Can a ball be under the legal size?
- Thread starter Andrew S.
- Start date
I beleive the requirements are as such....
Max Size = 8.595" dia.
Min Size = 8.500" dia.
Scientists did some testing many years ago with the size of balls (remember it being in an old Bowlers Journal). They found that as the ball got smaller, when it hit the pocket, it contacted the 3 pin lower (for a righty of course) which sent it higher into the 6 pin, which in turn kept the 6 lower into the 10 pin, and created a "slightly" better percentage of carrying. Load of horses**t if you ask me... what do scientists know?
Max Size = 8.595" dia.
Min Size = 8.500" dia.
Scientists did some testing many years ago with the size of balls (remember it being in an old Bowlers Journal). They found that as the ball got smaller, when it hit the pocket, it contacted the 3 pin lower (for a righty of course) which sent it higher into the 6 pin, which in turn kept the 6 lower into the 10 pin, and created a "slightly" better percentage of carrying. Load of horses**t if you ask me... what do scientists know?
RobbieB
Rodentus scientificus
Andrew,
What you were told is wrong. There is no minimum legal size for a bowling ball where the bowler has reduced the size himself. From the TBA rule book, Chapter 6:
"The new ball will not have a circumference of more than 27.002" or be less than 26.704" "
Size restrictions are manufactured limits only. Resurface back to the size of a tennis ball if you want - just don't expect it to get up the lifts.
There is also no rule regarding roundness of a ball, unless it has been added in the past year.
What you were told is wrong. There is no minimum legal size for a bowling ball where the bowler has reduced the size himself. From the TBA rule book, Chapter 6:
"The new ball will not have a circumference of more than 27.002" or be less than 26.704" "
Size restrictions are manufactured limits only. Resurface back to the size of a tennis ball if you want - just don't expect it to get up the lifts.
There is also no rule regarding roundness of a ball, unless it has been added in the past year.
RobbieB
Rodentus scientificus
Some interesting followups;
TBA rules don't require a serial number, as far as I can see. However, WTBA rules do have a size limit and require that a serial no be marked on the ball for identification purposes - this may be engraved or re-engraved by the bowler. Since we bowl under TBA rules not WTBA (AFAIK), no problem.
I also ran across this little gem in the ball specs:
WTBA Bowling ball specifications, rule 5.2 "Materials":
"The ball shall be constructed of solid materials (ie no liquids)..."
Resin balls are deliberately manufactured with a LIQUID additive in the coverstock.
Thus they are patently in breach of this rule. The additive remains a
liquid, trapped within the pores of the coverstock; a leading ball
company states that the cause of ball death is migration of this liquid.
The people that do the ball testing and sanctioning are not chemists, and one would not normally think to ask if the coverstock is manufactured with a liquid additive. Resin balls don't APPEAR to contain liquid in the coverstock - but they do.
And are thus illegal as per spec - no resin ball should ever have been approved by ABC in the first place.
Interesting?
TBA rules don't require a serial number, as far as I can see. However, WTBA rules do have a size limit and require that a serial no be marked on the ball for identification purposes - this may be engraved or re-engraved by the bowler. Since we bowl under TBA rules not WTBA (AFAIK), no problem.
I also ran across this little gem in the ball specs:
WTBA Bowling ball specifications, rule 5.2 "Materials":
"The ball shall be constructed of solid materials (ie no liquids)..."
Resin balls are deliberately manufactured with a LIQUID additive in the coverstock.
Thus they are patently in breach of this rule. The additive remains a
liquid, trapped within the pores of the coverstock; a leading ball
company states that the cause of ball death is migration of this liquid.
The people that do the ball testing and sanctioning are not chemists, and one would not normally think to ask if the coverstock is manufactured with a liquid additive. Resin balls don't APPEAR to contain liquid in the coverstock - but they do.
And are thus illegal as per spec - no resin ball should ever have been approved by ABC in the first place.
Interesting?
Liquid Additive, WTBA versus TBA rules
The "additive" is a plasticizer and is bound in the urethane resin from which all reactive and proactive balls are made. It only becomes a liquid again when it bleeds out of the ball. So it would not make them all illegal, just designed to fail (die/reduce in performance)after 50 to 100 games. Di-octyl phthalate or DOP is one of the plasticizers of this type. Before anyone starts contradicting me about reactives etc being urethane, they are made of urethane, or polyurethane to be more exact. The Bowlers terminology has been made simpler by referring to non reactives as "Urethane". Reactives and Proactives are close relatives to non reactive balls, one of the major differences being the traction they get on the lane surface when they heat up in the back end of the lane where hopefully there is no oil. Reactives and Proactives soften at a low temperature and can then grab the lane. A non-reactive ball would do the same but at a much higher temperature.
