Storm | Durometer Testing

[@JasonBelmonte]

If only all parties within our industry were this transparent 🤦🏻‍♂️ Thank you Storm for allowing us all into the science of our testing.

[@jamescheff3160]

I think you win too much so good ole Chad tried to stop you. I didn't care before I'm a old school one hander but I hope you or another storm bowler wins every tournament you enter just to stick it to that jackass chad Murphy and his corrupt organization.

[@caftood]

Wow it's Jason belmonte

[@alexanderbreen4010]

LOVE YOU BELMO!!!

[@apexvids6014]

Bowlupoe From TikTok brought me here! 🙋🏼‍♂️ all he throws is Storm Roto Grip Global 900.

[@musicairplanes4884]

When they do not allow you to witness their testing the whole thing becomes very suspicious and starts to lack integrity. Not a good thing for the entire industry.

[@Ken_Leivonen]

This is a great video of how Durometer Testing works. As a chemical engineer it shows that the way that the USBC applying their hardness spec is not a good application of the tool.

[@TraumaER]

I doubt USBC even knows how to calibrate one properly LOL

[@iceman5117]

It doesn't matter. USBC has a standardized methodology for measuring hardness. It's up to storm to comply with USBCs standards using USBCs methodology

[@TraumaER]

@@iceman5117 if you really believe USBC has a standardized anything, you are part of the problem.

[@Ken_Leivonen]

@@iceman5117 sorry, but I deal with standards like this one all day and this is a very poor application of this test. When the organization that created the test has up to 3 points of variability in the standard and we are arguing about tenths, we are not talking the same thing anymore.

[@iceman5117]

@@Ken_Leivonen 1) no you don't. 2) you're looking at storm's presentation of the tool, not USBC's application of the tool in their tests. 3) you have no idea how many points of variability are involved in USBC's test. Most of Storm's grievances are already accounted for in USBC's methodology. Balls are untreated, with a uniform surface and uniform temperature. 4) even if the test was wildly variable, all manufacturers have to contend and address the same level of variability. If storm is operating so closely to the threshold of legality that their product is no longer certifiable, they need to turn back the dial to give themselves more leeway in manufacturing. No other manufacturer seems to be having these issues. No Brunswick balls have been banned this far

[@kyleb5169]

Thank you for this video. Too many people think they know something when they are actually CLUELESS.

[@Awpshark0]

They do, balls are tested at 500 no polish. Storms lying to get outta it

[@kevinbarr6811]

@@Awpshark0 still doesn't justify USBC lacking transparency and taking balls out of sight of their owners for testing.

[@larrylacroix3944]

That was very eye opening Appreciate this

[@bowlwest73]

While watching the first tests between the 2 machines, I notice that the second durometer never reset back to 0, there was always a 1 or 2 showing on the readout. I don't know if that is to the right of the decimal point or to the left, but interesting that it never went back to exactly 0.

[@1SpartanD4L]

...and the results were about 1 different than the other. Imagine that. Plus, that durometer showed a 2ERO message. What does that mean? Maybe Storm should look into that. NO, actually... look into your balls that are too soft. Then look into your durometer.

[@BigJonMoto]

I seen that too! It was showing an error after each clear.

[@warhawk3972]

I think that further proves that durometer testing is not an exact science

[@1SpartanD4L]

@@warhawk3972 You think that not properly clearing an error proves the durometer testing is not an exact science?! Umm, errors are a part of anything with electronic readouts. There are durometers with physical readouts, just use those.

[@iceman5117]

@@warhawk3972 no, it demonstrates that the equipment being used in this video is either faulty or out of spec

[@GreyDuck54]

Even if you're not a Storm fan. The fact that these readings is all over the place is a cause for a change in the USBC.

[@1SpartanD4L]

Umm, no. The readings are surely "all over the place". However, they don't rule on the softest number. They take multiple readings multiple times over multiple balls. When 98% are bad, you've got a manufacturing issue. When others regularly test below the allowance but some are just fine. You've got a manufacturing issue.

[@GreyDuck54]

@@1SpartanD4L USBC has publicly announced that they dont test enough balls. The last 6 balls partially banned, they said they only tested 2 balls. If they test multiple balls, then they aren't tested enough. Why dont they be transparent with their data. It's not just the players and the public asking, even PBA called out USBC for their lack of data.

[@1SpartanD4L]

@@GreyDuck54 They were transparent to the manufacturer. Remember, some of their readings combined with the balls being tested may expose proprietary info. USBC stated (in that public announcement you referenced) that they shared their findings with Storm. The USBC isn't free and clear here but they DID test a number of balls before sales and then 2 (of each model) in a subsequent test. Those were all sketchy. Storm was already in probationary status with USBC so the USBC took action.

[@remoevans7847]

The fact they didn’t use one of the 6 balls in question for testing/demonstration in this video escapes the die hard fanboys attention.

[@emerald3331]

Thanks for letting us know how the testing process takes place.

[@atbsigma]

Alex is very consistent with how he pulls down the needle, but I’m thinking some of those tests might have been better done with the machine that consistently drops the needle the same every time. But those points he made were well taken. Next step: testing of balls that have been in play. The plugged pro balls would be perfect for this, I think… The end game of this would probably show that ball hardness changes for all bowling balls regardless of manufacturer. Maybe a new spec is needed.

[@bryanhallman8183]

This is a brilliant response to the HSBC deal. I hope the other manufacturers follow suit.

[@jameslong9564]

As the owner of an Altered Reality, I’m going to keep it and keep throwing it in league.

[@ethanwilliams2254]

It's only banned in a few national tournaments so you have no reason not to keep it

[@TraumaER]

@@ethanwilliams2254 PBA approves of your decision. Next year at Nationals, I may just bring 1 plastic ball since no one this year could hook whatever they brought and to really stick it to the man LOL!

[@wadelucking3303]

Great video, and the calibration variance per each unit was consistent within itself. What we don’t know is was or is the needle itself also calibrated. As far as surface finish goes , the are approved at the surface finish the companies place them at. So the real issue here the balls could be ok as the variance would place them in spec or a approved hardness reading. But with that being said the variance could also go the other way and the balls tested could also be out of spec more that what is tested. There are a lot of balls out on the market of other companies and storm , global, and rotogrio them selfs have most of the balls passing the tests on the same durometers being used. And great video showing there is a variance , but it’s a equal variance for all balls and only a small group of balls and specific balls failed testing.

[@roscoepretlowiv7959]

This is the biggest flex of a video. Great content. Team storm for life

[@1SpartanD4L]

Flex that they don't know how to reset durometers? I mean, two calibrated... but when resetting one it goes to zero. The other goes to 1. What this video ACTUALLY told me was that Storm is well aware of the gray areas of durometer testing and they tried to sneak in a few but were caught. How do I know that's the case?! Because not all of their balls were illegal, just certain ones.

[@Awpshark0]

@@1SpartanD4L exactly! And all balls are tested at 500 no polish

[@marcustorres2584]

Love you guys! Keep up the amazing work. Hopefully one day I’ll be on staff and surrounded with all the amazing people that come with storm!

[@jameslong9564]

🥾👅

[@lunarian7635]

I would love to see an experiment to get the highest variance of hardness. For example start with one ball, cold, off center, and fast push, versus the same ball hot, on center, and slow push. I bet you could get 5+ points different easily.

[@coopergates9680]

For the hot ball, pull it off the ball return after a game without wiping it off before heating it. The reading will drop even further if there's still oil.

[@iceman5117]

None of this has to do with the topic. USBC already has testing standards and methodology for these things. Whether they follow astm standards or not is irrelevant. It's up to storm to prove they are in compliance using USBC's methodology

[@michaelg-XEX]

Tests between labs, admitted by ASTM itself, can vary as much as 3.54 D in Table 4 (starting at 2:54) and 11 D in Research Report D11-1029 (starting at 4:01), prove that either the instruments or the Standard itself is inconsistent and, therefore, not reliable for bowling ball hardness testing. Thank you, Storm, for showing us this information! The USBC should shelve hardness testing until a more reliable method can be found. If they refuse, a new standards body should be formed.

[@iceman5117]

What astm says is irrelevant. USBC already has standards for all of these factors, a standard testing procedure, standard equipment, standard conditions, etc. All of this minimizes variance between tests, and all manufacturers have the same amount of variance to deal with. It's up to the manufacturer to meet USBC standards with USBC testing conditions and methodology. If storm is so on the cusp of legality that it cannot meet USBC standards reliably with every ball it produces, it's up to storm to revise it's manufacturing processes or provide itself more headroom to ensure legality. Once again, all balls are tested and all manufacturers deal with the same testing criteria, standards, methods, conditions, variances, etc. Only a select set of balls failed USBC testing. This is on Storm, not the USBC

[@michaelg-XEX]

@@iceman5117 Durometers, according to USBC, must be calibrated to ASTM D2240-15 standards. What part of that do you not understand?

[@iceman5117]

@@michaelg-XEX which is wholly irrelevant to the conversation. USBC has their own standards for equipment, whether they follow astm or not, companies must abide by USBCs standards using USBC's testing methodology. If they do not do that, the equipment is out of spec and is illegal to use. It's that simple

[@michaelg-XEX]

@@iceman5117 If durometers do not comply, it's *impossible* to meet *any* standard, whether USBC sets one or not.

[@iceman5117]

@@michaelg-XEX do you have any evidence whatsoever that the durometers used by the USBC in testing do not comply with the standards accepted by USBC for use in testing? Or are you just speaking out of your ass?

[@thadrand2875]

A really interesting video !! I believe that SPI produces a top of the line product!

[@spiderico00]

Sounds like there are some holes in the process from when you test, usbc tests, and a ball goes into production, as well as the lowered hardness of the ball after many games have been thrown with the ball. I think it would be a cool invention to have something like a teeter tauter that goes up and down with a ball on it, so the ball rolls over and over. Let it run for a couple weeks and test before and after to simulate many games being thrown on the ball. Patch the holes in the process, and set defined hardness thresholds for before and after.

