BallReviews
General Category => Coverstock Preparation => Topic started by: TheGom on June 27, 2014, 07:34:15 PM
-
Looking at a Storm Fusion and knowing that it has a hybrid coverstock my question is this...
I understand that this coverstock is a blend of a Solid and a Pearl and that no two shells are poured the same way, meaning equal parts in certain areas of the ball.
So, is it possible that a ball can turn out with a higher percentage of the solid or Pearl additives in the track area then others?
Would this make each ball have a slightly different length....solid shorter and Pearl longer?
I was looking at two different Fusions and one was mainly gold in the track area and the other was mainly blue in the track area and got me thinking about this, thus the question.
Thanks in Advance
-
I always think about that...ball to ball. I would say we are thinking too much!
-
There is an argument that the type of coverstock makes no difference. Just the surface.
http://www.ballreviews.com/hammer/hammer-bowling-balls-diagram-for-easier-understanding-t303258.0.html;msg2478048;topicseen#new.
-
Looking at a Storm Fusion and knowing that it has a hybrid coverstock my question is this...
I understand that this coverstock is a blend of a Solid and a Pearl and that no two shells are poured the same way, meaning equal parts in certain areas of the ball.
So, is it possible that a ball can turn out with a higher percentage of the solid or Pearl additives in the track area then others?
Would this make each ball have a slightly different length....solid shorter and Pearl longer?
I was looking at two different Fusions and one was mainly gold in the track area and the other was mainly blue in the track area and got me thinking about this, thus the question.
Thanks in Advance
I wouldn't pay any attention to the colors. They vary by the pour but they are not taking the pearl and the solid and just randomly poring them in the ball moulds. The blue and the gold are the same cover stock just different colors.
As mentioned we have been discussing if there is a difference between any of these cover stocks truly or if it is just surface prep that makes the difference. The truth is I don't know but would love to see the test.
If there isn't any difference and it's just surface it's one of the most unquestioned marketing ploys of all time.
-
Too many times too much is placed on marketing...and unless a true test side by side is done, it is nothing more than hypothetical. I know when I was with one of the manufacturers it was known, as we did not have a hybrid cover, that unless the density of the material changed, there was no difference...i.e. it's marketing.
The question has been asked, if the materials are positioned differently throughout the cover how can there be any consistency? Think about it logically
-
Too many times too much is placed on marketing...and unless a true test side by side is done, it is nothing more than hypothetical. I know when I was with one of the manufacturers it was known, as we did not have a hybrid cover, that unless the density of the material changed, there was no difference...i.e. it's marketing.
The question has been asked, if the materials are positioned differently throughout the cover how can there be any consistency? Think about it logically
I don't believe that bits of solid and pearl cover stocks are mixed together for a hybrid. Is it possible that two different formulations are mixed and then pored to create something different? Or as was suggested before is it only surface and all three are exactly the same? I don't know the answer to that.
-
I always think about that...ball to ball. I would say we are thinking too much!
Was never over thinking it, just was curious plain and simple.
-
Would a helix quantum be considered the 1st hybrid? I mean really, how were they able to get the ball to cure as well as they did since the big track area was reactive resin and the the other part urethane?
-
Would a helix quantum be considered the 1st hybrid? I mean really, how were they able to get the ball to cure as well as they did since the big track area was reactive resin and the the other part urethane?
I think the band was pearl urethane and the balance resin. Still it was hard to make and probably to cure properly.
-
After doing some looking I can do the project for $140.
That would allow me to buy two Brunswick Karmas. The Blue/Green Pearl, and the Blue/Black solid. Both have 3-4" pins and 2.3 to 2.5 top weight.
From there both balls would be drilled identically. Both balls would then be resurfaced to 500/1000/2000 and taken to the lanes for side by side on lane comparisons out the gate on video.
It is as accurate as I can do it without a throw bot. Anyone want to put money towards it I can start a quick collection. Hand full of people at $10-20 would be all it takes.
I looked into the online funding sites but they do not accept paypal, they want you to use "their" money sites for their fees.
And an update, I can using paypal.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9GDXR6JKLYDPL
-
After doing some looking I can do the project for $140.
That would allow me to buy two Brunswick Karmas. The Blue/Green Pearl, and the Blue/Black solid. Both have 3-4" pins and 2.3 to 2.5 top weight.
From there both balls would be drilled identically. Both balls would then be resurfaced to 500/1000/2000 and taken to the lanes for side by side on lane comparisons out the gate on video.
It is as accurate as I can do it without a throw bot. Anyone want to put money towards it I can start a quick collection. Hand full of people at $10-20 would be all it takes.
I looked into the online funding sites but they do not accept paypal, they want you to use "their" money sites for their fees.
And an update, I can using paypal.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9GDXR6JKLYDPL
But since you are or seem to be rev and ball speed matched, wouldn't you also need a tester who is speed dominant and then one who is rev dominant to do a test whose results cannot be disputed???
-
The variables that can be fabricated or added only skew the results...bowling is not a perfect world nor will results ever be...they will always be left to perception as well as pre-conceived notions...as well as simplicity will never fly.
Bowling ball technology has NOT changed or gotten better since 1997...manufacturing has but not much else
-
But since you are or seem to be rev and ball speed matched, wouldn't you also need a tester who is speed dominant and then one who is rev dominant to do a test whose results cannot be disputed???
You could try a lot of different things to see what the results are for each no doubt.
I only give the simple assumption that throwing each over a series of shots if there is such a true difference should easily be seen.
Nothing more nothing less. Not saying it is perfect, but if marketing is correct then shouldn't we see the obvious?
The variables that can be fabricated or added only skew the results...bowling is not a perfect world nor will results ever be...they will always be left to perception as well as pre-conceived notions...as well as simplicity will never fly.
Bowling ball technology has NOT changed or gotten better since 1997...manufacturing has but not much else
I start believing more and more how little things have changed when so often asking about a coverstock from Mo and he advises it is a PK18 base with additive used on so much of the Morich equipment. What I assume would be the Activator coverstock is likely strongly PK18 based.
Yes the asymmetric cores from the early 2000s seems to be where cores peaked with the extremely high int diff before backing down to what most are today. I think covers are in the same boat as well. So now it is a matter of pretty colors and catchy logos. Which I am ok with lol.
-
My comment was directed towards the average consumer and staffer to make more out of a product than factual...new is the hype not the true reaction...you tend to see what you want if allowed (: most do not take discernible friction into account in motion or reaction
-
Mine was a two part reply i was unable to get quotes inserted on, but modified to make more sense lol.
-
But since you are or seem to be rev and ball speed matched, wouldn't you also need a tester who is speed dominant and then one who is rev dominant to do a test whose results cannot be disputed???
You could try a lot of different things to see what the results are for each no doubt.
I only give the simple assumption that throwing each over a series of shots if there is such a true difference should easily be seen.
Nothing more nothing less. Not saying it is perfect, but if marketing is correct then shouldn't we see the obvious?
I think/believe that the differences between speed dominant and rev dominant can show a significant change in what the reaction difference is in more than just the differences between solid, hybrid and pearl. I know that different surfaces can show reaction differences between degrees of grit levels (1500, 2000, 3000 & 4000) and between different levels of polish for rev dominant types, while speed dominant types see only 2 differences, dull and polished.
More than one manufacturer has introduced a ball, which wound up being a hybrid, but was not "MARKETED" as a hybrid. While some balls are there just for the marketing hype, I believe and think that more than one is there because the manufacturer saw, via testing, that there is a difference among those 3 types.
As a simple example, I think that speed dominant types will see little difference between a polished Hy-Road Pearl and a polished Hy-Road Solid, while rev dominant types will see a true and real difference between them.
Because you as a matched rev/speed bowler do not see the difference, does not mean there isn't a difference.
"The eye of the beholder"
-
Surface is surface....not the alleged composition of the cover
-
Surface is surface....not the alleged composition of the cover
We cannot assume the manufacturer is lying when they specify the coverstock's composition. if we do, we walk down a quagmire of potential obfuscation: we blur the distinction that we must assume is true. We cannot wait for some independent to test every coverstock before we buy a ball.
-
Uhm ok *wink wink*
-
Would a helix quantum be considered the 1st hybrid? I mean really, how were they able to get the ball to cure as well as they did since the big track area was reactive resin and the the other part urethane?
If interested Here's the Patent for the Helix:
http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/48/335/058/0.pdf (http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/48/335/058/0.pdf)
A lot of interesting info on it and it tells what the coverstock is made of.
excerpt:
"In the best mode contemplated by the inventors, the material of the band 20 is a cured mixture of liquid polyol having the trade name Baytec 153B mixed with a liquid isocyanate having the trade name Baytec 151A. By weight the mixture comprises 60-70%, more preferably 65%, Baytec 153 B and 30-40%, more preferably 35%, Baytec 151A. The material of the end caps or segments 16, 18 is a cured mixture of liquid polyol having the trade name Baytec 174B mixed with Baytec 151A isocyanate. By weight the end cap mixture comprises 60-75%, more preferably 67 %, Baytec 174B and 25-40%, more preferably 33%, Baytec 151A. The Baytec materials are available from Bayer Inc., 100 Bayer Road, Pittsburgh, Pa. U.S.A. 15205-9741. "
-
Bill Wassberger had numerous patterns this just one of them
-
Uhm ok *wink wink*
Unbelievable.
-
Curious what's unbelievable by my response?
-
Bill Wassberger had numerous patterns this just one of them
numerous "Patents"
Though according to the helix patent. the inventors are Paul Ellis & Brian Hearl, though it cites him as a reference .
-
You do not have to believe the manufactures because too many times they do not tell the whole truth.
As someone who loves the overseas equipment in many cases it is a color and name change with a different box finish only.
Many times they change the name of the cover on the "new" release overseas so it will not read the same as the original release that was a month prior. Who is to say that in many cases with newer coverstocks today they aren't really new. Morich seemed to use a lot of PK18 mixes to make bowling balls that were nothing like the original bowling balls that used PK18 and had new names for sale to the public.
Instead of calling it PK18,20,22,24 they used names like "premium hybrid coverstock" ect ect. It leads me to believe more and more justricos comments that nothing has changed significantly in bowling for many years. Just the names and some of the mixtures.
-
Uhm ok *wink wink*
Rico, You are a panic. I mean that positively. I surrender. :)
-
You do not have to believe the manufactures because too many times they do not tell the whole truth.
As someone who loves the overseas equipment in many cases it is a color and name change with a different box finish only.
Many times they change the name of the cover on the "new" release overseas so it will not read the same as the original release that was a month prior. Who is to say that in many cases with newer coverstocks today they aren't really new. Morich seemed to use a lot of PK18 mixes to make bowling balls that were nothing like the original bowling balls that used PK18 and had new names for sale to the public.
Instead of calling it PK18,20,22,24 they used names like "premium hybrid coverstock" ect ect. It leads me to believe more and more justricos comments that nothing has changed significantly in bowling for many years. Just the names and some of the mixtures.
I have to agree with this 110%. I've seen "PK 18 - based" coverstocks that can be longer with less backend and ones with the same description that hook earlier with a HUGE backend and every variation in between, and that's just Brunswick, MoRich and older Lane#1 balls. Radical now joins that queue. I wish more people used Brunswick's coverstock supplier with all the variations therein.
-
It is amazing when you throw a ball like the Ntense Levrg which was a "pearlized" ball and by far one of the biggest overall hooking bowling balls I have every thrown. My brother had one and we both were in awe of this thing.
(We both got them on closeout a year or two after release so it wasn't like it was the current hook monster of the month ball.)
Then later when I asked about the cover because of curiosity as a Brunswick fan trying to keep track of which covers are what he said it was PK18 with some additive. Asked about the N'sane leverg I owned even later which was a much smoother overall ball. Same reply. Then this passed week about the Ravage vi and he replied again PK18 with 1% Potters Glass.
I believe he is being honest and really wonder how much things have really changed as mentioned. Would be curious to learn about other manufactures as well in that respect. Not that we would ever really know. lol
-
It is amazing when you throw a ball like the Ntense Levrg which was a "pearlized" ball and by far one of the biggest overall hooking bowling balls I have every thrown. My brother had one and we both were in awe of this thing.
(We both got them on closeout a year or two after release so it wasn't like it was the current hook monster of the month ball.)
Then later when I asked about the cover because of curiosity as a Brunswick fan trying to keep track of which covers are what he said it was PK18 with some additive. Asked about the N'sane leverg I owned even later which was a much smoother overall ball. Same reply. Then this passed week about the Ravage vi and he replied again PK18 with 1% Potters Glass.
I believe he is being honest and really wonder how much things have really changed as mentioned. Would be curious to learn about other manufactures as well in that respect. Not that we would ever really know. lol
While the Solid LevRG was not a big hooking ball, I got one of my strongest reacting resin balls from it and the pin was over the middle finger, PSA was in the thumb hole and the CG would up having 5/8 oz negative side weight. (I could care less what negative weight it had) and through all this, the coverstock was a Mo-"modified" Pk 18 as far as I knew. Even polished no PK18 solid ever had the reaction that ball had for me. I also had 2 original LevRGs and I never got the reaction from that ball that I got from the Solid LevRG.
Brunswick should have let Mo design/finagle some of their coverstocks!
-
I'm a panic? First I was unbelievable now a panic...I'm confused
-
Charlest I honestly believe looking at this Ravage VI that the coverstock if released under Brunswick would likely be called Activator. Activator was one of the best coverstocks I have used in a long while on several different bowling balls.
I have no doubt it consist of PK18 base with some magic dust of whatever to make it differ from the original PK18.
The original Levrg was also an amazing ball no doubt. I do hope to have the Solid eventually just cause.
-
Curious what's unbelievable by my response?
Wasn't to you, it was the guy questioning you.
-
Gotcha thank for clarifying