win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?  (Read 7158 times)

Dennis Rhodes

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« on: April 10, 2009, 05:34:45 AM »
This is just an idea.  In reading the description of proactive 2.0, the pamphlet stated that the coverstock absorbed oil 10 times slower then other coverstocks.  This is an idea from what, about 9-10 years ago.  With people complaining about coverstock longevity with other manufacturers, why wouldn't Brunswick bring back this concept and emphasize it.  It wouldn't have to be in proactive, because the pamphlet (included with the contact zone I believe) said that it was an additive.  I recall it mentioning that oil stayed on top of the cover after 30 minutes, when it took approximately 3 minutes for other covers to absorb the oil.  Wouldn't this be good marketing?  I ask this merely for discussion purposes?
Thanks,
Dennis
--------------------
You''d be good, if it wasn''t for your brain!-My Older Brother
Logged

 

Verbs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
Re: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2009, 03:48:22 PM »
Dennis,

I asked the same question when I first started working for Brunswick in 2002 of then R & D director, Bill Wasserberger.

Bill informed me that there was something that was not environmentally friendly with the production of the 2 part chemical process, that combined make urethane. So they decided to discontinue the production of the Proactive 2.0 cover.

Verbs
--------------------
Larry Verble
Logged

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2009, 10:44:55 PM »
Oil absorption rates aside, Brunswick has some pretty long-lasting covers already.  PK18 and Activator are well-known for longevity.  I can understand looking for some more variety, but if you want a long-lasting Brunswick ball, there are several to choose from.

SH
Logged

holland1945

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2564
Re: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2009, 07:30:00 PM »
Nothing quite like the Denim Quantum in it's day though. Mmmmm loved that ball.
--------------------
*** MoRich, Quantum, Brunswick 15# for sale - http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=231393&ForumID=26&CategoryID=12 ***

Support REAL change and REAL conservative politics in America:

http://www.mises.org - learn
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ - activism
http://www.breakthematrix.com/ - video
http://www.rationalreview.com/ and http://www.antiwar.com/ - news
Logged

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7680
Re: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2009, 11:48:30 AM »
CRD: Settle down -- don't get your skirt so bunched up.

The fact is that Brunswick is offering fire sale pricing on some of their line-up. Rico confirmed this in the 'brunswick discount' thread:

 
quote:
Brunswick just discontinued most of there current line. That may be why you are seeing so many balls on Bowling Ball or any other etailer.
 


That means that either demand is very low, or that Brunswick mismanaged their production output. Neither option suggests anything good for the company. But look at the bright side -- there is plenty of cheap equipment for you to pick up. Think positive.....
Logged

Easy10pins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 918
Re: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2009, 09:39:25 PM »
...or it could mean that Brunswick is coming up with an entirely new line of equipment.

--------------------
The bowler formerly known as BrunsRod.
Solid 7 Pin??  299 Game??!! WTF  
Logged

leftyinsnellville

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
Re: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2009, 07:51:43 AM »
I always thought the goal was for the coverstock to absorb as much oil as possible as quickly as possible thereby enhancing the reaction.

It really isn't that hard to get the oil back out once the reaction starts to fade.

--------------------
ILBT!

( o )( o )

Logged

mmcfarland300

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
Re: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2009, 08:49:50 AM »
Same thing for Hammer Columbia and just about every other label.  It appears June could be HUGE.
Logged

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7680
Re: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2009, 12:28:30 PM »
quote:
hmmm, what brunswick balls are not selling? I just love blanket statements like that.  


CRD: I responded to your statement with some hard cold reality. Instead of dealing with it at the level of real information for discussion, you come back with a flippant 'why don't you spend your time over at the Lane #1 slappy site?'.

Typical. When faced with any concept that exceeds your limited capacity, you respond at a level consistent with your 6th grade education. You're a real posting marvel.

Back to the original question, I had a used Denim Quantum, and I was very impressed with the cover longevity. I had wondered what happened to Proactive 2.0, so the response by Verbs was very helpful.
Logged

BrunsBob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2009, 09:24:04 PM »
leftyinsnellville

Quote
I always thought the goal was for the coverstock to absorb as much oil as possible as quickly as possible thereby enhancing the reaction.

It really isn't that hard to get the oil back out once the reaction starts to fade.

_______________________________________________________________________________


You hit the nail on the head Lefty. The faster the oil absorption, the better the ball reaction. Oil that stays on the surface affects traction. What we have experienced with our coverstocks though is that they are easier to return to original reaction with proper maitenance.

By the way, we are cleaning house to make room for new introductions this summer. We are continuing with the transition from the Zone brand to the Wild brand, thus the need to eliminate the Smash and Ultra Zones. The Maxxx is still doing well enough to warrant staying in the line. The Twisted line did just okay and we've developed something we really like and feel it needed a whole new brand name change rather than risk it not selling as well because of the reputation that Twisteds have with some shops and bowlers. The Sidewinder has been out over a year and a half and the Swarm pretty much got shut out once the Rattler proved to be so good, thus the need to eliminate both of those. Pretty much the story there. Lookin' forward to Bowl Expo to show off the new goods.

RoB LaW

--------------------
I'm gettin' old, I'm hurtin', but I've got Brunswick balls.......Color me competitive.


Edited on 4/13/2009 9:25 PM

Edited on 4/13/2009 9:27 PM

Edited on 4/13/2009 9:28 PM
Logged

nocarey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 631
Re: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2009, 09:48:05 PM »
quote:
. . . Lookin' forward to Bowl Expo to show off the new goods.

RoB LaW

. . .


looking forward to additions in the Wild Line.

any hints as to what they are?
Logged

BrunsBob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2009, 10:54:46 PM »
One new Wild this summer......no other hints at this time.

RoB LaW

--------------------
I'm gettin' old, I'm hurtin', but I've got Brunswick balls.......Color me competitive.
Logged

TheDude

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3170
Re: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2009, 11:34:41 AM »
quote:
Dennis,

I asked the same question when I first started working for Brunswick in 2002 of then R & D director, Bill Wasserberger.

Bill informed me that there was something that was not environmentally friendly with the production of the 2 part chemical process, that combined make urethane. So they decided to discontinue the production of the Proactive 2.0 cover.

Verbs
--------------------

just a thought but now that they are in mexico they could make it again. there enviromental laws are softer.
Larry Verble

--------------------
Timothy @Juniors Pro-Shops
LaSalle, Quebec-Located inside Pont Mercier Lanes.
Edmonton, Alberta. -Located inside Ed's Rec Room.(WEST ED MALL)
Keep them honest!

Ebay store updated very often: http://stores.ebay.com/gumby3170
Logged
Timothy @Juniors Pro-Shops
LaSalle, Quebec-Located inside Pont Mercier Lanes.
Keep them honest!

Ebay store updated very often: http://stores.ebay.com/gumby3170?refid+store

Verbs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
Re: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2009, 05:12:03 PM »
quote:
quote:
Dennis,

I asked the same question when I first started working for Brunswick in 2002 of then R & D director, Bill Wasserberger.

Bill informed me that there was something that was not environmentally friendly with the production of the 2 part chemical process, that combined make urethane. So they decided to discontinue the production of the Proactive 2.0 cover.

Verbs
--------------------

just a thought but now that they are in mexico they could make it again. there enviromental laws are softer.
Larry Verble

--------------------
Timothy @Juniors Pro-Shops
LaSalle, Quebec-Located inside Pont Mercier Lanes.
Edmonton, Alberta. -Located inside Ed's Rec Room.(WEST ED MALL)
Keep them honest!

Ebay store updated very often: http://stores.ebay.com/gumby3170


Sorry Dude. But it was the manufacturing, here in the states, of one or both of the components that make urethane, that was causing the issue.

Verbs

--------------------
Larry Verble
Logged

nocarey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 631
Re: Why not bring back Proactive 2.0?
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2009, 05:18:47 PM »
quote:
One new Wild this summer......no other hints at this time.

RoB LaW

--------------------
I'm gettin' old, I'm hurtin', but I've got Brunswick balls.......Color me competitive.


hmmmm. . .Wild _____

Logged
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »