Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: A loophole to the extra holes rule

  1. #1
    High Roller Phonetek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    West Suburbs of Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    1,820
    Chats: 0

    Default A loophole to the extra holes rule

    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.

  2. #2
    Ringer
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Southeast PA
    Posts
    467
    Chats: 0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phonetek View Post
    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...

  3. #3
    High Roller Phonetek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    West Suburbs of Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    1,820
    Chats: 0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryster View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Phonetek; 12-08-2021 at 01:25 PM.

  4. #4

    Default

    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

  5. #5
    Super Moderator
    bowl1820's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Central, Florida
    Posts
    6,707
    Blog Entries
    12
    Chats: 554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JessN16 View Post
    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.

    Right handed Stroker, high track ,about 13 degree axis tilt. PAP is located 5 9/16” over 1 3/4” up.Speed ave. about 14 mph at the pins. Medium rev’s.High Game 300, High series 798

    "Talent without training is nothing." Luke Skywalker

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bowl1820 View Post
    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

  7. #7
    Super Moderator
    bowl1820's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Central, Florida
    Posts
    6,707
    Blog Entries
    12
    Chats: 554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JessN16 View Post
    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)


    Right handed Stroker, high track ,about 13 degree axis tilt. PAP is located 5 9/16” over 1 3/4” up.Speed ave. about 14 mph at the pins. Medium rev’s.High Game 300, High series 798

    "Talent without training is nothing." Luke Skywalker

  8. #8
    High Roller
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,369
    Chats: 0

    Default

    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
    Arsenal "15# Roto Grip Idol Helios-90 x 2.25 x 45" "15# 900 Global Altered Reality-50x3.625x30" "15# Brunswick Uppercut-80x3.625x35" "15# Brunswick Igniter-70x5.5x35" "15# Raw Hammer Pearl 45x5.75x40" "15# Radical Squatch Pearl 75x5.5x30" "15# Radical Conspiracy-55x4.625x35" "15# Brunswick Kingpin-60x3.875x35" " "15# Brunswick T-Zone"
    Rev Rate about 300 @ about 16 MPH at the pins* High Game: 279 - High Series: 725. PAP: 5 1/8"x1" up; tilt 20*, rotation 75*
    Oh, and LEFTY!!!

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bowl1820 View Post
    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

  10. #10
    Bowling Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    3,341
    Chats: 13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JessN16 View Post
    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?
    John

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •