win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Particle coverstocks  (Read 9314 times)

JPbowling151

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
Particle coverstocks
« on: January 14, 2013, 08:06:03 PM »
I'd imagine this has been a topic of conversation but I figure I'd ask anyway. Why have bowling manufacturers gone away from creating balls with particle coverstocks in recent years? Is it because of ball longevity, what they did to the lane surface, not give a popular ball motion to that of a conventional reactive shell, or all of the above? The only particle shell currently on the market that I can think of is the Lord Field Higgs Force.
Logged
"Yeah...Well that's just like...your opinion, man." - The Dude

 

tdub36tjt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1542
Re: Particle coverstocks
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2013, 08:18:49 PM »
I think they might just stay away from using the word particle not that they arent really using particle still......
Logged

3835

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: Particle coverstocks
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2013, 08:54:26 PM »
Particle is still used. However companies have started calling it "additives" or back to the original "mica" or whatever the particle is. Particle has such a negative correlation today companies try to stay away from the word as much as possible.

3835
Logged

kidlost2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5789
Re: Particle coverstocks
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2013, 09:22:24 PM »
Like anything it is a misunderstood thing kinda like the cg and static weights. That being said it is widely available and works great no matter what the name is.
Logged
…… you can't  add a physics term to a bowling term and expect it to mean something.

Pat Patterson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1854
Re: Particle coverstocks
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2013, 10:24:34 PM »
Quote from: JPbowling151 on January 14, 2013, 08:06:03 PM
I'd imagine this has been a topic of conversation but I figure I'd ask anyway. Why have bowling manufacturers gone away from creating balls with particle coverstocks in recent years? Is it because of ball longevity, what they did to the lane surface, not give a popular ball motion to that of a conventional reactive shell, or all of the above? The only particle shell currently on the market that I can think of is the Lord Field Higgs Force.

Lord Field also has the Heritage and Nasty which are labeled as Proton Particle.
Logged
Pat Patterson

DP3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6093
Re: Particle coverstocks
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2013, 10:28:28 PM »
So with this big particle "conspiracy", lol, what balls do you all feel are "particle" that for some reason companies aren't letting us know about?
Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Particle coverstocks
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2013, 10:53:49 PM »
Quote from: DP3 on January 14, 2013, 10:28:28 PM
So with this big particle "conspiracy", lol, what balls do you all feel are "particle" that for some reason companies aren't letting us know about?

Nano(s) and Defiant(s).
Wouldn't be surprised if the R2X and R3X coverstocks had particles in them.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 06:52:32 AM by charlest »
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Particle coverstocks
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2013, 10:54:33 PM »
Quote from: Pat Patterson on January 14, 2013, 10:24:34 PM
Quote from: JPbowling151 on January 14, 2013, 08:06:03 PM
I'd imagine this has been a topic of conversation but I figure I'd ask anyway. Why have bowling manufacturers gone away from creating balls with particle coverstocks in recent years? Is it because of ball longevity, what they did to the lane surface, not give a popular ball motion to that of a conventional reactive shell, or all of the above? The only particle shell currently on the market that I can think of is the Lord Field Higgs Force.

Lord Field also has the Heritage and Nasty which are labeled as Proton Particle.

Let's not forget the LordField Exodus Iron and the NextGen Ignitor and ELectric A/C.
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Rightycomplex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1250
Re: Particle coverstocks
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2013, 04:37:19 AM »
Nano solid and pearl, Defiant and Defiant Edge, and a few others that slip my mind.
Logged
James C. Jones
Orbdrillers Pro Shop Holiday Bowl
Chester, Va.

Hammer Regional/Amateur Staff Member

www.facebook.com/orbdrillers
Orbdrillers.com
Hammerbowling.com

JPbowling151

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
Re: Particle coverstocks
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2013, 04:50:32 AM »
So it seems the word particle is sort of an unspoken term in bowling ball manufacturing/marketing info these days. Interesting
Logged
"Yeah...Well that's just like...your opinion, man." - The Dude

Rightycomplex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1250
Re: Particle coverstocks
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2013, 05:19:28 AM »
Particle is kind of a naughty word in the bowling industry. If people cant cover 39 boards with a ball and have it smack the pocket in the last 5 feet, then the ball sucks. So the word "particle" is not mentioned for the simple fact of sales.
Logged
James C. Jones
Orbdrillers Pro Shop Holiday Bowl
Chester, Va.

Hammer Regional/Amateur Staff Member

www.facebook.com/orbdrillers
Orbdrillers.com
Hammerbowling.com

kidlost2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5789
Re: Particle coverstocks
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2013, 06:42:46 AM »
Yet only a few years ago when the person wanted the biggest hooking ball it had to be particle. Funny how peoples memory goes.

Logged
…… you can't  add a physics term to a bowling term and expect it to mean something.

3835

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: Particle coverstocks
« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2013, 06:46:27 AM »
I believe the original Brunswick Revolver had some particle in it as well.

DP3...no conspiracy...next time you see an Ebonite/Brunswick/Storm rep (if you ever do) ask them point blank and most will give you a straight up answer that they still use it but don't call it particle.

3835
Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Particle coverstocks
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2013, 06:58:00 AM »
Quote from: 3835 on January 15, 2013, 06:46:27 AM

DP3...no conspiracy...next time you see an Ebonite/Brunswick/Storm rep (if you ever do) ask them point blank and most will give you a straight up answer that they still use it but don't call it particle.

3835

Conspiracy is probably the right word, because the vast majority of league bowlers throwing the Nanos and the Defiants never get a chance to ask such a question and wouldn't ask it if the Storm rep was standing next to them for 3 hours of league.

It is not publicized; therefore it is not known. Virtually a case of "don't ask; don't tell."

Heck, if you told the guy point blank to his face and he didn't know you personally, he'd probably call you a liar or just plain wouldn't believe you.
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

3835

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: Particle coverstocks
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2013, 07:20:41 AM »
Hmm...but to me a conspiracy implies a blatant lie. The companies are stating there is an additive or "mica" or whatever, so they are stating there is something added to the cover without stating the word particle.

I hear you on the league bowler....but then again, ask any of them what a reactive resin cover is and I bet you get quite a few stares as in what are you talking about, so we are talking the upper small % of bowlers that would understand what an additive is and what the different covers are.

3835

Logged
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »