Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball

Posted by: BowlerBill

Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/13/18 11:50 PM

So, my brother gave me an original Virtual Gravity ball. He had the ball drilled for a sport shot league he was in when he bought it.

The pin is down and to the right of the finger holes and it has a balance hole in it.

I didn't use this ball until recently. I found it allows me to play farther left on any lane condition, it gets through the midlanes and makes a big flip and hits the pins really hard.

Nothing I have comes close to what this ball does. I want to duplicate the ball reaction but without the balance hole. (I'm planning ahead to when I can't use it any longer)

I have a new 900 global truth tour sitting in my garage. I asked my ball driller if that ball could be drilled to match the Virtual gravity. He said it couldn't be done.

Can I find a ball to match these characteristics?
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/14/18 06:52 AM

Just plug the balance hole and keep using the Virtual Gravity.

Unless the current balance hole is really large and deep, it's impact on the ball will be minimal.

The balance hole was drilled to offset side weight, top weight, or both. Plugging it will simply give back a little of both.

Unless the hole is drilled deep into the core, you won't notice much difference. Depending on your speed, maybe a little more length.

85% or more of a ball's reaction comes from it's surface. 15% or less comes from the core.

Your 900 Global has a stronger surface and a higher RG. It's also a symmetric ball whereas the Virtual gravity is an asymmetric ball with a lower RG. That's why your PSO is telling you it can't be done.

If you're bound and determined to replace the Virtual Gravity with a new ball, buy another Virtual Gravity, if you can find one. Or, send 'Storm' an email and ask them what would be the closest match from their more recent models.
Posted by: BowlerBill

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/14/18 07:05 PM

Originally Posted By: 82Boat69
Just plug the balance hole and keep using the Virtual Gravity.

Unless the current balance hole is really large and deep, it's impact on the ball will be minimal.

The balance hole was drilled to offset side weight, top weight, or both. Plugging it will simply give back a little of both.

Unless the hole is drilled deep into the core, you won't notice much difference. Depending on your speed, maybe a little more length.

85% or more of a ball's reaction comes from it's surface. 15% or less comes from the core.

Your 900 Global has a stronger surface and a higher RG. It's also a symmetric ball whereas the Virtual gravity is an asymmetric ball with a lower RG. That's why your PSO is telling you it can't be done.

If you're bound and determined to replace the Virtual Gravity with a new ball, buy another Virtual Gravity, if you can find one. Or, send 'Storm' an email and ask them what would be the closest match from their more recent models.


I have several balls that have balance holes in them and coincidentally several of them have been my favorite balls to use.

Several people told me to simply plug the balls. One ball needs the hole to be legal (as of 5 years ago that is). I'm not sure if the VG needs the balance hole or not. I don't have a scale to check the balance. It seems I'd have to plug it and then have the balance checked.

In the case of this ball, I don't think the ball motion is a result of the surface. It flips way more than anything else I own.

I like your suggestion of contacting storm. I was hoping to use an existing ball to match the reaction but asking a symmetrical ball to act like a asymmetrical ball is probably not a good idea. Thanks for your comments.
Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/15/18 10:10 PM

According to the USBC, a weight hole could be added to offset a one ounce static imbalance. However, drillers found by moving the hole or making it larger, it also change the differential RG, by as much as .021. This fundamentally changed the ball dynamics by adding more hook.

As of Jan1, 2020, the static weight difference allowed will be 3 ounces. And by Aug1, 2020, NO weight holes will be allowed in any ball. By changing the static weight limit and eliminating the weight hole, the USBC says their study shows most balls will reduce the hook for less back end.

so, it seems to me, what you want is a ball with a higher Differential RG then you currently have by .021 to get a similar reaction. But, I believe the limit is .06.

Most agree that a symmetrical ball hooks more then an asymmetrical in covering more boards. The difference is the hook shape, from an arc to a snap. Higher the Differential RG, the more the snap.
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/16/18 12:44 AM

My experience is the same. High RG balls out-hook low RG balls, even if the low-RG ball has a more aggressive surface.

I have a Hy-Road and a Lock both drilled 50 x 5 x 50 and the Hy-Road hooks a lot more.

However, to get a ball to react quicker to friction, the VAL angle needs to be more acute. I wouldn't recommend a ball that flips unless the person throwing it can generate enough speed to keep it under control.
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/16/18 06:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Dennis Michael
As of Jan1, 2020, the static weight difference allowed will be 3 ounces. And by Aug1, 2020, NO weight holes will be allowed in any ball.

I don't know if this was communicated very well, but the USBC changed the timeline back in June. The 3 oz static rule is now effective for any ball without a balance hole, it started the beginning of this month. The Aug 1 2020 deadline for weight holes did not change. Everyone can feel free to drill a new ball up to 3 oz of static.

https://www.bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622331380

Mark
Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/16/18 03:56 PM

Thanks Mark. I got my data from the Technology Study Conclusion, published by bowl.com. Prob was last May.
Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/16/18 03:59 PM

so, who is going to be the first to challenge a no-thumb bowler who has a thumb hole drilled?
Posted by: BOSStull

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/18/18 09:03 AM

I won't be the one challenging anyone with a ball not plugged by August 1, 2020. My stance all balls ought to be grandfathered in. But I will abide by the rules and plug my own bowling balls.
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/18/18 02:25 PM

I won't bother to challenge anyone either, I've got my own bowling to worry about. While I also agree that they could just be grandfathered in, I do think that in this instance it would be tough. If it was about manufacturing such as the oil absorption rule, we should in theory know that all balls manufactured after August 1, 2020 would abide by the rule and ones before would be grandfathered.

