win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Trizact or Scotchbrite?  (Read 4387 times)

Sir Bowl-A-Lot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2981
Trizact or Scotchbrite?
« on: February 02, 2005, 05:39:53 AM »
I am thinking about buying an Impulse Zone and was wondering what method would be safer/better to strip the factory polish off and bring the cover down to about 800 grit matte.
--------------------
*Don't swing it if you can't bring it.*

Edited on 2/2/2005 2:38 PM
Logged

 

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Trizact or Scotchbrite?
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2005, 03:59:32 PM »
Brunswick has recently been saying that sandpaper (&, I believe, nylon pads) are OK to use with their particle balls. So, I'm guessing Brunswick has changed the type of particles they use in their balls since the Power Groove Proactive Plum Pearl and the Lane #1 Golden Nugget, both of which supposedly use the particles in the Riot Zone. On the Riot Zone, one needed trizact to affect the particles, and the surface. (Sandpaper and nylon pads only affected the underlying resin base material.)

I'd like to hear BrunsNick and BrunsRic corroborate this here, if they would.
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

RSalas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
Re: Trizact or Scotchbrite?
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2005, 04:05:27 PM »
quote:
I am thinking about buying an Impulse Zone and was wondering what method would be safer/better to strip the factory polish off and bring the cover down to about 800 grit matte.


A pro shop operator that I know with close ties to Brunswick told me recently that ScotchBrite should work just fine for scuffing the newer Brunswick particle balls.
--------------------
"Dispensing conventional wisdom to a fingertip world."

Horrid in Doubles, torrid in Singles...
...that's The Curse of Dusty.
Logged
#TweetYourScores

mrfjmt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
Re: Trizact or Scotchbrite?
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2005, 04:24:59 PM »
A while ago, I posed a question on the Brunswick.com forums asking what the factory surface of the Raging Inferno is.  Brunswick's Billy Orlikowski replied that it was 400-grit sand followed by Brunswick Factory Finish polish.  I asked about the use of Trizact sanding material; Billy replied that Brunswick is no longer using Trizact (on post-Proactive particle, I gather), and that post-Proactive Brunswick particle balls are easily returned to the factory finish through the use of sandpaper or Scotch-Brite-type pads, and if needed, a polishing compound like Brunswick Factory Finish polish.  He also said that in lieu of of the BFF polish, one could put the ball into a properly-functioning Lustre King.

I have resurfaced my Raging according to Brunswick's spec, using either a pad or 400 wet-dry sandpaper and BFF polish, and I've been happy with the results.  The BFF polish doesn't "overgloss" the surface like some other polishes tend to do.
Logged

Rockbowler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 889
Re: Trizact or Scotchbrite?
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2005, 04:37:29 PM »
Where did you purchase the Brunswick Factory Finish polish? Thanks!
Logged

mrfjmt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
Re: Trizact or Scotchbrite?
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2005, 04:52:24 PM »
quote:
Where did you purchase the Brunswick Factory Finish polish? Thanks!


Bowlingball.com sells it.  In California, wholesaler Cal Bowling Supply carries it.  Therefore, a shop that orders from CBS should be able to get it.
Logged

DON DRAPER

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5576
Re: Trizact or Scotchbrite?
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2005, 09:45:15 PM »
over the years i have used sandpaper, scotch-brite pads, and trizact on brunswick proactive balls and have seen no real difference in wear and tear or ball reaction. trizact was chosen back in the late 1990's due to a marketing tie-in with 3M. i've been told by more than one brunswick employee to use whichever type of abrasive is most handy.
Logged

Brickguy221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9918
Re: Trizact or Scotchbrite?
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2005, 11:55:58 PM »
quote:
trizact was chosen back in the late 1990's due to a marketing tie-in with 3M.

Could be something to it as I've seen similar type situtations happen in other companies, non bowling companies and not bowling related.
--------------------
Why do you need my signature?....You know who I am.
Logged
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away"

BrunsNick

  • Brunswick Rep
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7306
Re: Trizact or Scotchbrite?
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2005, 02:12:45 AM »
I'd just go straight to 800 grit if that is what you want. Drill the ball, and I would get your bowtie at top dead center and then do the other side.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-05
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Logged
Nick Smith
Digital Media Manager - Brunswick Bowling
http://www.brunswickbowling.com
http://www.youtube.com/c/brunsnick

mrfjmt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
Re: Trizact or Scotchbrite?
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2005, 10:45:46 AM »
quote:
quote:
trizact was chosen back in the late 1990's due to a marketing tie-in with 3M.

Could be something to it as I've seen similar type situtations happen in other companies, non bowling companies and not bowling related.
--------------------
Why do you need my signature?....You know who I am.


Regardless of the association between Brunswick and 3M, I found Trizact to be the best product to use on Proactive particles in terms of restoring the surface to factory spec.  Scotch-Brite was a distant second, with wet-dry sandpaper pretty much turning Proactives into straight urethane.
Logged

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7680
Re: Trizact or Scotchbrite?
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2005, 10:49:18 AM »
quote:
Regardless of the association between Brunswick and 3M, I found Trizact to be the best product to use on Proactive particles in terms of restoring the surface to factory spec. Scotch-Brite was a distant second, with wet-dry sandpaper pretty much turning Proactives into straight urethane.
 


mrfjmt: Good analysis. This has been my experience also.

--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »