Post by: DON DRAPER on March 06, 2004, 07:30:09 AM
Post by: agroves on March 06, 2004, 11:29:26 PM
Andrew
--------------------
FUFU
"Act like you've been there before"
Post by: DON DRAPER on March 07, 2004, 06:08:24 AM
Post by: DON DRAPER on March 07, 2004, 03:00:14 PM
Post by: stringer on March 07, 2004, 04:15:07 PM
Post by: DON DRAPER on March 07, 2004, 09:29:07 PM
Post by: Steven on March 07, 2004, 10:04:30 PM
quote:
after wetsanding the ball down to 600 grit i placed the ball in the box for 10 minutes and wiped off the oil with windex and paper towels.
Again, Windex does not penetrate oil and dirt effectively. It tends to lay on top of oil and dirt and, when wiped with a towel, smears along the ball's surface leaving behind residue that is absorbed into the surface pores. This is not opinion, but fact. If you choose to live in your own make believe world and pretend that windex and alcohol are effective degreasers, that's your choice, but recommending this to others is dishonest.
quote:
i guess i'm just lucky----then again, i've also never had the problem with dexter shoes that many people seem to have.
Yes, you are lucky. Common sense tells you that if you're going to apply heat, then you need to apply it equally (and controlled) across the ball. That's why there are professional ball oil extraction ovens, like the Rejuvenator. I'm suprised Tom would recommend a dangerous home method when there are other heat methods that are safer and more effective.
And by the way, heating balls has nothing to do with Dexter shoes. If you don't understand the problems others have had, you're not reading the posts carefully.
--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "
Post by: bigfoot on March 07, 2004, 10:24:51 PM
I think he was just giving another example of maybe being lucky.....
Post by: UCFKnight300 on March 07, 2004, 11:09:49 PM
So i decided to put it in the over on 170 degrees at 20 minutes 4 times. I figured what the hell, i'm prolly never gona throw this ball again, considering i have newer stuff now, including another Eliminator. I threw it the next day on our standard house shot and I was THOUROUGHLY impressed. This ball rolled like it did a year ago. I was able to throw the same line i played a year ago, it just felt great having the whole lane again, lol.
Since then i have baked my new Eliminator, same settings but it only needed 2 sessions before it stopped sweating. Also, I recently had my inferno, which now has a million games on it, put in the hook it system to see the results i could get. I've had it sanded since I got it and loved its reaction before, and now it just hooks early and skids the rest of the lane. So i put it in the hook it and then on the haus and brought back to factory with the brunswick polish. The ball rolled a little better, but i still noticed that it didn't make the nice extra turn in the back that it used to. It now rolled more like my blazing. I put it in the oven for 2 20 min. sessions this past weekend and will be going to the lanes tomorrow to see if it has regained its touch. I'll put another post tomorrow to review how it went.
I'd like to say that I believe that Ebonites mindset behind this "plastisizer" theory is a little strange. I am no scientist, but their logic doesn't really fit with me. I honestly think that they just want to be able to market another product for people to buy. Brunswick is the only company that has come forth and say that you can fix your balls yourself, and don't need to spend more money in hopes that it might work like old again. Good luck to everone else in keeping their balls in top condition.
Mike Larsen
Post by: REVOLUTIONS PS on March 08, 2004, 11:21:58 AM
Post by: DON DRAPER on March 08, 2004, 04:23:06 PM
Post by: BowlersAidProShop-Wells on March 12, 2004, 02:02:08 AM
If they want to bake it like a cake at 350, who the heck are any of you to call them down for it, or tell how you've been "screwed" because you could only bake or resurface your ball once. The game has changed, obviously, and that includes the equipment. Take it or leave it, for better or for worse, but leave the insults in the bag, or take up golf....and yes, this means you too STEVE. `Nuff said.
Post by: BowlersAidProShop-Wells on March 14, 2004, 01:39:02 AM
Edited on 3/14/2004 2:33 AM
Post by: Steven on March 14, 2004, 09:33:26 PM
quote:
the reason i used windex was because that's what tom said they( brunswick )used. who am i to doubt their r&d work ?
As a disciple of all and everything that is Brunswick, I'm assuming that you've religiously followed their equipment maintenance procedures. So don't you find it ironic (and disturbing) that your Inferno lost noticeable reaction in less than a year? That should never happen to correctly maintained equipment within one year; and I really mean never. If anything, you should be publicly angry that Brunswick gave you bad information. If you were to open up and be willing to think on your own, that would be the only appropriate reaction.
