BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: BowlingforSoup on February 11, 2017, 10:12:53 AM
-
Any advantage to Partical balls or disadvantages.I notice only a few are manufactured anymore.lord field has those covers from time to time.
-
not sure if they are not manufactured or just not advertised as particle covers any more.
basically, particle covers went out of favor with bowlers after developing a reputation for not lasting very long.
-
in general particle balls read more mid lane and were smoother off the spot over resin. I think most like the hockey stick shape that resin balls are better at producing. I think bowlers also confused the smooth reaction to ball death and particle got the bad rap for it.IMO.
-
Any advantage to Partical balls or disadvantages.I notice only a few are manufactured anymore.lord field has those covers from time to time.
As does Storm and Roto-Grip, only they're not identified as such.
-
The particle ball faded from the scene back in the day, because they were found to have only a limited range of use (Not do to ball death).
Most of the time the conditions just didn't warrant the use of them. The pros found that reactive solids and pearls proved to be more versatile over a wider range of conditions.
Yes particles are still made, but they are not like they were back when they were the big fad of the time.
-
If you refinish a particle ball, it removed the glass particles in/on the surface and it lost its "teeth" that was in the cover.
they just weren't the same afterwards
Take the Hammer Scandal (and others) they have carbon fiber infused into the coverstock like a bunch of single hair strands, refinish the surface and new ones are present so it keeps its original surface design
-
There were all sorts of different particles. The glass beads were in the Chaos line, I think. Not all particles were like that and most were harder so they did not sand flat. Diamond particles were used in one company, LaneMasters? Visionary had a particle that seemed to swell up after it encountered and absorbed oil, Granite Gargoyle? That ball would start out feeling smooth and after a game it started to feel fuzzy.
-
There were all sorts of different particles. The glass beads were in the Chaos line, I think. Not all particles were like that and most were harder so they did not sand flat. Diamond particles were used in one company, LaneMasters? Visionary had a particle that seemed to swell up after it encountered and absorbed oil, Granite Gargoyle? That ball would start out feeling smooth and after a game it started to feel fuzzy.
Brunswick had such hard particles originally, that you needed special abrasives called Trizact to affect them. Most particles weren't easily fracturable, like the glass in Columbia based particle balls.
-
Particle stuff was always good in my hand...I hate the hockey stick type reactions.
Today, Visionary has the Raven (plain Raven) which is a light load particle.
-
Particle stuff was always good in my hand...I hate the hockey stick type reactions.
Today, Visionary has the Raven (plain Raven) which is a light load particle.
agreed! and I only had one die on me, a carbide bomb after many games.But it was a fantastic ball.
-
Same stuff, different "labels".
Using words like "Additives" sells better then saying particle
-
There were all sorts of different particles. The glass beads were in the Chaos line, I think. Not all particles were like that and most were harder so they did not sand flat. Diamond particles were used in one company, LaneMasters? Visionary had a particle that seemed to swell up after it encountered and absorbed oil, Granite Gargoyle? That ball would start out feeling smooth and after a game it started to feel fuzzy.
God, the 5 o'clock shadow my Granite Gargoyle would get after bowling a squad was something else...literally felt like the ball had stubble on it. And I don't care what anyone said, a particle pearl ball has a reaction all it's own...I remember in my "better" days just killing a season throwing a Morich Onslaught and a Columbia300 Flipside Wired...
-
There were all sorts of different particles. The glass beads were in the Chaos line, I think. Not all particles were like that and most were harder so they did not sand flat. Diamond particles were used in one company, LaneMasters? Visionary had a particle that seemed to swell up after it encountered and absorbed oil, Granite Gargoyle? That ball would start out feeling smooth and after a game it started to feel fuzzy.
God, the 5 o'clock shadow my Granite Gargoyle would get after bowling a squad was something else...literally felt like the ball had stubble on it. And I don't care what anyone said, a particle pearl ball has a reaction all it's own...I remember in my "better" days just killing a season throwing a Morich Onslaught and a Columbia300 Flipside Wired...
I just read on Visionary website that the particle pearl Raven has the same particles as the Ogre Particle which was supposed to have the same coverstock as the Granite Gargoyle. I am not using a Raven currently so I can't verify if it gets that fuzzy feeling. Anyone using a Raven currently? If it does, then you would have a particle pearl with a five o'clock shadow. :)
https://www.visionarybowling.com/ball/raven
https://www.visionarybowling.com/ball/ogre-particle
-
Mi 2 Az
My Raven does not get the fuzzy feel to it. The load of particle in it is truly a "light load" as the VBP website indicates.
