Hype.

Take two different shaped cores, but with the exact same numbers, say 2.50 - 0.042, use the same cover stock, drill them identical and have ThrowBot do it's thing. All things being equal, they should roll identical. Numbers are numbers, science is science.

There is no magic core or cover stock. A core defines spin (early spin, late spin), the cover stock defines length, the bowlers axis rotation, axis tilt and speed define everything else. It's the magic combination of a particular core and cover that matches your physical game that makes a ball special.

Not saying I don't agree with the "hype" opinion, but Dynamicore is the outer core (filler). It supposedly hits harder than traditional filler. It also (again supposedly) replaces the need for 2 piece equipment, thus retaining the core shapes at multiple weights.

Just another marketing scheme to sell more balls
Every company has had them at one time or another

Quote from: mstevens on August 20, 2019, 08:02:51 PM

Just another marketing scheme to sell more balls
Every company has had them at one time or another

This, just like the carbon fiber thing from Hammer, and Hypershock from Columbia. All the companies are put in a box from the USBC on regulations so they have limited ability to really change things, so they  just let the marketing teams put a spin on it. No offense to anyone in industry that comes on here, i'm an engineer myself and constantly deal with our marketing team grasp at straws and spin things and it is slowly killing me inside.

i guess the flip side then is why do they even add it in the first place? i guess there's probably not a way to look into the details of it, but is it more cost efficient or less to make a ball with the DOT and Dynamicore? and if its less efficient, does it sell more to make up for the cost efficiencies?

Same with the Carbon Fiber you pointed out? i'd imagine its more expensive to make a ball with it? but is it worth it for the company to do it if it didn't have added value?

Quote from: michael.willis9 on August 21, 2019, 04:02:35 PM

Quote from: themagician on August 21, 2019, 08:55:13 AM

Quote from: mstevens on August 20, 2019, 08:02:51 PM

Just another marketing scheme to sell more balls
Every company has had them at one time or another

This, just like the carbon fiber thing from Hammer, and Hypershock from Columbia. All the companies are put in a box from the USBC on regulations so they have limited ability to really change things, so they  just let the marketing teams put a spin on it. No offense to anyone in industry that comes on here, i'm an engineer myself and constantly deal with our marketing team grasp at straws and spin things and it is slowly killing me inside.

i guess the flip side then is why do they even add it in the first place? i guess there's probably not a way to look into the details of it, but is it more cost efficient or less to make a ball with the DOT and Dynamicore? and if its less efficient, does it sell more to make up for the cost efficiencies?

Same with the Carbon Fiber you pointed out? i'd imagine its more expensive to make a ball with it? but is it worth it for the company to do it if it didn't have added value?

Why would it cost more? The extra ink to print the latest propaganda?

well, the cost of researching?  material cost? id imagine those are higher than what is normally used when making a bowling ball

The guys at Lanes Side Reviews seem to believe in a lot, although I think it's silly they way they call out some carries as dynamicore hits.

I think if someone believes in what brunswick says, they will get some lucky carries and tell them self it's dynamicore. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but this is how the mind works.

A long time ago when I used a Fire Quantum (an original) I thought that gave better carry. I objectively did have better scores and more strikes with it. So I've always believed 2 piece balls are better. But then years later had a Seismic Eupohric TSE, and that was a great ball with a super thin outer shell (eventually that ball cracked).

OT but TSE balls have thin shells?  Darn squirreled away a Desperado.  Hope it doesn't crack.  I hear ya about a certain ball making you believe in 2 piece balls.  OG Hy-Road did for me but sadly found most 2 piece balls don't have that magic.

Hype.

Call it what you want, but we drill hundreds of balls a year in our pro shop, and have had many balls across all manufacturers crack over the years. But, since DynamiCore has come out, in the 3+ years we have drilled those balls, and there are hundreds of them that have left our shop, only ONE has ever come back cracked. THAT can not be said by ANY other manufacturers balls that we sell, so you can say the COR stuff is hype, but our numbers don't lie when it comes to more durability with the DynamiCore outer core material.

.................

I don't know if the carry is any different.  Personally I assume every ball is manufactured at the maximum allowed COR.  Having said that, I'll tell you without a doubt that my Zing sounds significantly different than my Storm/Roto stuff when it hits the pins.  I'm NOT claiming that 'different' is better, but I'm confident that I could throw all of my balls blindfolded and easily identify which one was the Zing based on sound alone.

So... if every ball is manufactured at the COR limit, I would believe it's just hype, but we don't have any hard evidence that this is the case.  Unless someone can link me?

But more importantly, even if we assume every ball is at the COR limit, the material that connects the Core of the ball to the cover of the ball, would still matter.  Anyone who plays golf will tell you without a doubt, that inner layers, materials, etc make MASSIVE differences in the golf world.  Obviously a Golf ball compresses and magnifies all of the inner materials and their effect on the flight of a golf ball (speed, spin, lift, etc)

So, for anyone who thinks all filler material is the same and doesn't matter, I would point to Golf Balls as the foundation of why you would be wrong.  There should be a way to measure the impact/energy transferred from a ball to a pin, but no one seems to care to quantify it.

People also need to keep in mind, that as far as the grand scheme of sports and technology, bowling is still somewhat in the dark ages in my opinion at least.  Bowling hasn't even began the ascent of what could be coming in the future.  We all just assume that bowling ball technology can't progress any further, but that's just due to the lack of R&D in this sport compared to others.  Some day a new revelation will change the way we look at bowling balls, in a way that we can't even fathom today.