Aslan's Arsenal Progression Discussion Thread: (Part 1 of 6)

[Aslan]

I'd like to talk about "How to Create a Bowling Ball Arsenal/Progression".

This will be a Six Part discussion focusing on these topics one at a time:
1) Coverstock (solid, hybrid, pearl)
2) PerfectScale (and other hook measurement tools)
3) Surface
4) Core Symmetry
5) Differential
6) RG

I tried to start with the "simplest" and work towards the more complex.

ASSUMPTIONS
1) Assume you're putting together a 4-5 ball arsenal to allow you to address lane transitions and to allow you versatility to play multiple centers/conditions.

So, to start, what are YOUR THOUGHTS regarding this strategy concerning COVERSTOCK:

Ball #1 (first ball out of bag, fresh conditions, longer patterns, sport patterns, etc...)
SOLID cover

Ball #2 ("go to ball", ball down option from Ball #1, regular ball, THS ball, etc...)
HYBRID cover

Ball #3 (slightly stronger ball than ball #2 to combat "carrydown", 3rd ball out of the bag, "skid/flip" ball, etc...)
PEARL cover

Ball #4 (dry lane ball, wood lane ball, practice ball, etc...)
PEARL cover

GUIDELINES
1) Let's try NOT to jump ahead to the other topics. Obviously, bowling balls are complex because there are SO many factors that affect ball movement....but if we can't limit ourselves to just one topic at a time...the dicsucssion will quickly dissolve into generalities about arsenals.

2) I INVITE ROBM to participate. I know he HATES "assumptions" and "progressions"...and I'm certainly, certainly not downplaying the need to let the lanes dictate how you play them. But;
- RobM is one of the foremost experts on ball technology and I feel his comments will enhance the value of this discussion a great deal (Bigly in Trump Speak).
- When putting together an "arsenal"...there ARE limitations. Most bowlers only use one ball...but even serious bowlers with "arsenals" do not have an endless ocean of balls to choose from (my Closet of Destiny aside)...so they MUST limit themselves to a limited "set".
- AND...I KNOW that Rob has written on this very topic on his website or BTM...so again, his input, again, would be very helpful.

[Aslan]

My personal thoughts, having talked to RobM a bit about coverstock...is that coverstock 'may' be the least valuable of the six factors...because surfacing can make a Pearl hook sooner than solid. So, if surface is a factor...coverstock is LESS of a factor.

That being said, very few bowlers have access to surfacing equipment without paying an additional $ on a regular basis. Thanks to MWhite, I have my own ball spinner...and I just spent over $100 to buy some polish/compound and surfacing pads...after spending about $100 previously for similar supplies. So, "surfacing" is ABSOLUTELY important and will be addressed in more detail in a subsequent thread (Part 3)...but if a bowler is creating an arsenal and looking SOLELY at coverstock...I "believe" most ball manufacturers would suggest a solid, THEN a hybrid, THEN a pearl. Now, how much of that is the annoying ball manufacturers just making the same ball 3 times and trying to gimic people into buying 3 versions of it????? I dunno...up for discussion.

My thoughts......I don't think it matters much for Ball #1 or Ball #2. I think surfacing can help a bowler fine tune any cover material for those spots. I 'would' say that, IDEALLY, a Pearl coverstock is good for Ball #3 and Ball #4.

For Ball #3, if you want a "skid/flip" reaction/ball...I don't see why you would aim for a solid or hybrid cover. The goal is to get the ball to go long on a transitioned pattern...the solid and hybrid are just going to roll out early unless you make speed/release adjustments.

For Ball #4, again...if this ball is for wood lanes, dry lanes, practice, etc...I don't see Solid or Hybrid being worthwhile for the same reason as for Ball #3.

Now, what would then be the difference in Balls #3 and #4??? I think those differences are HUGE...but something to discuss in parts 2-6.

But, those are just my thoughts...this is a "discussion" thread...so have at it! And let's make Bowl 1820's job as easy as possible by not getting too "fired up".

[RobLV1]

Okay, there are just four elements that determine ball reaction: Core, Cover Material, Layout, and Surface.

Core: You really can't prioritize the core elements; symmetry, shape, differential, and low RG. It all depends on the individual bowler. Some bowlers love asymmetric cores, others (two-handers in particular) really can't use them at all. Different bowlers have better results with some shapes of cores and really struggle with other shapes. This is just something you need to know from your own experience. Speed or Rev Dominant bowlers really need to look at low RG as a way of controlling their speed/rev dominance. Axis tilt also influences how import low RG is. Less axis tilt = low RG more important. Finally, Differential is very important to high rev bowlers with lots of axis rotation, while it is relatively unimportant for bowlers with lower rev rates and less axis rotation.

Cover Material: By cover material, I'm talking about formulations, NOT type of material (solid, pearl, or hybrid). The type of material is nothing more than the manufacturers attempt to coerce bowlers into buying three version of the same ball, based primarily on the OOB surface. The surface material is important, and, unfortunately, we have to take the word of the manufacturers about the relative strength of the cover materials, plus consider the reputation. Brunswick balls are generally perceived to find more friction in the oil, while Storm balls react more to friction. These reputations are there for a reason: they are usually pretty valid. Consider what happened when Storm first introduced the Sync for more read in the oil. It was probably the worst Storm ball ever produced. Likewise, when Brunswick introduced the Fortera Exile, a supposed skid/flip offering, it disappeared as fast as it was introduced.

Layout: The layout is nothing more than how the core is positioned within the ball, which changes the Diff. and Low RG numbers. If you stick to two layouts; a pin up layout for angular backend reactions, and a pin down for smoother, curving reaction, you can easily change from ball to ball seemlessly, which is, after all, the goal of every arsenal.

Surface: Definitely the most important element in determining ball reaction as it can easily be changed to adapt to different oil patterns, different centers, and different bowlers. 60% of bowlers will have to change the surface to get the best ball reaction for them.

This, in a nutshell, is it. Questions/comments?

[bowl1820]

Okay so this basically a remake of "Aslan's Latest Nerdy Activity: The 4-ball arsenal tiered selection system" thread (and others):
http://www.bowlingboards.com/threads/18315-Aslan-s-Latest-Nerdy-Activity-The-4-ball-arsenal-tiered-selection-system?

Excerpt:

Without getting into laborious detail (only to be mocked later for even developing something so silly), and with Mudpuppy Cliff Notes in mind, the categories take into account FIVE factors (no order of importance):
1) coverstock (pearl, hybrid, solid)
2) cover finish (500-4000 abralon, high polish, matte/sanded, etc...)
3) RG
4) differential
5) PerfectScale Rating (bowlingball.com system/hook rating)

Except now with the inclusion of "Core Symmetry" we have SIX factors. :rolleyes:

[Aslan]

Okay so this basically a remake of "Aslan's Latest Nerdy Activity: The 4-ball arsenal tiered selection system" thread...Except now with the inclusion of "Core Symmetry" we have SIX factors. :rolleyes:
Well, aside from stalking me (kidding)...that's a good catch. I 'thought' I had started this thread before...but it was awhile ago.

To help those that are looking at the post for the first time...I will move some of the content from that thread to this one...if it applies to the topic at hand.

