Did anyone read the ball motion study on today's Forum Front Page. It concluded that ball surface, and rate of oil absorption were the two main factors in ball motion. It was a very comprehensive study, with a lot of six-sigma jargon, and some really hi-tech research. This research has led to new ball surface, and porosity standards to take effect in 2009. I guess The Open will now use a microscope, along with scales to check balls, have to be able to closely check the pores of the ball to make sure they are the right distance apart. Of course they could have reached this conclusion with a lot less cost and one simple web search. 

MUST BE A GOOD REASON THAT USED ABRALON PADS SELL FOR $4 APIECE ON E-BAY!!!!!!!!!!!

2 years and how many dollars to come to the conclusion that a rough ball surface (under 500 grit) absorbs the oil off the lane at a faster rate and hooks more than a smoother surface? Whoda' thunk it?

 

I think 500 surface is too much. 2000 grit would have been a better standard if you ask me.

 

 

RJN825:

2 years and how many dollars to come to the conclusion that a rough ball surface (under 500 grit) absorbs the oil off the lane at a faster rate and hooks more than a smoother surface? Whoda' thunk it?

 

I think 500 surface is too much. 2000 grit would have been a better standard if you ask me.

 

 

I want to know how you count the pores in the ball. I guess it is like the dimples on a golf ball.

This report and new specification have much more in it than just referring to what "grit" the surface can be.  The initial new specification goes more toward the actual porosity of the coverstock, which the bowler has no control over.  It deals, in practicality, with the size of the "particles," and how close/far apart they are when the coverstock is manufactured.  The bowler will have not have the ability to change this particular item once the ball is made.

This is definitely a step in the right direction and I will look forward to the other new specifications that the committee, no doubt, has in mind for the future.

Concerning the "oil absorption" rate mentioned above, a low grit ball doesnt necessarily "absorb" oil faster than a higher grit surface.  It might indeed take it off of the lane faster but that doesnt translate into the ball absorbing it into the coverstock, a big difference.

Gary Sparks
Asst. Prof. Bowling Industry Management
Vincennes University

VUbowl:

This report and new specification have much more in it than just referring to what "grit" the surface can be.  The initial new specification goes more toward the actual porosity of the coverstock, which the bowler has no control over.  It deals, in practicality, with the size of the "particles," and how close/far apart they are when the coverstock is manufactured.  The bowler will have not have the ability to change this particular item once the ball is made.

This is definitely a step in the right direction and I will look forward to the other new specifications that the committee, no doubt, has in mind for the future.

 

Gary Sparks
Asst. Prof. Bowling Industry Management
Vincennes University

 

If the coverstock can still be altered by an abrasive (abralon etc...), how much difference will that actually make? You will still be able to alter the characteristics of said ball, yes? I must be missing something? Isn't there a difference between "particle" and "non particle" resin balls?

 

RJN825:

VUbowl:

This report and new specification have much more in it than just referring to what "grit" the surface can be.  The initial new specification goes more toward the actual porosity of the coverstock, which the bowler has no control over.  It deals, in practicality, with the size of the "particles," and how close/far apart they are when the coverstock is manufactured.  The bowler will have not have the ability to change this particular item once the ball is made.

This is definitely a step in the right direction and I will look forward to the other new specifications that the committee, no doubt, has in mind for the future.

 

Gary Sparks
Asst. Prof. Bowling Industry Management
Vincennes University

 

If the coverstock can still be altered by an abrasive (abralon etc...), how much difference will that actually make? You will still be able to alter the characteristics of said ball, yes? I must be missing something? Isn't there a difference between "particle" and "non particle" resin balls?

 

Now, don't take this as a I know it all, because I do not. This is my take on what I read, and Professor Sparks may correct me if I am wrong.

My understanding is they will limit the size of the particulate used in coverstocks therefore limiting the porosity of the ball, thereby limiting how fast a ball may absorb oil. Take for instance my Hammer Black Widow ball, and yes we have checked this here at my center. After 1 month thats 24 games of bowling I was able to get more oil out of my ball than what is applied to 4 pair of lanes, and yes I did collect the samples by sitting the ball in a bowl on a ball holder, now granted there was still oil on the ball that had to be wiped off the amount of oil collected was 4 Oz's thats 4 shot glasses of oil and according to all the info I have read, usually it takes less than a shot glass of oil to treat a lane for a night of bowling.

Resin balls did change bowling, but particulate changed bowling balls to an entirely different level. When you see low rev players standing left throwing right and the ball comes back like a freight train, where normally it would just keep washing out then something is up. I like you RJN would think limiting more along the lines of 1,000 to 1,500 grit finishes would be better , but I will take what they give me to start with.  I am a low to mid range rev player, and I love to get on conditions where I can change a little hand position and get to the pocket. The conditions lately have gotten ridiculous.

A good lanes man can sell a lot of high $$$ balls for a house owned pro-shop just by putting out more oil and telling the less knowledgeable bowlers they need a more aggressive ball. Just my $.02 worth.

There is just 1 more thing I wished they would require, and that would be the Logos and serial numbers need to be etched deeper into the coverstock so you can at least get 2 resurfacing on the ball, the current ones almost wear off during normal bowling , and where you use to be able to just write you serial number down and put a number on the ball if I read correctly USBC is now requiring all balls to maintain the logos and serial numbers so balls can easily unidentified.

Respectfully: Ed

I have to agree with you on the Black Widow thing - I have never had so much oil come off a ball as I get off of mine.  I usually leave it in the center, but got a roller bag that won't fit in the locker so I had put the ball in the car, one day it was a bit on the warm side and after the ball being in the car all day it puddled big time with the oil.  I even had a puddle of it in the bottom of the bag on the plastic carrier and it was nasty getting it all off.  My Hammer doom which was next to it didn't have a drop of oil come off of it. 

mom2tcdx2:

I have to agree with you on the Black Widow thing - I have never had so much oil come off a ball as I get off of mine.  I usually leave it in the center, but got a roller bag that won't fit in the locker so I had put the ball in the car, one day it was a bit on the warm side and after the ball being in the car all day it puddled big time with the oil.  I even had a puddle of it in the bottom of the bag on the plastic carrier and it was nasty getting it all off.  My Hammer doom which was next to it didn't have a drop of oil come off of it. 

Mom, Ed ??????????? First Mom, I have the exact same equipment, Black Widow, Raw Doom, and I also have a Purple Vibe. I live in Arizona where it gets a little warm in the summer. I have on occasion left my bag in the trunk of my car, but have never seen oil bleed as you describe. I have not deep cleaned my equipment in at least 2 months, and after reading Ed's post tried a little experiment, as my equipment was in the trunk of my car.

In our lab at work we have an oven that maintains very precise temp. control. I put my Black Widow in that oven at 95 degrees for 1/2 an hour, oil bleed did cover the outside of the ball, but oil did not drip off of it. I cleaned the ball, and increased the temp to 105 degrees, this time I only left it in for 15 minutes, as I did not want to damage the ball. A little more oil came to the surface, but not much. Don't try this at home, your standard range oven, will vary as much as 10% on temperature. I did not do the Doom, or the Vibe, because I know for a fact they do not absorb much oil.

I am not saying it is not possible, but 4 oz. of oil absorption is a lot of oil, when you consider the thickness of the cover stock. Under this scenario, if a ball weighted 15 lbs. 13 0z. after drilling, it would now be illegal as far as weight goes. It would most likley be the ball could be lighter than that, as 4 fluid oz's. of lane oil weigh more than 4 oz.'s Avd. I wonder if anybody had to make an adjustment to their equipment at Nationals because of over weight balls due to oil absorbtion. As Artie Johnson use to say VERY INTERESTING

PS    Forgot to mention, the Black Widow has a 2000 Abralon finish.

