Author Topic: Fire Quantum (Read 2885 times)

omegabowler · « **on:** October 01, 2003, 01:02:37 AM »

I won an ebay bid for this ball. I missed the 90's reactive.

this is a new production from bowlingballs web site.

What where the hook shapes of quantum's? Favorite drillings etc.

Since it was low rg and low differential I'm assuming I would get a clean roll out of this and not a big skid snap. right?
--------------------
"deserves got nothing to do with it."
-- William Munny

CoachJim · « **Reply #1 on:** October 01, 2003, 04:18:38 PM »

I bowled with a Fire Quantum for a while back when it came out. I had it drilled lable leverage, and for me it was pretty early rolling and even arching. It seemed to work best for me when the back ends were providing some help, but that may be different now since the lane oils have changed.

I recently bought a Forest Green Quantum from pnj1967 and am going to have it drilled 3x4. I plan to use it when the track burns up a little and the inside starts over/undering, I will then move back to the track area and use the Forest green.

One of my ABC team mates won several tournaments with a Fire Quantum, good luck with yours.

Jim

omegabowler · « **Reply #2 on:** October 01, 2003, 04:39:18 PM »

Thanks. I have a good particle line up but I just can't nail down a reactive that dosen't jump . I play on a fresh wet dry and I need some length and some reaction off the dry just not to much.

my Time zone has way too much backed. I love the hit but I have no control. I'm hopping that this will fit the bill. if the quantum core is a good match then the monster lineup will be in my reactive bag.
--------------------
"deserves got nothing to do with it."
-- William Munny

charlest · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2003, 05:14:42 PM »

I got my first one a short while ago on Ebay. I drilled it with a variation on a 1:30 with the pin above the ring finger and the CG just on th enegative side of the grip, about 1/2" or so. This is about a 5x5.5" for me; it still has a strong turn on medium to almost medium heavy oil; it acts more like a high flaring ball. It gets decent length, for me, and hits very nicely. Based on the specs, or as close as I can gauge, it does not react like a pearlized resin with medium-low RG and medium-low RG differential. It acts mor elike low RG polished resin with medium high flare. I am not sure what factors are involved but I'm not about to argue the matter.

FWIW, I had a Danger Zone (sane coverstock, but solid) when they first came out and I don't know if it was the drilling or was, but it was the most unpredictable and worse balls I ever owned. Of course, I know a little more now than I did then.
--------------------
"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."

omegabowler · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2003, 05:18:27 PM »

this ball is a pearlized shell?

did you adjust the cover?
--------------------
"deserves got nothing to do with it."
-- William Munny

Edited on 10/1/2003 5:28 PM

charlest · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2003, 05:32:27 PM »

quote:
this ball is a pearlized shell?

did you adjust the cover?
--------------------
"deserves got nothing to do with it."
-- William Munny

Edited on 10/1/2003 5:28 PM

I believe it is supposed to be pearlized. I did not adjust the cover.

In that time period, 1996-7, Bowling This Month often said there was little difference between Brunswick's solid and pearlized coverstocks. I have never directly compared the two.

I do not know if my FQ acts the way it does because of what BTM said is true, becuase of my release or if it is not pearlized. The only other PK 18 ball I had was a Lane#1 Silver Diamond and that ball acted like a mild pearl. I never fooled around much with drillings for it and may have drilled it inappropriately. It was several years ago.

With this positive experience with the FQ, I am inclined to try another PK 18 ball, like a Bruiser or a SmashR, but don't need one right now.

FYI of my two other current Brunswick balls, a Red/Black Monster and an Igniter, neither one of them get good length and both have standard 1:30 drillings: pin under ring and CG in grip center. In fact, both are almost control balls.

--------------------
"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."

omegabowler · « **Reply #6 on:** October 01, 2003, 05:46:34 PM »

I also wanted a powercoil 18 coverstock ball. I selected the Time Zone over the Monster Bruiser.

The Time Zone flat out Hits. and by that I mean, kicking the pins around low and fast to the pin deck. I trip out more junk from poorly thrown balls than my Diesels.

the only problen I have with it(Time Zone) is controlling the backend on this thing. I'm hopping this will be smoother. if it is, I may sell the Time ZOne so if if you want a PK18 ball that is angular and big on the backend look for it in a few weeks in the For sale forum.

--------------------
"deserves got nothing to do with it."
-- William Munny

Brickguy221 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 01, 2003, 06:55:49 PM »

I had a Fire Quantum in the 90's. It was drilled Pin above and half way to the right of ring finger with CG kicked out about an inch further. In other words, the Pin wasn't directly over ring finger and it wasn't beside and above ring finger. It was approx. half way between those two positions. Probably an approximately 4 1/2 x 5 1/2 drilling. This ball had good length and when it moved on the back end, it moved.

--------------------
In the old days, they used axes to chop up wood...Nowadays, they use "BUZZSAWS".

Author Topic: Fire Quantum (Read 2885 times)

omegabowler

Fire Quantum

CoachJim

Re: Fire Quantum

omegabowler

Re: Fire Quantum

charlest

Re: Fire Quantum

omegabowler

Re: Fire Quantum

charlest

Re: Fire Quantum

omegabowler

Re: Fire Quantum

Brickguy221

Re: Fire Quantum