Post by: Nicanor on June 26, 2007, 02:33:22 AM
So what we will have is Lane 1 bowling balls made of old Columbia coverstock material with the posibility of 900Global adding an additive so they can say its not a Columbia coverstock material and we the buyer think Lane 1 got away from using old Columbia coverstock material.
--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)
Post by: renoatpikeville on June 26, 2007, 10:35:34 AM
Post by: Steven on June 26, 2007, 10:50:57 AM
Regardless, not all of us are sour on Columbia covers. I have Columbia equipment I still use, and no real complaints on their covers (at least from my experience).
If it's time for you to move on from Lane#1, so be it. I think most of the faithful are going to be willing to give the 900 Global based covers and honest chance.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: Sawuser on June 26, 2007, 11:54:33 AM
quote:
Interesting post...I would like to hear more. Where can I find the sources of this information?
I second that. A source of info would be nice. Too much hearsay floating around these days.
--------------------
Righty
Think about it!
The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. Ronald Reagan
Post by: Nicanor on June 26, 2007, 02:09:30 PM
I will also give Lane 1 and 900Global a chance oncce the new Lane 1 equipment comes out. I just don't see Lane 1/900Global using Columbia coverstocks on their new line of bowling balls.
Yes, I understand that Columbia has worked well for many bowlers, but not for the majority.
I have spent many hours and much dollars testing bowling balls and Columbia just didn't work. I used Track for a while and I liked their weightblock/coverstock much better then Columbia but Track's coverstock didn't hold up well either. If I don't have 125 bowling balls either under my bed, on the rack or in the bowling ball room that I have personally tested I don't have one.
Right now I throw the Evolution Tour, Hybrid megatons and the EU. I also started throwing the Massive Impact again to go between the Evolution Tour and the Hybrid Megatons.
So I think I have been pretty fair with my assesment of Colmbia Bowling balls.
When Lane 1 comes out with their new line, I will be one of the first to order, but I won't continue to throw Lane 1 blindly.
--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)
Edited on 6/26/2007 2:31 PM
Post by: mini kahuna on June 26, 2007, 03:31:14 PM
coverstock and core match are what make great balls.
Ritchie's cores always roll great,with carry and Phil has developed great coverstocks in the past and present,look for big things from these guys!!
Post by: zeusjr on June 26, 2007, 08:13:36 PM
Post by: mini kahuna on June 27, 2007, 08:43:30 AM
the way coverstocks are conceived is up to the designers"Phil and Richie in this case",to tell the chemical techs"Bayer/BASF" what they want.
they are not locked into using brunswick or columbia or other formulations,there are probably a million combinations and traits they can tweak and play with to get what they are looking for.
bottom line is their equipment will not be columbia or brunswick or whatever knock offs.
Post by: Steven on June 27, 2007, 10:00:50 AM
quote:
Yes, I understand that Columbia has worked well for many bowlers, but not for the majority.
I have spent many hours and much dollars testing bowling balls and Columbia just didn't work. I used Track for a while and I liked their weightblock/coverstock much better then Columbia but Track's coverstock didn't hold up well either. If I don't have 125 bowling balls either under my bed, on the rack or in the bowling ball room that I have personally tested I don't have one.
Nic: There is no question you're a ballaholic and have 'tested' more than most. But it's impossible for one bowler to throw 125 balls enough to get a long term read on any given piece. It takes months of continuous use of a given ball to evaluate longevity, tollerance to cover adjustments, etc., and you can't do that without focus on a smaller subset of equipment. Given this, you can't make an absolute statement that "Columbia doesn't work the majority". I don't recall getting your official survey in the mail for that one.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: Nicanor on June 27, 2007, 01:35:23 PM
You are corret in that I couldn't possibly test every ball I own or have own to its end. I did however throw a lot of Brunsick and Columbia bowling balls on different conditions and drillings. I tried a couple of Roto Grips, Dynothanes, Storm, Lanemasters, AZO as well as a few others, but I tested many Brunswick and Columbia bowling balls before deciding to throw Lane 1.
Columbia has worked well for some bolwers, but Columbia has been in financial trouble (might not be the right word but it will work) for some time now. They threw out some garbage of remakes, old cores, old coverstocks and a blend of coverstocks. They had not kept up with the R&D and used old stuff at todays prices.
Also they had difficulty at the factory with weightblock placement in the cores. You could ost times get the ball legal, but becaue of the weightblock placement you couldn't get the reaction from the ball that was touted or expected.
Now this is just my opinion and I welcome others. But this is bowling ball website for information, conversation and opinions.
--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)
Post by: Steven on June 27, 2007, 02:02:55 PM
quote:
Now this is just my opinion and I welcome others. But this is bowling ball website for information, conversation and opinions.
I understand agree.
What caught my eye was your statement about the 'majority' opinion on Columbia. That's a bold and difficult opinion to substantiate outside of your own personal experience.My current Columbia balls are a WOW Particle and WOW Pearl. Thet both work OK, especially in the case of the WOW Pearl. It's my primary practice ball with hundreds of games, and still works great. The Particle reacts well to sanding and polishing, and as long as I maintain it well (as for all balls), no issues.
So given this, there is nothing inherently wrong with BASF coverstocks. It's all in the specific formulations, and given Phil's past history, I don't think he'd accept anything less than quality manufacturing.
As for the other Columbia problems you referenced:
quote:
difficulty at the factory with weightblock placement in the cores. You could ost times get the ball legal, but because of the weightblock placement you couldn't get the reaction from the ball that was touted or expected.
These should have no bearing on Lane#1 production. New team, new processes moving forward. At least that's what we should expect from here on out.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Edited on 6/27/2007 2:04 PM
Post by: mini kahuna on June 27, 2007, 02:14:21 PM
it is very easy to get lost in the equipment jungle nowadays.
columbia coverstocks were not working for me,I didn't like anything with the M80 family of coverstock,I couldn't get it to work for me at all.
anything soaker covered either.
now I don't know if my g-force is an M80 family cover or not,but it works great for me.
if you find a coverstock that works for you stay with it,if you try a ball and it doesn't work for you,make a note of the coverstock used and stay away from it.
Post by: Nicanor on June 28, 2007, 09:50:02 AM
I just got finished with another drilling on the G-Force and hope to try it as soon as I find a little oil. There seemes to be an oil shortage here in San Diego as well as a water shortage.
I will order the first ball that Lane 1 and 900Global come out with. I have not given up on Lane 1 and I look forward to bowling with Lane 1 bowling balls again. I just hope that I match up better with the new line.
--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)
Post by: mini kahuna on June 28, 2007, 10:02:51 AM
Post by: mini kahuna on June 28, 2007, 02:39:06 PM
Post by: charlest on June 28, 2007, 06:13:00 PM
I say that because I have done PRECISELY that with many balls.
I can say, here and now, that while some balls from any manufacturer may not suit any one bowler's style, there are several ball from ANY manufcaturer that will suit any bowler's style, with the right drilling and with the right surface manipulation. Done that on many occasions and you can take that to the BANK.
Every manufacturer currently makes a huge variety of balls, based on core and coverstock. While some balls are easier to use than others, most are usable, to one degree or another, by every bowler. You just have to be willing to experiment with drills and surface changes.
I can't tell you how many people I have seen use one ball drilled one way and with NOT ONE SINGLE FREAKING ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SURFACE, and then they condemn the entire manufacturer and swear never to use their equipment again. Of such stuff are fools made.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Post by: novawagonmaster on June 28, 2007, 06:55:49 PM
quote:
I can't tell you how many people I have seen use one ball drilled one way and with NOT ONE SINGLE FREAKING ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SURFACE, and then they condemn the entire manufacturer and swear never to use their equipment again. Of such stuff are fools made.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Good point, but this is a strong 95% or better of the league bowlers in our local houses. Reminds me of my my buddy who took a Holley carburetor out of the box, bolted it on his engine, and said "this thing runs like crap!". No attempts were made to adjust the carb (bowling ball) to his application (lane condition and bowling style).
--------------------
Jon (in Ohio)
CHROME WON'T GET YOU HOME!
F.O.S. Proud Saw user...see profile.
Post by: Nicanor on June 28, 2007, 07:32:46 PM
I thought the slogan was "BASF doesn't make the product, it make the product better."
Well now that the Bowling Expo is started in Vegas, whats the info Lane 1 is giving out there, or don't they even have a booth?
--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)
Post by: Nicanor on June 28, 2007, 07:38:49 PM
You make it sound like you are the only one with bowling sense.
I have traveled throughout the country and some other countrys learning a lot about the game. I've been taken on tours of a bowling manufacturing company and seen how its done.
You are not the only person who knows about oil patterns, drillings coverstock prep etc. Its not a game that you have to be a scientist to know. Maybe to develop )R&D) boowling balls/coverstocks etc, but it is an old game for the simple person and does not have to be as complicated as you make it out to be.
--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)
Post by: golfnutFL on June 28, 2007, 09:20:34 PM
)I prefer not to mess with the drill. I drill EVERY ball stacked leverage, my preferred drill. HOWEVER, I will endlessly mess around with the coverstock to get the reaction I prefer. Since surface prep makes up such a huge percentage of ball reaction that is just the way I do my tweeking. Plus I like using my spinner!!!
I use balls from all the manufacturers, go through phases of liking one more than another, but they all put out (for the most part) good stuff that is tunable to the user.
quote:
Unless you try 2 - 3 COMPLETELY different drillings PLUS 2 - 4 COMPLETELY different surface changes with each of those drillings AND then test each of them on different oil patterns, not just a "House Shot" blended pattern, you have not "tried" a ball.
I say that because I have done PRECISELY that with many balls.
