AZO's Ultra Radical Pearl ("URP") in a nutshell: High RG/high RG differential symmetrical core from mid-2007
OOB well-suited for medium conditions
Typical pearl reactive piece: snappy coverstock, easy through the heads, allergic to oil
A simple ball: responds well to hand and speed changes, easy to handle
Uh, the first review for this ball ever around here? I seem to have a knack for exotic pieces, and I haven't written a ball review in a while, so here we go... 
Why this ball?
Originally, pure coincidence 
. A pro shop based in Southern Germany offered a batch of these with good specs for a steal - I did not need any ball at the time I bought it, but for less than a Power Groove, how could I refuse? Since this is a Storm-produced ball of simple construction, I saw little risk.
But, as if fate had its hand in the story, my Fuze Igniter cracked after a short career just the night after I ordered my URP - and with its specs and potential the URP became a convenient, instant replacement for this sudden and sad gap: a true skid/flip ball with good length, which offers me more angle at the breakpoint and covers potentially more boards than my Revolution Renegade, my go-to ball for medium conditions and THS, but with limited hooking ability. With its pearl reactive cover, a rather high RG value and a high RG differential, the URP looked promising - esp. with my specimen's specs (see below).
Another thing that makes the ball interesting is the fact, that it is built without filler: a massive piece just made from coverstock material and its voluminous, mushroom-shaped core.
About me:
Style = Stroker/mild tweener, right-handed
Speed = ~14-16 mph
PAP = 5" over & 7/8" up (high track)
Axis tilt = ~20°
Revs = ~275-325 RPM at release
For more details, check out my profile, please.
The ball and its setup:
My Ultra Radical Pearl came with the following specs:
15.22 lbs. gross weight
3.5” pin distance
2.66 ounces top weight
With my playing style, I fare well with high pin positions and stacked layouts - esp. on rather light conditions around here. My personal issue is length for most of the time, but not hook. Tuning a ball in a way that it “works” for me without unnecessary force or burnout danger is my main concern for new and potentially strong balls – and the URP’s coverstock felt pretty tacky!
I had the ball drilled up at Michael Kraemer's pro shop in Duisburg, Germany.
Relying on his expertise and after discussing my plans with the piece, we drilled the ball 5x4 with the pin high above the fingers (4.5" above midline, ~1.75" above VAL) and the CG 1" above the midline. No balance hole was necessary.
Dual angle specs:
60° drilling angle
5" pin to PAP
25° angle to VAL
==========
====+=====
===o=o====
==========
=====#====
==========
====O=====
==========
* = Pin (in ring finger hole position)
# = CG
Pictures of the ball and layout sketch can be found in the test video provided below.
Oval grips and a urethane thumb slug completed the setup. I left the surface as it was, "polished", I suppose it is Storm's standard glossy factory finish at 1.500 grit plus a coat of polish. But the 2008 catalogue info about the finish is quite confusing - its mate, the Ultra Radical Pro is officially advertised as "1500-grit polished", while the URP is only "polished" - whatever this might mean?
Reaction & comparison video (vs. G-3 Gryphon and Revolution Renegade):
The testing program in detail:
For comparison purposes, I took the balls from my arsenal which would be closest to the URP:Revolution Renegade, 4.5x4.5, polished, RG. diff 0.037", the next weakest ballVisionary G-3 Gryphon, 4.5x4.5, polished, RG diff. 0.055", next strongest pearl reactive
I expected the URP to be slightly longer and sharper than the Renegade, while being considerably longer and snappier than the G-3.
A) 39' fresh flat sport pattern, 2004 Qubica synth surface:
As a lucky coincidence, the URP's maiden flight took place in Duisburg, Germany, on a rather demanding (but not too complicated) pattern - a flat training pattern for the EBT 2010 in Germany. Not sure about the exact pattern specs, though, but I suppose that it was close to the EBT condition (2.8:1 ratio, 25ml total oil, 39' long - data can be found at Kegel's website). While I was pleased with this occasion, I found it a bit hard to draw conclusions from it with the new ball - see the video footage after test section B.
Anyway, all three comparison balls had to be played rather straight and about four boards closer to the gutter than usual, when the local THS is applied. The back end was clean, so ball movement was no problem. To the outside, there was no room for error at all, and all three balls offered mediocre traction ro even less - a solid ball with light surface or even a particle ball would have been a better choice.
The URP was playable, but seemed to be at its limit. I stood at 20 with my right shoe tip, aiming for 2nd arrow and used a little more tilt than usual to get the ball down the lane and control both breakpoint and hook to keep it in the pocket. I was surprised to see a rather arcing back end.
The G-3 was the best ball from the trio. Not only that it allowed a deeper line (feet at 24, aiming at 12, similar release to URP) with more hook and back end, the whole affair was also much more effortless than with the URP which, in direct comparison, seemed to tend to suffer from over/under issues.
The Renegade was a catastrophe! After long trial with lines and releases I finally found a combo of feet at 18, aim at 8 and more hand behind the ball which got the ball into the pocket without constant washouts or splits - the worst choice from the trio! Compared to the Renegade's performance, the so-so URP appeared like a much stronger piece.
B) 38' fresh medium THS with 24ml lane conditioner, 2009 Brunswick AnvilLane surface:
Next program point: a crowned pattern with buffed outside boards my home club's house, Duesseldorf Benrath. Not a real THS, but already with considerable room for error. Again the three benchmark balls were played, with interesting results:
The URP appeared to be much stronger on this pattern which offered more dry area to work with. Here, I initially tried a relatively straight line with my feet at 24th board and aiming across 12nd board at the arrows, again with some extra tilt through hand position and some extra revs with a slightly cupped wrist to compensate for the longer path across the lane.
This worked fairly well, but the URP proved to react sensitively to hand position changes - especially with less revs, the ball immediately showed much less back end movement. I assume that this is the result of the length layout which just lets the core kick in late - if it is forced to react late, nothing happens at all...
The G-3 was, again, the considerably more potent ball. I immediately lined up with my feet at 28th board and aimed across 3rd arrow for an overall larger hook with good carry - again, the lower RG, higher differential and the slightly stronger layout became recognisable.
With more dry boards to cling to, the Renegade was back into business - with a vengeance. While I was able to play a very similar line with it as with the URP (feet at 24, aimed at 13th board), the reaction shape was way different from the URP: the solid Renegade would read the lane earlier, and show a more even, rather arcing hook than the URP. The latter seemed to push about 3' longer, then break quickly upon friction contact and the turn the corner more sharply. The performance difference of these balls was much smaller than on the sport pattern before - and a good indicator for the coverstock's responsiveness to dry boards: much quicker than the Renegade, and also more abrupt than the G-3.
After this, I later tried something different: I moved deeper with the URP, feet at 27 and aiming across 3rd arrow like the G-3, and put the hand more behind the ball. THIS made the ball come alive - it went far down the lane, moved into the buffed area and then quickly transitioned from from skid to hook and roll for a sharp hook and great carry! I was really surprised, even though I already assumed that moving deep would be possible with this ball due to its aggressive cover.
The video footage I took of these shots are a bit deluding, because the camera angle does not show well how sharply the ball curved in on the back end!
C) Medium-light Xmas tree pattern with 18ml lane conditioner, Brunswick synth surface:
Final test on what comes close to a THS: an Xmas tree pattern with only light oil (and unknown length), but on a very slippery Brunswick synth surface.
I tried the URP on two lines. At first I tried something deeper, since I expected more grip and movement down the lane due to the oil pattern. But to my surprise, the ball di not move much - but I guess that it was the lane surface and probably a not perfectly clean back end - which would be plausible, since this house rather tends to open bowlers' needs and sees much house ball action.
Anyway, initial games were played on a good line with the right shoe tip at 23 and aimed at 11th board at the arrows - a pretty straight line, but the ball went through a clean skid/hook/roll phase, even though I found that adding some revs with a cupped wrist while keeping axis tilt at 45° helped a lot with carry. Without that extra push, recovery from close to the gutter was rather poor.
Later I shifted my line closer to the gutter, right shoe tip at 20 and the ball played straight down 8th board with a straight wrist and normal 45° axis tilt with little effort, and carry and control improved considerably. Sometimes, letting the ball "just go" helps...
For comparison, the G-3 proved to be a much more powerful ball here. It hooked a lot and early, and I had serious control issues with it. At first, I tested out how deep it would play with the straight wrist/45° tilt release, and ended up at 26th board with my right shoe tip, playing across 3rd arrow. But the breakpoint was hard to control - 3 splits in a game were more than enough to tell that this was not a good solution for the situation at hand, and it confirmed my impression of an unclean back end.
I also tried the 20/8 line, and with the standard release the ball would go Brooklyn. I had to take out a lot of hand and came up more behind the ball to straighten its hook, and this worked much better, even though the URP felt to be the much better option here.
Finally, the Renegade surprised as the best ball of the trio. I immediately found a line with my right shoe tip at 21st board, playing almost straight down across my aim on 11th board at the arrows, with a straight wrist but less axis tilt, for two games in the 200 range. The Renegade would cover more or less as many boards as the URP, but move differently, like in previous tests: it reads the lane a bit earlier, and shows a more arcing break point and hook than the URP, which would, in direct comparison, skid longer, break later and finish harder.
But again, the intended plan to place the URP in my arsenal "above" the Renegade, seemed to work. I was just amazed how much stronger the G-3 reacted here, the difference to the weaker balls was huge!
Some conclusions:
I am careful with a judgement, due to the weaker layout of my specimen. But this ball seems to be sharp! A classic pearl reactive that can be made to jump and hook in a hockey stick style - I suppose that the ball would, with a stronger, stacked layout, be a very sharp ball.
To me so far, the URP appears to be a versatile piece for medium conditions. Nothing fancy, but a good, simple ball. It might even be underrated – due to its poor marketing. The price tag for these balls was huge when they were released in 2007, a URP or one of its stable mates would cost more than a high end piece from a major manufacturer/brand! And except for being an exotic brand, there was (and is) IMO nothing that would warrant this mark-up - Born dead. And unfortunately, the current product policy of this balls' successor generation does not look much different, but that's marketing.
The coverstock is pretty aggressive - it could be 1st generation Reactor (since this ball was produced at Storm)? It is definitively more responsive to friction than, say, Accu-Tread or PK18. It also pushes much better through the heads than these older coverstocks, something I like about the ball for the role it is supposed to play in my arsenal.
The ball's high RG is also helpful in order to push it far down the lane. This does IMHO not make it the best choice for speed-dominant players except for almost dry lanes, but since the high RG/high RG diff. combo is rather rare, it is a hot tip if you are looking for a ball that goes long and turns hard! The ball seems to have lot of potential if drilled stronger than my 5x4 setup.
Even though it is a massive piece without filler (just coverstock material and a huge, mushroom-shaped core with a flip block on top), there is no recognisable difference in reaction or hitting power.
I haven’t tampered with the surface yet, and I do not see any need so far, both reaction- and durability-wise. From the total games I made with the ball it fills the intended arsenal gap above the Renegade with more length and sharper hook well at OOB surface. The ball also did neither track out nor show any sign of wear or loss of reaction, but it has not many games on the clock yet.
From a user’s point of view, this is a (literally) solid ball which offers a good range of utility. You can do a lot with it, and it responds well to release changes. With my layout the ball appears to be prone to under-react if I take a bit too much hand out of the release, though. It likes to be played aggressively, with some extra hand, and it seems to be better to play the ball with extra tilt and revs to achieve length and pop instead of taking hand out of the release while staying more behind the ball if I want to push it down the lane. But I think this is the result of my layout, not a natural trait of the ball as such.
Overall I am quite satisfied. The Ultra Radical Pearl is an average piece, doing its intended job well, but not the next best invention after sliced bread
Personal rating scale:
Length/through the heads:
Easy oooXoooooo Needs head oil
Breakpoint shape:
Arc ooooooooXo Angular
Hook potential:
Low oooooXoooo High
Control:
Stable oooXoooooo Erratic
Durability:
Poor oooooooXoo High
Suited for…
Dry oooXoooooo Oily
Range of utility/lane conditions:
Limited ooooooXooo Broad
Subjective overall rating of this ball specimen:
Poor ooooooXooo Excellent
This scale is inspired by popular rating methods and the results ultra-subjective. Surface prep, layouts and different playing styles will change the results for sure - it is just personal experience with the reviewed ball at OOB finish
Lane utility for tested ball at OOB surface (pattern length vs. oil volume):
|S M L
|h e o
|o d n
|r . g
|t
_______
|0 X +| Light volume
|+ X X| Medium volume
|+ 0 0| Heavy volume
Legend:
X = Best suited with effective control & carry
+ = Fairly suited (works, somehow, but can lack control and effectiveness)
0 = Unsuited (ineffective, either slips helplessly or burns up)
This chart’s concept is borrowed from Storm's 2003 print catalogue. Again, surface prep, layout or a different playing style will change the result.
Finally... the looks:
Purple balls IMHO rarely look appealing, but I must say that my URP, despite the dark overall tone, looks quite elegant, esp. with its glossy OOB finish. The catalogue pictures does not do it justice - the ball appears much too reddish there. It is actually a vivid blend of very dark purple and almost midnight blue swirls, with low contrast (see the pics in the video).
The neon yellow engravings really stand out from it, but - unfortunately - overall the ball just looks like a very generic bowling ball. Not ugly, but it won't stand out anywhere or catch an eye in the pro shop. And, finally: why had that fat and childish AZO logo to be used as CG marker ? This is really ridiculous, since the company's logo is already to be found on the ball's side.
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany
Confused by bowling? Check out BR.com''s vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section
Edited on 26.09.2011 at 7:21 AM
Edited on 26.10.2011 at 3:46 AM
