win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Urethane comparison  (Read 5460 times)

byronk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Urethane comparison
« on: November 24, 2014, 02:51:42 PM »
Hi all. Looking for a Urethane ball to use on the drier conditions in my aria and still be able to play straighter. Was looking at the Pitch Black and Hammer Blue. Is there anyone that can tell me the difference? And if theres maybe something else I should look at besides these two? Thanks for any input.

 

Gene J Kanak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
Re: Urethane comparison
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2014, 02:59:55 PM »
From what I've seen and heard, the Pitch Black is going to be a stronger urethane than the Blue Hammer. Now, they're both still urethane, so I'm not saying you're going to see a 20-board difference between the two; nevertheless, I think the Pitch Black will be earlier and will cover more boards overall than the Blue Hammer.

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2778
Re: Urethane comparison
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2014, 06:28:30 PM »
Pitch black may be stronger than Blue Hammer.  However in my experience  being able to hook the lane a bit more can be a disadvantage with urethane.  My carry is good when I can go pretty direct, not so good when I have to play a bit of out angle.  I love my Blue Hammer at 4000 with a bit of polish from the lane.  I could certainly get it to hook more by tweaking the shell, but I find enough friction out there that it is not necessary

byronk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Urethane comparison
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2014, 10:01:54 AM »
I've watched a few vids of each ball and yeah the Pitch Black does look stronger. Also looks like at times the Blue is a bit harder to get to work and takes a bit of tweeking with the cover. Still not sure but really leaning towards the Pitch Black.

Dave_in_Rio_Rancho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
Re: Urethane comparison
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2015, 04:18:19 PM »
I own both. I have a slower ball speed and I am very much rev dominant. For me the Blue Hammer has better carry(which to be fair is drilled aggressive - 3 3/4"-pin). The Pitch Black gives me a pretty looking hook but will throw a really wild split at me after three or four strikes in a row on the same line. Corner pins for me are more common with the Pitch Black; with the same line the Blue Hammer leaves the 4-pin or 6-pin.

Of course your mileage may very. If you are balance or speed dominant you might find the results just the opposite.

If I had to drill the Pitch Black again I would go with the most aggressive layout (current 4 1/2"-pin layout) possible as it doesn't drive through the rack the way I would like.

mstevens

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
Re: Urethane comparison
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2015, 04:30:04 PM »
the most "urethane" is the classic U2.
pitch black is stronger than most urethanes
blue hammer (remake) seemed weaker than the U2

Dave_in_Rio_Rancho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
Re: Urethane comparison
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2015, 05:38:09 PM »
I also have the Classic U2 - a great ball. It has a much stronger core than the Blue Hammer and a nice even big arc/hook. I get about 4-5" of flare. With the Blue Hammer I am getting about 2" flare. Both have smooth arcs on the way to the pins.

This is a great control ball that I pull out when the lanes are doing the over under thing.

Like the Blue Hammer (both Ebonite Inc. balls), but not like the Storm Pitch Black the U2 Classic feels more like a reactive resin when you work on the cover by hand. The Pitch Black has that gummy feel when you work on the cover. It feels more like the early urethanes - for me the Pitch Black doesn't transfer as much energy to the pins.

The Pitch Black ships with a 1000 grit finish. The other two balls come polished. I only get about 1-2" of flare out of my Pitch Black even with the rough finish.

I will say my Urethane Blue Hammer is a few boards weaker than the original Blue Hammer (now turned yuck green) that I have.

Dave_in_Rio_Rancho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
Re: Urethane comparison
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2015, 05:54:16 PM »
I guess I should have mentioned I have the "new release" of the Classic U2. Back in the day Columbia 300 released a urethane U2 which I have never thrown. I do have a Brunswick Burgundy Rhino Pro w/yellow logos from about the same time period which I throw once in awhile. It is supposed to be reactive resin but after all these years doesn't soak up a drop of oil. It has 3-4" flare and really good carry - but hates oil.

Dave_in_Rio_Rancho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
Re: Urethane comparison
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2015, 06:04:30 PM »
Final thought, that Storm Pitch Black is one of the hardest balls to cut with sand paper that I have seen in decades. It doesn't cut, it just rolls out of the way.

I don't believe I would rate the Pitch Black as a upscale performance ball - JMO

The pros I see throwing it seem to have the same unpredictable split/carry problems that I do with this ball. A 4-8-10 pocket leave will finish off a four bagger every time.