BallReviews

Equipment Boards => Track => Topic started by: BBU on December 24, 2010, 12:57:32 PM

Title: Track Numbering System
Post by: BBU on December 24, 2010, 12:57:32 PM
I looked every where will no avail! Can someone point me in the right direction?! LOL Im looking for the numbering system online. Such as a chart and what not so that I know what each ball does, and which one will work for me.

Thanks
--------------------
900 Global
http://www.900Global.com
Title: Re: Track Numbering System
Post by: charlest on December 24, 2010, 09:04:09 PM
You are looking for absolutes. There are none. Sorry. That's life.

There are plenty of relativistic numbers. Track has one. Lanemasters has another.

Balls can be "numbered", one in relation to another. None, aboslutely no one will have an absolute scale for you to take or use measurements by or for.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
BowlingChat.net (http://"http://www.bowlingchat.net")
Title: Re: Track Numbering System
Post by: BBU on December 24, 2010, 09:38:03 PM
Let me rephrase what Im asking....

The first number of the ball name represents the performance line of the ball.  The second two numbers is the core strength. The letter following the numbers represents the strength of the cover stock on the ball.  In the 930T, for example, 9 is the performance level, 30 indicates a 0.030 core differential, and the T stands for traction.  So with that being said the 930T is a strong ball meant to roll early and in heavy oil.

This is what Im looking for, but in a chart form, for all of the balls.
--------------------
900 Global
http://www.900Global.com
Title: Re: Track Numbering System
Post by: urbanshaft on December 24, 2010, 10:09:19 PM
the first number is coverstock strength
not performance level
Title: Re: Track Numbering System
Post by: duvallite on December 25, 2010, 12:17:32 PM
quote:
Let me rephrase what Im asking....

The first number of the ball name represents the performance line of the ball.  The second two numbers is the core strength. The letter following the numbers represents the strength of the cover stock on the ball.  In the 930T, for example, 9 is the performance level, 30 indicates a 0.030 core differential, and the T stands for traction.  So with that being said the 930T is a strong ball meant to roll early and in heavy oil.

This is what Im looking for, but in a chart form, for all of the balls.


Does Track have a chart like this somewhere?  I'd like to see it also.  Kind of been interested in the 505T, but would like to see how it compares to the other balls, like the 715T or the 916AT.
Title: Re: Track Numbering System
Post by: Weaser on December 25, 2010, 12:41:03 PM
To my knowledge, no such chart exists for the general public unless the staffers have access to one. Maybe Fig will chime in???
--------------------
Gary
Proud Member of the Track Legion
Tag Team Coaching Success Story
Title: Re: Track Numbering System
Post by: kidlost2000 on December 25, 2010, 02:06:03 PM
You got the basics of it from what they have said about the number series before.

3 is the low series, next is the 5 and on up. Next two numbers is the MB rating, followed by the letter for ball shape. Angular, control, traction.

A 5 series should not hook more then a 6, or 7 or 9.

Take it for what it is worth. They mention it in the vids they have released on their site going over each ball. Check those out as well.
--------------------
Be good, or be good at it.
Title: Re: Track Numbering System
Post by: scotts33 on December 25, 2010, 03:08:32 PM
For the Track balls that I have added this year.  A 916AT, 920T, 715C and 505A all of them were very close to how BTM rated them.  I think you can go by those BTM reviews and get a very good comparison and draw your own conclusions.

BY the way just because...say for instance the 505T is rated as a lower priced entry that doesn't mean it doesn't rate up their in total hook.  I think some bowlers/prospective buyers don't understand that fact.
--------------------
Scott

Title: Re: Track Numbering System
Post by: BBU on December 26, 2010, 02:33:45 AM
hanks for the input. Like Scott said, I also know of a guy that had a 7 series ball that hooked more than his 9, basically because he drilled it pin down and the other pin up. They dont mention that either lol
--------------------
900 Global
http://www.900Global.com
Title: Re: Track Numbering System
Post by: cisco1869 on December 27, 2010, 11:46:47 AM
quote:
hanks for the input. Like Scott said, I also know of a guy that had a 7 series ball that hooked more than his 9, basically because he drilled it pin down and the other pin up. They dont mention that either lol
--------------------
900 Global
http://www.900Global.com


Also remember the 9 series may not hook more than others on all conditions but the 9 series should handle / hook better in heavy oil conditions.
Title: Re: Track Numbering System
Post by: Juggernaut on December 27, 2010, 12:20:06 PM
This post is just a microcosm of how screwy the numbering systems can get.

