aspect of oil absorption affects ball motion? I understand Ra and Rs are physical parameters, but I can't see how oil absorption can affect ball motion. I see it affecting subsequent shots since the oil absorption rate can deplete the oil on a lane.

56bird
Member
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: April 18th, 2013, 11:55 am

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by 56bird » July 30th, 2018, 9:05 pm

spmcgivern wrote:Out of curiosity, what aspect of oil absorption affects ball motion? I understand Ra and Rs are physical parameters, but I can't see how oil absorption can affect ball motion. I see it affecting subsequent shots since the oil absorption rate can deplete the oil on a lane.
Well, you really answered you own question. In a one-shot scenario, absorption doesn’t play much of a role. Most of us bowl a three or four game series in league. Often this comes after 10 minutes of “practice”.

I practice on my own time. During “practice” I’m trying to get warmed up and remember how I bowl, and I’m trying at the same time to influence the pattern to play easy for me during competition. This usually involves making some shots on each lane farther outside than where I think my best line is. I’m trying to *create friction* by removing some undesired oil.

On a flood I might get very little hook at first. The job of the top-shelf solid in my bag is two-fold:

1. Get into a roll by leveraging whatever friction IS available on the flood so I can score.
2. Create some friction and miss room so I can move in a bit and take advantage of it.

My assertion is that a top-shelf solid with high rate of oil absorption is the best tool for this. My dismissive friends seem to suggest that surface is a more important factor but I disagree. Else, buying a cheap plastic ball and sanding it to 180 grit would seem the most cost-effective way to carve a pattern. I do agree that surface plays A role, I think a strong ball with say 500 abralon has more influence over the oil pattern than the same ball at 4000, but so long as you don’t, as Mo might say, “clog the pores with polish” these will all do the job and I really think there is less difference than commonly believed. I think you should choose surface based on how early you want the ball to slow down, not how you want to break down the pattern.

I kinda took for granted that this (less the last bit about surface which is just my opinion) was common belief but as I said, I’m wrong 50 times a day, so...

56bird
Member
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: April 18th, 2013, 11:55 am

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by 56bird » July 30th, 2018, 9:21 pm

One thing I have liked about Ebonite (even if I don’t use their stuff) is the way they name many of their coverstocks. Years ago their Big Ball was The One, which had the GB10.7 cover. This is literally a description of oil absorption rate, grams per hour, that the cover is capable of. Later as covers became more absorbent, this top-shelf cover was seen in the mid-to-entry Cyclone but also still soldiers on in the Game Breaker 2. The Game Breaker 3 is supposed to be an upgrade over the GB 2 and sports a GB 12.7 cover, while recently the top shelf asym in the line was the Maverick with the GB 14.0 cover.

They are starting to get away from this naming convention but it seems Ebonite thinks absorption rate is an important factor in today’s coverstocks.

User avatar
stevespo
Member
Member
Posts: 572
Joined: August 11th, 2014, 8:07 pm
THS Average: 225
Positive Axis Point: 5.75" x + 3/8"
Speed: 17+ off hand (camera)
Rev Rate: 375
Axis Tilt: 12
Axis Rotation: 45
Heavy Oil Ball: Radical Guru Master, Track Paradox
Medium Oil Ball: Radical Primo, Hammer Black Widow Red Legend Pearl
Light Oil Ball: Hammer Arson Low Flare Solid, Radical Jackpot

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by stevespo » July 31st, 2018, 12:33 am

spmcgivern wrote: Out of curiosity, what aspect of oil absorption affects ball motion? I understand Ra and Rs are physical parameters, but I can't see how oil absorption can affect ball motion. I see it affecting subsequent shots since the oil absorption rate can deplete the oil on a lane.
This is a good question. In phase 2 of the USBC ball motion study, they took 4 shots with the test ball, then one shot with the reference, then 4 more shots with the test ball. They used the CATS data and linear regression to find the strongest correlations to the 18 variables they were interested in.

So, it's not clear if oil absorption was a factor on a single shot, or a cumulative effect over the 8 shots. What they were measuring was oil absorption rate. Surface on the other hand, would certainly have an immediate effect and perhaps an additive effect as well (if we believe that more surface picks up more oil on each shot).

Given USBC methodology, oil absorption was the #3 strongest variable after SR-Ra and SR-RS (surface roughness), and more of an effect than RG, diff, int. diff, etc. I can't say the testing or methodology is perfect, but it would be hard to discount the oil absorption rate when it comes to ball motion. The staffer might want to do a little bit of research and look at the data.