So let's fast forward to Brunswick's latest brainstorm; the use of Windex to clean equipment. If you're motivated, it's really easy to do the minimum required amount of due diligence -- simply read the label! Windex says that it's primary purpose is for cleaning glass. The last I looked, coverstocks are not made of glass. However, to be fair, Windex says that it can be used as a light duty cleaner for other types of hard surfaces. But there are two problems here. First, you don't want light-duty anything when attempting to restore the reaction of a ball. Second, a coverstock is not simply a "hard surface". It has pores designed to absorb oil to promote hook, so you need an agent better formulated to chemically break down absorbed grime. Think, and this should all be obvious.
Wells: With respect to the following:
quote:
Take it or leave it, for better or for worse, but leave the insults in the bag, or take up golf....and yes, this means you too STEVE. `Nuff said.
One of the primary purposes of the forum is to distribute accurate information. Greg persists in posting bad information, and I'm simply pointing out the fallacies. Greg won't get it (it's become a matter of pride), but it's important to others to understand what works and what doesn't. I'm not talking about 'opinion', but basic true/false stuff. If you find that insulting, sorry.
--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "
Post by: BowlersAidProShop-Wells on March 15, 2004, 11:17:14 PM
ps. 'nuff sed
Edited on 3/16/2004 0:12 AM
Post by: Steven on March 16, 2004, 12:23:29 PM
quote:
And Steve, the part about slinging insults was directed at your crass attitude towards Greg's post about the Dexter shoes. I think he only threw that in there to further emphasize his "luck" with bowling equipment.
Yes, I displayed a "crass" attitude toward Greg's Dexter shoes analogy. This goes back to another thread where a poster was complaining about Dexter shoe durability, but Greg essentially dismissed the described problems because he personally didn't experience them. This displayed a total lack (and on-going pattern) of critical thought. I too am a fan of Dexters, but I understand that a percentage of bowlers have problems because of their anatomy and the way they slide. Greg took that same tunnel thinking into this topic. Because his one time experiment with heat didn't appear to cause damage, he was unwilling to at least entertain the notion that their might be a real problem with the method. Regardless, in Greg's eyes (as always), if Brunswick says it, it must be true. It's this never changing attitude that gets under my (and other's) skin. It's a fantasy mentality, but what a nice neat world to live in!
quote:
Also, when was the last time you noticed an aggressive coverstock that didn't seem to "lose and edge" after a year, or a certain amount of games. I think I've yet to see one last a year in the hands of someone who bowls more than once a week regardless of the ball company or how maintained the cover is kept. Atleast this has been my experience.
I'm really glad you brought this up, because I'm a firm believer that a properly maintained ball, aggressive coverstock or not, will last longer that most believe. My most recent sanctioned 300 (last week) was with a three year old Track Silencer that's logged 429 games (and before you ask, I keep a detailed spreadsheet of all games thrown on all my equipment, so I'm not guessing). I'm not a heavy handed guy, so I'm sensitive to when a ball loses anything significant -- and this Silencer is fairly close to NIB reaction.
And the methods for keeping equipment going isn't all that hard. I wipe the balls with an oil free towel between shots; at the end of the night, I thoroughly clean them with a real degreasing agent before packing up; and every 30-50 games or so, I'll deep clean and refresh the covers on the spinner using scotch-brite, and re-polish as necessary.
The result is that everything I've purchased over the past 3 years is still in the bag and going strong. I know at some point they'll lose effectiveness, but it hasn't happened yet.
The problem is that most bowlers don't attempt to do even the most basic preventative measures, and then have to resort to heat as a last ditch effort. Bowlers for the most part are lazy when it comes to their equipment, and the results show. Of course, Greg would adopt these 'safe and sane' methods in a heartbeat if Brunswick overtly blessed them. But he really won't make any progress as a thinking human being until he adopts techniques because they're clearly superior instead of waiting for "Big B" permission to act.
Enough ranting. I know I'm hijacking your post ending line, but 'nuff sed.
--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "
Edited on 3/16/2004 5:00 PM
Post by: BowlersAidProShop-Wells on March 16, 2004, 11:19:41 PM