Author Topic: Differences in synthetic lanes (Read 4678 times)

tommyboy74 · « **on:** April 07, 2015, 10:18:35 PM »

I figured pose a fun question for everyone while still being useful at the same time. Around my area, most places use either AMF HPL/SPL/MAD II or Brunswick Anvilane synthetics. That will be changing soon as a new bowling center opening later this year will be the first around here to use Murrey Regulation synthetics.

Seeing that I have never bowled a game on a Murrey surface before, I figured that could be interesting once the place opens later this year.

That being said, what synthetics have you all had experience with? Also, what are the things you've noticed, both good and bad?

avabob · « **Reply #1 on:** April 08, 2015, 10:42:26 AM »

I have bowled on quite a few over the years, even the first generation GE permalane that came out in the late 70's. I have bowled on HPL and SPL. HPL was a very soft surface that could be very high scoring. First introduced in Nationals at Wichita where all sorts of records were set. Brunswick has had about 3 or 4 generations of synthetics. Anvil Lane and Pro lane are very hard surfaces. Scoring is pretty much what the lane machine puts out on those surfaces, although like all synthetics they do tend to track over the years not unlike wood did in an earlier era.

Heddon also had a synthetic that was used in nationals for a couple of seasons about 15 years ago. Again, played pretty much like anvil lane or pro lane.

I have bowled in a couple of houses with a Murray synthetic. To me it has some attributes of HPL in that it really opens up in the back ends.

I think the modern lane machines with the high volumes and heavy viscosity oils can largely mask the surfaces difference between the brands.

Author Topic: Differences in synthetic lanes (Read 4678 times)

tommyboy74

Differences in synthetic lanes

avabob

Re: Differences in synthetic lanes