win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak  (Read 5063 times)

Nicanor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« on: April 30, 2003, 06:15:45 PM »
I talked with a ball rep from Track and he told me that the Freak has more back end then the Mutant and that the Super Freak fits in between the Freak and the Mutant so far as back end.  I thought that with both bals drilled the same, the Mutant had more length and back end then the Freak.  But he also said the strength in the Super Freak is more in the cover then the core/weightblock.  The core/weightblock is stronger (differential difference between balls) in the Freak and the Mutant as compared to the Super Freak.  So what it seems to me is that the Super Freak is weaker at the pins by the weightblock morphues core but stronger due to coverstock.  I don't know if I like this.  I'll drill mone tomorrow if it comes in and compare the three.  The rep said if I drilled it the same as the Freak and Mutant there will be a considerable/measureable difference.

Anyone else with any input?

V/R,
Nicanor
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

 

Nicanor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2003, 10:02:10 AM »
Thanks ThunderAlley.

But Track just came out with the Threat which has a patricle pearl coverstock with the Triton Heat core and this is a tremendous bowling ball on all but both extremes.  I have not seen anyone who owns and throws this ball that doesn't think its a great ball.  I know that Columbia makes Track's coverstocks and honestly, thats a concern of mine. But the weightblock/cores that Track develops is the best in the business in my opinion.  I think if we could use the coverstocks on Brunswick/Lane 1 bowling balls utilizing Track's cores/weightblocks, especially the Morpheus cores/weightblock, there would be anothe company that could compare to them IMHO. Ebonite/Hammer being close.

V/R,
Nicanor
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

Nicanor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2003, 10:24:25 AM »
Hook in the box baby

Now I have three Freaks, Mutant and tomorrw I will have the Super Freak.  Now ask me how many times I get to use them  The Freak polishes easily, but just kills the ball IMHO.  Your better off just geting the Freak Out.  But when all else fails, I turn to one of my Super carbides (medium oil), but don't tell Track

V/R,
Nicanor
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

Aristotle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
Re: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2003, 12:57:27 PM »
I often pull my Freak out of the bag first, and that is with it dull. I find that if I use the ball playing say, 12-8, the ball has tremendous carry and on the shots that I play on, there's generally enough oil to keep the line.. As they break down, I just move in and the ball continues to drive like a mack truck.. As far as the Mutant goes, I have to have either a shorter heavy condition, or the heads have to be burned up say inside 10 with a good amount of oil around 15-20 so I can swing the inside part of the lane and not have the ball burn up

Nicanor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2003, 08:04:04 AM »
I don't get it.  If the Super Freak fits between the Freak and the Mutant, then why is the Super Freak the Super Freak?  It should be the Weaker Freak

Not much response on this post.  Not many bowlers have thethree?  Anyone drill and have luck with the Super Freak.  I should get mine today and would like a recommended drilling.

Track Customer service.  I called Track but the ball rep was on the phone. The receptionist that answered the phone took my number and said he's call me right back.  I said "sure".  Not even five minutes later he called me back and its a long distance telephone call.

By the way:  I NEVER recieved a response from Ebonite/Hammer with all those emails I sent them and its been over four weeks, a lot over

V/R,
Nicanor
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

srlunatic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4316
Re: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2003, 09:35:58 AM »
Right now have the Columbia WOW as my Mad Oil Ball.....but have a Super Freak on the way......that is the extent of my stupid hooking balls only used once in a blue moon unless I polish the hell out of them to turn them into my Crunch or RevMaster.......laugh..

Funny thing about Track and all the mad oil balls they have....Freak, SuperFreak and Mutant....you can get two of those for under the price of a lane one ball.......

Think Track is just putting out what people want.....Stuuuuuuuuuupid Hookin stuff to impress there friends and 170 ave friends with......for me there midline balls....(currently throw a Crunch and Revmaster and have thrown the Mojo and Voodoo with great success..)....are the best bang for the buck balls you can get....(with WOW series a small step behind...Have the WOW and the WOW Pearl...and they perfect fit for me...)...

Now just have to find somewhere to test out the SuperFreak......will take to Nationals in a couple weeks and hope can try it out there....

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

tekneek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5657
Re: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2003, 07:24:27 AM »
I've been looking at the Track line here of late trying to figure out where to go with my next ball. I looked at the numbers on the Super Freak and began scratching my head wondering where the name came from? I have a Freak and think it is a very strong ball for my game and have shot well with it. Using it on primarily synthetic lanes as it tends to not over react as it does on wood. So I began looking at the Threat and the Freak Out. I just went with the numbers and bought a Freakout and drilled it last night for a tourney tonight. I used it last night in the 3rd game in league after the heads became drier. Drilled pin above bridge, cg right of ring finger and below, mb strong pos. Ball has good length got through heads clean with a strong hooking motion to the pocket hitting very hard. Only problem I ran into was 3 stone cold 9 pins in the last 5 frames. I guess the angle was too great, drove right past the 9. But then again I'd rather shoot a 9 than a 10. Very angular move off the mids on to the backends. looking forward next week at state to see how it reacts on synthetics as a compliment to the Freak.
Steve
Leading Edge Pro Shop
Radical Bowling Technologies Advisory Staff
brinkley2223@yahoo.com
512-755-2947

Bjaardker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2387
Re: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2003, 07:35:57 AM »
I dont know what the track rep is trying to tell you.

Bottom line, the Super Freak will be the earliest rolling & strongest ball in their lineup.

The Mutant shouldn't have more length than the Freak either. The only reason it would is due to either a different treatment of the coverstock, or different drilling. Both are using the WOW II cover & the Mutant has a heavier rolling core. How that would provide more length, I dont know.

I think the most amazing thing about the Freak, the Out, & Mutant is that all of them have the same coverstock, yet because of slight changes to the morpheus core & to the surface of the coverstock, they all give a very different look.

IMHO track really has a leg up on their competition when it comes to cores today.



Edited on 5/8/2003 7:35 AM

Aristotle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
Re: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2003, 07:44:55 AM »
I'm really not too terribly sure why my Mutant actually gives me more length than my Freak either. Only thing that I can really think of is the pin is about 1" further up from the finger bridge than my original Freak. Unfortunately, the first Freak that I owned cracked and had to go back under its warranty.. The replacement ball that I was sent was a 2" pin instead of a 4" pin, so when we set the ball up, the pin was placed underneath the finger bridge. The roll of the ball is really close to the same of the first Freak that I owned, however, the ball seems to like to get into its roll just a few feet sooner. Still an amazing ball and still the first out of my bag. After receiving the replacement, I promptly shot 290 with it.

Nicanor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2003, 09:25:24 AM »
Ok, I tested three Freaks, two Freak Outs, the Threat, the Mutant and now I have tested the Super Freak but only limited.  Look at where the lobes are on the Morphues cores (and yes I know that the Threat does not have a Morpheus core.

I believe the Freak has two lobes on one side of the core one middle one lower.  I believe the Freak out only has one lobe and its middle I believe the Mutant has two lobes both lower and the Super Freak that has two lobes both middle.  The lobes IMHO ad a little eight in that area, so if the lobes are on the bottom of the Morpheus core as both are in the Mutant this maked the ball more coverstock heavy then the Freak or the Super Freak.  What do we say about bowling balls with the weight toward the coverstocks, higher RG with higher RG what do we have, a ball that pushes down the lane more and easier.

The Super Freak hs both lobes in the middle making it a more middle of ball weight heavy which does what, gives it a lower rg and the ball revs up easier reads the mid lane better but is a little more difficult to get down the lane.

Now if you want to talk difference, yes the Super Freak is the same coverstock then the Freak and Mutant but it is much duller and seems a lot more poreus.  The hook in the Super Freak has more to do with the coverstock then it does with the core/weightblock, look at the differental.  the Mutant and the Freak get down the lane a lot easier then the Super Freak but I believe its because the surface on the Super Freak puts the brakes on the ball.  I want to be fair and I can't test the Super Freak properly until my arm is healed and allows me to put a little more speed on the ball.  This is my opinion, may not be fact.  Bt all other opinions are welcome

V/R,
Nicanor
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

Bjaardker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2387
Re: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2003, 09:51:43 AM »
quote:
Ok, I tested three Freaks, two Freak Outs, the Threat, the Mutant and now I have tested the Super Freak but only limited.  Look at where the lobes are on the Morphues cores (and yes I know that the Threat does not have a Morpheus core.

I believe the Freak has two lobes on one side of the core one middle one lower.  I believe the Freak out only has one lobe and its middle I believe the Mutant has two lobes both lower and the Super Freak that has two lobes both middle.  The lobes IMHO ad a little eight in that area, so if the lobes are on the bottom of the Morpheus core as both are in the Mutant this maked the ball more coverstock heavy then the Freak or the Super Freak.  What do we say about bowling balls with the weight toward the coverstocks, higher RG with higher RG what do we have, a ball that pushes down the lane more and easier.

The Super Freak hs both lobes in the middle making it a more middle of ball weight heavy which does what, gives it a lower rg and the ball revs up easier reads the mid lane better but is a little more difficult to get down the lane.

Now if you want to talk difference, yes the Super Freak is the same coverstock then the Freak and Mutant but it is much duller and seems a lot more poreus.  The hook in the Super Freak has more to do with the coverstock then it does with the core/weightblock, look at the differental.  the Mutant and the Freak get down the lane a lot easier then the Super Freak but I believe its because the surface on the Super Freak puts the brakes on the ball.  I want to be fair and I can't test the Super Freak properly until my arm is healed and allows me to put a little more speed on the ball.  This is my opinion, may not be fact.  Bt all other opinions are welcome

V/R,
Nicanor


Nic,

The Super Freak is NOT the same coverstock as the rest of them. It has a much higher load of particles & is billed as the WOW II Ultra. Only the Freak, F.O. & mutant share the WOW II normal coverstock.

As far as the cores go, excuse my ignorance, but I was under the impression that the heavier the "lobe" of the asymmetrical core, the quicker the ball would reach its PSA, therefore leading to an earlier roll. I apologize if I'm mistaken there, i'm still a little green on the whole RG thing.

I would assume that the reason the super freak doesn't have the large lower lobes is because they are trying to conserve as much energy as possible with the super aggressive coverstock they are using.

And as for the Mutant going a little longer, I found the answer:

Mutant:
Factory Finish: 1500 Smooth
Freak:
Factory Finish: 1200 Fine




Nicanor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2003, 10:07:34 AM »
The Mutant and Super Freak are almost symmetrical though i don't disagree that they are asymmetrical.  The Freak and the Freak Out are more asymmetrical.  With both lobes in the middle of the ball it gives it a lower rg reving the ball up a touch earlier then the balls that have more weight that is considered cover heavy.  The ball rep said that the Super Freak would fit between the Freak and the Mutant.  The Super Freak seems to be more coverstock then core/weight block as compared to the Feak and the Mutant.  i think the noted diff tells us this was the attempt.  but the coverstock on the Super Freak seems very porus.  I'm not great at all this high tec stuff so I'm not trying to say this is fact, but open to discussion so we can all learn more.

V/R,
Nicanor
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

Bjaardker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2387
Re: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2003, 10:34:53 AM »
quote:
 The ball rep said that the Super Freak would fit between the Freak and the Mutant.


And yet that is the exact opposite of what Track is marketing this ball at being.

Quote from their website:

"The Super Freak is undoubtedly the strongest ball in the Freak line."

Yet 1 look at the actual stats seems to show a different story. This ball has the lowest RGdiff. out of their whole line up & only claims to have a max of 4" of flare.

Either this coverstock is so super aggressive that they cant put a stronger core in, or......god forbid.....they are planning on releasing another, stronger ball.

I sure wish there was a Track rep that frequented this site more often.

Edited on 5/8/2003 11:14 AM

Phillip Marlowe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2554
Re: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2003, 10:47:01 AM »
Super Freak. Seen it.  Coverstock IS that aggressive.  Incredible.
--------------------
----------------------------
"It's just a carry contest."  
"Some men get the world.  Others get ex-hookers and a trip to Arizona."

Bjaardker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2387
Re: Super Freak compared to the Mutant and Freak
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2003, 11:17:20 AM »
quote:
Super Freak. Seen it.  Coverstock IS that aggressive.  Incredible


Excellent, someone else who's seen it.

Term, Is this ball really meant to fit in between the freak & mutant from what you've seen?