Author Topic: Fuze Igniter (Read 16358 times)

admin · « **on:** December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM »

Specifications are as follows:

Coverstock: Aggressive Reactive SS

Color: Blue/Gold

Hardness: 78-80

Factory Finish: Rubbing and Finishing Compound Double Buff

Core Dynamics:

RG Max: 2.563

RG Min: 2.520

RG Diff: 0.043

RG Avg: 4.1

Performance:

Hook Potential: 105

Length: 115

BreakPoint Shape: 85

Available Weights: 12-16 Pounds

View the official Spec sheet including Drill Instructions

matjoh300 · « **Reply #16 on:** December 09, 2002, 08:25:10 PM »

WOW thats all i can say WOW, this is the best ball i have ever had drilled for me, the skid snap reaction is great, oh yeah and ddi i mention this ball hits like a bomb, now i know why its called a fuze, it explodes on impact, and if u r going to miss ur mark dont miss inside miss outside it comes screaming back.

kd300 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 13, 2002, 11:33:59 PM »

I got this ball last june at the Mini in Las Vegas. This ball is awsome. Shot back to back 300's and have had over 25 700's with just this ball this year in leagues and tourneys. definitely a go to ball for anyone that puts a little hand in it.

thegame · « **Reply #18 on:** January 11, 2003, 09:15:45 PM »

I will probably have a little different review than some others of this ball, but here goes: Igniter is 15 lbs. 2 inch pin, drilled with the pin under the fingers, and CG almost directly under the pin. This ball does not hook nearly as much for me as I expected, but when I play more direct with it, if I am in the pocket, it's almost a lock to be a strike. Not really what I had in mind with this ball, but it's working, and may just be the dry lane ball I was looking for. I've heard many others say that this is a much stronger ball, so I'm not sure if it's the layout (I've never had a ball drilled like this before) or what, but there is certainly nothing wrong with the carry. Brunswick is starting to get quite a reputation again, and making some great products.

Can you Rev · « **Reply #19 on:** January 04, 2004, 03:22:16 PM »

Igniter is drilled 5 x 3 with the pin below my bridge and the cg in the thumb positive quadrant. Balance hole is 1" below my PAP. Coverstock it adjusted down to a 1200 grit wetsand as I do with most pearls to smooth out the breakpoint and fight over/under issues.

I've used the igniter primarily on a 39ft medium (for most people), I call it light oil christmas tree that has rather strong backends. I've also used it on a second shift, shorter pattern, but not enough to comment accurately on how the ball performs on that condition.

Anyhow, on the 39ft. medium oil pattern the igniter clears the heads fairly well. The ball revs up quite hard through the midlane, and has a rather angular move at the breakpoint which finishes with a hard arcing move to the pocket.

At first the ball was rather deceiving to me at the breakpoint, because generally balls that are as angular as this ball at the breakpoint will result in a really wild flip on the backend. However the igniter's backend reaction is noticeably more modest than most stronger pearl reactives on the backends. With this type of breakpoint and backend it has been easy for me to keep up with what is happening on the lanes, and it seems that I never have to make any drastic adjustments to keep the ball flush in the pocket.

The igniter's reaction is not the type of reaction one would want to use to try to open up the lanes, as the ball generally will not make it back if I miss right. There is a bit of hold on the slight tugs, but in general on this pattern the igniter does not create a lot of area. What it does do is provide as consistent and easy to read of a line to the pocket as it's user allows it to provide. If I do my part, it for sure does it's part. I would imagine that a different layout, perhaps a stacked layout might be better suited for people who want more ability to open the lanes up with the igniter. However I personally would caution against such as the tendency of this ball seems to be to get length and help control wet-dries moreso than to open up lanes and create large amounts of area.

The igniter does seem to be sensitive to hand position changes, which I like in a ball as it allows me complete control over the ball's reaction throughout the lane. If you are one who struggles with consistency in hand position I can foresee you having troubles getting a consistent reaction out of the igniter as it will do what you make it do, and nothing else. In general I start out the set staying more behind the ball, giving it an earlier roll and a smoother backend, and simply adjust slightly throughout the night to coming around the ball a bit more to get a tick more length and recovery out of the ball as I chase it further in. If I stick with staying behind the ball too long it will tell me very quickly by standing up just short of the pocket. I know then that I need to make the adjustment to get a bit more length on the given lane. Seems like I always know what this ball is going to do, which is much more than I can say about many other pearl reactives I've had ahold of.

I'll have to add to the review as I get more experience with the ball on things such as how to know when to go to a different ball, etc. So far the only answer I have on when to switch to a weaker ball is simply whenever you get in deeper than you are comfortable playing on the lanes. It seems to like deeper, tighter lines as much as anything, so the limit to how deep you play the lanes with the ball is simply how deep you are comfortable playing.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time on hit and carry. I can carry with a white dot, so I have no problems carrying with this ball. I do however often think that what this ball does to the headpin should be illegal because it is so much fun to watch.

All in all the igniter is one of the best pearl reactives I've thrown. It provides a strong but easily readable and controllable reaction, and allows me to make whatever adjustments I feel necessary. People who like those qualities in a ball will like the igniter.

If you are not consistent with your release, and you want a ball that will react in a manner that corrects for release inconsistencies, you WILL NOT like the igniter. It does what you make it do, not what you think it should do regardless of how you release it.

So for a brief synopsis:

1. Hits and carries as well as anything
2. Gives bowler a lot of feedback as to what the lanes are doing
3. Very powerful yet equally controllable
4. Great for wet-dry conditions
5. If you don't like your igniters send them to me

LuckyLefty · « **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2004, 03:45:01 PM »

Really love this core!

As I often say, turnin, burnin, churnin.

A marvelous blend of revs, midlane and slightly angular move. Just like my Fuze Detonator just longer.

3 inch pin out drilled 4 1/4 X 4 with the cg down 1/2 inch. A weighthole on the VAL slightly down and angled out 1/2 inch. Tried without the weighthole and had too much skid and over/under. Therefore this weighthole gives me the increase in midlane and retains backend.

The condition was freshly oiled in this house which usually requires all the particle one can apply like the Reaction Roll or Detonator. But today the shot seemed to be dryer with even coverstocks like my Rebel Ecs and Time Zone. Both a little grabby. Surprisingly the Reaction Roll worked great standing 25 throwing 12 to 8 while the igniter wanted to be ripped straight up 8 on the left.

Once I ripped it this ball would rev,rev in the heads(fast), start churning to try to grab on this synthetic house in the midlane. Makes it's grab after the pattern and angular move and then strong roll in to the pocket.

This ball was scotch brited green to 600 and then hit with black magic.
I thought I would get a Red Fuze but this ball with it's slightly higher rg and harder coverstock definitely seems to push easier in the heads than a Demo Zone or Ragin Red. Lots of push lots of revs(contrary to previous reviews).

The carry is awesome if you stay aggressive with this baby! Spinners climbers, Flushers and mixers all did the job.

Ball this reminds me of is my old Impact zone but this drilling suits me better getting me a little more control in the midlane. Impact label this more stacked.
I could see on lighter mediums definitely getting some real high scoring from this pearl monster. Of the current balls the great Blade pearl is very similar this ball ever so slightly more angular.

If you do get this ball revving strong in the heads(I had no problem) and the oil pattern is in that 36 foot range you will carry for hours!

