@@LukeRosdahl The one that im still struggling with is the pin buffer. I fully understand the pin to PAP and the PSA to PAP relating to the core, but i am having a hard time visualizing the pin buffer.
@@McCollum2009 Have you watched the Storm pin buffer layout system videos? Pin buffer changes where the finger holes drill the weight out from the core, and more weight drilled out of the side will lower the rg and raise the differential, and more weight drilled out of the top will raise the rg and lower the differential.
Awesome video!!! I Love this $/-/!T ! I’m gonna watch this like 15 more times tonight. Reading it was good but the audio with the visuals in the background makes it memorable. Thanks
Definitely make sure to go watch the videos I have linked below then, Alex does so much better of a job with the visuals and explanations. Yeah it's technical and thick, but now that you have the idea, would be the perfect segway into Alex's videos
Imagine that the ball is SPINNING COUNTERCLOCKWISE on the PIN axis (precession) while it is rolling down the lane. The PAP does not migrate; the surface of the ball does. You can visualize this as the PAP being the stylus, the RG plane it is sitting on as the groove on a record, and the ball as the turntable. The PAP (stylus) will stay on this RG plane (groove) until the ball hits the pins. When the ball is drilled, the mass of the internal weightblock is shifted away from the holes, and the shape of the RG plane on which the PAP is located will be reshaped in the zone between the holes and the PIN. But since the spherical external shape of the ball remains unaltered, the reshaped RG Plane will create a "shortcut" between two points on that plane, and the surface will pass through the PAP more rapidly in this zone, resulting in faster conversion of spin (tilt and rotation) to roll. Layout controls where this conversion occurs, and how fast. Holes drilled near the PIN (pin down) will slow down the conversion by increasing the RG of the PIN, making it more resistant to precession with less track flare, but more importantly, a smoother and more symmetrical track flare profile, with correspondingly smoother transition to roll.
I know this is an older video that I'm commenting on, but I think this may be an important topic to discuss what I am about to highlight....I think you mentioned very briefly in either this or a different video I was recently watching. I wondered if you can explain in more detail the concept behind what you call surface stacking, the fact that we may have a sanded lower grit underneath a higher polish . This concept seemed to indicate not using the Polish systems in order, 1K than 2K then 3K etc, but rather having a sanded ball and say 1k grit and then jumping straight to a 4k or 5k polish so to speak. Am I understanding this correctly? If this is functional it seems to me this would help the ball get through the heads fairly clean but not have dramatic back-end reactions because of the actual Grit surface. Would you elaborate on this concept in a video perhaps? There is literally no information out there that I can find so maybe useful.
Yeah you have it right. There are some videos out there on the topic, but it's difficult to execute and show on video. Most companies used to have a "1500 grit polish" surface finish, and that was basically 500-1000-polish. The idea is exactly like you said, it sort of balances the reaction somewhat. The shine helps get the ball down the lane, but a stronger "undergrit" does provide some extra traction and stability vs hitting every grit on the way up and ending up with a super smooth surface. This would definitely be a great video to make though, I'll put it on the list!
They're the exact same system. Use whatever makes sense to you. Drilling angle determines length, Pin to Pap determines flare, VAL angle determines responsiveness to friction. Drilling angle controls PAP to MB distance. VAL angle controls PAP to Pin distance. If you want a visual, hold your hand in front of you and make an L shape with your thumb and index finger. The tip of your thumb is your pap. The tip of your index is the MB. The hinge of your thumb is the PIN. (Lay your hand on your bowling ball if you need more visualization, and do the following) Spread your fingers as far as you can, and you'll get roughly a 90 degree angle. This would be an actual "L" which is separating your thumb and index finger as far apart as possible AKA a long PAP to MB distance. Now slowly close your thumb towards your index. As the angle between your thumb/finger shrinks, the PAP and MB get closer and closer. 45 degrees makes a "V" shape. That's half way between 90/"L" and 'touching' or 0. Then touch your thumb and finger together, and that's a 0 degree drill angle. Good Luck!
Kind of . . but Dual Angle is just learn the numbers and follow the instructions and this is supposed to happen, but there's no why behind the numbers, VLS explains why so you're not just learning numbers. Once you understand everything, you don't really need the numbers, they just ensure more accuracy if you're trying to be super specific. Also, I don't know if you misspoke/typed, but VAL angle controls pin to vertical axis line measurement, not pin to pap, and VAL angle also affects flare because of hole placement and how it alters the core. The visual is also just a visual on angles . . which I don't find to be particularly helpful. All I know is that I understand layouts MUCH better now that I learned VLS instead of just knowing the "these numbers mean this, trust me" of Dual Angle.
@@LukeRosdahl I agree, but again, the point is both systems are doing the exact same thing and saying 'trust me'. Whether that's 4x4x2 or 40x4x35. (These are the exact same layout) The only difference is whether you use inches or degrees to position the MB and Pin in relation to your PAP. Understanding both systems, allows me to tell you that a 4x4 is a 40 degree drill angle, every time, no matter the bowler. The 3rd number in the Vector System is VAL Angle. 1" Buffer is roughly 18 degree VAL angle. 2" is roughly 36 degrees, and 3" is roughly 54 degrees. (Note: VAL Angles are consistent for all bowlers, but will vary based on other numbers. So all 4x4x? will be consistent, but a 5x3x? won't be the same as 4x4x? but will be the same as all 5x3x? alternatives) The only quantifiable benefit of Dual Angle, in my opinion, is that the average consumer can more easily track and adjust their own layouts IF they want to. It's easier for me to know that when I want to have a skid flip reaction I go 70x4x20. If I want benchmark, 55x4x30. That's far easier than trying to track the fractions of an inch I adjust the Vector system for altering shapes. Keeping track of every 1/8th inch for 2 measurements (Pin and MB) for 2-4 different layouts, across 10+ balls can be overwhelming for even mathematicians. Additionally, swinging Arcs is more tedious than just straight lines from existing ball markings and measuring the angles they create. The foundation of my debate would be this though: I'm willing to bet that without looking at the Storm Website or Vector Layout Chart, 90% of bowlers couldn't confidently tell you, if they wanted to increase length, which number to change, OR which direction to change it. So, for example, if I have a 4x4x2 and I want to drill another of the same ball, and I want more length, how do I adjust these numbers and how far do I adjust them to get more length? 4x5x2? 5x4x2? 4x4x3? A Full inch? A half? An 1/8th? HOWEVER, if you ask the same question to people who use Dual Angle, with a 40x4x35 layout, and asked what number to change and how much to add length, that at least 60% would know which number to change AND which direction to go. Granted, few would know how much to adjust the number by, but the theory still holds true. A significant amount of bowlers would know to increase the drill angle to a higher number, and they would know the drill angle is the first number. *** I repeat *** Use whatever system makes sense for you. They are both accomplishing the same thing, they just measuring them differently. Neither side can discredit the other, because they are both designed to do the exact same thing. *You are correct, I did misspeak above, I apologize. Big fan, keep up the good work. Wasn't my intent to start a debate or argument with you, was just trying to offer readers an alternate perspective or visual.
Oh it’s all good, I guess I just see it different. With VLS I don’t need to trust it because the numbers tell me exactly where the core is and what it’s doing, Dual Angle seems less accurate now or more dependent on the numbers rather than the concept of what the core is doing. VLS numbers give me an instant visual of what the core is doing. You sound like someone who thinks in Dual Angle, and if that’s what makes sense, that’s all that matters. With dual angle, it starts and stops at “these numbers do this,” with no real explanation why, and with VLS explaining the why, I don’t really need the numbers to get what I want, with dual angle I’m completely dependent on them
@@LukeRosdahl In what way exactly does dual angles "seem less accurate now"?? And what do you mean "more dependent on the numbers"? Both systems depend only on numbers....They both give the visual of the core. It only depends on which one you have familiarized yourself with. The explanation of why each number does this or that, is lacking in both systems, and is offered by additional explanation by those who teach it. Like you did here. Or like Storm does in their website. It's not like VLS is self explanatory in any way , more than Dual Angles. In fact to me, it seems to need more explaining. In any case, once you visualize where the core is with either way, both methods can be of value.
@@exesemas You're right, it depends on how it's explained, but Dual Angle explanations begin and end with numbers. It tells you these numbers do this, and that's that. I think it's so much easier to conceptualize actual layout dynamics by learning VLS. I think a majority of Dual Angle users know what numbers do what, but they don't understand why the numbers result in the reaction they do. I also think VLS can seem harder to understand because most people are coming from an understanding of Dual Angle and are just trying to correlate numbers instead of just understanding how layouts actually work. Have you seen Alex's videos? They go super in depth explaining core dynamics first and achieving them by using certain layout numbers second.
Excellent video as always, when laying out a symmetric ball do you measure from CG to PAP to create your PAP intersection? Or just skip that mark entirely? Thanks!
Wha? I’ve never heard of a pap intersection lol. CG literally means nothing on a symmetric ball, especially since they changed the rules, but it’s easiest to still use all angles in the dual angle system or all measurements in the pin buffer/VLS system just to get numbers on the ball.
@@LukeRosdahl Sorry I didn't really explain that very well, what I mean is on an asym if you wanted a 5x4x2 layout you would draw an arc 5 inches from the pin then 4 inches from the PSA. Where those two lines intersected is going to be what you want the PAP to be. Since there is no PSA do you just not draw the second line?
Ohhhh lol ok yeah, most people just make up a second number so it's easier to get the lines on the ball with either layout system. What we do is make a "fake" psa location, or just draw a line from the pin through the CG to where the PSA would be if it was there, and base the psa to pap number on that. Plus it's easier to just give the whole layout to someone later rather than try to explain why you're only giving them 2 numbers instead of 3 . . it's just an ease of execution thing.
@@LukeRosdahl Yeah, with dual angle you would just draw your base line from the Pin through the CG, I wasn't sure if that same logic also would apply to the VLS layout. Thanks for the quick responses!
Hey Luke, is there a way to find the VLS layout on an already drilled ball? I am in the process of switching my layout system from duel angle to VLS, but I am not sure what my current layouts would translate to in the VLS system. I can easily find the duel angle layout, but don't know if or how to find the VLS equivalent. Thanks
Yeah, it's actually quite a bit easier than finding the dual angle layout. Once you have your pap and dual angle lines on the ball, simply measure from your pap to the pin, that's measurement 1, then measure from your pap to the psa/mass bias, that's measurement 2, then measure from the pin to the closest point on the VAL, and that's measurement 3.
@@LukeRosdahl thanks Luke! That helps me a ton!!! I appreciate your mind for the game and equipment. As well as your way to be both thorough and yet still explain in a way that is easily understood. Keep up the great work!
@@LukeRosdahl thanks guy! I bowled until 2012. Started in the late 80s. When I stopped the side weight was still 1oz. So when did they change the rule? The way the balls hook today is amazing! Mahalo & aloha
They changed the rule a few years ago when they banned weight holes. 2 handers were using the weight holes to significantly increase the strength of the ball, so they banned weight holes, which naturally meant they had to relax the static weight limits too.
@@LukeRosdahl you the man! They banned weight holes, so no axis drilling like before? Axis drilling was good on dry lanes, hook was gradual not big snap in the back end. Aloha guy! Mahalo
Yeah, technically you can do it, but it's so much easier to just dump Dual Angle and use this method to understand WHY you're trying to get to certain numbers or WHY you're going pin up vs pin down
How do these concepts apply to the no thumb crowd? If you are not drilling a thumb hole does the pin buffer even matter? As long as the finger holes are drilled within a few inches of the pin the differential will be same regardless of it being a pin up or pin down layout. Is there anything else important to consider that is different for no thumb layouts?
Actually yes, it's different for two handers/no thumbers because their center of grip is actually between the fingers, and it's different on asyms vs syms. On an asym, you're still turning the core with different pin buffer measurements, so it matters more than it does on a sym, BUT because their center of grip is between the fingers, a traditional pin up finger placement for one handers is more like a pin down layout for them because all the mass coming out of the core is from the same zone. If you put the fingers like a half inch below the pin for a two hander/no thumber, you're taking the mass out of the same zone effectively that a one hander would be taking it out of on a pin down layout because the center of grip is in the same place, about a half inch to an inch BELOW the pin. If you've seen higher pin layouts for two handers on tour, or where the pin is like 3 or 4 inches above their fingers, that's in effect a pin up layout for them. If the fingers go above the pin for two handers, the ball can do some really wonky things, that'd almost be like a one hander drilling a ball with the pin in their thumb.
