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

Author Topic: Uranium HRG surface and drill  (Read 801 times)

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Uranium HRG surface and drill
« on: January 26, 2008, 09:11:08 AM »
(I just thought I'd offer some notes of my experience with this unusual (to me, anyway) ball. As you can see, I rarely give up on a ball entirley. There's some good in virtually every ball. You just have to dig deep enough to find it. Sometimes it's hard work, sometimes it can be expensive and anoying. Redrilling is $40 per shot; so a 2nd drill is not terrible; a 3rd drill is annoying. Surfaces changes are easy. Getting a chance to combine all that with testing can take a long time.)

This ball has been both interesting and frustrating for me. It was the first Lane#1 ball I had bought new since the Bullet (not so hot) and the Golden Nugget (nice!). I bought it mostly because the coverstock was a Columbia one.

At first I put an average drill on it. Wow! did that medium-high RG make it flip for me, even with the pin below the level of the brdige are. Even a couple of surface adjustments did not give a controllable ball reaction. So I re-drilled slightly radical for me: 2x5, pin about 1.5" above the midline, CG in grip center. Even with this relatively even drill, the ball was too skid/flip; more controllable, but far from controllable.

OK, surface change time again. Sanded it to 4000 grit. Now, every other polished pearl resin ball I have ever tried this surface on has gotten much smoother. However with this ball, I still wound up with an almost glossy finish. Surprised, I got out a brand new 4000 grit Abralon pad; same result. Hunh? I tried it anyway. Still, flippy reaction, even on old wood lanes.

I finally gave up and sanded it to 2000 grit. Now, I got some sense of control.

I do now use this ball, when the oil pattern/lane surface is too flippy.

I notice very few people even mention this ball anymore. The Supernova series seems to have taken over, but those have much lower RGs and much higher flare potential. The XP seems to be what the HRG was intended to be.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Unofficial Ballreviews.com FAQ
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

 

novawagonmaster

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4279
Re: Uranium HRG surface and drill
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2008, 06:01:20 PM »
I was struggling the entire first half at one of my local houses. I decided to switch to the HRG just to try something different. Since making the ball change, I have been averaging 30-some pins higher. Needless to say, the HRG and I are good friends

Here is a copy of something I wrote a couple weeks ago:

I have two of HRGs. My PAP is close to yours...5 over 1/2 up.

One HRG is OOB box surface condition, modified Label drill, pin 2" from PAP, CG just above thumb. Ended up with 3/4 thumb weight, no side weight. This ball is a gem on a fresh medium house shot (on synthetics in my case).

The other HRG is scuffed lightly with scotchbrite. Pin under ring (4.5 from PAP) CG out (PAP, pin, CG angle of 60 degrees). Weight hole 2" down on VAL. This ball is better when the shot is squirrely. I like this one better with carry down. It reads a little sooner, and moves a little smoother on the backend.

I have been toting both of these to league. Most nights, I can use the first ball all night. However, when bowling a team that uses alot of plastic (creating carry down), I will switch to the scuffed ball to control the break point.

--------------------
Jon (in Ohio)

Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Uranium HRG surface and drill
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2008, 06:53:21 PM »
quote:
I was struggling the entire first half at one of my local houses. I decided to switch to the HRG just to try something different. Since making the ball change, I have been averaging 30-some pins higher. Needless to say, the HRG and I are good friends

Here is a copy of something I wrote a couple weeks ago:

I have two of HRGs. My PAP is close to yours...5 over 1/2 up.

One HRG is OOB box surface condition, modified Label drill, pin 2" from PAP, CG just above thumb. Ended up with 3/4 thumb weight, no side weight. This ball is a gem on a fresh medium house shot (on synthetics in my case).


This might have an even earlier roll than mine, before I changed the surface. If you're stroker, I can understand you're liking this ball. Backend to please a stroking release.

quote:

The other HRG is scuffed lightly with scotchbrite. Pin under ring (4.5 from PAP) CG out (PAP, pin, CG angle of 60 degrees). Weight hole 2" down on VAL. This ball is better when the shot is squirrely. I like this one better with carry down. It reads a little sooner, and moves a little smoother on the backend.


With carrydown? I wouldn't have suspected that feature for this ball at all. Good for you.

quote:

I have been toting both of these to league. Most nights, I can use the first ball all night. However, when bowling a team that uses alot of plastic (creating carry down), I will switch to the scuffed ball to control the break point.

--------------------
Jon (in Ohio)



I was ready to use this ball at the 4000 grit at a new place where I was subbing, but the 4000 also went too long. Had to use my Blue/Green Centaur. That's when I took it back to 2000 grit. The house shot had plenty of short oil but a long very clean backend - made most balls, even control balls overreact. WIsh the HRG was at 2000 when I tried it. If they ask back to sub, I'll bring it back it along again. Heck, I might even take it to 1500 grit.

Glad someone's getting good use out of it.

