BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: beeks1305 on March 30, 2016, 02:53:52 PM
-
What is the better option for non polished equipment? Are there other options?
-
Clean and Dull is better if you want to clean the ball deeply and if you don't want to change the surface.
Reacta Skuff is probably suitable if you also need to change the surface to whatever grit level Storm says this will do. It is an abrasive. I don't see the grit level on Buddies web site nor on Storm's web site
-
Clean and Dull is better if you want to clean the ball deeply and if you don't want to change the surface.
Reacta Skuff is probably suitable if you also need to change the surface to whatever grit level Storm says this will do. It is an abrasive. I don't see the grit level on Buddies web site nor on Storm's web site
A user over on bowlingchat did a test with a laser scanner.
When used on a ball sanded at 4000 grit, Reacta Skuff changed the surface to 3500, 10 ra
-
Clean and Dull is better if you want to clean the ball deeply and if you don't want to change the surface.
Reacta Skuff is probably suitable if you also need to change the surface to whatever grit level Storm says this will do. It is an abrasive. I don't see the grit level on Buddies web site nor on Storm's web site
A user over on bowlingchat did a test with a laser scanner.
When used on a ball sanded at 4000 grit, Reacta Skuff changed the surface to 3500, 10 ra
Thanks; that's very helpful.
So unless the bowler wants or needs to have his ball changed to 3500 grit, he/she should use a good, abrasive-free cleaner. Clean n Dull is a very strong cleaner that needs to be used cautiously.
-
Clean and Dull is better if you want to clean the ball deeply and if you don't want to change the surface.
Reacta Skuff is probably suitable if you also need to change the surface to whatever grit level Storm says this will do. It is an abrasive. I don't see the grit level on Buddies web site nor on Storm's web site
A user over on bowlingchat did a test with a laser scanner.
When used on a ball sanded at 4000 grit, Reacta Skuff changed the surface to 3500, 10 ra
Did he say what happened when it was applied to a ball at 1000 grit or 2000 grit?
-
I use Motiv's Gel Scuff every 10-15 games on my solid dull covers.
Motiv's Gel Clean after bowling
-
Did he say what happened when it was applied to a ball at 1000 grit or 2000 grit?
this is all he posted of what he tried, he said he was going to do more but I never saw anymore posted by him on it.
(note this is from 2013, oh & notice that lmb cleaner result)
preliminary test results on a solid, pearl and particle reactive cover. all sanded with a new 4000 pad. i am using a PAI laser scanner for testing:
hook it 4300 grit, 4 ra
renew it 3500, 9 ra
lmb cleaner 3000, 11 ra
clean n dull 3700, 8 ra
storm reacta clean 5000, 2.5 ra
storm reacta scuff 3500, 10 ra
liquid sandpaper 2200, 21 ra
i tac 3700, 7.5 ra
all balls were wiped after use with a clean damp cloth, then dried with another clean cloth
all testing was done by hand. a spinner would result in much higher grit readings
-
im assuming LMB tested was not the extreme or current lmb cleaner...
-
Did he say what happened when it was applied to a ball at 1000 grit or 2000 grit?
this is all he posted of what he tried, he said he was going to do more but I never saw anymore posted by him on it.
(note this is from 2013, oh & notice that lmb cleaner result)
preliminary test results on a solid, pearl and particle reactive cover. all sanded with a new 4000 pad. i am using a PAI laser scanner for testing:
hook it 4300 grit, 4 ra
renew it 3500, 9 ra
lmb cleaner 3000, 11 ra
clean n dull 3700, 8 ra
storm reacta clean 5000, 2.5 ra
storm reacta scuff 3500, 10 ra
liquid sandpaper 2200, 21 ra
i tac 3700, 7.5 ra
all balls were wiped after use with a clean damp cloth, then dried with another clean cloth
all testing was done by hand. a spinner would result in much higher grit readings
I did notice the LMB results.
And now I remember this post. I think the LMB results were what made me ignore his post because I did not believe his results to be valid. I do not believe the LMB cleaner would have changed the surface of the ball. Based on the age of the post, I believe it was the old LMB cleaner; still I believe that neither the old one nor the new Extreme, approved by the USBC, did and does not change the surface of the ball. If it did, then the USBC would never have approved it for use DURING bowling.
To my mind that calls into doubt his entire testing regimen.
-
im assuming LMB tested was not the extreme or current lmb cleaner...
I assume and believe that to be the case. If LMB did affect the surface, it would never have been approved by the USBC to be used during bowling.
-
I do not believe the LMB cleaner would have changed the surface of the ball. Based on the age of the post, I believe it was the old LMB cleaner.......
To my mind that calls into doubt his entire testing regimen.
Yes, It would have been helpful to know the exact testing regimen.
Like if the balls were scanned after sanding with the 4000 before the testing of the product, what type of surface change did the applicator by itself make etc. (I know what I would do anyway to test)
As for the LMB cleaner after thinking about it, There could be away to get that reading. this could apply to all cleaners also
1-If the ball wasn't scanned just before the test, it could have been a little courser than 4k to begin with.
2-If after sanding with the 4000, if there were any sanding leavings/residue left still down in the "valleys" and then the ball was scanned, the ball could show smoother than it actually was and then when the lmb cleaner was used.
The valleys got "cleaned out" and when scanned again, they'd show deeper thus a courser grit. The cleaner didn't actually change the ball, it just cleaned the residue out that skewed the reading.
With the exception of the liquid sand paper reading, to me personally those changes are not that different (4000 +/- about 1-2 µ) and in a real world situation that little of a difference would be unnoticeable to virtually everyone.
storm reacta clean 5000, 2.5 ra (this one is suspect also)
hook it 4300 4 ra
i tac 3700, 7.5 ra
clean n dull 3700, 8 ra
renew it 3500, 9 ra
storm reacta scuff 3500, 10 ra
lmb cleaner 3000, 11 ra
liquid sandpaper 2200, 21 ra
-
So, now, I wonder if I/we should take that value, 3500 grit, for Reacta SKuff, my original query, at face value?
I'm sorry we seem to have stolen the original poster's thread. Apologies.
-
I have the Motiv gel scuff already and I'm guessing it is very similar to the Storm reacta skuff? Sounds like the clean n dull might be what I'm looking for since I don't need an abrasive cleaner.
-
So, now, I wonder if I/we should take that value, 3500 grit, for Reacta SKuff, my original query, at face value?
I'm sorry we seem to have stolen the original poster's thread. Apologies.
It's okay, all great information that I didn't know about
-
So, now, I wonder if I/we should take that value, 3500 grit, for Reacta SKuff, my original query, at face value?
We don't have to take it at face valve, the main thing it shows is that Reacta Skuff changes the surface by only a minor amount. (and if you watch the Reacta Skuff video, you can barely see the change on the ball
And as you said above, unless the bowler wants or needs to have his ball surface changed, he/she should use a good, abrasive-free cleaner.
And if they do want to change surface, there better ways than using reacta skuff
I'm sorry we seem to have stolen the original poster's thread. Apologies.
We have, it happens the train of thought can take many routes to the station.
-
Aloarjr810,
I agree.
Beeks,
Clean n Dull is a great cleaner that will not, as far as I know, change the surface of a ball, but it is a very strong cleaner, with which you should use gloves to protect your hands. It is not, in my opinion, an every day clean unless you bowl on a TON of oil every time. Its strength and the procedure suggested for its use make it something to be used maybe once every 9 -12 games at home.
I think the best every day cleaner is the what we have been calling LMB, which is the short brand name. It is only available, as far as I know, thru Buddies. There are several other very good cleaners that can be used at the lanes as well.
(Buddies is out of stock right now, but will be getting more in a couple of weeks.)
-
I've used CnD for over a decade now and it's a real good cleaner like what charlest said, but I recently bought LMB Extreme (blue bottle) and my CnD hasn't moved from it's spot on the shelf. It's that good.
And yes, where PPE for your hands when working with these chemicals.
-
I think the best every day cleaner is the what we have been calling LMB, which is the short brand name. It is only available, as far as I know, thru Buddies. There are several other very good cleaners that can be used at the lanes as well.
(Buddies is out of stock right now, but will be getting more in a couple of weeks.)
charlest, which cleaner from LMB are you referring to, their "Professional Ball Cleaner" or their "I-Tack Bowling Ball Cleaner? How does it compare in performance to Valentino's Remedy Rx?
-
I think the best every day cleaner is the what we have been calling LMB, which is the short brand name. It is only available, as far as I know, thru Buddies. There are several other very good cleaners that can be used at the lanes as well.
(Buddies is out of stock right now, but will be getting more in a couple of weeks.)
charlest, which cleaner from LMB are you referring to, their "Professional Ball Cleaner" or their "I-Tack Bowling Ball Cleaner? How does it compare in performance to Valentino's Remedy Rx?
Neither one.
The one I'm talking about is called LMB International Extreme High Performance ball cleaner. It is not currently on Buddies web site because they are out of stock. It is scheduled to be back in about 2 weeks. Then it will be placed back on the web site.
-
I see the LMB Extreme is now back in stock (32oz) at Buddies. I'm going to add some to my order, and see how it compares to the RemedyRx that I use and like. Hope the smell isn't too bad.