I posted this a few other places, might as well stick it here too:

Ok, so to get this out there, there's a video Ron Hickland (Owner/CEO CTD) recently made where he takes some oil off the lane and walks into the pro shop, wipes some on a Pro Motion and a Black Widow Urethane and then proceeds to film as the oil is absorbed into the cover of the Pro Motion, while nothing happens on the BWU.  I've already had a few questions about this due to claims I made in my videos that "SPEC does not absorb oil."  I've been in contact with Chad McLean, Storm's Technical Director already and MY claims, not theirs, were inaccurate. 

According to Chad, SPEC absorbs oil at a rate 5 times slower than the currently fastest absorbing cover out there, so SPEC does actually absorb oil despite my claims to the contrary, so I was mistaken.  HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER, the claims about the increased longevity this ball has and the increased resistance to performance loss is still valid.  I've been waiting to make a video on the Prime just for time to pass to see whether or not the reaction does indeed hold up.  I've not cleaned it, I've just wiped it off after every shot with a shammy like most do, and have hit it with abralon on occasion to rough the surface back up when needed.  So far I've not seen any loss in performance, which I certainly would have with a typical resin ball if I'd have treated it the same.  I'll be making a video at some point to attempt to show this. 

For CLARIFICATION: I'm not advocating to not clean or maintain your equipment, I've just done this with the Prime to see how much abuse it can handle.  Ball maintenance is important and will help extend the life of your ball.  Oil absorption or no oil absorption, this cover was designed to withstand performance loss and increase longevity of reaction and that performance vs typical reactive resin, which according to both SPECTO data and my own experience, it does.  So at the end of the day, the results are still the same, just my claims about how it gets there weren't accurate/correct.  My integrity is REALLY important and despite any perceived bias of mine due to my affiliation with the company, I don't want to be another staffer guy that spouts a bunch of nonsense to move units. 

For further clarification: I'm provided balls for review videos, but am not paid, receive no commission, and am given zero monetary or financial incentives, I'm simply provided merchandise to advertise, so I have no motivation or reason whatsoever to lie, mislead, misrepresent, or falsify information.  Being as brutally honest as possible, I've spent thousands of dollars and hours to produce the videos I do, and if I were to quit YouTube altogether, it would be a substantial net gain across the board.  More simply put, if I were to resign from Storm, delete my channel and just pay retail for the equipment I want, I'd come out much further ahead on both time and money, so making videos actually costs me a significant amount of time and money which the "perks" do not come close to offsetting, so there's very literally zero reason for me to intentionally try to "pull one over" on anyone. 

So at the end of the day, the absolute truth is that yes, SPEC does in fact absorb oil.  It does it at a much slower rate than traditional resin, and I've not seen yet that ball reaction is affected by whatever oil it does absorb.  The chemical adhesion this cover has is likely what offsets that, because overwhelmingly the data and my own experience with oil extraction shows that oil absorption and performance loss is linked.  Thanks to the Detox machine, that's a problem that's easily solved, but even then, regardless of maintenance, over time stuff just gradually wears out.  That doesn't seem to be the case with SPEC or at least it's happening at a much slower rate, which was the point of the new cover; increased durability and longevity of performance.  So despite oil absorption at whatever rate, that doesn't seem to be affecting performance, and also despite my abuse of the Prime, I haven't seen any loss of reaction or any negative effects thus far.  So AT THE END OF THE DAY, at the very least I'm happy that nothing has effectively changed, it just ends up being an inaccurate detail. 

SORRY for the inaccuracy, sorry for any confusion, I apologize if you feel misled or even flat deceived/lied to, the cover does absorb oil despite my claims to the contrary, but once again, however it achieves it, the new cover does in fact increase durability and longevity over traditional reactive resin and THAT is something I will continue to stand behind.  If you have any questions or want any more clarification, please feel free to comment and I'll answer the best I can, thanks.

Thanks Luke especially for giving us an accurate picture of the ball reaction of SPEC.  Appreciate the candor. 

No, more consumer demand.  Nobody wants to spend $250 on a ball that's worn out inside of a year, but that's kind of the science of bowling balls, it's historically been a trade of durability for performance.  Motiv already has a cover kind of like this on the Covert Tank, and honestly their covers already were pretty durable to begin with, and I think Ebonite is coming along with something now. 

USBC just doesn't have a clue what they're doing.  They didn't pull the line back at all, they actually gave extra room, and it was quickly proven that oil absorption and hook potential have zero to do with each other, yet they pushed on. 

Luke,

I really appreciate your honesty in this and in all of your ball reviews. You give very good insight as to what to expect from a particular ball. Do you see this as a move in this direction due to recent USBC rules? Do you think other companies will follow suit? I bowl in a 5 man league and I do see the "oil suckers " as ruining the shot. But then we must learn to adjust. Thank you

With the cover absorbing oil at a slower rate, does the integrity of the oil pattern hold together longer or is the ball taking the same amount of oil off the lane but it just isn't soaking into the ball?

If oil is on the ball, it's not on the lane anymore. Absorption rate of reactive balls is really irrelevant in regards to hook potential and pattern integrity. A slow absorption rate gives the bowler time to wipe the oil and dirt off the ball for the next shot, before soaking into the ball, allowing the cover to last longer. A ball that soaks up a lot of oil quickly, won't last as long.

Even a sponge takes time to "absorb" a liquid. It isn't instantaneous. 


Spin rate (rev rate) has more to do with pattern integrity than anything. The women's tour uses just as much surface on the same bowling balls as the men's tour, yet their patterns hold up longer. Rev rates are lower.

I understand a higher rev rate destroys a pattern quicker, I was just wondering, if this cover "repels" oil, is it also taking less of it off the lane on each shot than a ball with an average absorption rate would?

"Footprint" is a major factor of oil removal from a lane.

Example:

You have two identical drilled balls with the same core, but one has a cover that has a wider footprint on the lane than the other, the wider footprint will have more oil on the ball when it comes back, than the ball with a thinner "footprint" of the lane, therefore removing more oil.

Quote from: mike300 on August 26, 2019, 11:29:38 AM

With the cover absorbing oil at a slower rate, does the integrity of the oil pattern hold together longer or is the ball taking the same amount of oil off the lane but it just isn't soaking into the ball?

If the oil is on the ball, and not absorbing into the cover, then REAL carrydown will exist....just like what happens with a urethane ball.

That's kind of where I was going with my question, does it change the way a lane will breakdown?  At least somebody followed my logic on this 

Lack of flare is what causes carry down, typical or traditional urethane only creates a lot of carrydown because of how much a 500 grit surface will pick up AND because it rolls over the same track because there's no track flare.  The Black Widow Urethane doesn't cause any more carrydown than a typical resin ball would because it's got a really high diff and flares a lot.  If it's exposing fresh dry surface to the lane on every rotation, there's no way for it to create much carrydown if any despite the cover type because the only place the oil on the ball is going to meet the lane is at the bow ties and on a ball that flares a ton, the bow ties are really small. 

So yeah, it's gonna suck oil off the lane pretty fast, I actually use the Prime at 1000 if I want to burn a track in as quickly as possible, but on typical resin, even stuff that sucks it up fast, you're still going to wipe oil off the ball when you go up for your next shot, it doesn't absorb it THAT fast.  I don't see any reason to use it sanded on a house shot, let it shine up, the shape doesn't change that much, makes it more usable, and it blends wet/dry really well. 

Absorption rate/cover type has next to ZERO to do with carrydown, it's all about track flare.  Back in the days of consistency meaning having a track the size of a dime or less on the ball . . yeah you're gonna get tons of carrydown because all the ball is doing is picking it up off the front and depositing it on the back because it's rolling on the same track all the way down the lane.  I don't know how a ball could absorb oil between 30 feet and 40 feet anyway, that doesn't make any sense.  Every ball regardless of absorption rate comes back with oil on it . . so how could absorption rate have anything to do with carrydown?  It picks up oil as it goes down the lane, so throwing a ball again without wiping it off isn't going to cause any more carrydown than it would if you wiped it off, because it picks up oil as it rolls down the lane . . and then leaves it on the backend if it's rolling over the same track. 

Quote from: BeerLeague on September 10, 2019, 02:34:43 PM

Quote from: mike300 on August 26, 2019, 11:29:38 AM

With the cover absorbing oil at a slower rate, does the integrity of the oil pattern hold together longer or is the ball taking the same amount of oil off the lane but it just isn't soaking into the ball?

If the oil is on the ball, and not absorbing into the cover, then REAL carrydown will exist....just like what happens with a urethane ball.

That's kind of where I was going with my question, does it change the way a lane will breakdown?  At least somebody followed my logic on this