win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: Epoxy bowling balls  (Read 17939 times)

Armourboy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
Epoxy bowling balls
« on: July 14, 2013, 10:40:22 PM »
Ok so I know Columbia 300 came out with the EPX-T1 prior to being sold to Ebonite. I also know that it had a lot of issues with the initial batch and was not received well overall.

The reason I ask is, it just seems odd that the technology just completely died from one ball release. Is it a case that after more testing and research that they couldn't solve the problems with the new resin, or is it that everyone is just afraid that the general bowler wouldn't give it a try after what happened with the EPX-T1?

I think I remember reading that Storm was working on the same technology at the time, but I don't ever recall seeing them release one.

I guess a secondary question would be, are companies just simply afraid to go out on that limb today like they might have 10-15 years ago?
Logged

 

sdbowler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4066
Re: Epoxy bowling balls
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2013, 10:42:42 PM »
Due to the large failure nobody wanted to give it another shot. If I recall there was a lot of issues with it. Due to the amount of ball companies that are out now and the fear of releasing a big flop ball companies are not willing to take such a huge chance. Those are just my thoughts.
Logged

MI 2 AZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8156
Re: Epoxy bowling balls
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2013, 02:00:06 AM »
Besides the EPX-T1, there was an overseas version the EPX-A1.

AMF had an epoxy ball out too - I think it was called the Velocity.


Logged
_________________________________________
Six decades of league bowling and still learning.

ABC/USBC Lifetime Member since Aug 1995.

Armourboy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
Re: Epoxy bowling balls
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2013, 03:15:07 AM »
Were they just not very successful across the board? Just seems odd that everyone just up and dropped them.
Logged

itsallaboutme

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
Re: Epoxy bowling balls
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2013, 05:59:50 AM »
At the time the balls were alot more expensive to produce, so they wholesaled for about $25 more than current high end at the time.  Couple that with a 50% defect rate and that pretty much shut down the epoxy coverstock. 

There was no AMF ball.  It was only released under C300.  There was discussion if it should be released as an AMF, C300 or Track ball first.  Track was slightly higher priced at the time and doing it under AMF would have protected the other brand's reputations, but it was ultimately decided to use the C300 label. 

There were test balls out using other cores.  I'm not sure what core the AMF guys tested.  I was a Track salesman at the time.  I had one with a Rule core.  It made the production balls with the Rock On core look weak.
Logged

Armourboy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
Re: Epoxy bowling balls
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2013, 07:05:16 AM »
Yeah I guess a higher price + that many bad balls would stop it in its tracks pretty quick. Just semi surprised they didn't keep working on it. Although I guess after 8 years and still not getting it right it may be time to cut your losses.
Logged

itsallaboutme

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
Re: Epoxy bowling balls
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2013, 07:10:06 AM »
The Ebonite purchase of C300 was about 9 or 10 months after.  I left just as the EPX was released so I'm not positive about the timeline, but I know it was less than a year.
Logged

Armourboy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
Re: Epoxy bowling balls
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2013, 07:37:43 AM »
Makes me wonder how much of the future they had riding on it then. Appreciate the info.
Logged

rymacatthedisco

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1631
Re: Epoxy bowling balls
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2013, 08:07:40 AM »
I had an EPX, still have it actually. It still hooks when nothing else will make a move, if there is a flood of oil, the EPX can handle it for sure...i should prob take a look at it and see if it cracked like everyone else. It's been sitting on the rack for 3+ years
Logged

itsallaboutme

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
Re: Epoxy bowling balls
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2013, 08:20:25 AM »
It was a swing for the fences because if it had been successful it would have been the next coverstock craze.  I wasn't in a position to know if it was do or die, or if this would have turned it around to keep a sale to EBI from happening. 
Logged

bcw1969

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Epoxy bowling balls
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2013, 10:21:38 AM »
Around that time track was also planning on releasing an epoxy ball with the "clamshell" core, the one in the inertia, forget why I was told that never happened. Also amf did come out with the overseas epoxy ball "Project-X" . Amf also made a few velocity epoxy balls, there was a green one and a blue one but they never received approval from the usbc.

Brad
Logged

Cobalt Bomb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2053
Re: Epoxy bowling balls
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2013, 10:30:43 AM »
The Project-X was even PBA approved due to it being cleared for the Japan Cup (when AMF was still product registered)
Logged

itsallaboutme

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
Re: Epoxy bowling balls
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2013, 10:46:35 AM »
The clamshell was the replacement for all the weight blocks that used the "plate" design.  There were financial reasons for wanting to get away from that design.  We'll leave it at that.
Logged

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2779
Re: Epoxy bowling balls
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2013, 11:44:49 AM »
No inside info, and certainly not intimately familiar with the facts, but I have always believed that the failure of the Epoxy ball lead directly to the demise of Columbia.  Lots of sunk R and D, high cost to manufacture, plus all sorts of quality control problems batch to batch doomed the ball.  I had one.  Never thought it got a good reaction, and it cracked out after relatively few games.

Here is the thing people do not understand about ball reaction.  Finding something with pure increased friction is not enough.  Urethane was successful because it had more friction than polyester.  However resin enhanced urethane was a step forward because it enhanced friction off the dry without significantly increasing friction in oil.  Besides the quality control isssues, Epoxy failed because it increased the friction in the oil as much as off the dry.  If you lose your early skid as a price for more hook it accomplishes nothing except on the most flooded conditions.   
Logged

itsallaboutme

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
Re: Epoxy bowling balls
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2013, 01:39:22 PM »
One bad ball isn't going to make or break a company.  If it would have been successful the idea was it could have turned things around because it was a completely new coverstock. 

Only about 1/2 of them cracked.  There were some pretty great bowling minds that worked out of San Antonio.  I'm pretty sure they understood ball reaction. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
« previous next »