BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: downstroker7 on May 05, 2016, 12:58:14 PM
-
What do people mean when they say they liked a certain ball's cover? Would one ball's cover at 2000 react differently than another's? If two ball's are at the same surface does that eliminate it from the equation and leave it to core and layout?
-
Different reasons. There are certain covers I like because I've been able to change the surface and get the reaction I was expecting to get.
And yes to one ball reacting different than another at 2000. A Tropical Breeze at 2000 is going to be different than something like a Lock or Nirvana at 2000 because covers are different strength and they have different cores
-
Durability
Adjustability
Versatility
-
I thought there was solid proof that today's bowling ball covers adjust to lane surface just after several throws. Seems to me adjustability has gone right out the window.
-
I thought there was solid proof that today's bowling ball covers adjust to lane surface just after several throws. Seems to me adjustability has gone right out the window.
I think that was like after 12 games or so so you have time to make it to the spinner. I just wish the logo's would last longer then a season.
-
I should have worded my initial post differently. How is one solid cover oob at 2000 better or worse than another's? I'm talking just cover.
-
I should have worded my initial post differently. How is one solid cover oob at 2000 better or worse than another's? I'm talking just cover.
There are others that can explain it far better than I, but there are chemical variations in coverstocks (even between two different solids) that make a huge difference in the way they react on the lane. It's a LOT more scientific and technical than the general consensus seems to believe.
-
I should have worded my initial post differently. How is one solid cover oob at 2000 better or worse than another's? I'm talking just cover.
There are others that can explain it far better than I, but there are chemical variations in coverstocks (even between two different solids) that make a huge difference in the way they react on the lane. It's a LOT more scientific and technical than the general consensus seems to believe.
+1.
Besides the chemical additives, there are also different types of particles added. Both of these can either help make a ball hook earlier or later (skid more), handle different amounts of oil (porosity of the coverstock), and help define the hook shape you will see on the lanes.
-
I should have worded my initial post differently. How is one solid cover oob at 2000 better or worse than another's? I'm talking just cover.
There are others that can explain it far better than I, but there are chemical variations in coverstocks (even between two different solids) that make a huge difference in the way they react on the lane. It's a LOT more scientific and technical than the general consensus seems to believe.
+1.
Besides the chemical additives, there are also different types of particles added. Both of these can either help make a ball hook earlier or later (skid more), handle different amounts of oil (porosity of the coverstock), and help define the hook shape you will see on the lanes.
How do I recognize the cover causing a reaction opposed to core or layout?
-
I should have worded my initial post differently. How is one solid cover oob at 2000 better or worse than another's? I'm talking just cover.
There are others that can explain it far better than I, but there are chemical variations in coverstocks (even between two different solids) that make a huge difference in the way they react on the lane. It's a LOT more scientific and technical than the general consensus seems to believe.
+1.
Besides the chemical additives, there are also different types of particles added. Both of these can either help make a ball hook earlier or later (skid more), handle different amounts of oil (porosity of the coverstock), and help define the hook shape you will see on the lanes.
How do I recognize the cover causing a reaction opposed to core or layout?
I really don't know. I am not an expert in anything. Perhaps find another ball with the same core, different coverstock and put the same layout on it?
Even that might not prove anything as the one time I tried to duplicate a reaction by buying the same ball with the same specs and putting the same layout and surface on it I got a different reaction. Or maybe that proves it as the coverstock may not have been identical being from a different batch?
-
Even though the cover accounts for as much as 80% of ball reaction, I don't think you can talk in terms of shell only. All shells degrade with respect to factory condition. It becomes which shells and cores match up best after a ball gets 30-50 games on it.
Good example I can think of is the original virtual gravity. It is considered by many to be one of Storms bet balls in the last 10 years. However, for many of us the best attributes of the ball didn't really come out until the ball polished to the lane.
Other examples are the original inferno. The pearl polished shell on that ball seemed to never really change much even with hundreds of games on the ball, partly because of the way it matched up with the very low rg core. When the activator shell was matched up with higher rg cores, the results were much less popular.
-
It is a combination of things. In the end too many factors to take into consideration.
Not all covers are the same even with the same "name". Then you have the finish of the coverstock, the core of the ball used, along with the performance category of the product.
One of the biggest factors for long term coverstocks is ease of maintenance. There are plenty of covers out there that absorb very little oil that can/do work well in a wide range of performance categories depending on finish. There are others that are used across many performance categories that absorb more oil, and without being maintained will lose a lot of performance and be labeled "dead" quickly or as a bad cover.
The better you understand what finishes to use that work best for you and your conditions bowled on the better your chances of being more successful with many varieties of bowling balls. Also coverstock maintenance, deoiling/resurfacing the ball to maintain the reaction you expect the ball to keep like when first purchased.
My pick in general is for coverstocks that absorb very little oil. They seem to have the most success in general long term for a larger variety of bowlers.(low maintenance)
-
The one that works best for the individual rolling the ball
-
The one that works best for the individual rolling the ball
Please don't take this as an attack you, but statements like this really don't help the sport out at all. Even though it has some truth, what it really does to the general bowling community is this: they think that there is a specific ball with a specific layout out there just for them that it going to give them endless strikes. In reality what they should be doing is improving their game through practice and coaching.
I will admit, I did this 20 years ago. I wasted a lot of money on top end bowling equipment that I ended giving away to people when I wasn't using it anymore. Just thinking about it, instead of me buying three high end bowling balls and using that money on a top notch coach, just how much further in my game would I have been.
Don't get me wrong. Some of you are well knowledge in this sport and definitely understand filling gaps and replacing a ball in an existing arsenal.
-
Let me preface this post by saying that all shells degrade, and I always like have a couple of balls with new shells in my arsenal when I go to a big money tournament.
Having said that, if 80% of ball reaction is the shell, then 80% of the shell reaction is a function of the bowlers release and the oil pattern. If you have a high axis rotation and rev rate you are going to get a more angular move off the end of the oil even with a solid than I would with a pearl due to my low axis rotation.
-
I like to keep things simple ,for simple minds