BallReviews

Equipment Boards => Track => Topic started by: chitown on December 14, 2005, 06:37:28 AM

Title: goo ls
Post by: chitown on December 14, 2005, 06:37:28 AM

The original xception and the delta 1 use the goo ls cover.  Would a dulled down xception be almost as strong as a Delta?

Title: Re: goo ls
Post by: WSUstroker on December 14, 2005, 02:48:20 PM

D Pat is correct, not to mention the 2 balls use different cores.  Dulling a pearl still doesn't produce the same roll as a solid cover.
--------------------
Dan Chambers
Winona State University Bowling
http://www.allbowling.com/journal/public.php?uid=832&leagueid=289

Title: Re: goo ls
Post by: KDawg77 on December 14, 2005, 02:51:22 PM

You couldn't get the back end pop from a particle pearl dull or shined like you would with a reactive; no matter the ball.
--------------------
Oh splendid! This calls for a sexy party!

Title: Re: goo ls
Post by: chitown on December 14, 2005, 02:51:23 PM

I know one is a solid and the other a pearl.  I was just wondering for example if you put magic shine on both would they be very similar in how much oil they can handle?

Title: Re: goo ls
Post by: Brian Pursel on December 14, 2005, 06:26:55 PM

The Delta 1 core reads the midlane stronger than the Morpheus 2 core, everything else equal.  An Xception sanded will give you a more angular breakpoint than the Delta 1.  If you have more axis rotation, go with the Delta 1.  If you have less (more up the back), the Xception with some surface will roll great.

And don't be afraid to have both in the bag!
--------------------
Brian Pursel
VP Marketing
Columbia Industries

Title: Re: goo ls
Post by: chitown on December 15, 2005, 07:58:00 AM

Thanks for the response guys.