I'm still not really getting the big difference in reaction between a short pin and long pin layout. In the Storm videos, they say that both pin positions are relatively stable upon release, and the pap doesn't migrate much on either. So, why is the short pin supposedly smoother, and the long pin supposedly longer and straighter?
Lucas It’s the way the core is tumbling, and I’m pretty sure they explain it in the videos somewhere actually. The short pin basically puts the core on its side, so it’s really even, early, and smooth, while the long pin stands the core straight up and down. The short pin never loses axis rotation so it wants to be continuous, while the longer pin lopes and never really wants to get into a roll. There’s not much imbalance in either layout so that’s why they don’t flare much, but the difference in how the core is rolling is what makes them do what they do
There is a math equation to convert but it is a pain to use. (i had to for a friend). To me, who didn't know either system, Dual Angles seems easier/more practical. But it also depends on each person separately. If any of the systems is explained in a good way, they are both ok.
There's a spreadsheet that converts back and forth between VLS and Dual Angle layouts; I can't recall if I got it from the Storm site, but it's useful. You have to make sure, when you convert from VLS to Dual Angle, that you don't end up with a PSA to PAP distance of > 6.75." The converter will convert a 6.75" PSA to PAP into drilling angle = 90, which may not actually give you a PSA to PAP of 6.75, depending on your PAP location. I have to use drilling angle = 85 to get 6.75" PSA to PAP for my PAP, which is 5.5" over by 11/16" down (no-thumb). If I use a drilling angle of 90, I end up with a PSA to PAP of just over 7." I agree that it's easier to lay out a ball using the Dual Angle method, because it's just not easy to swing nice, clean accurate arcs for VLS, so I just take the extra step of measuring my PSA to PAP distances with my Pro Sect on my Dual Angle layouts after I've drawn my lines to make sure they're within tolerances.
If there were an easy way to swing really nice, clean, continuous arcs (remember those compasses from Trig class? Imagine something like that which could be anchored to the pin - that'd be great!), I'd use VLS simply because I'd be sure of avoiding overly large PSA to Pin distances.
Max LP80 Full rollers are a different story, you’d still want to stick with the full roller layouts because what they do is make the ball flare backwards so that the tracks don’t roll over your fingerholes
No. Dual Angle deals with strictly numbers, they're looking for specific core numbers after drilling. VLS describes the core position as it's rolling in addition to core numbers for the pin buffer measurement. It's all meant to get you to the same place, but they're based on two different ideas. The VLS is easier to understand, conceptualize, and ultimately comprehend. But there IS a correlation, 5 x 5 x 3 VLS will correspond to certain Dual Angle numbers because they aren't different ways to layout a ball, they're different ways of going about it. I've used Dual Angle for years, and converted to VLS because instead of thinking in numbers, I'm now able to visualize what the core is doing and truly understand layouts instead of just trying to arrive at some certain numbers because they're supposed to do this or that.
@@stormb28 Yup, and that's perfectly fine. It's quite a bit easier that way sometimes too instead of having extra nonsense going on inside your head when you're just trying to throw a ball and knock down pins.
Luke Rosdahl for sure, being analytical, it can be paralysis by analysis. I don’t ever want to be the guy that says “if only I had my 5x4x3.5 ball I would’ve done better”. Most bowlers who are adept at understanding drilling are like that in my experience.
@@stormb28 Yeah, too much activity upstairs is definitely harmful. That's why I PREFER VLS because it's about ball roll and core position rather than pure numbers like Dual Angle. You can imagine how the core is rotating and understand what that's doing for your ball roll, BUT yeah, sometimes it's just better to keep it simple.
![[Part 1] ทารกน้อยถูกทิ้ง👶 หญิงชราเก็บขวดขายเลี้ยงดูเขาจนโต #โลกการละคร](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nPTDvFCExks/mqdefault.jpg)
Probably your best vlog. Just my opinion. Thanks for the vlogs...
Okay everyone, there's a chalkboard in the hallway. Draw all the irreducible vector layouts where n=3. Get to it before Matt Damon does!
i like the way you explain this. i have been searching for an explanation that i understand for a few days now.
It still takes a while to wrap your head around the concept, but when you get it, it makes a ton of sense.
