Comparative Analysis of AMF 82-90XL and Brunswick GSX Bowling PinsettersⅠ

In the daily operation of bowling alleys, the efficient and stable operation of pinsetters directly affects players' experience and the bowling center's operational efficiency. As two highly representative devices in the industry, Qubica AMF 82-90XL and Brunswick GSX, with their unique mechanical designs and operational logics, have become the preferred choices for numerous bowling alleys worldwide.

While their core functions aim for the same goal—quickly completing pin cleaning, recovery, and resetting—they exhibit significant differences in specific operational mechanisms. These differences directly determine their varying performances in terms of functionality, maintenance, and other aspects.

Let's first explore the differences between the two machines in pin handling and lifting mechanisms.           

Pin Detection and Initial Processing

Both brands of machines rely on their respective mechanical and electrical systems to perform these tasks efficiently and reliably. In the pin detection phase, there is little difference: sensors quickly capture the signal of pins being knocked down, triggering the pinsetter's working procedures through electronic systems. However, in the initial pin cleaning phase, their processing paths begin to diverge.

·Qubica AMF 82-90XL processing method:

The Sweeper Wagon descends to the lane surface, followed by a lifting device called the "Setting Table" which lowers to vertically lift the remaining pins. Then, the sweeping wagon(device) moves along the lane, pushing the dead pins to the pin recovery lifting device—the Pin Wheel. After clearing the lane, the setting table returns the remaining pins to their original positions, preparing for the next throw.

·Brunswick GSX adopts a "Ball Pit" processing method:

After vertically lifting the pins by setting the table, the sweeping device first clears the dead pins on the lane into the ball pit, then moves the pins to the Pin Elevator. After clearing the lane, similar to the AMF 82-90XL, the setting table returns the remaining pins to their original positions, preparing for the next throw.

Pin Recovery and Lifting System

The pin recovery and lifting system is the core embodiment of the operational differences between the two machines, directly reflecting the mechanical design philosophies of different brands.

·Processing steps of Brunswick GSX recovery and lifting system:

Pins that fall into the ball pit are moved to the Pin Elevator by the bottom Transport Band and rise with the Pin Elevator.

The surface of the elevator is evenly distributed with multiple "Pin Shovels," which rotate continuously with the elevator. Cooperating with the pin deflectors on both sides, they guide the pins to the center of the shovels.

Subsequently, Pin Centering Wedges, through a symmetric bevel design, ensure that pins are accurately clamped into the center of the shovels, preventing tilting or falling during lifting.

When the shovels rise to the top of the elevator, there is a "Shovel Guide" at the top. Each shovel has a guide roller that moves along the edge of the elevator cabinet. Upon reaching the shovel guide, the shovel tilts, causing the pins to roll along a preset trajectory into the top "Distributor".

·Qubica AMF 82-90XL adopts a "wheel-based cyclic" lifting system:

Pins in the recovery area are individually grabbed by the rotating Pin Wheel—grooves on the edge of the wheel perfectly match the size of the pins. The Pin Wheel continuously rotates to lift the pins to the Distributor at the top of the machine.

Through in-depth comparative analysis of the pin handling and lifting mechanisms between Qubica AMF 82-90XL and Brunswick GSX pinsetters, we can clearly observe the differentiated performances of two distinct design philosophies in practical applications.

The "wheel-based cyclic" system adopted by AMF 82-90XL embodies a design philosophy of simplicity and efficiency. In terms of space utilization, AMF 82-90XL results in a slightly smaller footprint than Brunswick GSX, making it more suitable for alleys with limited space. However, it has higher requirements for equipment calibration accuracy and necessitates a professional maintenance team.

On the other hand, Brunswick GSX’s "ball pit + shovel" system, through the collaborative operation of Pin Shovels and multi-stage guiding devices, can maintain stable performance. It is particularly suitable for bowling alleys with limited maintenance experience.

These two designs each have their own strengths, and there is no absolute superiority or inferiority between them. Understanding these differences will help operators make more informed equipment choices, thereby improving the overall operational efficiency and players' experience of the bowling alley.

In subsequent comparative analyses, we will continue to explore the differences in the pin distribution mechanisms between these two machines, providing more comprehensive reference for industry practitioners.