Steve
18-19 mph (15.5-16.5 on monitor), 375 rpm, PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8 up, AT: 12*, AR: 45*

User avatar
spmcgivern
Member
Member
Posts: 554
Joined: February 28th, 2011, 7:53 pm
THS Average: 225
Positive Axis Point: 4 3/4" and 1/4" up
Speed: 17-18 at pindeck
Rev Rate: 400
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by spmcgivern » July 31st, 2018, 1:25 pm

stevespo wrote:
This is a good question. In phase 2 of the USBC ball motion study, they took 4 shots with the test ball, then one shot with the reference, then 4 more shots with the test ball. They used the CATS data and linear regression to find the strongest correlations to the 18 variables they were interested in.

So, it's not clear if oil absorption was a factor on a single shot, or a cumulative effect over the 8 shots. What they were measuring was oil absorption rate. Surface on the other hand, would certainly have an immediate effect and perhaps an additive effect as well (if we believe that more surface picks up more oil on each shot).

Given USBC methodology, oil absorption was the #3 strongest variable after SR-Ra and SR-RS (surface roughness), and more of an effect than RG, diff, int. diff, etc. I can't say the testing or methodology is perfect, but it would be hard to discount the oil absorption rate when it comes to ball motion. The staffer might want to do a little bit of research and look at the data.

Steve
I was thinking something similar in that on a single shot oil absorption may not play much of a roll if any at all. However, cumulative shots it will obviously play a roll on each subsequent shot. This makes sense to me since USBC wants to control the "integrity" of the pattern and thus limit absorption rate.

56bird
Member
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: April 18th, 2013, 11:55 am

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by 56bird » July 31st, 2018, 2:00 pm

stevespo wrote: it would be hard to discount the oil absorption rate when it comes to ball motion. The staffer might want to do a little bit of research and look at the data.

Steve
My position exactly but I’m always prepared to reconsider “things I’ve been told” and “things I believe”. I quit arguing after I stated my initial point. I just don’t care too much what goes rattling around between other bowlers ears, so long as I’m still on the right track (or believe I am!). Thanks for the responses guys.

User avatar
stevespo
Member
Member
Posts: 572
Joined: August 11th, 2014, 8:07 pm
THS Average: 225
Positive Axis Point: 5.75" x + 3/8"
Speed: 17+ off hand (camera)
Rev Rate: 375
Axis Tilt: 12
Axis Rotation: 45
Heavy Oil Ball: Radical Guru Master, Track Paradox
Medium Oil Ball: Radical Primo, Hammer Black Widow Red Legend Pearl
Light Oil Ball: Hammer Arson Low Flare Solid, Radical Jackpot

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by stevespo » July 31st, 2018, 3:04 pm

I can see believing that oil absorption has minimal influence on a single shot. The staffer is probably right in this regard.

USBC is limiting oil absorption to help with pattern integrity, not necessarily to reduce ball motion. Their test methodology averages the CATS data from the 8 shots and then runs the regression. It would be interesting to do it on a shot by shot basis and see if that reorders any of the 20 variables...

Something interesting to think about, but not argue about.

Steve
18-19 mph (15.5-16.5 on monitor), 375 rpm, PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8 up, AT: 12*, AR: 45*

Bahshay
Member
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: October 22nd, 2010, 3:01 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by Bahshay » July 31st, 2018, 6:22 pm

To me, “oil absorption effects ball motion” means that oil absorbed in the front of the lane has a direct effect on the rest of the path of the ball in that throw. I don’t have any science to fall back on here, but I struggle to understand how the ball could be absorbing the oil in a meaningful way in the 2-3 seconds it’s on a lane if it takes even the most sponge-like balls more than 30 seconds to absorb a drop.

Oil absorption definitely plays a big role in lane transition, but even over several shots, I struggle to see how oil absorption itself has an effect on ball motion. Cover Ra/Rs changes from oil absorption could change ball motion, but it’s the change in Ra/Rs that’s effecting the ball motion. Lane friction/oil volume changes from oil absorption, but again, ball motion changes would be the effect of changes to lane friction/oil volume. Oil absorption, to me, changes the values of the other parameters rather than being a parameter itself.

So in the conversation of “does ball x hook more than ball y”, oil absorption rate seems to be negligible on a shot by shot basis, and the staffer would be correct. Longevity of the ball is a different conversation.

I have no science backing me up here, just what seems logical to me. Let me know where I’m mistaken.
PAP- 4 1/8 over, 3/4 up
Speed - 17-18 monitor
Rev Rate - 475
Rotation - 65
Tilt - 12

56bird
Member
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: April 18th, 2013, 11:55 am

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by 56bird » July 31st, 2018, 9:53 pm

Because nobody goes to the bowling alley, rolls one shot, and goes home.

You can influence the shot by creating friction with a reactive piece, thus influencing ball motion *as the session progresses*.

Bahshay
Member
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: October 22nd, 2010, 3:01 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by Bahshay » August 1st, 2018, 3:23 am

56bird wrote:Because nobody goes to the bowling alley, rolls one shot, and goes home.

You can influence the shot by creating friction with a reactive piece, thus influencing ball motion *as the session progresses*.
But what is actually influencing the ball motion as the session progresses? Wouldnt it be the change in surface on the cover and change in oil on the lane?

That's my point. The rate of oil absorption isn't changing ball motion. It's changing the factors that change ball motion. Ticky tack perhaps, but it seems like a huge difference to me. Each individual shot is an individual ball motion, it's not an on-going data point.
PAP- 4 1/8 over, 3/4 up
Speed - 17-18 monitor
Rev Rate - 475
Rotation - 65
Tilt - 12

56bird
Member
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: April 18th, 2013, 11:55 am

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by 56bird » August 1st, 2018, 9:33 am

But a given ball’s rate of oil absorption determines how efficiently you can make those changes in the oil on the lane.

I’ve seen some of these modern urethane balls, Black Widow urethane for example, that hook a bunch. If you select a reactive that covers the same amount of boards on shot one (shape will be different, can’t help that), they will have different effects on the lane oil. The difference can be boiled down to porosity and oil absorption rate.

My assertion from the beginning was that oil absorption rate is a performance characteristic of heavy oil balls. This is so because they are efficient at altering the playing surface, creating friction which enhances ball motion and miss room. For good or evil- don’t hate the player, hate the game. Further, that since the USBC recognizes this and has put an upper limit on the rate, top-shelf heavy oil covers won’t be exceeded too much by new releases. I think this was the point behind the new rule. Enough flare is enough flare, you can only do so much within the limits of RG, diff, and MB. “Chemical roughness” is about all they can mess with, it isn’t nothing but I always felt it was easily trumped with surface. Time will tell but I expect bowlers will be buying new heavy oil parts when their old ones wear out or get oil soaked, not so much because of revolutions in heavy-oil performance (like the first Storm Nano cover). It’s ok if you disagree with me.

Bahshay
Member
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: October 22nd, 2010, 3:01 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by Bahshay » August 1st, 2018, 11:01 am

56bird wrote:But a given ball’s rate of oil absorption determines how efficiently you can make those changes in the oil on the lane.

I’ve seen some of these modern urethane balls, Black Widow urethane for example, that hook a bunch. If you select a reactive that covers the same amount of boards on shot one (shape will be different, can’t help that), they will have different effects on the lane oil. The difference can be boiled down to porosity and oil absorption rate.

My assertion from the beginning was that oil absorption rate is a performance characteristic of heavy oil balls. This is so because they are efficient at altering the playing surface, creating friction which enhances ball motion and miss room. For good or evil- don’t hate the player, hate the game. Further, that since the USBC recognizes this and has put an upper limit on the rate, top-shelf heavy oil covers won’t be exceeded too much by new releases. I think this was the point behind the new rule. Enough flare is enough flare, you can only do so much within the limits of RG, diff, and MB. “Chemical roughness” is about all they can mess with, it isn’t nothing but I always felt it was easily trumped with surface. Time will tell but I expect bowlers will be buying new heavy oil parts when their old ones wear out or get oil soaked, not so much because of revolutions in heavy-oil performance (like the first Storm Nano cover). It’s ok if you disagree with me.
I don't disagree with you that heavy oil performance isn't about to jump through the roof. Frankly, the performance of the Code X in heavy oil is evidence to me that covers weren't progressing all that much regardless. Storm has R2S covering damn near every oil volume possible.

My only disagreement is that oil absorption is the reason or a key part of ball motion. Key part of lane transition, absolutely. But give me two balls that are exactly the same except their ability to absorb, and what is the difference in how the ball rolls down the lane? Nothing, IMO, until the one breaks down the lane more. I guess we will just have to disagree on whether ball motion is a factor of one shot or an entire set.
PAP- 4 1/8 over, 3/4 up
Speed - 17-18 monitor
Rev Rate - 475
Rotation - 65
Tilt - 12

pocket710guy
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Preferred Company: Roto Grip

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by pocket710guy » August 1st, 2018, 4:10 pm

[youtube][/youtube]

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

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by MWhite » February 25th, 2019, 8:50 am

imagine if USBC set a rule that set the absorption rate at 0.

Before each shot, the bowler would simply wipe the ball down to remove the oil on the ball.

What effects the oil on the lane most is track flare, surface roughness, and rev rate.

The more dry surface of the ball presented to the lane that has oil on it, the more oil is transferred from the lane to the ball.

Does it really matter if the ball absorbs the oil, or the towel does?

If the bowler is lazy, potentially less oil is removed from the lane.

User avatar
deanchamp
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 405
Joined: August 4th, 2010, 10:23 am
THS Average: 220
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by deanchamp » February 25th, 2019, 10:29 pm

A real world example. When bowling, I wipe the oil off the ball before every shot.

I recently was given a Track 300C Solid (2013, Gen MC coverstock), which I'm now using as a spare ball, as the first thing I noticed was that the oil is still sitting on the cover of the ball every time I go to clean it before a shot. And this could be after 10 mins or more in our 4-man teams league, depending on how many strikes I'm bowling.

And there is a lot of oil, much more than I am used to seeing on a solid, as it is not only on the track where it has touched the lane, but it also gets pushed all around the cover when the ball is spinning around behind the pins and on its way back to the ball return.

Using a microfibre towel to clean it, it barely gets all the oil off before each shot. This is why it has become a spare ball for me, as any surface I tried to use on it quickly became lane shine and the ball just stopped reading the mid-lane.

Compared to even my Radical Guru Master (2015 - great bal) which has had a lot of use over 4 years now, the oil has all but disappeared into the cover between shots, and any that is present is only on the track and easily removed with my towel.

SO, my thinking is, the oil absorption rate helps the ball be ready for the next shot; the less oil present on the ball to remove with a towel means the ball will develop less lane shine and have a similar reaction to the shot before, and the quicker the oil is absorbed, the closer the cover prep will be to the shot before.

The double whammy is the more absorbent cover will also take more oil off the lane each shot as it is less affected by previous shots and oil accumulation on the cover - the 300C won't be taking as much oil off the lane as the Guru Master because oil is already present on the cover, and I don't think that oil would absorb oil.

At some point in time the cover must reach a saturation point where it can't absorb any more oil, much like a sponge will fill up with water, and the absorption rate will slow and you'll see more oil on the cover after each shot. When someone mentions their ball has stopped reacting no matter how much surface they use, when I run my hand around the track you can feel the oil there as it is greasy to the touch as the ball has reached its saturation point. Time for a de-oil.

Do the pros have to worry about this? Not really as they are always using new balls.

Will this affect league bowlers? Yes, as balls that don't absorb oil as quickly will lose their reaction a lot faster, especially without proper maintainence, which could lead to more new balls being purchased to compensate.

That's my take on it anyway...
USBC Silver Level Coach
BCU Graduate - Mastery of Layouts
BTM contibutor

User avatar
VLe
BCU Graduate Layouts
BCU Graduate Layouts
Posts: 193
Joined: April 15th, 2015, 7:07 am
Speed: 17
Rev Rate: 320
Axis Tilt: 20
Axis Rotation: 55
Preferred Company: Radical
Location: Finland

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by VLe » February 27th, 2019, 2:42 pm

After so many times of using a ultrasonic cleaner on a very soaked bowling ball I am quite confident to say that the absorbion rate is a major factor on ball motion. Using some older bowling ball that is soaked in oil after many games you can clearly see the oil rings after a throw (the surface wont take more oil in anymore). After you take the oil out of the ball with ultrasonic cleaning (that does not alter the surface). The ball can become a LOT different. It is also almost dry after throw because it has absorbed the oil in to the pores of the ball. This is a lot depended on the surface. Some aggressive covers are very porous and take oil in like a sponge. Some other covers take less and the effect of de-oiling is less noticeable. Radical bowling balls are a good example of a bowling ball that typically acts like a sponge (based on my experience).

I have made tests when you take old ball, clean the cover traditionally (using some cleaning spray) and put a fresh surface on a ball VS. doing all this plus de-oiling the ball before resurfacing and the aggressiveness is just so much more. I believe that most of the times a person thinks his bowling ball is “dead” and have the feeling that he needs a new ball is just a situation when the ball would require a good de-oiling to get it back to where it used to be.

Rougly said, what separates urethane balls from reactive balls is the porous surface that has the ability to absorb oil better.
When plugging a bowling ball hole with urethane-based resin. Drop a little water to the material before it is hardened and you'll end up with reactive plug. :lol:
Right Handed
PAP 4 3/8" x 0"
60* rotation
17.5* tilt
320-360 rev rate
17mph off hand

Post Reply