Author Topic: Durability: Does it matter? (Read 1645 times)

REVOLUTIONS PS · « **on:** November 16, 2003, 02:52:14 AM »

I wonder how many of you include how much use you will get out of a given ball when buying something new. I see that some companies and models (which I won't bother naming) continue to be popular even though they have reputations for early loss of performance and other things like "tec death". I feel as though there are certain companies and models that last longer than others, anyone agree or disagree?

scotts33 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 16, 2003, 05:56:41 PM »

That's why I bought a DT Thing and Thing Returns from all reports the soaker coverstock is great and gets better with use. I have stayed away from Columbia since their TEC coverstocks for that reason.

Scott

REVOLUTIONS PS · « **Reply #2 on:** November 17, 2003, 11:15:37 AM »

I just don't understand how companies can continue to manufacture expensive balls that don't last more than even a couple of months for some people. If you are a big shooter and are winning your money back and more, fine but what about the rest of the world? There are people who remember when they used to buy a ball that would last years instead of months. I am sure most of the kind of people I am talking about aren't on this forum but nonetheless I believe that is something that is turning lots of people off bowling. After all, those semi-serious bowlers out number the hot shots...

mumzie · « **Reply #3 on:** November 17, 2003, 11:23:20 AM »

Well, I inadvertently bought one of those balls. And I haven't bought anything else from that company. I vote with my feet.
And no - I'm not referring to Columbia. My Rev was purchased used, and has held up very well. Of course, I'm also diligent in keeping my equipment clean.

RSalas · « **Reply #4 on:** November 17, 2003, 11:52:21 AM »

I guess durability isn't an issue for me, as I never seem to keep a ball long enough for me to notice a degradation in its performance.

charlest · « **Reply #5 on:** November 17, 2003, 12:03:02 PM »

quote:
I just don't understand how companies can continue to manufacture expensive balls that don't last more than even a couple of months for some people.

Planned obsolesence. I'm not being facetious or sarcastic, but
why should bowling ball manufacturers be different from any other type of manufacturer?

Have you seen some of the posts even here at ballreviews? Many people post that they are looking to find a used version of a ball that has not even been released yet. There are 495 perfectly usable balls for virtually any release and any oil condition, yet they want the new one. It's all become part of the cycle.
--------------------
"Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it."

REVOLUTIONS PS · « **Reply #6 on:** November 17, 2003, 12:56:59 PM »

I'm not sure I am ready to call for urethane to be brought back as the main coverstock but I would like to see some changes from the ball companies.

I believe that there probably is technology available that would deliver plenty of reaction (from a coverstock) and at the same time be more durable. I have never found any product (cleaners, revivers...) that effectively maintain a ball's reaction for a long period of time. Even with repeated use of products like I mentioned, the same loss of reaction and carry seems inevitable.

It's probably true that it won't happen as long as the market stays the way it is now but I don't think that can continue forever.

Smash49 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 17, 2003, 01:41:09 PM »

It's that way with everything. We make the most durable product of it's type on the market. Some Pro Shops question us and tell us that they want people to buy new ones every week and want a high turn over flow. Ours at cost is sometimes lower than models made by our competitors and last 10 times as long but the shop will buy the inferior product and sell 10 times as many because people don't know the difference. Some shops bank on return customers in this manner. Now to balls. If your ball is not reacting the same or as good you will be more likely to look at new equipment sooner and be back in the shop. Also with technology advances and advanced coverstocks balls can be justified for not lasting like the old Rhinos.

Smash49
--------------------
Smash49
robert@bowlersslidesock.com
The Premier II Bowler's Slide Sock is NOW AVAILABLE with adjustable strap!
www.bowlersslidesock.com

Edited on 11/17/2003 9:57 PM

REVOLUTIONS PS · « **Reply #8 on:** November 17, 2003, 02:08:35 PM »

I wonder sometimes what these ball company's would tell the average customer, the ones we deal with every day in the pro shop. They come back four weeks after buying a new ball and show us how it is soaked with oil and won't hook. We tell them it has to be cleaned, they grumble about it but buy the ball cleaner. They bring it back again and again with the same problem...I just can't tell them, "oh, time for a new ball..." That is just crazy and most people with half a brain know it's b.s. and I don't want people to think I am trying to stiff them. I would rather earn the repeat business with superior service, honesty and good-valued equipment.

johns811 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 17, 2003, 02:34:55 PM »

Columbia still makes the Black Messenger which I believe is urethane ball with the Messenger Core. I know a guy who did really well at the ABC's a few years ago with that ball.

Personally, I haven't experienced this ball death. My Track Silencer is 2 years old and it is a hooking monster. My Enforcer still hooks good and it is polished. I do regular maitenance but nothing special. All my reactive balls never seem to change enough for me to notice except....

The only ball I have which seems to be an oil magnet is my Quantum Leap. Even after 320 scotchbrite sanding after about 5 practice balls the cover is pretty oily that doesn't seem to wipe off well. Not sure if it's just the black color showing the oil but it is really noticeable. That ball will be my test case ball for Doc's Elixir. The ball does seem to lose its recovery after several shots even after a fresh cleaning.

[quote

I just wish these ball companies would introduce a conventional urethane with updated core technology. Brunswick's urethane Groove is fine and dandy... but why can't they put a better core in there? That would be an excellent, long-lasting ball.[/quote]

Phillip Marlowe · « **Reply #10 on:** November 17, 2003, 03:24:38 PM »

If I buy anything other than a Dynothane Soaker coverstock ball, it is with the knowledge that it is going to die and only because I don't have anything with a soaker that fills the slot or if I can purchase a NIB ball for $40-$55 from a distributor or off ebay. Then the low cost makes it reasonable to purchase a short lived cover.

In my opinion.
--------------------
"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings."

Author Topic: Durability: Does it matter? (Read 1645 times)

REVOLUTIONS PS

Durability: Does it matter?

scotts33

Re: Durability: Does it matter?

REVOLUTIONS PS

Re: Durability: Does it matter?

mumzie

Re: Durability: Does it matter?

RSalas

Re: Durability: Does it matter?

charlest

Re: Durability: Does it matter?

REVOLUTIONS PS

Re: Durability: Does it matter?

Smash49

Re: Durability: Does it matter?

REVOLUTIONS PS

Re: Durability: Does it matter?

johns811

Re: Durability: Does it matter?

Phillip Marlowe

Re: Durability: Does it matter?