MOTIV

Username: Log me on automatically each visit
Password:
It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:47 am


Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 2   [ 12 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Gradient Line Balance Hole revision as of March 2011
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:54 am 

Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:43 pm
Posts: 1698
Location: Rochester NY
Mo has issued a revision to the Gradient line, but he hasn't made any official documentation yet. This is only what I have gleaned from conversations, and may be subject to slight revision.

Again this is Mo's information, I'm just passing it to you.


The latest CAD research has resulted in a bit of adjustment to the Gradient Line implementation.

What is the same:
P holes have the same effect on ball motion. ie. P1 is ~18% decrease in drilled differential, P2 is no change, P3 is ~20% increase in drilled differential, and P4 is ~40% increase in drilled differential.
P locations are an equal division along the gradient line
P4 location.

What is different:
How the line is found and placed on a ball.
P1 location.

What to look out for:
P1 holes being flared over when using small(<30*) drilling angle layouts.



For any drilled ball, the PSA is still P4. The only way to find the exact P4(PSA) location is a ride in a DeTerminator.

P1 is the change. P1 is now defined as a point 6.75" from the PSA on the VAL.

The Method:
1) Find the PSA. If you do not have a DeTerminator... For Asymmetrical balls use the PSA marker. For Symmetrical balls we know the PSA ends up in or near the thumb, so use a point 1/4" below the thumb hole as P4.
2) Locate the point 6.75" from P4 on the VAL and label as P1
3) Draw a line from P4 to PAP
4) Draw a line PAP to P1
5) Place P2 and P3 in even increments along the combined length of the two lines.

Please reference the following picture:
Image

This revision makes the gradient line a more precise system, based on recent CAD data.

As information becomes official, I'll keep this first post up to date.


Last edited by JustinWi on Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gradient Line Balance Hole revision as of March 2011
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:40 am 

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:51 pm
Posts: 120
Location: Tallahassee, FL
I love that he used the LE to taunt us with for this picture. You're a bad bad man....lol

-Pat


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gradient Line Balance Hole revision as of March 2011
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:44 pm 

Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:14 am
Posts: 804
Location: Iowa Falls, IA
Looking at that picture, it would seem to me somehow that those points (p1 thru p4) don't exist on a set of lines that make up the triangle, but rather an arc, defined by the p1 and p4 for endpoints, and the 'radius' (for lack of a better term) defined by a distance from the pin. I'm guessing, but just looking at that pic, if you were to swing another 6 3/4" arc from the pin thru the psa to the p1 spot, that nearly defines the two sides of the triangle farthest from the grip.
Could you take a pic of that ball done up again with that arc?
I just believe that the gradient line is a short cut for us drillers to use to express a complicated set of coordinates that actually represent an arc of some kind, much in the same way the PAP migrates along RG bands. None of those RG bands are straight lines, either: symmetrical core balls are close to circular bands, and asymmetrical cores produce shallower arcs. One of Mo's presentations last summer showed the RG bands of a couple of different balls, and those were the representations in his slide show.
What does Mo say about holes placed closer to or farther away from the grip with regard to the gradient line? Have they done any studies yet to catalog the differences in differential for those at all?

_________________
Lane 13 Pro Shop, Iowa Falls, IA ............. Venom Shock * Recon
Proprietor, Pla-Mor Bowl ........................ GT1 * Covert Revolt.
Vise Grips Amateur Staff ......................... Sigma Sting * Tribal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gradient Line Balance Hole revision as of March 2011
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:17 pm 

Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:43 pm
Posts: 1698
Location: Rochester NY
The RG contours of asymmetrical balls are elliptical, and since all drilled balls are asymmetrical, all balls have elliptical RG contours. The eccentricity of the ellipse has a linear relationship to the diff ratio.

The reason the line gets truncated at the PAP, is that generally any holes placed beyond the VAL will be flared over.

I used to wonder what a combination of "Target Weight" and Gradient Line Balance Hole would do. Then I realized that GLBH is an evolution of TW based upon the new studies.

With the GLBH, you change the ratio of all 3 axes. That's why it is labeled as the most effective placements, not the only placements. You have to have consistent measurable change in dynamics, well still keeping within static weight limitations, and using placements that are flare safe. Your assessment of simplification of many complex variables is an accurate one.

The arc you requested:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gradient Line Balance Hole revision as of March 2011
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:23 pm 

Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:43 pm
Posts: 1698
Location: Rochester NY
plamormick wrote:
What does Mo say about holes placed closer to or farther away from the grip with regard to the gradient line? Have they done any studies yet to catalog the differences in differential for those at all?


Not sure what he would say.

