10 Comments on “Discussing The USBC Footprint Report on Urethane Bowling Balls | November 2023”

    1. You would think that they would have gone after reactive when they came in rather than urethane 🤷‍♂️

  1. Storm knew the Spectre was soft prior to the drama.. B7 knew their purple ball got softer with oil on the surface.

    Move on. You multi-million dollar companies aren’t going to recall a ball or pull off the shelves, once in production and approved.

    BFD.. this happens everywhere

  2. 0.008 of 0.125 about 6.5% additional footprint.. it isn’t a totally negligible number

    If you want to refer to automobiles again. If a series has a limit on 86mm pistons, and you use 94.5 that’s the same 6.5% difference. You better believe that’s a huge difference from a single cylinder to any number of cylinders.

  3. I took a moment to look up coefficient of friction and area and it is true that the coefficient does not change with area. The information not yet mentioned in your discussion thus far (not yet finished) is traction. You alluded to traction in the racing tire example. A tire for oval track racing is thinner than a tire for a dragster. The reason is traction, not coefficiency. The reason the “soaker balls” were banned was the increased traction due to softening of the ball thus more area contacting the lane and more traction. Three percent more area increases traction by the same amount. If you have seen a soaker track after 20 games you know the difference.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *