Author Topic: Core or coverstock? Whats more important? (Read 10114 times)

jkiser01 · « **on:** December 17, 2003, 06:54:43 PM »

I am having a discussion with my friend over this subject. I say the core plays a big role in the reaction of a ball on the lane and he thinks the coverstock plays a bigger part..

Anyone have any comments on this??

jkiser01

Steven · « **Reply #16 on:** December 18, 2003, 04:57:50 PM »

T-GOD: Thanks for posting the Columbia link. I had not seen that article before. The essence of that article is the following statement:

quote:
While both components (Shell, Core) work together to determine the ball path, the core can be thought of as having more affect on the rotation on the ball.

This is interesting because rotation feeds into hook shape, and hook shape is the major factor in breakpoint. We can talk about coverstocks all day, but when all is said and done, breakpoint is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for higher scoring.

Again, it comes down to whats' most critical to achieve higher scores.
--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

charlest · « **Reply #17 on:** December 18, 2003, 06:10:21 PM »

quote:
charlest: I'm surprised at your comments. If you want to present an apples-to-apples comparison, drill a Lane#1 plastic XXXL (real diamond core) and a plastic Spare Storm (pancake block).

There is no comparison in reaction. The XXXL will provide a bowler with average hand some real movement on drier conditions, where the Spare Storm will go straight as an arrow. Now why is that?

Steven,

Now this is a generalization, but that's what we're dealing with here:

The plastic ball (don't use the Spare Storm in your example unless that is the plastic that Lane#1 used; I doubt it, as it is a much harder and denser surface than Lane#1 plastic. I suspect a White Dot is a more appropriate comparison) will NOT go straight as an arrow on a condition that the XL will hook on. Because of the cover they are both usable onth e same condition; the XL will hook more, yes. But the surface (and the bowler's delivery, of course) determines on what oil pattern and amount they will hook on, be usable on. The core determines now that traction will be applied to the lane, QED, how much and where it will hook.

The metphor about the coverstock being equivalent the tires and the core being equivalent to the engine. The engine can apply as much power to the tires as it wants, but snow tires are usable on one surface and racing slicks are usable on another.
--------------------
"Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it."

charlest · « **Reply #18 on:** December 18, 2003, 06:14:32 PM »

quote:
Charlest,
I don't care what you do to a early roll ball you are not going to make it skid snap. It will still have an arc shape to the reaction and it will roll to early to be a skid/snap ball. Will it go longer, yes, will it snap at the backend no.
--------------------
J.Hansen
Visionary Test Staff Member

I can make an Inferno skid/flip (skid/snap) till doomsday on the medium-heavy oil pattern on Brunswick Anvillanes. The Inferno has one of the lowest RGs around right now.
The V2 Pearl had the low RG (2.45) of the V2 sanded. Didn't you ever see that ball skid/flip??
How about the Storm POWER CHARGE PEARL, with RG of 2.49; is that low enough to meet your criteria? Ever see that skid/flip?
--------------------
"Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it."

charlest · « **Reply #19 on:** December 18, 2003, 06:21:38 PM »

quote:
T-GOD: Thanks for posting the Columbia link. I had not seen that article before. The essence of that article is the following statement:

quote:
While both components (Shell, Core) work together to determine the ball path, the core can be thought of as having more affect on the rotation on the ball.

This is interesting because rotation feeds into hook shape, and hook shape is the major factor in breakpoint. We can talk about coverstocks all day, but when all is said and done, breakpoint is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for higher scoring.

Again, it comes down to whats' most critical to achieve higher scores.
--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

Steven,

I think you're still stretching the matter. WHile the wrong drilling will make using the ball with the right coverstock for the lane condition more to much more difficult, the wrong coverstock can mkae it so that no drilling will make the ball work.

While over the past 2 years or so, core dynamics have, I believe become more important for that all important adjustment, when we change balls, I still have to believe that 99% of the time, a basic drilling like the infamous label laeverage will work magic for 99% of all bowlers, once the right coverstaock is chosen. Based on this, for my personal point of view, I'd have to give no lower than 60% to the coverstock, while I lean towards 70%, after the lane and the bowler are removed from the equation.
--------------------
"Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it."

Steven · « **Reply #20 on:** December 18, 2003, 06:39:24 PM »

charlest: I don't know what you mean by generalizations. I don't think it's productive to split hairs about the hardness of the various plastic shells. I put out my Spare Storm as an example because it's the first ball that came to mind. I also have a Brunswick Target Zone and a Columbia White Dot (which you mentioned), so if it makes you feel better, substitute those models into my comparison instead.

The bottom line is that all the above mentioned plastics move measurably less than my XXXL on dry conditions where such comparisons are appropriate. The only real difference is the core. I'm not reading this somewhere else or speculating based on hearsay -- these conclusions are from my own 'hands on' experience with these balls. The delivery was the same and the conditions were the same. If you choose not to believe me, that's a different issue.

Regardless, coverstock choice is really a "no-brainer" in most situations (a generalization, but mostly true). I can take 75% of the balls on the market and adjust the cover to match up to most conditions I would find. Generally, cover alternations might not be necessary at all. At my Sunday practice session, I usually bring the following:

1) Track Silencer (Particle, 800 grit)
2) Ebonite Stinger (Resin 1500 grit)
3) Storm Thunder Flash Pro (Strong Urethane, 1000 grit)

On the THS pattern that's usually found, I can throw all three balls with the same effectiveness while lining up just a few boards different. There is that much overlap in 'friction'. If one ball carries a little better than another, it's because of the respective hook shapes, breakpoints and resulting angle of entries. Ironically, these are functions of core and drill patterns.

With today's coverstocks, there is so much overlap on THS patterns that the concept of shell being 70% plus of reaction is far overblown. If this is true (which I firmly believe), why wouldn't you consider hook shape to be a more important factor when trying to achieve higher scores?

--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

Edited on 12/18/2003 10:12 PM

RandyO · « **Reply #21 on:** December 18, 2003, 10:23:55 PM »

Try this analogy (which I heard today from a very well respected ball-guru):

Bowler = Engine
Cover = Tires
Core = Suspension

Now that makes more sense.

agroves · « **Reply #22 on:** December 19, 2003, 03:31:32 AM »

The question of this topic is: what plays the BIGGEST part in reaction.

I am with Charlest on this one. If you talk to the majority of manufactures they will say that the cover affects approx 2/3 of OVERALL ball reaction. I tend to agree with this statement.

The core, rg values-differential and pin placement, determine the shape of the hook. Yes you can make a low rg ball skid/snap with the proper drilling.

You can take a ball with a less than desirable drilling and score well with it provided the cover matches the condition well. That is why many people drill their equipment the same way the rely on cover strength/weakness to match up to the condition. I think Walter Ray and Chris Barnes are known for drilling everything pretty close to the same.

striker985--what does your post provide to this discussion??

--------------------
FUFU

HIT 'EM WEAK AND WATCH 'EM FREAK

solid9 · « **Reply #23 on:** December 19, 2003, 10:23:51 AM »

I have always believed that.

core= shape
surface= distance
bowler= size

Ishmael · « **Reply #24 on:** December 19, 2003, 10:30:05 AM »

While the cover has the largest influence on the balls oil handling capabilities, the cover choice is so easy that it's almost trivial. The hard part is getting the core and drilling matchup to maximize scoring.

rkaycom · « **Reply #25 on:** December 19, 2003, 10:37:41 AM »

Lets look at it this way; the core effects the hitting power and the roll of the ball where as the coverstock effects the reaction and amount of hook of the ball...

That pretty much it...

- 01kay
--------------------
"Storm & Brunswick = Stormwick?!?!"
"Hook Isn't The Key A Repeatable Consistent Shot Is"
"Increase Your Knowledge, Increase Your Score"
http://www.stormbowling.com ~ http://www.brunswickbowling.com
As A IT Tech I Believe I have The Right To "C:/DEL *.*" You All!!!
Content Removed By Webmaster

charlest · « **Reply #26 on:** December 19, 2003, 11:00:21 AM »

quote:
charlest: I don't know what you mean by generalizations. I don't think it's productive to split hairs about the hardness of the various plastic shells. I put out my Spare Storm as an example because it's the first ball that came to mind. I also have a Brunswick Target Zone and a Columbia White Dot (which you mentioned), so if it makes you feel better, substitute those models into my comparison instead.

It doesn't so much make me feel better, as it seems to be a more appropriate comparison.

quote:

The bottom line is that all the above mentioned plastics move measurably less than my XXXL on dry conditions where such comparisons are appropriate. The only real difference is the core. I'm not reading this somewhere else or speculating based on hearsay -- these conclusions are from my own 'hands on' experience with these balls. The delivery was the same and the conditions were the same. If you choose not to believe me, that's a different issue.

That's fine; I had no problem with that. My contention is that the cover makes both balls appropriate to tthe same oil pattern. Someone with a lot of hand may actually find the XXXL to have too much backend on a dry condition and may have to use the White Dot. Also, as you move up to more and more oil, the telling factor will be that both the XXXL's and the White Dot's will look more and more alike, until there's enough oil for one bowler's "hand, that they will both hook the same. That's the point where the coverstock is no longer appropriate.
Of course the ideal situation would be where the coverstock's are idential and only the core is the difference.

quote:

Regardless, coverstock choice is really a "no-brainer" in most situations (a generalization, but mostly true). I can take 75% of the balls on the market and adjust the cover to match up to most conditions I would find. Generally, cover alternations might not be necessary at all. At my Sunday practice session, I usually bring the following:

1) Track Silencer (Particle, 800 grit)
2) Ebonite Stinger (Resin 1500 grit)
3) Storm Thunder Flash Pro (Strong Urethane, 1000 grit)

On the THS pattern that's usually found, I can throw all three balls with the same effectiveness while lining up just a few boards different. There is that much overlap in 'friction'. If one ball carries a little better than another, it's because of the respective hook shapes, breakpoints and resulting angle of entries. Ironically, these are functions of core and drill patterns.