[@WestPac-ny9vi]

Thanks Storm for showing all the variables that could happen. I never thought about how Polish could contaminate the needle. I never had any doubts about Storm Products and neither did the PBA. USBC needs the PBA more than the PBA needs the USBC. GO STORM!

[@remoevans7847]

Fanboy powers activate 😂

[@iceman5117]

USBC doesn't test polished balls They have standard criteria for temperature and surface condition

[@Thumper1968]

That's fascinating stuff. Thank you for sharing. I hope the major bowling orgs eventually adopt a more refined and consistent way to test. Durometers have been around for forever, and as you've clearly shown, they are far from flawless.

[@Awpshark0]

They are accurate, balls are tested at 500 with no polish. Storm lying essentially

[@Thumper1968]

@@Awpshark0 Storm showed their work. Where is yours?

[@Awpshark0]

@@Thumper1968 rule book………

[@Thumper1968]

@@Awpshark0 You make no sense.

[@Awpshark0]

@@Thumper1968 it’s usbc rule it’s in the rulebook

[@its.me_angie]

Well done explaining the process.

[@TraumaER]

This video shows why Storm is Bowling! 💯

[@dawmlw]

Outstanding demonstration.

[@stevenlassiter1532]

I would still like to know why the USBC is Testing the Balls behind a Black Curtain without the Bowlers being allowed to watch.

[@bobjanicki9045]

Because they weren't doing the testing right way

[@stevenlassiter1532]

@@bobjanicki9045 they asked for Belmos and wouldn't let him watch them.test behind a Curtain so he denied them.

[@squiggy102]

So the testers dont know whos balls they are testing.

[@johndiatto7014]

Well said and shown.

[@dionamosley]

Ridiculous that you even had to make this video but glad it’s out there now.

[@NorCalBowler]

Great Video!

[@joshuapaugh8271]

Good job, in usbc more recent statements they have theirs calibrated every six months but they do spot checks every three months so it could be out of calibration during spot checks, also how many do they have since we know different machines different readings.

[@RandomPerson-ut2yr]

Will you ever release the storm durometer ball. I love the simple black cover with no branding and a red pin. I would love to purchase one of these as a reminder of the professionalism, transparency, and reliability that storm has provided us over the years. Thank you for your work please reverse the ban.

[@ItsMayhemYT]

the USBC is an absolute clown show, hopefully all this mess will lead to changes for the best.

[@Jason_P]

Clowns have FAR more dignity and respect than the USBC has.

[@ethanwilliams2254]

I understand the testing procedure and the variances, and it's great this ball meets hardness specs, but it would be more interesting to see the actual balls in question tested for hardness. Clearly durometers aren't perfect, but not all of storm's balls are banned either so even though this video is a good demonstration of the variables in hardness testing, it doesn't make a difference to the argument of "USBC is improperly measuring hardness."

[@Medic96744]

Actually based on the numbers, it would depend which durometer they use. The left one makes it legal, the right one makes it under 73D. This is why the manufacturer even states to allow for variance.

[@millburray]

@@Medic96744 USBC has an allowed range that can test under the legal limit to accommodate these issues. What they don't allow are 98% of the balls tested to test illegal.

[@ethanwilliams2254]

@@Medic96744 both balls are legal because they allow 4 point either way from 73. A ball that comes back at 69D is still legal

[@ethanwilliams2254]

@@bbarnes654 but it's not like they cherry pick 32 balls that they know will test illegal

[@Miloadeur]

Also in a document USBC released, they claimed that they review every quarter balls from every company, if this is the case, that science fails because all these variables, why didn’t we see a collapse in every company?

[@joepic85]

Storm knew what they did

[@alexanderbreen4010]

This is why the USBC needs to let people watch how they test balls… they can make any ball test soft if they want to… not saying that’s what they are doing but the player has a right to know what the testing process is and should be able to watch as it’s being done

[@georgemolnar7344]

1972 - Don McCune, MEK Soaker, then Columbia Red Dot, Yellow Dot, Shure-D, Shore-D. Been going on for 50 years. Go back to Manhattan Rubber/AMF Exacta/XL-5 with 3 oz weight differential, solid symmetric core, against Vulcan 3-10. Averages will be about 207.

[@Jqwerty38]

At 12:37 you showed that human error can be introduced into durometer readings yet used the manual pull durometer for most of the other demos in the video - why? Also, does USBC not use an automated durometer? If not, why?

[@SteveSmith-mx1bu]

Thx u storm for this video

[@mikekaupa9190]

STORM forever! I'll NEVER buy a different bowling ball brand Thanks, and keep on truckin'

[@brianlevandowski3167]

Just make the balls 75d to be on a safe side so even if a Duro Miss reads it still beats 72.9.

[@jimk9290]

That will drive the consumers to buy the balls that are closest to the minimum hardness, since they will be more reactive.

[@willjames6437]

Are other companies doing exactly that, but Storm pushed the standard for a superior performing product and competitive advantage OR was Storm being targeted?

