win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Velocity vs. Triumph?  (Read 3829 times)

bigearv14

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1545
Velocity vs. Triumph?
« on: November 13, 2004, 04:29:28 AM »
I had a Triumph and I got good length with a very strong backend. The Velocity looks similar and I was wondering if anyone ould give me a comparison of the two.

Thanks,

Josh

 

mrbowlingnut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5727
Re: Velocity vs. Triumph?
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2004, 12:35:46 PM »
The velocity is longer and stronger it is a half solid and half pearl shell, the same coverstock as M80 Bully with a light load of particle added. It handles more oil than triumph and has more of a defined backend almost turns sideways if they backend has enough dry boards.

It is not advertised as half solid and half pearl but it is the red is solid and the silver is pearl, i was informed by amf staffer of these facts.

Edited on 11/13/2004 1:36 PM

wryt300

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
Re: Velocity vs. Triumph?
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2004, 03:06:18 AM »
The cover is no were near the bully. The velocity is pearl, particle and the bully is resin. Check your facts.
The velocity is more pearl than anything.

bigearv14

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1545
Re: Velocity vs. Triumph?
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2004, 11:47:19 AM »
actually, i heard that the bully & the new maximum velocity will be similar as are the velocity and the big bully. that sounds accurate that they are using the same coverstock on both, just adding particles to the Velocity's. heck, both AMF & columbia use the superflex. Columbia does manufacture AMF's balls.

thanks for the info

mrbowlingnut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5727
Re: Velocity vs. Triumph?
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2004, 09:55:37 PM »
my facts are correct so get yours right, i said the ball is half solid and half pearl with particle added read again before you tell me to check my facts. I have an insider with amf/columbia/track so i know what i am telling you is correct. So unless you are with columbia/amf/track and prove me wrong i would keep my comments to yourself.

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Velocity vs. Triumph?
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2004, 04:47:28 AM »
Wasn't the Velocity's coverstock supposed to be this new "epoxy" compound?
Or am I remembering incorrectly or will this epoxy cover be on yet another new ball?
--------------------
"When we choose an action,
we also choose the consequences of that action.


Edited on 11/15/2004 5:48 AM
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Strider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6757
Re: Velocity vs. Triumph?
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2004, 06:28:00 AM »
One of the early (false) rumors had the epoxy cover on the Velocity, but that cover won't be released for some time yet.
--------------------
Penn State Proud

Ron Clifton's Bowling Tip Archive

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Velocity vs. Triumph?
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2004, 10:29:55 AM »
Ah. Thank you, strider.

So, Since mrbowlingnut is an informed person, not subject to flights of fancy, I will assume he has the correct lowdown on the Veocity,

The AMF300 website say the Veolcity is a particle,
"The new Velocity core gives you symmetrical predictability with enhanced mass bias performance. Surround it with our new Mach-1 Particle coverstock..."

It is a great looking ball.


--------------------
"When we choose an action,
we also choose the consequences of that action.
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

bigearv14

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1545
Re: Velocity vs. Triumph?
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2004, 11:34:34 AM »
Thanks to mrbowlingnut for the quick info and you tell em!!!!

Track900

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
Re: Velocity vs. Triumph?
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2004, 02:53:38 PM »
I have both the Triumph and the Velocity, IMO the Triumph goes alittle earlier then the Velocity but still has a very good backend reaction. The Velocity has more backend movement but seems easy to miss the breakpoint. I actually prefer the Triumph on Med. conditions and the Velocity and the drier side of Med. The best thing about the Velocity when they start to hook alittle in the heads is you can move as deep as you want and this ball will still turn the corner. Ball plays very well from the inside, plus due to its length can be an absolute wall-wacker. Both are exceptional balls, but I prefer the Triumph.

Track900

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
Re: Velocity vs. Triumph?
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2004, 08:27:43 PM »
If that information is true, then what coverstock is it???? Super-flex???? I hate to disagree but I think AMF is alittle more credible source then to supposedly lie about their coverstocks. But I guess anything is possible.

mrbowlingnut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5727
Re: Velocity vs. Triumph?
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2004, 10:39:44 AM »
He is somewhat correct m80=goo=mach 1 i still believe the main difference is the velocity is half solid and half pearl because i own one and it is easy to see it myself. Some a 50/50 ball is not the same and gos longer and stronger on the backend nothing more nothing less. I was told BTW the coverstocks of each of these balls are the same base formula with tweaks to each companies run.