Author Topic: What's "wrong" with particle balls? (Read 2117 times)

no300yet · « **on:** February 09, 2010, 04:41:00 PM »

They don't seem to be very popular. Do they require more maintenance? Do they lose reaction fast? My house's been flooding the lanes with oil and I am considering a strong particle ball. Thanks!

Xcessive_Evil · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2010, 12:49:58 AM »

Someone please step in if I'm incorrect, but I believe the balls that are coming out today have more and more aggressive coverstocks, therefore particle isn't as much of a necessity.
--------------------
www.youtube.com/track8401

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v690/Phoenix_RsX/Arsenal/

MI 2 AZ · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2010, 01:01:43 AM »

You are correct that coverstocks today seem to be stronger. I also have read on here that many new coverstocks have some amount of particles in them but are not advertised that way because of the negative feelings towards particles.

To the OP, yes, some particle balls do seem to require more maintenance in order to keep fresh particles ''exposed'' to make contact with the lane surface otherwise they wear down. (I do not know about the Legends/LM balls that had the diamond particles.) Just cleaning will not help in that regard, so some surface work needs to be done periodically.

Edited to add:
I have a spinner so maintaining my particle balls has not been a problem and I have not noticed any loss of reaction. Most of my particle balls are Visionary and they have long-lasting coverstocks and some of them have a very unique particle characteristic.

--------------------

_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this: BR FAQ

Edited on 2/10/2010 2:12 AM

dizzyfugu · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2010, 01:07:06 AM »

One aspect is that the term "particle" got some bad rep, being old-fashioned and the ball surface hard to tune. Besides, their soft, arcing reaction is not what the bowling masses "want", despite their effectiveness, so they started fading away 2 or 3 years ago, except for some rare cases.

It is true that more porous reactives have reached particle's performance in oil, but AFAIK there are still balls out there that actually have particle additives in the shell, but are not marketed as such - either for marketing reasons, or because the material share is very low. Storm's Paradigm had been such a case.

IMHO, a "real" particle ball is still different from a strong reactive and has its uses. You get a different reaction from it, its mechanical traction in the front part of the lane is hard to beat, and to me they appear to be much more durable than modern oil sponges that seem to notoriosly lose their performance after a short time and need much more maintenance.
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling? Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

leftyinsnellville · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2010, 03:42:06 AM »

Columbia 300 made a number of particle balls a few years ago with different versions of the TEC coverstock. Unfortunately word started spreading that the TEC coverstock did not hold up and was assigned the moniker "TEC Death". I personally found the TEC to have monster traction and held up just fine with the regular touchups with a scotchbright pad. My Reaction Arc, Reaction Roll, and Game are all still working just fine (if I find enough oil to throw them on). These balls are all oil sponges and do need regular cleaning or oil removal though.
--------------------
I wanna be a house hack when I grow up.

http://averagebowlersballreviews.com/

lenstanles703 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2010, 05:05:04 AM »

Check out the Visionary Particle Ogre (heavy) and New Breed Particle Pearl(medium). Good luck!

johns811 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2010, 05:32:09 AM »

If you throw 16lb I have a NIB Track Silencer I would like to sell. Long pin 5"+. Top is good. Should not have a problem with a high pin layout.

LaneHammer20 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2010, 07:00:30 AM »

I agree with MI 2 AZ, I feel they are still using particle in their stronger so called solid reactives, but not advertising it, because of the bad rap they got back in the day when they wouldn''t last long for most companies. There is no way we can see them with our eyes so how would the public know there are particle in the ball.

I have a bunch of LM/L stuff and I get what I believe is a better ball reaction on any heavier volumes of oil with a particle ball. It still backends, yet it much easier to read compared to the so say solid reactive hook monsters from other brands. I have had a VG and Dimension, both using the R2X which is supposed to have particle in the ball, both of those were over-under nightmares, dimension being the most friendly.

I do not care if the fad these days is putting out a hooker with insane backend, ya some shots it will work good, mostly house china''s. get on a tough pattern and it can be your worst nightmare. I wil take my Dynamic power, Conquerer any day over the newest hook monsterts, and they will hook just as much if not more.
--------------------
What is sandbagging???

Edited on 2/10/2010 8:01 AM

kmanestor22 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2010, 11:45:43 AM »

Particle balls thrived in the oil wick lane conditioning machine era. These machines usually put down a top hat pattern. This lead to extreme wet/dry conditions. Particle balls work great on wet/dry because they grip in the wet, but come off easier than reactive off of the dry. Today most center have conditioner head lane machines. Most centers have adapted to a more blended pattern that holds up better and doesn't get wet/dry as often. I think this is the main reason why particle isn't needed as often anymore.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer

bighook69 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2010, 11:52:21 AM »

a little off topic but I loved the old particle balls by track... great revving cores and amazing ball reactions...

Monster Pike · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2010, 03:07:21 PM »

I love my Pearl/Particle original Shift. That's a great ball & wouldn't mind seeing that cover on a Reign's core... A Cam Shift.....(play on cam shaft...)

--------------------
Monster Pike

Proud to have served in the U.S. Army!!

Gunnz · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2010, 03:29:11 PM »

Right, I love my original shift too. That would be awesome a particle reign. Or put the particle coverstock on the furious and call it the vicious! lol

J_w73 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2010, 03:36:58 PM »

I hear the AMF Mega Friction is a ball that will do well in oil.. not advertised as particle but have heard it is..
I have a brunswick mammoth.. don't use it alot but it works great..

There is always the Visionary AMB particle.. particle of all particles..

--------------------
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

Jesse James · « **Reply #13 on:** February 11, 2010, 03:45:36 PM »

Absolutely nothing wrong with particle balls! Please read my review of my latest acquisition, an Epic Quest Solid particle piece.

Knowing when to use them is the secret! Cleaning them regularly is also a must.
--------------------
Duct tape is like 'The Force'. It has a light side and a dark side, but it still holds the universe together.

Some days you're the bug some days you're the windshield.

Author Topic: What's "wrong" with particle balls? (Read 2117 times)

no300yet

What's "wrong" with particle balls?

Xcessive_Evil

Re: What's "wrong" with particle balls?

MI 2 AZ

Re: What's "wrong" with particle balls?

dizzyfugu

Re: What's "wrong" with particle balls?

leftyinsnellville

Re: What's "wrong" with particle balls?

lenstanles703

Re: What's "wrong" with particle balls?

johns811

Re: What's "wrong" with particle balls?

LaneHammer20

Re: What's "wrong" with particle balls?

kmanestor22

Re: What's "wrong" with particle balls?

bighook69

Re: What's "wrong" with particle balls?

Monster Pike

Re: What's "wrong" with particle balls?

Gunnz

Re: What's "wrong" with particle balls?

J_w73

Re: What's "wrong" with particle balls?

Jesse James

Re: What's "wrong" with particle balls?