I know this evening we brought my black widow in from outside and again my entire ball was completely wet with the oil that was on it.  Now I too play a more inside shot so at my house that ball stays in a lot of oil, but the shot worked.  It was pretty thick and nasty to touch but cleaned off fairly well.  I have never had a ball react like that ever and I have bowled for 19 years now.  It had to be the strangest thing I have ever seen when the first time I saw it I really thought there was something wrong with it.  Now granted I wouldn't say it has the amount mentioned above but it sure was bad. 

mom2tcdx2:

I know this evening we brought my black widow in from outside and again my entire ball was completely wet with the oil that was on it.  Now I too play a more inside shot so at my house that ball stays in a lot of oil, but the shot worked.  It was pretty thick and nasty to touch but cleaned off fairly well.  I have never had a ball react like that ever and I have bowled for 19 years now.  It had to be the strangest thing I have ever seen when the first time I saw it I really thought there was something wrong with it.  Now granted I wouldn't say it has the amount mentioned above but it sure was bad. 

 

 More info from the Nocturnal Polymer Chemistry Lab of Doctor Doom. Mom, what you saw on your ball is what I also saw on mine, a coating of oil, but no dripping . This whole oil absorption thing is interesting to me. My wife also has a Black Widow. This ball is a little over a year old, and has never been deep cleaned. Deep cleaned being soaked in warm water and degreaser such as Dawn dish washing soap. The question I asked about weight and oil absorption was something worth exploring, so I ran some test on her's. The ball weight at the start of this little experiment was exactly 14 lbs. 7.471 oz. I know this because we have some very accurate digital scales, and as we just went through our TS recertification, all of them were recently calibrated. I put the ball through the same test that I did to mine. Temp. 95 degrees for 1/2 hour, clean the ball, 105 degrees for 15 minutes, clean the ball. A lot of oil came out of the ball at 95 degrees, but not one drop fell off of it, it all stayed on the surface, the same thing with the 105 degrees for 15 minutes. Weight of ball after all this 14 lbs. 7.406 oz. Did I get all the oil out of the ball, not sure, but I did get most of it. As you can see weight change was very minor. I guess we don't have to worry about our 16 lb. balls being overweight due to oil absorption.

Doctor Doom member of 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This test conducted by Doctor Doom member of

Just to reply to a few of the comments.  First, Ed is basically correct in what he stated, that the new spec is geared toward the porosity of the coverstock rather than just how dull or shiny it is.  The size of the particle material being used, spacing of those particles is what is being looked at for this particular specification. 

As stated in the report they are also looking at coverstock roughness,dull or shiny, but obviously there will be many more problems trying to set a spec on that as that can be changed by the bowler with sand paper, abralon pads, etc. whereas the the particle composition and placement cannot be altered after manufacturing. 

Concerning the balls absorbing oil, many of the coverstocks definitely absorb large amounts of oil, some more than others.  How much you can get out of it through any type of "heating" is going to vary as well.  Keeping in mind that some of the material "bleeding" out may not just be oil but can also be some of the resin material used in the coverstock.  That's the main reason that most manufacturers will advise against heating your equipment to try to restore it back to original, or as close as possible to the original.  They are much more agreeable to the "washing" of the ball and using that type of cleaning process.

In any case, the fact that USBC is at least beginning to come up with some newer specs to match the advanced technology is a good thing.  Anyone can argue that its too late, or not enough, but that is the old line.  They are making strides and while doing so, attempting to not limit technology anymore than they should, to try and retain, or maybe in some opinions, get back, any lost integrity.

Gary Sparks
Asst. Prof. Bowling Industry Management
Vincennes University

VUbowl:

Just to reply to a few of the comments.  First, Ed is basically correct in what he stated, that the new spec is geared toward the porosity of the coverstock rather than just how dull or shiny it is.  The size of the particle material being used, spacing of those particles is what is being looked at for this particular specification. 

As stated in the report they are also looking at coverstock roughness,dull or shiny, but obviously there will be many more problems trying to set a spec on that as that can be changed by the bowler with sand paper, abralon pads, etc. whereas the the particle composition and placement cannot be altered after manufacturing. 

Concerning the balls absorbing oil, many of the coverstocks definitely absorb large amounts of oil, some more than others.  How much you can get out of it through any type of "heating" is going to vary as well.  Keeping in mind that some of the material "bleeding" out may not just be oil but can also be some of the resin material used in the coverstock.  That's the main reason that most manufacturers will advise against heating your equipment to try to restore it back to original, or as close as possible to the original.  They are much more agreeable to the "washing" of the ball and using that type of cleaning process.

In any case, the fact that USBC is at least beginning to come up with some newer specs to match the advanced technology is a good thing.  Anyone can argue that its too late, or not enough, but that is the old line.  They are making strides and while doing so, attempting to not limit technology anymore than they should, to try and retain, or maybe in some opinions, get back, any lost integrity.

Gary Sparks
Asst. Prof. Bowling Industry Management
Vincennes University

Mr. Sparks with all due respect, stick to the business end of bowling, because you are not a polymer chemist. You obviously understand what the variables RA & RS mean to the study. These two variable are most likely the most influential in the absorption of oil, and the COF rating of the ball, RG is mostly related to the core dynamics. My question is this, in the manufacturing of a bowling ball, how do you control the spacing of the particulates in the coverstock???, how do you control the spacing of the pores in a given coverstock, that has no solid particles in it???? What happens if you take a very porous ball, and put it in the old Brunswick polishing machine, and after it passes mircoscopic inspection, and a pore per square inch count, you clean it with one of USBC's approved cleaners, thus removing the compound that is filling in the pores. I think I know the answer, but I will let you say it.

I would love to be proven wrong, and if you try please use verifiable data. Riggs, you and the boys would love a coverstock that could absorb 4 fluid oz.'s of oil in 24 games. Imagine what that ball could do in ten practice shots at the Open, talk about grooving a shot. The one big problem would be that maybe when you came back for s/d THE BALL WOULD BE OVERWEIGHT DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF OIL ABSORBED.

As far as other materials bleeding out of a ball when heated, that could be confused for oil????  It would take a lot more than 105 degrees for 15 minutes to bleed them out. Let me ask you a technical question. We all know a ball will slide through the oil, and then break into a roll as it comes out of the oil, thus accelerating as it moves toward the pocket, creating momentum, expressed as p=mv, bowling dynamics 101. How much frictional heat is generated at the point of contact between the ball and the lane. You will have to agree that this point of contact is a very limited area. This would be an interesting thing to study, don't you think, because if the resins can bleed out at almost ambient temperature, for some locations, and a good bowler can release the ball the same way time, and time again, how long would it take to put a flat spot in that ball, as the resins bleed out of the substrate.

I realize you are a college Professor, and most likely have a great physics department at your disposal, shameless plug to have you run all of this by them, and see if it makes sense. I would like to know if my reasoning is sound, and since I have a great amount of respect for you, and your insight, let me know.

Now we come to the crux of this whole thing. A bowling ball absorbing 4 fluid oz.'s of lane dressing after 24 games. I am sorry but in my opinion that is, DAMN NEAR IMPOSSIBLE, AND MY EXPERIMENTS PROVE THAT OUT.

 

 

Doom,
First off, I'd say chill out.  You guys wonder why this message board has went to he_ _?? 

I dont profess to be a chemist, never have, never will, dont want to be.  But I also know that bowling balls will absorb a lot of oil. I never said that I agreed with the 24 game comment, just that bowling balls will absorb oil, and they definitely do, call and ask the chemists at the bowling ball manufacturers if you want to know the specifics.

I also did not say that I agreed with the temperatures being used as the "test" to see how much will bleed out.  I do agree that it would/does take higher temps, which is specifically why the ball manufacturers DON'T want the bowlers to do it.  As I said above, Im not a chemist, dont profess to be, and am not here to get into a pis_ ing contest over degrees, amounts, time period etc. 

My comments about the difference between the particles in the core and their placement, in relation to the surface is/was meant just to show that there IS a difference between the two properties, one which the bowler has no control over, the other which the bowler can control.  Some of the original comments were directed at the new spec inferring that it was just going to make bowling ball surfaces be at 500 or more, which for now isnt correct.

And about the comment about balls adding weight, it absolutely does happen.  Is it going to happen in a short period of time as you mentioned, likely not, but if the ball was already at 15.99lbs to start, I definitely believe its possible that at the next weigh-in it could be overweight, Ive seen it happen many times at ball check-in.

Gary Sparks
Asst. Prof. Bowling Industry Management
Vincennes University

VUbowl:

Doom,
First off, I'd say chill out.  You guys wonder why this message board has went to he_ _?? 

I dont profess to be a chemist, never have, never will, dont want to be.  But I also know that bowling balls will absorb a lot of oil. I never said that I agreed with the 24 game comment, just that bowling balls will absorb oil, and they definitely do, call and ask the chemists at the bowling ball manufacturers if you want to know the specifics.

I also did not say that I agreed with the temperatures being used as the "test" to see how much will bleed out.  I do agree that it would/does take higher temps, which is specifically why the ball manufacturers DON'T want the bowlers to do it.  As I said above, Im not a chemist, dont profess to be, and am not here to get into a pis_ ing contest over degrees, amounts, time period etc. 

My comments about the difference between the particles in the core and their placement, in relation to the surface is/was meant just to show that there IS a difference between the two properties, one which the bowler has no control over, the other which the bowler can control.  Some of the original comments were directed at the new spec inferring that it was just going to make bowling ball surfaces be at 500 or more, which for now isnt correct.

And about the comment about balls adding weight, it absolutely does happen.  Is it going to happen in a short period of time as you mentioned, likely not, but if the ball was already at 15.99lbs to start, I definitely believe its possible that at the next weigh-in it could be overweight, Ive seen it happen many times at ball check-in.

Gary Sparks
Asst. Prof. Bowling Industry Management
Vincennes University

Mr. Sparks, thank you for your reply, as always I am in agreement, with most of it. It just erks me that people will make  off the wall comments based on something they have no knowledge about. As far as a PI$$ING CONTEST, all I did was ask a few questions of you, gave you my take on the report, also my impressions, and my observations based on facts, as I know them. I also asked you to review these things, and get a second opinion, on some of my observations. 

Now I am not a College Professor, and by the way IMO, teaching is the most worthwhile profession I can think of. but I believe what we were having was a discussion. Sorry if your saw it some other way, oh, by the way, I work with polymers every day, I worked on a project for a Major Plastics Supplier, who wanted to blend mica flakes into one of their compounds. The hardest thing to overcome was getting an even blend of mica in the finished product. This experience lead to my comments on how the particulate spacing, or the porosity of the ball could be measured on site. In my opinion the ball would have to under go microscopic inspection, as dull does not always denote porosity. There are some shiny balls that have a high COF, and will also absorb their share of oil.

We have a powerful optical comparator in our lab that could measure the size of a particle on the surface of a bowling ball, or the width, and spacing of pores, I could even do a cross section, and tell you how deep a pore is. I don't see USBC checking balls to this degree at a tournament site. Believe me there are ways to make a porous ball shiny, Don McCune, does not hold that patent, MEK, and toluene won't do it, BUT

Again, sorry if you thought I was trying to start a Pi$$ing contest with you, not my intent. Bowling at present, has many problems to solve, it is also in my opinion heading into an uncertain future. The changes in the way the game is played, such as new equipment spec's, and maybe a change in lane oiling spec's, are a good thing. Now if the way bowling will be GOVERNED in the future, can say the same thing. There might be hope.

Have a great day, and maybe you didn't, but I did enjoy the DISCUSSION.