--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Unofficial Ballreviews.com FAQ
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Ishmael

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
Re: Uranium HRG surface and drill
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2008, 02:44:16 PM »
I have an HRG drilled 2 x 5 no weight hole, and I had to take the surface all the way down to 1500 to get the look I wanted.  This has been my go to league ball for the last couple months.  It just seems to rev forever and then arc on the backend.  No flip, and great hitting power.
Logged

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7680
Re: Uranium HRG surface and drill
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2008, 03:20:32 PM »
charlest: Regarding your following statement:

 
quote:
The Supernova series seems to have taken over, but those have much lower RGs and much higher flare potential. The XP seems to be what the HRG was intended to be.


The HRG was always intended to be a go long and hook hard ball. They make that clear over on the Lane#1 site:

 
quote:
The new Uranium  HRG, gives you more length than our previous Uranium Buzzsaws, going cleaner through the front before exploding like shrapnel on the backend.


On the other hand, the Supernovas are more of control pieces. That's how they're advertised and perform in the real world. I don't know why you would think the HRG (which is a very good ball for it's intended use) was intended to react like the SN's.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Uranium HRG surface and drill
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2008, 03:34:15 PM »
I have never heard of the Supernova pearl as control piece, but I don't follow Lane#1 balls that closely. In the BTM and BJI reviews, they just seem like so many other resin pearls. The HRG is more than go long; virtually all resin pearls go long. Several others in this thread have corroborated my experience with the HRG. It's not a bad ball, just not what I expected and it took a lot of effort to make it work at all.

--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Unofficial Ballreviews.com FAQ
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7680
Re: Uranium HRG surface and drill
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2008, 03:59:04 PM »
quote:
I have never heard of the Supernova pearl as control piece, but I don't follow Lane#1 balls that closely. In the BTM and BJI reviews, they just seem like so many other resin pearls.  


The solid Supernova is described on the Lane#1 site as "controlled continuous" (mine solid is certainly that). I understand that the XP is pearl, but this is a ball where the core in many respects overrides the cover.

Watch Mike Savoia's XP video over on the Lane#1 site. The pearl has good mid lane roll and a hard continuous backend. I set mine up almost identical to his "Ball #1 - Stacked Leverage" in the video, and I get a very similar reaction.

There are definitely other Lane#1 balls with more skid/snap. My pearl Dirty Bomb is much more of a backend monster than the XP, which also makes it more condition specific. The XP is a terrific piece for smoothing out THS wet/dry shots.

I don't know about the BTM and BJI reviews, but if they're suggesting the XP is just another skid/flip pearl, they have it wrong.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Uranium HRG surface and drill
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2008, 04:23:02 PM »
Steven,

You're not defending Lane#1; you're getting carried away. I really don't care about the Supernovas; I'm sorry I even brought them up.

"I don't know why you would think the HRG (which is a very good ball for it's intended use) was intended to react like the SN's."

I didn't say this. I said, "The XP seems to be what the HRG was intended to be." While the HRG was intended to go long on medium oil, it goes so long it needs more dry than medium oil provides to make the turn, IN MY OPINION. The XP seems to work on medium oil; the HRG, for me, does not work on medium oil without sanding.


--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Unofficial Ballreviews.com FAQ
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7680
Re: Uranium HRG surface and drill
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2008, 05:50:06 PM »
charlest: If there is anyone who is a stickler for accuracy, it's you. You can be relentless when you have a point to drive home when you believe you know something. And more often than not, you're right.

The same principle here. I have both Supernovas and have a very good feel for what they are, and what they're not. The XP is not and was never intended to be a skid/snap ball. On the other hand, the HRG was intended to be a skid/snap ball -- an alternative to the rolly (LRG) Pearl Uranium.

Therefore, your statement "The XP seems to be what the HRG was intended to be" is a false premise. That's the only thing I was trying to clear up. This has nothing to do with getting carried away or defending Lane#1.  

If we've cleared this up, MY OPINION is that you're generally in uncharted waters when you get higher RG pearl equipment (from any manufacturer). Because they're so sensitive to oil and friction, you're sometimes rolling the dice based on drill, the exact OOB surface you happened to get, style, and the house you bowl in.

For example, when I recently purchased my XP, I picked up a G-Force Evolution along with it. The Evo is a skip/flip pearl along the lines the HRG. To make a long story short, my driller made a mistake on the drill. I wanted it stacked  (pin just slightly above and next to ring), but the pin ended up about 1.5" higher than planned. On paper, this was a disaster -- high pin on a high RG ball with big backend. Right away, my driller offered to replace it without me even throwing a shot with it.

Anyway, to my surprise, the ball gets length but not too much, and makes a pronounced turn (much more than the XP on the same medium conditions). I didn't have to do anything to the cover. Who knew? A ball I thought was ruined does what it's supposed to with drill that shouldn't have been.

Anyway, chalk your situation with HRG up to experience. Unknown factors that result in mismatches happen to all of us.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »