|
|
Prolonging the life and bringing back the reaction of
Reactive and Particle Coverstock balls.
Brunswick is currently in the first phase of testing to document changes
in ball reaction with use, and has come to the following conclusions and
recommendations that match up well with the conventional wisdom
circulating in the bowling community. Our results to date include:
• Both Particle and Reactive coverstock balls lose some of their hooking
action with use.
• This effect occurs faster with High-Load Particle coverstocks than
Reactive coverstocks.
• The primary reason for the change in ball reaction is the absorption of
oil into the coverstock.
• Brunswick’s PowrKoil™ coverstock balls can be rejuvenated, to a “like
new” condition by using the oil removal ovens found in some ProShops.
Recommendations
• Rejuvenate High-Load Particle balls every 30-50 games.
• Rejuvenate Reactive coverstock balls every 60-80 games.
• Brunswick anticipates that Low-Load Particle balls will behave similar
as Reactive coverstock balls, but our testing to date hasn’t included
Low-Load Particle coverstocks.
Since Brunswick has identified oil absorption as the primary cause of
“reduced ball reaction with use” it makes sense to use techniques that
reduce oil absorption.
• Wipe oil from the surface of the ball between shots.
• Use a ball cleaner to remove oil from the surface of the ball after
bowling.
Why the change in ball reaction
The absorption of oil changes the physical properties of the coverstock.
When new, your Brunswick ball has a coverstock free from oil
contamination. With use the coverstock becomes “Coverstock + Oil”. This
new, oil soaked coverstock has diminished ability to traction through oil
and create friction with the lane and diminished ability to respond
aggressively to the dry boards on the lane. Using the baking process to
remove the oil from the coverstock returns your Brunswick ball to its
original condition.
Included below is a detailed description of the testing Brunswick has
performed to date.
Test Setup
We created three pairs of bowling balls for our test:
• Two shiny Raging Red Fuze® Reactive coverstock balls
• Two 320-grit dull Raging Red Fuze Reactive coverstock balls
• Two 320-grit dull Fuze Detonator™ High-Load Particle coverstocks balls
Each pair of bowling balls was tested and identical ball reaction was
confirmed for both balls in each of the three 2-ball pairs. One ball from
each pair was put aside as a control ball, the other becoming the test
ball. We then started accumulating games on the test balls, 1-2 hours a
day, 3-4 days a week.
We checked the test balls against the control balls every 30 games on 38
foot and 50 foot smoothly blended 3/1 oil patterns laid down on both
synthetic and wood lanes.
30 games – No change, both Reactive and High-Load Particle test and
control ball reacted identically.
60 games – Little or no change in the Reactive coverstock balls.
The High-Load Particle coverstock balls showed slightly reduced hooking
action both in the mid-lane and on the back-ends requiring a 1 and 0, or a
2 and 1 move to the outside to be lined up to strike compared to the
control ball.
90 games– Both the Reactive and High-Load particle coverstocks
showed reduced hooking action in the mid-lane and on the back-ends
requiring a 2 and 1, or a 3 and 1 move to the outside to be lined up to
strike compared to the control ball.
At this point in the test we had documented reduced ball reaction with all
the test balls. Our next step was to use the available techniques that
offered some hope of restoring the test balls back to their original
reaction characteristics.
Clean with a ball cleaner: No change in the reaction of the test
balls compared to the control balls.
Light resurfacing: 1-2 minutes with sand paper and a ball spinner.
Surface finish was returned to beginning of test condition. No change in
the reaction of the test balls compared to the control balls.
Machine resurfacing: Test balls were resurfaced with a Haas machine
(25 minutes with diamond cutters): Surface finish was returned to
beginning of test condition. The first 3-5 shots looked promising, but
once a little oil was worked into the surface there was no change in the
reaction of the test balls compared to the control balls.
Pro Shop oil removal oven: Test balls were baked in the
“Rejuvenator” oil removal oven. Oil was wiped from the surface of the ball
every 10-15 minutes using ball cleaner and paper towels. Six cycles of oil
removal were required before the test balls stopped sweating out oil.
After this procedure the reaction of the test balls was identical to the
reaction of the control balls.
Non Issue: Brunswick’s oven testing has included brand new, unused
bowling balls from all three of Brunswick’s major coverstock families
including PowrKoil™, N’Control™ and Activator™. In each case we have not
seen any evidence of the “Bleeding Reactive Resin out of the coverstock”
issue that occasionally appears on internet message boards and post
competition problem solving sessions.
The removal of oil from the test balls coverstock was by far the most
effective method for rejuvenating the reaction of the test balls, and in
fact completely restored the test ball reaction to their original “Like
New” hooking action.
At this point in the test we put the control balls away and started
accumulating additional games on the test balls. The test balls were
checked against the control balls at 30 & 60 & 90 games with results
similar to the first cycle.
At 90 games since the first rejuvenation, 180 games total, we made our
second attempt to bring back the reaction of the test balls. With our
second attempt we went directly to the oil removal process, baking the
test balls using the oil removal oven. The results were the same. The
reaction of the test balls was completely rejuvenated to a “Like New” ball
reaction.
We are currently accumulating additional games on the test balls on our
way to a third rejuvenation cycle.
Baking & Durability
Brunswick is currently conducting a separate test on the effects of baking
and coverstock durability. This test involves creating unbaked control
balls and baked test balls, all with zero games, which are being tested in
Brunswick’s durability testing lab.
At this time Brunswick gives a conditional approval, subject to change
based on the results of ongoing testing, to baking Brunswick bowling balls
using the Rejuvenator ovens found in some Pro Shops. Our test balls have
180 games on them, have been baked twice and show no sign of coverstock
cracking.
Summary
After 180 games and two bakings our test balls react identically to the
control balls that have less than 10 games on them. The oil removal baking
process appears to rejuvenate the ball reaction of oil soaked bowling
balls.
Our testing to date has been with PowrKoil™ family Reactive and High-Load
Particle coverstocks. We anticipate similar results with the N’Control™
and Activator™ coverstocks families, but no testing has been done at this
time. We will report back to BTM the results of future testing as it
becomes available.
The “Rejuvenator” oil removal oven was the method used to extract oil.
Other methods may also work. Brunswick has no opinion on other methods at
this time.
Readers of BTM should be aware that Brunswick’s results are not
necessarily applicable to the coverstocks from other companies and that
differences in opinion between bowling ball manufactures may simply be due
to the fact that we all use different coverstock materials. In reading and
“absorbing” the information published on this subject Brunswick encourages
BTM readers not to try and decide which company has the correct answers,
but accept the advice given by each company as the best advice for their
products.
Bill Wasserberger
Director of Research and Development
Brunswick Bowling Consumer Products
 |
|