Rob's post is interesting, as I knew it would be on this topic, but he addressed items I was going to bring up in 2-6...so, I'll copy/paste his comments into the future threads (2-6). However, he DID mention cover material as one of his 4 factors...which is interesting. Rob talked about it in terms of the varying covers from the various manufacturers...which, I left off my "6 topics"...NOT because it isn't a valid consideration...only that it's "confusing" and it opens the conversation to all kinds of debate about which companies hook the soonest versus latest.

RobM
Have you done any research or has BTM ever looked into which manufacturer hooks "sooner" versus "later"? I know you aren't a fan of Brunswick's attempts at skid/flip (for example). What about their sister brands DV8 and Radical? Do you have the same opinion about the skid/flip of the sister brands?

[Aslan]

To keep "Part I" on track...

The only comment made by folks regarding cover stock (specifically) was Bowl1820:

"Ball#3
Polished/Pearl reactive with a medium to high RG and medium differential (medium to dry conditions)"

So, for those who 'missed' that original thread...which going back and looking at it...was a bit hard to read/follow because we tried to address every item at once......but the general consensus in that thread, specifically regarding coverstocks...was that coverstocks were generally a non-factor because, in a large part, they could be manipulated using surfacing....and surfacing is a more important factor.

Kind've like the type of plastic used to make the body of a race car. As long as the type of plastic is approved by the racing circuit...and it's the same weight/texture/strength/durability...and is coated with an approved coating...it probably doesn't matter much what specific type or mix of resin/vinyl/esters your particular plastic is made of.

I'd be interested in getting comments from ball manufacturers on this topic as coverstocks seem to be important factors to THEM. I don't know if they'd agree that coverstocks are inconsequential...and I certainly don't think they'd admit that even if it were true.

RobM: Didn't you say once that you did a study where you took the various coverstocks and surfaced them the same...and they had the same reaction (regardless of the coverstock)?? Could you summarize your findings from that experiment?

I'll give others the chance to add their 2 cents on coverstocks (pearl, hybrid, solid) before moving on to topic #2: "Perfectscale" (and other 'hook' measurement systems).

Note: I'm not ignoring RobM's post...I will reference it when we get to those items he mentioned AND I will copy/paste some of the content from the thread Bowl1820 referenced as well...once I get to those parts. I'd like to "close the door" on the coverstock issue first.

[RobLV1]

1) It is pretty much impossible to classify all of the different brands in terms of their cover materials... there are just too many brands out there. With that being said, more and more bowlers seem to be sticking with one or two brands as the number of offerings from each company keep increasing. One of the reasons that I have been using Storm balls almost exclusively as of late is the fact that Storm tends to reuse their most popular cover materials quite often; most notably the R2S formulation which was first introduced over ten years ago in the Special Agent. That same cover material has been used in all of "Road" series, the Fast/Fanatic series, the Rocket series, the Code Black, and, most recently, the Timeless. Using balls with the same cover material makes changing between them very easy. Currently, I have the Code Black, the Rocketship, and the Timeless in my arsenal, and changing is virtually seamless. As for different brands within the same company, I know that even though Storm and Roto Grip are both manufactured by Storm, I see a big difference in the cover materials. I love Storm reactions, and I have yet to find a Roto ball that I like.

2) The experiment that I did was to take the Brunswick Melee Cross (solid) and the Melee Jab (pearl) and put the same surface on both of them (same core, same material, same layout). First I used the Cross surface on both, then the Jab surface on both. With the same surface, the differences between the balls were indistinguishable. This is substantiated by the BTM reviews of the Storm Rocket (hybrid), and the Sky Rocket (pearl). Both have the same OOB finish, and the reviews showed them to be virtually identical.

[Amyers]

Ok so basically to sum up what's been said here.

1. The type of cover stock i.e. pearl, hybrid, solid means less than nothing
2. The strength of the cover is important but hard to quantify
3. surface is important but part of a separate discussion

[Brite1]

Ok so basically to sum up what's been said here.

1. The type of cover stock i.e. pearl, hybrid, solid means less than nothing
2. The strength of the cover is important but hard to quantify
3. surface is important but part of a separate discussion

Sounds about right lol. Or in other words, move on to the next part lol, since the only part of this discussion that is pretty much agreed upon to be important(strength of cover) is next to impossible to quantify from one brand to the next.

[RobLV1]

Ok so basically to sum up what's been said here.

1. The type of cover stock i.e. pearl, hybrid, solid means less than nothing
2. The strength of the cover is important but hard to quantify
3. surface is important but part of a separate discussion

This seems to be the case. Aslan has a very unique way of looking at things, so since he started the thread, he gets to choreograph it.

[Amyers]

My thoughts......I don't think it matters much for Ball #1 or Ball #2. I think surfacing can help a bowler fine tune any cover material for those spots. I 'would' say that, IDEALLY, a Pearl coverstock is good for Ball #3 and Ball #4.

For Ball #3, if you want a "skid/flip" reaction/ball...I don't see why you would aim for a solid or hybrid cover. The goal is to get the ball to go long on a transitioned pattern...the solid and hybrid are just going to roll out early unless you make speed/release adjustments.

As we stated above cover stock composition means nothing a polished solid or hybrid will perform just as well as a pearl




For Ball #4, again...if this ball is for wood lanes, dry lanes, practice, etc...I don't see Solid or Hybrid being worthwhile for the same reason as for Ball #3.

Sometimes the goal on wood lanes or dryer shots is as much about controlling the back ends with a even reaction as it is about getting the ball down the lane. Again solid or hybrid is useless but you may want some surface to control the back ends somewhat



Now, what would then be the difference in Balls #3 and #4??? I think those differences are HUGE...but something to discuss in parts 2-6.



Actually discussing that here makes some sense. The main difference I look at between these 2 balls would be strength of cover although core is important too. While your type 3 ball might consist of a Code Black, Primal Rage, Ridiculous Pearl or Mastermind Braniac none of these would fit well as your #4 which for me at least would be a Tropical Breeze, Rhino, Outcast, or Match type of ball.

[chip82901]

Here's my current arsenal: Storm Timeless, Storm Phaze II, Storm Street Fight, Storm Phaze, Storm Pitch Blue

Now, what comes out of the bag first depends on what I see from throwing a few balls in practice.

For example, I'm not huge on dull balls as I look for length out of just about everything I throw. That being said, I have a weak drill on my phaze II, as I let the surface do what it's supposed to do.

Usually, first ball out of my bag at my home center is either Timeless (2-1 pearl/solid hybrid), or the Street Fight (3000 sheen finish). I look at the Street Fight if the backends are a little snappier, as it has great length and I can usually play fairly straight with it. Usually works out great when I bowl on my men's league as most of the guys usually blow up the 10 board (typical right?). On my mixed league, the oil usually gets spotty with all of the ladies bowling. That's where the timeless shines from the get go. It blends the oil very well.

As the night progresses, I can usually stay with the same ball, or, I'll switch to surface (Phaze II) and move a bit deeper. If I end up getting extreme over/under reaction, I will grab my Pitch Blue and play straight down the 5 board.

The way I play my arsenal is probably much different than others, as I tend to go pearl out the bag, and switch to surface as I move inside, but, it works well.

Now, on dry lanes (recently bowled a tourney in my home center that was 42' on the right lane, and 36' medium volume on the left), I will elect to go with surface on the dry to sort of "kill" the ball. Now, when doing this, there isn't much forgiveness. Basically, its all about forward roll, getting the ball to want to start and earlier motion, and use some of its energy while still in the oil, so that it doesn't over react when it hits the end of the pattern.

It's all a feel thing honestly.

[RobLV1]

I often do the same thing that you do, but I usually look at RG rather than surface when I move in. For example, a typical move for me is from the Timeless, to the Code Black: same cover material, same surface, earlier rolling core.

[Aslan]

I'm going to start Part 2...but before I close the door on COVERSTOCKs...

Does anyone see a FLAW in starting with a SOLID, moving to a HYBRID, then a PEARL, then a PEARL? Whether you personally would use this method or not, do you see any potential "issues/problems" with this approach?

I know everyone has a different way of progressing...but in terms of COVERSTOCKS (specifically)...many high level coaches will suggest you start with your strongest ball...then progress to weaker (Ball #2).

Ball #3 and Ball #4...there is a lot of disagreement because using the progression system I layed out...is dependent on the concept of "carrydown"...which in some scenarios (high level, scratch leagues, tournament bowling, etc...) can be virtually "non-factor"...in which case I would "jump" Ball #3 and go to Ball #4.

However...in most house leagues....where 1/4 to 1/2 the bowlers on the pair are throwing plastic/urethane as their strike ball and "spraying and praying" the lanes..."carrydown" is 'generally' believed to be a factor...in which case Ball #3 needs to be STRONGER than Ball #2...and generally you won't get to the point where you need Ball #4 (most nights).

SIDENOTE:
There are lots of ways to put together a "progression" or "arsenal"....and I appreciate everyone's input on how to put their's together. I'm not aware of a"right" answer on the topic. Whatever "works"....more power to you! I used to use a "BENCHMARK" system where I had a 5-ball arsenal and would start with my #3 (in terms of hooking sooner/later) ball as my "benchmark" ball. I would then have 2 options for a stronger ball, and two options for a weaker ball. I abandoned that system...as it wasn't working very well (for me)...but many, many bowlers use a "benchmark" system...and there are certainly advantages to doing so.

I also use a "progression" system...because it allows me to play the area I am most successful at using (11-13 at the arrows, standing about 23 with my left foot +/- 6 boards depending how the lanes are playing). As Rob has discussed in other threads...that is ONE WAY of setting up a progression...there are OTHER ways...as mentioned a bit here....where people continue to play different parts of the lane as the lanes transition...and in those cases often times will move IN and use STRONGER equipment....also a common type of progression that many bowlers use.

[RobLV1]

1) Yes. Since, as I have pointed out, the only difference between solids, hybrids, and pearls is the surface, this system is basically flawed because it totally disregards the cores. If you look at the characteristics of the cores, and are willing to change surfaces, then looking at the type of cover material is a total waste of time.

2) The idea of starting with your most aggressive ball and then "balling down" in a progression to the least aggressive is based on traditional oil transition on wooden lanes with non-absorbent balls. Modern bowling in many cases requires the opposite "progression", or a pyramid type progression from the least aggressive to the most aggressive and back to the least aggressive. Please see my BTM article entitled "Should I Stay or Should I Go" for an explanation.

3) I just submitted a new article to BTM entitled "The Dead Zone Revisited" which should put the idea of carry down to rest once and for all. In a nutshell, the streaks of oil that go past the pattern do not contain a large enough volume of oil to affect the motion of a modern reactive bowling ball... plain and simple.

[JJKinGA]

I will echo Rob's thoughts about progression. It really is more about finding balls that fill a role. I have found i like describing the lanes by length and amount of friction/hook on the back end. So that gives 6 conditions. then I add in the very troublesome wet/dry condition. That gives me a need for up to 7 roles to fill. I choose to ignore difference in back end on the short oil. I can play straighter or deeper to compensate - if the hook is that much, I can use the spare ball. I know that some use three shapes and four lengths (like the Motiv ball chart). I don't find I need quite that level of precision, and bringing that many is too much). As

As far as progression, I do find that the role needed does progress as the match goes on. So i may need a longer ball or one that hooks less or if i need to jump in deep I may need a shorter and larger hooking ball. In usual situations, the role change is predictable and this leads to a progression. But I am thinking of the role, not a predetermined ordinal sequence.

Since using this concept I have actually reduced the number of balls i own and been happier with the ball change choices I have made. Even in a tournament this weekend at a house I was not familiar with - I was using my long large hooking ball. i started to see it move too sharply. I bowled one frame with my medium length high hooking ball. It went way too long. I was able to pull out the early reading medium hooking ball and continue to get a good ball motion to the pocket. If I was trying to sequence them I would have Not had the early/medium ball in the order as it doesn't really have a good application at my home center.

[Amyers]

Have to agree with Rob on this one the system your proposing is the wrong way to look at arriving at the wrong point. Two bad ideas in conjunction with each other don't make a good one. Using the supposed composition of the cover stock to play any role in your progression is fool hardy. What the H*** is a hybrid anyway? 1 part pearl/1 part solid or 2 parts pearl or 3? Who knows? You think every brand uses the same formula and even within that brand they use the same formula of how much additive they add for every ball even on the pearls and solids? Truth is we have no clue. Stick to core and surface to help determine and use your eyes for the rest.

On the coaches than suggest you start with your strongest ball were they even referring to bowling on a house shot? I doubt it the reason for that advice is on sport patterns starting off with a more aggressive ball and in this case that's referring more to surface allows you to start to burn a hole into the pattern so that as the shot breaks down you can move left and bounce off that spot latter. On a house shot that's not necessary the dry spot is already provided.

I used to use a progression system a little different than yours but similar I've since abandoned it because it simply didn't work well for me. For instance my rhino is considered a light oil ball and would be #4 in your system and the least aggressive ball in my bag I tried using it like that and simply hated the ball by the third game on drier conditions I've moved pretty deep on the lanes that ball will make it back to the pocket from there but the carry is simply abysmal. I was ready to trash the ball as junk and talked to my PSO about it he watched me bowl with it and simply said that balls never going to carry for you on that line and of course I pointed out that was the only line I could play at the point and he asked me if I had tried moving right and starting with it? I'm like h*** no it's a light oil ball. I tried it first game was a 247. The balls great thrown at straighter angles. Now I tend to buy my balls for the area on the lane I want to play. I know my balls tend to want to start early so I really don't look at anything lower than a 2.50 rg,. I slate them by surface, cover strength, and core but not from any idea of strongest to weakest but by where they are going hook and how hard off the spot.

Unless conditions are really dry I can hit the pocket with anything in my bag on a THS shot from beginning to end of the series. It's not about what gets me to the pocket it's about what's the most efficient line to the pocket with what's carrying that day. Do I want to play straighter then it's the Rhino, a little deeper the Fanatic, or maybe that day I need to really get in deep and wheel it the Danger Zone. Some days during the three league games I can stay with the same ball through, some days I have to use all three, most night I'll use 2 out of the three. I'm yet to really understand why some nights are better for one of the other I'm sure it's some combination of certain lanes, the oil pattern that night, and how I'm releasing the ball that day. Until you really understand how to move to accommodate the balls in your bag and when those different motions are effective for you personally any progression you build will be flawed.

