PLAYER STATS
Style = Stroker/mild tweener, right-handed
Speed = ~14-16 mph
PAP = 5" over & 7/8" up (high track)
Axis tilt = ~20°
Revs = ~275-325 RPM at release
WHY THIS BALL?
I bought Radical’s Intel Pearl as a potential solution to fill a well-defined hole in my current arsenal: I was looking for a mild reactive for light conditions that could bridge a narrow but dramatic gap between my go-to (quasi) urethane pieces (a black Pure Hammer and a Lord Field Burning Up) and milder pure reactives, primarily a Brunswick BTU Pearl.
My lower ball speed and high track make balls, by tendency, roll rather early, and most (modern) reactive balls are just too strong for my game. Furthermore, I frequently encounter lighter lane conditions in league play, and this can result in a struggle with the equipment's lack of length or carry, or both. In a worst-case scenario, on longer, fresh patterns, the urethanes would not finish well and the reactives hook early and too much. Something with traction and a mild hook was needed, the BTU Pearl was already an attempt – but it turned out to be too strong, rolly and arcing. Not a bad ball, but too much for my needs.
During the last season, I saw a fellow player using an Intel Solid, and I liked the ball’s overall reaction. When I did some legwork and found out that the ball had a symmetrical, low-differential core, I was pleased, because this promised a late and smooth reaction, suitable for my game and the intended reaction gap. It was at this time that the Intel Pearl was released, and when I consulted the ball’s details and Radical’s ball comparison chart I became even more interested, because the Intel Pearl was advertised as being very mild and smooth on the backend, and considerably weaker overall than the Intel Solid.
After last season’s end in April, I ordered a pin-out Intel Pearl through my trusted local pro shop, so that I could try and evaluate the new ball during the summer break. Despite the ball’s low differential core, I wanted it to move and finish on the backend, but rather late. The layout eventually became:
35° drilling angle
4.25” pin to PAP
50° angle to the VAL
LAYOUT SKETCH:
==========
======+=== < Pin
===o=o====
==========
=======#== < CG
==========
====O=====
==========
The pin ended up 1½” at about 1 o’clock above the ring finger hole and the CG 2” at 4 o’clock, slightly above the midline. The surface remained OOB (polished), even though I was suspicious about the coverstock’s tackiness before the first shot. Righteously…
SOME IMPRESSIONS:
Well, to a certain point I am disappointed: my biggest issue with the Intel Pearl is that it is MUCH stronger than advertised! After a good number of games on various oil patterns (recreational and sport) and lane surfaces, I came to the conclusion that the source of this issue is the coverstock. The Ai-27 cover is utterly tacky and offers tons of traction. While this is not a problem in itself, it leaves me, who expected a controllable, mild ball for lighter conditions, with a hooking and quite nervous beast.
I am certain that the source of trouble is the coverstock material. The overall reaction down the lane is quite smooth and not flippy, the Intel Pearl does not appear to show a classic pearl reaction shape with a sharp, hockey stick-like breakpoint shape. It does as advertised. But, once the ball hits dry ground (which is especially dramatic on sport patterns without blended oil areas), it immediately reads the lane and moves, relentlessly, and, thanks to its low differential, it hardly stops hooking on the backend. The medium-to-low RG core is certainly another source for this nervous (over)reaction, since it revs up easily once the cover encounters friction. The overall action on the lane looks spectacular, but this does not help much when it comes to scoring.
The ball goes well through the heads, as long as there is some decent oil, and the mild core delivers the desired reaction on the back end. When it hits the pocket, the carry is impressive – probably due to the tacky coverstock that violently twists the pins in its path around. The problem is that getting to the pocket (consistently) is not easy, though. Much too often the ball would hook violently and prematurely, going Brooklyn with uncertain results. I frequently leave more splits with the Intel Pearl than with any other ball in my bag, and the good carry does not compensate for this.
On the other side, the Intel Pearl turned out to be a simple ball that is easy to manipulate through release changes. But, due to the coverstock’s responsiveness to friction, the overall reaction is quite volatile. The ball’s “package” turned out to be hard to control and does not inspire confidence in me, the ball is pretty unpredictable. One can argue that it magnifies the player’s release flaws, but I found that even small release changes can result in dramatic changes in the ball’s reaction downlane, leaving me with less room for error than other balls in my arsenal.
PERSONAL CONCLUSION:
Well, I am torn. The Intel PearI is certainly not a bad ball, but it turned – in my hands – out to be much too strong for what I wanted or expected. It’s almost scary when I take a look at Radical’s comparison chart and see how far away all other current balls in the company’s line-up are positioned. In my hands, the Intel Solid should be a heavy oil ball that I should not be able to keep on the lane at all! About other balls in Radical’s arsenal, I don’t even dare to think… They should be unplayable for me.
However, the Intel Pearl might be better suited for players with higher speed than me, or those with less revs. If you can push the ball downlane, you will probably achieve better results than me with my slower speed. The ball’s basically good responsiveness to release changes was already mentioned – it certainly has a high potential, but I feel that the coverstock just (literally) overrides anything, and the lower RG core adds to the ball’s nervousness at the breakpoint and/or at the end of the oil.
On the other side, the aggressive cover makes the ball surprisingly suitable for longer patterns or higher volumes of oil. As long as the back end is dry and clean, the ball will hook and finish. The best performance I had with it so far was on a 43' pattern (Big Ben) on a rather slick synth surface, where no other mild ball in my arsenal would finish well.
For me, it is a medium condition ball, maybe even stronger than my BTU Pearl, which reads the lane earlier by tendency and has a rather arcing overall hook shape. The Intel Pearl rather goes straight down the lane and either (literally) goes off, once it hits the dry, or it finishes in a sudden but rather arcing hook – if I am able to control it. The previous review from hgould26 suggests that my over-reaction issue seems to be typical for the Intel Pearl? I’d like to get to know more impressions of the Intel Pearl from other players in order to confirm that.
That said, I wonder if my ball specimen actually is a blem of some sort, with a somewhat flawed, softer or too porous coverstock? Even after some months with frequent use and cleaning now, the cover is still very tacky to the touch and the ball keeps giving off a disturbing, faint chemical stench, as if the cover or the filler had not properly cured?
The coverstock itself appears to be quite durable, no signs of a track have appeared yet, despite its softness to the touch. However, I might soon try to change the OOB finish in attempt to tame down the ball’s aggressiveness off the dry. My first attempt will be a 2.000 or 4.000 grit finish (similar to a previous reviewer), just to see if this improves the situation (without sacrificing its good length, though), and then, if this does not help much, I might also try a newly polished surface. After all, the summer is the time for experiments, and I hope that I can somehow tap the ball’s certain potential.
Finally, if this does not help much, I might even consult my local pro shop for more drastic measures – maybe the layout is too strong for my game and the ball’s intended utility?
I might update this review if I get some results and conclusions.
Concerning the ball’s look, I do not feel very enthusiastic. IMHO, with its black/grayish and very dark blue pearl coverstock with almost no contrast between the colors, it looks dull and uninspired. The engravings are ugly, too. While the catalogue picture suggests a more or less bright orange color, the real ball comes with a lackluster, pale sand tone that features some glitter – I have not seen such a poor and unappealing ball design in a long time! O.K., this is very subjective and personal, but the ball does not look exciting at all. Even its very similar stablemate, the Intel Solid, with light blue engravings and a matt finish, looks considerably better, even though it is no eye-catcher, either.
PERSONAL RATING SCALE:
This scale is inspired by popular rating methods and the results are ultra-subjective. Surface prep, layouts and different playing styles will change the evaluation for sure - it is just personal experience with the reviewed ball at OOB finish
Length/through the heads:
Easy *****X**** Needs head oil
Breakpoint shape:
Arc *****X**** Angular
Hook potential:
Low ******X*** High
Control:
Stable *******X** Erratic
Durability:
Poor *******X** High
Suited for…
Dry ****X**** Oily
Range of utility/lane conditions:
Limited ***X****** Broad
Subjective overall rating of this ball:
Poor ****X***** Excellent
LANE UTILITY CHART (Pattern length vs. oil volume)
This chart’s concept has been borrowed from Storm's 2003 print catalogue. Surface prep, layout or a different playing style will change the result.
|S M L
|h e o
|o d n
|r . g
|t
_______
|0 + X| Light volume
|+ X X| Medium volume
|+ X +| Heavy volume
Legend:
X = Best suited with effective control & carry
+ = Fairly suited (works, somehow, but can lack control and effectiveness)
0 = Unsuited (ineffective; either slips helplessly or burns up)
