win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Anyone compared Inferno to Diesels?  (Read 2721 times)

da Shiv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
Anyone compared Inferno to Diesels?
« on: May 18, 2003, 09:08:10 PM »
I have  both of the Diesel particle editions.  They are low-medium load particle balls.  What I've been reading about the Inferno makes it sound like it would match up well with my game.  I haven't used a Brunswick ball since the Azure Pro Zone, and it's been a LONG time since i've used a Brunswick reactive.  I do have several of the balls that they make for Lane #1 and they work well for me, but in the case of the Buzzsaws, I don't know how much of that is cover and how much it is core.  I've always done well with cores that are wide in the middle and narrow at the top and bottom.  

The Inferno sounds interesting to me.  I do well with low RG balls with high diffs, and am very happy with my Diesels.  Both Diesels are drilled 4 x 4 with pin just under my ring finger and CG swung out just a bit--as far as possible without necessitating a weight hole.  The solid Diesel has a weight hole, but it's for reaction purposes rather than because it's necessary for static weight legality.  The pearl has no weight hole.  The solid is at about 1200 grit, the pearl at 2000.  I've found that when the solid starts to burn too early, I can usually shift my feet 3 boards right and my lane mark 2 boards right and go to the pearl for about a game.  

I'm wondering if a shiny Inferno could fit in after the pearl Diesel gets into trouble.  The pearl Diesel is not especially good on light carrydown, and what I've been reading about the Inferno suggests that it might be a little better on carrydown; or at least, a little more predictable when the lanes start to get squirrelly.  I could always get the Diesel pearl reactive for this use, but something about the various reviews I've seen for the Inferno suggest it might be better.  It might seem as if I'm thinking of using a ball that's too aggressive for the condition that I'm describing, but I've found that the stuff that most people seem to write that they are using on heavy oil works better for me on medium, and that the typical bowler's medium condition balls are more dry lane balls for me.

To complicate the equation, Hammer is soon to release a Turbo Diesel, about which I've been able to get almost no information.  I also understand that Brunswick has a particle version of the Inferno due out in mid to late summer, and I don't know if it is to be a high, medium, or low load particle.  I generally do very well with medium and low load particles.

As some of you have probably figured out by now, I'm just kind of looking for an excuse to get an Inferno.  If you want to talk me out of it, that will be fine with me, but I'm mostly interested in if anyone has actually used both the Diesel (any of them) and the Inferno.  Inter-ball company comparisons are somewhat rare around here.

I must say that I have an especially high level of respect for the comments of Bob Hanson.  Bob, I know you use a lot of Brunswick, but don't know if you have tried out the Diesels.  I'd be interested in your comments in any case.

My profile is current on my personal stats.

Thanks,
Shiv

I have an epic length review of the Diesel Particle Solid posted, in case that will help anyone comment on my question here.



Edited on 5/19/2003 12:12 PM
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top

 

da Shiv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
Re: Anyone compared Inferno to Diesels?
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2003, 06:24:56 PM »
Since I made the post above, something has been nagging at me.  I felt that I had missed something when I first read the Inferno report in BTM.  I went back and found out what it was.  When they reviewed the ball in the March issue, they misstated the RG; giving it a 3.3 on their scale.  In the chart in the April issue, that was corrected to 1.9--again on their scale.  I generally give extra attention to the very low RG balls that rank 2.0 or less on BTM's scale; or under 2.47 in actual RG.

Shiv
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top

Brian Green

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1456
Re: Anyone compared Inferno to Diesels?
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2003, 07:10:31 PM »
i can tell you that the inferno will be quite  a bit stronger than the diesel....    if i had to choose between the 2  i would choose the inferno.... i think it will be a lot more versitle
Striking Effects Pro Shop - Simply the Best

 PBA East region member

Brunswick Advisory Staff 2016

da Shiv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
Re: Anyone compared Inferno to Diesels?
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2003, 07:10:55 AM »
I've been reading everything I can find about the Inferno everywhere--the magazines, this site, other sites, etc.  I've about decided to get one.  I'm just trying to figure out how to drill it and prep it to fit it in.  I'm very happy with both of my Diesels and use them most of the time.  Here's my thoughts about the Inferno, based on it's technical specs vs. the Diesels' specs.  The Inferno is a slightly higher RG ball than the Diesels, with somewhat less differential than the Diesels.  The Diesels are low-medium load particle balls, and the Inferno is a reactive pearl.  These three specs--RG, diff, and coverstock--all suggest that the Inferno should get down-lane better than the Diesels.  A few comments have been made that the Inferno is probably a stronger ball than the Diesels.  That's fine with me, but I'm just looking to confirm where that strength is.  Is it (as I suspect) mostly on the backend?  If so, that reaffirms that it's probably what I'm looking for.  I'm hoping to use it when the two Diesels both want to burn out early due to drying heads and mids.  Especially intriguing to me is the several comments that I've seen that indicate that the Inferno will handle a bit of carrydown.  The situation I frequently face that I'm looking to deal with is heads and mids that still have some oil, but are in transition; and backends that have tightened up due to light carrydown.  In this situation, my Diesel solid starts up too early; and while the Diesel pearl gets to the breakpoint okay, it gets stopped by the light carrydown.  I'm hoping to find that the Inferno will get downlane for me on transition conditions and put it's strength to use in the back.

If this seems like a plausible idea, my next question would relate to drillings.  My favorite drilling is in the two Diesels--4 x 4 with pin just under ring finger and CG swung out just a bit.  To be even more specific, I like to put the mass bias about 3/4"-1" inside my VAL.  (Finding the mass bias on a symmetrical cored, pin-out ball by drawing a line 6 3/4" from the pin through the CG.)  I'm considering pin placement for the Inferno--possibly just above instead of below the ring finger (which in my case is the same distance-4 inches--from my PAP.  This is because of the unusually large "up"coordinate of my PAP).  This would create a little sharper backend move than the below ring finger position.  Another possible pin placement consideration would be below and between the finger holes, which is about 4 1/2 inches from PAP.  My final pin placement consideration would be above and between the finger holes.  This last possibility is where I start to get into possible skid-out problems with a too-late break, so I'd need serious evidence to suggest that this one would be best.

I should add that I generally shy away from reactive pearls entirely.  I haven't found one yet that isn't squirty and unpredictable for me.  Where I do most of my bowling, predictability  is more important than raw power and angle.  Raw power and angle all too frequently take place in unexpected locations.  The Inferno sounds unusual for a reactive pearl from what I've heard up till now.

Any and all comments on all of this are welcome.  Thanks to those who have commented so far!

Shiv

Edited on 5/20/2003 7:15 AM
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top

da Shiv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
Re: Anyone compared Inferno to Diesels?
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2003, 06:08:26 AM »
Brenton--
     Thanks for the advice.  I'm going to discuss all of these possibilities with my pro shop operator sometime in the next few days.  Being a pro shop operator yourself, you may know him--Mark Robey.  He writes a pro shop operation column in BJI every couple months.  I have the utmost respect for his opinions.  He's given me lots of good advice.  As a matter of fact, he's the one who suggested that I try the Diesel in the first place.  I normally pick out my own balls and drillings and go with what I decide unless Mark advises against it--which he sometimes does.  I got bogged down last year for awhile and just decided to go in and tell him to pick something out for me and drill it however he felt was best, and that's how I ended up with the Diesel Particle Solid.  It turned out to be excellent advice.  That ball matches up very well to my game, and with the Diesel Particle Pearl it's a great 1-2 punch.  

I like the looks of the core in the Inferno, and I always like low RG balls.  That, combined with everything I've been reading about the Inferno tells me I'd be foolish to pass it up.  I'm also extremely curious to find out what the upcoming Turbo Diesel is going to be like, and it is supposedly being introduced to distributors now.  If Hammer keeps the same general core and RG range on it, I'll probably want one of those as well.  I'm not a ball buying fanatic like a lot of people on this board.  I get about 3 or 4 per year.  Of course, even that many makes me a fanatic in the bowling crowd I usually run with.  Two new balls in the space of about a month will probably get me a look from the wife and a demand that I jettison a few of the old ones rolling around in the basement.  Speaking of the wife...it's her birthday today, so I think that coming home with a new bowling ball for myself would be unwise for a few days.  I'll take a few days to let these drilling ideas percolate in my brain.

Shiv
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top

da Shiv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
Re: Anyone compared Inferno to Diesels?
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2003, 11:20:46 PM »
pbass6811--
     Thanks for the info!  What you said is pretty much what I was hoping to hear.  At what surface grit level (approximately will do) do you keep the two Diesels and the Inferno?  I keep my Diesel Particle Pearl at about 2000 and it's pretty sluggish on light carrydown--not that that is unexpected.  From some of what I've heard, I had the impression that the Inferno might be a little better on light carrydown in spite of the fact that it's a reactive and not a particle.  That doesn't make much sense on the face of it, but that's what I've heard.  That's why I'm curious about what kind of surface you keep on the three balls.

Shiv
--------------------
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top