REgards,

Luckylefty
PS one of the best cores in bowling!

stormpowerstroker · « **Reply #21 on:** May 02, 2005, 02:25:13 PM »

PAP: 4 5/8 and 1/8 up
Layout: Rico1 w/weight hole 25/32 2" deep

The main reason why I drilled this ball is because I want to check out what the hype was behind this drilling. I don't normally use Big B equipment, but I've only heard about this drilling being used with success on Big B balls, so I plugged up my Igniter and tried it out.
This has got to be my most even rolling ball that I have drilled up in the past 2 years. In over/under shots this ball shines. I tried this ball on 2 different day, and 2 different conditions and its still hasn't let me down. The one other thing that I like about this drilling is that it keeps the pins low, and they don't fly around so much.

--------------------
Got ONIONS???

UCSBBowl · « **Reply #22 on:** July 31, 2005, 04:07:12 AM »

Me: Right handed power stroking ninja bowler (can't hear the ball hit the lanes)

Ball: 16lbs, pin above and right of ring finger 4 1/2" from PAP, cg straight down on midline, no x-hole, coverstock OOB condition.

This is my only true skid/flip ball in the bag, and while may not be 'true' skif/flippy like a Storm and the like, is flippy for a Brunswick cover/core combinaiton. The ball is all backend on any pattern above light oil. The ball wants to react off dry and will have fits with broken down heads. A favorite ball for above medium sport shots. I can just feed the ball down the lane to a breakpoint and trust that the ball will make a predictable move left.

Josh

--------------------
*I like my women like I like my coffee - In a plastic cup - Eddie Izzard

dizzyfugu · « **Reply #23 on:** June 30, 2008, 09:49:33 AM »

The Fuze Igniter in a nutshell:

Interesting concept: hard shell and a medium strength core for extra length

Limited user group: not a ball for fluffers, you need some hand to exploit the ball’s potential

Suited for medium-dry to medium shots,

Can handle oilier conditions due to good grip on dry back end boards

Skids OOB on (slightest) oil, therefore excellent length but allergic to carrydown

Why this ball?

Some BR.com users might know my affinity with "old school equipment", and the Fuze Igniter is no exception

. Besides, no review since 3 years for this piece, time to shed some current light on the Igniter’s remarkable ball concept and potential.

About me:
Style = Stroker/mild Tweener, right-handed
Speed = ~14 mph
PAP = 5" & 7/8" up
Axis tilt = 18,7°
Revs = ~275 RPM at release
For more details, check out my profile, please.

Length has always been an issue for me due to my slower ball speed, and the Igniter became more interesting in recent times because I liked its technical concept: take a strong coverstock (Aggressive Reactive, a juiced-up PK18 derivate), but make it harder - just about as hard as a polyester ball with a D-scale rating of 78-80 (“normal” reactive balls are in the 73-78 range). Add a med-low RG/med. differential core, and the result is a ball with good innate length without the need for a high RG to push it down the lane, because it will skid on a smaller footprint and then rev up more easily. From current balls, I think Lanemaster’s Hornet is the only one to follow a similar concept, but also embedded in the company’s different design philosophy.

Nevertheless, good experience with a similar hard-shell concept with my Slate Blue Gargoyle for dry lanes made the Igniter a potential candidate for trials, if I’d ever find one in good shape.

Besides, I already owned the Raging Red Fuze (and liked it for its great mid lane performance and steam roller back end) as well as the Eliminator (still have it and use it with a 1.500 grit surface as my heavy oil ball). Being very content with these former high end pieces from 2000-2002, Brunswick’s Fuze balls had a good rep from personal experience so far.

The ball and its setup:

As often in life, luck finds you on its own. Out of the blue I came across a NIB Igniter in perfect shape and was immediately tempted, despite the initial EUR 100,- price tag (almost $150, the current equivalent of a NIB Power Groove in Germany). As a further coincidence I had been looking for a pearl ball for medium conditions at that time, but I wanted/needed a ball with a small pin distance and not too much top weight for an easy-to-control pin-under-fingers setup. While the Fuze Igniter's general technical specs and its hard shell would have been a (theoretical) perfect match for my needs, this particular specimen on sale would unfortunately have both a rather huge pin distance and top weight. So I passed on it, with a bleeding heart... and have to thank CharlesT as “voice of reason” in this dark hour. Many thanks, Jeff

...but you always meet twice in life! The ball did not sell for its original price, so the price was halved after 2 weeks, and I stumbled across it again. This made me throw any reluctance concerning pin distance and top weight over board. For EUR 50,- for a NIB ball, even for a 2002 piece, this sounded promising, since a NIB polyester spare ball is more expensive around here!
Consequently, I decided to postpone the control idea and go flippy with the Igniter, following the nature of this hard and glossy pearl piece

The ball came NIB with:

15.15 lbs. gross weight

4.5” pin distance

4.2 ounces top weight

Here a picture of the undrilled

With the long pin, positioning it with my high track above the fingers was mandatory, creating length - plus the high top weight, which would enhance this effect. A true and classic skid/snap piece!

I had the ball drilled up at Michaels' Pro Shop in Duisburg, Germany, run by Germany's national team player and Brunswick staffer Michael Kraemer, a great source for drilling expertise, help and service (and also very patient with ball nut cases like me

). Credits to the shop team!

The result became a conservative 4.25x4.25 drilling, with the pin ending up 1" above my ring finger at a 1 o’clock position, slightly moved towards PAP. This stacked setup has worked well for me on many balls before, and I'd have some benchmarks to judge the Igniter's overall performance.

======*===
===o=o====
==========
======#===
==========
====O=====
==========

* = Pin (in ring finger hole position)
# = CG

No x-hole was necessary, leaving room for future adjustments. Clear oval grips plus a black urethane thumb slug completed the setup. For starters, I left the surface as it was, a rubbing compound "double buff" finish which would be an equivalent to the current High Gloss factory finish, just cleaning it thoroughly.

The testing program:

A) 38' tournament pattern (5.2:1 ratio), 2004 Qubica synth surface:
The Igniter’s maiden flight took place at Treff Bowling in Duisburg, the pro shop’s location where I had the ball drilled up. Due to an upcoming tournament the lane crew had been tuning the planned 38’ flat tournament pattern with no intended recovery in the gutter area, and it had been open for public training. In the first place I used this occasion to check how my benchmark Revolution Renegade (with a 4.5x4.5 stacked drilling) would fare in the long run on this pattern, but with the new ball at hand I was curious to see what it would do on this more demanding situation.

So, after 4 games with the Renegade on the fresh lane, which proved to be very effective on a line with my feet at 29th board, playing across 3rd arrow with a narrow swing, I switched to the Igniter. Not knowing what the ball would do, I carefully lined up with my feet at 26th board and aimed for 13th board at the arrows, for a more direct line. It was an instant success: first shot was a perfect strike. And then another, and another… fresh from the drill press, I cooked up a clean 236!

To my surprise the Igniter went much straighter and longer than the Renegade, which I considered with its higher RG, less differential and a polished PK18 solid surface to be the weaker piece. But while the Renegade showed more midlane traction and therefore an earlier, more continuous move, covering more boards in total, the Igniter would float 40’ straight down, show a sharp, tight breakpoint and finish with only a small but continuous hook with not too much entry angle. The overall reaction was less or weaker than expected, and I was a bit disappointed at first, but the result was astonishing, perfect!

It was so easy and effortless to score. The Igniter seemed to create area when there was none to be expected, especially on this rather tough pattern where the Renegade would not recover well from far outside, rather leave washouts or 1-2-7-10 leaves.
In contrast to this, the Igniter’s relatively late but easily controllable hook kept it in the pocket, even on some not-so-good shots. As soon as the cover took hold of something dry, the ball would continuously rev up, delivering its stored energy without overreacting.

The chosen setup seemed to fit my game very well and also match up with the Igniter’s technical concept. The pin mix was very good, too – not as spectacular as with a MoRich ball, but with low pins, no splits at all and a steady mix from various entry angles, as long as it would come close to the 1-3 area.

After this initial “shock”, I switched back to the Renegade (just to check if it had been me or the ball

), then finally back again to the Igniter, and it kept up its great though unspectacular performance at the same line for another clean 200! Wow. Not exactly what I had expected, but with this great results, who am I to argue?

B) 42' medium-oily shot with buffed outsides, 1994 Brunswick AnvilLane:
Further trials in my club house/home alley in Duesseldorf with 1994 Brunswick synth surface. The oil graph as well as “action impressions” can be found in the Igniter reaction and comparison video below.

On this occasion, I wanted to find out how the Igniter would fare on longer and higher volumes of oil, as well in direct comparison with its later and stronger cousin, the Fuze Eliminator (same core design, but lower RG, higher differential and standard solid Aggressive Reactive coverstock plus a light carbide particle load). In fact, the oil pattern was most suitable for the Eliminator (4x3 drilling, 1.500 grit surface), and basically I expected the Igniter to be not that effective at all, rather very squirty and skidding helplessly.

But I was positively surprised, because the shiny Igniter did its job quite well. Lining up for an almost straight shot across 2nd arrow and with my feet at 22nd board on the approach, the Igniter made good use of the dry back end area for its small hook and good finish. In the oil, though, e. g. when missing the target to the left, the ball would not recover at all. In contrast to this, on some shots that were tugged too far outside and close to the gutter, the Igniter showed some surprising recovery which would still result in good and clean hits.

As a benchmark, the Fuze Eliminator ran literally circles around the Igniter, grabbing on the lane much earlier and getting into a roll much sooner due to the 4x3 layout. This allowed a deeper line and showed much more back end reaction. With the Eliminator, I could stand at 26th board with my feet and play across 13th board at the arrows with a real swing and very good recovery. In direct comparison, these 2 balls made a very good combo for anything but extreme conditions.

Despite the fact that the Igniter would skid a lot and not cover many boards on this condition, it still had very good and steady traction once it hit the dry, not overreacting at all. The strong but hard coverstock material paid out and allowed IMHO more room than a weaker coverstock - which would create the respective length through less overall traction, which simply could be not enough on a longer pattern like this.

Another observation was that the Igniter would not absorb much oil, or not absorb it quickly - much like a urethane ball. Wiping it was a must on this oilier shot on order to keep fingers dry and the ball’s surface steady – probably again due to its hardness and less porous surface.

I also tried my Awesome Finish (PK18 solid, polished, low RG, asymmetrical high MB core, pin above ring finger MB stacked, no video footage) as another benchmark, and it would play almost the same line as the Igniter. But the Awesome Finish was much harder to control at the break point when the strong mass bias core kicked in and forced the ball into its end roll. The Igniter was, even though not on its home turf, more effective because it was had a much smoother breakpoint transition and was therefore easier to handle.

All in all, while the Igniter would not thrive on this long(er) oil, but I found that it was still very effective as long as I’d stay aggressive with it. Putting good revs onto it made it very stable and generated a very good back end reaction, exploiting the good traction of the harder Aggressive Reactive coverstock when it finally found some dry area. If I’d play more careful and slow (a natural tactic on a longer and slippery lane like this), the ball would easily become erratic, lack hitting power and even miss its breakpoint.
Again, I “blame” this phenomenon on its hard shell – a reaction which is similar to my hard urethane Slate Blue Gargoyle which also works well on higher oil volumes when I put some hand and authority into the release.

C) Medium THS, probably 35’, 2005 Brunswick AnvilLane:
After more demanding situations I decided to try the Igniter in a more common situation – so I dedided to make a trip to Knippi's Bowling Palace, located at Oberhausen some 20 miles away: a new house, opened in 2005 with 20 lanes, but customer focus is clearly social bowlers, so that only a lighter THS with dubious back end quality as well as not-so-clean approaches were to be expected.

The results were so-so. Not that the Igniter did not move, but I had the impression that the THS blended out much of the tested balls’ (Frankie May Gryphon at 2.000 grit Abralon, polished Revolution Renegade) uniqueness – check the video footage below.

I had most success with the Igniter on a line with my feet at 25th boards and aiming across 13th board at the arrows for a breakpoint out at 8th board. The benchmark Frankie May Gryphon (I considered the Eliminator to be too much ball for the situation, so it stayed at home) would play well on a slightly deeper line, feet at 28th board and aiming across 3rd arrow, but have almost the same break point and back end movement as the Igniter, what made me wonder.
As another benchmark, I also used the Revolution Renegade, and while it proved to be very effective on a more direct line (feet at 22nd board, playing across 2nd arrow and slightly inside of it), it also showed a very similar back end movement. So I am not sure how much this test on a THS tells about the Igniter’s potential, other that it, well, hooks and carries well?

Anyway, the Igniter did not show any problems to get through the head area, even after some games, while I already had to move my feet deeper for the Frankie May Gryphon to keep it in play and in the pocket. And again, the low oil absorption rate created some handling problems through the ball’s slick surface – better wipe it frequently when it is in use!

Lane reactions, utility and comparison video:

Video footage for a Fuze Igniter performance and comparison video was taken during test B) and C), enjoy: 6:45 min. of ball data, general lane performance and direct comparison on 42’ pattern and THS.

Please note: some shots on the 42’ pattern show a lot of loft – this occurred due to high temperature and air humidity on the lanes that day, which made my fingers sweaty and me rather unwillingly use the ‘Kung-Fu death grip’ on the Igniter, which was quite slippery through the non-absorbed oil from the lane, too

Lane utility for tested ball polished OOB surface (pattern length vs. oil volume):

|S M L
|h e o
|o d n
|r . g
|t
_______
|+ X X| Light volume
|X X +| Medium volume
|+ 0 0| Heavy volume

Legend:
X = Best suited with effective control & carry
+ = Fairly suited (works, somehow, but can lack control and effectiveness)
0 = Unsuited (ineffective, either slips helplessly or burns up)

The chart concept is borrowed from Storm's 2003 print catalogue. Surface prep and drillings may change the results, it is just personal experience with the reviewed ball

Some conclusions:

“Light it up long and strong”? Yes, this advertising phrase is a good description for this ball.
The Igniter is an interesting piece! Players like me, with lower speed and average revs, will like its tendency to push well down the lane, thanks to the hard shell. The reaction I get out of the ball is rather unspectacular, but highly effective. I haven’t seen a pearl ball in my hands so far that goes that long (probably also aided by its high pin position and higher top weight), but still remains so controllable at the same time. I expected it to be very itchy, but in fact it turned out to combine its length with the good Aggressive Reactive traction ability which creates surprisingly much room for error where I had not expected it at all.

But: it is a rather special piece. Rev-dominant players will definitively love it, because the cover/core combo provides excellent length and stability when you put a good hand onto the ball, even on oilier shots and at higher speeds. You just need a sound revs/speed ratio, plus some dry area to cling to, and the Igniter will work and deliver. Some aggressiveness is also of great help in order to tap the ball’s potential in any situation.
On the other side, due to its hard shell and innate skidding tendency, the Igniter is IMHO not a good choice for “fluffers”, except for really short oil, where it might be a powerful tool. But on anything else it might prove quite instable and erratic for lower rev players. If excessive ball speed comes into play, too, you can easily push the Igniter through its breakpoint, rendering it as effective as a polyester ball. Its functional “window” is well-defined – not narrow, but IMHO it is not a ball for everyone’s style.

Within these user limits, the Fuze Igniter works well even on light conditions, burnt heads or in late games. IMHO, the Igniter is best suited for (today’s) medium to medium-dry conditions. It has excellent length, but very long oil, any carrydown or unstripped back ends are a serious no-no, at least with its polished OOB surface. But that’s nothing it had been designed for.

Therefore, I rate it as a special solution piece, for a rather limited target group and uses. But within these limits, it is a very good ball, not as exotic as one could expect. Therefore I rate it an overall 8 out of 10.

I consider it to be a powerful addition to “standard” high end pearl reactives, e. g. the Raging Red Fuze, or the even more potent Eliminator and Detonator at its time, but also to today’s more-than-average and high end equipment. When the lanes dry up, this is a very good ball to switch to, as well as a 1st choice for lighter conditions if you prefer the sharp snap reaction, and length combined with a truly rolling back end that higher RG balls simply do not offer in this particular fashion. On a THS it works anyway, so no special comment necessary.

Other comparisons:
The Igniter reminds me much of a Visionary Slate Blue Gargoyle on steroids. It handles in a very similar way for me, but it is overall much stronger, with a lot more grip that creates a rather angular breakpoint shape which you will not achieve with the hard urethane pearl cover on the SBG. But if you like the SBG and are familiar with it – this is a candidate if you want something for oilier conditions.

From current Brunswick balls (status mid 2008), I’d consider it to be a slightly sharper and more potent version of the mid-range Rampage or Swarm, a tad cleaner through the front part of the lane – no wonder, since these are both PK18 pearl balls with a medium RG core and a medium differential, close relatives. You can also think of it as a kind of Punisher, which uses the N’Control PowerBoost coverstock that’s designed for lighter conditions than PK18, but with more overall steam, traction and authority, but similar in length. Not sure if it comes close to the Twisted Fury pearl or Smokin’ Inferno from recent times, but I think it handles rather lighter condition than these.

Its reaction also reminds me of the OOB Awesome Finish, which also has impressive length despite its PK18 solid coverstock, but which would, with its lower RG and strong MB, rev up more violently and be much harder to control (a big issue I had with this ball when I got it new). The Igniter proved to be much less complicated in handling, probably due to its simpler symmetrical core and good traction on dry boards, despite its hardness.

Another MoRich ball it reminds me much of is the Sahara, a cousin of the Punisher with the same cover but an asymmetric core. The Igniter handles very similar conditions, but again, the Igniter, with its simpler core and stronger yet harder coverstock, appears to be easier to handle and overall as a more potent option, with more back end power.

Futher thoughts:
With all the current discussion about limiting balls’ traction abilities and surface texture, the Igniter demonstrates a concept that might come back in the future: Take a basically strong coverstock, but increase its hardness. The ball gains much length and loses traction in the oil, while its back end reaction remains pretty stable – with less oil on the lanes and also less overall hook. It is also not much to sacrifice concerning accuracy, and I find it much easier to control/regulate the material’s hardness than its surface on a microscopic level.

Finally... the looks:
Even though performance comes first most, a final word about the Igniter’s appearance. I must admit that this ball has much visual appeal and is one of the prettiest balls I know. The dark navy/gold pearl coverstock looks just great, supported by the high contrast gold “splotch” in the main dark blue colour and the cloudy PET sparkles in the navy material. This creates a stylish look, without being loud - and the design also has functional uses because it makes it easy to see what the ball actually does down the lane. Nice!
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com''s vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section
Secrets revealed: What''s a fugu?

Edited on 26.09.2011 at 7:26 AM

Edited on 26.10.2011 at 4:10 AM

Author Topic: Fuze Igniter (Read 16358 times)

admin

Fuze Igniter

matjoh300

Re: Fuze Igniter

kd300

Re: Fuze Igniter

thegame

Re: Fuze Igniter

Can you Rev

Re: Fuze Igniter

LuckyLefty

Re: Fuze Igniter

stormpowerstroker

Re: Fuze Igniter

UCSBBowl

Re: Fuze Igniter

dizzyfugu

Re: Fuze Igniter