Author Topic: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction (Read 10948 times)

dougb · « **on:** February 23, 2010, 04:02:10 AM »

I just started bowling in the last few years and have used mostly new equipment. But in the last few months I had the opportunity to use both a Faball Blue Hammer and a Brunswick Gold Rhino Pro. I don't know if it was just me, but both of these balls seem to hit harder than any of my newer equipment. My pro shop told me that the solid cover (2-piece construction, core and cover only) is the reason.

I'm not sure if this is true, but why did ball companies move to 3-piece construction, adding filler around the core? And when did this happen?

Jesse James · « **Reply #1 on:** February 23, 2010, 12:27:53 PM »

Hmmmm. This sounds like a discussion, tailor-made for Lane Masters equipment!

Most of their balls are two-piece construction and also hit amazingly hard.
--------------------
Duct tape is like ''The Force''. It has a light side and a dark side, but it still holds the universe together.

Some days you''re the bug some days you''re the windshield.

Edited on 2/24/2010 8:42 AM

J_w73 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 23, 2010, 12:52:16 PM »

What new equipment have you used? There could be alot of things going on here.
--------------------
18 mph,350 rpm,PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8up, 15 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
HighGame 300 x 4, High Series 808
Book Average 205,PBA Xperience 185

Juggernaut · « **Reply #3 on:** February 23, 2010, 01:11:50 PM »

The terminology "two piece" and "three piece" have traditionally been used when refering to balls with central dynamic cores (two piece), and balls with pancake non-dynamic cores (three piece).

Even when ball manufacturers started using filler to surround the centrally located dynamic core, they were still referred to as being "two piece" construction, even though it was now technically incorrect.

What I believe your shop man is talking about is the thickness of solidly shelled balls with no fillers VS thinly shelled balls with fillers involved.

Many are of the opinion that would agree with him. Visionary, many LaneMasters balls, and a few other I believe, are still constructed with the solid shell, while many others have gone to a thinner shell and filler surrounded core.

I have looked, but cannot find, the information from a study Ebonite did in just this such premise. They concluded that performance would be ENHANCED by having a thinner shell with a filler inside, because it allowed them to much more easily manipulate the RG and Diff. numbers by varying the density of the filler materials. They also claimed that the balls had NO LOSS of COR (coefficient of restitution) by using the thinner shell material.

I have also heard that the filler material is quite a bit cheaper than the urethane, so using it to manufacture the majority of the interior of the ball would also allow for a substantial savings in the cost of manufacture.

This happened not long after the advent of the centrally located dynamic core which gained popularity in the late 1980's when urethane was still the predominant material used for coverstocks. Oddly enough, it was one of Ebonites big marketing ads of the time, touting the fact that the NITRO had over 11.5 pounds of urethane in the shell.

This is where my memory fails me. I THINK that one of the first dynamically cored balls to use a "filler" material was the original Ebonite CRUSH (a dull, blue urethane) and CRUSH/R (a dull, red reactive resin).
--------------------
Good transactions list in my profile

ILLEGITIMI, NON-CARBORUNDUM!

charlest · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2010, 01:35:54 PM »

My opinion falls in line with Juggernaut's, for whatever that's worth.

FYI several of Storm's and RotoGrip's balls do not use filler. If you'll notice, mostly it's on medium-high RG balls of around 2.55: Reign, Reigh of Fire, Nomads, and some older models. (Given the RG on the Riot and Dark Start, kind of surprised they have filler.)

Also filler is a lot less expensive that using the coverstock all the way down to the core.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

stormed1 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 23, 2010, 04:28:23 PM »

It also has to do in some cases with gettinng the ball to the deired weight without changing the core. The original Nitro/R2 was solid in 16# but used filler for weights below that
--------------------
Arsenal: Mega Friction,Break Point x 2, Break,Clutch,Clutch Pearl,Maniac,Awakening,Lunatic,Heist Pearl,SX-1,Link,Hype urethane,Global Globe, 14# golden globe

http://s485.photobucket.com/albums/rr220/stormed1/My%20Arsenal/
Bowlingboards.com

dougb · « **Reply #6 on:** February 23, 2010, 04:56:47 PM »

Thanks Juggernaut for a great and informative response. I think that's exactly what my shop was talking about: the thick shell on those balls.

Is there also a relationship between shell thickness and ball life? I know "ball death" is a controversial topic, but these old balls (The Blue Hammer and the Rhino) have many years of games on them and hit very hard. I did an oil extraction on both before I resurfaced them and nothing came out. This is in direct contrast to some of my newer equipment (Storm T-Road Pearl, HyRoad, and a Lane #1 Retro Buzzsaw THS) which all sweated oil out like pigs.

charlest · « **Reply #7 on:** February 23, 2010, 05:09:59 PM »

quote:
Thanks Juggernaut for a great and informative response. I think that's exactly what my shop was talking about: the thick shell on those balls.

