BallReviews

General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: bcw1969 on May 12, 2019, 03:04:39 PM

Title: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: bcw1969 on May 12, 2019, 03:04:39 PM
In regards to bowling equipment, is innovation truly dead?  This sport has gone from wooden balls (lignum vitae) to rubber balls to plastic balls to urethane balls to dynamic cores to reactive resin balls and particle balls & hybrid balls like the helix and double helix and epoxy coverstocks(short lived) and from symmetric and then asymmetric cores.  Is there anything left to bring out that hasn't been done  before. Is there nowhere else to go with covers & cores to truly be innovative?

Brad
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: SVstar34 on May 12, 2019, 03:21:58 PM
Decreasing oil absorption and increasing performance seems to be the new thing companies are going after, at least Storm with the SPEC cover of the Crux Prime and Motiv with the Covert Tank.

I'm not sure what the next step could be
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: billdozer on May 12, 2019, 06:19:35 PM
They could innovate and not make such brittle covers that didn't crack so easily.

Suggesting for a friend...
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: CoorZero on May 12, 2019, 07:47:00 PM
With the coverstock regulations being what they are resin technology may be at the peak of it's life. Not sure what else could be done with cores. With simulation models available it's hard to fathom there's some stone left unturned in that regard.

What I wonder about is if there's an alternative to resin coverstock technology. No idea if that's feasible or what could be used instead, but that's all I got.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: avabob on May 12, 2019, 08:17:17 PM
Barring a significant change in lane surface, or oils, there is not much futher ball technology can go.  The super high rev rates of the modern power players, particularly 2 handers has led to urethane coming back into vogue at the highest competitive levels. 
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: DP3 on May 12, 2019, 09:22:40 PM
The next innovation will be "Particle" coming back and remarketed as some sort of Ultra-Urethane that can be used on more conditions.

And the crowd will go wild again. Especially if it smells good ;)
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: bcw1969 on May 12, 2019, 09:37:58 PM
I'd love to see the particle urethane of my Midnight Scorcher make a comeback--unfortunately it would be with a different company since visionary is no more. What I would really love is a particle pearl version of my Midnight Scorcher --- same core but a pearlized urethane with particle.

Brad
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: DP3 on May 12, 2019, 09:40:10 PM
PowerGroove Black Particle was very close to that ball IMO. Read early without hooking, moved late and flared about 7"
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: Bowl_Freak on May 13, 2019, 10:02:23 AM
Might look at the new Motiv ball coming out, Covert Tank. They are advertising it as not a urethane and not truly a reactive. Im not a Motiv fan but it is interesting.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: northface28 on May 13, 2019, 10:13:48 AM
Barring a significant change in lane surface, or oils, there is not much futher ball technology can go.  The super high rev rates of the modern power players, particularly 2 handers has led to urethane coming back into vogue at the highest competitive levels. 

Yeah and my middle of the road 450 rev rate leads to lots of buckets. Just don’t get on it enough to use urethane with any level of success.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: Steven on May 13, 2019, 10:57:48 AM

Yeah and my middle of the road 450 rev rate leads to lots of buckets. Just don’t get on it enough to use urethane with any level of success.

THIS is why I don't get all the attention paid to Urethane. Unless you're a bowling freak like a Jesper Svensson, Reactive Resin is almost always going to be a better choice.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: Bowl_Freak on May 13, 2019, 11:05:38 AM
I'm not a rev dominate player, far from it. I have had a lot of urethanes and loved each and every one of them. I could today make an arsenal up and score probably as well but more consistently than i can with resin. Don't get me wrong i love the lower end reactives, but sometime i want to square up and the only way i can play straighter more comfortably is with polished urethanes or the urethane pearls coming out. Carry can be an issue sometimes, but ill take spares over splits anyday.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: Steven on May 13, 2019, 11:35:45 AM
I'm not a rev dominate player, far from it. I have had a lot of urethanes and loved each and every one of them. I could today make an arsenal up and score probably as well but more consistently than i can with resin. Don't get me wrong i love the lower end reactives, but sometime i want to square up and the only way i can play straighter more comfortably is with polished urethanes or the urethane pearls coming out. Carry can be an issue sometimes, but ill take spares over splits anyday.


Nothing is absolute. You personally may in fact have success with Urethane over Resin. In most cases, this is generally not true for most higher end bowlers.


There are many medium to entry level strength low differential resins that provide control with greater hitting power than Urethane. These balls will almost always be a better option.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: BowlingForDonuts on May 13, 2019, 11:48:25 AM
They could innovate and not make such brittle covers that didn't crack so easily.

Suggesting for a friend...

+1.  Old stuff hasn't cracked for me so far.  Only stuff made in last 2 years.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: ignitebowling on May 13, 2019, 12:20:20 PM
The most notable changes in the last few years is with coverstock finish options in general. 500/1000, 500/2000 and all the other many combinations that bowlers can now apply to endless equipment options for better results.

Coverstocks have shown no real change. Marketing of said coverstocks is far more creative but the product has not given us a ball reaction we haven't seen before.


Then we have cores. Lots of shapes, but again nothing new in on lane reaction or performance. When looking at the core numbers for comparison most haven't shown any change there as well. So many cores keep some type of light bulb shape in many cases.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: michael.willis9 on May 13, 2019, 02:18:47 PM
i highly disagree with the idea that innovation is dead in any ways shape or form.

hell even in the last not even 6 months, we've seen the crux prime and the covert tank which are bringing out something new.

we're essentially common folk, sitting here trying to discuss innovation.  there's people whose job it is to come up with new stuff... it'll happen, they're researching things we can't even picture unless you've been working in the field forever but also have a forward thinking mind
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: avabob on May 13, 2019, 04:56:17 PM
Always going to be room for innivation, but doesnt mean it will be successful.   The trend to urethane is interesting.  I have carried urethane since the natural came out.  However if I had a buck for every time I sot 250 out if the gate,  but with no good move in transition I would be rich.  Saw Buttruff and Svensson have the same problem last week.  Even with nearly 600 RPMs they cant over power the carrydown.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: ignitebowling on May 13, 2019, 09:12:03 PM
i highly disagree with the idea that innovation is dead in any ways shape or form.

hell even in the last not even 6 months, we've seen the crux prime and the covert tank which are bringing out something new.

we're essentially common folk, sitting here trying to discuss innovation.  there's people whose job it is to come up with new stuff... it'll happen, they're researching things we can't even picture unless you've been working in the field forever but also have a forward thinking mind

What has either ball truly shown us we haven't seen before and is changing bowling? Creative marketing now considered innovation?
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: DP3 on May 13, 2019, 10:23:10 PM
The next innovation will be high RG balls that still hook a ton. The biggest benefits being, balls that are able to cover a ton of boards down lane/in friction. This way even on longer patterns, you still get some backend in that small window. Eventually they'll be able to find the right cover for a 2.56+ rg, z-axis spinner with a  .022+ diff, and regular diff of .058  in order to make this a reality.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: itsallaboutme on May 14, 2019, 06:55:20 AM
If there was any real money to be made making bowling balls you would see some true innovation instead of picking colors and names for existing cores and covers.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: dizzyfugu on May 14, 2019, 07:33:29 AM
I'd hope some innovation effort would be allocated to durability - but this would be easy when the covers would be 1" thick again.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: itsallaboutme on May 14, 2019, 08:40:51 AM
What incentive do manufacturers have in making a more durable product if warranty claims are within their accepted range?  Consumers aren't going to pay more because they won't actually believe the product is more durable, and less product will be sold. A ball isn't like a bag or a shoe where you can see any improvement in the product. 
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: johns811 on May 14, 2019, 09:09:11 AM
The next generation of balls will be $300 and only last 50 games.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: michael.willis9 on May 14, 2019, 09:21:17 AM
i highly disagree with the idea that innovation is dead in any ways shape or form.

hell even in the last not even 6 months, we've seen the crux prime and the covert tank which are bringing out something new.

we're essentially common folk, sitting here trying to discuss innovation.  there's people whose job it is to come up with new stuff... it'll happen, they're researching things we can't even picture unless you've been working in the field forever but also have a forward thinking mind

What has either ball truly shown us we haven't seen before and is changing bowling? Creative marketing now considered innovation?

maybe I'm naive but have we really seen this "low oil absorption" before?
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: itsallaboutme on May 14, 2019, 09:31:17 AM
Yeah, usually by mistake.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: Maine Man on May 14, 2019, 01:10:08 PM
I'd hope some innovation effort would be allocated to durability - but this would be easy when the covers would be 1" thick again.

Well, we are seeing this now with Brunswick. The Quantum Bias is thick shell with no filler and also asymmetric. Also, DynamiCore technology is a game changer, as we have only seen (1) ball come back cracked in our shop the last two + years, which is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than everyone else. Add that to the increase in hitting power and it's a win / win. The DOT technology that Brunswick has out also massively reduces risk of cracking because the locator pin is a non factor with those balls. So no, innovation is not dead at all, just evolving like the sport itself.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: itsallaboutme on May 14, 2019, 01:50:50 PM
No filler balls are cheaper to produce.  The cost of material is less than the labor for the added step in the process.  Some won't believe that, but it is true.

Don't mistake improvements in the manufacturing process as ball "innovation".  DOT is strictly to reduce warranty claims.  Somebody just finally figured out it's just as easy to glue the riser pin on the bottom of the core as the top.

And DynamiCore is marketing jargon.  COR is maxed out easily.  I had Chinese balls that tested at the max and those balls hit like dog shit.

Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: ignitebowling on May 14, 2019, 02:25:29 PM
No filler balls are cheaper to produce.  The cost of material is less than the labor for the added step in the process.  Some won't believe that, but it is true.

Don't mistake improvements in the manufacturing process as ball "innovation".  DOT is strictly to reduce warranty claims.  Somebody just finally figured out it's just as easy to glue the riser pin on the bottom of the core as the top.

And DynamiCore is marketing jargon.  COR is maxed out easily.  I had Chinese balls that tested at the max and those balls hit like dog shit.

Filler allowed manufacturers to use one core across several ball weights. Im guessing to save cost vs a different core in each weight.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: ignitebowling on May 14, 2019, 02:29:00 PM
i highly disagree with the idea that innovation is dead in any ways shape or form.

hell even in the last not even 6 months, we've seen the crux prime and the covert tank which are bringing out something new.

we're essentially common folk, sitting here trying to discuss innovation.  there's people whose job it is to come up with new stuff... it'll happen, they're researching things we can't even picture unless you've been working in the field forever but also have a forward thinking mind

What has either ball truly shown us we haven't seen before and is changing bowling? Creative marketing now considered innovation?

maybe I'm naive but have we really seen this "low oil absorption" before?

Yes. Not all bowling balls act like a sponge.


 If a manufacturer tells you something is innovative,  but isn't doing it in every ball they make going forward…..  it probably isn't a big deal.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: itsallaboutme on May 14, 2019, 03:25:44 PM
There is still more labor into a ball with filler.  It adds a step to the manufacturing process.  As I said, some won't believe it.  Less touches equals less cost. 
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: HankScorpio on May 15, 2019, 12:10:37 AM
We typically don’t see low oil absorption in high end balls.

SPEC is absolutely innovative. Sure, the motion isn’t anything new, but pretending that improving surface longevity isn’t innovative is just silly. There’s more to innovating than just ball motion.

As for “don’t mistake improvements in ball manufacturing as innovative”, I don’t even know what to say. Something new or different to improve a process or product is literally the definition of innovative. People seem to be confusing the word innovative with “things that are important to me”.

Sure, some “innovation” is just marketing jargon, and from a ball motion standpoint we’re pretty much maxed out. Still, there’s lots to be done to improve the quality and longevity of balls.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: Pinbuster on May 15, 2019, 05:49:35 AM
I believe innovation is alive and well. There is constant tweaking to existing manufacturing processes, covers, and cores.

Now a revolution hasn't really occurred since resin balls (I believe particle balls to be an innovation on resin). But I believe at some time in future it will happen.

And it might not even be to balls, it maybe to lane bed construction and maintenance. Possibly a lane bed that requires no lane conditioner.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: BrunsNick on May 15, 2019, 07:43:44 AM
i highly disagree with the idea that innovation is dead in any ways shape or form.

hell even in the last not even 6 months, we've seen the crux prime and the covert tank which are bringing out something new.

we're essentially common folk, sitting here trying to discuss innovation.  there's people whose job it is to come up with new stuff... it'll happen, they're researching things we can't even picture unless you've been working in the field forever but also have a forward thinking mind

What has either ball truly shown us we haven't seen before and is changing bowling? Creative marketing now considered innovation?

maybe I'm naive but have we really seen this "low oil absorption" before?

Yes. Not all bowling balls act like a sponge.


 If a manufacturer tells you something is innovative,  but isn't doing it in every ball they make going forward…..  it probably isn't a big deal.

So TaylorMade should include Twist Face, carbon fiber and adjustable weight tech on their low end RBZ Drivers too?
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: ignitebowling on May 15, 2019, 08:37:59 AM
i highly disagree with the idea that innovation is dead in any ways shape or form.

hell even in the last not even 6 months, we've seen the crux prime and the covert tank which are bringing out something new.

we're essentially common folk, sitting here trying to discuss innovation.  there's people whose job it is to come up with new stuff... it'll happen, they're researching things we can't even picture unless you've been working in the field forever but also have a forward thinking mind

What has either ball truly shown us we haven't seen before and is changing bowling? Creative marketing now considered innovation?

maybe I'm naive but have we really seen this "low oil absorption" before?

Yes. Not all bowling balls act like a sponge.


 If a manufacturer tells you something is innovative,  but isn't doing it in every ball they make going forward…..  it probably isn't a big deal.

So TaylorMade should include Twist Face, carbon fiber and adjustable weight tech on their low end RBZ Drivers too?

Why isn't all 3 Big B brands using dot technology on every mid price ball and up?  Or dynamicore technology across all 3 brands in upper mid and high performance categories if it really matters?

Why does columbia/hammer have hypershock "like" technology but track/ebonite not?

Why was Quantum innovative in switching to ball filler then years later innovative by not using it? 

I appreciate recycling but don't call it innovation.  Especially if it goes away in a few product cycles.

It's marketing and sales
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: milorafferty on May 15, 2019, 09:29:21 AM
No really, the new Tide IS actually new and improved...

Please, USBC has restricted what the ball companies can do to such an extent that there is little to nothing they(ball companies) can do to improve their product. It's all marketing at this point.


But you staffers go ahead and tell us different, it's okay, we know it's your job.  ::)
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: BowlingForDonuts on May 15, 2019, 10:48:42 AM
No really, the new Tide IS actually new and improved...

Please, USBC has restricted what the ball companies can do to such an extent that there is little to nothing they(ball companies) can do to improve their product. It's all marketing at this point.


But you staffers go ahead and tell us different, it's okay, we know it's your job.  ::)

+1
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: BrunsNick on May 15, 2019, 01:03:14 PM
Why was Quantum innovative in switching to ball filler then years later innovative by not using it? 

Goals and technology change. The goal then was to maintain the performance numbers of the core across the board in all weights. Innovative at the time. Switching to no filler has benefits of increased hitting power with the issue of needing 3 different inner cores to maintain performance numbers in 14-16. That innovation led to matching the hitting power of 2 piece balls while still using an outer core material so the same core could be used 14-16lbs with having the durability of a Quantum... DynamiCore was born. Not only does it mimic thick shell hitting power, but increases durability and reduces cracking. This is not marketing fluff, we have the data to back that up. They examined where balls were failing and the most common reason was drilling too close to a pin creating weak spots and eventual failure. DOT was born...

Between Fearless, Prowler & Notorious (Balls that feature DOT & DynamiCore), we had to warranty 10 balls to date. 10. Of the thousands and thousands of balls sold. 10.

DOT will eventually make its way onto future balls, it's not as easy as just putting a pin on the bottom instead. It's an entire redesign of the core, so only newly designed top performance cores are getting the technology to start. You'll see quite a few more going forward, starting with Bowl Expo.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: BowlingForDonuts on May 15, 2019, 01:16:01 PM
New tech is good but still score better with 10 to 15 year old Brunswick stuff (Infernos, PK17,18 etc) on house shot I see (had to get a Slingshot for one house) compared to newer stuff I have picked up.  Reliability has never been a problem with Brunswick stuff for me.  Its the reason they are in the garage and my Utah stuff has to be babied indoors.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: avabob on May 15, 2019, 02:30:07 PM
Pk 18, and activator ate about the most durable covers I have seen. 
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: milorafferty on May 15, 2019, 02:49:40 PM
I can create data to back up an argument that the Moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't prove the Moon is made of cheese...


I have yet to see any marketing claims backed by hard data.
Title: Re: Is innovation truly dead?
Post by: ignitebowling on May 15, 2019, 04:27:17 PM
Why was Quantum innovative in switching to ball filler then years later innovative by not using it? 

Goals and technology change. The goal then was to maintain the performance numbers of the core across the board in all weights. Innovative at the time. Switching to no filler has benefits of increased hitting power with the issue of needing 3 different inner cores to maintain performance numbers in 14-16. That innovation led to matching the hitting power of 2 piece balls while still using an outer core material so the same core could be used 14-16lbs with having the durability of a Quantum... DynamiCore was born. Not only does it mimic thick shell hitting power, but increases durability and reduces cracking. This is not marketing fluff, we have the data to back that up. They examined where balls were failing and the most common reason was drilling too close to a pin creating weak spots and eventual failure. DOT was born...

Between Fearless, Prowler & Notorious (Balls that feature DOT & DynamiCore), we had to warranty 10 balls to date. 10. Of the thousands and thousands of balls sold. 10.

DOT will eventually make its way onto future balls, it's not as easy as just putting a pin on the bottom instead. It's an entire redesign of the core, so only newly designed top performance cores are getting the technology to start. You'll see quite a few more going forward, starting with Bowl Expo.


It's always about "change" or alleged changes

Brands went to filler years ago for a reason.  Now some on select products are going back to no filler because?????  Sales. 

 We were sold on going away from filler was better now not having filler is better. It's the bowling industry in a nuttshell. Filler is good,  then it was bad,  then it was good for certain things…

"The people who told us about sun block were the same people who told us, when I was a kid, that eggs were good. So I ate a lot of eggs. Ten years later they said they were bad. I went, "Well, I just ate the eggs!" So I stopped eating eggs, and ten years later they said they were good again! Well, then I ate twice as many, and then they said they were bad. Well, now I'm really fucked! Then they said they're good, they're bad, they're good, the whites are good, th-the yellows - make up your mind! It's breakfast I've gotta eat!"