win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Which surface performs the best over the long haul?  (Read 1066 times)

Pinbuster

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4585
  • Former proshop worker
Which surface performs the best over the long haul?
« on: September 23, 2004, 01:51:06 AM »
In the days of yore when all lanes were wood they were refinished on a regular basis, generally every two to three years depending on the amount of play. Periodic maintenance (such as dragging a new coat of finish) was done between  

Early on synthetics were touted as not needing any maintenance and having nearly unlimited lifetimes. Today we know that is not true particularly since the advent of particle balls.

Where we better off with wood getting essentially a new playing surface every couple of years that would deteriorate somewhat more quickly than synthetics or are we better off with synthetics that deteriorate at a slower pace but cannot really be revived?

I realize that they are working on some processes and overlays to rejuvenate the synthetics (but I believe the jury is still out on these) and that because of economics synthetics are here to stay and new lane beds will be virtually all be synthetics.

One of the highest scoring houses in town so far this year has 15+ year old synthetics. Is this is more a function of the oiling pattern than the lane surface? I think it is but obviously the lane surface hasn’t deteriorated so badly that they can’t overcome it.

I personally prefer wood being of the old school but I score better on synthetics.

Which surface performs the best over the long haul?  


 

scotts33

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8452
Re: Which surface performs the best over the long haul?
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2004, 10:06:27 AM »
I prefer wood cuz I am old school like you Pinbuster.  I dislike Guardian overlays probably because of it's hardness plays too soft.  Proprietors have to soak the heads with beaucoup oil for it to hold up and then carry down and you got big problems.  

In the end it's how the lane conditoner is applied and concentrations with consideration to how the lane surface holds up.

Some day maybe bowling will be played on an oil less surface with oil less type balls.  Now wouldn't that be interesting.  No lefty righty arguements.

Scott
Scott

Goof1073

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
Re: Which surface performs the best over the long haul?
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2004, 10:25:58 AM »
**Chills** Guardian....argh!  I've only had the "pleasure" of bowling on this surface a few times in NY and I didn't like it at all.

I can't honestly answer the question of aging synthetic lanes.  The oldest synthetic surface that I have bowled on is Bradley Bowl in CT.  That surface is approximately 14 years old maybe and I think it has held up pretty well.  Most of the wood houses that I have bowled on all seem like they need new heads.  

I honestly think the best surface to bowl on is sythetic heads with wood backends.  I'm not sure about over the long haul though...
--------------------
-Chris: DJ's Pro Shop : Auburn, MA

Pinbuster

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4585
  • Former proshop worker
Re: Which surface performs the best over the long haul?
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2004, 12:54:36 PM »
The last wood center closed here about a year ago. The lane beds where over 45 years old. They had been fighting the nails the last 15 years or more but the lane surface was not bad and they scored well.

The owner told me that with the advances in re-surfacing they were taking a lot less off the lanes now than they did 40 years ago so I would think getting 50 good years from wood shouldn’t be a problem.

He considered synthetics and figured that it took the cost of 3 resurface jobs to pay for the synthetics after that it was gravy savings to the center.  

Bob - Good point on wood making the playing surface of each center look unique. Also you could get where you could read the darker boards versus the lighter boards.

ksucat

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
Re: Which surface performs the best over the long haul?
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2004, 01:57:38 PM »
When synthetics were first introduced, they were marketed as having a life span similar to wood lanes without the hassle and expense of resurfacing.  Then the particle balls came along and chewed that theory up.  With so few wood lanes left, it would be difficult to tell how the particle balls have affected them.  Have these studded monsters dramatically reduced their lives as well?

I miss wood lanes even if the performance on synthetics is usually better.  A well maintained wood lane generally will not score as well as a fresh synthetic lane given similar oil patterns.  One big reason for this is that these new pindecks are much more lively causing pins to fly all over the place.  Another reason is that a reactive ball will grab a clean synthetic lane harder than a clean wood lane thus creating greater entry angles.

I guess it's similar to the wood vs. aluminum baseball bats.  Performance against tradition.