Is there also a relationship between shell thickness and ball life? I know "ball death" is a controversial topic, but these old balls (The Blue Hammer and the Rhino) have many years of games on them and hit very hard.

Don't mix apples and oranges!

Those are urethane. Even in the old days, when resin was first introduced (1995), urethane absorbed oil at a rate 1/20 of that of resins. With the new super absorptive resins, I can't even begin to calculate the new ratio.

Possibily old resins absorb 1/20 at the rate of new resins. That makes urethanes absorbing at a rate 1/400 of that of new resins.

quote:

I did an oil extraction on both before I resurfaced them and nothing came out. This is in direct contrast to some of my newer equipment (Storm T-Road Pearl, HyRoad, and a Lane #1 Retro Buzzsaw THS) which all sweated oil out like pigs.

Exactly. You made your own point.

--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

J_w73 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 23, 2010, 11:29:27 PM »

The new stuff you are using might just be too strong for your style and the conditions you are bowling on...
The covers of your new stuff have to be atleast twice as strong and the engines (cores) inside are way stronger as well...

Too strong on the wrong condition equals a ball with no Ummmph at the pins...
--------------------
18 mph,350 rpm,PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8up, 15 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
HighGame 300 x 4, High Series 808
Book Average 205,PBA Xperience 185

scotts33 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 23, 2010, 11:52:14 PM »

quote:
ven in the old days, when resin was first introduced (1995)

Oops gotta disagree with you there Jeff. Nu-Line Excalibur introduced Feb. 92 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFEGjzvVVyQ and Ebonite Turbo-X Oct. 92.
--------------------
Scott

kidlost2000 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 24, 2010, 12:08:59 AM »

Try an Avalanche series ball from Brunswick.

In terms of hardest hitting for me most recent is the Jigsaw. That ball is amazing. Sounds different then most other balls when hitting the pins and carries extremely well.

--------------------
" men lie, women lie, numbers don't "

charlest · « **Reply #11 on:** February 24, 2010, 05:23:39 AM »

quote:
quote:
ven in the old days, when resin was first introduced (1995)

Oops gotta disagree with you there Jeff. Nu-Line Excalibur introduced Feb. 92 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFEGjzvVVyQ and Ebonite Turbo-X Oct. 92.
--------------------
Scott

Scott,

I was not worried about exactly when resins came to be. I was pointing out when we began to see and have a real understanding what was happening with respect to the coverstocks. Heck, even in 1995, only some pro shops and drillers got the idea passed down to them from the manufacturers and their reps and understood about resin vs urethanes & polyester balls. Even then 95% of pro shops were drilling based on the CG and static weights. They did not yet even get the idea about pins and what it meant to a ball reaction. Some still don't get it.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

lenstanles703 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 24, 2010, 06:22:16 AM »

If you are looking for a long lasting ball with resin with no filler, check out the Visionary Ogre line mid-price with performance and a loud crack when hitting the pins. This line includes a Urethane with a dynamic core.
--------------------
Len

Edited on 2/24/2010 7:23 AM

Edited on 2/24/2010 7:24 AM

dizzyfugu · « **Reply #13 on:** February 24, 2010, 06:56:59 AM »

I can confirm that an old Faball Blue Hammer (and probably any massive old-school urethane) hits differently from balls with a filler, and IMHO even different from "massive" resin balls like the Lanemaster stuff.
I also have the impression that it just feels more massive when you just hold it in your hand - I suppose it is the urethane with higher density and hardness than resin. It resounds differently to pin impact - at least that's my impression, whereas "normal" stuff appears to be more "flexible". Hard to describe.
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling? Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

bitbytebit · « **Reply #14 on:** February 24, 2010, 07:02:59 AM »

I read about how the first faball black hammers would die after 100-200 games because the urethane would absorb oil and go dead. They fixed this, but seems interesting, and maybe the balls worked better for those 100-200 games, than later hammers (although they all work so well anyways). So an interesting theory I thought of when reading through this thread, is that maybe these original black hammers that went dead after 100 games would be pretty close to reactive resin and become alive after an oil extraction. So essentially just like our balls we see now days that require oil extraction every 100 games?

Source of information is here:
http://www.jandjbowlingsupply.com/LONDON/London0306.htm

Thanks,
Chris

Author Topic: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction (Read 10948 times)

dougb

2-piece vs 3-piece construction

Jesse James

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

J_w73

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

Juggernaut

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

charlest

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

stormed1

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

dougb

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

charlest

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

J_w73

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

scotts33

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

kidlost2000

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

charlest

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

lenstanles703

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

dizzyfugu

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

bitbytebit

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction