It seems all three balls are "stronger off the spot". How was it determined this shape was needed in the lineup? Were the previously described "stronger off the spot" balls not really strong off the spot based on user feedback? Or is there something else that elicits this type of reaction across all new balls?
I determine the performance targets based on several factors, some of which but not all are performance within the line. ( check out the performance chart and you can see where the holes in the line were) and consumer requests.
The Guru pearl limited edition is stronger off the spot simply because it is a pearl version of the Great Guru core. Thus by nature the pearl cover stores energy and responds to friction in a quick fashion (but you already knew that )
The Ridiculous pearl ( see above Guru response)
The Xeno is a bit unique as we have a great core (the Reax V2 solid) but now have a chance to use a 4th iteration cover that is by nature more responsive.
I hope this answers your questions and concerns.
So looking at the Radical ball chart before the release of these three new balls I see 9 out of 11 balls are at the middle of the reaction range to more backend. That leaves 2 out of 11 balls classified as more roll according to the chart. With the introduction of the new balls, all of which I assume will be above the middle of the chart in the more backend category, Radical will have devoted 86% of their complete arsenal to medium to more backend bowling balls.
So my question is this: is this an instant of giving the market more of what you are already providing at the sake of a more complete arsenal?
I don't discount sales as a motivating factor when it comes to bowling ball releases, but I question as a consumer the need for these particular pieces. Or at least all three at the same time. If I were to look to Radical for a complete arsenal I would think, based on this chart and these release, that it is not a complete arsenal and I would have to find pieces elsewhere to fit all of my needs.
