And there's a difference with the way the numbers go, Shape Lock is lower RG AND higher int diff, so that's a net strength gain. I've already gotten balls drilled, videos filmed and leagues bowled, and I can say the Evolve IS longer and stronger than the Prime.
The Catalyst core never was very torque-y down lane though. Crux wasn't terribly boomy, Crux Pearl is one of the smoothest asym pearls ever period, and the Alpha is remembered so well because it was almost like high powered urethane, good traction with a lot of control, so the resulting smoothness of the Prime isn't a surprise, nor is the Evolve being stronger down lane.
Another note is that you don't change the core specs much on the Catalyst, and with most people doing pin up layouts OR layouts that will increase the diff, you're going to end up with a big DRILLED difference between the Catalyst and the Shape Lock.
What about the Virtual Gravity Nano Pearl? That was one of the best balls I've ever owned... same core.
Oh boy, the Gravity Evolve looks good. Kinda wondering how it compares to the Crux Prime though. Seems to me that the SPEC cover is so dominating that I'm not sure the difference between two different asymmetrical cores is going to be significant.
Difference will be on the backend. Evolve SHOULD have a bigger move off the spot.
Is that a thing just looking back to what the Shape-Lock core has shown in the past? By the numbers and core shapes that and the Catalyst core aren't significantly far off from each other.
One thing to take into consideration is the fact we had to put X holes in the VG's to keep legal. This would often change the shape of the core and make it roll earlier. With the new rules, we should see a more defined hook spot without the x holes, allowing us to see what kind of shape the VG can really have.
