Is there, or has there ever been a ball with a reactive cover at least as weak as my Lane #1 Bullet, but that has a stronger core?? I can't think of anything, but if there is, I wouldn't mind having a ball like that.

Brad

Look at some Brunswick stuff with PK 17 covers.....

Ebonite Cyclone, Hammer Spike, or Columbia Freeze or Columbia Blur?

I wouldn't consider the covers on the Cyclone or Freeze to be weak at all.

Quote from: Bowler19525 on August 02, 2014, 01:10:27 PM

Ebonite Cyclone, Hammer Spike, or Columbia Freeze or Columbia Blur?

I wouldn't consider the covers on the Cyclone or Freeze to be weak at all.

Well, they use some of the legacy coverstocks that were strong when they first came out years ago but are weak in comparison to the newer tech.  Just like PowerKoil17, introduced on the high-end Zones back in the 90's and now used on the lower line balls.

Quote from: Bowler19525 on August 02, 2014, 01:38:26 PM

Quote from: milorafferty on August 02, 2014, 01:14:01 PM

Quote from: Bowler19525 on August 02, 2014, 01:10:27 PM

Ebonite Cyclone, Hammer Spike, or Columbia Freeze or Columbia Blur?

I wouldn't consider the covers on the Cyclone or Freeze to be weak at all.

Well, they use some of the legacy coverstocks that were strong when they first came out years ago but are weak in comparison to the newer tech.  Just like PowerKoil17, introduced on the high-end Zones back in the 90's and now used on the lower line balls.

I thought the Cyclone was GB 10.7, same cover as the Gamebreaker.

Ebonite used GB 10.7 on The One and the Gamebreaker.  It is almost 10 year old technology.  The Cyclone comes out of the box at 4000 Abralon and then polished with Factory Finish Polish, which is going to make the ball perfect for lighter volumes of oil or shorter patterns.  The Cyclone will be very weak for most bowlers on medium/medium heavy conditions.

There has NOT be any technological advances in coverstocks since 1997...

Quote from: milorafferty on August 02, 2014, 01:14:01 PM

Quote from: Bowler19525 on August 02, 2014, 01:10:27 PM

Ebonite Cyclone, Hammer Spike, or Columbia Freeze or Columbia Blur?

I wouldn't consider the covers on the Cyclone or Freeze to be weak at all.

Well, they use some of the legacy coverstocks that were strong when they first came out years ago but are weak in comparison to the newer tech.  Just like PowerKoil17, introduced on the high-end Zones back in the 90's and now used on the lower line balls.

Please remember that a ball is core + coverstock.

While Pk 17 covers have bee put n weaker cores, 10.7, and New Era coverstocks have bene put n medium and stronger cores to produce medium-oil required oil patterns, unless you ar a speed dominant player.

PK17 has been put on VERY weak cores like the Power Groove (high RG and medium diff) and the Slingshot (high Rg and very low differential) cores to produce very weak balls.

Cyclones and Freezes (and now Blurs) are NOT dry or light oil balls. Slingshots were.

Going way back, the old Battle Zone Cannon was one of the best dry lane balls ever.  Low rg core that would rev up quick, but real tame cover.  The best newer dry lane ball I have thrown is the Cobalt Vibe, but they are getting hard to find.  It also has a relatively strong core but a tame shell.