BallReviews

Equipment Boards => Brunswick => Topic started by: ccrider on April 05, 2007, 05:00:35 AM

Title: Original Inferno vs. Remake Inferno
Post by: ccrider 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

Title: Re: Original Inferno vs. Remake Inferno
Post by: BrunsNick 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!

Title: Re: Original Inferno vs. Remake Inferno
Post by: charlest 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."