win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Diamond core?  (Read 3704 times)

Gazoo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
Diamond core?
« on: July 11, 2009, 01:52:30 PM »
Does this seem to be one of the best symetrical cores out there? As someone who has thrown most of the equipment out there, this core seems to have more of the WoW and Hit factor out there. Granted, with the modern ball and asymetrical and strong MB balls, they may be losing out, but for average league bowlers who should be throwing symetrical eqipment maybe Lane1 should be the ball of choice regardless of price. I think the Retro THS is the best league ball I have every thrown.
--------------------
"I don''t want to be remembered, I want to be forgotten"
Logged

 

Nicanor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2292
Re: Diamond core?
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2009, 10:52:10 PM »
Gazoo,

I agree that the Diamond core was great and user friendly especially when Lane 1 ws made by Brunswick. When they transitioned to Columbia I don't think the core and coverstock matched up as well as the Diamond core worked with the Brunswick coverstock.  

There is no way that could I agree that the core in the Buzzbomb line was a cover weightblock combination that would work for the average bowler.  They probaly worked well for bowlers with Stevens experience, but not for the average league bowler.

Now we have the twister weightblock and its much more user friendly for the average league bowler.  But what makes the twister weight block and the 900Global coverstock have great potential, is because for the bowlers who have a higher degree of experience, the Dynamo and hopefully bowling balls in that line will continue, the bowler with hand and release changes can use this ball in a variety of conditions.  The coverstocks adjust very easy, but coming up the back of the ball and coming around the ball makes such a great difference in ball reaction, it just might be a little less friendly then Lane 1 bowling balls with the diamond core and Brunswick coverstocks.  I peronally think the Dynamo line can be the best lineup for Lane 1 in years if not the best.


--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

Edited on 7/11/2009 10:54 PM
Logged
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Diamond core?
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2009, 09:09:54 AM »
quote:
Does this seem to be one of the best symetrical cores out there? As someone who has thrown most of the equipment out there, this core seems to have more of the WoW and Hit factor out there. Granted, with the modern ball and asymetrical and strong MB balls, they may be losing out, but for average league bowlers who should be throwing symetrical eqipment maybe Lane1 should be the ball of choice regardless of price. I think the Retro THS is the best league ball I have every thrown.
--------------------
"I don''t want to be remembered, I want to be forgotten"


I think it still depends on the cover/core matchup.

I loved the Silver Diamond and the Black Raspberry but hated the THS. Tried 2 drillings and several surfaces at different houses. Couldn't get it to work for me for love or money. While I also made use of several other diamond cores + Brunswick coverstocks, and I loved Columbia balls (pre-Ebonite) and love 900Global balls, I have not done well with the diamond and BASF coverstocks.

So my assumption is the cover/core matchup is the important thing, not the core, and not the cover by themselves.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Gazoo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
Re: Diamond core?
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2009, 11:01:15 AM »
Nic and Charlest,

What do you think is the difference between what is mostly a Superflex based coverstock and the Brunswick coverstocks of the past which were based of of PK18? I really liked the G Force line which alot didn't. And Nic, as much as I was giving you a hard time about the BB, I don't really care for the bomb core and prefer the original diamond myself. Just wondering why coverstock seems to be match problem for some.
--------------------
"I don't want to be remembered, I want to be forgotten"
Logged

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7680
Re: Diamond core?
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2009, 12:31:26 PM »
quote:
So my assumption is the cover/core matchup is the important thing, not the core, and not the cover by themselves.
 


With the switch from Brunswick covers, I too had some concerns on possible negative effects to the 'diamond reaction' that has set Lane#1 apart from others. I bypassed the first G-Forces waiting to see how the transition was reported by others.

I took the plunge again with the switch to 900 Global. I was ready to cut my loses and maybe move over to Columbia if the experiment didn't work. I've honestly been very impressed so far. The 900 Global covers are the real deal.

I've found the Explosion Pearl cover on the Supernova XP to be every bit as good as Activator. It's a very tunable cover, and reads the lanes predictably. I've logged hundreds of games on the XP and it's still the first ball out of my bag.

In another test, I drill my BuzzBomb identical to my Super Carbide Bomb (SCB) to get a good idea of how the Bomb core reacts in Global vs. Brunswick covers. I've found the reaction characteristics to be almost identical. There is no question you're throwing a Lane#1 Bomb core (love it or hate it) in either ball.
--------------------
As posted by CRD..."You mean Steven is not the king of impartiality? When did that change?"
Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Diamond core?
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2009, 12:50:05 PM »
quote:
Nic and Charlest,

What do you think is the difference between what is mostly a Superflex based coverstock and the Brunswick coverstocks of the past which were based of of PK18? I really liked the G Force line which alot didn't. And Nic, as much as I was giving you a hard time about the BB, I don't really care for the bomb core and prefer the original diamond myself. Just wondering why coverstock seems to be match problem for some.
--------------------
"I don't want to be remembered, I want to be forgotten"


I think Brunswick's PK18 was slightly earlier than Columia's Super-Flex in the vaguest general sense , but overall they were fairly similar. Beyond that, I cannot say more.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Nicanor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2292
Re: Diamond core?
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2009, 06:00:37 PM »
I think that PK 18 was a stronger cover then the Superflex.  I never matched up well with Columbia.  I think with my style of bowling, the Brunswick covers were stronger which helped to read the lane earlier.  I have two G-Forces one drilled twice and it never worked well for me in any amount of oil.  I drilled one with a pin about 1 1/2 inches above the ring finger stacked the CG and polished it then won a doubles tournament with it on short oil pattern that turned into very little oil after a lot of games.  So I did find a good use for the G-Force solid.  I treid the Cobalt pearl with little luck but shot a big 8 in a tournament in Vegas with the Cobalt solid to place 2nd in the tournament (three game set).  It just seems like the new Lane 1 up to the Dynamo were longer and smoother off the break point then PK18.  I still throw the Black Raspberry.


--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

Edited on 7/12/2009 6:03 PM
Logged
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Diamond core?
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2009, 06:51:29 PM »
quote:
I think that PK 18 was a stronger cover then the Superflex.  I never matched up well with Columbia.  I think with my style of bowling, the Brunswick covers were stronger which helped to read the lane earlier.


You have a good deal of ball speed, Barry. All that arm and shoulder strength from Service boxing!!

quote:

 I have two G-Forces one drilled twice and it never worked well for me in any amount of oil.  I drilled one with a pin about 1 1/2 inches above the ring finger stacked the CG and polished it then won a doubles tournament with it on short oil pattern that turned into very little oil after a lot of games.  So I did find a good use for the G-Force solid.  I tried the Cobalt pearl with little luck but shot a big 8 in a tournament in Vegas with the Cobalt solid to place 2nd in the tournament (three game set).  It just seems like the new Lane 1 up to the Dynamo were longer and smoother off the break point then PK18.  I still throw the Black Raspberry.
--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)


The Dynamo has a special (in my point of view) core of lots of strength.
The Black Raspberry, also one of my favorites, is a traditional diamond core + Brunswick cover strong ball. It was basically a Danger Zone with a Diamond core.

I am tempted by the Dynamo-X ball ...
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

kidlost2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5789
Re: Diamond core?
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2009, 08:27:19 PM »
I think the core may get a little too much credit in some instances.

It's easy to look at a Diamond core, or a crazy looking core from Morich or the old quantum cores and get caught up in the names and designs these companies have produced.

To really do some comparing look at the core numbers? The Rg, and The Rg diff.
Then compare it to other balls from all companies and what you will find is that they are all very similar.( with some exceptions of course)

The reason being that have to fall in a range of USBC guidelines.

5. Radius of gyration*              min 2.430” max  2.800”
6. Differential radius of gyration* min none   max  0.060”

What you will find is that no matter what shape the cores are the they always fall in these guidelines. You would be surprised at some of the different ball manufactures great balls have almost identical/very similar core specs.


The bigger roll is the matching of the cover to the core. The balls intended design to how you drill it, and the condition it is used.

How many times have you been in a proshop when someone comes in and picks out the dullest earliest rolling ball their is and wants it drilled to go long....or you see them bowling with said ball and are angry because it doesn't roll how they want....when the ball they purchased may not have been intended for that purpose, or drilled for that purpose or any combination of  these factors.

I think the Diamond core is versatile with the mods Lane 1 makes to it to fit their different bowling balls. I also think the coverstock is more important to the overall reaction then the core. It's a complete product.




--------------------
" hand, don't step on the lanes without some "
Logged
…… you can't  add a physics term to a bowling term and expect it to mean something.

Nicanor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2292
Re: Diamond core?
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2009, 09:07:55 AM »
I think that the Diamond weightblock works so well for the average league bowler because its symetrical.  Though I do agree that the cover and cover prep is high on the chart, the weightblock comparison between a symetrical and an asymetrical ball is important.  I also think drilling an asymentrical ball to benifit an average league bowler is important and may ot be easy.  I know its also important for a symetrical ball, but the average bowler picks up a strong MB ball and picks a drilling he thinks will work (yes I know, they should listen to the pro shop operator) and now he has a ball that is unpredictable because he doesn't quite have the skills to release, target or control the speed on the high dif ball with a large MB.


--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)
Logged
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)
Pages: [1]
« previous next »