win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Trizact vs. Scotchbrite?  (Read 1033 times)

Ric Clint

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Trizact vs. Scotchbrite?
« on: December 23, 2004, 07:17:21 PM »
I've never gotten the straight of this:

Why does Brunswick and Lane #1 say to use Trizact on their particle balls, and NOT Scotchbrite?

Will Scotchbrite hurt their balls or something?

What does Trizact do, that Scotchbrite can't do?




 

Brickguy221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9918
Re: Trizact vs. Scotchbrite?
« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2004, 08:50:01 AM »
Check with Charlest. He is good at these type things and may be able to answer the question.
--------------------
Regained my sanity and switched to
STORM
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away"

a_ak57

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10584
Re: Trizact vs. Scotchbrite?
« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2004, 08:51:54 AM »
They don't anymore.  They stopped using it a few years ago.  As to why, i'm not sure.

I believe the last ball (brunswick anyways) to use trizact was teh swamp monster.
--------------------
- Andy


You have to pity the agnostic dyslexic insomiac, who stays up all night wondering if there really is a dog.

Edited on 12/24/2004 9:52 AM

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Trizact vs. Scotchbrite?
« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2004, 06:45:20 PM »
The type of particles Brunswick used/uses are so hard that ScotchBrite will not affect them. When you want to change the surface of their balls or you need to re-surface them, you want to change the particles as well as the resin base. Trizact will do the job. Scotch-Brite will only scuff the resin, not the particle.

Many other companies use softer particles; when you need to change the surface, sandpaper or Trizact will sand these particles smooth; this can create a virtual resin ball out of a particle. So it is/was safer to use ScotchBrite pads.

That's the theory, I got from hearing and reading and learning. Also some experience with Brunswick and Lane#1 particle balls. Whether new B'wick particle covers are different or not, B'wick says they are and current users seem to agree.
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Ric Clint

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: Trizact vs. Scotchbrite?
« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2004, 04:11:39 AM »
quote:
When you want to change the surface of their balls or you need to re-surface them, you want to change the particles as well as the resin base. Trizact will do the job. Scotch-Brite will only scuff the resin, not the particle.

Many other companies use softer particles; when you need to change the surface, sandpaper or Trizact will sand these particles smooth; this can create a virtual resin ball out of a particle.


Hmmm... so since they're particle balls are made up of harder particle... doesn't that mean that their (Bruns and Lane #1) should last longer since their particles won't wear down and get dull-ish as quick?




charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Trizact vs. Scotchbrite?
« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2004, 06:09:26 AM »
quote:

Hmmm... so since they're particle balls are made up of harder particle... doesn't that mean that their (Bruns and Lane #1) should last longer since their particles won't wear down and get dull-ish as quick?



In general, I'd say, YES.
Thru their first and 2nd generation balls (I think Brunswick is on their 3rd generation, plus Activator particles, which may be a 4th generation, now), most are still in play. And are still strking hard. The percentage of older Brunswick particles still being used successfully are, to my eyes, much greater than any other brand of particle balls.
"None are so blind as those who will not see."