@@LukeRosdahl The one that im still struggling with is the pin buffer. I fully understand the pin to PAP and the PSA to PAP relating to the core, but i am having a hard time visualizing the pin buffer.
@@McCollum2009 Have you watched the Storm pin buffer layout system videos? Pin buffer changes where the finger holes drill the weight out from the core, and more weight drilled out of the side will lower the rg and raise the differential, and more weight drilled out of the top will raise the rg and lower the differential.
Awesome video!!! I Love this $/-/!T ! I’m gonna watch this like 15 more times tonight. Reading it was good but the audio with the visuals in the background makes it memorable. Thanks
Definitely make sure to go watch the videos I have linked below then, Alex does so much better of a job with the visuals and explanations. Yeah it's technical and thick, but now that you have the idea, would be the perfect segway into Alex's videos
Imagine that the ball is SPINNING COUNTERCLOCKWISE on the PIN axis (precession) while it is rolling down the lane.
The PAP does not migrate; the surface of the ball does. You can visualize this as the PAP being the stylus, the RG plane it is sitting on as the groove on a record, and the ball as the turntable. The PAP (stylus) will stay on this RG plane (groove) until the ball hits the pins.
When the ball is drilled, the mass of the internal weightblock is shifted away from the holes, and the shape of the RG plane on which the PAP is located will be reshaped in the zone between the holes and the PIN. But since the spherical external shape of the ball remains unaltered, the reshaped RG Plane will create a "shortcut" between two points on that plane, and the surface will pass through the PAP more rapidly in this zone, resulting in faster conversion of spin (tilt and rotation) to roll. Layout controls where this conversion occurs, and how fast. Holes drilled near the PIN (pin down) will slow down the conversion by increasing the RG of the PIN, making it more resistant to precession with less track flare, but more importantly, a smoother and more symmetrical track flare profile, with correspondingly smoother transition to roll.
I know this is an older video that I'm commenting on, but I think this may be an important topic to discuss what I am about to highlight....I think you mentioned very briefly in either this or a different video I was recently watching. I wondered if you can explain in more detail the concept behind what you call surface stacking, the fact that we may have a sanded lower grit underneath a higher polish . This concept seemed to indicate not using the Polish systems in order, 1K than 2K then 3K etc, but rather having a sanded ball and say 1k grit and then jumping straight to a 4k or 5k polish so to speak. Am I understanding this correctly? If this is functional it seems to me this would help the ball get through the heads fairly clean but not have dramatic back-end reactions because of the actual Grit surface. Would you elaborate on this concept in a video perhaps? There is literally no information out there that I can find so maybe useful.
Yeah you have it right. There are some videos out there on the topic, but it's difficult to execute and show on video. Most companies used to have a "1500 grit polish" surface finish, and that was basically 500-1000-polish. The idea is exactly like you said, it sort of balances the reaction somewhat. The shine helps get the ball down the lane, but a stronger "undergrit" does provide some extra traction and stability vs hitting every grit on the way up and ending up with a super smooth surface.
This would definitely be a great video to make though, I'll put it on the list!
They're the exact same system. Use whatever makes sense to you.
Drilling angle determines length, Pin to Pap determines flare, VAL angle determines responsiveness to friction.
Drilling angle controls PAP to MB distance.
VAL angle controls PAP to Pin distance.
If you want a visual, hold your hand in front of you and make an L shape with your thumb and index finger.
The tip of your thumb is your pap.
The tip of your index is the MB.
The hinge of your thumb is the PIN. (Lay your hand on your bowling ball if you need more visualization, and do the following)
Spread your fingers as far as you can, and you'll get roughly a 90 degree angle.
This would be an actual "L" which is separating your thumb and index finger as far apart as possible AKA a long PAP to MB distance.
Now slowly close your thumb towards your index. As the angle between your thumb/finger shrinks, the PAP and MB get closer and closer.
45 degrees makes a "V" shape. That's half way between 90/"L" and 'touching' or 0.
Then touch your thumb and finger together, and that's a 0 degree drill angle.
Good Luck!