[@1SpartanD4L]

@@willjames6437 Storm was admitting with their datasheets that they were pushing the limits. Then, when they were put on probationary status with USBC... Then they were being targeted. Same as what happened to Motiv and their Jackal. Storm and Motiv played with fire and they got burned.

[@711slimshawny]

Why does the gauge not reset to zero everytime on the durometer reading low compared to the higher one? If there both the same durometer gauges they should act the same. I have storm balls so I'm a fan of there stuff. Just curious why I see gauges saying docent things in between pulls?

[@jimk9290]

If the rules allow a range of values for the testing, the manufacturer should be able to use the most favorable point in the range of each variable (temperature of ball, speed of needle motion, sanded [not polished], use the manufacturer's own approved, properly calibrated durometer). If this is not acceptable to the governing body, the manufacturer will have no way of doing quality control on its manufactured product. Even if a ball ships polished, that should not required the testing to be done on a polished surface, since we have seen that the polish corrupts the reliability of the data (if testing is done on a polished surface, the durometer is measuring the polish in part, not solely the surface in question). If the durometer manufacturer does not specify a maximum velocity of needle/handle movement, a faster movement should be permitted. And finally, the manufacturer cannot access the governing agency's durometer during manufacturing (for purposes of quality control), so their own durometer has to be the controlling reading. This is just proper methodology. I would suggest that the governing agency should do its own testing, and field testing, using these same criteria. That way, there will be no confusion, and consumers will not be inconvenienced needlessly.

[@timothyschaffer2287]

It’s the governing body’s job to ensure the specs are met. It’s up to the manufacturers to comply. The rule book covers what temp and surface finish the ball is supposed to be at. This video did not show or disclose that.

[@iceman5117]

@@timothyschaffer2287 this so much

[@billflyyeung3954]

The different between with / without a curtain 😂 good job. Storm . I only bowl Storm balls

[@Fejix87]

Why didn't you make this video with the Spectre or one of the other banned balls?

[@TheInsaneShecklador]

This ^^^^

[@rieskame]

Even with a sanded finish that is above hardness min, you still have to account for a ball that is polished by the bowler that will measure lower, right?

[@xlxthestalkerxlx6729]

Storm said they are not soft?

[@pjr300]

This is great information, so why didn't Storm compare their results with the USBC results and determine root cause for the variance? That is how industry determines failure points in manufacturing and testing.

[@pjr300]

For the record, most of my 8-ball arsenal consists of Storm products. And i love the people of Brigham City, UT, a community that i met via a work assignment there many years ago. But wow, if the governing body is coming up with variances in testing from my own, one that affects thousands of products, I'd be packing up my durometers in a van and head down to Arlington to calibrate and test with them, side-by-side, to figure out the variances.

[@mreid08]

Another factor is the person testing equipment that doesn't want to be there and is half assing the process. I definitely agree the testing equipment need to remove all human error and done in climate controlled conditions so all bowling balls get tested equally AND have the player witness the testing..

[@waynequinby420]

Has there been a response from USBC? They need to show the method they used to determine their findings.

[@chuckontal9962]

This is what the usbc should be doing. Complete transparency. It's not too much to ask from a governing body.

[@TenthFrameStrike]

What if the ball temperature is 75. Is it going to be softer.

[@jimk9290]

Yes. Warmer is softer.

[@horseshoe_nc]

I just recently got back into bowling, after about a 15 year hiatus. I was really thinking about joining a league. However, with all this mess from USBC. I will not be joining USBC. So, I will either join a non-sanctioned league or not joining a league at all.

[@shaneb1242]

Why didn’t you fight the USBC ruling, if this much error is introduced in the testing?

[@LukeRosdahl]

They wanted to take care of the customers in the mean time, fighting the ruling might take a couple years, and they didn't want people hanging for the duration.

[@MrOsmodeus]

so what i'm seeing is USBC specified a very precise hardness requirement and the only way to test that requirement is only moderately precise.

[@scottythompson940]

Cool video talk to tech bowling storm bowling

[@EatsleepPlayRepeat555]

So bring this up to them

[@snikab]

Please someone forward this to the USBC so they can learn something.

[@jamescheff3160]

No one one there that would care enough to open the email.

[@skategeezer1810]

If the USBC had left the hardness at 72 which it was at for over 45 years we would not be having this issue. Way to go USBC, you fucked up things again.

[@JeffTeachesBowling]

I'm not sure that's correct, because companies design balls to be as close to the borderline as possible. If the rule was 72 instead of 73, companies would be manufacturing balls to be 1 point softer. You know this is true.

[@skategeezer1810]

@@JeffTeachesBowling I have been bowling since before the hardness rule went into effect, and the whole time that the 72 hardness was the standard we did not have the issues of balls not complying with the hardness rule. Once the hardness was raised to 73 we started seeing issues.

[@stompingpeak2043]

So I guess we now have to make balls that are like 5 points Below the limit to ensure none of this happens again?

[@exesemas]

What other factors influence hardness, besides these?

