win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Inferno vs. Ultimate Inferno  (Read 3505 times)

Walking E

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2101
Inferno vs. Ultimate Inferno
« on: May 15, 2004, 09:30:40 AM »
I am going to get one of these two balls but I am undecided on which. I'm looking for a ball that will store a lot of energy and revs for the back end, and I think that either one of these will do. The core is the same and they are both reactive, so my question is this:

If I polish the Ultimate Inferno, will it give me the same reaction as the Inferno?

If it does, it would seem that the UI would be the better choice due to the versatility of being able to be thrown dull or polished. The Inferno doesn't look like a ball that "dulls up" very well.

I roll on a carry-down condition, wood lanes, freshly oiled heads and my other polished reactives go very straight (Sage Quantum, black V2 polished); however, the Inferno line appears to be pretty strong for a reactive and I think with either choice I'll get the stronger reaction I'm desiring than with either of  the two balls I mentioned.

Does anybody have any insight or opinions about this?

Thanks, in advance!

 

a_ak57

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10584
Re: Inferno vs. Ultimate Inferno
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2004, 12:36:02 AM »
The Ultimate is a solid reactive whereas the original is a pearl (meaning it has an additive to make it go longer).  If polished, a UI will still roll more early and be slightly less flippy than the original, better for oil.  Since you said you're bowling on carrydown, I'd go with the UI to get some traction through the oil and help it turn.  If it's too strong, you can always polish it for some more length and flip.

Hope that helps.
--------------------
-Andy

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Inferno vs. Ultimate Inferno
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2004, 07:16:43 AM »
quote:


I roll on a carry-down condition, wood lanes, freshly oiled heads and my other polished reactives go very straight (Sage Quantum, black V2 polished); however, the Inferno line appears to be pretty strong for a reactive and I think with either choice I'll get the stronger reaction I'm desiring than with either of  the two balls I mentioned.

Does anybody have any insight or opinions about this?


When you say the black V2 polished goes very straight, what makes you think the UI will not also go straight when it is polished? The V2 black (Once officially called the "V2 Sanded".) is not exactly a weak ball even when polished. In fact, its RG and RG differential are in the same range as the UI; Both are fairly strong solid resin coverstocks. Just because the V2 is an older ball does not mean it is weaker than the UI. (If it has absorbed oil and is highly "used", it may be weaker.) Both balls are intended for medium to medium-heavy oil, with some carrydown in their out-of-box surface, which is about 800-1000 grit.

Since the V2's cover is easily modified, both up and down, I'd strongly suggest modifying its cover to see how the UI might react to the same. (If you want to keep it polished, it can always be re-polished.)  First I'd try using a green nylon pad on it, by hand, to roughen up the cover; then see how it reacts. If that's not enough, sand it totally to  1200 or 1000 grit level with wet/dry sandpaper and then see how it reacts. If that's too early, try 600 grit sanding and very light polish.

--------------------
"We get old too fast, and too late, smart."
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

UCFKnight300

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
Re: Inferno vs. Ultimate Inferno
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2004, 06:08:07 PM »
The original inferno sands very well.  I have mine at 600 grit.

Walking E

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2101
Re: Inferno vs. Ultimate Inferno
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2004, 01:06:08 AM »
Thanks to everybody for your input! I decided to go with the Ultimate Inferno, as I have no other strong reactive ball in my arsenal, with the possible exception of the V2 "sanded". From observations that I've made of other bowlers, I think the V2 sanded rolls better polished, so I don't want to return it to the box condition. As it is, we didn't sand the V2 surface -- all we did was apply a polish to the surface to give it a nice shine. I only have about 10 games on it, so it isn't oil soaked by any means. It just squirts on my typical oily heads/carry down condition, but what polished reactive doesn't? (unless you tear the cover off the ball, which I don't)
The Ultimate should be a much stronger ball for me, especially if I leave it in the box condition (which everyone indicates is very strong).

Now if I can just find a house for the summer that has a THS so that I can unleash ALL of my equipment and score!

Edited on 5/20/2004 1:04 AM

a_ak57

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10584
Re: Inferno vs. Ultimate Inferno
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2004, 03:21:14 PM »
Or maybe you just suck.
--------------------
-Andy

UCFKnight300

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
Re: Inferno vs. Ultimate Inferno
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2004, 04:31:08 PM »
I 2nd ak57

JVan19

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 357
Re: Inferno vs. Ultimate Inferno
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2004, 04:43:13 PM »
Walking E, I just wanted to let you know that I purchased a used Inferno (with only 3 games on it) a couple of months ago and I am very impressed with this ball. This ball just explodes the rack and the pins fly everywhere. I shot four 700's with this ball and on second half roll-off night I shot two games of 233 and 289 with this ball. For the roll-off for the league championship I shot 949 for four games with a 290 the last game. I hadn't used a Brunswick ball in quite a few years but after reading the reviews on this site, I decided to take a chance on the Inferno as it only had three games on it. I am so glad I bought this ball. I have not tried the Ultimate Inferno but would like too, so can you give us an update after you get yours and you get some games on it. Thanks.

Walking E

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2101
Re: Inferno vs. Ultimate Inferno
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2004, 05:31:32 PM »
Hey guys,
So far I only have a few practice games on the ball on a THS. Wow -- this ball really hooks violently on the back end! I don't know the technical data, but the pin is at the top of my ring finger, and the "CG" (I think that's what it is -- it's just a little dot) is between my ring finger and thumb. I left it in the box condition. I throw fairly hard, medium revs, track low, and I muscle the ball (i.e. I pitch the ball down the lane with turn, so I don't generally let the ball do all the work).
I wanted a layout and ball that would give me a strong backend reaction, and this ball fits the bill. For comparison's sake, it's stronger and much more angular than my Flipside Wow, and hooks about 5 boards more on a fresh backend. Some of the strikes I got were just filthy ridiculous for me and my game! It's quite unusual for me to cross 20 out to 5 and watch the ball zoom back towards the head pin in the last 10 feet. Admittedly, I slowed the ball speed down a little to do this, but that made my speed more of an "average" ball speed anyway. In the three games, I had a 7-bagger and a 5-bagger, which wasn't bad considering that I was really tired and also had to adjust to a new finger pitch. I also had some big splits, as I would tug the ball (or throw it soft due to weariness) and it would dive right through the head pin. I also left a few solid 10 pins, but all of those could've been better shots anyway (for my point of view regarding solid 10-pins for righties and 7-pins for lefties, see my signature ;-)).
I have yet to try this ball on my usual house shot, which is fresh oiled heads with carrydown and a buffed midlane. I know that on that condition, this ball won't finish like it does on a typical house shot with fresh backends, but I am optimistic that it will still give me some finish (especially with keeping the original surface).

The strong backend reaction might end up being a little too strong for me, but I'm happy with it for now.

I'll let you know more once I've tried it out on different conditions. Thanks again for all your input.
--------------------
You weren't unlucky when you left that corner pin, so shut up about it already!!

Lane Bed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
Re: Inferno vs. Ultimate Inferno
« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2004, 02:17:16 AM »
If you want stored engery and big backends then you want a pearlized ball which would be the Inferno. The UI will hook early. I have had good luck with mine using a skid/snap drilling. If you want even better skid/snap check out the Track Animal Untamed

Walking E

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2101
Re: Inferno vs. Ultimate Inferno
« Reply #10 on: May 27, 2004, 11:32:29 AM »
quote:
If you want stored engery and big backends then you want a pearlized ball which would be the Inferno. The UI will hook early. I have had good luck with mine using a skid/snap drilling. If you want even better skid/snap check out the Track Animal Untamed


I throw above average speed, track low and I muscle the ball, so my experience with pearl coverstocks is that they're too squirty for me. Most of the time on my typical conditions, they go straight for 60 feet. If I bowled on drier lanes a pearl would be ideal.

Yeah, if I could afford it I'd try both the original Inferno and the Animal Untamed, but alas that is not to be. Hmmmm, maybe I'll sell one of my kidneys or something ...
--------------------
You weren't unlucky when you left that corner pin, so shut up about it already!!

laufaye

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1602
Re: Inferno vs. Ultimate Inferno
« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2004, 02:23:33 PM »
Hmmmm, maybe I'll sell one of my kidneys or something ... 


LOL, you should try wanted/selling section. LOLOL
--------------------
Laufaye