Author Topic: Low End Assymetrical bowling balls. (Read 11423 times)

FinalFrame · « **on:** November 29, 2012, 01:25:48 PM »

Alright guys we were in the shop today thinking about some different ideas an we started thinking how come no company is make anything assymetrical in the low end price point. Something like a tropical heat or cyclone, but assymetrical would be a huge step in the market. Just look at how well ebonite did with the pursuits marketing them side by side Assymetrical an Symmetrical ..... Anybody have any input on this or any balls in the past that have been put out with the specs listed above.

stormed1 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 29, 2012, 01:50:22 PM »

Link and Missing Link were asymetricals

FinalFrame · « **Reply #2 on:** November 29, 2012, 02:03:18 PM »

ya that is true. Why isnt there any more balls like this, i thought they were pretty good balls but never saw alot of people want them.

charlest · « **Reply #3 on:** November 29, 2012, 03:18:28 PM »

Quote from: FinalFrame on November 29, 2012, 02:03:18 PM

ya that is true. Why isnt there any more balls like this, i thought they were pretty good balls but never saw alot of people want them.

it's basically a waste of money. Asymmetrics are generally more expensive than symmetric and their main purpose is to increase the backend. Low line balls do not need to be more expensive and they don't need more backend.

Most of the time they're used in light and short oil situations and these environment already provide tons of backend for ALL low level balls,most of which are pearls. In fact, most of the reason for failure of low level balls to sell is they hook too much already.

Heck, unless you have a lot of ball speed to control the backend, the Cyclone and the Tropical Heat are a waste of money for light oil. They're a great bargain for medium oil but crap on light oil, again, unless you have higher ball speed. They're less low level balls than just the least or one of the least expensive ball that those 2 companies make.

billdozer · « **Reply #4 on:** November 29, 2012, 03:19:39 PM »

Tracks 5 series has been alone in this category...idk why storm/brunswick wont come out with one...makes no sense..

billdozer · « **Reply #5 on:** November 29, 2012, 03:23:14 PM »

Quote from: charlest on November 29, 2012, 03:18:28 PM

Quote from: FinalFrame on November 29, 2012, 02:03:18 PM
ya that is true. Why isnt there any more balls like this, i thought they were pretty good balls but never saw alot of people want them.

it's basically a waste of money. Asymmetrics are generally more expensive than symmetric and their main purpose is to increase the backend. Low line balls do not need to be more expensive and they don't need more backend.

Most of the time they're used in light and short oil situations and these environment already provide tons of backend for ALL low level balls,most of which are pearls. In fact, most of the reason for failure of low level balls to sell is they hook too much already.

Heck, unless you have a lot of ball speed to control the backend, the Cyclone and the Tropical Heat are a waste of money for light oil. They're a great bargain for medium oil but crap on light oil, again, unless you have higher ball speed. They're less low level balls than just the least or one of the least expensive ball that those 2 companies make.

You made sense of all of that!...what about weaker covers on old tech assymetricals..like in hammers case..we got the taboos...highend reactive and plastic..how about something with an older weaker reactive cover? Something inbetween? Im dying for these companies to do something creative already, i know theyre out ideas but cmon!

Monster Pike · « **Reply #6 on:** November 29, 2012, 04:28:01 PM »

Quote from: billdozer on November 29, 2012, 03:23:14 PM

Quote from: charlest on November 29, 2012, 03:18:28 PM
Quote from: FinalFrame on November 29, 2012, 02:03:18 PM
ya that is true. Why isnt there any more balls like this, i thought they were pretty good balls but never saw alot of people want them.

it's basically a waste of money. Asymmetrics are generally more expensive than symmetric and their main purpose is to increase the backend. Low line balls do not need to be more expensive and they don't need more backend.

Most of the time they're used in light and short oil situations and these environment already provide tons of backend for ALL low level balls,most of which are pearls. In fact, most of the reason for failure of low level balls to sell is they hook too much already.

Heck, unless you have a lot of ball speed to control the backend, the Cyclone and the Tropical Heat are a waste of money for light oil. They're a great bargain for medium oil but crap on light oil, again, unless you have higher ball speed. They're less low level balls than just the least or one of the least expensive ball that those 2 companies make.

You made sense of all of that!...what about weaker covers on old tech assymetricals..like in hammers case..we got the taboos...highend reactive and plastic..how about something with an older weaker reactive cover? Something inbetween? Im dying for these companies to do something creative already, i know theyre out ideas but cmon!

