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

Author Topic: Depth Charge vs Eraser Particle Pearl vs Reloaded vs El nino 2000  (Read 2348 times)

Belgarion

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 559
Depth Charge vs Eraser Particle Pearl vs Reloaded vs El nino 2000
« on: April 20, 2004, 11:09:26 PM »
I think I want a depth charge, but am wondering how it compares to the rest of storms particle pearls.  I have had an EPP and El nino 2000, and a reloaded.  Though I haven't thrown the reloaded yet.  I loved the EPP and el nino 2k, so if I go looking for a new ball is this depth charge the answer, or should I just buy another EPP.  Any opinions are appreciated
Logged

 

Bjaardker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2387
Re: Depth Charge vs Eraser Particle Pearl vs Reloaded vs El nino 2000
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2004, 06:28:52 PM »
The only noticeable physical difference between the DC & the EPP is that the EPP only has a 2% load of particle where the DC has a 3% load.

Other than that, everything that Stormlefty said is true.
Logged

da Shiv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
Re: Depth Charge vs Eraser Particle Pearl vs Reloaded vs El nino 2000
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2004, 10:29:24 PM »
Bjaardker--
     Where did you get those percentages?  I'm always trying to find quantifiable information like that, but the ball companies seem to be loath to give it out.

I see that the coverstock difference between the Eraser Particle Pearl and the Depth Charge is that the EPP is Prothane LT and the DC is Prothane LT-PLUS.  If your numbers are correct, I guess the PLUS is the additional percent of particles.

Shiv
--------------------
Forever let us hold our banner high

Edited on 4/22/2004 9:14 AM
Logged
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top

Bjaardker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2387
Re: Depth Charge vs Eraser Particle Pearl vs Reloaded vs El nino 2000
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2004, 11:24:04 PM »
I got them from the Pro Shop owner that coaches me from time to time.

We were out on a coaching session & he had a DC out on the lanes.

He claims that those percentages came right from the Storm reps. I'm usually a skeptic, but he said it pretty matter of factly in mid-conversation. I can tell when he's putting his "salesman" hat on & making guesstimates.

He also just got done attending a conference with a bunch of Storm folks and a couple of pros (including PDW). I'm pretty sure that's where he picked up the ball so I figure that's also where he got the info.

It's a shame that ball companies dont share more details like that with the public. Then again, I've always thought that the industry does a terrible job informing its customers.

quote:
Bjaardker--
     Where did you get those percentages?  I'm always trying to find quantifiable information like that, but the ball companies seem to be loathe to give it out.

I see that the coverstock difference between the Eraser Particle Pearl and the Depth Charge is that the EPP is Prothane LT and the DC is Prothane LT-PLUS.  If your numbers are correct, I guess the PLUS is the additional percent of particles.

Shiv
--------------------
Forever let us hold our banner high
Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24524
Re: Depth Charge vs Eraser Particle Pearl vs Reloaded vs El nino 2000
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2004, 02:30:25 AM »
Actually those numbers (2% load vs 3% load) are not unreasonable. The website calls the EPP "Prothane LT" while the DC's is called "LT Plus"; I assume that "PLUS" is an additional 1% of particles added. Together with the significantly lower RG rating (2.46 vs 2.53), the DC should hook noticably earlier or on heavier oil AND handle carrydown better or just handle more carrydown.
--------------------
"We get old too fast, and too late, smart."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

tburky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
Re: Depth Charge vs Eraser Particle Pearl vs Reloaded vs El nino 2000
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2004, 03:05:49 PM »
The La Nina ball has a higher particle load. I believe it was higher than 5. After that ball was made and approved, the amount of particle load a ball could have was lowered to 5% by ABC. Maybe someone from storm could chime in on this. Also, La Nina was XT not ET.



Edited on 4/22/2004 4:13 PM
Logged

LuckyLefty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17348
Re: Depth Charge vs Eraser Particle Pearl vs Reloaded vs El nino 2000
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2004, 01:23:42 AM »
Oh, my lordI thought the particle load on some balls was up in the 17% range.

Some balls with this load are the Brunswick Pro Zone Azure, Chaos, AMF Evo Tour,
Close a Reaction Roll. Hammer 4D HPT.

I think I'm spot on on these.

REgards,

Luckylefty
Logged
It takes Courage to have Faith, and Faith to have Courage.

James M. McCurley, New Orleans, Louisiana

Brickguy221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9918
Re: Depth Charge vs Eraser Particle Pearl vs Reloaded vs El nino 2000
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2004, 02:21:55 AM »
I may be wrong, but I think the Depth Charge has the El Nino 2000 cover, but with a different core.
--------------------
Nothing hits as hard as an Uranium
Logged
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away"

tekneek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5657
Re: Depth Charge vs Eraser Particle Pearl vs Reloaded vs El nino 2000
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2004, 01:57:39 PM »
I drilled a DC last night, 3" pin 5x4 pin under ring on a walled 10-10 fresh house shot. Ended up with 1 oz pos side, 1/2 oz finger and 1 oz top weight. All I can say is the DC is a whole lot more ball than I expected. Clean through the heads with early roll and a good mid lane read. Much more angular than I expected when it encountered the dry backends at 45 feet. I was astounded with the recovery of the DC tried to miss way right and it still came home, ended up at 38 throwing 20 at the arrows out to 8 at 45. Keeping the ball inside and the ball still had plenty of backend playing tighter at 38 to 13 @ 45ft. I was truely impressed with the DC. Light- med load med coverstock with a very agressive core from the X Factor line, great ball from Storm.

I've got med ball speed at 15-15.5, med rev rate PAP 5" over 3/8" up and relative high track with 45* release
Logged
Steve
Leading Edge Pro Shop
Radical Bowling Technologies Advisory Staff
brinkley2223@yahoo.com
512-755-2947
Pages: [1]
« previous next »