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?

It could easily be used in some shape or form that has a different name. Just like particle covers now referred to in many cases as "addative". There is always something new to promote.

A few bowlers in my area had an EPX-T1 when they were first released. It wasn't a big hooking ball, just very rolly and early which was great when the lanes had oil and nothing else hooked. The big problem with the new shell was that it had a tendency to crack and the ball was rather expensive compared to other balls in it's class. I had a used one and I liked it but the epoxy shell had an odd smell and the cover would bleed oil if you didn't towel it off or clean it right away. Other than that it was a pretty solid oiler with good hit.

Anyway I sent an email to Columbia 300 back then asking if there would be any future balls utilizing the epoxy cover. I got a reply from Danny Speranza saying they were researching possibilities or something to that effect. Can't quite remember since it was so long ago but it was sad to see C300 being sold soon after and not having the opportunity to see what they could do with the epoxy cover in future balls. Oh well.

There have been other shells tried by companies over the years.  Ebonite had something called acrylium in the mid 90's.  A few guys had some instant success with it, but it also never caught on. 

The true bottom line with all shell advancements is simply that there is not really much room for improvement.  On house shots we already have guys averaging 250 which means they are only losing 2 hits per game.  On tournament patterns there is really no shell that allows you to get the ball in the pocket more to overcome inconsistent release problems.  When you do hit the pocket on tournament patterns the carry is also very good. 

When the first soft polyester balls came out in the early 70's there was a quantum improvement in carry compared to the harder shell balls.  When urethane came out its different friction characteristic again improved carry significantly for guys who could generate revs.  Resin enhanced urethane increased carry power for lower rev guys significantly.  Nothing since resin in the early 90's has really been shown to enhance carry the way those innovations cited did when they were introduced.   

I think the next big thing is being worked on. However we will not really know about it as much as say Epoxy or particle equipment. It's going to be something "tweaked" and not really released on what that tweak is. That is my guess.

I gotta say the Best oiler I have ever had in my hand was the EPX. It was different somehow in a way i can't put a finger on

Epoxy was first started by AMF.  AMF came up with the formula and was doing the research.    I didn't witness this story first hand but as told to me....They had a few samples of different strength balls and one of their pro staff guys (Brian Voss) would test them at one of the expos.   The balls were nuts and there was no amount of oil that could control them.  If I remember correctly even the balls had pancake cores to show you how strong the cover was.   They had 3 strength of coverstocks and the 1st two were silly strong. 

Voss lined up with a Nighthawk and threw a couple of X's in a row.  They handed him a test epoxy ball and it went into the left hand gutter.    How much of this is truth, or story I'm not sure of. 

Some time after that AMF sold the project to Columbia or lent it to them to develop.   At the time I can't remember but I think AMF and Columbia were business partners.

The epoxy ball didn't sell because it was too smooth and didn't offer the type of reaction that league bowlers were looking for.   League bowlers didn't want the "urethane" reaction on steroids.   The ball was ugly looking as well and had no shelf appeal.  Thrown in the problem with cracking and you had a project that went south fast. 

Same thing went for particle balls.   Anyone remember the Rip-Tide?

Particle balls got better as coverstock tweaks came out.  Than the bowling community seemed to get tired of the ball reaction and the word "particle" became a no no.  Particle get re-named as enhanced reactive resin, or low load particle resin and whatever new name came out as the cover stocks had lower % of particle loads.

 

AMFs was Project X

I had a EPX and it was great, reliable and consistent in oil more so than anything else.