Not sure if this is a question or an observation, maybe both. Is anyone seeing any differences in the newer (2014+) versions of the Cyclone vs the Original 2011 pours?

I have been throwing the hell out of these balls since I've come back to bowling. My favorite one is the Original Black/Gold/Silver at 500/4000 finish with a 5 1/2" pin high layout. I've recently picked up one of the Green/Gold ones and with a stronger layout (4" no hole) this ball is much longer and about 3-5 boards less on the backend at the same finish. I have played around with the finish and I like the newer version much better with the polish as a true drier lane ball.

My original one I want to replace after summer leagues are over but I really want that long strong arc motion of the original. I know the difference in surface is probably making all the difference in the reaction differences I am seeing, but is the 2015 version of GB 10.7 any stronger than the original on these balls?

I'm fairly sure most of the original ones were solids; not all of them, but most. I'm 98% sure my original black/red/yellow one is a solid.

Most of the new ones, I'm pretty sure are pearls. Not all of them, just most.

I would not get rid of your old one, until you're sure you get a new one that rolls like the old.

(FYI regarding whether any Cyclone is a solid or pearl, I will get into any arguments or discussion about whether or not anyone else agrees with me. I have seen the balls, I have read what people have said, both Ebonite staff, and plain people like me, here on Ballreviews. We have already had all the discusions. Yes, some are solids; some are pearls. This is my opinion about the situation.)

You could call or email ebonite and get an exact answer

An Ebonite staffer (20 time PWBA national titlist) posted the answer in 2011, when they were first introduced.

Not in this thread obviously. Pearl appearance doesn't mean the ball is pearlized. Its appearance based. Website says gb10.7 on all of them for cover.


If it's a concern enough to ask why not go straight to the source

Well, I leave that to the original poster if he see fit to do that. But I think he's already seen enough difference between what he (and I)k now of the solid versions we have and the newer pearl version(s).

Also I think people have already made note of differences in the coverstocks of the Gamebreaker 2 (a solid) and the new Gamebreaker 2 Gold. They both use the same 10.7 coverstock used on the Cyclones.

If you've thrown all of them you are the one to ask.

I guess the differences in box finish of the gb2 and gb2g have nothing to do with reaction differences.

Congratulations! Once again you got the last word in. It must give you a great deal of satisfaction.

Back in March 2015, I asked this question directly to Ebonite.  My wife's Black/Red/Yellow Cyclone appears to be a solid.  Yet her Cyclone Fireball appears to be a pearl.  That's why I asked.
Rich Hanson emailed me on March 29, 2015 with the following:
"Best way to say is they're hybrid.  The black/gold (red) reacted more solid while the circus orange (Fireball) was longer and stronger.  Balls were designed for self appeal with an over designed strong cover.  He also stated that the only solid version Cyclone is a private label ball still available on ebay (March 2015).  A special pour for a pro shop I believe located out east.  Perhaps some of you are aware of the existence of the private label Cyclone he referenced.
I don't know if this settles anything but I hope this helps the discussion.

I actually emailed Ebonite and Facebook ed Ron Hickland a few days before I posted here.

But I did expect the typical cynical and typical miserable bowler responses would come when posting a question here, as it's been the standard here since about 2001. I guess the way I should have phrased the question is: "Is 2015 version of GB 10.7 any different from 2011's version".  Typically when. A company has a cover around for this long there are some generation differences. 2015 Storm R2S is much stronger than 2009 R2S.

That wasn't directed at all towards you Bowlaholic. I appreciate you for contributing some help in this with a reliable source. You're what this site used to be about years ago. Thanks.