[@matthewcline4001]

If the USBC likely moves forward and bans these balls in league play, you're gunna see a very sudden drop in memberships.

[@RysterARCEE]

This video, while generally informative, is not without some bias. Hardness testing certainly has some variables that need to be accounted for. However, some of the demonstrations presented in this video are questionable. It would be more beneficial to see an impartial, accredited 3rd party test these balls without any input from either Storm or the USBC and see what kind of results they get.

[@bretlynn]

you guys should seriously consider suing the USBC

[@AndrewSmith-pc8eq]

No other ball company has had 6 different balls banned at the same time. Good job Storm! You can thank Sean Rash for bringing it to the worlds attention! Point 1 finger at the purple Hammer, get 6 pointed back at you!

[@shelovet0mmy]

i assume you came in here to hate and didnt stay for the information

[@bobwashington4176]

show the tests of phaze 4 trend 2 and the banned urethanes.

[@iceman5117]

If storm is so on the cusp of legality that it can't reliably meet USBC standards with every single ball, it's up to storm to revise it's manufacturing processes or provide more safety margin in it's equipment. USBC has standardized criteria, methodology, equipment and conditions for testing. It's up to storm to comply with USBC's standards using USBC's criteria and methodology. All this stuff about polish, needle speed, temperature, equipment, astm standards, etc is a deflection. USBC already accounts for all of that in it's testing

[@autodoson1]

The durometers were rigged versus Belmonte at USBC Masters.

[@willjames6437]

It makes me wonder if Storm is the only bowling ball company pushing the minimum acceptable hardness and since the durometers have variances, it came back to bite them. Did other bowling ball companies allow room for error so that the variances would not cause their balls to fail or is Storm being targeted? We all know the way to get and keep customers is to either offer a superior product or to offer the same quality product at a better price. Storm bowling balls are considered a top quality product and are priced as such. This would mean the product offers something more. Could that name brand of quality just be because of frills like scent or because of durability or perhaps is it indeed because they pushed the limits on performance and giving their product a competitive advantage over other companies. I would have liked to have seen different manufacturer’s bowling balls used on the same durometer in the video and seen what those balls tested at... then we could see a controlled investigation into the issue at hand. Just my thoughts...

[@willjames6437]

I would also be interested to see just how much performance is gained from dipping below the minimum standard by a point or two. Many have said that the standard was originally created because of “soakers” who were dramatically impacting the hardness of bowling balls - and not just by a point or two.

[@richardlove5549]

@@willjames6437 Ronald Hickland Jr has a video showing that hardness does create more performance

[@millburray]

Bingo! I think they totally failed in handling this from a PR stance. They knew what they were doing, and they're kind of stupidly revealing that fact with this video, which I think they missed since they were so focused on blaming USBC to take the heat off of them from their angry customers. They should have just went with exactly what you said. They were pushing the absolute limits of performance, and sometimes that risk has a consequence.

[@jakesnussbuster3565]

@@richardlove5549 but that's not s point or 2 it was like 14 points difference

[@hihbowling]

Why shoot for the minimum knowing variances. Don't let it go to the judges!!

[@jasonsmith3537]

In other words, USBC being a laboratory (in a random bowling alley it seems) and STORM being a laboratory, even with calibrated equipment the numbers can vary enough to make the ball fail miserably or pass with flying colors. It would seem to me that the durometer is not really a reliable means of testing unless all testing is done within the same lab. I am really curious just how much of a difference the ball reacts even with a +/-5 on the scale? I mean, would hardness not be affected by the oil absorbed, friction, sanding, and/or humidity? For USBC to test balls in a bowling center that have been used says to me they were LOOKING for the "bad ones" in the harshest conditions they could find to ensure they did in fact find bad ones. The fact that myself and many colleagues feel the USBC did the whole bowling community and STORM dirty, was enough for us to boycott re-upping anymore USBC sanctioned events or leagues. I will not support that kind of "bias" with my own money if I can help it. Very unprofessional to me on how they conducted this....and I still feel they singled out one manufacturer over the rest. They should have done this to everyone of every manufacturer that same day. STORM should have been allowed to be present during the testing in the Masters...absolute garbage how they did this.

[@millburray]

Why did they take the time to design and build a robotic test button only not to use it in any of the tests but the comparison to hand operated? This makes all the hand-tested results invalid based on your proven point of their inconsistency.

[@rondambrosio9967]

Because USBC doesn't have a robotic test button, thus inducing more human error.

[@LukeRosdahl]

Exactly what Ron says, USBC does it by hand, so they did it by hand in this video to show how much more inaccurate it is. Your last sentence is a big part of the point trying to be made.

[@millburray]

@@LukeRosdahl except it invalidates their testing since the test is being operated by someone who is aware of how to alter the results intentionally. If they're so confident, let's see random Spectres at their factory finish tested with the automated machine.

[@LukeRosdahl]

You're missing the point. It also would invalidate the testing usbc does in your opinion, because all they're trying to do here is show you how much the testing can vary based on user or operator actions, equipment used, and testing sites according to the ASTM. They've also already shown that the same ball can both pass and fail right next to each other, and the astm itself shows there can be as much as a 4 point difference between lab results just on average, let alone considering the extremes which were a NINE point difference. So even if they pulled some spectres and they all tested at 70, that would prove nothing, because they passed usbc certification in the first place. Even if they did fail in this video, they've obviously passed before and could pass somewhere else. Conversely, they could pull something out and have it test at 76, well above the standard, but due to the variance of the testing, it could STILL fail at another lab, so what then? The whole point of this video was to show how much the readings can fluctuate based on several different factors, which they did, but you're somehow saying that if they brought some spectres out and tested them on the automatic durometer, that that would mean something or be absolute. The whole point of the video is to show that the method itself, operated by a human or not, comes with a large amount of variance, enough that you need a larger amount of tests from a larger amount of machines from a larger amount of testing sites to create a greater amount of data for a more reasonable determination. A spectre on that hammer could read 70 or 76, and that does not mean it's failed or its legal, because at 70, it could still pass somewhere else, and at 76 it could still fail somewhere else. The grand point is that the test itself is not nearly accurate or consistent enough to make a defined limit with no tolerance when the procedure usbc uses is as loose as it is. There are no guidelines in their procedure about surface prep to be tested at, speed of pulling the lever, amount of machines that have to be used, or amount of operators that have to be used. One person could be operating one machine and as long as the ball is 70-77 degrees and they test the ball in 10 different locations, that's it, that's apparently all they need to certify or de-certify a ball. This video showed the large amount of variance and results that could be obtained with such loose guidelines and testing procedures.

[@millburray]

@@LukeRosdahl yet only balls manufactured to the absolute hardness limit when tested by USBC AND THEN polished are known by Storm to test soft, which means they knew they'd fail regardless of user or machine inconsistencies. Otherwise, why don't all balls fail the tests? It's only balls made right to the limit and then polished. Stop trying to blame the rules for speeding and getting caught.

[@digfidge]

I feel like the usbc should be sending me a check to cover replacing my equipment.

[@upsd70ace]

so that's what they look like

[@jmfoty4280]

It appears to me that bowling ball makers need to stop pushing the hardness to the lower end of the allowance. If they make balls harder by 3 or 4 points on the durometer, they wouldn't need to worry that their bowling balls will be rejected. Of course Storm and other bowling ball manufacturers will push the limits because there seems to be an advantage of producing softer bowling balls. Maybe it will take another series of uncertified bowling balls to motivate the companies to stop pushing the limits of hardness. A manufacturer will lose customers if they repeatedly produce illegal balls that are banded in leagues as well as PBA events. Durometer testing needs to scale back the accuracy of readings to whole numbers rather than measuring to tenths or hundredths since the measurements aren't reliable.

[@iceman5117]

This. USBC has standards for testing to account for all of this. They aren't testing polished balls coming out of the freezer. It's up to storm to meet USBC standards using USBC testing methodology. If they're pushing the envelope so far as to have balls test out of spec, they need to address their manufacturing to be more consistent, or back off of the threshold of legality and give themselves more headroom. This is all on storm

[@peterchmielecki2928]

Were the balls both at 500 grit?

[@drklener]

usbc when

[@robertf.8463]

I can understand the need for specs and rules and such. But when an entity who is charged with making sure rules and specs are followed cant do it with full transparency maybe its time for a different entity to assume the role.

[@stompingpeak2043]

Especially when the specs are barely out of line. That's only in fresh balls as well. So it really only applies to what pro bowlers? Why not just fix the issue behind the scenes and move on? Nobody wouldve ever known and people wouldn't have been screwed over

[@bobjanicki9045]

Maybe storm should have brought Chad Murphy in and show him this video and give him crayons

[@fast45]

He wouldn’t have left his lazy boy for that

[@fredfred-sp3ke]

USBC needs a test done with a B.S. meter

[@CrimsonReaper]

TLDW: bowling ball hardness test is NOT ACCURATE under different circumstances the READINGS ARE DIFFERENT! that's why a black curtain is needed :)

[@sto1vall]

You should mark each spot and test between durometers and one to ensure repeatability of the device. All this shows is the test is flawed to begin with or you shouldn’t hover around the edge because the variance is too great.

[@garyday5936]

USBC is out of control …clearly a swipe at Storm and Belmo

[@timothyschaffer2287]

What is the point of this video? To show the quality department is aware of this variance, and is willing to accept it? Secondly the speed of the pull in your automated machine shows your out of spec. Look it’s simple you targeted the edge of spec and process variables pulled you below the allowable limit, and you showed your quality department accepts it. I’d think you’d never want a potentially on the edge to leave the plant.

[@millburray]

Bingo! The sickening thing is attacking the USBC, directing customers on social media to attack USBC (which should result in some hefty fines), and completely shirking responsibility. Pretty sad to see from a respected company. Dude, just admit what you did here. Come on, you don't think anyone drives just over the speed limit, hoping they don't get caught? That's what happens when you push the limits of the rules. Storm got a speeding ticket and is attacking the police and blaming the variance of the radar inaccuracy and user error. Does that hold up in court as an excuse?

