win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Original Inferno vs. Remake Inferno  (Read 1381 times)

ccrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2230
Original Inferno vs. Remake Inferno
« on: April 05, 2007, 05:00:35 AM »
Anyone tried both the original inferno and the remake of the inferno. I have an old original inferno and like it a lots.  I was thinking about getting another one and putting it to the side until the old one dies.

Thanks

Charles

 

BrunsNick

  • Brunswick Rep
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7306
Re: Original Inferno vs. Remake Inferno
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2007, 01:48:21 PM »
I'd say they are pretty darn tootin' close to eachother.

Hope that helps
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Nick Smith
Digital Media Manager - Brunswick Bowling
http://www.brunswickbowling.com
http://www.youtube.com/c/brunsnick

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Original Inferno vs. Remake Inferno
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2007, 06:08:24 PM »
Unlike some other companies, it appears that when Brunswick re-makes a ball, as when Bowlingball.com asks for the minimum run for, such as, the Fire Quantum, Brunswick's chemical company, Bayer, uses/used the exact same resin formula and Brunswick uses the exact same core for each ball.

I think Brunswick can be depended upon to continue doing this, as near as I can tell, FWIW. I think this is a great situation.

This being so, I wonder why Columbia's chemical company, BASF, does (OK, did)  not seem to be able to do the same. Balls such as the Pulse remake was not close to the same ball as the original, a great ball.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
"None are so blind as those who will not see."