I can say, here and now, that while some balls from any manufacturer may not suit any one bowler's style, there are several ball from ANY manufcaturer that will suit any bowler's style, with the right drilling and with the right surface manipulation. Done that on many occasions and you can take that to the BANK.
Every manufacturer currently makes a huge variety of balls, based on core and coverstock. While some balls are easier to use than others, most are usable, to one degree or another, by every bowler. You just have to be willing to experiment with drills and surface changes.
I can't tell you how many people I have seen use one ball drilled one way and with NOT ONE SINGLE FREAKING ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SURFACE, and then they condemn the entire manufacturer and swear never to use their equipment again. Of such stuff are fools made.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
--------------------
Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.
Post by: charlest on June 28, 2007, 09:49:36 PM
quote:
Charlest,
You make it sound like you are the only one with bowling sense.
I have traveled throughout the country and some other countrys learning a lot about the game. I've been taken on tours of a bowling manufacturing company and seen how its done.
You are not the only person who knows about oil patterns, drillings coverstock prep etc. Its not a game that you have to be a scientist to know. Maybe to develop )R&D) boowling balls/coverstocks etc, but it is an old game for the simple person and does not have to be as complicated as you make it out to be.
--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)
No, I don't think I'm the only one. Have you read anything I have ever written?
But if you see yourself as the type of person, at whom I was most definitely pointing a finger, then maybe you are, and THEN, maybe you are feeling guilty for saying what you did.
I am not making it complicated at all. All I said was that there's more than one way "to skin a cat". If you want to throw away a ball and ball company without sufficient justification (in my opinion) for yourself, fine. But, maybe, just maybe you should not issue that blanket condemnation on behalf of everyone else.
In my final opinion, UNLESS you have done exactly what I said, with regard to drillings and surface changes, then you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO right to condemn a ball or a ball company. Even then, you should contact the company for a full explanation, describing exactly what you did.
For people with significantly much less experience with balls than you have, I would suggest such things. For you, with all the experience you CLAIM to have with balls, my reply is simply this: Put up or shut up. Tell us every drill you used and every surface change for each drill and every lane surface and every oil pattern on which you tried all of these and their combinations for each ball that you claim is not good. Then and only then, will I be inclined to believe you.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Post by: Nicanor on June 29, 2007, 09:07:58 AM
Thats an unreasonable request and one might ask you the same question. But I think ist unresonable for me or you to even try to attempt your request.
I've been around for quite awhile and had quality coaching from bowlers like Alvin Lou, and coach John Jowdy of the pros usually seen with an unlit cigar and was a representative for Columbia for year.
Put as I said before, with the exception of rare drill patterns that are exoctic, there isn't a ton of drillings to compare especially if you believe that CG doesn't matter.
--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)
Edited on 6/30/2007 0:04 AM
Post by: Steven on June 29, 2007, 09:54:02 AM
quote:
Unless you try 2 - 3 COMPLETELY different drillings PLUS 2 - 4 COMPLETELY different surface changes with each of those drillings AND then test each of them on different oil patterns, not just a "House Shot" blended pattern, you have not "tried" a ball.
He's absolutely correct. That was part of my problem with your statement about testing 125 balls. It would be helpful if you could go into at least a little detail about drillings, surface changes and pattern matchups.
And for this:
quote:
Put as I said before, with the exception of rare drill patterns that are exoctic, there isn't a ton of drillings to compare especially if you believe that CG doesn't matter.
I hope the above is just a gross mistype and that you intended to say something different. Please correct to what you really wanted to communicate so there can be further discussion.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: Nicanor on June 29, 2007, 10:51:37 AM
What is meant in that post was that for the average bowler, drilling bowling balls are fairly generic. 1:30, stacked leverage, CG leverage, and moving the pin to areas of measurement like 3 3/8, 4' 4 1/4 and the discussion is CG doesn't matter. So with the exception of the Rico drillings and the pin in unusual places that bowlers use to battle a certain lane condition, the average bowler pretty much stays with the 6 or seven drilling on the drill sheet and probaly two or three on the drill sheet are rarely used, like pin on the axis.
I understand also that I have an over abundant of bowling balls to test. But some I have more then one, like 2 Megatons, 2 H20s, 3 Tsumanis, 4 Super Carbides 3 LRGs. And I drilled them differently and changed the surfaces to get a feel for Lane 1 bowling balls unb to the G-Force which I have 2 and plugged and re-drilled one already.
I did similar things with Brunswick and Columbia but I didn't buy very many Storm Dyno Thane, Roto Grip or other smaller companies.
I did my homework for me. I think I very rarely wrote reviews on Ballreviews. So if I say that Columbia bowling balls didn't work for me, I intended to do my ball search for me and did not keep a history of the testing I did with the different bowling balls i drilled.
--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)
Edited on 6/30/2007 0:03 AM
Post by: CoachJim on June 29, 2007, 11:13:22 AM