I just drilled a fresh Ogre Particle and have a brand new undrilled Granite that should be at my door Tuesday....can't wait.
I also picked up a NIB Particle AMB Centaur from MonsterStitch a few weeks ago and was able to get my hands on 2 CASES of Burgundy Gryphons a few months ago...both have the "fuzz" feel to them as well.
-
This Fuzzy ball stuff is scaring me. :o.Thanks for all the replies. Lots of good info.Not just some copy and paste from a staffer.
-
I still have the L/M New Standard and Yeah Baby Diamond Particle balls.They have held up well over the years and continue to perform well today. The New Standard is still my Benchmark and most versatile ball that I have.
-
Lord Field and Lanemasters stop making particle balls a few years ago. You can still get a few on closeout on the Lanemasters page
-
I still have the L/M New Standard and Yeah Baby Diamond Particle balls.They have held up well over the years and continue to perform well today. The New Standard is still my Benchmark and most versatile ball that I have.
I still have my original 15 lb. NS from 2006; sold the Yeah Baby as it hook far too much and required too much oil for me. I did get a 14 lb. NS. Polished or dull, it's one for the history books.
-
I like particle pearls like the storm depth charge, hammer big blue pp (I think that's the name), and my lane masters black pearl blue ocean.... did well with these balls in tourneys past.
Not sure if these are the same "particle pearls" because the depth charge had the length and hard almost sharp backend.
-
I like particle pearls like the storm depth charge, hammer big blue pp (I think that's the name), and my lane masters black pearl blue ocean.... did well with these balls in tourneys past.
Not sure if these are the same "particle pearls" because the depth charge had the length and hard almost sharp backend.
First off, you are correct about the Big Blue, though I believe it was just called the Big Blue Pearl (it was the blue/yellow swirl). Also, I thought those were one of, if not the first, to use the Gas Mask core, but I could be wrong on that. I bought them brand new, when they would give you the Free Big Blue spare if you bought the Solid and Pearl; but traded the 3 for a NIB Cuda/C.
As for the Depth Charge, I never threw it, though I can't believe I forgot to add the El Nino 2000 into my love of Particle pearl balls. The Depth Charge and El Nino 2000 had similar covers if I'm not mistaken. Both my El Nino 2000 were very smooth off the break, though after I had my first one drilled that way, I couldn't even fathom trying any other drilling on my NIB one I drilled last season...just an absolute beast when the heads dry up and there is carrydown at the breakpoint.
I have considered drilling up my NIB X-Factor Ace, but since I have the El Nino 2000 and the Visionary New Breed Particle Pearl in the bag, not sure I'd need to....but that Raven does seem interesting!
-
was actually talking to my boss about the death so to speak of particle balls. In the early 2000's they were all the rage. Anyways he told me A) they tended to die out much quicker. B) in 2007ish when USBC changed the requirements for the softness of bowling balls, particle material wasnt really able to used as much because it was to soft.
-
was actually talking to my boss about the death so to speak of particle balls. In the early 2000's they were all the rage. Anyways he told me A) they tended to die out much quicker. B) in 2007ish when USBC changed the requirements for the softness of bowling balls, particle material wasn't really able to used as much because it was to soft.
Please explain (B) to me. I don't remember that change in softness requirements. Particle balls weren't any softer or harder than any other reactive resin balls, that I am aware of. Adding particles to the resin didn't make it softer or harder, that I recall ...
-
Never Learn....
Read this USBC press release at the link I provided. I hope this clears up your question...
http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/equipandspecs/pdfs/articles/Newbowlingballspecificationwillaffectmanufacturersnotbowlers.pdf
-
was actually talking to my boss about the death so to speak of particle balls. In the early 2000's they were all the rage. Anyways he told me A) they tended to die out much quicker. B) in 2007ish when USBC changed the requirements for the softness of bowling balls, particle material wasnt really able to used as much because it was to soft.
Number 2 would be interesting to see an official source on this. I don't remember anything along those lines. Also, I know of 2 balls that have been produced since 2007 (for sure) that have particle in it. Incinerate and Pure. Wanna say Incinerate has 3% load...
-
and the Visionary Raven was introduced 2 years ago and it is a light load particle....
-
Never Learn....
Read this USBC press release at the link I provided. I hope this clears up your question...
http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/equipandspecs/pdfs/articles/Newbowlingballspecificationwillaffectmanufacturersnotbowlers.pdf
Unless I am laboring under a misapprehension of the subject -
Thank you, but no. I do recall the roughness requirements, but that's not what he said. He said hardness/softness; that's a completely different element/factor. Roughness did not affect particle balls any more than it affected resins balls.
-
was actually talking to my boss about the death so to speak of particle balls. In the early 2000's they were all the rage. Anyways he told me A) they tended to die out much quicker. B) in 2007ish when USBC changed the requirements for the softness of bowling balls, particle material wasnt really able to used as much because it was to soft.
Number 2 would be interesting to see an official source on this. I don't remember anything along those lines.
That was also my point.
Also, I know of 2 balls that have been produced since 2007 (for sure) that have particle in it. Incinerate and Pure. Wanna say Incinerate has 3% load...
How about No Rules, the Menace and all the Storm balls with the NRG coverstock; they're all particle balls, as far as I am aware.
-
NRG has some particle, or so I've heard. I can only speak to what I know. My Incinerate chews up a pattern @1500
-
Particle balls are still there and in use today it's just not mentioned as an advertising thing anymore. I believe their were some issues with resurfacing of some of the particle balls on the market at one point and this damaged their reputation somewhat is why you don't really see it advertised the way you used too
-
Never Learn
I should have explained more, but my intention was to provide the ONLY update USBC has made to covers, which is the roughness...nothing to do with the hardness/softness of a cover. So I agree with your point that I have not heard (or have already forgotten) if there was an change to a max/min on cover hardness/softness.
-
Never Learn
I should have explained more, but my intention was to provide the ONLY update USBC has made to covers, which is the roughness...nothing to do with the hardness/softness of a cover. So I agree with your point that I have not heard (or have already forgotten) if there was an change to a max/min on cover hardness/softness.
I understand, and thank you.
My point was that Gid837's driller seems to have mislead him; I was trying to understand if I had missed something in the world of bowling that would have led to the forced non-use of particles. But it seems like they are alive and well, even if they are living under an alias.
-
in 2007ish when USBC changed the requirements for the softness of bowling balls, particle material wasnt really able to used as much because it was to soft.
I believe what he is referring to is when they changed the MOH's Hardness specification back in 2005 in regard to materials used in coverstocks. (such as the particle materials)
Which is not the same and is a separate specification than the durometer "D" hardness scale (which stayed the same at 72) which is used to measure the ball's overall hardness or softness.
These specifications are listed in the Equipment & specification manual under the "Physical Specifications" section.
Hardness Min:72 Max:None
Mohs’ Hardness Min:None Max:6.0
"2. New Mohs' Hardness specification.
Mohs' hardness is a material hardness scale that differs from the current durometer "D" hardness scale.
It was developed by Fredrich Mohs' in 1812. Hardness of a material is determined by observing whether its surface is scratched by a substance of known or defined hardness.
The Mohs' hardness of any material added to or included in the coverstock of a bowling ball shall not exceed 6.0 on the Mohs' hardness scales tested in accordance with the USBC approved test procedure.
A standard glass sample with a Mohs' hardness of 6.0 will be used to determine if the materials in the cover stock of a bowling ball will scratch the standard glass sample.
Any ball with cover stock material that is harder than 6.0 will scratch the sample and that ball will not be approved.
The standard glass sample will be manufacturered by an independent contractor specifically for use in this test. The test method is very simple and can be reproduced at the ball manufacturers lab.
This will be implemented by 8/1/05. The current durometer "D" specification will remain in effect."
-
Lord Field and Lanemasters stop making particle balls a few years ago. You can still get a few on closeout on the Lanemasters page
when did they stop making particle balls?
-
Lord Field and Lanemasters stop making particle balls a few years ago. You can still get a few on closeout on the Lanemasters page
when did they stop making particle balls?
I think there are no more Lane Masters particle balls; not sure there was any fixed cut-off date. As for Lord Field, there still are some. Check the matrix provided by California Bowling via BossTull in this thread:
http://www.ballreviews.com/lane-masters/who-pours-these-t313262.0.html;msg2571848;topicseen#new (http://www.ballreviews.com/lane-masters/who-pours-these-t313262.0.html;msg2571848;topicseen#new)
It lists the coverstock type for their balls as of Jan. 2017.
-
was actually talking to my boss about the death so to speak of particle balls. In the early 2000's they were all the rage. Anyways he told me A) they tended to die out much quicker. B) in 2007ish when USBC changed the requirements for the softness of bowling balls, particle material wasnt really able to used as much because it was to soft.
Number 2 would be interesting to see an official source on this. I don't remember anything along those lines. Also, I know of 2 balls that have been produced since 2007 (for sure) that have particle in it. Incinerate and Pure. Wanna say Incinerate has 3% load...
It wasn't saying that no particle balls were to be made. If you recall, especially with Ebonite in the early 2000's. They had a ton of particle pieces. and since then. very very very few. Particle balls were very common in that time frame.
-
Never Learn
I should have explained more, but my intention was to provide the ONLY update USBC has made to covers, which is the roughness...nothing to do with the hardness/softness of a cover. So I agree with your point that I have not heard (or have already forgotten) if there was an change to a max/min on cover hardness/softness.
I understand, and thank you.
My point was that Gid837's driller seems to have mislead him; I was trying to understand if I had missed something in the world of bowling that would have led to the forced non-use of particles. But it seems like they are alive and well, even if they are living under an alias.
It is very possible that he misused words or that i misunderstood him.
-
Lots of good info.Here is another question about particle balls.Seems like somewhere in this thread someone said they are smoother rolling.That gets my attention.I am very low tilt pin up and small val angles go sideways for me off the friction.I notice Lord Field still has the big hurt listed as particle and Bowlerx.com has them for 69.95.Not like I haven't blowed 70$ on a doorstop before.But if they seem to be smoother could be a plus for me.
-
in 2007ish when USBC changed the requirements for the softness of bowling balls, particle material wasnt really able to used as much because it was to soft.
I believe what he is referring to is when they changed the MOH's Hardness specification back in 2005 in regard to materials used in coverstocks. (such as the particle materials)
Which is not the same and is a separate specification than the durometer "D" hardness scale (which stayed the same at 72) which is used to measure the ball's overall hardness or softness.
These specifications are listed in the Equipment & specification manual under the "Physical Specifications" section.
Hardness Min:72 Max:None
Mohs’ Hardness Min:None Max:6.0
"2. New Mohs' Hardness specification.
Mohs' hardness is a material hardness scale that differs from the current durometer "D" hardness scale.
It was developed by Fredrich Mohs' in 1812. Hardness of a material is determined by observing whether its surface is scratched by a substance of known or defined hardness.
The Mohs' hardness of any material added to or included in the coverstock of a bowling ball shall not exceed 6.0 on the Mohs' hardness scales tested in accordance with the USBC approved test procedure.
A standard glass sample with a Mohs' hardness of 6.0 will be used to determine if the materials in the cover stock of a bowling ball will scratch the standard glass sample.
Any ball with cover stock material that is harder than 6.0 will scratch the sample and that ball will not be approved.
The standard glass sample will be manufacturered by an independent contractor specifically for use in this test. The test method is very simple and can be reproduced at the ball manufacturers lab.
This will be implemented by 8/1/05. The current durometer "D" specification will remain in effect."
and somewhere I read this is the reason why Lane Masters quit using diamond particles.
-
Soup....they are smoother (particle balls) because the "particle" helps to grip the lane earlier than non-particle balls...which makes them bleed energy quicker, so there is less energy left down lane when the ball encounters friction at the end of the pattern compared to a ball that skids through the front part of the lane. That is why you do not see the hockey stick type reaction out of particle balls
-
I wanted to throw my 2 cents on this topic. I have and continue to use Particle balls for a couple of reasons-1. They are so very predictable, and 2. They never overact!
I use a particle as my benchmark(Mega Friction) with a weak pin(pin over the middle finger, CG barely on the positive side of the ball. I start off rolling this down and in and it tells me if I should go to my Vandal, Paradox, or Jackal LE. I can also go down to my Gargoyle or Blue/Green Centaur.
I LOVE the predictability! (but I also am able to stay with them longer) This is why I have other NIB Particle balls. Most of them are Diamond or Carbon Particles.
My $0.02!
-
I had very good luck with a few Brunswick particles around 2000. I thought they held up pretty well. A couple of lane men told me they really tore up synthetic lane surfaces a lot faster than non particles
-
I had very good luck with a few Brunswick particles around 2000. I thought they held up pretty well. A couple of lane men told me they really tore up synthetic lane surfaces a lot faster than non particles
Heard the same things as well. Seen some of it doing Lane certs also during the early 2000's..
-
I have more 300 games with particle balls than just resin. I liked particle balls.
-
Particle balls are still resin enhanced.
-
I still throw the Morich Labyrinth, Morich Colossus (Black), Morich Colossus Supreme, Morich Weapon of Mass Bias and the Morich Hercules on today's conditions. They all provide smoother ball motions that allow me to keep my angles modest and more outward. Don't get me wrong, these balls (especially the Colossus Supreme) can still chew through heavy oil and provide a big sweeping arc. The two houses I bowl at have significant hang on shots swung to the outside boards and I have found that particle balls allow me to play outside where there is hang and get an early read on the gutter without wiggling or overreacting.