I'm curious ..... is it the same formulation year to year? 

There are SEVERAL balls that used it .... the Hyroads, iQs, Frantics, Outs, Codes, Astro  just to name a few.  If you have a nice Frantic, did you need a Lights Out?  The longevity of the cover is awesome.  I keep mine clean and have stuff that has 200+ games on it and still kills.

I need to pay attention since Storm has been taking the same cover, wrapping it around different cores, change the color, and you have a "new" ball.  But do you really?

A Freakin' Frantic vs a Punch Out -- I cant tell the difference.

The difference between a Punch Out and a Code line ball is the core, which changes things considerably . . if they wanted an overall much stronger ball, why not use a stronger cover too?  They wanted to produce a certain reaction, so a weaker cover on a stronger core gives you something rollier and stronger but not crazy strong.  Same idea as putting the NRG cover on the Hyroad core, much stronger cover but with a weaker core, so it digs in without going nuts or being too strong. 

My understanding is this.  Whatever cover the manufacturer promotes is typically the "base" without the additives. 

I had an Ebonite Black Ice when it was first released.  I was told that the cover on it was the same cover as the V2 Solid but not at the same strength as the V2.  Obviously the V2 handled oil considerably better than the Black Ice.  I cannot imagine that a company would use the exact formulation on a low end ball and put it on a ball designed for medium to heavy oil.

With that said, it could be possible since the IQs and Hyroads are close in price point that the formulations are exact.  Frantic and Punch Out are same price point so probably same formula.  But the difference between a Punch Out and a Code ball?  I say how can it be possible to have the same formula since they are designed for considerably different oil volume.   

I think it's just that certain cores are associated with certain lines, like the Hot Cell for example was a premium priced urethane ball . . because it had an asymmetric core in it.  Premier and HP4 line balls are their top lines, and you always know they're asyms.  I'm not so sure it's an expense factor, and I can see how people would be skeptical in regard to that, but I honestly have zero idea beyond the fact that asyms live in the Premier and HP4 lines only. 

I CAN tell you that given my experience, a ball like the Astro for example DOES have the very same R2S pearl cover that the Hyroad Pearl does, and the same that the Code Black did.  Unmistakable if you're familiar with stuff, and being that we have had so many R2S balls over the years, I've gotten to know it really well.  When comparing the Astro to balls with stronger cover formulas like say the Halo Pearl or Intense, it's nice to have the cover that handles lower volumes better instead of burning up or standing up, while still having the asymmetric torque.  Now, in regard to a certain cover costing significantly different prices when on the Hyroad Pearl vs the IQ Emerald vs the Astro . . that one I don't know about and can't explain.  Would be a better question for a company employee.  I'd actually be quite surprised if the formula strengths were altered, to me it's a very distinct feel, those three I mentioned just feel like different cores. 

So you are saying that taking an identical coverstock and putting a different core inside the ball can affect the price of a ball by that much?  I understand if you are taking a cover that was initially on a higher end price point and years later you use it on a cheaper ball because you have new covers being introduced to the market for your high end releases. 

FWIW...I trust what you are saying.  Just having a conversation with you.  To me it seems odd that you can take a cover from a $139 price point, put a different core in it, and jump the price to $199 - $209.  That is a huge difference. I can see maybe taking a cover from a $179 price point and increasing to $199 or even $209 because of a core difference but not lower end to high end.  Could this be an example of the cover being so good that it can be used on a wide variety of balls?

Quote from: Luke Rosdahl on December 09, 2019, 08:41:37 AM

The difference between a Punch Out and a Code line ball is the core, which changes things considerably . . if they wanted an overall much stronger ball, why not use a stronger cover too?  They wanted to produce a certain reaction, so a weaker cover on a stronger core gives you something rollier and stronger but not crazy strong.  Same idea as putting the NRG cover on the Hyroad core, much stronger cover but with a weaker core, so it digs in without going nuts or being too strong. 

Quote from: TWOHAND834 on December 06, 2019, 11:18:19 AM

My understanding is this.  Whatever cover the manufacturer promotes is typically the "base" without the additives. 

I had an Ebonite Black Ice when it was first released.  I was told that the cover on it was the same cover as the V2 Solid but not at the same strength as the V2.  Obviously the V2 handled oil considerably better than the Black Ice.  I cannot imagine that a company would use the exact formulation on a low end ball and put it on a ball designed for medium to heavy oil.

With that said, it could be possible since the IQs and Hyroads are close in price point that the formulations are exact.  Frantic and Punch Out are same price point so probably same formula.  But the difference between a Punch Out and a Code ball?  I say how can it be possible to have the same formula since they are designed for considerably different oil volume.   

I do think Luke has the right idea, being it's because of the line the core type is associated with. I would have to imagine there's a touch of operations in the background influencing as well by looking at the R&D costs of new core designs, mold changes, etc.