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

Author Topic: The hardness of the Original Sonic X's coverstock?  (Read 1743 times)

Ric Clint

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
The hardness of the Original Sonic X's coverstock?
« on: July 09, 2004, 02:08:18 AM »
In the description for the "original" Sonic X pearl... "Sure Grip Pearlâ„¢ reactive surrounds this core creating a stiffer coverstock for those medium to dry lane conditions."

Does that "stiffer coverstock" mean that it may be harder than most reactive or pearl balls, therefore, getting close to a hardness of a PLASTIC ball?

I know this ball is widely regarded as an excellent DRY LANE ball so I figured that this stiffer coverstock was what made it get through the drier heads and midlanes so great.


Thanks!




Logged

 

Mike E

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
Re: The hardness of the Original Sonic X's coverstock?
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2004, 12:51:40 AM »
Ric, My experience with the sonic x has been that it is not really a dry lane ball but a great short or light oil ball. When the shot around the 10 board has dried up you can see this ball burning up and coming across the head pin.Ah-Oh time to move left and find some more oil. D Scale is 75-78 so it really isn't harder than most. The high R.G. 2.60 is what really gets it down the lane as well as being a pearl. The low diff. .020 is what makes the hook controllable on light oil.
                               
                                 Bowl Well
                                 Regards,
                                 Mike E
--------------------
Did you know that you can't see pigs in a windstorm?
Logged

Jeffrevs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11890
Re: The hardness of the Original Sonic X's coverstock?
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2004, 07:24:00 AM »
Ric,
What that means is that the Sure Grip Pearl on the Sonics are Sure Grip II, a different blend of the Sure Grip that's on the Silver Streak Pearl........Also, Mike is right,...they're not for dry....lighter to lighter-mediums...
--------------------
JEFF
There is doing in not doing

Edited on 7/12/2004 7:53 AM
Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: The hardness of the Original Sonic X's coverstock?
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2004, 09:05:14 AM »
Ric,

From what I have read (and it did confuse me at first also), manufacturers refer to pearlized balls as being "stiffer" than solid balls. I think it's the additive to do what is chemically called pearlization.

While we would hope to hear from a true resin chemist to get the facts straight, I am not sure we will.

I'll take a stab with my best guess:
I think pearlization makes the cover less elastic, not softer; so the contact surface of the ball, as it goes down the lane, is smaller in overall area than the same solid coverstock.

On further thought, this may be why pearl balls never react the same as solids, even when they are sanded or polished to same degree.

--------------------
"We get old too fast, and too late, smart."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Ric Clint

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: The hardness of the Original Sonic X's coverstock?
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2004, 06:23:36 AM »
quote:
manufacturers refer to pearlized balls as being "stiffer" than solid balls. I think it's the additive to do what is chemically called pearlization. While we would hope to hear from a true resin chemist to get the facts straight, I am not sure we will.


Ohhhh, Rooooggggeeeerrrr?

Maybe he can explain this?

quote:
I'll take a stab with my best guess: I think pearlization makes the cover less elastic, not softer; so the contact surface of the ball, as it goes down the lane, is smaller in overall area than the same solid coverstock.


Umm... I'm confused. So, do you mean that pearl covers are "harder" in a way (similar to plastic) and that helps them "skate" better down the lane cleaner?




Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: The hardness of the Original Sonic X's coverstock?
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2004, 07:16:44 AM »
quote:

quote:
I'll take a stab with my best guess: I think pearlization makes the cover less elastic, not softer; so the contact surface of the ball, as it goes down the lane, is smaller in overall area than the same solid coverstock.


Umm... I'm confused. So, do you mean that pearl covers are "harder" in a way (similar to plastic) and that helps them "skate" better down the lane cleaner?



Nope, they are not "harder" and using that term will just confuse you more. They are supposed to be the same on the hardness scale: 75-78 or thereabouts. They are less elastic; in other words, they deform less when their ball surface meets the lane surface; so, there is less contact area, as compared to solid balls.
--------------------
"We get old too fast, and too late, smart."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Hank B

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
Re: The hardness of the Original Sonic X's coverstock?
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2004, 04:25:56 PM »
The difference between a solid reactive coverstock and a pearlized reactive coverstock has to do with elasticity of the materail in some regards.

One of the things that occurs during pearlization is that the mica or pearlization agent used actually plates the the molecules causing a loss in elasticity and also reduction in surface friction.

With this said it does make sense as to why a pearlized reactive always goes longer than a solid even if they are both sanded.  The pearlized coverstock does not create as much surface area friction as the solid reactive coverstock due to this plating of the molecules.

I hope this helps.
--------------------
Hank Boomershine

President
Roto Grip
888-450-6920
www.rotogrip.com
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »