ARAMITH BALLS: "That's how I roll!"

Someone please pull out their Ohaus Triple Beam and let's pin this down exactly......I mean tenths of an gram differences are easy to measure.
You saw how many gun photos were posted on a thread recently.....reloaders abound everywhere. If need be, I'll go to my storage locker and retrieve mine.

Remember there are 28.375 grams to the ounce and pool balls legally can vary within a set by up to 1/2ounce. My set of Centennials has less than 10 hrs play
but since I'm known to be such a critic of Cyclop pool ball design, more exact measurements really should be performed and posted by someone other than me.
The individual pool ball weight should be measured to at least tenths of a gram which is not hard to do with the right scale instead of using just a food or postal scale.

Matt B.
 
Last edited:
Kim Bye said:
I pretty much agree with every thing you are saying here.
Pool is a fickle sport with so many factors constantly changing.
The goal should at all times be to minimize the factors that can change, so balls of consistent weight is a good starting point.
I don`t really think 1 gram +/- really makes a difference, but to be on the safe side, lets keep the tolerances as close as we can on all the things we can controll.
Click to expand...

No problem Kim..Pool is indeed a fickle sport..But the miniscule difference, in the weight of the balls, will not change anything at all ! .. I just did not want you barking up the wrong tree ! ;) ..Did you miss my late edit, re; Buddy Hall ?
..All top players employ that exact same mindset ! (even CJ :grin:)


..
 
Last edited:
SJDinPHX said:
No problem Kim..Pool is indeed a fickle sport..But the miniscule difference, in the weight of the balls, will not change anything at all ! .. I just did not want you barking up the wrong tree ! ;).. Did you miss my late edit, re; Buddy Hall ?
..All top players employ that mindset ! (even CJ :grin:)
..
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying and I agree that the pro`s are pretty quick to pick up on the particularies of the equipment they are playing on and that they adapt their game to the conditions of the equipment.
Unless competition play some time in the future will be so structured that every aspect of the game will be controlled to the smallest details like temperature, humidity, cloth wear etc. etc.
There will be differences and some players will thrive on adaptability, while others will dominate in one particular place.
This pertains to the "why can`t SVB win a tournament outside USA"
Some people have no problem with well over 100 traveling days a year, they actually thrive on it, while others hate leaving the house for just a day or two. I believe that might me part of the SVB question.
While players like Thorsten Hohmann and Niels Feijen seems to cope very well with travel and thus play very consistently.
 
Kim Bye said:
I see what you are saying and I agree that the pro`s are pretty quick to pick up on the particularies of the equipment they are playing on and that they adapt their game to the conditions of the equipment.
Unless competition play some time in the future will be so structured that every aspect of the game will be controlled to the smallest details like temperature, humidity, cloth wear etc. etc.
There will be differences and some players will thrive on adaptability, while others will dominate in one particular place.
This pertains to the "why can`t SVB win a tournament outside USA"
Some people have no problem with well over 100 traveling days a year, they actually thrive on it, while others hate leaving the house for just a day or two. I believe that might me part of the SVB question.
While players like Thorsten Hohmann and Niels Feijen seems to cope very well with travel and thus play very consistently.
Click to expand...

Very good observations, Kim...I had never given it that much thought, but I think you might be right !...Sometimes when I traveled from San Jose, to San Francisco (50 miles)..I did not play well, and lost my ass ! :( ....I think you
may well be onto something ! :embarrassed2:
 
Last edited:
lfigueroa said:
I'm thinking that beyond weight, an equal or perhaps even more important consideration would be a ball's Coefficient of Restitution, or how much elasticity/bounce it has.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

The balls don't 'bounce'..they REACT !!!...Lou, even though I kicked you under the bus with Fred..we are still friends...Right ? :sorry:

Fred's dog....:o
10300504_651106834982113_5021089079778399207_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
jtaylor996 said:
Just to clarify, aramith will make a set of super pro or centennial within 0.1g for the entire set. However, that whole set may be up to 1.5g from the target, but the set itself is perfectly matched. They are saying cyclop are showing a 2g variance within a single set (whereas a super pro set would show 0.2 g variance within the set).
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that is correct. Per Ivan Lee in the "Setting the Record Straight" news release: "we sort all balls within each set to have less than +/- 1.5 g total tolerance."

That means one ball in the set could possibly weigh nearly 3 g more than another in that same set.

And I don't recall ever seeing anyone report all balls in a set being within a range of 0.2g. Even if someone had a scale that was accurate just to the nearest gram, and all the balls read 169g on the scale, that doesn't mean they are all within a range of 0.2g.
 
Last edited:
Kim Bye said:
... what i do find fascinating is that the 7 and 15 (same colour) both weights a gram less that all the other balls. ...
Click to expand...

Kim, when a scale reads only to the nearest gram, and one ball reads 167g and another reads 168g, that doesn't mean they are really a gram different in weight.

The "167g" ball is somewhere in the range of 166½ to 167½ and the "168g" ball is somewhere in the range of 167½ to 168½. So their true difference can really be as small as almost nothing to nearly 2g.
 
That's why we need a more precise, accurate measurement of the weight of each ball than has been already attempted. I'll try to swing by my storage locker
on Tuesday and pick up my Triple Beam scale unless someone steps up and weighs the pool balls to the nearest tenth of a gram.

The program logic used in the inexpensive electronic food and postal scales isn't reliable since these scales round the reading off to the nearest whole number.
Normally if the tenths weight was more than .5, the scale will round up to the next hole number gram weight. But these are cheaply made scales and sometimes
the scale will round down to the next whole gram regardless of what the tenths of a gram weight reading was.

Anyway, the only way to resolve the accurate tolerances of each pool ball is by using a gram scale that can be calibrated before & during actual weighing of the
pool balls. I can only weigh my Centennial set and it would be much better if anyone else could weigh more than just a single brand like with my situation. But let's
remain hopeful one of Az's many gun compatriots that reload, and also own some brands of pool balls, offers to get this done.

Matt B.
 
Last edited:
for what it worth, here is my weight measurements of 2 brand new aramith premium sets,
The scale used can measure 1/1000 of a gram, so the results were quite accurate.

1 165.60 166.50
2 164.80 164.70
3 166.10 166.20
4 165.90 166.20
5 165.90 165.80
6 165.40 166.80
7 165.80 166.10
8 166.70 165.90
9 165.20 165.50
10 164.50 164.80
11 165.50 165.80
12 165.00 165.00
13 164.50 165.00
14 165.10 165.00
15 165.40 165.10
C 165.80 165.50

then there were 2 used cheap Chinese sets, much lower quality than the premium sets,

XinKang Set
#1 #2
1 167.9 168.6
2 167.6 166.7
3 168.2 166.6
4 167.8 168.3
5 168.3 167.6
6 168.0 168.4
7 167.9 167.9
8 167.4 168.2
9 168.0 168.5
10 167.1 167.4
11 167.5 167.2
12 167.7 167.9
13 167.8 167.2
14 168.0 167.8
15 167.0 166.3
C 168.5 168.6

the bottom line, I don't think the variance in weight means much once they were kept within a certain range.

BTW, the XinKang sets have the same color and fonts as the aramith TV set, and their weight to the gram.
 
JayKidd said:
for what it worth, here is my weight measurements of 2 brand new aramith premium sets,
The scale used can measure 1/1000 of a gram, so the results were quite accurate.

1 165.60 166.50
2 164.80 164.70
3 166.10 166.20
4 165.90 166.20
5 165.90 165.80
6 165.40 166.80
7 165.80 166.10
8 166.70 165.90
9 165.20 165.50
10 164.50 164.80
11 165.50 165.80
12 165.00 165.00
13 164.50 165.00
14 165.10 165.00
15 165.40 165.10
C 165.80 165.50

then there were 2 used cheap Chinese sets, much lower quality than the premium sets,

XinKang Set
#1 #2
1 167.9 168.6
2 167.6 166.7
3 168.2 166.6
4 167.8 168.3
5 168.3 167.6
6 168.0 168.4
7 167.9 167.9
8 167.4 168.2
9 168.0 168.5
10 167.1 167.4
11 167.5 167.2
12 167.7 167.9
13 167.8 167.2
14 168.0 167.8
15 167.0 166.3
C 168.5 168.6

the bottom line, I don't think the variance in weight means much once they were kept within a certain range.

BTW, the XinKang sets have the same color and fonts as the aramith TV set, and their weight to the gram.
Click to expand...

So it looks like the difference between the heaviest and lightest balls in each set is 2.2g and 2.1g for the Aramith Premier sets and 1.5g and 2.3g for the XinKang sets. Not bad!
 
AtLarge said:
So it looks like the difference between the heaviest and lightest balls in each set is 2.2g and 2.1g for the Aramith Premier sets and 1.5g and 2.3g for the XinKang sets. Not bad!
Click to expand...

exactly, that's why I don't think the weight variance is an important indicator for pool ball quality.
 
Thanks JayKidd....it's going to be over 100 degrees today where I am and rummaging through a storage locker to retrieve my scale isn't needed any longer since you weighed the balls.

Matt B.
 
talk about irony of the commerce, In China, a set of quasi-genuine aramith TV balls sell around $150 - $165. While the "made in china" Cyclop ball set sell at least $190 there. While in the US, the price ratio reversed to something like $250 to $200.
 
Out of curiosity I checked my Aramith Pro-Tv Cup set, all balls are 167gr, including measles CB. An extra measles CB is also 167gr, as well as an old Centennial CB that I have.
Petros
 
Petros Andrikop said:
Out of curiosity I checked my Aramith Pro-Tv Cup set, all balls are 167gr, including measles CB. An extra measles CB is also 167gr, as well as an old Centennial CB that I have.
Petros
Click to expand...

So, assuming your scale reads to the nearest whole gram, that means all the balls are between 166½ g and 167½ g. Excellent! And they could be in an even tighter range than that.

[Or is your scale stuck on 167?] :)
 
AtLarge said:
So, assuming your scale reads to the nearest whole gram, that means all the balls are between 166½ g and 167½ g. Excellent! And they could be in an even tighter range than that.

[Or is your scale stuck on 167?] :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for replying, forgot to mention I used an electronic kitchen scale which reads up to 5kg, to the nearest gram every time.
The set is aprox. 3 years old, used in personal practice, not too much since I don't play a lot anymore, in good condition. The extra measle CB was bought later from another place, it hasn't been used much.
The old Centennial CB has more use, still in good condition too.
Petros
 
Last edited:
AtLarge said:
No, I don't think that is correct. Per Ivan Lee in the "Setting the Record Straight" news release: "we sort all balls within each set to have less than +/- 1.5 g total tolerance."

That means one ball in the set could possibly weigh nearly 3 g more than another in that same set.

And I don't recall ever seeing anyone report all balls in a set being within a range of 0.2g. Even if someone had a scale that was accurate just to the nearest gram, and all the balls read 169g on the scale, that doesn't mean they are all within a range of 0.2g.
Click to expand...

Yeah the .2g was some foggy memory somewhere. But I've never seen anyone measure a pro cup set that wasn't just barely more than 1g difference across a new set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top