Author Topic: Brunswick Quantum (Read 29726 times)

Dewey24 · « **on:** September 30, 2016, 12:01:21 PM »

http://www.bowlwithbrunswick.com/free-quantum-bag/

itsallaboutme · « **Reply #31 on:** October 01, 2016, 08:10:01 AM »

No. The cover material costs less than the added labor of a filler core.

ignitebowling · « **Reply #32 on:** October 01, 2016, 08:15:59 AM »

With no filler you have to use multiple cores. Notice 3 ball weights and 3 different cores. Quantum was the first to use filler and keep the same exact core across several weights.

The rest of the industry followed suit. Hammer recently did this more coverstock multiple cores for the black urethane.

Classic industry or recycle, re-use, re-market.

Dewey24 · « **Reply #33 on:** October 01, 2016, 10:20:17 AM »

Quote from: ignitebowling on October 01, 2016, 08:15:59 AM

With no filler you have to use multiple cores. Notice 3 ball weights and 3 different cores. Quantum was the first to use filler and keep the same exact core across several weights.

The rest of the industry followed suit. Hammer recently did this more coverstock multiple cores for the black urethane.

Classic industry or recycle, re-use, re-market.

Which brings my next question. Will there be significant difference in reaction due to the change of cores in the 15lbs and 14lbs balls.

charlest · « **Reply #34 on:** October 01, 2016, 10:34:09 AM »

Quote from: itsallaboutme on October 01, 2016, 07:39:59 AM

The COR limit is .750, the rest is marketing. The advantage of filler is getting the RG lower. The advantage of no filler balls is labor cost, one less step in the process.

One of the disadvantages of filler balls is you now have three different materials, core, filler and coverstock, swelling and shrinking with different temperatures and humidities. This would seem to increase the potential for cracking.

charlest · « **Reply #35 on:** October 01, 2016, 10:37:45 AM »

Quote from: Juggernaut on October 01, 2016, 01:15:37 AM

OK, now don't get me wrong, cause I ain't trying to start nothing, I'm just saying there is something I don't understand.

For years now, bowlers have been told, EVEN WHEN WE INSISTED DIFFERENTLY, that balls with filler type cores were "better" performing and more dynamic than balls with thick shells and no filler in them.

Now Brunswick is coming out with these two balls, and the video they made is highly touting the fact that thicker shells help increase the C.O.R. rating of the ball, and in fact, help increase pin action?

For those who don't already know, C.O.R. is for coefficient of restitution. What it means is that it is a measurement of energy transference from the hitting object to the hit object, which basically means that "it hits the pins harder" if the C.O.R. rating is higher.

SO, which is right? And does it even matter?

Me personally, I think thick shelled, non filler balls are great. I have since I bought my first Faball so many years ago............🤗

While I like no filler balls myself, the power of the ball is dependent less on whether or not it has filler, than on how it is designed, how it is drilled and who uses it on what condition.

I like them (no filler balls) mostly because they seem to absorb less oil and once absorbed, they seem to be able to absorb a lot more before they suffer from reduced performance, plus they seem to last longer than no filler balls, in general, not in every case, of course.

charlest · « **Reply #36 on:** October 01, 2016, 10:49:54 AM »

Quote from: Dewey24 on October 01, 2016, 10:20:17 AM

Quote from: ignitebowling on October 01, 2016, 08:15:59 AM
With no filler you have to use multiple cores. Notice 3 ball weights and 3 different cores. Quantum was the first to use filler and keep the same exact core across several weights.

The rest of the industry followed suit. Hammer recently did this more coverstock multiple cores for the black urethane.

Classic industry or recycle, re-use, re-market.

Which brings my next question. Will there be significant difference in reaction due to the change of cores in the 15lbs and 14lbs balls.

That may never be determined. Neither BJI nor BTM test 14 lb. balls.
Few people use both 15 lb. and 14 lb.
Plus you'd have to drill them the same and have the same person throw them on different conditions - testing is tedious and rigorous. So don't hold your breath, waiting for it to happen.

FYI I'd love to see it happen.

tommyboy74 · « **Reply #37 on:** October 02, 2016, 06:06:38 PM »

Here's a video that was posted about the Quantum:
https://www.facebook.com/brunswick.bowling/videos/1283557758362839/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

spencerwatts · « **Reply #38 on:** October 03, 2016, 05:01:51 PM »

My question is who's going to be willing to pay $174, $179 for this kind of ball?

Humph, if I shop right, I can buy two, for sure, maybe even three bowling balls for that amount.

CoorZero · « **Reply #39 on:** October 03, 2016, 05:11:05 PM »

Quote from: spencerwatts on October 03, 2016, 05:01:51 PM

My question is who's going to be willing to pay $174, $179 for this kind of ball?

Humph, if I shop right, I can buy two, for sure, maybe even three bowling balls for that amount.

People are definitely paying for the 3-ball tote that "comes with" the Quantums at that price. But I'm almost just as interested to see what that's like since KR Strikeforce isn't making their bags and shoes anymore.

BrunsNick · « **Reply #40 on:** October 03, 2016, 05:15:13 PM »

The Quantum bag is the exact same as the Brunswick Crown Triple Tote, just a different design.

nadertime78 · « **Reply #41 on:** October 03, 2016, 05:39:21 PM »

I am interested to see if they produce more than just these 2 balls and if they only use the mushroom core shape.

WOWZERS · « **Reply #42 on:** October 03, 2016, 05:55:37 PM »

For those of you wondering if you are "paying" for the free 3 ball tote, I guess you will have your answer come Jan 1 when the promotion period is over. Does the price stay the same or does it fall in line with other product price points. I have a hunch the price point stays the same to show you received a premium for purchasing early and because 20+ years ago, when Quantums were first produced, they were at a premium price point, so I think Big B will price the Quantums again at that premium price point over and above the other product lines in the book.

Just my 2 cents, I could be completely wrong!

BrunsNick · « **Reply #43 on:** October 03, 2016, 06:10:44 PM »

We do believe this is a premium performance product and the jury will be out November 1st to see if people agree. From the engineering to the different process in manufacturing, the Quantum project was a long time in the works. 3 cores, no outers and differential specs on point across the board. There wasn't a need to rename one of the finest performance ball lines in our history.

I get to throw mine for the first time in league tomorrow night. Needless to say, I'm giddy.

tkkshop · « **Reply #44 on:** October 03, 2016, 06:14:57 PM »

I thought being south of the border was supposed to cut cost?

Impending Doom · « **Reply #45 on:** October 03, 2016, 06:17:32 PM »

CuÃ¡ntico es mucho dinero!

Author Topic: Brunswick Quantum (Read 29726 times)

Dewey24

Brunswick Quantum

itsallaboutme

Re: Brunswick Quantum

ignitebowling

Re: Brunswick Quantum

Dewey24

Re: Brunswick Quantum

charlest

Re: Brunswick Quantum

charlest

Re: Brunswick Quantum

charlest

Re: Brunswick Quantum

tommyboy74

Re: Brunswick Quantum

spencerwatts

Re: Brunswick Quantum

CoorZero

Re: Brunswick Quantum

BrunsNick

Re: Brunswick Quantum

nadertime78

Re: Brunswick Quantum

WOWZERS

Re: Brunswick Quantum

BrunsNick

Re: Brunswick Quantum

tkkshop

Re: Brunswick Quantum

Impending Doom

Re: Brunswick Quantum