Board index » Mo & Friends » General Discussion


Forum rules


Ask Mo Pinel and the bowling industry's best your questions, and get straight answers.
This forum is moderated exclusively by Mo & Friends.



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Rico Sidebar
 Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:10 pm Post Number: #21 Post
Offline
Certified Coach

Joined: December 13, 2014
Posts: 846
Location: San Juan, PR
Reputation: 136
Reputation Power: 2
Thank you very much sir for the explanation, I truly appreciate that you are participating in this discussion. No disrespect was meant from my part.

_________________
I'm out to prove dedication, discipline and really wanting it can go further than raw talent alone...
RPMs - 375-420
Speed - 15 monitor
Axis Tilt - 3* (yikes!!!)
Axis Rotation - depends on what I want the ball to do


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rico Sidebar
 Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:29 pm Post Number: #22 Post
Offline
Industry Professional

Joined: July 5, 2009
Posts: 5
Reputation: 2
Reputation Power: 1
None taken


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rico Sidebar
 Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:34 am Post Number: #23 Post
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2007
Posts: 3879
Location: Malta, NY
Reputation: 855
Reputation Power: 9
Rico wrote:
Anyone that truly understands layouts should also understand layout potentials AND NOT possible absolutions and realize ALL layouts are flare management...controlling the flare for the bowlers, so they respond accordingly (after the ball has slowed down of course) and managing so it misses the drilled holes...anyone that truly understands ball motion wouldn't make the comment - 'saw one on a Cash and all it did was bounce off the pocket'...did you ever consider that it may be the cover over responding to the condition? If I remember correctly, surface dictates 70-75% of motion and the layout truly only effects after the ball has slowed down CORRECTLY...


I was waiting for "actual physics" but got none, not surprised.

Layouts are not just about flare or its "management". Its about the final shape of the core after holes are put in it. The RG contours of the core shape and how the PAP migrates after release along those RG contours. Flare and core migration isnt necessarily a constant event that occurs from the front end to the backend of the lane. Layouts are more about the tangible benefit to the bowler on the lane. To shape the ball correctly based on their tilt, rotation and speed to rev rate relationship. Not once in your long post did I see anything about ball roll characteristic and this layout. I'll get to that later.

Following up to your comment about the Cash, the ball didnt flare enough to slow down at the right time, didnt burn off tilt and rotation in time due to the slow layout. No balance hole, that ball starts out with more than enough asymmetry. The ball was too late. It left five 10 pins during the one game of matchplay on good shots it was in for scoring. It was 47 foot Statue of Liberty pattern around 13 at the arrows pretty straight. Plenty of oil front to back there at that point. Im not surprised by your response of, "if its not the layout its the cover". It is the biggest hooking ball in the HISTORY OF BOWLING Ric, and if it doesnt slow down, whats left? The layout. As soon as he showed me the layout I knew he was going to have a hard time advancing but I said nothing as he was bowling, not me, plus hes a quality PBA senior tour bowler, much better than I and some rare bowlers can out bowl less optimal ball motion. Unfortunately it didnt work out.

Rico wrote:
while I was still at Brunswick, Bill Wasserberger & I dove into the numbers of this layout for shits & giggles...


Yes, Bill Wasserberger was great, rest in peace Bill. Ric where are the numbers?

Rico wrote:
My contention was & is, by placing the gripping holes 'around' the pin/mass you avoid drilling into the core more than any other layout...leaving the bulk of the dynamics alive...so the undrilled core numbers stay intact...by adding the weight hole at 6.75" from the pin...it increases the asymmetry in the core and thus the overall dynamics of the core...and movement


My contention is, as soon as you remove material from the ball you're altering the final numbers whether your intent is to or not. "Core preservation" usually is a complex from some core designers that think their designs shouldnt be touched. The magic is when you alter the core with deeper holes when the holes are placed strategically. We want to alter the core design to get the desired result. When we drill a balance hole for effect, do we drill it 1 1/8" bit 1 1/2" deep or 3/4" bit 3" deep? Its OK to drill into the core, it wont ruin the ball, it wont "kill" the "alive" dynamics. Asymmetry is directly related to the length of the hook zone. The less asymmetry you end up with the longer the hook zone. We want the ball to rev up to the roll phase before it hits the pins, not after it hits the mechanic.

Here is what I dont get about the layout Ric. Why would you place the pin in the most symmetrical way possible, near equal material taken out of both sides of the Low RG axis, then add a balance hole to add some asymmetry back? Then it may or may not be flare safe. Also, it may not have enough asymmetry to complete the hook phase in time, even after the balance hole for that particular player. What will you do then? Throw a ton of surface on it and pray? It doesnt make any sense. There are other ways to make a more tunable smooth layout while being flare safe 100% of the time. We understand core shape and how it relates to the hook shape on the lane now more than ever. We can add asymmetry and take some away asymmetry using strategically placed balance holes on the gradient line.