Exactly what I was thinking before reading your post Billdozer. We always hear that the cover is the main factor of how a ball reacts... So a weak cover on an assym shouldn't necessarily mean "more backend" especially if it's not laid out for "backend"...

Buckwild · « **Reply #7 on:** November 29, 2012, 05:43:16 PM »

Quote from: charlest on November 29, 2012, 03:18:28 PM

Quote from: FinalFrame on November 29, 2012, 02:03:18 PM
ya that is true. Why isnt there any more balls like this, i thought they were pretty good balls but never saw alot of people want them.
Charlest,

What are your thoughts on the MoRich Mojave? PK 17 cover with a as
it's basically a waste of money. Asymmetrics are generally more expensive than symmetric and their main purpose is to increase the backend. Low line balls do not need to be more expensive and they don't need more backend.

Most of the time they're used in light and short oil situations and these environment already provide tons of backend for ALL low level balls,most of which are pearls. In fact, most of the reason for failure of low level balls to sell is they hook too much already.

Heck, unless you have a lot of ball speed to control the backend, the Cyclone and the Tropical Heat are a waste of money for light oil. They're a great bargain for medium oil but crap on light oil, again, unless you have higher ball speed. They're less low level balls than just the least or one of the least expensive ball that those 2 companies make.

Quote from: charlest on November 29, 2012, 03:18:28 PM

Quote from: FinalFrame on November 29, 2012, 02:03:18 PM
ya that is true. Why isnt there any more balls like this, i thought they were pretty good balls but never saw alot of people want them.

it's basically a waste of money. Asymmetrics are generally more expensive than symmetric and their main purpose is to increase the backend. Low line balls do not need to be more expensive and they don't need more backend.

Most of the time they're used in light and short oil situations and these environment already provide tons of backend for ALL low level balls,most of which are pearls. In fact, most of the reason for failure of low level balls to sell is they hook too much already.

Heck, unless you have a lot of ball speed to control the backend, the Cyclone and the Tropical Heat are a waste of money for light oil. They're a great bargain for medium oil but crap on light oil, again, unless you have higher ball speed. They're less low level balls than just the least or one of the least expensive ball that those 2 companies make.

Charlest,

What are your thoughts on a ball like the MoRich Mojave? PK 17 cover on a asymmetrical core.

charlest · « **Reply #8 on:** November 29, 2012, 07:05:45 PM »

Quote from: Monster Pike on November 29, 2012, 04:28:01 PM

Quote from: billdozer on November 29, 2012, 03:23:14 PM
Quote from: charlest on November 29, 2012, 03:18:28 PM
Quote from: FinalFrame on November 29, 2012, 02:03:18 PM
ya that is true. Why isnt there any more balls like this, i thought they were pretty good balls but never saw alot of people want them.

it's basically a waste of money. Asymmetrics are generally more expensive than symmetric and their main purpose is to increase the backend. Low line balls do not need to be more expensive and they don't need more backend.

Most of the time they're used in light and short oil situations and these environment already provide tons of backend for ALL low level balls,most of which are pearls. In fact, most of the reason for failure of low level balls to sell is they hook too much already.

Heck, unless you have a lot of ball speed to control the backend, the Cyclone and the Tropical Heat are a waste of money for light oil. They're a great bargain for medium oil but crap on light oil, again, unless you have higher ball speed. They're less low level balls than just the least or one of the least expensive ball that those 2 companies make.

You made sense of all of that!...what about weaker covers on old tech assymetricals..like in hammers case..we got the taboos...highend reactive and plastic..how about something with an older weaker reactive cover? Something inbetween? Im dying for these companies to do something creative already, i know theyre out ideas but cmon!

Exactly what I was thinking before reading your post Billdozer. We always hear that the cover is the main factor of how a ball reacts... So a weak cover on an assym shouldn't necessarily mean "more backend" especially if it's not laid out for "backend"...

If it's not laid out for a strong backend, why bother using a asymmetric (read: more expensive) core? For a large percentage of its use, it's almost required than a dry lanes ball be a control ball because the amount of DRY in which it used will provide a huge backend for most people. Those high ball speed bowlers can use stronger balls on drier lanes than average ball speed bowlers.

There are tons of medium strength and maximum strength balls with asymmetric cores that can be easily manipulated. Why bother to add extra expense to a dry lanes ball?

charlest · « **Reply #9 on:** November 29, 2012, 07:13:11 PM »

Quote from: Buckwild on November 29, 2012, 05:43:16 PM

Charlest,

What are your thoughts on a ball like the MoRich Mojave? PK 17 cover on a asymmetrical core.

What about it?

It was a high RG, low differential PK17 polished pearl. It really didn't need an asymmetric core, but it was a Mo ball, so I'd assume he did it just to keep it "in the family". Plus it was barely an asymmetric. The PSA strength was .008", which, according to Mo's theory, is barely in the range where it's necessary to consider the MB position or angle when laying out the ball. .008" is the Mo minimum, where the PSA or Mass Bias has an actual effect on the ball's reaction. I don't recall its being a particularly inexpensive ball but was less so than all the other MoRich balls at the time.

Rightycomplex · « **Reply #10 on:** November 29, 2012, 09:01:48 PM »

Quote from: billdozer on November 29, 2012, 03:19:39 PM

Tracks 5 series has been alone in this category...idk why storm/brunswick wont come out with one...makes no sense..

Most of the 5 series balls are not true asymms. The inter diff is not big enough to be considered asymms. A ball need .008 or better to be considered a true asymm. This why you dont really see the cg out of line with the MB. I could be wrong but I remember Mo saying this and proving it with the determinator.
As posted, its expensive to manufacture asym cores and then to price them really low doesnt make up for cost of goods. Which is why you dont see them. Another reason is that with such a strong core in the ball, a weaker cover could make the ball over flare or roll out on the back which goes against the conventional reaction of hockey stick. Besides you can get that reaction out of a cheaper sym core.

billdozer · « **Reply #11 on:** November 29, 2012, 10:05:34 PM »

Quote from: Rightycomplex on November 29, 2012, 09:01:48 PM

Quote from: billdozer on November 29, 2012, 03:19:39 PM
Tracks 5 series has been alone in this category...idk why storm/brunswick wont come out with one...makes no sense..

Most of the 5 series balls are not true asymms. The inter diff is not big enough to be considered asymms. A ball need .008 or better to be considered a true asymm. This why you dont really see the cg out of line with the MB. I could be wrong but I remember Mo saying this and proving it with the determinator.
As posted, its expensive to manufacture asym cores and then to price them really low doesnt make up for cost of goods. Which is why you dont see them. Another reason is that with such a strong core in the ball, a weaker cover could make the ball over flare or roll out on the back which goes against the conventional reaction of hockey stick. Besides you can get that reaction out of a cheaper sym core.

I didnt know that! Theres alot of good info in this thread!

J_Mac · « **Reply #12 on:** November 30, 2012, 03:53:31 AM »

The Tropical Storm, Power Groove, Tornado, Flipside Wild and Pre-EBI Scouts all had very mild asymmetric cores in them.

IMHO there currently aren't any entry level asymmetrical bowling balls for one very good reason...

No drilled ball is symmetrical...

If you want an asymmetrical piece with a weaker cover, feel free to take something like a Brunswick Avalanche and double thumb it. The resulting core numbers are transformed from mild (2.548 RG, 0.24 diff) to a more respectable lower RG piece with almost double the differential and an intermediate differential in the teens.

I attended a seminar where that was one of the examples used to illustrate the fact that all drilled balls are asymmetrical. Another example used was a Brunswick Mineralite manufactured in 1948. A standard "label" layout put the Low RG axis at 2.710, the diff. was 0.010 and the intermediate differential (MB) was 0.015.

Author Topic: Low End Assymetrical bowling balls. (Read 11423 times)

FinalFrame

Low End Assymetrical bowling balls.

stormed1

Re: Low End Assymetrical bowling balls.

FinalFrame

Re: Low End Assymetrical bowling balls.

charlest

Re: Low End Assymetrical bowling balls.

billdozer

Re: Low End Assymetrical bowling balls.

billdozer

Re: Low End Assymetrical bowling balls.

Monster Pike

Re: Low End Assymetrical bowling balls.

Buckwild

Re: Low End Assymetrical bowling balls.

charlest

Re: Low End Assymetrical bowling balls.

charlest

Re: Low End Assymetrical bowling balls.

Rightycomplex

Re: Low End Assymetrical bowling balls.

billdozer

Re: Low End Assymetrical bowling balls.

J_Mac

Re: Low End Assymetrical bowling balls.