I saw this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GifDb4sGz8

Does anyone think Hammer is blending a small amount of reactive in theirs.
They just seem to have that Little bit extra punch in the last few feet.

Regards,

Luckylefty
PS sorry for participation in hijack of previous post!  My Natural looks similar to this but....maybe I need to get a little farther left and get used to that flat look.  I believe I have a very similar roll to this lefty!
PPS I wonder if the previous poster on this subject was wondering if the new Super Natural is a little "stronger"?

Sort of my thought also.  There were two different Pure hammers, one more reactive than the other.

I would love to have one!  However I am somewhat convinced the new blue hammer is similar to the second Pure Hammer. 

We have a guy hooking 13 to 3/4 with his Blue and shooting up in the 700s some days.  Soft speed and soft hand but good 45 degree release position.

Regards,

Luckylefty
PS I am amazed at how good a spare ball my Storm Natural is and how much of a strike dud it is!  TO be fair I will adjust surface to match the blue and compare similar conditions.

One thing I have noted with the new Blue Hammer as opposed to the Natural or Grenade is that the BH retains some backend when polished. It seems to retain a similar backend reaction, whereas the Natural/Grenade tend to just slide into the pit.
Perhaps this is the goal with the SuperNatural's new cover U3S.

I should have added earlier that anyone who had any of the older reactives knows how difficult achieving any shine on them was. Literally sit on the spinner and try to burn the polish in only for the ball to look exactly the same for a long time. Now I see the new Blue Hammer and other "urethane" balls that shine very easily. To me if they take a shine that means there is some resin in the cover....

Nothing scientific, just observations.

3835

I should have added earlier that anyone who had any of the older reactives knows how difficult achieving any shine on them was. Literally sit on the spinner and try to burn the polish in only for the ball to look exactly the same for a long time. Now I see the new Blue Hammer and other "urethane" balls that shine very easily. To me if they take a shine that means there is some resin in the cover....

Nothing scientific, just observations.

3835

I strongly suspect you are right.

I tried an AMF Hype urethane when it first came out. I tried to put a fine finish (~4000 grit) and polish it. I tried for almost 3 weeks to do this. I used every abrasive and every polish I had on hand, and used them all on the spinner. I never succeeded in getting any sort of shine on it whatsoever. The closest I got was with Storm Xtra Shine and it did what Rough Buff does for most resins, made it finer. I'd guess I got it somewhere around 2000 - 3000 grit at best.

Makpa,

Thanks for the info on the 100% pure urethane. However, the part where/how they are poured does not matter to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't companies like Brunswick pour Rhino Pros on the same machines that urethane stuff came from? If so, then if by pouring a urethane ball on a resin line makes the urethane ball pick up on some of the resin characteristics, vice versa should hold true and those early Rhino Pros should have had some urethane characteristics, which to me they did not.

Thoughts?

3835

I think most of you realize this, but all urethanes and resin balls are basically urethane.  It is the resin additive, which I believe has varied substantially over the years in different balls. Early resin balls ( excalibers turbo x ) had a lot more additive that made them feel very sticky, sometimes to the point of being bleeders.  Later generation resin balls never felt quite so sticky. 

Also, I was just thinking, but the resin ball is now slightly over 20 years old.  It was the last real breakthrough in shell technology.  Urethane itself came out in 81, and the soft shelled polyester balls became popular in about 1973. 

Soft polyester, urethane, and resin enhanced urethane were all revolutionary.  Nothing to really compare to them in the last 20 years.  Core technolgy has evolved, but nothing earth shattering. 

The biggest change has really been in the volume and viscosity of oils being used.  People wonder how we could get polyester and urethane to hit in the 70's and early 80's, but they don't understand we were playing on less than half the oil volume and the viscosities were about 1/3 of what they are today.   Also during almost the entire urethane era oil was only buffed out to 24 feet.   

+2....the game has completely changed. Even your technical mechanics have changed to be much later, use the inside of the ball, open up the swing and body, and let the ball flip off the break point.