If you subscribe to BTM you've probably read the article about the case study done at Kegel camp this summer determining how patterns transition. For those not familiar, 30+ advanced bowlers were asked to play the lanes on a certain line for a 40ft. sport compliant pattern. Tapes were taken of the oil after 15 min. of practice, and then following each of three games. The main point of the article is that less than 2 units of oil were found beyond the pattern after the set was complete. The author then makes the assertion that the effect of carrydown is virtually null, and that oil depletion is the main cause of loss of reaction through early burn-up.

While this may be true in the case study, it is NOT an accurate reflection of the transition environment seen in most leagues. These were bowlers with very proficient physical skills. On a fresh 40 ft. sport pattern, I would bet that most of the balls being used were dull with alot of surface. That would mean serious Track flare and oil absorption. Again, that's not representative of what you see in most leagues.

While I would agree that loss of back-end from early burnup is more often the cause of reaction loss, to say that carrydown is totally not a factor is a major stretch. Every time there's a bowler on my league pair throwing a plasic ball, house ball, or even a pancake block reactive, the transition is completely different and there's no doubt in my mind that it is because oil is pushing beyond the end of the pattern.

Anybody else have a take on this?

I have looked down the lane and seen oil tracks extending quite a few feet past the 40 foot mark. But, as a ratio of the total amount of units on the whole lane, it may only be a couple of units tracked down. And that is understandable. I never use the units laid on the left side, so this oil is unused, but still in their comparison.

The problem I see is crossing the oil tracks on your way to the pocket. It's a grab, slide dilemma. Like driving over railroad tracks.

Chubbs the BTM article didn't look at plastic balls, or house patterns with a river of oil in the middle of the lane. Sport patterns breakdown quicker in the head area and the ball loses reaction and you see people move back to the outside, but on a sport pattern, there is oil to the outside, on a house pattern there usually isn't any oil to the outside. I think this adds to the way people get mistaken opinions about carry down.

I took the kids down the lanes last week to look at the oil pattern after the youth league, and you could see where the plastic balls came off the oil as there were long stripes past the end of the pattern and the reactive balls left a dashed line of oil after the end of the pattern. How much that effects ball reaction, I can't say, but it's there. If there is 8 times the oil in the middle as on a sport pattern, then there is probably 8 times the carrydown on the back end on a house pattern.

...and you shouldn't buy it. Carrydown is real and, as Jim said, mainly affects non-sport patterns because of sheer volume. I could create (and have created) a pattern that has little to no carrydown, but it would (and was) be more apt to burnout. Most people struggle with burnout, so the house goes the other direction and puts out too much oil.

Another thing to consider is not only the volume of oil, but the type and brand. I've known of some Kegel products (Defense comes to mind) that actually seem to get grabby as the night goes on. Also, there were a couple of AMF oils that were seemingly tacky.

But, yeah, carrydown is real. If you can, take a saunter down the guttercap or beside the first or last lanes one night after league and see the backends for yourself. You'd see what Jim mentioned - oil trails off the pattern.

I'd have to agree with you Chubbs, this isn't really an accurate study that is unless this is the control group.

I can see both points of this because of two different experiences I've had. The first is that on the end lanes at my one house you can walk the length of the lane and actually see the carrydown so it is there. The second, is that it might not be a factor because I threw my Black Widow Solid last night, all night and I pretty much moved a half a board left the whole night.

To refute that, first that isn't usually the case. I tend to move more. Second, I think my house is putting down more volumes of oil now. It just seems like more oil is coming back on the balls and I really haven't changed my lines that much. Lastly, my league last night, very rarely lets anyone bowl on the lanes before league after the oil goes down to give us a fresher condition.

Regardless, carrydown does exist, and I've run into it on both house shots and in sport shot leagues and tourneys. And moreso on a sports shot or in a tourney than anywhere else.

Precisely what I'm getting at, Coach. It seemed to me that the author wants the reader to believe that carrydown is a complete myth. I may not have happened in the study, but that is not indicative of typical leagues and conditions.

Well, the author needs to...um what's it called? Learn how to write. Because carrydown is real and we've all had to deal with it at one time or another. Centers don't strip the backends (I believe that's the correct phrase for cleaning the backends of lanes) for no reason. And if carrydown is a myth then why make Particle coverstocks. Isn't one of their primary functions to add traction in the presence of carrydown?

For being so non-existant, it seems that the different facets the Bowling Industry have gone to great lengths to help bowlers overcome the "folk tale" known as carrydown.

Demo,

While I see your point and agree with you, I would not use the existence of products designed to help deal with carrydown as evidence that it exists. Bowling companies are in business to make money, and if bowlers *think* carrydown is an issue, they will happily sell them a ball that is supposed to help them overcome it. And it will work, because the placebo effect is so darned powerful.

I don't think that's the case here, but the presence of particle coverstocks in the market is certainly not evidence one way or the other.

The only time carry down effects me is when I throw something with a fairly weak cover. If I throw something medium or stronger, I can almost always get more back end reaction by moving in, meaning that it wasn't finishing because of mid lane burnout.

I read the article and I look at it two ways to understanding. One, I understand the graph with the 3d display and two.. this was tested on a sport shot condition which I think was a Junior Gold pattern or something.

I have never experienced this condition or so on but there is one thing that I have learned and I don't think this was pointed out in the article.

Every center's back-end will react different ways and two what kind of hardness of the lanes will dictate the reaction of the balls and the movement on the oil.

Today balls do absorb oil but they do move the oil further down aka carrydown but they are burned away by the current coverstock.

In my opinion, I feel that today balls do dry up your line quicker but the carrydown issue is not as noticeable or will dictate how the lanes will react because you are not the only one bowling. Also, I believe there are other elements involved to from ball cleaners, polish products, coverstock materials and yes, rubbing alcohol/windex/actone which are creating friction in the midlane.

The key in bowling has always been about adjustment. This is just a theory opinion but I think we should all take it as a note or argument or just discard what we believe is true or not.