win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Particles vs Oil soaker coverstocks?  (Read 1059 times)

LuckyLefty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17348
Particles vs Oil soaker coverstocks?
« on: August 11, 2008, 12:54:40 AM »
Recently a topic out here was....do you still use particles.  Many answered NO!

We all know they do not handle light oil volumes well and many of our proprietors have gone there to beat particles.  

But from all that I am reading regarding these new oil soakers....ball death is quicker than ever!  (maybe even quicker than the rumors of particle reacton demise).

Change in reaction with these oil soakers many say is a moving target etc.  Would we better off in many cases using some of the low volume particles with polish and good care?  

I'd like to point out ....all of my particles are almost reacting like new!  I never use sandpaper and only use scotch brite or abralon pads.  (Oh I have occassionally used 1500 or 2000 but never anything lower grit)  (For those heavy sanding type tasks burgundy pad or 500 abralon).

Other thoughts?

REGards,

Luckylefty
--------------------
Open the door...see what''s possible...and just walk right on through...that''s how easy success feels..

Edited on 8/11/2008 8:56 AM
It takes Courage to have Faith, and Faith to have Courage.

James M. McCurley, New Orleans, Louisiana

 

3835

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Particles vs Oil soaker coverstocks?
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2008, 09:04:28 AM »
I think Particles still have a big place in the industry today. Light load particles still give me the best overall reaction. The light load of particle helps to even out the resin reaction I got (too over under) all the time before particle was introduced.

I don't care what any company says, I would be willing to put up the AMB Centaur from Visionary against any resin ball to see which one handles oil better...I would almost guarantee the AMB will be sooner than any resin ball on the market that is being touted as such.

However, I feel the day of heavy load and medium load particles with a strong core have gone by. While there is an occasional use for them, more often than not, they are simply too much ball. I do however like the Ogre particle...looks like a medium to heavy load of particles with a weaker core...should keep the ball in play longer.

Ball death, I don't know....I have some theories, but they are just that, theories.

3835

LuckyLefty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17348
Re: Particles vs Oil soaker coverstocks?
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2008, 09:19:25 AM »
Yes, I am a fan of lighter load particles and think they are the cats meow expecially with polish.

Mo Pinels Awesome revs is an example of a ball that can cover almost all mediums very very well....especially with surface adjustments!

REgards,

Luckylefty
--------------------
Open the door...see what's possible...and just walk right on through...that's how easy success feels..
It takes Courage to have Faith, and Faith to have Courage.

James M. McCurley, New Orleans, Louisiana

3835

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Particles vs Oil soaker coverstocks?
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2008, 09:34:07 AM »
Surface adjustments are the key to ball reaction. Sometimes, you have to mess with the surface after getting a ball drilled as it just does not react how you thought it would.

As for ball death, I do think it happens. However, when everyone says the reaction they had went away, I do believe part of the issue is the lane shine the ball gets from use. Yes, the oil being absorbed will cause some issues, but if the lane shine takes the surface up, obviously it is not going to react like the ball did out of box as it is no longer the same surface. A fresh surface is the key, along with oil extraction every X number of games. I realize if you do not own a ball spinner at home, its tough to continually keep the ball at the same surface, and simply cleaing it is not the answer. You need to rough the surface back up to what it was originally out of the box. Cleaning will take the dirt and grime off, but it does not solve the lane shine....

Lucky, try a Radar Alert. Awesome ball. Nuff said. Pretty cheap on ebay as it was lost when Columbia was purchased by Ebonite.

3835

icefiction

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Particles vs Oil soaker coverstocks?
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2008, 09:49:39 AM »
lets not forget that we are throwing a 15lb object across a lane 60 ft long knocikn over 3lb pins for two hours a day. Im sure a new ball that hasnt taken that beating would always react better than one that has lol.
--------------------





dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7609
Re: Particles vs Oil soaker coverstocks?
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2008, 10:16:31 AM »
Particles and highly textured reactives are IMHO two different technological approaches to create friction, and each might have its uses.

Personally, I am also a big fan of light load particles, because the extra mechanical traction improves the ball stability a lot.
I also got a new Lanemasters NS2 last week drilled up, and I am VERY impressed by what a high load particle coverstock can do - it sure has a right in the market, and I'd prefer a milder coverstock base with particle to a textured/spongy reactive.
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section
Secrets revealed: What's a fugu?

DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany