A loophole to the extra holes rule

[Phonetek]

Apparently the all holes must be occupied rule doesn't apply if you want to chuck a house ball thumbless. You can legally do that all night long if you choose and nobody can do a thing about it. House balls are exempt because they are all drilled with 3 holes. Not that you'd really want to do it but I guess the option is open if you're so inclined.

That does NOT include a ball on a house rack that someone raged and left on the rack or donated. Actual house balls only.

[Ryster]

Apparently the all holes must be occupied rule doesn't apply if you want to chuck a house ball thumbless. You can legally do that all night long if you choose and nobody can do a thing about it. House balls are exempt because they are all drilled with 3 holes. Not that you'd really want to do it but I guess the option is open if you're so inclined.

That does NOT include a ball on a house rack that someone raged and left on the rack or donated. Actual house balls only.

That isn't really a loophole, per se, since it is specifically addressed in the rules. House balls are also very basic internally. The most they will have is a pancake weight block [if any core at all.] An unoccupied thumb hole will have no appreciable dynamic effect. This is also the USBC being friendly to bowling centers and making certain that causal bowlers of all styles are not hampered by any rules that would prevent sanctioned league participation. They do not want any rules that force people into buying their own equipment. That would be bad for business.

If anything, the rule removes a loophole where someone could claim they "found this high performance ball on the house ball rack" and attempt to throw it thumbless in sanctioned competition.

Now, if we can just stop the people thinking they can put thumb tape/electrical/duct tape over their extra holes to comply with the rule...

[Phonetek]

Now, if we can just stop the people thinking they can put thumb tape/electrical/duct tape over their extra holes to comply with the rule...

Hmm... I've never seen that one yet.


Okay so maybe not a "loophole" but yet it allows a workaround for people who insist on bowling thumbless with a thumb hole. It's not a desired work around as they likely aren't going to do better that way but still allows jerks to be jerks and prove they can ignore the rules if they choose.

The house ball part of the rules is something I've never seen discussed since the rules went into effect. Obviously because it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

[JessN16]

Here's the loophole that I can see coming...

Bowler buys a bowling ball, drills a crater weight hole in it somewhere that plunges the core, then plugs it. Ball plug is of far less density than core material.

Wonder what that would do to your RG/diff?

Jess

[bowl1820]

Here's the loophole that I can see coming...

Bowler buys a bowling ball, drills a crater weight hole in it somewhere that plunges the core, then plugs it. Ball plug is of far less density than core material.

Wonder what that would do to your RG/diff?

Jess

Bowling This Month had a whole about article back in 2014 (The Effect of Plugging and Redrilling on Bowling Ball) about this. The RG's, DIFFS. didn't change much and The conclusion was that basically it just caused a very minor and largely insignificant difference in the on-lane motion of the ball.

So a bowler buying a new and punching a hole and plugging it wouldn't do much of anything.

[JessN16]

Bowling This Month had a whole about article back in 2014 (The Effect of Plugging and Redrilling on Bowling Ball) about this. The RG's, DIFFS. didn't change much and The conclusion was that basically it just caused a very minor and largely insignificant difference in the on-lane motion of the ball.

So a bowler buying a new and punching a hole and plugging it wouldn't do much of anything.

What got me thinking about this was watching Storm's recent videos on the 2LS system. They found a significant difference in ball performance just from drilling finger holes 2 inches deep rather than 3 inches, and that was just when drilling finger holes only for two-handers. Then they put Svensson and Belmonte on the lanes with the balls they drilled and the difference in motion through the pindeck was very clear. Storm had mapped out the effect of hole depth on RG and Diff; the video is long and highly technical in spots but I found it fascinating. They mentioned, briefly, the effect of plugged holes on a ball but never addressed the scenario I'm describing above.

I think it merits further research, at least. Eight years is a lifetime in terms of what we knew/know about ball tech. I'm not saying you'd get anything different from what BTM got but I think it needs to be studied by someone (i.e., not me) that has access to a lot of identical balls, time, and the ability to measure results the way Storm did in the 2LS vids.

Jess

[bowl1820]

What got me thinking about this was watching Storm's recent videos on the 2LS system. They found a significant difference in ball performance just from drilling finger holes 2 inches deep rather than 3 inches, and that was just when drilling finger holes only for two-handers. Then they put Svensson and Belmonte on the lanes with the balls they drilled and the difference in motion through the pindeck was very clear. Storm had mapped out the effect of hole depth on RG and Diff; the video is long and highly technical in spots but I found it fascinating. They mentioned, briefly, the effect of plugged holes on a ball but never addressed the scenario I'm describing above.