[Tony]

Like others have mentioned the idea of starting with the most aggressive ball and moving down through an predetermined progression has not worked well for me
Over the last couple of years I have added / tried some different balls and am finding that starting with my benchmark ball in practice (hy-road) will help me see what the lanes are doing. Normally if it's one of the regular local houses I already have an idea what they will be like. I am slowly finding that what seemed to make sense doesn't really make sense at all and I look for the ball who's length / hook gets it to the pocket just after hitting the roll phase and packing maximum power, then depending on what ball that is will determine the next ball as the lane changes.
When I went through the old style progression it would take a game of adjustments only to realize that was the wrong ball anyway. Now with the two main places I am bowling I know it's one of a couple different balls that I'll usually start with, the most aggressive ball ends up being more effective later in the set thrown at a shallower angle.
All in all this seems to have potential to work better for me, but I've only just begun to learn about all the things I need to know.

[Aslan]

Now I tend to buy my balls for the area on the lane I want to play.

This is sort of the opposite to the approach I use. I use balls that are similar...but are just different enough to allow me to stay in the same general area that gives me the greatest success. My system keeps me from HAVING to move inside, outside, etc... Once I'm lined up and am comfortable that I'm playing the lanes the way they are dictating that I play them...I can stay in that area for 3 games with no problems...just need to ball down...then, if there's carrydown or my angle gets too extreme....I can ball "up".

Your approach seems to be the opposite....similar to some of the other posts...where you have varying lines that you play...and your arsenal varies enough to allow you to play different lines.

Each of these strategies have their positives and negatives. In my case....I don't have much of an option when I get inside of 3rd arrow. The angle is too extreme for polished pearls and I don't have a high RPM release to compensate. Can I play this line? Yes....but I have to be perfect. Even a 1-board miss or a slightly more flat release, or a little too much hand....and I won't strike. I also can't move to my "B-Game"....playing up the first angle...up an in...because my balls all have 2.49 RGs...they all want to roll out when I'm playing in the dry.

Your strategy has the opposite positives/negatives. You have more variability to move around...you can play outside...you can play inside. But...if you wanted to stay in the same general area (your "A-Game")...you'd likely have a problem unless you had that line to yourself all night....not a very common thing unless you're a lefty.

But...concerning COVERSTOCKS (and we'll talk about this more when we get to "SURFACE")...I guess the issue I struggle with is that most people here would seem to agree that coverstocks (Pearl vs Hybrid vs Solid) are meaningless. YET....most would also agree that:

1) Coverstock strength is one of the 4 top factors.

2 Surface is also one of the 4 top factors.

If coverstock strength and/or surface are one of the top 4 factors....than coverstock has to be considered as well. For example...RG. If you believe that SURFACE is important....than who cares about RG? You can take balls with varying RGs and simply surface them to do whatever you want...so RG is meaningless. With that being true....the list of 6 factors is now down to ONE factor....surface. You can just buy 4 Tropical Breezes....and surface them all drastically different...and you have functioning arsenal. I'm reluctant to buy into that belief....but we'll talk more about that when we get to SURFACE. MY POINT is....to disregard COVERSTOCK because surfaces can be changed....it leads one to believe that we can disregard EVERY spec...because surface can be changed...and surface is the most important factor in ball movement.

And if COVERSTOCK doesn't matter....then how do we define "coverstock strength"? I've heard many bowlers and PSOs and ball manufacturers talk about "strong covers"...but I haven't come across ONE definition of what that actually means. Newer balls....manufacturer differences...I think those play into "coverstock strength"....but it's a bit of a mystery what a "strong cover" actually means.

Again...no "right" or "wrong" answers here...it's just a discussion.

[RobLV1]

Honestly, I have NEVER heard any bowler defending an arsenal philosophy that allows them to stay on one particular part of the lane. The reason for this is pretty apparent: IT DOESN'T WORK! Defend it until you are blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that when the balls absorb the oil, and the oil is GONE, you only have one alternative: to find more oil. To think that you can ball down and stay in the same place is delusional. Once again, man up and pay the $37 for a BTM subscription and read my article that will be up in the next week or so. Here's a hint: a 41' pattern, after just 22 games is 34' long. There is no "progression" of ball changes that is going to allow you to play a pattern that is 7' shorter after just 22 games.

[Tony]

Honestly, I have NEVER heard any bowler defending an arsenal philosophy that allows them to stay on one particular part of the lane. The reason for this is pretty apparent: IT DOESN'T WORK! Defend it until you are blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that when the balls absorb the oil, and the oil is GONE, you only have one alternative: to find more oil. To think that you can ball down and stay in the same place is delusional. Once again, man up and pay the $37 for a BTM subscription and read my article that will be up in the next week or so. Here's a hint: a 41' pattern, after just 22 games is 34' long. There is no "progression" of ball changes that is going to allow you to play a pattern that is 7' shorter after just 22 games.

None of the bowlers I know preach the type of approach ASLAN is using either, now I have had / seen occasions that due to the bowlers on the pair a bowler will be able to stay in virtually the same spot all three games, but it's pretty rare. Almost everyone is moving left to find oil with an occasional guy moving back right with a ball change. I personally want balls that are different lengths / strength to allow me to play different area's, like most people, having balls that are pretty close to the same doesn't work for me, just is more balls to carry around !
What happened to this series of six pages in this series / or maybe I'm banned from it for not agreeing ?

[Aslan]

What happened to this series of six pages in this series / or maybe I'm banned from it for not agreeing ?

It became pointless.

I was trying to discuss one element of bowling ball specs at a time...but it's very hard to do...because elements tend to rely on each other.

It's one of the reasons most bowlers care so little about bowling ball "technology" and it's almost become a "joke". I've yet to meet anyone that can talk about each bowling ball spec and talk about it's importance...independent of other variables. Discussion quickly devolve into various versions of "everyone is different, everyone throws different, there are no "truths" in bowling, etc...

Examples:
- We talked about coverstocks. Each manufacturer makes balls in 3 coverstocks: Pearl, Hybrid, Solid. Each manufacturer spends a lot of time and effort making sure the bowler knows about these. Yet...coverstock is likely meaningless because every ball can have it's surface changed.
- We talked about "rating systems"....each manufacturer and many major websites have "rating systems"...yet none of them seem to be particularly useful.
- We talked about surface...but whats the point of considering surface in your arsenal...if surface can be changed at any time...OTHER THAN...the time you'd need to change it....which is when you are in the middle of the game and need to make a slight adjustment of the surface?

The next topic was going to be core symmetry...yet another topic most people don't understand and most people think is meaningless. Then we were going to move onto RG and differential...but...it's just gonna be more examples of balls with high RGs that don't necessarily go longer...and balls with low RGs that should make them hook sooner....but they are skid/flip balls designed to go long and snap... And differential? What's the point? During the Motiv Jackal debate...nearly everyone said differential was all but unimportant to the average bowler.

And you weren't "banned" for having a different opinion. You were called out for trolling...because ever since I disagreed with you about "easy centers"...you've made a point to go into every single thread I post in and make derrogatory comments...some related to the topic...others not. No bigee....the internet is like a toll bridge...lots times it has trolls...it's expected. And, I dish it out...so I can take it. But there just has to some "point" to it.

And lastly, we just don't have enough "experts" on the site to have a real conversation on this type of topic. We have Rob...but Rob tends to "preach" more than "teach"...and Rob believes his opinions are THE opinions. Any attempt to discuss or offer alternate views is simply met with mockery, ignoring, or stating that the people who disagree obviously don't know what they are talking about. That makes "discussions" rather difficult. And it's not just Rob's fault...we have ball rep after ball rep that pop in here on a weekly basis to prop up some new release and tell us how awesome it is...yet none of them participate in discussions like these....where their knowledge might actually be useful.

And even the premise of the conversation is kinda silly...we're talking about "arsenals" when < 20% of all bowlers use more than one ball on league night. And we're talking about "progressions" when every single person has a different method of "progressing". It's like trying to build a perfect spaceship when virtually nobody knows anything about spaceships and nobody can define what a spaceship actually is...except Iceman who has actually been on one.

[RobLV1]

This is the first time, based on what you wrote that I think that you are starting to get it. First off, if you look at my posts, I am not "preaching." When I state an opinion, it is usually based purely on logic. I say that surface is the most important element in ball reaction for the simple reason that surface CAN be easily changed. That's logic. Just because it can't be changed during competition does not negate the fact that it can be changed before competition, and it's the only element that can be easily changed anytime.

When I state something as fact, I usually include a statement about "based on my observation," or something similar. From what I have seen in my own bowling, as a lower rev player, differential means very little to me. From what I have seen in other, higher rev, players, differential means quite a bit for them. I'm not preaching. I'm just stating what I have observed.

This post gives me great hope that your understanding is increasing because it is the first time that you see that we are dealing with a fluid set of elements that change constantly. Just realizing that the set is fluid gives you a HUGE step up in terms of understanding how to view the individual elements to control your own arsenal so that it works for YOU. Good Job!

[Tony]

It became pointless.

I was trying to discuss one element of bowling ball specs at a time...but it's very hard to do...because elements tend to rely on each other.

It's one of the reasons most bowlers care so little about bowling ball "technology" and it's almost become a "joke". I've yet to meet anyone that can talk about each bowling ball spec and talk about it's importance...independent of other variables. Discussion quickly devolve into various versions of "everyone is different, everyone throws different, there are no "truths" in bowling, etc...

Examples:
- We talked about coverstocks. Each manufacturer makes balls in 3 coverstocks: Pearl, Hybrid, Solid. Each manufacturer spends a lot of time and effort making sure the bowler knows about these. Yet...coverstock is likely meaningless because every ball can have it's surface changed.
- We talked about "rating systems"....each manufacturer and many major websites have "rating systems"...yet none of them seem to be particularly useful.
- We talked about surface...but whats the point of considering surface in your arsenal...if surface can be changed at any time...OTHER THAN...the time you'd need to change it....which is when you are in the middle of the game and need to make a slight adjustment of the surface?

The next topic was going to be core symmetry...yet another topic most people don't understand and most people think is meaningless. Then we were going to move onto RG and differential...but...it's just gonna be more examples of balls with high RGs that don't necessarily go longer...and balls with low RGs that should make them hook sooner....but they are skid/flip balls designed to go long and snap... And differential? What's the point? During the Motiv Jackal debate...nearly everyone said differential was all but unimportant to the average bowler.

And you weren't "banned" for having a different opinion. You were called out for trolling...because ever since I disagreed with you about "easy centers"...you've made a point to go into every single thread I post in and make derrogatory comments...some related to the topic...others not. No bigee....the internet is like a toll bridge...lots times it has trolls...it's expected. And, I dish it out...so I can take it. But there just has to some "point" to it.

And lastly, we just don't have enough "experts" on the site to have a real conversation on this type of topic. We have Rob...but Rob tends to "preach" more than "teach"...and Rob believes his opinions are THE opinions. Any attempt to discuss or offer alternate views is simply met with mockery, ignoring, or stating that the people who disagree obviously don't know what they are talking about. That makes "discussions" rather difficult. And it's not just Rob's fault...we have ball rep after ball rep that pop in here on a weekly basis to prop up some new release and tell us how awesome it is...yet none of them participate in discussions like these....where their knowledge might actually be useful.

And even the premise of the conversation is kinda silly...we're talking about "arsenals" when < 20% of all bowlers use more than one ball on league night. And we're talking about "progressions" when every single person has a different method of "progressing". It's like trying to build a perfect spaceship when virtually nobody knows anything about spaceships and nobody can define what a spaceship actually is...except Iceman who has actually been on one.

Maybe it seemed so to you but I wasn't trolling your posts, you simply post more than others and I have been participating more, I don't profess to being an expert in any particular area of bowling but I have years of experience in troubleshooting and the principals apply to almost everything. There is always a cause for any reaction, and everything can be explained about why things happen if you have enough knowledge, information, and ability.
You see I like Ice and many others believe in talent or ability, not just in sports but in all aspects of human performance, it's why some people make excellent Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers ect when other have equal or even more advanced knowledge are terrible at the same job. It's the ability, aptitude, common sense in the particular area that allows people to be excellent at that job / sport/ activity.
My comment were primarily to point out things that support that premise, some may have rambled into other area's but you have to admit you made some rather outlandish unsupported statement as well. Remember the one about gaining 40 pins in average by going to the Midwest, common sense would say that's not happening.
You preach a standard set of oil patterns would make everything equal, makes sense to you. To me it's an attempt, and may offer some improvement, but common sense says they won't be the same, because you can't duplicate the other conditions that have an effect on the end result, Heck the guys putting down the house shot can't even keep it exact same from day to day on their own lanes, because they don't have absolute control on the other conditions that influence it. All they have to do to mess it up is leave an overhead fan off or on that not normally in that condition.
I'm just trying to learn something but I'm not going to automatically go along with things that don't make common sense, and I'm not saying I'm right all the time.

[Tony]

I don't think the premise of an arsenal is silly, the vast majority of league bowlers in my area carry several balls and in many cases could use more information on what properties they should look at in order to have a ball to match up with their game. That's why I read and responded to the thread.

To me the the ball matrix at BTM has the possibility of being the basis for reviewing different balls, however we need to add the information on surface changes and how that can relocate the ball on the chart, You could then potentially use it to setup your own arsenal. If for example we were to say surface change can move the ball up and down on the chart you could simply choose balls at intervals going across the chart to build a grouping that could be adjust for many conditions.

we could also use more threads on surface changes overall, that would be of great help to many of us here.

[Amyers]

This is the first time, based on what you wrote that I think that you are starting to get it. First off, if you look at my posts, I am not "preaching." When I state an opinion, it is usually based purely on logic. I say that surface is the most important element in ball reaction for the simple reason that surface CAN be easily changed. That's logic. Just because it can't be changed during competition does not negate the fact that it can be changed before competition, and it's the only element that can be easily changed anytime.

When I state something as fact, I usually include a statement about "based on my observation," or something similar. From what I have seen in my own bowling, as a lower rev player, differential means very little to me. From what I have seen in other, higher rev, players, differential means quite a bit for them. I'm not preaching. I'm just stating what I have observed.

This post gives me great hope that your understanding is increasing because it is the first time that you see that we are dealing with a fluid set of elements that change constantly. Just realizing that the set is fluid gives you a HUGE step up in terms of understanding how to view the individual elements to control your own arsenal so that it works for YOU. Good Job!

I don't think rob is preachy he does tend to believe whole hardily what he says but we agree most of the time. I do agree that maybe aslan learned something here maybe. Truth is you can't simply look at each piece independently they've got to be looked at as a whole within the realms of the conditions where you will use them.

[Aslan]

I don't think rob is preachy he does tend to believe whole hardily what he says but we agree most of the time. I do agree that maybe aslan learned something here maybe. Truth is you can't simply look at each piece independently they've got to be looked at as a whole within the realms of the conditions where you will use them.

Thats essentially what I was trying to say.

If a spec cannot be analyzed as to it's importance, independent of the other specs and external factors/bias...than it is a meaningless spec and nothing more than a complex marketing trick to make bowling balls seem "advanced". If nobody understands the spec, very few even know what the spec is supposed to mean, and the spec is meaningless unless you compare it to multiple other factors....some of which have nothing to do with the ball at all (conditions, bowler, etc...)....then the specs are about as important as the color or fragarence.

[Amyers]

Thats essentially what I was trying to say.

If a spec cannot be analyzed as to it's importance, independent of the other specs and external factors/bias...than it is a meaningless spec and nothing more than a complex marketing trick to make bowling balls seem "advanced". If nobody understands the spec, very few even know what the spec is supposed to mean, and the spec is meaningless unless you compare it to multiple other factors....some of which have nothing to do with the ball at all (conditions, bowler, etc...)....then the specs are about as important as the color or fragarence.

Very few things in life meet the criteria your asking for. Ice is cold but try Dry Ice it will burn, Most people find floral scents appealing but in the right concentration they are nauseating, even car engines function differently due to the type of gas you put in them. Nothing that I know of can you take one factor of it's operation and ignore everything else and expect to get consistent results. Everything is effected my it's different components and external factors.

A good example here might be a car motor. If two cars have the same horsepower do you automatically assume they will run a 1/4 mile in the same time? Of course not the cars may have different weights, gear ratios, tires, other equipment that are all factors that influence the speed of the car not to mention the human element of the drivers. Does that make horsepower irrelevant? No but it is only one of many factors.

Even with conditions keeping with the racing analogies a race car with racing slicks is faster than a car with conventional tires right? But introduce moisture to the mix the conventional tired car may get more traction and perform better than the racing slicks.

[Tony]

Very few things in life meet the criteria your asking for. Ice is cold but try Dry Ice it will burn, Most people find floral scents appealing but in the right concentration they are nauseating, even car engines function differently due to the type of gas you put in them. Nothing that I know of can you take one factor of it's operation and ignore everything else and expect to get consistent results. Everything is effected my it's different components and external factors.

A good example here might be a car motor. If two cars have the same horsepower do you automatically assume they will run a 1/4 mile in the same time? Of course not the cars may have different weights, gear ratios, tires, other equipment that are all factors that influence the speed of the car not to mention the human element of the drivers. Does that make horsepower irrelevant? No but it is only one of many factors.

Even with conditions keeping with the racing analogies a race car with racing slicks is faster than a car with conventional tires right? But introduce moisture to the mix the conventional tired car may get more traction and perform better than the racing slicks.

Good comparison, it makes perfect sense to a car guy like me, in going with outside conditions remember to view to lane as the drag strip, they are not the same from place to place, and weather, pressure, humidity all make a difference. Imagine the track condition on a cool, cloudy windy day compared to a hot, sunny and still day, you have a world of difference and the mechanic and driver will change the tune of the car, tires, and drive it differently from day to day or early in the day to later in the day when there's lots of rubber on the track compared to early when there was no rubber down........

All the parameters still have meaning and an effect, it's just interrelated to the other parameters, just like bowling.

Bowling is the same thing, it's a complex relationship between the parameters and conditions where each individual part changes the end result in combination with the rest of the conditions and parameters.

The arsenal would then be different ball characteristics that combined make it suitable for a given condition.

We tend to want it to be simple, or be able to ignore certain specifications, who's difference should be able to help us determine what kind of ball matches up to what kind of lane for each individual bowler.

So maybe we should be going about designing what balls we should carry by first determining the different conditions we are going to be facing, then address the different options and preferred option on how to play those lane conditions,and only then address what combined features of a ball make it most suitable for a given condition and play options.

Sorry I realize I repeated some of what Amyers said, and what Rob has been getting at but it truly never appeared more clear to me than when using the car / race analogy.
It doesn't make it simple to determine what ball to use but it puts it more into perspective how many small factors influence how we perform on the lanes.

See Aslan the thread you were ready to write off, really did help explain things, thanks for starting it.

[Timmyb]

Only because I am a drag racing purist will I say this. Horsepower is less important in a drag race than torque.

Sorry. Pet peeve thing.......

I am not, nor have I ever been, a "progression" guy. Even when bowling on wood lanes, I will only switch when desperation approaches (usually too late by then). But let's face it, there's not a lot of wood left out there. Most synthetic lanes and THS allow you to use the same ball all night, which is exactly what I did this past season. I rely on my experience to be able to see conditions changing, and making adjustments on the fly. I only have three balls I use on a regular basis, and my spare ball is urethane, so that can be pushed into service as well. I'd much rather chase the shot than chase the ball. I'm sure someone will tell me I'm nuts for playing that way, but my average doesn't lie.

[Amyers]

Glad it helped Tony.

Timmy as you pointed out I'm much better with bowling balls than I am drag racing and I'm sure you are correct.

I'm not really a progression guy anymore either I buy my balls to play specific points on the lane not so much so that I can switch to that next. I can throw my fanatic for an entire set on synthetics if they are on the oily side but it's not always the best choice. I bowl on synthetics and wood both regularly. Here lately my best option is actually to start with my Rhino (least aggressive ball) and then ball up to the Danger Zone as I move in. Chasing the shot with the rhino just doesn't work for me. It all depends on what your throwing and where your throwing at. I bowl frequently at 4 different houses 2 wood 2 synthetic and one of them has the most inconsistent shot you ever seen (i'd do better job running down the lane with a bucket). It can be the Sahara desert or play like badger you never know from week to week so it requires me to be flexible. If you think your going to stand on 20 and throw at 10 in that house better expect to put up some 130's

[Aslan]

I agree with Amyers about the car analogy. But...any car enthusiast can tell you:

- What a car part does.
- How changing that one part will affect performance.

In other words, you can "isolate" a variable and tell people 'exactly' what it will do in terms of performance. A car is certainly a complex mix of varaibles...but each variable has a point...and it has a purpose...and it was always do what it is intended to do.

For example..let's say "turbo charger". A turbo charger (or incresed engine displacement in older cars) will ALWAYS increase horsepower. Now, sometimes a larger engine...will add weight, and negate the increases in horsepower...but if you take the same model of car and put a 405 in one and a 350 in the other...the 405 will ALWAYS have more horsepower.

With bowling...it's not that simple. The core is supposed to be the "engine" of the ball...yet we never are able to isolate the core...because every manufacturer is different and they wrap the cores in different covers.

The next topic was going to be "core symmetry". What is the difference between a symmetric core and an assymetric core? We know that a symmetric core tends to have a smoother arc to the pocket and an assymetric core has a more angular motion. It "seems" fairly simple, right? Yet...how many bowling balls have come out in the last 5-10 years that claim to be "angular" or "skid/flip"...yet they have symmetric cores? That doesn't make sense independent of other variables.

Like a car...if a bigger engine makes it go faster...why would you intentionally put a smaller engine in the car while trying to make it go faster? Car enthusiasts will point to many possible answers...like; nowadays cars are lighter...they may be turbo charged...current technology is more efficient, etc... But independent of other variables...the smaller engine won't make the car go faster. It's only when we start factoring in other variables...that it makes sense.

I'd like to see more testing data where these specs (bowling ball) are tested independently of each other. Take a Brunswick Rhino...keep everything the same...have the bowling robot throw the balls on a fresh condition...and change ONLY one thing at a time. For example, make three Rhinos...pearl, hybrid, solid...and surface them each to 2000 abralon. Now have the robot throw them...see what the difference is. If there is no difference...then pearl vs hybrid vs solid are meaningless specs and should be completely ignored.

Then...take two Rhinos...everything the exact same (surface, RG, differential, cover) and simply make one a symmetric core and one an assymetric core. See if there's a difference. If there is, then we know that core symmetry is a worthwhile variable. If there is no difference, then we know core symmetry is a useless variable and should be ignored. We'd do the same experiments for every variable (except surface, because that's already been done) while keeping all other variables completely the same...and we could actually find out if RG is meaningful...and if differential is meaningful. We could even evaluate things like manufacturer differences and drilling layout.

The KEY (and what has been missing in the testing to date)...is every SINGLE SPEC...except the one you're evaluating...MUST be kept identical. It's simple scientific method. Isolate one variable and compare. Until that kind of testing can be done...we have no idea if the specs actually mean anything. Car companies do this kind've testing all the time. They take identical models and simply swap out one variable and compare. With bowling balls it's a bit more complicated...because chemistry is involved...and once a ball is made...you can't just crack it open and swap out cores. You can't make a solid a pearl...it takes a whole new ball being made.

But, there's no point in Parts 4-6...because we can't seem to isolate just one spec. Thus, every answer becomes, "it sort of depends".

[RobLV1]

The thing that you have to keep in mind is that a great, great majority of bowlers don't understand the role of the core. They know that "75% of ball reaction is determined by the ball's surface," so they ignore the core. The manufacturers know this, so they focus a great deal of their marketing rhetoric on the cover/surface. When they talk about a ball having a skid/flip reaction, they are talking about the cover for the simple reason that cores are nothing more than three elements; symmetry, low RG, and Differential, and all of them can be manipulated by the layout that is chosen by the bowler or the PSO.

[Timmyb]

I am a fan of the RG number, simply because it gives me an idea when the ball will break. Keep in mind that is influenced by surface and layout. I tend to lean toward higher RG balls, 2.48 and up. Just my style.

[Tony]

I agree with Amyers about the car analogy. But...any car enthusiast can tell you:

- What a car part does.
- How changing that one part will affect performance.

In other words, you can "isolate" a variable and tell people 'exactly' what it will do in terms of performance. A car is certainly a complex mix of varaibles...but each variable has a point...and it has a purpose...and it was always do what it is intended to do.

For example..let's say "turbo charger". A turbo charger (or incresed engine displacement in older cars) will ALWAYS increase horsepower. Now, sometimes a larger engine...will add weight, and negate the increases in horsepower...but if you take the same model of car and put a 405 in one and a 350 in the other...the 405 will ALWAYS have more horsepower.

With bowling...it's not that simple. The core is supposed to be the "engine" of the ball...yet we never are able to isolate the core...because every manufacturer is different and they wrap the cores in different covers.

The next topic was going to be "core symmetry". What is the difference between a symmetric core and an assymetric core? We know that a symmetric core tends to have a smoother arc to the pocket and an assymetric core has a more angular motion. It "seems" fairly simple, right? Yet...how many bowling balls have come out in the last 5-10 years that claim to be "angular" or "skid/flip"...yet they have symmetric cores? That doesn't make sense independent of other variables.

Like a car...if a bigger engine makes it go faster...why would you intentionally put a smaller engine in the car while trying to make it go faster? Car enthusiasts will point to many possible answers...like; nowadays cars are lighter...they may be turbo charged...current technology is more efficient, etc... But independent of other variables...the smaller engine won't make the car go faster. It's only when we start factoring in other variables...that it makes sense.

I'd like to see more testing data where these specs (bowling ball) are tested independently of each other. Take a Brunswick Rhino...keep everything the same...have the bowling robot throw the balls on a fresh condition...and change ONLY one thing at a time. For example, make three Rhinos...pearl, hybrid, solid...and surface them each to 2000 abralon. Now have the robot throw them...see what the difference is. If there is no difference...then pearl vs hybrid vs solid are meaningless specs and should be completely ignored.

Then...take two Rhinos...everything the exact same (surface, RG, differential, cover) and simply make one a symmetric core and one an assymetric core. See if there's a difference. If there is, then we know that core symmetry is a worthwhile variable. If there is no difference, then we know core symmetry is a useless variable and should be ignored. We'd do the same experiments for every variable (except surface, because that's already been done) while keeping all other variables completely the same...and we could actually find out if RG is meaningful...and if differential is meaningful. We could even evaluate things like manufacturer differences and drilling layout.

The KEY (and what has been missing in the testing to date)...is every SINGLE SPEC...except the one you're evaluating...MUST be kept identical. It's simple scientific method. Isolate one variable and compare. Until that kind of testing can be done...we have no idea if the specs actually mean anything. Car companies do this kind've testing all the time. They take identical models and simply swap out one variable and compare. With bowling balls it's a bit more complicated...because chemistry is involved...and once a ball is made...you can't just crack it open and swap out cores. You can't make a solid a pearl...it takes a whole new ball being made.

But, there's no point in Parts 4-6...because we can't seem to isolate just one spec. Thus, every answer becomes, "it sort of depends".

Not to be too picky here...... "but saying a larger displacement engine will always have more horsepower" is absolutely not the case......the answer like in your bowling
example will be, it depends. In your example you can easily get more HP out of a 350 than a "405" (I'm not sure anyone has ever manufactured a 405 anyway but aside from that)
displacement does make a difference of course but it can also be misleading, changing the bore and stroke of the engine can keep the displacement constant and change other things, like all the new Subaru's that people are complaining have no torque anymore, the boxter engine was known for it's torque, the kept the displacement the same and increase bore and strike to get better fuel mileage, and increased HP, but in the process lost torque ......

[Timmyb]

Not to be too picky here...... "but saying a larger displacement engine will always have more horsepower" is absolutely not the case......the answer like in your bowling
example will be, it depends. In your example you can easily get more HP out of a 350 than a "405" (I'm not sure anyone has ever manufactured a 405 anyway but aside from that)
displacement does make a difference of course but it can also be misleading, changing the bore and stroke of the engine can keep the displacement constant and change other things, like all the new Subaru's that people are complaining have no torque anymore, the boxter engine was known for it's torque, the kept the displacement the same and increase bore and strike to get better fuel mileage, and increased HP, but in the process lost torque ......

Any car guy would know, it's not displacement that makes power, it's air flow. The swinging melee under the head gaskets just needs to support what's being thrown at it. It's everything above those said gaskets that makes the power. Super/turbochargers just multiply that. The 8-cylinder engine has a limit to what it can produce for power. Right now, on gas it's around 4000, alcohol 5000, and nitromethane 10,000+. Those are all standards based on the same CID (500 cubes).

However, more air to move makes more power. So the answer is, there's no replacement for displacement! No one runs around bragging about their blown small block......Now, back to talking about bowling!

[Aslan]

...and all of them can be manipulated by the layout that is chosen by the bowler or the PSO.

I agree with that. The cores are more complicated and you can slightly manipulate the ultimate reaction via drilling layout.

I'd argue the same is true for coverstocks...they can be greatly manipulated by surfacing.

[J Anderson]

Any car guy would know, it's not displacement that makes power, it's air flow. The swinging melee under the head gaskets just needs to support what's being thrown at it. It's everything above those said gaskets that makes the power. Super/turbochargers just multiply that. The 8-cylinder engine has a limit to what it can produce for power. Right now, on gas it's around 4000, alcohol 5000, and nitromethane 10,000+. Those are all standards based on the same CID (500 cubes).

However, more air to move makes more power. So the answer is, there's no replacement for displacement! No one runs around bragging about their blown small block......Now, back to talking about bowling!

I sort of like the car metaphor. When I used to regularly commute from Fairfield CT to jobs around Stamford CT I would often be stuck in rush hour traffic doing 25-35 mph on the Merrit Parkway. While most of the cars would be run of the mill Chevys, Fords, Toyotas, and Hondas, there would usually be an occasional Porche, Corvette, or Ferrari. Here were cars designed speeds well in excess of 100mph stuck going no faster than the rest of us. I think of these cars as the high-end, newest issue bowling balls that we're tempted to buy. Unless we have the physical game to match the ball and are bowling on lanes conditions that fit the characteristics of the ball, we will be like the guy stuck in traffic in his Ferrari.

[Tony]

Any car guy would know, it's not displacement that makes power, it's air flow. The swinging melee under the head gaskets just needs to support what's being thrown at it. It's everything above those said gaskets that makes the power. Super/turbochargers just multiply that. The 8-cylinder engine has a limit to what it can produce for power. Right now, on gas it's around 4000, alcohol 5000, and nitromethane 10,000+. Those are all standards based on the same CID (500 cubes).

However, more air to move makes more power. So the answer is, there's no replacement for displacement! No one runs around bragging about their blown small block......Now, back to talking about bowling!

Yes from the drag racers perspective a blown small block is nothing, when you view things from the classic car, muscle car, street cruiser perspective, people aren't concerned primarily about max power.
Much in the same way with bowling, some people are most interested in gaining maximum hook from a ball and throwing a high rev, high speed ball while others would rather throw a more moderate hook, rev, speed ball and in many cases will use different equipment thats more suitable for the way they are planning to play the game.

Neither outlook is necessarily right or wrong, it's our task to try and understand our own game and the attributes of the ball that give us the best chance for success in scoring on the lanes. Part of it is trying different layout's, surface's, combined with the given ball manufactured characteristics to see what exact mix gives us the best results.

[Amyers]

I agree with Amyers about the car analogy. But...any car enthusiast can tell you:

- What a car part does.
- How changing that one part will affect performance.

In other words, you can "isolate" a variable and tell people 'exactly' what it will do in terms of performance. A car is certainly a complex mix of varaibles...but each variable has a point...and it has a purpose...and it was always do what it is intended to do.

For example..let's say "turbo charger". A turbo charger (or incresed engine displacement in older cars) will ALWAYS increase horsepower. Now, sometimes a larger engine...will add weight, and negate the increases in horsepower...but if you take the same model of car and put a 405 in one and a 350 in the other...the 405 will ALWAYS have more horsepower.

Actually the car example still works I don't know enough about turbos to make a good argument but lets take a carburetor you switch out a single for set of 6 pack holly's and you may very well get a decline in horsepower if it'll even run if you don't upgrade the fuel pump probably something similar with turbos if you don't adjust the air/flow fuel mixture properly. Everything has a give and take. also even if you do increase the horsepower if you can't transfer it to the pavement it won't necessarily improve your times.




The next topic was going to be "core symmetry". What is the difference between a symmetric core and an assymetric core? We know that a symmetric core tends to have a smoother arc to the pocket and an assymetric core has a more angular motion. It "seems" fairly simple, right? Yet...how many bowling balls have come out in the last 5-10 years that claim to be "angular" or "skid/flip"...yet they have symmetric cores? That doesn't make sense independent of other variables.

We've disagreed about this for a while. First off all balls are asymmetric once drilled so we are merely discussing the potential of greater asymmetry being created from a ball that starts that way. I say potential because the actual amount of asymmetry is also determined by the drill angles and can be enhanced or lessened by the layout.

Also asymmetry is not required for either type of reaction and is more used on heavy oil balls than balls that are designed to flip. The greater the asymmetry plays a roll in how strongly the ball enters the hook phase. You can see why this is useful on heavy oil patterns and can be of use on skid flip balls also. Watch some videos on the Code Black and the Hy-road pearl same cover (supposedly anyway), same surface, and different cores Hy-road pearl symmetrical Code Black Asymmetrical. Both balls are flippy by nature you'll see the Code Black starts just slightly earlier (mostly due to the RG being lower but maybe somewhat due to the asymmetry) and moves harder off the spot than the Hy-road pearl does.



Like a car...if a bigger engine makes it go faster...why would you intentionally put a smaller engine in the car while trying to make it go faster? Car enthusiasts will point to many possible answers...like; nowadays cars are lighter...they may be turbo charged...current technology is more efficient, etc... But independent of other variables...the smaller engine won't make the car go faster. It's only when we start factoring in other variables...that it makes sense.

More isn't always better



I'd like to see more testing data where these specs (bowling ball) are tested independently of each other. Take a Brunswick Rhino...keep everything the same...have the bowling robot throw the balls on a fresh condition...and change ONLY one thing at a time. For example, make three Rhinos...pearl, hybrid, solid...and surface them each to 2000 abralon. Now have the robot throw them...see what the difference is. If there is no difference...then pearl vs hybrid vs solid are meaningless specs and should be completely ignored.

You'd also have to put the same drill, same lanes, the same shot down. All to prove something the manufactures wouldn't want to prove so it wouldn't ever happen. My feelings (and that is all that it is) is that the differences are so small to be undetectable by even the above average bowler




But, there's no point in Parts 4-6...because we can't seem to isolate just one spec. Thus, every answer becomes, "it sort of depends".

It only really becomes "it sort of depends" when you try to evaluate one spec across different balls. If you change the surface on a particular ball that ball will roll earlier. It becomes a problem when you try to say that all balls with surface roll early. All you can say is that a ball will roll earlier than it would have if it had less surface.

[J Anderson]

More isn't always better.

I don't know if my friend Mike still has it, but about 10 years ago he bought a Ranger pick-up that someone had stuffed a 351 V8 under the hood. He thought it would be a fun vehicle to use around town. Turned out to be next to impossible to drive in the rain, and not that much better on dry pavement.

[Timmyb]

Yes from the drag racers perspective a blown small block is nothing, when you view things from the classic car, muscle car, street cruiser perspective, people aren't concerned primarily about max power.



Wrong. My last street car was dynoed at 772 rwhp. I was concerned with max power!https://s13.postimg.org/oi4x3smg3/IMG_0165.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/oi4x3smg3/)

[Tony]

Wrong. My last street car was dynoed at 772 rwhp. I was concerned with max power!https://s13.postimg.org/oi4x3smg3/IMG_0165.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/oi4x3smg3/)

As with everything it depends on the person, I know lots of car guys, and some like my buddy with the blown Nova with 10,000 in Chrome love the max power, others prefer the car in stock factory trim, in my area that constitutes the majority, that are represented at the local car shows.
Maybe in your area, your group max HP is the desire, that's not the case with most of the guys I know. I have a bone stock 71 Cutlass S post car with 32k original miles, and I'm fine with having a stock 350 4bbl ......to each his own.
I have nothing but respect for any tasteful, well done car someone builds for themselves or wants to own, it's not my thing to own, your GP looks like a well done car
glad to see you enjoyed it.