Author Topic: I think we are seeing a time of change... (Read 1320 times)

agroves · « **on:** March 30, 2004, 09:41:36 AM »

Recently, ball companies have started to head back to the reactive resin market. I am seeing fewer and fewer particles, save Columbia and especially Track. I remember when everything Big B released was particle now their high perf line has one, and only 3 or 4 overall.

We are beginning to see more and more "aggressive" resins. However, I believe that resins haven't changed much in the past few years. The covers have changed but I don't think they are really that much different and certainly not better than those of the past. If you are comparing the Excalibur and V2 sanded then yes there would be a ton of difference. If you compared the V2 sanded and the Werewolf or Danger Zone and Inferno, I think the difference would be minimal overall.

I personally like reactives and am happy to see companies putting more R & D into them. Particles are high maintenance sponges but great on certain shots.

Andrew
--------------------
FUFU

"Act like you've been there before"

hotwire13 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 31, 2004, 01:01:39 AM »

reactives are the best overall type of ball today. there have been so many different models put on the market, that improving them is going to be a slow, gradual process...if its not, companies wont squeeze out all the money they can out of us. particle has proved to be, like u said, a very specific type of surface, that can only be used consistently on certain shots in certain situations. resins have been reliable on just about everything, and theyre easy to get used to when thats all someone throws. i love them, and after recntly drilling a reloaded, its easy to tell how much more consistent resins are. the reloaded is a great ball, but the particle coverstock sometimes gets erratic when the fresh shot starts moving. plus, theyre high maintenance and expensive to begin with. with all the options that come with resins, you really cant go wrong. keep making them mmore aggressive, and there is no need for particles in our sport.
--------------------
Erik Olsen - e13ez85@hotmail.com

charlest · « **Reply #2 on:** March 31, 2004, 08:12:11 AM »

hotwire13 wrote:

quote:
particle has proved to be, like u said, a very specific type of surface, that can only be used consistently on certain shots in certain situations. ... after recntly drilling a reloaded, its easy to tell how much more consistent resins are. the reloaded is a great ball, but the particle coverstock sometimes gets erratic when the fresh shot starts moving.
--------------------
Erik Olsen - e13ez85@hotmail.com

Erik,

While I also seem to make better use of resins than particles, I must disagree with you over their utility for the general, higher average, higher skilled bowler. I think your example and use of the Reloaded might have been under bad circumstances. Sucha ball should have (in theory) been much more reliable in its reaction than a resin under transition condiitons.

So, as not to re-write what I already wrote in another thread, here is a copy:

"One can no longer make generalizations to make life easier in your bowling ball choices. It is not only not feasible, it is foolish and counter-productive.
There are, I have seen larger differences in ball reaction due to the amount of polish and shine applied to a ball, be it particle or resin, than I have seen in whether a ball has a particle or a resin coverstock.

Major examples:

The Ebonite V2 Dry and the Columbia Spirit II are particle balls but are two of the least hooking balls available and are best suited to almost burnt lanes.

3 new resin solids, Columbia Full Throttle, Ebonite Killer Instinct Sanded, and the Brunswick Ultimate Inferno are 3 solid resins and there are few balls that will handle more oil than they will, even dull particles. (For the wise asses out there, yes, there are a few particles that will handle more.)

The point is one must look at the ball, not whether it's particle, resin, urethane, polished, dull, pearl or what-not."

--------------------
"We get old too fast, and too late, smart."

omegabowler · « **Reply #3 on:** March 31, 2004, 08:19:08 AM »

My havoc is a resin and is less skid snap than the V2 clean I had. there both resin.

the clean was drilled for arc and the havoc for snap. go figure.

I belive some companies like TRack, Visionary, and Hammer have been very accurate about the ball descriptions.

take the Unleased. it has a lot of backend for a particle when drill for snap.
it may not be as violent as a reactive but still angular and responsive the dry back end.

I pretty sure the standards have changed but not like you think. I belive these companies descriptions are more researched and Marketing material is better devised based on some real specs.
--------------------
"deserves got nothing to do with it."
-- William Munny

hotwire13 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 31, 2004, 09:42:09 AM »

charlest, while i may not have worded it as well as i would have liked, i still think that on teh whole, resins are much moore consistent and much more versatile. i am not just saying this from my own experience, but from just about everyone of my friends that have tried them, and many of the particles we have bought do not hit the lanes very often. my reloaded is still very new, and i know that it is going to be a great ball, but i also know that i could have gotten just about the same amount of reaction with a deuce...i just felt like going with a particle. for me, as well as most of teh bowlers in my area, resin is the best way to go...and i havent found a shot yet(ive bowled on many different ones) that gives a clear cut advantage to particle coverstocks. in my mind, particle coverstocks do make a noticable diference in their reaction. for every particle ball out there that i have seen, there is a resin that can do basically teh same thing.
--------------------
Erik Olsen - e13ez85@hotmail.com

charlest · « **Reply #5 on:** March 31, 2004, 09:51:25 AM »

Erik,

I agree with your philosophy, on the whole, but my main point, as it was when I answered the original question, for which I worded that reply, IS
Do not let the fact that a ball is particle or resin influence you.
Take the ball's designed-in performance and see if it meets your needs (NOT your wants).

Ball designers are, on the whole, fairly or even more than intelligent people; it's the corporate bean counters who seem to have a greater influence on balls and their marketing that we should take to task for some of these crummy balls that are not very versatile. I wish companies would do more of what we used to call "Systen Testing" on balls for both use, re-surfacing, oil absorption and longevity, before unleashign them on an unsuspecting public ... AND THEN DISCONTINUING THEM 6 MONTHS LATER for some bowler discovered failure of that ball.

(Sorry, rant off.)
--------------------
"We get old too fast, and too late, smart."

Author Topic: I think we are seeing a time of change... (Read 1320 times)

agroves

I think we are seeing a time of change...

hotwire13

Re: I think we are seeing a time of change...

charlest

Re: I think we are seeing a time of change...

omegabowler

Re: I think we are seeing a time of change...

hotwire13

Re: I think we are seeing a time of change...

charlest

Re: I think we are seeing a time of change...