I think you may be seeing the point where the Silencer, being significantly stronger cover than the Stinger, is burning itself up just enough to allow you to play the same area and stillhave enough backend to carry well. That is a wonderfull situation, that not many people are lucky enough (or knowledgable enough) to achieve.

quote:

With today's coverstocks, there is so much overlap

May I change that to "potential Overlap"?

quote:
on THS patterns that the concept of shell being 70% plus of reaction is far overblown. If this is true (which I firmly believe), why wouldn't you consider hook shape to be a more important factor when trying to achieve higher scores?

Hook shape can be important, can be the most important factor, once you have the right cover to handle the lane condition. I just got an ELement and with my normal release, it has an very even arc-like reaction, some would ever call it an old-fashioned curve - very much a control ball, until I changed my release to add more angle to the release's rotational axis. Now it has more of a late arc, with greater entry angle and thus, greater carry power. A slight shine may have done the trick, but I did not want to change the surface, because we have carrydown.

So, I believe hook shape is only important after the ball's cover allows it to handle the oil pattern.

--------------------
"Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it."

ksucat · « **Reply #27 on:** December 19, 2003, 11:04:30 AM »

The extreme differences in coverstocks today make this the most influential part of the ball. The difference between high load particle to plastic is far greater than any two different cores can provide.

This discussion immediately made me think about the thread on which part of the lane is most important. I still contend that if we throw out extreme conditions such as dry heads or flooded backends, then the midlane rules. If we throw out comparing plastic to particle, then the core can make a big difference in performance.

On the THS where striking is king, most good bowlers can easily pick a coverstock to work with because several will work well. However, the real trick is to get the correct core and layout to create the best entry angle to maximize carry percentage.

T-GOD · « **Reply #28 on:** December 19, 2003, 11:15:03 AM »

I think the point Steven is trying to make, is that every manufacturer has reactive resin covers now. They're all pretty good/close to each other. So now, the big difference is the core..!! =:^D

charlest · « **Reply #29 on:** December 19, 2003, 11:33:26 AM »

T-God,

quote:
I think the point Steven is trying to make, is that every manufacturer has reactive resin covers now. They're all pretty good/close to each other. So now, the big difference is the core..!! =:^D

Most are pretty close. Even the PK 17 and PK 18 covers are closer than people think, with the type of reaction being more different than the amount of oil they can handle. The same goes for Columbia's Flexcell and SuperFlex.

Some companies do have coverstocks that are more different. I think 2 examples are Storm's Pro-Glide on the Barbed Wire and the Accu-Tread on the Hot Wire (with Curelyon in between).

The Dynothane Soaker coverstock on the ELement is also fairly different in its oil handling ability from the coverstock on the Barrage. (Yes, the cores are very different.)

--------------------
"Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it."

Steven · « **Reply #30 on:** December 19, 2003, 11:41:59 AM »

quote:
However, the real trick is to get the correct core and layout to create the best entry angle to maximize carry percentage.

ksucat's above statement is the essence of what I've been trying to convey. Of course the proper match of cover to surface has to happen before anything else, but that decision is so basic (and easy) when purchasing a ball, there is danger in thinking too much about it.

There is an old saying that has a twisted application here: "When everything is important, nothing is important". Given that most mid-range balls have the base friction characteristics (or cover alteration potential) to be useful on most conditions a bowler sees, it's too easy to get caught up in coverstocks.

I've learned this lesson the hard (i.e. expensive) way. I've been a ball junkie the past few years, having owned 40-50 different balls. And the 'arsenal' covers the full range -- plastics, mild urethanes, aggressive urethanes, mild resins, pearl resins, aggressive resins, pearl particles, low load particles, and high load particles. I've thrown league/tournaments with these balls on THS patterns, ABC sport shot patterns, and the 5 PBA patterns.

Again the lesson is that except for the extremes, most covers can be adjusted for most situations. Beyond this, the success factor is being able to create the optimal entry angle to maximize carry. This comes from knowing cores and drill patterns.

If anyone feels they can get the reaction they want (which is the ultimate goal) from shining/sanding and simply giving what's inside a second thought, we're not going to connect, and we'll have to agree to disagree.

--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

Author Topic: Core or coverstock? Whats more important? (Read 10114 times)

jkiser01

Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

Steven

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

charlest

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

charlest

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

charlest

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

Steven

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

RandyO

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

agroves

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

solid9

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

Ishmael

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

rkaycom

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

charlest

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

ksucat

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

T-GOD

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

charlest

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?

Steven

Re: Core or coverstock? Whats more important?