 Just like Big B and their C-system balls. They had the 2.5, then came the 3.5 which was strong, setting the stage for the 4.5.

 Because the 4.5 was numerically higher, many though that meant it would be stronger (Read: handle oil better) than the 3.5, but that just wasn't the case, so many who got it with that assumption were displeased.

 When you give the public something with BUILT-IN preconception, such as a numbering system, confusion and disappointment are sure to follow.


 EXAMPLE: How can a 5 series ball possibly outhook a 9 series ball, especially since the 9 series cost more and is supposed to be a higher performance level ball?

 Not too hard if the 5 series ball is the 505T with a matte finish.
--------------------
Good transactions list in my profile

Title: Re: Track Numbering System
Post by: NoseofRI on December 29, 2010, 03:06:53 PM
quote:
Just like Big B and their C-system balls. They had the 2.5, then came the 3.5 which was strong, setting the stage for the 4.5.

 Because the 4.5 was numerically higher, many though that meant it would be stronger (Read: handle oil better) than the 3.5, but that just wasn't the case, so many who got it with that assumption were displeased.


I see a major issue with this that has nothing to do with the numbering system.  Why is it that someone would be buying this ball "blindly" without any research at all?  If you buy a ball, THEN ask what it's supposed to do, how is that on the ball company in any manner?  

Was everyone also to assume the Mission 2.0 was stronger than the Mission?  

As I see it, Track has been the only company to specifically say "the higher the number the stronger the ball" in a matter of speaking.  

Therefore, for someone to just assume they know exactly what a ball company was thinking with a new release is just absurd.
Title: Re: Track Numbering System
Post by: Juggernaut on December 29, 2010, 03:21:03 PM
quote:
quote:
Just like Big B and their C-system balls. They had the 2.5, then came the 3.5 which was strong, setting the stage for the 4.5.

 Because the 4.5 was numerically higher, many though that meant it would be stronger (Read: handle oil better) than the 3.5, but that just wasn't the case, so many who got it with that assumption were displeased.


I see a major issue with this that has nothing to do with the numbering system.  Why is it that someone would be buying this ball "blindly" without any research at all?  If you buy a ball, THEN ask what it's supposed to do, how is that on the ball company in any manner?  

Was everyone also to assume the Mission 2.0 was stronger than the Mission?  

As I see it, Track has been the only company to specifically say "the higher the number the stronger the ball" in a matter of speaking.  

Therefore, for someone to just assume they know exactly what a ball company was thinking with a new release is just absurd.


 Absurd as it may seem to you and I, it does happen.

  Not every bowler is nearly as informed as most of the people here, and many go on the assumption that newer and higher numbered must mean stronger and better.

 It was posted somewhere on this site that even Carmen Salvino said that the new Brunswick ball should've been called the C-system 1.5 because of its weaker performance. http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=267258&ForumID=2&CategoryID=2

 You would really be amazed at what people don't know..................
--------------------
Good transactions list in my profile

Title: Re: Track Numbering System
Post by: charlest on December 30, 2010, 10:04:56 PM

 
The Grudge wrote on 12/29/2010 3:32 PM:Classy as always, charlest.  Misunderstood the question and can't man up and apologize.

I'll ask again, ballwhore, what makes you qualified to comment on anything regarding bowling balls?
--------------------
Don't hold a Grudge, just have a nice day.
 
 
BBU already added detail to help others who would & could easily interpret his question as I did.
 
Man  up? Puh-leeze! You're not interested in that, in the least, are you? Just like you're not interested in "qualifications". All you're interested in twisting anything I say to suit your own jealousies. Such a pathetic quality in a bowler or human being. Do you "qualify" for either position? I kind of doubt it, based on the diatribes you seem to be so adept at instituting. So sad. So very pitiful. Please consider this the last of of our discussions.
 
As for true qualifications - please ask the people who have thanked me for the advise I have offered over the past 8 years here. When you begin to share whatever wisdom you may have to offer, then you will not question others making similar offers to help. 


"None are so blind as those who will not see."
BowlingChat.net