Mike,
I can offer these thoughts:
* I think you're making an invalid assumption here. There's coverstock and then there's the cover's surface preparation or finish. No one ever said that you could modify any cover's finish to make it applicable to any oil pattern + lane surface + bowler's release. The coverstock must first be chosen with respect to the above 3 factors to insure it is usable. Then you can modify the cover's finish.
With regard to the HPD, a lengthy application of one of Brunswick's particle ball, I also do not remember what the finish was nor what it was. I found Brunswick's data sheet:
http://www.brunswickbowling.com/uploads/images/1204/Danger_Zone_Pro_Distance.pdfIt seems to be DTX-1, a very light "application" of particles, intended for lots of length. I assume it had the white trizact that puts a virtual polish on a particle ball.
* From my experience, even if you modify the ball's surface, one cannot always counteract the effects of a leverage drilling. They just flare too much and too early.
* BTW you never indicated how the HPD reacted that make it such that you couldn't use it. I asume it was too early and burned itself up very early.
* During your resurfacing process I would never have applied Delayed Reaction until I had tried the ball with the white triact finish. YOu have to sand that out as it partially clogs the pores of the ball.
You asked:
"Could it be that our different styles(full roller vs. tweener)play an important role in how much coverstock matters?"
All factors take some part in that scenario, including ball speed and tilt (a full roller technically has no tilt; so they tend ot need to rely on surface and drilling even more.) and angle of rotation.
--------------------
Bowling: Just like hand grenades and horse shoes, you only have to get close.Life: Deal with what is.