Kind of . . but Dual Angle is just learn the numbers and follow the instructions and this is supposed to happen, but there's no why behind the numbers, VLS explains why so you're not just learning numbers. Once you understand everything, you don't really need the numbers, they just ensure more accuracy if you're trying to be super specific. Also, I don't know if you misspoke/typed, but VAL angle controls pin to vertical axis line measurement, not pin to pap, and VAL angle also affects flare because of hole placement and how it alters the core. The visual is also just a visual on angles . . which I don't find to be particularly helpful. All I know is that I understand layouts MUCH better now that I learned VLS instead of just knowing the "these numbers mean this, trust me" of Dual Angle.
@@LukeRosdahl I agree, but again, the point is both systems are doing the exact same thing and saying 'trust me'. Whether that's 4x4x2 or 40x4x35. (These are the exact same layout) The only difference is whether you use inches or degrees to position the MB and Pin in relation to your PAP. Understanding both systems, allows me to tell you that a 4x4 is a 40 degree drill angle, every time, no matter the bowler. The 3rd number in the Vector System is VAL Angle. 1" Buffer is roughly 18 degree VAL angle. 2" is roughly 36 degrees, and 3" is roughly 54 degrees. (Note: VAL Angles are consistent for all bowlers, but will vary based on other numbers. So all 4x4x? will be consistent, but a 5x3x? won't be the same as 4x4x? but will be the same as all 5x3x? alternatives)
The only quantifiable benefit of Dual Angle, in my opinion, is that the average consumer can more easily track and adjust their own layouts IF they want to. It's easier for me to know that when I want to have a skid flip reaction I go 70x4x20. If I want benchmark, 55x4x30. That's far easier than trying to track the fractions of an inch I adjust the Vector system for altering shapes. Keeping track of every 1/8th inch for 2 measurements (Pin and MB) for 2-4 different layouts, across 10+ balls can be overwhelming for even mathematicians. Additionally, swinging Arcs is more tedious than just straight lines from existing ball markings and measuring the angles they create.
The foundation of my debate would be this though: I'm willing to bet that without looking at the Storm Website or Vector Layout Chart, 90% of bowlers couldn't confidently tell you, if they wanted to increase length, which number to change, OR which direction to change it. So, for example, if I have a 4x4x2 and I want to drill another of the same ball, and I want more length, how do I adjust these numbers and how far do I adjust them to get more length? 4x5x2? 5x4x2? 4x4x3? A Full inch? A half? An 1/8th?
HOWEVER, if you ask the same question to people who use Dual Angle, with a 40x4x35 layout, and asked what number to change and how much to add length, that at least 60% would know which number to change AND which direction to go. Granted, few would know how much to adjust the number by, but the theory still holds true. A significant amount of bowlers would know to increase the drill angle to a higher number, and they would know the drill angle is the first number.
*** I repeat *** Use whatever system makes sense for you. They are both accomplishing the same thing, they just measuring them differently. Neither side can discredit the other, because they are both designed to do the exact same thing.
*You are correct, I did misspeak above, I apologize. Big fan, keep up the good work. Wasn't my intent to start a debate or argument with you, was just trying to offer readers an alternate perspective or visual.
Oh it’s all good, I guess I just see it different. With VLS I don’t need to trust it because the numbers tell me exactly where the core is and what it’s doing, Dual Angle seems less accurate now or more dependent on the numbers rather than the concept of what the core is doing. VLS numbers give me an instant visual of what the core is doing. You sound like someone who thinks in Dual Angle, and if that’s what makes sense, that’s all that matters. With dual angle, it starts and stops at “these numbers do this,” with no real explanation why, and with VLS explaining the why, I don’t really need the numbers to get what I want, with dual angle I’m completely dependent on them
@@LukeRosdahl In what way exactly does dual angles "seem less accurate now"?? And what do you mean "more dependent on the numbers"? Both systems depend only on numbers....They both give the visual of the core. It only depends on which one you have familiarized yourself with. The explanation of why each number does this or that, is lacking in both systems, and is offered by additional explanation by those who teach it. Like you did here. Or like Storm does in their website. It's not like VLS is self explanatory in any way , more than Dual Angles. In fact to me, it seems to need more explaining. In any case, once you visualize where the core is with either way, both methods can be of value.
@@exesemas You're right, it depends on how it's explained, but Dual Angle explanations begin and end with numbers. It tells you these numbers do this, and that's that. I think it's so much easier to conceptualize actual layout dynamics by learning VLS. I think a majority of Dual Angle users know what numbers do what, but they don't understand why the numbers result in the reaction they do. I also think VLS can seem harder to understand because most people are coming from an understanding of Dual Angle and are just trying to correlate numbers instead of just understanding how layouts actually work. Have you seen Alex's videos? They go super in depth explaining core dynamics first and achieving them by using certain layout numbers second.
Great video buddy, super helpful! I had a light bulb go off finally!
Kassy Williamson - Shumate Cool! Now go watch Alex’s videos again!
Excellent video as always, when laying out a symmetric ball do you measure from CG to PAP to create your PAP intersection? Or just skip that mark entirely? Thanks!
Wha? I’ve never heard of a pap intersection lol. CG literally means nothing on a symmetric ball, especially since they changed the rules, but it’s easiest to still use all angles in the dual angle system or all measurements in the pin buffer/VLS system just to get numbers on the ball.
@@LukeRosdahl Sorry I didn't really explain that very well, what I mean is on an asym if you wanted a 5x4x2 layout you would draw an arc 5 inches from the pin then 4 inches from the PSA. Where those two lines intersected is going to be what you want the PAP to be. Since there is no PSA do you just not draw the second line?
Ohhhh lol ok yeah, most people just make up a second number so it's easier to get the lines on the ball with either layout system. What we do is make a "fake" psa location, or just draw a line from the pin through the CG to where the PSA would be if it was there, and base the psa to pap number on that. Plus it's easier to just give the whole layout to someone later rather than try to explain why you're only giving them 2 numbers instead of 3 . . it's just an ease of execution thing.
@@LukeRosdahl Yeah, with dual angle you would just draw your base line from the Pin through the CG, I wasn't sure if that same logic also would apply to the VLS layout. Thanks for the quick responses!
Hey Luke, is there a way to find the VLS layout on an already drilled ball? I am in the process of switching my layout system from duel angle to VLS, but I am not sure what my current layouts would translate to in the VLS system. I can easily find the duel angle layout, but don't know if or how to find the VLS equivalent. Thanks
Yeah, it's actually quite a bit easier than finding the dual angle layout. Once you have your pap and dual angle lines on the ball, simply measure from your pap to the pin, that's measurement 1, then measure from your pap to the psa/mass bias, that's measurement 2, then measure from the pin to the closest point on the VAL, and that's measurement 3.
@@LukeRosdahl thanks Luke! That helps me a ton!!! I appreciate your mind for the game and equipment. As well as your way to be both thorough and yet still explain in a way that is easily understood. Keep up the great work!
With all this high tech pitches & drilling, how close to illegal is the ball going to be? Old school was 1 oz. Side weight?
They changed the rules, you have 3oz all directions now so it really doesn't matter much
@@LukeRosdahl thanks guy! I bowled until 2012. Started in the late 80s. When I stopped the side weight was still 1oz. So when did they change the rule? The way the balls hook today is amazing! Mahalo & aloha
They changed the rule a few years ago when they banned weight holes. 2 handers were using the weight holes to significantly increase the strength of the ball, so they banned weight holes, which naturally meant they had to relax the static weight limits too.
@@LukeRosdahl you the man! They banned weight holes, so no axis drilling like before? Axis drilling was good on dry lanes, hook was gradual not big snap in the back end. Aloha guy! Mahalo
That was a mistake I was doing. Trying to equate the Pin Buffer (last measurement in VLS) w/ VAL angle from Dual angle layout system.
Yeah, technically you can do it, but it's so much easier to just dump Dual Angle and use this method to understand WHY you're trying to get to certain numbers or WHY you're going pin up vs pin down
How do these concepts apply to the no thumb crowd? If you are not drilling a thumb hole does the pin buffer even matter? As long as the finger holes are drilled within a few inches of the pin the differential will be same regardless of it being a pin up or pin down layout. Is there anything else important to consider that is different for no thumb layouts?
Actually yes, it's different for two handers/no thumbers because their center of grip is actually between the fingers, and it's different on asyms vs syms. On an asym, you're still turning the core with different pin buffer measurements, so it matters more than it does on a sym, BUT because their center of grip is between the fingers, a traditional pin up finger placement for one handers is more like a pin down layout for them because all the mass coming out of the core is from the same zone. If you put the fingers like a half inch below the pin for a two hander/no thumber, you're taking the mass out of the same zone effectively that a one hander would be taking it out of on a pin down layout because the center of grip is in the same place, about a half inch to an inch BELOW the pin. If you've seen higher pin layouts for two handers on tour, or where the pin is like 3 or 4 inches above their fingers, that's in effect a pin up layout for them. If the fingers go above the pin for two handers, the ball can do some really wonky things, that'd almost be like a one hander drilling a ball with the pin in their thumb.
I'm still not really getting the big difference in reaction between a short pin and long pin layout. In the Storm videos, they say that both pin positions are relatively stable upon release, and the pap doesn't migrate much on either. So, why is the short pin supposedly smoother, and the long pin supposedly longer and straighter?
Lucas It’s the way the core is tumbling, and I’m pretty sure they explain it in the videos somewhere actually. The short pin basically puts the core on its side, so it’s really even, early, and smooth, while the long pin stands the core straight up and down. The short pin never loses axis rotation so it wants to be continuous, while the longer pin lopes and never really wants to get into a roll. There’s not much imbalance in either layout so that’s why they don’t flare much, but the difference in how the core is rolling is what makes them do what they do
There is a math equation to convert but it is a pain to use. (i had to for a friend). To me, who didn't know either system, Dual Angles seems easier/more practical. But it also depends on each person separately. If any of the systems is explained in a good way, they are both ok.
There's a spreadsheet that converts back and forth between VLS and Dual Angle layouts; I can't recall if I got it from the Storm site, but it's useful. You have to make sure, when you convert from VLS to Dual Angle, that you don't end up with a PSA to PAP distance of > 6.75." The converter will convert a 6.75" PSA to PAP into drilling angle = 90, which may not actually give you a PSA to PAP of 6.75, depending on your PAP location. I have to use drilling angle = 85 to get 6.75" PSA to PAP for my PAP, which is 5.5" over by 11/16" down (no-thumb). If I use a drilling angle of 90, I end up with a PSA to PAP of just over 7." I agree that it's easier to lay out a ball using the Dual Angle method, because it's just not easy to swing nice, clean accurate arcs for VLS, so I just take the extra step of measuring my PSA to PAP distances with my Pro Sect on my Dual Angle layouts after I've drawn my lines to make sure they're within tolerances.
If there were an easy way to swing really nice, clean, continuous arcs (remember those compasses from Trig class? Imagine something like that which could be anchored to the pin - that'd be great!), I'd use VLS simply because I'd be sure of avoiding overly large PSA to Pin distances.
So how would this work for a full roller like myself?
Max LP80 Full rollers are a different story, you’d still want to stick with the full roller layouts because what they do is make the ball flare backwards so that the tracks don’t roll over your fingerholes
Is this essentially dual angle in disguise?
No. Dual Angle deals with strictly numbers, they're looking for specific core numbers after drilling. VLS describes the core position as it's rolling in addition to core numbers for the pin buffer measurement. It's all meant to get you to the same place, but they're based on two different ideas. The VLS is easier to understand, conceptualize, and ultimately comprehend. But there IS a correlation, 5 x 5 x 3 VLS will correspond to certain Dual Angle numbers because they aren't different ways to layout a ball, they're different ways of going about it. I've used Dual Angle for years, and converted to VLS because instead of thinking in numbers, I'm now able to visualize what the core is doing and truly understand layouts instead of just trying to arrive at some certain numbers because they're supposed to do this or that.
Yep, I still don’t follow. This is why I pay a pro shop. He drills, I throw.
@@stormb28 Yup, and that's perfectly fine. It's quite a bit easier that way sometimes too instead of having extra nonsense going on inside your head when you're just trying to throw a ball and knock down pins.
Luke Rosdahl for sure, being analytical, it can be paralysis by analysis. I don’t ever want to be the guy that says “if only I had my 5x4x3.5 ball I would’ve done better”. Most bowlers who are adept at understanding drilling are like that in my experience.
@@stormb28 Yeah, too much activity upstairs is definitely harmful. That's why I PREFER VLS because it's about ball roll and core position rather than pure numbers like Dual Angle. You can imagine how the core is rotating and understand what that's doing for your ball roll, BUT yeah, sometimes it's just better to keep it simple.