As you say, with more "basic" symmetrical shapes there is always going to be a bit of an overlap - the "egg shape" has been quite common in simple cores over the years.  We regularly work with the 900 Global R&D team when developing new cores, and with the simple cores such as this we would generaly have a starting point of a shape similar to one of their old cores, so we know what range of core densities we will be looking at.

 

I think this is quite comon practise.  Otherwise the R&D, plus building new core moulds from scratch, would add a lot off cost, and every companies "mid line" would become "premium line" also.

 

Hope this makes sense

 

 

 

Edited by RyanRPS on 15/03/2011 at 7:28 PM

reading that put a question in my mind.

 

Ryan did you guys modify and old core to create the TrailBlazer and Insignia cores, or did you create them from scratch?

I'm not sure what the point is. 

 

The real advancements by the companies are coming at the coverstock level.   

 

As far as using old cores, why not?  Judging from what I see on a weekly basis during leagues, the old balls still work fine. 

 

Apparently they work good enough for just about all the companies to go back to releasing balls with the basic light bulb/"pear" shape core.

 

They all boil down to the same basic shapes anyway.   The companies can change the density to manipulate the numbers.

 

Would you feel better if they took that same core and carved a few grooves down the side?

 

As far as the Nighthawk, AMF did a re-release (solid and pearl) a few years back...I think it was 2007.

 

 

I am impatiently waiting LOL.