Well, this is hearsay, but I thought I'd throw it out here and see how many comments it gets...

An old friend of mine told me that the ABC/WIBC is considering banning particle equipment, and that this might happen as soon as a year or so from now. This friend is on the certification committee for the stadium, and I guess this subject comes up for discussion every now and then.

Anyway - the rationale is that the microscopic particles are, over time, too abrasive on the lanes. On one hand, it makes sense. On the other - you've got to be kidding...

Comments???
--------------------
Bowling? Of course it's a sport.

Ball companies....this is bad.... we have so much invested in particle technology and now the ABC wants to ban us.

Ball companies....this is good... A whole new market opening up for us to exploit with the new line of RevFreakZoneIcon reactive technology.  

Seriously I hope they can give us a little warning so we don't wind up purchasing something that is suddenly illegal.

I say, ban the suckers.  Now.  They are affronts to God and man.  I'll just use aggressive and dull reactives.  And the particles do destroy lanes.
--------------------

"It's just a carry contest."  

Well I heard 25 years ago there were going to make 15lb the maximum weight, whatever happened to that idea.

If they are going to ban the use of particle bowling balls, they need to give everyone plenty of time to know about it before it happens.  If they are going to ban it in a year, they should tell us now.  I am only 15 and I don't get the chance to buy a ton of bowling balls.  I don't really want my bowling ball that I just bought last winter for $200+ to be worth absolutely nothing because I can't use it.  I just say put some more oil down.  I know some people complain they can't hook a ball in a lot of oil.  Well, too bad.  Learn to move and throw with more revs.  Instead, I think the ABC should limit to what grit your ball can be sanded.

I know that this topic has come under scrutiny with the ABC in the past, and it was finally decided that the particle balls weren't necessarily causing any more damage to the houses that other equipment were responsible for.  In fact, the most abrasive ball to EVER hit the lanes was the Blue Hammer urethane ball!

Since the particle balls give those urethane lovers a needed edge over the reactive resin balls, I'd have to say that if the ABC bans particle balls, they should also ban reactive resin balls as well, in order to level the playing field.  Banning only the particle balls will again give an unfair advantage to a portion of the bowlers, where the current reactive and particle choices give virtually all bowlers a level field.  If you recall, when the reactive resin balls hit the market, only PART of the Pros could compete with the given choices of equipment.....when the particles were introduced, then the urethane ball Pros had a chance to compete head to head with the reactive lovers.

I think that banning the particle balls would be a huge blow to the bowling public, especially considering how many particle balls have been sold and how some bowlers have come to rely on them.  The newest reactive resin ball that I own was made back in 1995, and I hardly ever even carry it with me.  However, I probably have 10 particle balls in my arsenal, with several of them being freshly drilled and only test fired a few times on the lanes.....if I find a model that I really like, I'll grab up a couple of spares before they go out of production and stash them back for future use.

I'm afraid that I'd have to scream loudly if the ABC decides to ban particle balls.  And, I'd also scream for a ban on reactives at the same time.  Then the houses could get rid of the ridiculous amounts of oil that they've been putting out on the lanes, at least in my area.

Also, this topic brings up another thought to mind.  Whenever you take an object such as a heavy bowling ball, spin the object, then roll it across a surface while spinning, there is an extremely small contact patch where the object is actually touching the surface, or lane in this case.  It goes without saying that some wear is expected in this case, whether the surface of the lane be wood or synthetic.  This wear is inevitable, and will eventually have to be addressed regardless of whether the surface is polyurethane coated wood or if it is a plastic material.

In wood houses, you already have routine resurfacing which needs to be done every 2 years or so.  So, my guess is that the screaming is about synthetic lanes.  I see no reason NOT to expect wear on synthetic lanes too, since they too are subject to the properties of friction, whether the ball be plastic, urethane, reactive resin, or particle composition.  So, it seems to me that the likely fix in this situation would be to come up with a way to resurface the synthetic surfaces, somewhat similar to how wood lanes are already resurfaced.  Of course, in the case of resurfacing synthetic lanes, the primary function of resurfacing would be to sand and repolish the synthetic surface.  If the designers of synthetic lanes expected them to last indefinitely without some type of repolishing, then they were just barking up a tree and not looking ahead at all.

In this case, it is up to the designers of the synthetic lane surfaces to come up with a method of repolishing the lane surfaces, so that they can be periodically smoothed down to like new condition.  Hello, is there anybody home in the engineering departments of the lane manufacturers?....and if so, did you overlook the basic properties of FRICTION?

I think that the idea of banning particle balls or any other is ridiculous. That would be like Major League baseball removing the seams from a baseball, same affect anyway only power players would be able to be dominate.
--------------------
STORMIN1
F5 TORNADO IS COMING THROUGH, WILL THE 10 PIN SURVIVE AGAIN!