Rico wrote:
when Benoit was still the tour rep and I 'helped' on occasion, every staffer had this layout in their bag on multiple covers...the current tour rep does not feel the same thus the lack of use...


The current lead rep has a name. Chuck Gardner. Elite rep on tour, has done a lot of great things on tour for the Brunswick staffers, man and woman. Lack of use of "Rico" layout is probably an indication Brunswick has moved on from it and have found better ways to give that shape on the lane without the risk of under tuning and flaring over the fingers. See Shannon O'Keefe's Freakshow Flip. A perfect example of a flare safe, tunable, smooth look. If less asymmetry and a longer hook zone is desired it set up for a P1 and if a shorter hook zone is desired, we can drill the fingers deeper for a low hole.

Image



Start at 41:10.

Rico wrote:
Last but not least...understanding the layout and existing pin to pap numbers per players is important but the pap tells the story...it tends to 'help' compensate each players necessity or lack of...


Care to clear that up? PAP is not an indication of anything in terms of Tilt, Rotation and Rev Rate to Speed relationship. Is this a magic layout that some how will burn off tilt faster for high tilt players and float thru the front of the lane easier for low tilt players? The PAP is a reference point not a symptom.

Rico wrote:
And yes I have in certain situations adjusted the pin to pap distance to enhance the flare potential for the player/condition...


Is that still "Rico" or "Pin in Palm" layout with the adjustment? Or is it now "Pin on Midline" layout?

Can you accept there are better ways of giving a smooth hook shape on the lane, be flare safe and still have the ability to tune the reaction up AND down with symmetric and asymmetric cores?

Rico wrote:
you don't like it move on...why waste life and energy?


Part of our mission here is to give good advice to bowlers who seek it.
We dont want bowlers to waste their hard earned money on a ball that flares over the fingers and have limited tuning opportunities.
That said, we do not advise bowlers to use "Rico" layout and have noted that at the top of the wiki page for it.

_________________
Please press the Image button if you feel I've been helpful.

“When you prepare for everything, you’re ready for anything.” - Bill Walsh


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rico Sidebar
 Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:27 am Post Number: #24 Post
Offline
Guru

Joined: March 31, 2010
Posts: 976
Location: Camp Springs MD
Reputation: 299
Reputation Power: 3
Rico wrote:
Bill Wasserberger & I dove into the numbers of this layout for shits & giggles...Bill in case you forgot, was before his passing, the smartest guy in bowling and his credentials backed that up...thus I trusted his 'opinion'


Bowling lost a GREAT scientist and a GREAT individual when Bill Wasserberger went into a state of stillness far, far too soon. Bill was an empiricist- he loved data collection and reaching a rational conclusion based on data. So, in his honor, let us examine data points so we can have the opportunity to reach independent conclusions.

I love great debates when they are not reduced to pedestrian arguments.

_________________
-Gary Parsons
If one does not know one's product, one can not manage nor promote the product one does not know.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rico Sidebar
 Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:26 pm Post Number: #25 Post
Offline
Member

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 501
Location: Cleveland, OH
Reputation: 51
Reputation Power: 1
guruU2 wrote:

Bowling lost a GREAT scientist and a GREAT individual when Bill Wasserberger went into a state of stillness far, far too soon. Bill was an empiricist- he loved data collection and reaching a rational conclusion based on data. So, in his honor, let us examine data points so we can have the opportunity to reach independent conclusions.

I love great debates when they are not reduced to pedestrian arguments.


Couldn't agree more, and would love to see that data.

In the spirit of fairness, I also asked for the data surrounding opposing arguments - particularly the data that shows that the majority of people can't use the RICO layout because they will flare over holes. Id still like to see that too.

_________________
PAP- 4 1/8 over, 3/4 up
Speed - 17-18 monitor
Rev Rate - 475
Rotation - 65
Tilt - 12


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rico Sidebar
 Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:15 pm Post Number: #26 Post
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2007
Posts: 3879
Location: Malta, NY
Reputation: 855
Reputation Power: 9
Bahshay wrote:
In the spirit of fairness, I also asked for the data surrounding opposing arguments - particularly the data that shows that the majority of people can't use the RICO layout because they will flare over holes. Id still like to see that too.


I did clarify this in post #6.

MegaMav wrote:
Most of the players that *could* benefit from it cant use it because its not flare safe. There are not too many high rev guys are out there with PAPs less than 5". Over 5" you're going to have a problem with flaring over the fingers. A similar motion can be accomplished with other layouts that *ARE* flare safe. Instructions on "moving the bowtie" are not consistent and not guaranteed to work.


The players Im referring to are high rev players looking for smoother ball motion. I think everyone can gather that.

High track players have a problem flaring over the finger holes down the lane when the pin is placed too low.
Its no secret that the majority of power players out there have PAPs above 5" and usually very little vertical component.
They're out clean, fast, early and usually behind the ball.
Its also known that the flare safe zone for high track players is above or on a line drawn from the PAP thru the ring finger.
Rico layout is well below that line. This is the problem.
If you're a lower track high rev guy and want to do this, go for it. You're still stuck with 1 way tuning and risking having not enough asymmetry to PSA lock without a large balance hole. Oscillations in PSA on the Determinator in my experience show inconsistencies in ball motion on the lane. Not good!

Again, it can be done better and safer with other layout techniques, I gave an example above with the Shannon O'Keefe's Freakshow Flip and even gave video showing the look on the lane. It should be a no brainer considering the alternatives now.

_________________
Please press the Image button if you feel I've been helpful.

“When you prepare for everything, you’re ready for anything.” - Bill Walsh


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rico Sidebar
 Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:40 pm Post Number: #27 Post
Offline
Industry Professional

Joined: July 5, 2009
Posts: 5
Reputation: 2
Reputation Power: 1
It's kind of interesting that you can be as vague as you choose in a response all while making an answer definite...
If you honestly knew what power players of today are you'd realize that PAP's have dropped over the years...few are over 5" and due have vertical numbers...but hey this is based on more than my personal opinion or view...such as yours
Orlikowski & PBIII are extremely high track players 5.75" over & 3/4" up and yet they're able to use this layout...don't you think that's weird?
And if you understood drilling and the numbers, placing a weight hole anywhere along the 6.75" hemisphere around a symmetrical core ball INCREASES the asymmetry or did you miss that day at class?
There are many players that choose to use this, and honestly what does it matter? You don't care for this layout, that's obvious but to create your blatant one sided argument is comical
I also find it interesting that techy guys only see one side of an argument...all of these scenarios can be altered by surface...
This reminds me of those wanting to remove monuments in the south because they offend them...you are obviously wanting to do the same with this...is it the name that's on it? As I stated no layout is completely safe due to release components you get that right?
But again you rather argue your point plus denigrate a topic that is truly moot...you don't care for it, I think we all get it...you have nothing better to do with your energies?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rico Sidebar
 Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:50 pm Post Number: #28 Post
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2007
Posts: 3879
Location: Malta, NY
Reputation: 855
Reputation Power: 9
Ric has stated his case and I have stated mine.

Ric still hasnt come up with any "actual physics" to provide as mentioned in the initial posts.

Since his tone has gotten condescending I'm going to refrain from commenting on this further as the conversation will start going in circles around personal shots rather than discussing the topic.

Others are welcomed to comment further.

We've found a way to do this ball motion better and safer. I cant say it simpler than that.
I'll start working on a wiki article to go into detail regarding the safer alternatives for both core types.
That will be productive.

_________________
Please press the Image button if you feel I've been helpful.

“When you prepare for everything, you’re ready for anything.” - Bill Walsh


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rico Sidebar
 Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:57 pm Post Number: #29 Post
Offline
Member

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 501
Location: Cleveland, OH
Reputation: 51
Reputation Power: 1
MegaMav wrote:

I did clarify this in post #6.



The players Im referring to are high rev players looking for smoother ball motion. I think everyone can gather that.

High track players have a problem flaring over the finger holes down the lane when the pin is placed too low.
Its no secret that the majority of power players out there have PAPs above 5" and usually very little vertical component.
They're out clean, fast, early and usually behind the ball.
Its also known that the flare safe zone for high track players is above or on a line drawn from the PAP thru the ring finger.
Rico layout is well below that line. This is the problem.
If you're a lower track high rev guy and want to do this, go for it. You're still stuck with 1 way tuning and risking having not enough asymmetry to PSA lock without a large balance hole. Oscillations in PSA on the Determinator in my experience show inconsistencies in ball motion on the lane. Not good!


I'm sorry, but none of this is data. It's blanket statements and generalizations.

You say the majority of power players are over 5" PAP. What's the actual percentage there?
You say they have very little vertical component. What's the average there?
Most to the point, What is the percentage of bowlers that would hit the fingers with the rico layout? Have you tracked that data? Can you provide it? If not, your argument is nothing more than "I've seen it flare over holes before". Sorry, but that's not data.

You hold us to a high standard to prove out what we say. I even had to show you where Parker won a tournament (which took all of 3 seconds to google). If you're not going to hold yourself to the same standard, this website has run its course.

MegaMav wrote:


Since his tone has gotten condescending I'm going to refrain from commenting on this further as the conversation will start going in circles around personal shots rather than discussing the topic.
.


Dude, you literally started the thread with a condescending post and personal shots. Again, hold yourself to the same standard you hold others.

