Any reactive ball has a porous surface and absorbs oil. The lane conditioner is stored in the coverstock, therewith clutting the pores and reducing ball reaction over time.  

Strange thing to me is that Ebonite advertises its GB coverstocks with its absorption rate. Any sane player should wonder where the oil is left that the ball sucks from the lane, creating a hooking track and making the ball move - as long as the ball has some sucking potential left?

This might only be marketing hype and technically nothing special, but the argumentation is a little strange to me, since this either means that the ball dies after it is "full", or at least needs constant cleaning and rejuvenation to keep up its properties.

The epoxy ball fit the same pattern - but it was marketed "put it into the bucket and it is like new!" - a clever move, IMHO. Sad that the EPX T1's are/were prone to crack.
--------------------

DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany
Team "X" website & more about me: http://web.mac.com/timlinked/iWeb/X/Thomas.html
"All that we see or seem, is but a dream within a dream..." - Edgar Allen Poe


Edited on 7/13/2006 10:25 AM

Edited on 7/14/2006 8:17 AM

I would think that this cover..(along with maybe the 'soaker' cover from D/T) have the same or similar purposes.

They absorb oil....however, there must be something in the cover that diminishes or breaks down the oil at the same time cuz a cover can only soak so much. Make sense?
--------------------
Jeff
http://www.we-todd-did-racing.com/wetoddimage.wtdr/wMTI0NDQ3NDZzNDEzZGZkMzF5NTQx.jpg

Ebonite's theory about ball death was that the plasticizer from the cover is transported onto the lane surface, not lane oil being soaked up into the cover.  They were said to have soaked a ball in oil and wiped the surface off and it reacted like a normal new ball.  This being said, I would hope that they used other means to test their theory.  

I would rather see a test where they threw a ball on dry lanes, and on heavy oil and then compared these two balls to a brand new ball.  If the dry lane ball reacted just like the heavy oiled ball then one could inferr that oil does not necessarily make a difference and that it is the plasticizer.  If the oiled ball hooked the least, followed by the dry lane ball and finally the new ball, one could inferr that it is a combination of the plasticizer leaking out and the oil being absorbed.

Two other notable points, the One does seem to be a more high maintence ball than most as I have seen a few die out fairly fast lately.  It doesn't really happen until well over 100 games, so its not that fast to be clear, but I would say that most covers could get 20-25 more games than the one.  The other point is the fact that their research yielded the hook again product which does work very well on most covers, so their research eithter must have been more thorough than reported or the research method that I have proposed does not offer anything new to the table.  As a side note, the Hook again in my experience does not work that well with the activator cover, I have thought about leaving the activator cover ball in the solution for over the reccomended 24hrs, but have not yet tried.
--------------------
four fried chickens and a coke[/size=4]

How can you have any pudding if you've dirtied your feet?