Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

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

Moderator: Moderators

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

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by MWhite »

56bird wrote:There is “clean” and there is *clean*. One thing I dislike about urethane is the way the ball would get “slimy” all over after less than a game. No amount of wiping with a dry towel made this go away. This is a ball with a near-zero absorption rate.

My response was to clean every few shots to a game with a “legal during” cleaner.

Then over here we have Hickman saying we should clean with a legal-during cleaner before every shot, reactive or no (lol)

USBC has banned the use of legal-during cleaners during competition as of the 2020 new rules. Dry towels only. That telling you anything?

Yes you are removing some oil with your towel but you’re also spreading it around. You’re not getting it all. The ball does the rest of the work, and absorption rate describes how efficiently it does this.
First off, if your urethane ball is thrown on a path with enough oil to make the ball "slimy' then why are you using urethane?

Urethane is for when there is little oil on your preferred line.
Likewise why do bowlers sand a urethane to a dull finish with a core that makes the ball flare?

As for Hickman, I'm assuming that is a person who is in the business of selling cleaners.

USBC banning "legal" cleaners tells me one of two things.
Either USBC has documented enough cheating of bowlers using illegal cleaners put into containers labeled as legal, or some influential "cry babies" got into USBC's ear about the potential for there to be cheaters.

Either way, rather than punish actual violators USBC decided that the "children" can't seem to play nice with the toys provided, so they take the toys away,

While on the topic of strange USBC decisions.
What is the purpose of not being allowed to sand or polish a ball during competition.
There is no unfair advantage if everyone is allowed to do it.

By making it illegal, the unfair advantage goes to the guy who can afford to buy multiple balls and sand them to different levels ahead of. time, then keep them in reserve until the ball they have been using would need a surface adjustment.
User avatar
MegaMav
Moderator
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: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by MegaMav »

MWhite wrote: While on the topic of strange USBC decisions.
What is the purpose of not being allowed to sand or polish a ball during competition.
There is no unfair advantage if everyone is allowed to do it.

By making it illegal, the unfair advantage goes to the guy who can afford to buy multiple balls and sand them to different levels ahead of. time, then keep them in reserve until the ball they have been using would need a surface adjustment.
Which makes the industry more money? Selling balls or selling abrasives?
USBC is about making proprietors (which own the pro shops in many cases) money, not making sense.
The challenge league I run is non-sanctioned and I've had cursory thoughts about allowing surface adjustments any time to see what would happen.
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: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by purduepaul »

MWhite wrote:
If the ball is clean before it is thrown down the lane, just the fact that it flares will provide more ball surface to lane surface friction.

Absorption rate is not a factor.

Having the ball clean for the next shot can be achieved by absorption if there is enough time between shots. It can also be achieved by using a micro-fiber towel and elbow grease.

If you rely on absorption, there will come a time (saturation, or short duration) when you will be disappointed.

By getting in a habit of relying on the towel, you not only insure the ball is clean, but also reduce the amount of oil that does get absorbed which reduces the frequency the ball needs de-oiling.

I use micro-fiber towels I get off Amazon for $14 for 24 towels.

By having a few in the bag, if I suspect one is getting too used, I swap it for a clean one, and schedule the used one for a wash.
Different lane oils have different surface energies, as referring to the response below this post, wiping a ball off with a microfiber towel while removing some of the oil will not remove all of the oil due to the difference in surface energy of the oil particles. What the testing is saying is , yes it’s an important factor in determining the overall strength of a coverstock, but it is not the most important since that is surface roughness.
Paul Ridenour
former Sr Research Engineer at USBC
Radical Bowling Technologies Staffer
MWhite
Member
Member
Posts: 457
Joined: July 4th, 2012, 11:29 pm
Location: Riverside Ca

Re: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by MWhite »

MegaMav wrote:
Which makes the industry more money? Selling balls or selling abrasives?
USBC is about making proprietors (which own the pro shops in many cases) money, not making sense.
The challenge league I run is non-sanctioned and I've had cursory thoughts about allowing surface adjustments any time to see what would happen.
Is it really USBC’s mandate to make rules based on which option will put more money in the pocket of ball manufacturers and pro shops. I thought their mandate was to protect the integrity of the sport and record books.

If rules can be bought, the sport of bowling is screwed.
User avatar
MegaMav
Moderator
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: Absorption Rate Fact vs Friction

Post by MegaMav »

MWhite wrote:
Is it really USBC’s mandate to make rules based on which option will put more money in the pocket of ball manufacturers and pro shops. I thought their mandate was to protect the integrity of the sport and record books.

If rules can be bought, the sport of bowling is screwed.
Money makes the world go 'round.
Post Reply