_________________
PAP- 4 1/8 over, 3/4 up
Speed - 17-18 monitor
Rev Rate - 475
Rotation - 65
Tilt - 12


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rico Sidebar
 Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:15 pm Post Number: #30 Post
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2007
Posts: 3879
Location: Malta, NY
Reputation: 855
Reputation Power: 9
Bahshay wrote:
I'm sorry, but none of this is data. It's blanket statements and generalizations.


What you are asking for is impossible to provide and you know this.
Nobody is walking around with a notebook tracking what you're asking. Who does that?
Its trends I've observed but havent recorded.
Should I poll all bowlers and pro shops in the history of the sport to appease you?
I bet even that wouldnt be enough for you Kyle.
Ric said he has data, where is your persistence on that?

You're overly critical of content whenever its posted, I get it Kyle. I see the trend. Its been going on since you started posting here. You like to point the finger but rarely do you have something to contribute to the topic.
However, because data isnt provided on something so broad as to what you're demanding doesnt mean its isnt a valid concept. I spoke about keys as to why we should move on from it using well known industry concepts of flare safeness and tuning.

Where were your criticisms when Mo called Rico mathematically and dynamically invalid?
viewtopic.php?p=77850#p77850

He's right, really. How is a layout not based on a bowler's PAP valid in today game? Its based on the location of the intersection of the midline and centerline only on symmetrics. No relationship with the bowler's release at all. Its no more valid than other "Geographic Axis Locations" such as "pin under", "stacked" or "pin over". With asymmetrics only the drill angle is related to the PAP. So at the very least its functionally incomplete with asymmetrics.

Maybe its not a layout after all. Just a Geographic Axis Location since it eliminates the bowler mattering.

I stated facts on flare safe zone for high track players and why low pins arent a good idea, that should be enough.
I am critical of the layout, its pretty clear I said "Rico" was the failure, in my opinion, not Ric Hamlin.

Thinking more about this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of the emotion involved is based on 1 word I used "failure". I should have chosen my words more wisely since in the society we live in, use of certain words are so touchy.
The word I should have used to more accurately describe how I view the Rico layout is "obsolete".

Most of the emotion and upheaval probably wouldnt have happened, who knows.
I apologize to Mr. Hamlin for calling Rico a failure, when in fact its not the case.
We can provide that hook shape safer and with more tuning opportunities now.

_________________
Please press the Image button if you feel I've been helpful.

“When you prepare for everything, you’re ready for anything.” - Bill Walsh


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rico Sidebar
 Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:25 pm Post Number: #31 Post
Offline
Industry Professional

Joined: July 5, 2009
Posts: 5
Reputation: 2
Reputation Power: 1
First of all, I have proven my case but your attitude will NOT accept any answer I give unless I admit your assessment...
Secondly the physic numbers would change per core...you should know that...but as I stated, which you think you countered is false...by drilling around the core you are leaving more dynamical properties then any other type layout...period
You canNOT duplicate or replicate this layout any other way NO matter what you may believe or have been led to believe...and honestly merely stating you have means zero unless you test this theory in a so-called live on lane side by side test over more than a few games...
My answers or responses are ones that have been gained over multiples situations and conditions...I'm sorry that you don't accept this in your situation...it is far from obsolete as I referenced Ciminelli & Barnes, among others still utilize it...but you choose to not accept that either...you defended the Mo hole stating Smallwood uses it...that's ONE
As it was stated, you have been condescending not me, I have stayed professional and above the board with my responses...you choose to not accept any response I give so let's move on shall we
If the layout does NOT float your boat I do NOT understand why you felt the need to waste time on 'slamming' it...as I stated you could use your energies in so many other positive ways

Have a nice day


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rico Sidebar
 Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:51 pm Post Number: #32 Post
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2007
Posts: 3879
Location: Malta, NY
Reputation: 855
Reputation Power: 9
Ric, I took the time to rebut you one point at a time, but you have not done the same in return.
Your replies are becoming more or less complaints around questioning the Rico concept.
You really havent proven anything (data or science) about the Rico concept other than you're fully invested in it still and cannot accept the possibility that there is a better alternative for bowlers.

There is a 32 page thread on here about the Motion Hole, its tenants and its validity in the bowling environment.
Its been field tested across multiple bowler types and environments.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7374

I will be contacting Steve Freshour to CAD model out Rico vs. The Safer Alternatives.
Until the data comes in I'll be locking this thread before anyone else gets worked up.
It is pointless to continue this thread without data and hopefully that data can be provided soon to reopen the conversation.

It has been done before with another user with great results:
viewtopic.php?p=13083#p13083

Hopefully Mo & Friends can optimize it via research for public consumption.

_________________
Please press the Image button if you feel I've been helpful.

“When you prepare for everything, you’re ready for anything.” - Bill Walsh


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Board index » Mo & Friends » General Discussion


 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: