Author Topic: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction (Read 10970 times)

dougb · « **on:** February 23, 2010, 04:02:10 AM »

I just started bowling in the last few years and have used mostly new equipment. But in the last few months I had the opportunity to use both a Faball Blue Hammer and a Brunswick Gold Rhino Pro. I don't know if it was just me, but both of these balls seem to hit harder than any of my newer equipment. My pro shop told me that the solid cover (2-piece construction, core and cover only) is the reason.

I'm not sure if this is true, but why did ball companies move to 3-piece construction, adding filler around the core? And when did this happen?

J_w73 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 24, 2010, 08:29:47 AM »

good article..is there a section on that site that has more articles like that??
--------------------
18 mph,350 rpm,PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8up, 15 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
HighGame 300 x 4, High Series 808
Book Average 205,PBA Xperience 185

Edited on 2/24/2010 9:32 AM

Jock · « **Reply #17 on:** February 24, 2010, 09:55:28 AM »

quote:
good article..is there a section on that site that has more articles like that??

Yes, here it is:-

http://www.jandjbowlingsupply.com/payingattention.html
--------------------
I've upped my average, so up yours!

Miffy1980 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 24, 2010, 10:33:20 AM »

Quoting Jugg,

The terminology "two piece" and "three piece" have traditionally been used when refering to balls with central dynamic cores (two piece), and balls with pancake non-dynamic cores (three piece).

So 3 piece cores meant that the ball have 1) shell, 2) pancake weight and 3) filler. Those are the 3 "pieces" that makes a 3piece ball?

Which is correct, a ball with a centrally located dynamic core, filler and shell, is also a 3piece core?

and that a ball with a core and uses no filler are 2piece ball?

Juggernaut · « **Reply #19 on:** February 24, 2010, 03:36:00 PM »

quote:
Quoting Jugg,

The terminology "two piece" and "three piece" have traditionally been used when refering to balls with central dynamic cores (two piece), and balls with pancake non-dynamic cores (three piece).

So 3 piece cores meant that the ball have 1) shell, 2) pancake weight and 3) filler. Those are the 3 "pieces" that makes a 3piece ball?

This is correct. Traditionally, three piece was understood to consist of EXACTLY what you describe.

quote:
Which is correct, a ball with a centrally located dynamic core, filler and shell, is also a 3piece core?

TECHNICALLY, yes. When you count the filler, you actually have 3 pieces, but the terms "2 piece" and "3 piece" had already become somewhat set in the way they were used. That is why balls with dynamic, centrally located weightblocks are still referred to as "2 piece", even though with the filler added, they are "technically" 3 pieces. A little confusing if you haven't followed ball construction for a while.

quote:
and that a ball with a core and uses no filler are 2piece ball?

This is EXACTLY correct, and comes from the time when 99% of balls with dynamic weightblocks had a solid shell with no filler.

--------------------
Good transactions list in my profile

ILLEGITIMI, NON-CARBORUNDUM!

Miffy1980 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 25, 2010, 07:20:11 AM »

thanks Jugg for setting me straight..

for entry level balls like the tornado and scout or even groove, u dont count the puck weights as a "piece" right.

and the core is made out of polyester?

Author Topic: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction (Read 10970 times)

dougb

2-piece vs 3-piece construction

J_w73

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

Jock

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

Miffy1980

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

Juggernaut

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction

Miffy1980

Re: 2-piece vs 3-piece construction