Author Topic: Q&A pt 2 (Read 9451 times)

VBPadvertising · « **on:** August 13, 2007, 07:51:47 AM »

OK guys and gals, it has come to my attention that I have missed some questions that came up lately. I am ready, if you want to shoot them at me.

Jason Wonders
Visionary Bowling Products

mrbowlingnut · « **Reply #1 on:** August 13, 2007, 03:53:51 PM »

Are you working on newer stronger reactive veneer's like say Ebonite and/or are you going to go with stronger cores in the near future???

scotts33 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 13, 2007, 04:51:31 PM »

quote:
Are you working on newer stronger reactive veneer's like say Ebonite and/or are you going to go with stronger cores in the near future???

Sheesh Barry how strong do you want a ball? Just you fluffers need more.

Actually for what I see Solid Ogre and FMG are as strong as I need.

--------------------
Scott

NJStroker · « **Reply #3 on:** August 13, 2007, 05:24:07 PM »

Do u guys have any plans for a particle pearl ogre? or any other line?

mrbowlingnut · « **Reply #4 on:** August 13, 2007, 05:30:37 PM »

Well where i bowl it takes strong stuff on the fresh patterns and then strong cores to get through the carrydown with weaker covers. .050 diffs are for the carrydown shot on edit, for me the Immortal pearl went pretty straight.

Edited on 8/13/2007 5:36 PM

VBPadvertising · « **Reply #5 on:** August 13, 2007, 05:46:10 PM »

Hi BowlingNut...

It really depends on what you call stronger. I don't really think there is a coverstock on the market that can handle more oil than our AMB Particle cover, and the React-A-Tack and Eradicator covers are both pretty strong solid reactive covers.

I know there are some covers that absorb more oil, but it also affects the longevity of a ball. Personally, I like the fact that our covers are as strong as they are, without having to worry about them dying from one seasons use.

Obviously, we will continue to work on developing new coverstocks to combat changing oils and lane conditions, but I don't know how much stronger people really want the equipment.

As far as the cores are concerned, I don't think they get much stronger than the AMB core (Immortals and/or Centaur AMB's). I can only assume when you say stronger, you mean lower RG for earlier roll, and yes this is something that we are working on.

It may sound really biased, and I guess it is, but I believe that we have
a)the strongest ball in oil (AMB Particle)
b)one of the most versatile balls on the market (FM Gryphon and or solid Ogre)
c)very strong skid/snap balls (G-3, Immortal Pearl, and SS Ogre)
d)best reactive for dry lanes (G/B Centaur)
e)one of the most well rounded lines in the industry

OK, since this question has to do with what we are doing in the future, I would like to pose this question. Is there anything that we don't have a coverstock for? (other than polyester...LOL) What do you feel we should work on developing next (keep in mind, we already have a few more balls in the works, so it won't be the next ball)?

Jason Wonders
Visionary Bowling Products

VBPadvertising · « **Reply #6 on:** August 13, 2007, 05:57:13 PM »

Hi Walter,

This question has been posed many times, and eventually we will have a particle pearl that we release. To this point, I have still not found a particle pearl cover, that I could make react differently than a solid with the right surface adjustment. It's interesting really, because a lot of bowlers are upset with the fact that balls die off quicker when they have particle or oil absorbing covers, yet they still want manufacturers to make them.

Another question posed to you guys and gals. What does a particle pearl do, that you can't get a solid reactive to do by changing the surface preparation? Keep in mind that different cores will create a different look as well, so it has to be cover vs cover.

Mouthbig - I'm not sure. I will have to check with our webmaster and see when it is going to be announced. I should have an answer for you tomorrow.

Jason Wonders
Visionary Bowling Products

mab · « **Reply #7 on:** August 13, 2007, 06:34:39 PM »

Jason, I throw 14# equipment and am looking at the Ogre line what are the rg and diff #'s I can't seem to find them listed anywhere. I realize that the core dynamics change from 16 & 15 down to 14,usually going up slightly.
--------------------
He Who Dies With The Most Toys Wins
Roto Grip King Of Them All !!!

