BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: SirAshley on May 11, 2019, 09:53:17 PM
-
So I’ve been away from the sport for the last decade... It started with an injury and then life getting in the way... Long story short, I’m getting back into the game and I’m wondering how far the ball tech has come in the past 10 years. I can still throw 600 series with my Super Carbide Bomb and Scorchin’ Inferno, but I guess what I’m wondering is, would some new gear really be beneficial??? Has the ball tech really progressed? Or is it just a different color cover and clever name?
-
So I’ve been away from the sport for the last decade... It started with an injury and then life getting in the way... Long story short, I’m getting back into the game and I’m wondering how far the ball tech has come in the past 10 years. I can still throw 600 series with my Super Carbide Bomb and Scorchin’ Inferno, but I guess what I’m wondering is, would some new gear really be beneficial??? Has the ball tech really progressed? Or is it just a different color cover and clever name?
On medium house shot nope your old stuff will work great (those are some strong pieces already). On heavier sport patterns you might need to get something more modern. Have many modern balls and I still throw just as high of games with my BVP Rampage and Absolute Inferno as I do virtually any of them on THS (OG Hy-Road my very best ball and yep 10 year old tech). In fact for one house ended up having to get an old Slingshot to even be able to use a reactive.
-
Nothing beats good shot making.
A new ball will carry the 10 pin better for 60 games though 😂
-
Nothing has changed except some of the prices.
-
Core tech has seemed to progress with companies such as Radical & others doing stuff with the cores themselves....however , overall ball tech has kinda regressed, with urethane coverstocks becoming more prevalent than they were the first 15-20 years of reactive technology.
Brad
-
No real advantage to new tech, except for getting a fresh shell.
-
I second Avabob's comment. I would add that unless USBC core spec maximum /minimums
get changed, core designs are pretty much maxed-out. Right now it's mostly mixing and matching existing cores with different coverstocks, where manufacturers have much more room to play with.
-
The strongest modern day balls are usually more responsive to friction than the early 2000's hook monsters and can traction in oil without being abrasive to the lane surface. Today's oilers are designed to be more "balanced" with the OOB surface.
I still have a Super Carbide Bomb at its (close to) OOB finish of 360 scotch brite. It is extremely condition specific. It rolls too early on medium-heavy oil but skids like crazy on flat and heavy sport patterns (even closing down my angles). It was not even the best oil ball of the late 90's and early 2000's era but that is for a different discussion.
-
90% of the time I bowl, I don't need anything more than the technology that has been offered for years. That includes when I bowled in college and other sport shot tournaments. Really just need 2-3 reall good versatile balls to compete with their characteristics covering for each other.
-
If your older stuff is in good shape then probably not. If the coverstocks are working then it's just fine. Might want to get your span measured again though. That is something that could have easily changed over that time.
There are new regulations coming into effect for the 20-21 season too that prohibits balance holes so that's something to keep in mind going forward as well.
-
If your older stuff is in good shape then probably not. If the coverstocks are working then it's just fine. Might want to get your span measured again though. That is something that could have easily changed over that time.
There are new regulations coming into effect for the 20-21 season too that prohibits balance holes so that's something to keep in mind going forward as well.
Funny you mention that as I have been having trouble with my release... Part of it is getting my thumb out because I’ve put on about 40 lbs... lol... but I definitely need to revisit my span and slug size....
So thanks for the reply’s, I’m gonna roll what I got for now and see if my body can hold up Enough to bowl consistently, and if I can, upgrade then...
-
In the last 10 years, urethane balls were made again. That's about all that has changed.
-
IMHO, the traction potential of "modern" reactive coverstocks has significantly progressed, making for instance particle additives obsolete. However, this responsiveness come at a price, since new stuff has - from my experience - the tendency to read the lane either earlier or more violently. No wonder that urethane sees a comeback, because the stuff's properties fills the reaction gap that reactives have left (and also due to the fact that lanes appear to me to featiure less and less oil volume, so that strong covers are not an effective choice).
-
A bigger factor than oil volumes is age of lanes. A lot of pro lane is getting close to 20 years old, and there is still plenty of snvil lsne and old HPL around. Couple that with the amount of people throwing lots of surface on balls and you get pretty hooking conditions very fast
-
Core designs and ways to maximize a balls potential with the new "no weight holes rule" going into effect soon will be crucial. Fortunately, Radical is already ahead of that curve. ;)
-
Some good points regarding the aging of synthetic lane surfaces . Some years back, there was an article in BTM that was interesting. In that article, it stated that with the original
(first generation) Brunswick synthetic surfaces, they found that the heat created by the friction of balls actually hardened the lane surfaces to a degree due to a chemical reaction caused by the heat of friction of the lane surface. It resulted in the fusing of the surface, causing less traction in the high track areas. Since then though, as synthetics evolved, the general effects of synthetics as they age is as Avabob stated.
-
Current oils are slicker and the volumes are different. This makes older equipment more susceptible to over/under. When on a house wall on a GOOD surface, it would be quite noticeable. On a worn surface, you might not see it as bad, but the new covers match up to the new oils IMO.
Yes you can use the older stuff and score BUT I think you might have more fun with a newer cover ... they are very good at controlling the rip off the dry and blending the wet/dry.
-
Current oils are slicker and the volumes are different. This makes older equipment more susceptible to over/under. When on a house wall on a GOOD surface, it would be quite noticeable. On a worn surface, you might not see it as bad, but the new covers match up to the new oils IMO.
Yes you can use the older stuff and score BUT I think you might have more fun with a newer cover ... they are very good at controlling the rip off the dry and blending the wet/dry.
I get less over under (less hook too but its predictable) with the old stuff (PK18 and Activator especially, N'Control PB yeah over under hell with any volume) but may well be style dependent and of course not all house shots and synthetics are the same. First to admit on sport though probably better off with the new stuff. Also I do love my Forest Green for the heavy stuff so new stuff has its place and have a bit of both.
-
Current oils are slicker and the volumes are different. This makes older equipment more susceptible to over/under. When on a house wall on a GOOD surface, it would be quite noticeable. On a worn surface, you might not see it as bad, but the new covers match up to the new oils IMO.
Yes you can use the older stuff and score BUT I think you might have more fun with a newer cover ... they are very good at controlling the rip off the dry and blending the wet/dry.
If you are talking about older reactives compared to the newer reactives, I would definitely agree. On the other hand, the first and second generation of particle covers do an even better job of taming wet/dry.