DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany
Confused by bowling? Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

The shell is only one part of the picture - but if manufacturers save money through less material on the outer shell, they'd better make sure the overall integrity of a ball is kept up. The thinnes covers I have seen so far are only 0.5" thin, while older balls are 0.75" or even thicker, even massive without a filler. Modern covers are also more porous than older stuff, so you really have less material on the outside.

 

One can argue that performance is not affected, but IMHO durability has declined a lot - probably intentionally. I know players who blindly buy the new high end stuff every year, and for them this marketing strategy works fine.

Personally, I like to keep balls which "work" for me and find a place in my arsenal, and I have (after cracking...) become rather cautious. For me a thin shell is a BIG argument not to buy a ball.

 

Besides, add holes, or some poorly mixed material zones, and the potential for a crack is IMO much bigger than with a thicker-shelled piece. When balls come to Europe via container, they even crack on the way - without holes being punched up.

DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany
Confused by bowling? Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

Old school balls (like the urethane Hammers from Faball) used to be massive - and if you get hands today on such a ball, you understand what durable means. Lanemasters (and I suppose original AZO before the plant went to LM) usd to have massive balls, too, until some years ago they also started with filler balls in their "Strike" line, calling these mid range pieces. Anyway, I think  have never heard anyone complain about old LM balls lacking integrity... but I suppose that the all-coverstock production is simply too costly, esp. when you can use a genric filler material that just differs by denity to attain the desired ball weights.

 

Sometimes you find massive balls these days - I recently got hands on a (Storm-built) Azo Radical Pearl - due to its huge core it has no filler inside, too. Too early to say something about overall integrity on this piece, but I have become really careful concerning thin-shelled balls. I found that my RX-1 also has a very thin shell, curious how long it takes until it cracks. It is my newest ball, but I'd bet that it will be the first one to crack somehow...

 

This is also not to bash any manufacturer - it is a marketing decision how a ball is actually produced. But for me the thin-shelled balls generally leave a bad taste in my mouth, because I cannot shake off the feeling that costs are cut on customers' backs.

DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany
Confused by bowling? Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section