Author Topic: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1) (Read 8214 times)

Nicanor · « **on:** June 22, 2009, 08:18:56 AM »

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is right off the Lane 1 website:

Lane #1 introduces a new force in the bowling industry that outhooks all others. The BuzzBOMB is packed with our all new double sided Doomsday Bomb2 core. This Doomsday double Bomb core generates double the torque, creating double the hook on the backend.
Surrounding this nuclear power plant is our all new Pure GripTM solid reactive coverstock. This new formula grips the lanes on the heaviest oil. You won't believe your eyes when you see this midlane Hook Monster explode with a Huge Backend.
Hear the Buzz, see the Hook, watch your High Scores double with the BuzzBOMB..!!

Attn: Pro Shops

Download your "Crazy-8" Here

Color: Purple/Black
Cover Stock: Pure GripTM solid reactive
Core: Doomsday Bomb2
Hook Rating: 120 out of 120 max
Backend Hook: 80%
Flare Potential: 5+
Pin Placement: 12 OÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ clock 1-5Ã¢â‚¬Â out
15lb rg min: 2.487

15lb rg max: 2.539

15lb diff: .052

Construction: 3-piece
Finish: 1000 Grit Dull
Available Weights: 13, 14, 15, & 16lb.

According to this, the Buzzbomb had good midlane, but the hook rating is 120 out of 120 and the backend was 80 percent. Now that tells me huge backend, not rolling out, not buring up but double the hook on the back end.

When a small company puts out a flop like this, then follows up with the flop pearl, they doubled their mistake even though the BBr was a little more user friendly, they are not on the top of the bowling ball sales. Way too much negative exposure. The Agent Orange is a great ball and the Dynamo is a tremendous ball. But just like Columbia had several years ago with regards to TECball death, it took too long to get the confidence of the bowlers back before they also ran into trouble.

When you don't put out too many balls and you put out a flop, ok lets say a very lane specific ball, then many of those on the fence of throwing Lane 1, currently throwing Lane 1 or may one day throw Lane 1, gets the bad exposure and look elsewhere to buy their next ball.

In all fairness, if many more bowlers threw or just what the Dynamo being thrown by a quality bowler, not pro, but not the 160 bowler, they can see the potential in this ball.

If Lane 1 skipped the Buzzbomb and went right to the Dynamo series, I think the sales would be off the chart and many more bowlers throwing th Dynamo then are throwing the Dynamo now.

Thats why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop.

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

NoseofRI · « **Reply #46 on:** June 24, 2009, 05:07:31 PM »

quote:
so it appears the bottom line is that either you matched up to it and the conditions you bowled on or you didn't.

Wait, now just wait... So with a bowling ball you either match up with a ball or you don't? Wow this is a complete breakthrough in this sport.

quote:
Did Brunswick duds such as the original Fury, Radical Inferno, Ultimate Inferno Remake, Impulse Zone and others hurt Brunswick?...The answer is NO and neither did the Buzzbomb hurt Lane 1.

Um WRONG!!!! The Solid Fury actually did hurt Brunswick in the short run, as very few people bought the Fury Pearl, which was actually a pretty good ball. The UI Remake is a mute point. It's a remake not meant to be a breakthrough product, they just made it available again for those that liked it, so not really a dud by definition.

A ball is considered a dud when it's supposed to give a certain look on the lanes, has all this potential, and then people buy it and realize it a "condition specific" ball. Yes its not a dud in the manner of glasses with wiper blades, but according to description of the ball it was supposed to be an extremely versatile ball, it wasn't, therefore it can be classified as a dud. Did it hurt Lane #1, probably in the short-run, as every "dud" tends to last for 2 or 3 following releases.

Yes some people to like it, but its the same with EVERYTHING, if it's available SOMEONE will buy it.

Nicanor · « **Reply #47 on:** June 24, 2009, 05:15:55 PM »

Brick,

It seems like you are another reader whod didn't read all the post before jumping in.

I have bought bowlings balls before that i didn'y match up. But none that had the marketing that the Buzzbomb did. I also didn't say the Buzzbomb didn't match up for some bowlers. but even the reviewers who totally support Lane 1 agree that the Buzzbomb didn't live up to its advertised potential. I don't one person that say the Buzzbomb delivered what the ball promised through its marketing.

If you take the marketing and was was touted as the hook ball of all balls and read all the reviews and post you will see that the ball did not deliver.Does that mean that some bowlers didn't find use for the ball? No, I'm sure some bowlers found use for the ball.

If I was to grade the Buzzbomb on what it had advertised and the people didn't get it would be a dud.

If you think that the Buzzbomb didn't hurt Lane 1, no one in any post is saying it didn't. none. The Buzzbomb hydrid ws not made because the Buzzbomb wsa a flop. If the Buzzbomb was such a great ball, they would have made the Buzzbomb Hybrid public.

If the Doomsday core was that great and the Buzzbomb was the ball everyone had to have like the Virtual Gravity (I know, not all) or the Black Widow, then you bet they would have paid the fees to have their bowling balls in the PBA player, have a PBA member on staff and would have a booth at Nationls.

None of these thinhs happened and my take on it is the Buzzbomb and Doomsday core/weightblock hurt Lane 1 sales to the point it couldn't all the things they have for years.

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

Steven · « **Reply #48 on:** June 24, 2009, 05:33:08 PM »

quote:
A ball is considered a dud when it's supposed to give a certain look on the lanes, has all this potential, and then people buy it and realize it a "condition specific" ball. Yes its not a dud in the manner of glasses with wiper blades, but according to description of the ball it was supposed to be an extremely versatile ball, it wasn't, therefore it can be classified as a dud.

Nose: Lane#1 describes the Buzzbomb cover as one that "grips the lanes on the heaviest oil". Now couple that with the Bomb core that is known to be early and heavy rolling. You should know what the likely combination is going to be. If you don't, I'll tell you. It's a ball that's supposed to hook in heavier oil when everything else you have in your bag doesn't.

So where do you get that it's supposed to be an 'extremely versatile ball'? Where is this description of THS versatility you're referring too?

The fact is that many people bought the ball without a real clue of what they were getting into. This is not a ball to toss on anything other than a fresh condition with some volume. I don't know of many THS conditions that fit that bill, at least for very long.
--------------------
Sig not currently in use. I'm not interested in playing games.

Steven · « **Reply #49 on:** June 24, 2009, 05:59:27 PM »

quote:
Well, here are avid Lane#1 supporters (AKA your peeps) who used it and it was a turd for them.

I don't know the 'peeps' that you're talking about. Avid Lane#1 supporters or not, some aren't going to like the ball. Let's get over that.

Balls advertised to be 'super hooking' are usually not that at all. The provide enough traction in heavy oil to give you some drive into the pocket when they do find a sniff of dry on the backend. Nothing more, nothing less.

BTW, release does matter (a lot), especially when you get to early rolling equipment. I could see from the start why you'd have problems with the Uraniums given your more 'inverted' release. These balls need more forward roll to come alive, and that's just not everyone's style.

I'm still looking for your inside information that labels the BuzzBomb a universal dud. Something more than a few BR 'peeps' who didn't like it.
--------------------
Sig not currently in use. I'm not interested in playing games.

Nicanor · « **Reply #50 on:** June 24, 2009, 06:18:15 PM »

Steven,

Even you know the ball was a flop for Lane 1.
You keep up bringing up that the ball hooks at your feet. More or less.

But by Lane 1's own advertisement the ball had a rating of 120 hook potential, correct? the ball had a hook potential in the back end of 80 of that 120, correct? I mean this is Lane 1's literature.

Where does the back end begin? At the arrown, no, 30 feet down the lane, no, it usually starts where the break point is, yes? Then the ball should be having 80 percent of its hook from the break oint to the pocket. The way you make it sound is that its for very long heavy oil which no ball hooks in and to have 80 percent at the end of the oil in a very long heavy oil pattern the ball would have had to go sideways to get that 80 percent of 120 hook potential that the ball was advertised to do.
Lucky Lane 1 guarenteed the ball and made good on thier guarentee because the advertisement was so off base, there could have been a law suit for false advertisement.

Steven,

I really though you were being smart with reference to this post in staying out of it. Then you decided you had to come to the rescue of Lane 1 and provr what the trolls say about you. Staying out of this conversation would have been in your best interest.

I said that Lane 1 was hurt from the buzzbomb and gave reference, you on the other hand are all talk and give no reference for how the Buzzbomb helped Lane 1. Its a shame that you request info from other posters but when the ask from you, you just talk in circles with no info or reference substantuating your side of the discussion.

Steven,
It would be in your best interest to leave any further comment you might have about this subjet left in your finger tips. You are just proving that the trolls are right about you.

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

Nicanor · « **Reply #51 on:** June 24, 2009, 06:30:43 PM »

I can't believe Steven even wrote this:

Balls advertised to be 'super hooking' are usually not that at all. The provide enough traction in heavy oil to give you some drive into the pocket when they do find a sniff of dry on the backend. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is why he should have stayed out of the conversation.

Isn't 120 the most hooking range of scale that Lane 1 uses.

If what Steven says is true, "a super hooking ball are usually not that at all" then why did Lane 1 scale the ball as the hookest ball they scale with a 120 hook rating of a scale only up to 120? Back end of 80?

So according to Steven, this ball was suppose to go basically straight get a hint of dry after the long oil you will get the drive into the pocket. Nothing more, nothing less.

So what was Lane 1 really telling Steven when he read the 120 of 120 and 80 on the back end?

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

Brickguy221 · « **Reply #52 on:** June 24, 2009, 06:35:37 PM »

quote:
Wait, now just wait... So with a bowling ball you either match up with a ball or you don't? Wow this is a complete breakthrough in this sport.

Not a breakthrough, just a fact

quote:
Um WRONG!!!! The Solid Fury actually did hurt Brunswick in the short run, as very few people bought the Fury Pearl, which was actually a pretty good ball. The UI Remake is a mute point. It's a remake not meant to be a breakthrough product, they just made it available again for those that liked it, so not really a dud by definition.

As for the Fury, what hurt the Fury is all the marketing that was broadcast about x years of research and BS and hyped the ball to be something that it wasn't. As for the Fury Pearl, what hurt it wasn't entirely the Fury solid, it was also all those Fury Pearls they made that skated thru the break point and wouldn't hook a board. In using myself for an example, regardless of how bad the Fury solid was, I intended to buy a Fury Pearl until I found out about all the non-hooking Fury Pearls out there that were mixed in with the good ones. Then upon writing Brunswick 3 times trying to find out the serial nos of the bad ones so that I could be sure and not buy one, Brunswick refused to answer to my inquiries. Wouldn't even acknowledge there were any bad ones out there. I even wrote to a Brunwick sales rep that visits this area maybe once a year at the very most if that much about trying to find out which ones were the bad ones and he wouldn't reply either, so that is when I decided no more Brunswick equipment for me. So much for Brunswick customer service...

I agree that the remake wasn't a break-thru product, but the point is that it was a dud and many people didn't like it.

quote:
A ball is considered a dud when it's supposed to give a certain look on the lanes, has all this potential, and then people buy it and realize it a "condition specific" ball. Yes its not a dud in the manner of glasses with wiper blades, but according to description of the ball it was supposed to be an extremely versatile ball, it wasn't, therefore it can be classified as a dud. Did it hurt Lane #1, probably in the short-run, as every "dud" tends to last for 2 or 3 following releases.

I don't entirely agree with you here, but then again everyone has their own description of what a "DUD" is and of coarse I have mine and it differs from you somewhat.
--------------------
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away."

Brick

Edited on 6/24/2009 6:40 PM

Brickguy221 · « **Reply #53 on:** June 24, 2009, 07:06:20 PM »

quote:
Brick,

It seems like you are another reader whod didn't read all the post before jumping in.

Nic, it appears that you didn't read all of my post either or else you didn't understand what I was trying to say. I'll admit that I am not the greatest or best when it come to trying to explain what I mean.

I'm sorry the ball didn't work out for you. Ditto for Inverted. Yet, continuing to go on and on and etc. about it gets old. I believe you and Inverted and I'm sure everyone else believes both of you that the ball didn't work and it was a "Dud" as far as the two of you are concerned. Both of you have made your point, we all hear it, we all believe you, so what else do you want that you continue to go on and on about it? What else is left to be gained about it? I sincerely feel for both of you as I know how you feel because I have been in your boat a few times also. This horse has been beaten to death so many times that it will never come back to life, so lets just bury it and leave it be.
--------------------
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away."

Brick

Steven · « **Reply #54 on:** June 24, 2009, 07:18:42 PM »

quote:
It would be in your best interest to leave any further comment you might have about this subject left in your finger tips. You are just proving that the trolls are right about you.

Nic: First, I gave you more credit than giving any credibility to trolls or the troll guano littered throughout these boards. Trolls will say or do anything to get a rise. If you're giving any credibility to anything they say, then I've given you too much credit.

Back to the topic, you keep referencing the Lane#1 advertised hook ratings. And I'll agree that in many cases they don't make a lot of sense. I think it's because too much is dependent on revs, speed, axis tilt and lane condition to provide numbers that have consistent comparative meaning. Lane#1 would have done better to put some disclaimer in place for evaluating the numbers.

You've owned more balls that 99.99% of bowlers on the planet. The one lesson that should have taught you is that you evaluate equipment based on core characteristics, RG min/max values, differential and cover strength. With the BuzzBomb, you have a heavy rolling core wrapped in an oil grabbing cover. There was no mystery to this for anyone who did a minimum amount of research. Anyone who bought based on a glossy advertising poster got what they deserved. And BTW, that goes for a purchase from any company.

The BuzzBomb is very good at what its designed for. Trying to use it on a wet/dry THS is analogous to using a 2-seat sports car for hauling lumber. Calling the car a dud for not doing it well is disingenuous.

You seem to be harboring a lot of emotional baggage over what happened in your BuzzBomb adventure. I'm guessing that's the main reason you can't look at this rationally.

--------------------
Sig not currently in use. I'm not interested in playing games.

Nicanor · « **Reply #55 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:00:00 PM »

Steven,

I'm neither trying to be a troll or support the trolls. I have a ton of Support for Lane 1 and Richie. He and I have a lot in common outside of bowling.I continued with this post as you have for many because its what I believe. I try for the most point to make the replies informative though sometimes opinionated to a fault.

I still feel the same way about the Buzzbomb and I still believe the Buzzbomb hurt the well being of Lane 1 because they didn't have a lot of surronding bowling balls to take the pressure off. If they put out as many bowling balls as other companies, a bad seed (imho) would go pretty un noticed.

Thank you for the posts and your conversation.

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

Strider · « **Reply #56 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:21:45 PM »

I haven't read that much of this, but I'll add that 80 out of 120 for back end should be very average. Because all balls skid in oil, then hook however much they can on the dry boards down lane, every ball meant to hook should probably be at least 50%. If you look at Lane #1's current balls, the listed back end reactions are:

Dynamo 90
Chainsaw Massacre 95
Agent Orange 75
Buzzbomb/R 90
Buzzbomb 80
THS 70
Chainsaw 95
Liberator 55 (urethane)
XXXL 50 (plastic)

So, of the "normal" hook balls, only the THS and the Agent Orange should have less back end.

Of the Buzzbombs I've seen in person, they were kind of a mixed bag. The ball really revved up nice in the mid lane and seemed like it should be a great lane reader, but reminded me of my own experience with the Ebonite V2 Particle. Too much (especially too early) for medium oil, but not near enough ball for the heavy stuff.
--------------------
Penn State Proud

Ron Clifton's Bowling Tip Archive

Nicanor · « **Reply #57 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:40:48 PM »

Thank you for the numbers Strider, but this is right off the lane 1 website.

"You won't believe your eyes when you see this midlane Hook Monster explode with a Huge Backend."

So if you're reading this what do you think when you buy the ball?Some of those numbers are unrealistic.

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

Edited on 6/24/2009 9:16 PM

albrahal · « **Reply #58 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:54:42 PM »

I too had my problems with my Buzzbomb. May be it was poor layout or surface changes but I never really matched up with it. I have a friend the continues to use Lane #1 with much success but he seams to need a new ball after only a few weeks of use. I have seem him go from the Supernova to the Supernova xp to the Buzzbomb then Agent Orange finally now He has the Dynamo. The balls just seem to loose their hitting power or soak oil or something. You either Love'm or Hate'm but to me they are just to pricey to wear out after a couple months of use.

JessN16 · « **Reply #59 on:** June 24, 2009, 09:22:23 PM »

quote:
I haven't read that much of this, but I'll add that 80 out of 120 for back end should be very average. Because all balls skid in oil, then hook however much they can on the dry boards down lane, every ball meant to hook should probably be at least 50%. If you look at Lane #1's current balls, the listed back end reactions are:

Dynamo 90
Chainsaw Massacre 95
Agent Orange 75
Buzzbomb/R 90
Buzzbomb 80
THS 70
Chainsaw 95
Liberator 55 (urethane)
XXXL 50 (plastic)

So, of the "normal" hook balls, only the THS and the Agent Orange should have less back end.

Of the Buzzbombs I've seen in person, they were kind of a mixed bag. The ball really revved up nice in the mid lane and seemed like it should be a great lane reader, but reminded me of my own experience with the Ebonite V2 Particle. Too much (especially too early) for medium oil, but not near enough ball for the heavy stuff.
--------------------
Penn State Proud

Ron Clifton's Bowling Tip Archive

Is the Chainsaw really rated 95, same as the Massacre?

If that's the case, Lane #1 needs a copy editor, because that's got to be a misprint. My XXXL almost hooks more than the Chainsaw does, and the BuzzBomb/R moves so much more it's not even funny.

Jess

Doug Sterner · « **Reply #60 on:** June 24, 2009, 09:37:07 PM »

albrahal....I have never had an issue with any Lane 1 ball giving up on me. Never once ahev I had one of their balls die...not a Brunswick pour, not a Columbia pour, not a 900 Global pour.

I have had balls not match up to me but I have never had one work for 3-4 weeks and then die. Heck I am still using my original BuzzBomb.....still going strong 2 years later.
--------------------
Doug Sterner
Doug's Pro Shop
Owego, NY
http://dougsproshop@aol.com
www.dougsproshop.net
Lane 1 Buzzsaw...The Official Power Tool Of Bowling
For Real Time Interactive Bowling Conversation:
BowlingChat.net

Author Topic: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1) (Read 8214 times)

Nicanor

My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

NoseofRI

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

Nicanor

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

Steven

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

Steven

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

Nicanor

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

Nicanor

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

Brickguy221

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

Brickguy221

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

Steven

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

Nicanor

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

Strider

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

Nicanor

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

albrahal

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

JessN16

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)

Doug Sterner

Re: My defense in why I think the Buzzbomb was a dud and a flop (not intended to trash Lane 1)