I came across this post about why bowling balls lose their reactions. (http://www.motivbowling.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15174), but what I'm confused about is why motiv can last so long without losing their reaction that quickly, but when i use hammer or columbia equipment, that reaction doesnt last for more than 20? I wipe my ball after every shot and clean after every session, but it just seems to lose that reaction so much faster than my motiv equipment. Am i doing something wrong or is there anything I can do to keep that reaction for a longer period of time?

Quote from: Applejacks on June 27, 2015, 07:00:30 PM

I came across this post about why bowling balls lose their reactions. (http://www.motivbowling.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15174), but what I'm confused about is why motiv can last so long without losing their reaction that quickly, but when i use hammer or columbia equipment, that reaction doesnt last for more than 20? I wipe my ball after every shot and clean after every session, but it just seems to lose that reaction so much faster than my motiv equipment. Am i doing something wrong or is there anything I can do to keep that reaction for a longer period of time?

So your losing reaction after 20 games, If all your doing is just wiping and just using some cleaner on it I'm not surprised.

More than likely you need to touch up the surface, you know take a abralon pad or piece of sandpaper to it.

That's one of the thing's mentioned in that 4 year old post see: "2. Restore the surface."

Your surface texture is changing everytime you roll the ball down the lane. So depending on just what surface you have on the ball, your reaction can change fast.

Check out the Jayhawk Ball Surface Scanner-3 Game Surface Analysis video.

I remember years ago when I first started following these bowling forums.  Most of the posters who preached the meticulous care of the cover stocks were Ebonite people.  I think covers have improved somewhat over the years.  Early Storm pearls were very bad for dying.  However Ebonite solids were the worst.  A former Ebonite staffer told me he was pretty sure part of the problem was the shell thickness.  Brunswick shells prior to 2007 were easily the most durable.   

I think the manufacturers have actually changed or cut back on the resin additives from the first couple of generations in the 90's.  It should be remembered that all resin balls are urethane with the resin additive.  The resin  basically improved friction off the oil without the aggressive shell prep that was standard on strong urethanes prior to resin.   This lead to a more extreme skid snap look that we would prefer to be tamed down a bit today.  If you think about it, we dulled stuff up in the 80's to try to get it to hook more.  Today we dull it up to get it to burn off energy earlier and smooth out the hook. 

In summary, shells have changed on balls since the introduction of urethane.  Before resin, it was hard to keep the shell in box condition partly because the lane polished the shell, but partly because even non resin urethane absorbed oil to a greater extent than we understood back then.  Original Black Hammer, and Columbia Black U Dots were terrible for longevity.