BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: ocbowler on January 18, 2014, 10:03:23 PM
-
It just came to my attention that there's a "big" difference between different brands.
My Hammer Vibes and Anger, Brunswick Alpha Max, and 900 Global Look all have about 3/8 in. thick coverstock; while my R/G Original Cell and Storm Victory Road have "much" thicker, about 9/16 inch thick coverstock.
While none of them has cracked, wouldn't balls with thinner coverstock get saturated with oil faster and lose reaction sooner? Also wouldn't those ball cost less to make and should be less expensive?
-
One of Visionary's selling points used to be that they used very thick cover stocks, and theoretically that makes them transfer more energy to the pins. I have no idea if this is actually true or just a piece of marketing, but I distinctly remember reading that about several of their older releases.
-
Thickness will very by ball and by where you check in some cases. Many of the bigger cores that have come along over the years have lead to much thinner coverstocks in certain areas of the bowling ball.
A few manufactures like, Visionary, had no fillers if I am not mistaken. Just core then coverstock.
-
Thickness will very by ball and by where you check in some cases. Many of the bigger cores that have come along over the years have lead to much thinner coverstocks in certain areas of the bowling ball.
A few manufactures like, Visionary, had no fillers if I am not mistaken. Just core then coverstock.
Storm and Roto-Grip used to have some.
Lord Field and Lane Masters still do.
Here are some:
Lord Field:
Exodus solid
Exodus Iron
Exodus Pearl
Pin Hacker
Higgs Force
Lane Masters:
Black Pearl Deep Sea
Big Bang SE
Xtreme Damage Platinum
Red Diamond
Visionary:
Warlock XV
Warlock XV Pearl
-
It's a little cheaper to make a ball with no outer core due to less labor being involve, but you don't have as much flexibility in RG and diff. That is why most 2 piece balls are higher RG lower diff balls.
As for transferring more energy to the pins, there are limits on the coefficient of restitution, so……...
-
Interesting question, but I wouldn't spend much time speculating about cover thickness or fractional manufacturing cost differentials. You'll be buying another, newer, latest-greatest long before you wear any coverstock out.
As far as absorption rates are concerned, just maintain whatever ball you have. I have a terrific ball that needs de-oiling every 10 games or so, several that will go to around 30, and two that don't seem to give up any oil at 60.
As to cracking, around my neck of the woods, the balls that are most likely to do so happen to come from the biggest single, most popular, best known brand. I don't have a clue as to Why?, but they do, so I don't buy them anymore.
:)
-
A ball with no "filler" material, just cover and core, would probably weigh 20 lbs...
There has to be something between the core and cover and I would LOVE to see actual proof of any such claim that "we use no filler" in our balls. Find one for me to cut in half... Ask your self this question: If a dense core were surrounded by dense coverstock only, what significance would the core even have?
On topic, I have not noticed any measurable difference in performance, oil absorption, or cracking with shell variations. Each ball has a minimum and maximum circumference when it leaves the factory. Some get more cover removed than others due to machine variations and possibly human error. Not a big deal either way to me.
-
It is definitely possible to make a true two piece ball with no filler. If I had a band saw I'd cut a ball in half for you.
-
I had a conversation not long ago with a former Ebonite staffer about this subject. He told me something I have not heard, but make sense. He said the cover thickness isn't so much about cracking, but that the thinner the cover, the quicker the shell gets saturated with oil. He said that Ebonite always had thinner shells than some of the others, and it is true that they have about the worst reputation for dying quickly.
Also a guy who drills for me said that Brunswick shells got thinner when they first moved to Mexico, but that many of them got thicker again a couple of years ago. I know the old PK 18 and activator shells were among the most durable out there. Not sure about the newer stuff in the last 5 or 6 years.
-
Lord Field and Lane Masters use solid to the core , lasts is unreal, hitting power is unmatched ! Everyone should try them , quality equipment!!
-
It is definitely possible to make a true two piece ball with no filler. If I had a band saw I'd cut a ball in half for you.
I'm not saying it's not possible, but what would it weigh? What significance would these "dynamic" weight blocks have on it? It would be like rolling a ball bearing down the lane...
-
Lord Field and Lane Masters use solid to the core , lasts is unreal, hitting power is unmatched ! Everyone should try them , quality equipment!!
Hmmmmm... What's all that stuff surrounding the core in the pictures from their own website then?
-
The core is still more dense than coverstock material, you just can't get the RG's low or the diff high without filler material.
-
Lord Field and Lane Masters use solid to the core , lasts is unreal, hitting power is unmatched ! Everyone should try them , quality equipment!!
Hmmmmm... What's all that stuff surrounding the core in the pictures from their own website then?
Lane,
He was just a little overenthusiastic.
Only the LM and LF balls I listed above have no filler. The other ones do.
-
Thanks Jeff,
I'm still waiting to drill into one of these "magic balls". Can we agree that IF the core is surrounded by a "more dense" coverstock material the weight block will have less effect? See post by "itsallaboutme".
Think of the clear polyester balls. As far as I can remember they started at 14 lbs. and they go STRAIGHT! Extreme dry lanes will make anything move a little...
Some companies may use DIFFERENT material between their core and cover, and choose not to call it filler, but...
-
There are balls that are just core and cover. No filler. Nothing magic about it. Filler material is used to increase dynamics and performance. It is actually cheaper to make balls without filler due to less labor involved in the manufacturing process.
To make these balls stronger usually higher friction covers are used.
-
It is possible to make a true 2 piece bowling ball, it was very common before the Quantam series.
To accommodate the weight change, the cores weighed different amounts.
Oil absorption deals with porosity of the cover material not the thickness of the shell...that's irrelevant.
Cracking can occur when the filler material being lighter deteriates weakening the infrastructure.
-
OC,
There are balls that have cover/core combinations, they're called 2-piece balls. There are very few of them but Lord Field/Lanemasters, Storm, and a few other companies make them. They tend to last a bit longer than other pieces and majorily contain higher RG, mid-low diff cores. I'm not a ball company R&D guy, I couldn't tell you why that is. A lot of the claim is that they transfer energy to the pins better than 3-piece balls.... In my opinion, that's just marketing. If that's the case, every ball would be 2-piece. Kinda the same thing with the word "Continuation" which is crap... if every ball had more continuation then the last, the ball would finish through the back stop.
I will say, thinner covered balls tend to get saturated faster, especially with these stronger cover formulas that absorb oil faster. They also may be more susceptable to cracking, I can't state that as a fact. Cracking has so many variables that even the thickest covers can crack. I've had some balls for almost my entire 20 yrs of bowling; I've had some for a few months and the start. EBI used to have a terrible reputation of oil saturation and cracking. My Total NV, Ice, Pure Hammer, Power Drive, and many other EBI offerings have cracked and been thrown away. AMF/Global has been kind of on that same tilt for me, Night Hawk remake, Bull Whip Special Edition, Clutch, and a few others have cracked or been oil saturated with very few games. My Special Edition became oil soaked after 30 games (3 weeks worth of bowling) and the oil in the ball had a weird solidified reaction. It was like old grease from a fryer on top of the cover. I am by no means bad mouthing EBI or Global/AMF, just sharing my experiences.
My advice is just to throw what you like. Some guys like storm/roto and the same guys they say they die quickly or crack. However they win enough money with them to just buy another one.
-
There are balls that are just core and cover. No filler. Nothing magic about it. Filler material is used to increase dynamics and performance. It is actually cheaper to make balls without filler due to less labor involved in the manufacturing process.
To make these balls stronger usually higher friction covers are used.
Makes sense to me... My "magic" comment has to do with the claim that somehow this type of ball is better in every way than those "substandard" ones made by everyone else (including the same company making the claim).
Thanks Rico for your comment regarding porosity (absorption). I've seen just that over the years in the pro shop, but didn't know if anyone else had. I've had some balls that were "sponges" while others that surprised me when they weren't...
-
Thanks Jeff,
I'm still waiting to drill into one of these "magic balls". Can we agree that IF the core is surrounded by a "more dense" coverstock material the weight block will have less effect? See post by "itsallaboutme".
Think of the clear polyester balls. As far as I can remember they started at 14 lbs. and they go STRAIGHT! Extreme dry lanes will make anything move a little...
Some companies may use DIFFERENT material between their core and cover, and choose not to call it filler, but...
Lane,
There is no magic in any ball. We both know that. Some LM balls worked great for me; others did not. Some were "no filler"; some had filler. (I think LM did a lot of research on their filler before they made their first ball with filler. It seemed to have the same COR as their resin, if that was at all possible.)
Since I usually bowl on lighter oil and have medium or lower ball speed, higher RG balls (2.53 - 2.57 or so) are usually better for my bowling, but I've used medium-low to lower RG balls successfully also. It depends on the "non-magic" ball, how I throw it and the oil I'm on, as per usual.
I do know that initially when LM took over from AZO, they used some of AZO's cores which were made of urethane. These seemed to give the ball's that "patented" hitting power and distinctive "Crack"! when they hit the pocket. No other ball company's balls made such a noise. But that changed and aI don't recall when. Not sure of they stopped making them of urethane or for some other reason.
I have no idea if all resin is the same density or not. I am sure all filler is NOT the same density.
To further confuse the issue remember Phil Cardinale's Soaker chemical additive. Its purpose was to force the oil to be "sucked" further down into the resin so it wouldn't interfere with the ball's grip on the lane. It worked and worked well. It actually made the ball grippier but it took 15 - 25 games before the ball reached its full potential in hooking and hitting power. BUT balls went 200+ games before they showed any lack of ball reaction and needed an oil extraction I had several of them and they worked great.
I was actually thinking of (due to this thread) of posting in the Radical forum and asking Phil when he was going to allow the Soaker to be added to some of the resins he & Mo have been creating at the Brunswick plant!!!
-
I agree with what JustRico said in regards to oil absorption being from porosity of the cover material and not the shell thickness. It can be shown in how pearlized balls almost always outlast solid shelled bowling balls. They just don't absorb oil as quickly as solid more porous coverstocks. Seems simple enough.
-
The reason thicker shells hold up better is because it takes more oil to saturate the cover. My understanding is that when oil is absorbed it will keep going deeper in the shell. Eventually the shell becomes saturated, but the thicker the shell the longer it takes to saturate it. Also even non resin urethane absorbs oil although we didn't understand it during the urethane era. In the 80's we use to rough the surface up much more than today. Blue Hammers came at 400 grit from the factory. They created their friction from the abrasiveness of the shell, no chemical friction. When the shell polished up to the lane, we would take the ball back down to 400, but it would never seem to regain the original aggressiveness. The reason was that the shell had also absorbed oil
-
I agree with what JustRico said in regards to oil absorption being from porosity of the cover material and not the shell thickness. It can be shown in how pearlized balls almost always outlast solid shelled bowling balls. They just don't absorb oil as quickly as solid more porous coverstocks. Seems simple enough.
I have to disagree: you have to compare apple to apple.
-
Lord Field and Lane Masters use solid to the core , lasts is unreal, hitting power is unmatched ! Everyone should try them , quality equipment!!
Hmmmmm... What's all that stuff surrounding the core in the pictures from their own website then?
Lane,
He was just a little overenthusiastic.
Only the LM and LF balls I listed above have no filler. The other ones do.
I used to have a 14 pound LM Terminator with "no" filler.
-
Thanks Jeff,
I'm still waiting to drill into one of these "magic balls". Can we agree that IF the core is surrounded by a "more dense" coverstock material the weight block will have less effect? See post by "itsallaboutme".
Think of the clear polyester balls. As far as I can remember they started at 14 lbs. and they go STRAIGHT! Extreme dry lanes will make anything move a little...
Some companies may use DIFFERENT material between their core and cover, and choose not to call it filler, but...
Lane,
There is no magic in any ball. We both know that. Some LM balls worked great for me; others did not. Some were "no filler"; some had filler. (I think LM did a lot of research on their filler before they made their first ball with filler. It seemed to have the same COR as their resin, if that was at all possible.)
Since I usually bowl on lighter oil and have medium or lower ball speed, higher RG balls (2.53 - 2.57 or so) are usually better for my bowling, but I've used medium-low to lower RG balls successfully also. It depends on the "non-magic" ball, how I throw it and the oil I'm on, as per usual.
I do know that initially when LM took over from AZO, they used some of AZO's cores which were made of urethane. These seemed to give the ball's that "patented" hitting power and distinctive "Crack"! when they hit the pocket. No other ball company's balls made such a noise. But that changed and aI don't recall when. Not sure of they stopped making them of urethane or for some other reason.
I have no idea if all resin is the same density or not. I am sure all filler is NOT the same density.
To further confuse the issue remember Phil Cardinale's Soaker chemical additive. Its purpose was to force the oil to be "sucked" further down into the resin so it wouldn't interfere with the ball's grip on the lane. It worked and worked well. It actually made the ball grippier but it took 15 - 25 games before the ball reached its full potential in hooking and hitting power. BUT balls went 200+ games before they showed any lack of ball reaction and needed an oil extraction I had several of them and they worked great.
I was actually thinking of (due to this thread) of posting in the Radical forum and asking Phil when he was going to allow the Soaker to be added to some of the resins he & Mo have been creating at the Brunswick plant!!!
Is this the same stuff they use for some 900 Global balls? I just had a LOOK( S75 hybrid) drilled up and it always came back with "no" oil on the cover, while other balls I used on the same lanes showed oil rings....
-
I had a conversation not long ago with a former Ebonite staffer about this subject. He told me something I have not heard, but make sense. He said the cover thickness isn't so much about cracking, but that the thinner the cover, the quicker the shell gets saturated with oil. He said that Ebonite always had thinner shells than some of the others, and it is true that they have about the worst reputation for dying quickly.
Also a guy who drills for me said that Brunswick shells got thinner when they first moved to Mexico, but that many of them got thicker again a couple of years ago. I know the old PK 18 and activator shells were among the most durable out there. Not sure about the newer stuff in the last 5 or 6 years.
I believe this to be true because I checked out my friend's Nexxes and it was "thick", est. 3/4 to 7/8 inch, compared to my Alpha Max at a little less than 1/2 inch. If thicker is "not" better, why would they change? Don't tell me that the filler is more expensive, lol!
-
Thanks Jeff,
I'm still waiting to drill into one of these "magic balls". Can we agree that IF the core is surrounded by a "more dense" coverstock material the weight block will have less effect? See post by "itsallaboutme".
Think of the clear polyester balls. As far as I can remember they started at 14 lbs. and they go STRAIGHT! Extreme dry lanes will make anything move a little...
Some companies may use DIFFERENT material between their core and cover, and choose not to call it filler, but...
Lane,
There is no magic in any ball. We both know that. Some LM balls worked great for me; others did not. Some were "no filler"; some had filler. (I think LM did a lot of research on their filler before they made their first ball with filler. It seemed to have the same COR as their resin, if that was at all possible.)
Since I usually bowl on lighter oil and have medium or lower ball speed, higher RG balls (2.53 - 2.57 or so) are usually better for my bowling, but I've used medium-low to lower RG balls successfully also. It depends on the "non-magic" ball, how I throw it and the oil I'm on, as per usual.
I do know that initially when LM took over from AZO, they used some of AZO's cores which were made of urethane. These seemed to give the ball's that "patented" hitting power and distinctive "Crack"! when they hit the pocket. No other ball company's balls made such a noise. But that changed and aI don't recall when. Not sure of they stopped making them of urethane or for some other reason.
I have no idea if all resin is the same density or not. I am sure all filler is NOT the same density.
To further confuse the issue remember Phil Cardinale's Soaker chemical additive. Its purpose was to force the oil to be "sucked" further down into the resin so it wouldn't interfere with the ball's grip on the lane. It worked and worked well. It actually made the ball grippier but it took 15 - 25 games before the ball reached its full potential in hooking and hitting power. BUT balls went 200+ games before they showed any lack of ball reaction and needed an oil extraction I had several of them and they worked great.
I was actually thinking of (due to this thread) of posting in the Radical forum and asking Phil when he was going to allow the Soaker to be added to some of the resins he & Mo have been creating at the Brunswick plant!!!
Is this the same stuff they use for some 900 Global balls? I just had a LOOK( S75 hybrid) drilled up and it always came back with "no" oil on the cover, while other balls I used on the same lanes showed oil rings....
Yes.
Phil originally used his formula on Dyno-Thane balls when he was in charge of them. Then he used it on some 900G balls.
He also used it on several of his Radical Balls, like the Slant Solid:
http://www.ballreviews.com/other/radical-slant-solid-t1219.0.html (http://www.ballreviews.com/other/radical-slant-solid-t1219.0.html),
and the Slant HD:
http://www.ballreviews.com/other/radical-slant-hd-t287144.0.html (http://www.ballreviews.com/other/radical-slant-hd-t287144.0.html)
-
Lord Field and Lane Masters use solid to the core , lasts is unreal, hitting power is unmatched ! Everyone should try them , quality equipment!!
Hmmmmm... What's all that stuff surrounding the core in the pictures from their own website then?
Lane,
He was just a little overenthusiastic.
Only the LM and LF balls I listed above have no filler. The other ones do.
+1