I think it merits further research, at least. Eight years is a lifetime in terms of what we knew/know about ball tech. I'm not saying you'd get anything different from what BTM got but I think it needs to be studied by someone (i.e., not me) that has access to a lot of identical balls, time, and the ability to measure results the way Storm did in the 2LS vids.

Jess

What is being describing here is a different situation than what you originally posted about, which was about drilling a hole and then plugging it and the affect on RG/DIFF. Which is what the BTM article addressed.

What your talking about here is the affect of using holes of different depths and the effects they have.


Heres for those that don't know about the Storm 2ls System (note it's a long video)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50dSaIxHwDI

[boatman37]

I remember watching a video where Mo talked about drilling the thumb hole for the switch grip. Drilling a slightly smaller hole about 1" deeper than needed for the insert then drilling the hole for the insert. Basically 'hid' the deeper hole. Not sure if that is/was legal but the way he was talking it sounded like he was trying to trick the system

[JessN16]

What is being describing here is a different situation than what you originally posted about, which was about drilling a hole and then plugging it and the affect on RG/DIFF. Which is what the BTM article addressed.

What your talking about here is the affect of using holes of different depths and the effects they have.




I'm actually talking about both. I was using the example of the 2LS video to suggest that if you can drill holes deeper by just an inch and get different results for RG/diff, it wasn't out of the realm of possibility to think that if you removed enough material of a specific density and then replaced it with material of a much lesser density (i.e., plug material), that it might give you a noticeable effect on ball motion the way hole depth does.

To put it a different way, consider this: The allowable diameter of drilled holes was and/or is covered by USBC statute but I'm not sure whether those limits apply once the holes have been subsequently patched/plugged. So as an extreme hypothetical, let's say you punch a ball 4 inches deep with a 2-inch diameter drill bit. Were that hole left in place, it would be illegal, because it violates the allowable hole circumference rule. However, if you then plugged it, would it be legal? How about if you drilled multiple 1-inch holes at 4 inches deep in a 6-inch circular area, and then plugged all of them? Every hole you drilled and then plugged would be filled back in with a different weight and density of material.

Ergo, you end up with a ball that would still be under the maximum overall weight limit of 16 pounds, and would have a USBC star stamp and serial number imprinted upon it, but it would be materially different than a brand-new ball in the same line. I don't think the RG and diff would be the same as the published numbers, particularly not if you clustered your plugged weight holes specifically in a tight formation so as to drill out dense core material on purpose, then fill them back in with plug.

To give you a real-world example, one of the first balls I ever bought, I bought from Steve Reynolds at Cordova Lanes in Pensacola, Fla. Steve had an original Blue Pearl Hammer that he had ended up using as a practice drilling/plugging ball in the shop for shop trainees. I bought it from him to use as a spare ball. I counted 37 plugged holes in the ball when I got it from him. I never owned another BPH to compare it to, but I'd be willing to bet the ball with 37 plugged holes wouldn't measure out to have the same core dynamics as a new BPH. How much of the original core was left at that point?

Now imagine doing that same thing with, say, a Code Black -- except you put 37 holes all in one side of the ball, and then plug every one of them. The ball is still technically legal, but it's a Code Black in name only, I would bet.

Jess

[J Anderson]

I'm actually talking about both. I was using the example of the 2LS video to suggest that if you can drill holes deeper by just an inch and get different results for RG/diff, it wasn't out of the realm of possibility to think that if you removed enough material of a specific density and then replaced it with material of a much lesser density (i.e., plug material), that it might give you a noticeable effect on ball motion the way hole depth does.

To put it a different way, consider this: The allowable diameter of drilled holes was and/or is covered by USBC statute but I'm not sure whether those limits apply once the holes have been subsequently patched/plugged. So as an extreme hypothetical, let's say you punch a ball 4 inches deep with a 2-inch diameter drill bit. Were that hole left in place, it would be illegal, because it violates the allowable hole circumference rule. However, if you then plugged it, would it be legal? How about if you drilled multiple 1-inch holes at 4 inches deep in a 6-inch circular area, and then plugged all of them? Every hole you drilled and then plugged would be filled back in with a different weight and density of material.

Ergo, you end up with a ball that would still be under the maximum overall weight limit of 16 pounds, and would have a USBC star stamp and serial number imprinted upon it, but it would be materially different than a brand-new ball in the same line. I don't think the RG and diff would be the same as the published numbers, particularly not if you clustered your plugged weight holes specifically in a tight formation so as to drill out dense core material on purpose, then fill them back in with plug.

To give you a real-world example, one of the first balls I ever bought, I bought from Steve Reynolds at Cordova Lanes in Pensacola, Fla. Steve had an original Blue Pearl Hammer that he had ended up using as a practice drilling/plugging ball in the shop for shop trainees. I bought it from him to use as a spare ball. I counted 37 plugged holes in the ball when I got it from him. I never owned another BPH to compare it to, but I'd be willing to bet the ball with 37 plugged holes wouldn't measure out to have the same core dynamics as a new BPH. How much of the original core was left at that point?

Now imagine doing that same thing with, say, a Code Black -- except you put 37 holes all in one side of the ball, and then plug every one of them. The ball is still technically legal, but it's a Code Black in name only, I would bet.

Jess

Off hand I would say the plugged ball is still legal. The question remains why on earth anyone would take a ball with a core that has been designed to give a certain reaction and drill and plug until the manufacturer’s specs have no relation to the ball?

[Phonetek]

A ball like that would wobble and jump down the lane. There is always the tiniest lip around the plug, is not perfectly flush. 37 holes then 37 imperfections making it out of round. It's like plugging the pro shops fitting ball. Generally your track don't go over a plug so you wouldn't notice it. With that many plugs your track would have to be a single dot not to roll over one which would not be effective hitting the pins.

I get what you are saying about it being legal but nobody in their right mind would do it. If they do then more power to them for finding a way around the rules. Attaboy and fist bumps! It certainly won't gain them anything. LOL

[JessN16]

Off hand I would say the plugged ball is still legal. The question remains why on earth anyone would take a ball with a core that has been designed to give a certain reaction and drill and plug until the manufacturer’s specs have no relation to the ball?

Same reason some guys shoehorn a LS-1 Corvette engine into a Mazda Miata: Because they can.

Between the ones that think of themselves as Closet Mo Pinel or the ones that are looking for some small off-the-books advantage, I could see this becoming something that we see occasionally but not often. What will be interesting is if it becomes not just simply about plugging the ball with plug material, but whether folks begin mixing in non-metallic material to the plugging in order to move densities around.

Again, this is never going mainstream, but tinkers gonna tinker.

Jess

[boatman37]

Awhile back I posted link to an article where a guy rolled a 300 with his dads ashes inside the ball. He had drilled it, poured the ashes in then plugged it. Was it legal? Dunno. But what if someone drilled it, filled the bottom with something lightweight like styrofoam then plugged the very top layer? Sorry if this was mentioned already as I just skimmed through the posts

[Phonetek]

Same reason some guys shoehorn a LS-1 Corvette engine into a Mazda Miata: Because they can.

Between the ones that think of themselves as Closet Mo Pinel or the ones that are looking for some small off-the-books advantage, I could see this becoming something that we see occasionally but not often. What will be interesting is if it becomes not just simply about plugging the ball with plug material, but whether folks begin mixing in non-metallic material to the plugging in order to move densities around.

Again, this is never going mainstream, but tinkers gonna tinker.

Jess

Oh now that I’ve seen! A guy put shotgun BB’s in the ball and plugged over them. Until the plug cracked and there were bb’s everywhere. He lost his USBC membership and nearly got whooped that night from several angry bowlers. Served him right! He sucked anyway

[bowl1820]

I'm actually talking about both. I was using the example of the 2LS video to suggest that if you can drill holes deeper by just an inch and get different results for RG/diff, it wasn't out of the realm of possibility to think that if you removed enough material of a specific density and then replaced it with material of a much lesser density (i.e., plug material), that it might give you a noticeable effect on ball motion the way hole depth does.

Which is what the BTM article was about and showed that a few plugs didn't do squat. When they got up to 15 plugs it changed the mass a little bit, but still didn't really mean anything.


To put it a different way, consider this: The allowable diameter of drilled holes was and/or is covered by USBC statute but I'm not sure whether those limits apply once the holes have been subsequently patched/plugged.

So as an extreme hypothetical, let's say you punch a ball 4 inches deep with a 2-inch diameter drill bit. Were that hole left in place, it would be illegal, because it violates the allowable hole circumference rule. However, if you then plugged it, would it be legal?
Yes, it would be legal. If it's filled in it's not a hole no more, so rules for holes don't apply.




How about if you drilled multiple 1-inch holes at 4 inches deep in a 6-inch circular area, and then plugged all of them? Every hole you drilled and then plugged would be filled back in with a different weight and density of material.

Ergo, you end up with a ball that would still be under the maximum overall weight limit of 16 pounds, and would have a USBC star stamp and serial number imprinted upon it, but it would be materially different than a brand-new ball in the same line. I don't think the RG and diff would be the same as the published numbers, particularly not if you clustered your plugged weight holes specifically in a tight formation so as to drill out dense core material on purpose, then fill them back in with plug.
Yes the RG and Diff will change some, but most likely not enough to be worth the trouble.



To give you a real-world example, one of the first balls I ever bought, I bought from Steve Reynolds at Cordova Lanes in Pensacola, Fla. Steve had an original Blue Pearl Hammer that he had ended up using as a practice drilling/plugging ball in the shop for shop trainees. I bought it from him to use as a spare ball. I counted 37 plugged holes in the ball when I got it from him. I never owned another BPH to compare it to, but I'd be willing to bet the ball with 37 plugged holes wouldn't measure out to have the same core dynamics as a new BPH. How much of the original core was left at that point?

37 plugs in a old Blue Pearl Hammer would pretty much be meaningless, That's a old 2 piece urethane ball with a kind of a football shaped core. RG/Diff., Core dynamics weren't really a thing with those balls back then. Rolling over the plug material would be more of a concern than the plugged holes drilling into the core.


Now imagine doing that same thing with, say, a Code Black -- except you put 37 holes all in one side of the ball, and then plug every one of them. The ball is still technically legal, but it's a Code Black in name only, I would bet.

Jess

The thing your describing is a situation that's never really going happen.

While 37 holes can alter the mass properties some in a modern reactive balls core, It's unlikely to make a big enough impact to the balls dynamics to make it worth the trouble (You could give it a new layout and surface which would do more to the balls reaction, easier than drilling multi holes and plugging them on a old ball.)

In the BTM article they had 15 holes in the ball and it only made a minor difference in it's properties. 15 more wouldn't make that much more of a difference.

What would be more of issue with a bunch of holes and not for better mostly, would be the ball rolling over the plug material which is not a reactive material like the rest of the ball.

[boomer]

Here's the thing - what's the difference between the weight of the plug and the weight of what was originally there. . .? Probably measurable but not by much . . . and really different from a hole drilled and left empty vs a hole drilled deeper and left empty.

[JessN16]

Here's the thing - what's the difference between the weight of the plug and the weight of what was originally there. . .? Probably measurable but not by much . . . and really different from a hole drilled and left empty vs a hole drilled deeper and left empty.

It's not weight that's so much the question, but the density and the placement of that density. If it didn't matter at all, then that's an indictment of core technology in and of itself, which is a science specifically of placing densities in strategic places to get desired RG/diff numbers.

As an extreme example, let's say it was possible to remove an entire half of a bowling ball and replace it with plug material. As noted in the post above, the primary concern with doing that is -- unless the ball is drilled in such a fashion as to result in almost no track flare -- it's eventually going to roll over plug material, which more or less has the friction characteristics of polyester.

Still, let's just go with this thought experiment and talk about what we've done: We've replaced weight with equal weight, but now we have it distributed completely evenly on one half of the ball, and we've also distributed equally from the innermost point in the core outward to the shell area. The other half, meanwhile, we've left alone, so it has half a core with factory densities in place, measured along all three axes on that side of the ball.

I would think you would see a significant change in performance. But because of the issue of surface characteristic differences in reactive resin vs. plug material, in order to see whatever difference you've created, I'm not sure you can actually measure it accurately on a lane. I would, however, like to see how differently it would spin, undrilled, on a Determinator.

Jess

p.s.: I've not seen the BTM article referenced above on the 15-plug ball. That would be an interesting read.

[boomer]

That was actually my point - but I was typing from my phone. The difference between the density of plug material and cover/filler material can't be that different. Go into the core, sure. Not talking about the core.