[@terryswartz960]

Said it before and will say it again. Who does the USBC have a hard on for? Belmo or Storm Products?

[@tomatowado3222]

#freestorm till it's backwards

[@millburray]

This is supposed to be a defense, but this proves Storm knew the balls would test illegal once they had their factory polish applied. 🤔🤷‍♂️

[@fast45]

I believe the test of a sanded ball, and a polished ball was to prove that there is another variant other than the already inconsistent variances in the actual durometer, and then it’s surroundings. Going from the sanded to the polished, and then back to the same polished ball showed that. But I’m no expert, just stating what I think the purpose of that test was🤷‍♂️🤔

[@Awpshark0]

@@bbarnes654 correct, and they are

[@jcwynne2004]

This seems like a big FU to USBC lol

[@MrPottsTeaching]

This whole handle thing is no good. You can apply different pressure every time. We need a machine to do it.

[@Fmr.PBAJoeJenkinsII]

USBC is effing up. Back in the old days, every PBA event, there was a burometer. We had to check the hardness on every ball we used. In my opinion, every ball should be checked now. Please fix yourself, USBC and GO PBA!!!!!!!

[@rb8999]

USBC and PBA are different entities, hence why the 6 balls can still be used in the PBA

[@OldManGroucH]

Seems to me that USBC needs to do some ACTUAL testing and change the ruling when it comes to hardness. Having a set hardness seems to be the wrong way to go. They need to have a variance that is acceptable when it comes to hardness. There will always be human error and it's ignorant to not acknowledge that. USBC needs to do better and needs to hold itself accountable. Defamation of a company should also be punishable, as it has been MOSTLY Storm Bowling balls that have been affected by this testing.

[@iceman5117]

How is it defamation? If only storm balls are testing outside of regulations, then wouldn't it logically mean that storm is bending the rules with it's equipment?

[@joepic85]

Why cut it so close then on the tolerances? You guys fucked up

[@preston5311]

Fun fact the usbc is useless

[@Flamingpins]

Storm makes illegal gear*** Bowlers: USBC bad!!😡😡

[@Awpshark0]

Hello guys! Usbc only measures at 500 no polish. This is a load of crap and y’all know it:/

[@jannthomsen2760]

I don’t think you understand what „calibrated“ means

[@exactlyvague]

Okay teach us. I’ll follow you and wait for your durometer calibration tutorial.

[@the1egghead463]

“We are going to show you the variances with two calibrated durometers” then proceeds to not even use the second one correctly. It didn’t even clear, hell the screen gave you either an error or it was resetting to memory. How daft can you be?

[@mtrithart]

Sorry, but having the manufacturer doing this is suspicious. It needs to be done by a group not affiliated with those producing the ball. We just can't take your word for it.

[@williamfreitas7016]

Were Storm’s durometers checked against the only one that matters, the one located in the climate controlled room in Arlington? How is only one company having issues with their polish process causing this?

[@roymunson38]

Why are purple hammers still testing soft? If these manufacturer of the durometer is the one certifying all of them, then wouldn't that mean it's on an equal playing field to the one at USBC? Do we know they are is climate controlled at USBC? Too many variables. Do we know other ball company's don't have issues? Or are we just assuming the USBC is telling the truth?

[@williamfreitas7016]

@@roymunson38 so we can only take Storm employees words and nobody else?

[@roymunson38]

@@williamfreitas7016 the video isn't saying that. It's saying durometer calibrated by the same company who calibrates the USBCs are reading differently. How do you automatically blame Storm? Are USBCs voices the only ones we are supposed to trust? The PBA didn't agree with the USBC. Who do we trust? And when the numbers can vary so widely, who is right? Is it good for bowling for the USBC to cost Storm millions by pulling these balls when the test wasn't reviewed, and has built in variances?

[@williamfreitas7016]

@@roymunson38 the PBA has a different hardness specification. It’s the same procedure used to decertify balls in the past. I would love to see more transparency from all parties but that won’t happen. I trust neither side.

[@haynlavaboy]

another idiotic reply from a CTD shill, has it been proven the polish is the cause? do you have actual data to prove this? you're saying people are only believing Storm but that is not the point of the video, it is an informative video to show the populace how variance can happen in testing, not just "climate control" being a variable. I know a lot of people who left CTD because of you. The elitist attitude you show is ridiculous, first you trash radical Phil, now it's Storm. What are you're qualifications to make such "educated" statements? before you lie, I will let you know that i do know you and your so-called bowling "certifications"

[@Ny_babs]

If you have a device that takes the human error out of it… why aren’t you using it for your video.

[@ChampionshipBowling]

The USBC doesn't use this device. So they used the same process as the USBC.

[@Ny_babs]

@@ChampionshipBowling but to show the difference surface and temperatures makes is skewed because of human error. Age of the balls matter as well. But I’m guessing they don’t have a ball with measurements kept. Absorption of the lane oil I’m confident would change the hardness as well. The number of times it’s been thrown and hitting the lanes would also change the hardness. I think what USBC did is improper and poorly timed, but this isn’t proving the Storm validity of their product. I know quite a few people, myself included just aren’t interested in storm products. We are expected to pay shipping for replacements, and $50 drilling credit for someone who is using grips and switch grip sleeves doesn’t cover it. As a long time customer and believer I’ve had to just walk away from the product line till everything gets sorted out. Lots of my friends are on the same page. I hope USBC stops targeting Storm. I’m guessing they were only testing Storm equipment.. anyone want to take that bet ? Lol

[@ChampionshipBowling]

@@Ny_babs the sole purpose of this video is to show you, that regardless of the other variables you mentioned, the testing device has a recognized variance. And not just 1, it has many. Human error, contamination, movement, ect. That's all this video is showing.

[@snikab]

@@williamfreitas7016 it wasn’t an initial failure or else it wouldn’t have been approved.

[@williamfreitas7016]

@@snikab correct. I meant initially the Spectre was spot checked and failed. The first spot checked balls by Motiv, Big Bowling and each Brunswick brand passed.

[@millburray]

Storm: Our balls without polish all will test legal. Also Storm: Our balls once polished to the factory finish our customers receive in box will pass or fail based on the intricacies of durometer variance and or user error. WOW! WHAT VINDICATION! 😂

[@IamtheBonkers]

I don’t think this is the right way to handle this situation. Storm is publicly challenging the validity of the rule. These findings/defenses should be brought to the attention of the USBC privately. They can petition for a rule change or more explicit standardization of testing. This is trying to publicly discredit the rule and the governing body of the sport. If I were a regulator in this situation I’d be pretty unhappy.

[@rb8999]

if USBC went to Storm privately and said we think you guys have an issue, you should look into it and make sure everything is right. Then I'd agree with you

[@peterchmielecki2928]

@@rb8999 Exactly. USBC brought this into the public sphere. Storm has every right to publicly disclose its defense.

[@BentheBowler]

Nothing about what USBC is doing is right. Look on the world scope of things, every major bowling association is allowing the 6 balls to be used except usbc.

[@williamfreitas7016]

@@rb8999 you mean like they did with the Spectre and were told nothing is wrong?

[@williamfreitas7016]

I can see Storm getting a closer look and no agreement will be had to keep them in business next time. They will go the way Lane 1 did all because they think they’re more powerful than they are.

[@Hahahanoyes]

Storm should sue

[@williamfreitas7016]

On what grounds? That they didn’t produce product to the specs they agreed upon with the procedures they agreed upon?

[@MGW1974]

@@williamfreitas7016 you know they did produce balls in good faith. Your being a troll. The whole point of the vid shows how usbc is playing dirty with measuring metrics that have variances they don't want to allow for. Either out of ignorance or spite. Either way, storm deserves to defend themselves. And can sue for losses if it goes that far.

[@williamfreitas7016]

@@MGW1974 no, I don’t know they were produced in good faith and “accidentally” fail after. I hope so but don’t know. I’ve been saying all along that given the fact Storm doesn’t make it’s own coverstocks the subcontractor could’ve done something to alter the final specification. But that’s not what Storm is saying. They’re blaming a process they could pass since inception until recently.

[@mateo31]

@@williamfreitas7016 USBC simp.

[@haynlavaboy]

@@MGW1974 William is a total troll, doesn't know what he is talking about, his own statements prove that, he even contradicts himself in his reply, a total clown.

[@1SpartanD4L]

7:02 - Umm, dude... 2ERO seems like an error message so you weren't actually clearing it between testing. Also, it "zero'd out" to 1. Same with your "homemade" device. Funny how the zero'd out to 1 durometer was always off by 1 from the durometer that zero'd out to 0. Finally, don't talk to us.. Talk to USBC. They're the ones determining if the ball is legal or not. They also acknowledged the possible variations and even made sure such allowances were there in the rule book. YOU decided to cut it too close as a manufacturer on certain balls, so you KNEW what you were doing. You got caught, fix the problem.

[@DavidDragonhammer]

Beautiful piece, but am looking at a engineering point of view, its time for BOTH SIDES to admit, it isn't perfect science and that USBC needs to provide to each manufacture a durometer that is calibrated to the there specs, or maybe a tech from them that spot checks there balls, and can give guidance to the manufacture . Am not a happy customer, I research each and every ball I purchase , And I truly loved the Storm spectre ball and they gave me a inferior hyroad pearl ball, first time down the lanes, had so many dents in it, am going to have to resurface the ball, and I don't drop my balls, I been playing over 40 plus years,so tired hearing all these stupid failures, when is someone going to be honest and say they made a mistake??

[@millburray]

USBC wouldn't supply the durometers. They list the exact ones used, and ball manufacturers buy them to ensure they manufacture legal balls. As you can see, Storm has these durometers and are clearly familiar with the variability. Yet, they somehow still manufactured a bunch of balls that test illegal on the machines they are clearly experts at using.