As for my answer, remember that placing a hole moves the PSA towards the hole. So in effect you are modifying the drilling angle of the layout based upon where you move the PSA. The other component is the modification of the diff ratio. You could potentially place a hole that wouldn't move the PSA, but change the diff ratio and change the reaction slightly.

I hate to say this, but at this point we may be splitting hairs. All I have to do is touch the surface a little bit and the effects of that hole could be rendered inconsequential.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gradient Line Balance Hole revision as of March 2011
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:06 am 

Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:14 am
Posts: 804
Location: Iowa Falls, IA
Agreed.
It is just interesting for me at this level. Fortunately, I don't require this deep level of drilling/layout skill quite yet. But it is super vital info, none the less.
I drilled a ball for a guy today that utilized the new P1 spot, and it did produce a very angular movement off of the spot, as intended (a 60 by 4.5" by 35 layout).
Thanks for humoring me with the pic; the spot I thought I was seeing did not correlate with the arc. I thought the gradient line might actually be a gradient arc, but it doesn't seem to pan out with the math.

On a separate note, the LE does look quite nice. How does that bad boy roll for you?

_________________
Lane 13 Pro Shop, Iowa Falls, IA ............. Venom Shock * Recon
Proprietor, Pla-Mor Bowl ........................ GT1 * Covert Revolt.
Vise Grips Amateur Staff ......................... Sigma Sting * Tribal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gradient Line Balance Hole revision as of March 2011
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:10 am 

Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:43 pm
Posts: 1698
Location: Rochester NY
plamormick wrote:
On a separate note, the LE does look quite nice. How does that bad boy roll for you?


I'll find out tomorrow night.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gradient Line Balance Hole revision as of March 2011
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:50 pm 

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:45 pm
Posts: 504
Location: Melbourne KY
depending on the pap...that can be a big change...hmmmm

_________________
-DB-
MOTIV Regional Staff
Riga's Bowlers Zone Manager
Pro Consultant for NKU Bowling Club
GET MOTIVATED


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gradient Line Balance Hole revision as of March 2011
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:47 pm 

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:22 am
Posts: 222
Location: Mishawaka, IN
What is the same:
P holes have the same effect on ball motion. ie. P1 is ~18% decrease in drilled differential, P2 is no change, P3 is ~20% increase in drilled differential, and P4 is ~40% increase in drilled differential.
P locations are an equal division along the gradient line
P4 location.


I drilled a ball for a guy today that utilized the new P1 spot, and it did produce a very angular movement off of the spot, as intended (a 60 by 4.5" by 35 layout).

ok... for clarification then....if the P1 is a 18% decrease in drilled differential (Justin quote) and P1 drill created very angular movement (plamormick quote) then do the P3 and P4 holes create a more early/arching roll?

If so.... in laymans terms - why? I tend to use "similar" drills on most equipment (pins above next to or under ring finger) and change surfaces and tilt to create different reactions (yea, I know it's old school, but it workes for me). Maybe this above info is the reason many "strong" balls roll and fade too much for my liking. I tend to use P3 or P4 holes when needed, thinking "stronger is better", but I am completely wrong. Maybe "less is more" - as a decrease in the differential the P1 causes.

Please help me with your thoughts....

_________________
Jeff DeMunck

300 X 20
800 X 10


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gradient Line Balance Hole revision as of March 2011
PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:27 am 

Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:14 am
Posts: 804
Location: Iowa Falls, IA
I suppose, for me, the thinking can go like this:
A decrease in differential means less flare, or smaller gaps between oil lines, which means: the core takes longer to right itself from its dynamic imbalance, meaning more 'skid/snappy' shape of reaction;
where as the p3 and p4 holes increase differential, enhancing flare, making larger gaps between track lines, meaning earlier roll, earlier transition of the core, meaning rounder, smoother hooking motion. P3/P4 holes can also increase the likelihood of a ball burning up too early, if the ball is not matched up with the right condition/right bowler/right surface prep.

For example, I absolutely hated my RX1o. Drilled it 70* by 6" by 35*. Talk about over/under to the max.
Added a smallish P3 hole, 2 1/2" deep, and viola! Instant calming of the reaction, making it softer, rounder, and more controlled.

Another example- my SR2 felt like it wanted to go too early, roll too arcy. Added a P1 hole, 7/8" bit, 3" deep, and what a nice change in motion. Much more length (added polish, too); better pop at the breakpoint.
A P1 hole saved me from selling my TR2, also. Rolled 298 with it 2 days after adding a hole on my PAP (back in October). Damn blower 7-10 anyway.

_________________
Lane 13 Pro Shop, Iowa Falls, IA ............. Venom Shock * Recon
Proprietor, Pla-Mor Bowl ........................ GT1 * Covert Revolt.
Vise Grips Amateur Staff ......................... Sigma Sting * Tribal


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 2   [ 12 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

MOTIV