Since the weight hole rule is about drilling, it would be harder to grandfather as you would somehow need to prove that the weight hole was drilled before August 1, 2020. With internet buys, people drilling their own stuff or knowing a buddy, and undrilled balls sitting around waiting to be used, a ball bought before the deadline could easily be drilled with a weight hole after the deadline. One could show up with a newly drilled ball bought in 2019 and say "I've always had this ball I bought and drilled with a weight hole, I've just never used it yet" when in reality it was drilled in October of 2020. Now it might not matter that much from the advantage standpoint for any bowler, but it does make the rule, whether you think it is good or not, look ineffective if the date of drilling cannot be proven. I figure the USBC feels it is easier for people to police unused holes (and we've already had three people in this post say they won't bother to challenge anyone, me included) than the date of the drilling of a bowling ball.

Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who does not need to plug anything. Your opinion might vary.

Mark
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/18/18 04:58 PM

With everyone trying to gain some advantage, I suspect some will fill balance holes but not completely. Or, with what?
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/18/18 06:29 PM

Originally Posted By: 82Boat69
I suspect some will fill balance holes but not completely. Or, with what?

That's exactly the type of comments from others I saw flying around the internet when the rule was first announced. I'm sure that it will happen. This rule relies too much on bowlers policing other bowlers and honesty/integrity. However, for entertainment value I would love to see someone's questionably filled balance hole break apart and send whatever they tried to use as filler flying all over the place.

Mark
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/18/18 07:45 PM

A person only needs to have a PGA rule book from the 60's to compare with a rule book from 2018 to see how much integrity there is out there when 5 extra dollars are at stake :-)

Bowling is the same. For all the oversight that will get expended by USBC, a simple time-stamp next to an existing balance hole, by a reputable pro shops would have allowed all balls to be grandfathered in for nothing.

Thinking of a bell-curve, those who might be able to take advantage of the new rules are probably all at one end and why spend all the money to cheat when it only costs $10 to comply? LOL!
Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/18/18 09:43 PM

All the balls I own that have a weight hole are in my garage. they were all asymmetrical, which I no longer use. 4 balls in my bag are all symmetrical without a hole.

Was thinking, in league coming up, might want to get the officers on top of the hole issue. And, just leave it up to them. They can watch this year, and enforce next.


Posted by: BOSStull

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/18/18 11:23 PM

I hate to plug balls. I believe it just introduces a weakness in the ball that may lead to cracking due to different materials expanding and contracting. I have 2 Hy-roads and an Intense to plug first. And then there is my Yeah Baby a 14 year old ball with a P2 hole to plug just to comply with the new rules. So lets start adding here. That is 4 balls in my current 16lb arsenal. In my 15lb balls I have 7 balls that I have to plug. That's 12 balls @$10 a ball just to comply. I also have 4 oyher balls that won't need plugged. I just realized I got too many balls. 17


Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/19/18 10:29 AM

haha, I forgot about the 2 balls that sit on rebar in the thumb and are spray painted, gold and bronze. Use as gazing balls in the garden.

One's a hammer, and other is a DV8.
Posted by: BowlerBill

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/24/18 04:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Dennis Michael
According to the USBC, a weight hole could be added to offset a one ounce static imbalance. However, drillers found by moving the hole or making it larger, it also change the differential RG, by as much as .021. This fundamentally changed the ball dynamics by adding more hook.

As of Jan1, 2020, the static weight difference allowed will be 3 ounces. And by Aug1, 2020, NO weight holes will be allowed in any ball. By changing the static weight limit and eliminating the weight hole, the USBC says their study shows most balls will reduce the hook for less back end.

so, it seems to me, what you want is a ball with a higher Differential RG then you currently have by .021 to get a similar reaction. But, I believe the limit is .06.

Most agree that a symmetrical ball hooks more then an asymmetrical in covering more boards. The difference is the hook shape, from an arc to a snap. Higher the Differential RG, the more the snap.


Thanks for the input
Posted by: BowlerBill

Re: Duplicating the reaction of an obsolete ball - 08/24/18 04:23 PM

Originally Posted By: 82Boat69
My experience is the same. High RG balls out-hook low RG balls, even if the low-RG ball has a more aggressive surface.

I have a Hy-Road and a Lock both drilled 50 x 5 x 50 and the Hy-Road hooks a lot more.

However, to get a ball to react quicker to friction, the VAL angle needs to be more acute. I wouldn't recommend a ball that flips unless the person throwing it can generate enough speed to keep it under control.


I'm not a high speed player. The ball reads the lane differently than everything else I own. Since I started using this ball exclusively, I've only had 4 games under 200 and 24 over 200. The ball motion has really helped a lot.