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

Author Topic: Reactive vs Particle  (Read 6215 times)

budcotten

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Reactive vs Particle
« on: July 14, 2008, 12:51:55 AM »
I have herd a lot lately about particle being needed,and have noticed alot less being made. Being a bowler that as always scored better with particle over reactive I am limited too my options in that area so have been forced to switch over too reactive in the last few years. What is your take on this.
Logged

 

Grayson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
Re: Reactive vs Particle
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2008, 09:07:05 AM »
well... I dunno.

Som people do better with this ... some with that.

The thing is that in the beginning particle had a bad reputation about wearing off rather quick and soaking up oil faster.

Particles have other rolling characteristics and while some people say that particle pearls are very condition specific I have found them rather versatile. Taste and personal oppinion I guess...
Particle solids need oil from what I have found and are only reasonable in the med-heavy if not heavy sector.

Is there a light particle pearl for drier?

Wether this thing about wearing off and soaking up oil is still a truth or not anymore a problem I cannot say. Right now I have built up my arsenal of only particles for the med-heavy stuff cause I do good with those balls.

And honestly I buy my balls just by need and how they are rated.

Any company offers a particle lineup/ or balls for this and that so imho the limitation is not that big and I see no "force" to switch over to reactive.

... and if you can't find a particle in the actual lineup there are still enough "grandfathered" balls around.
--------------------
Sebastian Koch
"Have fun and bowl well!" - Grayson
"Some things are made so even idiots won't fail using them.... But I ask what about the genius?" - Grayson

(\_/)
(x_x)
c(')(')

Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ
Hot Water Bath - instructions and experience

Bowling lessons and tips VIDEOS - VERY GOOD!


Logged

budcotten

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: Reactive vs Particle
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2008, 09:13:30 AM »
I have seen that the particles dont wear off as I prob have over 1500 games on my rock on. Also as far as limit a mean they only have low load or high load particles. And yes I will agree on your statement about pearl particles as i have the answer and a sidewinder. My best scores came from my rock on and my flash flood.
Logged

  • Guest
Re: Reactive vs Particle
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2008, 09:24:02 AM »
I think the heavy-load particle balls are much less prevalent, but you can still find some great lighter-load particle balls on the market.

Heavy-load balls for the average league bowler aren't too practical because  1- they require greater volumes of oil to retain enough energy to still hit and carry, or 2- the bowler needs higher ball speeds for the same reason.
The heavy-load particle balls can, however, be a great arsenal piece for those bowling more demanding conditions such as sport shots, and others like the PBA Shark pattern.

With the advent of newer, stronger, reactive covers that handle plenty of oil, the average bowler prefers them for the majority of conditions they face.

Particle additives provide extra friction, but friction too early on the lane can cause the ball to lose energy prematurely, and the bowler finds himself pounding the pocket with regularity, but not carrying strikes. Particle covers are also more porous than others causing them to soak up oil even faster, which means a little more maintenance, too.

Am I a fan of them?  Yes, but only when the lane conditions warrant their use. If a ball company introduces a heavy-load particle ball nowadays, they are probably just trying to fill that "gap" for their tournament bowlers, because otherwise they can probably count on sales being somewhat limited.

Lighter-load particle balls, such as the Sidewinder and the like, can be very important additions to any arsenal. They react very similar to the strong reactives, but can handle carry-down better. They are also great for "blending" out the over/under that we sometimes see with the pearl reactives. I hope this helps.


--------------------
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
Brunswick Amateur Staff
Logged

budcotten

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: Reactive vs Particle
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2008, 09:38:02 AM »
Yes I have a sidewinder and the lanemasters both being particle and I do have higher ball speed. Usually in the 17mph area. I know they have a load particle and a high low load they should also have something in between the 2
Logged

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Reactive vs Particle
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2008, 11:22:31 AM »
quote:
Heavy-load balls for the average league bowler aren't too practical because  1- they require greater volumes of oil to retain enough energy to still hit and carry, or 2- the bowler needs higher ball speeds for the same reason.
The heavy-load particle balls can, however, be a great arsenal piece for those bowling more demanding conditions such as sport shots, and others like the PBA Shark pattern.


