Author Topic: Heavy oil ball thoughts (Read 1442 times)

Jorge300 · « **on:** September 23, 2011, 12:08:56 AM »

I was talking to my ball driller last night and he mentioned something to me that I had not thought of before. I wanted to put this out here to see what the BR world thought of this.

We were discussing a ball for heavier/longer oil. We were talking the usual suspects such as the VG Nano, Ransom Demand, Critical Theory, Bank Roll, etc. Then he mentioned something that really struck me. He said that he thought some of the new stronger pearl balls, if the surface was brought down enough, would be better then the solids on heavy oil. The pearl mica, at the lower grit levels, would give a larger footprint in the oil and give you more then enough ball to handle these conditions. He specifically mentioned the forthcoming VG Nano Pearl as one that would probably be a "monster" in this way. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks for taking the time.

Jorge300

milorafferty · « **Reply #1 on:** September 23, 2011, 08:13:08 AM »

Morich has been using sanded pearls as oilers for a while now.

ericfox4 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 23, 2011, 08:37:53 AM »

i thimk if you take the surface off the epidemic it would be great

rymacatthedisco · « **Reply #3 on:** September 23, 2011, 08:41:58 AM »

I have done this for awhile. I tend to love the stronger stuff early in a block, but sometimes the pattern just gets so blown up on the front part of the lane because guys are using 500 and below grits to get traction, so the ball just burns up all of its energy and does nothing down lane. By using a strong pearl with some surface or even a strong ball with a higher grit surface, it gets through the patches of dry lane up front and then still has the energy to get down lane.

Ex: I remember bowling a tournament on shark and everyone was using 500 grit stuff, myself included, then the fronts blew wide open and the balls were hooking as they hit the lane and then just stopping. I grabbed the same ball I was using that had a little shine to it and stayed where I was and ended up taking 3rd.

Ryan McDaniel...

Jorge300 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 23, 2011, 08:55:58 AM »

Thanks guys. This is why I like coming here so much. This was just something I never gave much thought to before, always was the guy throwing the 500 grit solid as Ryan mentioned. Then when the burn up move to a weaker solid or a little more speed to get through the dry patches. I will have to think on this.....the Nano Pearl looks attractive to fill this need, but so does the Critical Theory. Thanks for your input.

Jorge300

mainzer · « **Reply #5 on:** September 23, 2011, 11:03:00 AM »

I actually recently tried this with a Seismic AfterMath Pearl. I took the surface down to about 500 abralon and it is a beast on oil.

Get a little extra length and stronger move to the pocket than a Solid with the same surface prep. I think it rolls up easier in the juice and for me is easier to read on the lane overall.

MainzerPower

dizzyfugu · « **Reply #6 on:** September 26, 2011, 05:18:20 AM »

I am sceptical about the "larger foorprint" idea, since mica is a mineral additive. It might create some mechanical friction (like classic carbide particle additives), but I'd rather see a performance option in the highly porous pearl coverstocks of current high performance pieces. These things long for thick head oil, and with a matte finish I think that their heavy oil performance can be enhanced further, as long as the sanding grit level is not so coarse that the actual footprint area becomes smaller/less effective again.

DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany
2010/11 Benrather BC Club Champion
Confused by bowling? Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section