Let's talk about urethane coverstocks and carrydown. Being on the younger side of this sight, I didn't grow up knowing what true carrydown was in terms of ball motion. I heard about it, but it was never something I had to consider. The last 5 years, I've become more competitive seeing all kinds of lane conditions. Something that has resurge for certain is urethane. The way some patterns shape, develop, etc have made it a viable option to many higher rev rate players (or in many cases a mirage that "ruins" the shot for themselves and/or others). In my earlier years of this kind of bowling environment, I thought urethane and plastic coverstocks created carrydown itself. From my understanding as of late, carrydown is created by balls that don't really flare. This can cover coverstocks of all sorts (including reactive). In opposite terms, this means urethane balls that do flare will NOT create carrydown. In a recent discussion with some PBA bowlers, there were some complaining about urethane destroying patterns and what not, one of them began to complain that a bowler did the same with a Black Widow Urethane. I haven't done any testing with the higher flaring urethanes, but this doesn't hold true with my philosophy. Personally, I think there's a chance that many of the newer oil patterns tighten up later in blocks regardless of lower flaring equipment. But I am not disregarding what happens when people do throws such equipment especially with a higher rev rate. Curious on what everyone will input here. This conversation was inspired by the Epoxy question since I'm sure many competitive two handers would love to have a ball with that coverstock.

Good one. 

Quote from: avabob on August 06, 2018, 12:36:11 PM

Carrydown first became a noticeable phenomenon with the transition from lacquer to urethane lane finishes in the early 1970s.  Bowlers struggled with carrydown using polyester and rubber balls as the oil was pushed off the heads and down the lane without a track developing as was the case on lacquer. 

Lane men, trying to minimize the problem actually made it worse by loading up the heads and stripping the back ends.   Eventually solution was to put out short patterns of very wet dry walls .  Overall oil volumes were still very low by todays standards, but short runs of less than 28 feet with no buff out really made the carrydown noticeable.   The heavy walls however, soon produced an environment that rewarded high rev power. 

Introduction of urethane balls didnt combat carrdown, but they did reward high rev releases on on the short walls. 

Then came the resin revolution in 1992.  Resin combatted carrydown in a number of ways.  First, the shell absorbed some oil rather than pushing it down the lane.  Second the higher friction of resin caused some oil to dissipate from heat.  Most important, the resin would cut through the realtively small amount of oil that was available to be carried down in that era.   Indeed, for the next 10 to 12 years,  patterns blowing up and driving everyone to 5th arrow in any long formats was a much bigger issue. 

With todays huge increase in oil volumes compared to 30 years ago the carrydown potential had again appeared, especially with the resurgance of urethane balls

Excellent insight. This honestly just makes me even more confused as to why some bowlers believe urethane should be banned. Just because reactive is the meta doesn't mean other options should not be allowed.

Urethane, banned? Who are the nerds thinking this up?

OH, THE ONES WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO BOWL.

Urethane, banned? Who are the nerds thinking this up?

OH, THE ONES WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO BOWL.

I just heard that GIANT Ass -Randy Petersen say exactly that on a telecast recently. Why they give him a mic is beyond comprehension. Go figure...……...

Quote from: 2handedrook12 on August 07, 2018, 01:43:55 PM

Quote from: avabob on August 06, 2018, 12:36:11 PM

Carrydown first became a noticeable phenomenon with the transition from lacquer to urethane lane finishes in the early 1970s.  Bowlers struggled with carrydown using polyester and rubber balls as the oil was pushed off the heads and down the lane without a track developing as was the case on lacquer. 

Lane men, trying to minimize the problem actually made it worse by loading up the heads and stripping the back ends.   Eventually solution was to put out short patterns of very wet dry walls .  Overall oil volumes were still very low by todays standards, but short runs of less than 28 feet with no buff out really made the carrydown noticeable.   The heavy walls however, soon produced an environment that rewarded high rev power. 

Introduction of urethane balls didnt combat carrdown, but they did reward high rev releases on on the short walls. 

Then came the resin revolution in 1992.  Resin combatted carrydown in a number of ways.  First, the shell absorbed some oil rather than pushing it down the lane.  Second the higher friction of resin caused some oil to dissipate from heat.  Most important, the resin would cut through the realtively small amount of oil that was available to be carried down in that era.   Indeed, for the next 10 to 12 years,  patterns blowing up and driving everyone to 5th arrow in any long formats was a much bigger issue. 

With todays huge increase in oil volumes compared to 30 years ago the carrydown potential had again appeared, especially with the resurgance of urethane balls

Excellent insight. This honestly just makes me even more confused as to why some bowlers believe urethane should be banned. Just because reactive is the meta doesn't mean other options should not be allowed.

Urethane, banned? Who are the nerds thinking this up?

OH, THE ONES WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO BOWL.

This is how some PBA and top level ameteur bowlers feel. I thought maybe being part of a different era caused me to miss something lol.

Good point on spare shooting.   The most carry down impact I ever see is shooting 4 pins and 7s on short to medium length sport patterns.  That is why we see pros air mailing the ball down lane at 25 mph on all their spares.