Don't forget that most high-load particle balls come pretty dull OOB.  The Mammoth, Goliath, Swamp Monster, Yeah Baby, AMB Particle, SCB, Granite Gargoyle, probably the new Ogre Particle, and others are all pretty dull, 400-grit or lower.  The YB was more like 1000-grit.  Still pretty dull.

But combine that high load cover with a nice coat of polish and you've got a strong piece that ignores carrydown.  Use enough polish to get it into the oil-handling range that matches your lanes (might be a light polish for medium-heavy or a heavy polish for mediums) and I think a lot of league bowlers would like the reaction.

SH
Logged

dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7609
Re: Reactive vs Particle
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2008, 11:32:10 AM »
"Surface texture" is the new magic word, or step in technology that renders particle additives more and more obsolete. The production of reactive resin has become so sophisticated that the material textures create lots of friction, regardless of the surface prep. The decline of particle equipment (esp. in the ball lines which sport new coverstock technolgies) is one symptom, but also the high oil absoption rates and need for frequent ball cleaning, as well as the ghost of ball death. Even USBC discusses about a reglemantation of surface texture, because it is a great (and invisible as well as hard to fathom) factor on ball performance today.
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section
Secrets revealed: What's a fugu?
Logged
DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany

budcotten

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: Reactive vs Particle
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2008, 11:45:07 AM »
Particles are more readable reactives seem more jumpy ,and tend too squirt in the oil. Even like a ball such as the fury ,say wich I also have and is probly one of the most agressive reactives on the market. I still see more consistancy with particle. And as far as particles dont die if u take care of them.I have a flash flood and rock on both still hook fine and both have over 500 games on them
Logged

  • Guest
Re: Reactive vs Particle
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2008, 12:35:25 PM »
The Sidewinder has the lowest particle load Brunswick has ever used, which is one reason most feel it reacts much like a solid reactive cover ball.


--------------------
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
Brunswick Amateur Staff
Logged

janderson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2181
Re: Reactive vs Particle
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2008, 03:44:21 PM »
quote:
I have herd a lot lately about particle being needed


As of late, there does seem to be a general consensus that if you're bowling on a sport condition or PBA pattern or long oil, you're better off with a particle ball.  Why? The paradigm shift seems to have gone from "particles will hook more in oil" to "they are more readable" as to an explanation.

It is an over generalization one should avoid.

Yes, predictable is good. Controllable is good. What does that mean?

Generally it means that the ball does not make any sudden/volatile change of direction, especially when it encounters dry or drier boards. To do this, modern reactive balls - including ones with particle additives in the cover - must hook or attempt to hook earlier (aka "read") on the lane. Can particles do this?  Yes, they can.  When a ball hooks more earlier on the lane it will hook less farther down the lane because when a ball is released at a certain speed and rev rate, it has a total hook capacity.  If you use it in the front, there's less left at the back.

Now take an average newcomer to sport bowling on a long, heavy pattern.  I'll call this newcomer "Herbie". Herbie hears predictable is good and particle is good.  So Herbie throws particle all day because it is a sport condition, long and heavy and averages 60 pins below his league average. Why? Because halfway through game 2 the oil carries down and Herbie's ball has nothing left for the wet back ends while his ball wants to burn up in the mid lane.

This is when a ball that people will consider "jumpy" fits the bill. The ball will start to go in the mid lane (as the particle was doing on fresh) and have enough left on the backend without jumping because of the carry down (as the particle was doing on the fresh).

My point is - and thank you for reading this far - is that there is no "one size fits all", silver bullet ball for any condition or group of conditions. The ball must compliment the bowler and the environment properly to create good ball reaction and there are too many variables for a single solution.

--------------------
J.J. "Waterola Kid" Anderson, the bLowling King  : Kill the back row
Logged

Grayson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
Re: Reactive vs Particle
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2008, 04:23:06 PM »
janderson, nice explaination!


--------------------
Sebastian Koch
"Have fun and bowl well!" - Grayson
"Some things are made so even idiots won't fail using them.... But I ask what about the genius?" - Grayson

(\_/)
(x_x)
c(')(')

Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ
Hot Water Bath - instructions and experience

Bowling lessons and tips VIDEOS - VERY GOOD!


Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »