First of all, Motiv didn't make anyone wait months. Within a few weeks I exchanged my Carnage for a new ball. Now, you also had the option of waiting for the next Jackal (the Jackal LE it turned out to be) and that did take a few months to develop, test and get approved. It will also be a few months before you see the Spectre 2.

First of all, Motiv didn't make anyone wait months. Within a few weeks I exchanged my Carnage for a new ball. Now, you also had the option of waiting for the next Jackal (the Jackal LE it turned out to be) and that did take a few months to develop, test and get approved. It will also be a few months before you see the Spectre 2.

It took MONTHS for Motiv to replace with the Jackal LE. That wasn't explained upfront as I recall, at least for how long it would take if you wanted the new version. Did Motiv "make" us wait that long? No, so my statement wasn't entirely accurate.

I'm probably being petty, but I recall Motiv's handling of the Jackal situation to be very sloppy and unprofessional. Thus far, Storm has been excellent.

And no, I'm not a Storm fanboy, I throw more Motiv than anything else.

I agree with Motiv's handling of the process. It was clunky. BUT......it was the first time a ball had been stripped of approval and Motiv (along with everyone else) was learning as we went through the process.

I think every ball company, including Storm now, used Motiv's case and handling of the issue as a what to do and what not to do example if and when a similar situation occurred to them.

I can agree with this. Storm does have the benefit of seeing what not to do.  Motiv WAS treading on unfamiliar ground.

Kudos to storm for giving out new balls and letting you keep your unnapproved one.

However, I wasn't super impressed with the choices for replacement. It should have been anything in the line up....

They couldn't really do that...can't allow people to replace a $249MSRP ball with a $289MSRP ball.  Perhaps they could have allowed people to do that and had them pay the difference in price..."upgrade to a Nova for $50".

I heard a wild, unsubstantiated figure that there may be 15,000 Spectre balls that need to be replaced.  Based on that number, the $50 drilling contribution alone is costing them $750,000.  Plus the cost of the replacement balls.  This might end up costing them a few million dollars, not to mention the logistical headache it is already giving them.

I think what they are doing is the best they can do.

At the end of the day, I am still curious as to how that cover got to be too soft.  It isnt like R3S has never been used before.  Or maybe I missed it somewhere in the 8 pages of responses.  LOL!!!!

That number seem very high.  That may have been the number of balls produced originally, not the number already drilled.

Exactly what I was thinking. I had two of them, but only one drilled. I know my local pro shops both had a few Spectre's in their inventory as well.

Ron Hickland put some numbers up, thanks to the help of working with David Henson, who worked at EBI for over 50 years. He specialized in quality checking while there, but specialized in hardness.

https://ctdbowling.com/blogs/news/the-effects-of-bowling-ball-hardness-what-is-special-about-the-purple-hammer-bowling-ball

They went through the gambit of balls, going back to the Black Hammer from 1983, all the way up to the Spectre, as well as a few tests including bowling footprint, as well as  what happens when you have a ball under 73D and over 73D thrown on a flat pattern.

Youtube video of it below:


If anything, it's safe to say at least that the Spectre was banned due to softness.

BL.

Looks like they’re going to have issues with the Purple hammers from any year that were manufactured by Ebonite. That 2019 is soft already.

This is why I'm interested in how the first overseas Black Widow Purple Pearl Urethane is going to hold up to any hardness test. That was a Hopkinsville pour, and certified in July of 2019. I'm wondering if it used the same formula as the Purple Pearl Urethane from that same year. If it did, it could be subject to the softness that you've indicated as well.

BL.