NJStroker · « **Reply #8 on:** August 13, 2007, 07:27:28 PM »

quote:
Hi Walter,

This question has been posed many times, and eventually we will have a particle pearl that we release. To this point, I have still not found a particle pearl cover, that I could make react differently than a solid with the right surface adjustment. It's interesting really, because a lot of bowlers are upset with the fact that balls die off quicker when they have particle or oil absorbing covers, yet they still want manufacturers to make them.

Another question posed to you guys and gals. What does a particle pearl do, that you can't get a solid reactive to do by changing the surface preparation? Keep in mind that different cores will create a different look as well, so it has to be cover vs cover.

Mouthbig - I'm not sure. I will have to check with our webmaster and see when it is going to be announced. I should have an answer for you tomorrow.

Jason Wonders
Visionary Bowling Products

Well i figure this, once the heads go, u usually end up with carrydown. I would like a ball that can go through the heads and can fight the carrydown, solids really cant fight the carrydown as good as the particles, thats y i would like one. And to get the solid reactive to fight the carrydown, u need a grit that wont clear the drying heads.

Spike2112 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 13, 2007, 08:54:56 PM »

Jason,

Spike here. Just wanted to drop a line stating I'm a big Visionary fan and currently own 5 different Visionary balls. I couldn't be happier with the reaction and scoring with all of your equipment. Just a quick question regarding #6 I'm picking up from a fellow BR member. Getting a mint condition 15# Blue Warlock and I can't find much information regarding this one. I'm a power tweener who tracks very high and was wondering if this ball is high flaring if drilled strong. I prefer pin under ring drillings, but some balls roll over my thumb if they flare alot. Will it handle a heavy house shot in box condition? Thanks for any information you can give me on this older piece!

Spike

VBPadvertising · « **Reply #10 on:** August 13, 2007, 08:57:01 PM »

Hi Walter,

Thank you for your response. Do you find that with the fronts gone, and carrydown on the back, that a pearl particle clears the heads easy enough? The reason that I ask, is that from my testing, I have found that a particle pearls don't clear the heads very well unless they are polished, and once they are polished they lose some of their ability to handle carrydown. Very much the same effect as a strong solid reactive.

Once you lower the load of particle in the ball so that it can clear the heads easier, it loses some of it's ability to handle the heavier carrydown.

I don't know how anyone else feels, but I have found that once the heads start to go, and the carrydown starts to cause a problem, I switch to a higher differential ball that will create a little stronger read in the midlane. As long as the ball gets into a good roll, I haven't found enough carrydown that a solid reactive won't chew through it.

That being said, we have received enough requests for a particle pearl, that we will eventually come out with one. I just want to make sure that it is what people are looking for.

Jason Wonders
Visionary Bowling Products

NJStroker · « **Reply #11 on:** August 13, 2007, 09:00:28 PM »

quote:
Hi Walter,

Thank you for your response. Do you find that with the fronts gone, and carrydown on the back, that a pearl particle clears the heads easy enough? The reason that I ask, is that from my testing, I have found that a particle pearls don't clear the heads very well unless they are polished, and once they are polished they lose some of their ability to handle carrydown. Very much the same effect as a strong solid reactive.

Once you lower the load of particle in the ball so that it can clear the heads easier, it loses some of it's ability to handle the heavier carrydown.

I don't know how anyone else feels, but I have found that once the heads start to go, and the carrydown starts to cause a problem, I switch to a higher differential ball that will create a little stronger read in the midlane. As long as the ball gets into a good roll, I haven't found enough carrydown that a solid reactive won't chew through it.

That being said, we have received enough requests for a particle pearl, that we will eventually come out with one. I just want to make sure that it is what people are looking for.

Jason Wonders
Visionary Bowling Products

Well speaking for me, i have a low rev-rate so its pretty easy for me to get it to clear the heads. The solid reactive just hooks too much in the front for me

VBPadvertising · « **Reply #12 on:** August 13, 2007, 09:19:03 PM »

Hi Mab,

I will have to check on the figures for a 14# Ogre in the morning when I get into the office. For 15# balls, the RG is 2.59 and the Diff is .029". Don't let the lower differential scare you off though, these balls have plenty of pop.

Hi Spike,

Nothing like going way back....lol. That was actually our very first release, and believe it or not, it is still a really nice piece. The original twilight Blue Warlock, was developed to be a solid all around ball. Depending on your style, it should be able to handle the med-heavy house shots in box condition.

It's not going to be the ball to use on floods, and it isn't a hook monster that will really impress people with it's total hook, but it will get the job done. I don't have the figures in front of me, but if I remember correctly, the diff was in the upper 40's or low 50's, and will create about 3-6" flare depending on your rev rate and ball speed.

If you have our Gryphons, I believe the total flare potential on the blue Warlock was pretty similar to these. If you want more details, shoot me an email at vbpadvertising@aol.com and I will get more specific information for you in the morning.

Jason Wonders
Visionary Bowling Products

charlest · « **Reply #13 on:** August 13, 2007, 10:03:56 PM »

quote:
Hi Walter,

This question has been posed many times, and eventually we will have a particle pearl that we release. To this point, I have still not found a particle pearl cover, that I could make react differently than a solid with the right surface adjustment. It's interesting really, because a lot of bowlers are upset with the fact that balls die off quicker when they have particle or oil absorbing covers, yet they still want manufacturers to make them.

Another question posed to you guys and gals. What does a particle pearl do, that you can't get a solid reactive to do by changing the surface preparation? Keep in mind that different cores will create a different look as well, so it has to be cover vs cover.

Jason Wonders
Visionary Bowling Products

Jason,

1. Let me tell you what I have seen, and in my experience, regarding solid resin vs particle pearls:

To my eye, particle pearls can cover the same oil amount/pattern that solid resin balls do, but they seem to cvoer more boards while doing it
PLUS they seem to handle carrydown better while getting the same length with more backend AND more overall hook. I have seen this with both old particle pearls like the Brunswick Riot Zone, middle older particle pearls like the Hammer Razor Blade and newer ones like the Storm Pyro and the Shift.

The factors of more overall hook and more backend compared to solid resins seems, to my eye, to allow them to handle carrydown better than rougher and earlier hooking solid resin which also handle carrydown, but reduce carry power to an unspecified degree.

2. I would like to see the Ogre coverstock placed in a similar core to the current Ogre BUT with a greater RG differential (like the old Warlock DC cores: medium-high Rg and higher RG differential). I think this will allow them to handle carrydown better than they do now. I see this in my semi-polished "pumpkin" Ogre (polished before the Black/Purple one came out). I think a higher RG diff core drilled correctly would allow it (and the "blurple" Ogre) to handle carrydown better than simply sanding the surface rougher. Most times, sanding the surface won't allow the same ball to be used on the lanes with carrydown.

Thank you.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

shelley · « **Reply #14 on:** August 13, 2007, 10:23:59 PM »

quote:
Thank you for your response. Do you find that with the fronts gone, and carrydown on the back, that a pearl particle clears the heads easy enough? The reason that I ask, is that from my testing, I have found that a particle pearls don't clear the heads very well unless they are polished, and once they are polished they lose some of their ability to handle carrydown. Very much the same effect as a strong solid reactive.

I'd try a PP at a high grit sanding with no polish. I think a lot of folks like that 2000-grit sanded finish for particle pearls and solid reactives because it helps with the length but doesn't skid in the carrydown like a polish.

Visionary hasn't released anything with a high-grit finish that I've noticed. 1500-grit polished, but the matte-finish stuff is all 1000-grit and duller. Even Brunswick is starting to use high-grit Abralon finishes because they provide length without the susceptibility to carrydown that polished balls usually have.

SH

Edited on 8/13/2007 10:25 PM

Author Topic: Q&A pt 2 (Read 9451 times)

VBPadvertising

Q&A pt 2

mrbowlingnut

Re: Q&A pt 2

scotts33

Re: Q&A pt 2

NJStroker

Re: Q&A pt 2

mrbowlingnut

Re: Q&A pt 2

VBPadvertising

Re: Q&A pt 2

VBPadvertising

Re: Q&A pt 2

mab

Re: Q&A pt 2

NJStroker

Re: Q&A pt 2

Spike2112

Re: Q&A pt 2

VBPadvertising

Re: Q&A pt 2

NJStroker

Re: Q&A pt 2

VBPadvertising

Re: Q&A pt 2

charlest

Re: Q&A pt 2

shelley

Re: Q&A pt 2