Theoretically, if you chill your most reactive ball and crank the shot real hard, it won't turn at all cos it can't heat up enough to grab the ball. This is of no practical use but shows the mechanism involved in making reactives hook. Please don't do this, if you get the ball too cold it'll crack and fall to pieces.
There is a guy in the States selling a treatment for bowling balls that holds the oil out of the ball and keeps the plasticizer within. (Doc's Black Magic from memory) Seems to reduce the hook rating by 10% or so, but the ball stays active at that hook rating for many hundreds of games, instead of dying. I haven't tried it but comments on the Ball reviews forum (before Scott Scriver sold the site) seemed to be positive.
On rules, TBA is about to align their rules with WTBA, so if there is a minimum size in the WTBA it will apply here for 2004.
Sumo,
Japanese Scientist/Bowler/Wrestler
The "additive" is a plasticizer and is bound in the urethane resin from which all reactive and proactive balls are made. It only becomes a liquid again when it bleeds out of the ball. So it would not make them all illegal, just designed to fail (die/reduce in performance)after 50 to 100 games. Di-octyl phthalate or DOP is one of the plasticizers of this type. Before anyone starts contradicting me about reactives etc being urethane, they are made of urethane, or polyurethane to be more exact. The Bowlers terminology has been made simpler by referring to non reactives as "Urethane". Reactives and Proactives are close relatives to non reactive balls, one of the major differences being the traction they get on the lane surface when they heat up in the back end of the lane where hopefully there is no oil. Reactives and Proactives soften at a low temperature and can then grab the lane. A non-reactive ball would do the same but at a much higher temperature.
Theoretically, if you chill your most reactive ball and crank the shot real hard, it won't turn at all cos it can't heat up enough to grab the ball. This is of no practical use but shows the mechanism involved in making reactives hook. Please don't do this, if you get the ball too cold it'll crack and fall to pieces.
There is a guy in the States selling a treatment for bowling balls that holds the oil out of the ball and keeps the plasticizer within. (Doc's Black Magic from memory) Seems to reduce the hook rating by 10% or so, but the ball stays active at that hook rating for many hundreds of games, instead of dying. I haven't tried it but comments on the Ball reviews forum (before Scott Scriver sold the site) seemed to be positive.
On rules, TBA is about to align their rules with WTBA, so if there is a minimum size in the WTBA it will apply here for 2004.
Sumo,
Japanese Scientist/Bowler/Wrestler
RobbieB
Rodentus scientificus
Sumo,
If what was bleeding out was phthalate plasticiser, there would be no problem. However, phthalates are added at low concentration to improve the performance of the plastic. The resin that bleeds out is not added for this purpose, and can be up to 20% of the coverstock mass. It is not phthalates that bleed out - the compound is a branched aliphatic diester (according to GCMS).
Check out this Columbia patent :
United States Patent 4,253,665 Miller, Jr. , et al. March 3, 1981
It clearly sets out that the aim is to achieve a liquid component within the coverstock of the ball which seeps out onto the surface. This is exactly what resin balls are designed to do. The plasticiser - additive would be a better description - is 'bound' in the coverstock the same way that water is bound in a sponge.
The rules state no liquids. The ball companies are deliberately violating this rule, in my opinion, and neither the ABC or WTBA have the balls or the knowledge to do anything about it.
If what was bleeding out was phthalate plasticiser, there would be no problem. However, phthalates are added at low concentration to improve the performance of the plastic. The resin that bleeds out is not added for this purpose, and can be up to 20% of the coverstock mass. It is not phthalates that bleed out - the compound is a branched aliphatic diester (according to GCMS).
Check out this Columbia patent :
United States Patent 4,253,665 Miller, Jr. , et al. March 3, 1981
It clearly sets out that the aim is to achieve a liquid component within the coverstock of the ball which seeps out onto the surface. This is exactly what resin balls are designed to do. The plasticiser - additive would be a better description - is 'bound' in the coverstock the same way that water is bound in a sponge.
The rules state no liquids. The ball companies are deliberately violating this rule, in my opinion, and neither the ABC or WTBA have the balls or the knowledge to do anything about it.
Bleeding Balls
Sounds painful.
Robbie, you may well be right about the additive bleeding from the balls, but without analysis, who could tell? As for the patent, if it was still in use 20 years later it would be a surprise. Urethane technology has come a long way in that time.
Another consequence of the TBA aligning its rules with the WTBA is in drilling layouts for No Thumb bowlers. No longer will the balls be weighed the same way or have the same top weight allowance. Also it won't be a matter of covering the unused thumb hole with the hand. It will count as a balance hole and if there is also a sideweight balance hole the ball will be illegal. Same with extra, but unused finger holes, these are illegal if there is also a balance hole.
Sumo
Sounds painful.
Robbie, you may well be right about the additive bleeding from the balls, but without analysis, who could tell? As for the patent, if it was still in use 20 years later it would be a surprise. Urethane technology has come a long way in that time.
Another consequence of the TBA aligning its rules with the WTBA is in drilling layouts for No Thumb bowlers. No longer will the balls be weighed the same way or have the same top weight allowance. Also it won't be a matter of covering the unused thumb hole with the hand. It will count as a balance hole and if there is also a sideweight balance hole the ball will be illegal. Same with extra, but unused finger holes, these are illegal if there is also a balance hole.
Sumo
RobbieB
Rodentus scientificus
I _have_ analysed the stuff, a couple of years ago when i was doing polymer initiator research at Griffith Uni. Put a sample obtained from an SD73 through a GCMS. The details are on this site somewhere. The exudate was not lane oil (also run as a reference) and not a phthalate. The database matched it to an aliphatic diester - one of the classes of compounds mentioned in the patent. Also the patent was pre-urethane - my guess is that the technology was not successful with polyester coverstocks. It is also possible that the excalibur was released AFTER the patent expired.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe its a duck?
I can email you the patent as a txt file if you wish, it's interesting reading for a chemist if nothing else.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe its a duck?
I can email you the patent as a txt file if you wish, it's interesting reading for a chemist if nothing else.
Brenton_Davy
900Global bowler
Robbie,
The patent you refer to, I believe may have been used in teh Columbia Yellow Dot "Bleeder", which was far and away the performance ball of its day. I recall, the darker and the more it bled, the better
The patent you refer to, I believe may have been used in teh Columbia Yellow Dot "Bleeder", which was far and away the performance ball of its day. I recall, the darker and the more it bled, the better
RobbieB
Rodentus scientificus
The yellow dot was before then - 1977? I think what may have happened is with the success of the bleeders, which was a bit of a fluke, that Columbia then worked out the liquid resin thing (hence the patent). YD's were brittle, though - esp. the bleeders. Then urethane came along, and a new performance level was attained with the balls anyway. Then some bright spark realised that the tougher urethane could handle the bleeder 'effect', and along came resin. All conjecture, of course - but the first resin balls do coincide roughly with the patent running out.
Brenton_Davy
900Global bowler
Robbie, You are right that the Yellow Dots were circa 1977 approx. However, in my recollection, the true "bleeders" were introduced late in the product run of the Yellow Dot. The True bleeder didnt look as pearlised as the earlier ones and were a darker colour as opposed to the originals.
Mind you I am relying on recollection here and I might be mistaken.
Mind you I am relying on recollection here and I might be mistaken.
wchester
Bowling Tragic
Let me clear up the confusion concerning the date of the first batch of bleeders.
It was the 5N series. Manufactured in January of 1975
The best of the serial numbers were 5N, 5P and 5R
The next bleeders were made in 1979..Good but not quite the same as the 1975 models.
While I was on tour that year, I had the opportunity of touring the Columbia 300 plant and was allowed to hand-pick as many balls as I wanted at a price of $17.00 apiece.
Still couldn't help me in the Firestone Tournament of Champions as I finished 48th out of 52.
It was the 5N series. Manufactured in January of 1975
The best of the serial numbers were 5N, 5P and 5R
The next bleeders were made in 1979..Good but not quite the same as the 1975 models.
While I was on tour that year, I had the opportunity of touring the Columbia 300 plant and was allowed to hand-pick as many balls as I wanted at a price of $17.00 apiece.
Still couldn't help me in the Firestone Tournament of Champions as I finished 48th out of 52.
Brenton_Davy
900Global bowler
Thank you for that clarification Wayne
