epcoming summer new ball releases

[RobLV1]

Michael: Your question to me about the Virtual Gravity points out the problem that Storm had with this ball perfectly. It was not the Virtual Gravity that I was excited about, it was the Zero Gravity. Here's some background: In 2008, Storm introduced the Virtual Gravity which was a very aggressive, early rolling ball (rg 2.48, diff 0.048), following it up in 2009 with the Virtual Energy which had the same aggressive core with a different cover material and surface. In 2011, the next introduction in this line was the Virtual Gravity Nano with the same core, and a new, more aggressive cover material, this time followed up the same year with the Virtual Gravity Nano Pearl, with the same core and a pearlized version of the cover. Fast forward to 2013 with the introduction of the Zero Gravity.

In my humble opinion as an ex-marketing executive, the naming of the Zero Gravity represents a huge marketing error on the part of Storm. They took a name with a long history of representing early rolling, aggressive bowling balls, and arbitrarily assigned it to a ball with a high rg (2.55), and a low differential (0.037), and created massive confusion not only among bowlers, but among pro shop operators as well.

Let me give you an example. A friend of mine throws a shot with a whole lot of axis tilt; a semi-spinner. He also sets the ball well short of the foul line. Before you laugh, he averages 220+ on a house shot. Anyway, his go-to balls are the Storm Cross Road, and the Storm Frantic. He was looking for a ball that would give him a slightly different look, and I recommended the Zero Gravity. He went and talked to his ball driller (a very high rev player) who told him that the Zero Gravity would read way too early for him. Apparently he didn't realize that his high rev rate makes the friction of the aggressive cover much more important than the resistence of the rg, while the low rev rate of his customer makes the resistence much more important than the friction, and the friction can still be minimized with a surface change.

So, back to your original question, yes I bought the Zero Gravity (two, in fact), and really liked the ball. In fact, I bowled a 299 game the first week with the ball. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter I started using Brunswick equipment. Because of my belief that the ability to switch between bowling balls seemlessly is paramount in modern bowling, I really don't like to cross between brands. It just so happens, however, that the week before last I was bowling in the Senior Masters, and on the second day when I was bowling the double burn at 2:00 pm, I decided to go to another bowling center to warm up as I found the 10 minutes of practice afforded by the USBC to be insufficient to get my body loose. As all of my equipment was in the paddock at Southpoint, I grabbed an old pair of shoes and the Zero Gravity and headed over to Red Rock to try and get loose. I still really like the reaction I get from this ball. Unfortunately most of the bowlers who buy the ball are disappointed because they expect an early-rolling hook monster based on the name.

[Amyers]

Michael: Your question to me about the Virtual Gravity points out the problem that Storm had with this ball perfectly. It was not the Virtual Gravity that I was excited about, it was the Zero Gravity. Here's some background: In 2008, Storm introduced the Virtual Gravity which was a very aggressive, early rolling ball (rg 2.48, diff 0.048), following it up in 2009 with the Virtual Energy which had the same aggressive core with a different cover material and surface. In 2011, the next introduction in this line was the Virtual Gravity Nano with the same core, and a new, more aggressive cover material, this time followed up the same year with the Virtual Gravity Nano Pearl, with the same core and a pearlized version of the cover. Fast forward to 2013 with the introduction of the Zero Gravity.

In my humble opinion as an ex-marketing executive, the naming of the Zero Gravity represents a huge marketing error on the part of Storm. They took a name with a long history of representing early rolling, aggressive bowling balls, and arbitrarily assigned it to a ball with a high rg (2.55), and a low differential (0.037), and created massive confusion not only among bowlers, but among pro shop operators as well.

Let me give you an example. A friend of mine throws a shot with a whole lot of axis tilt; a semi-spinner. He also sets the ball well short of the foul line. Before you laugh, he averages 220+ on a house shot. Anyway, his go-to balls are the Storm Cross Road, and the Storm Frantic. He was looking for a ball that would give him a slightly different look, and I recommended the Zero Gravity. He went and talked to his ball driller (a very high rev player) who told him that the Zero Gravity would read way too early for him. Apparently he didn't realize that his high rev rate makes the friction of the aggressive cover much more important than the resistence of the rg, while the low rev rate of his customer makes the resistence much more important than the friction, and the friction can still be minimized with a surface change.

So, back to your original question, yes I bought the Zero Gravity (two, in fact), and really liked the ball. In fact, I bowled a 299 game the first week with the ball. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter I started using Brunswick equipment. Because of my belief that the ability to switch between bowling balls seemlessly is paramount in modern bowling, I really don't like to cross between brands. It just so happens, however, that the week before last I was bowling in the Senior Masters, and on the second day when I was bowling the double burn at 2:00 pm, I decided to go to another bowling center to warm up as I found the 10 minutes of practice afforded by the USBC to be insufficient to get my body loose. As all of my equipment was in the paddock at Southpoint, I grabbed an old pair of shoes and the Zero Gravity and headed over to Red Rock to try and get loose. I still really like the reaction I get from this ball. Unfortunately most of the bowlers who buy the ball are disappointed because they expect an early-rolling hook monster based on the name.

Rob I agree with this 100% the naming of this ball really screwed up the intro of a really great ball. Everybody expected this to be the next big skid/flip heavy oil hook monster and that's not what this ball is. I had a lot of friends who bought this ball off of the virtual gravity reputation without looking at the numbers or waiting on a single video to come out. In my opinion the zero gravity is a great medium oil control ball could even be considered benchmark piece. It's a great ball that a lot of people just were looking for something different due to the name.

Upside I'm waiting for one of those guys to trade one in. It'll be second drill but if I can get it $50 can't beat that. Just no 15 lbs. yet.

[Stormed1]

whats this 500, 500, 500 stuff related to surface???? (hammer balls???)H

Ebonite International uses 4 Haus type machines to put the finish on their balls. After a predetermined time the balls are moved from one machine to the next. In the case of the Hammer you questioned it would mean a 500 pad in the first 3 machines and a 1000 oad on the last. So when you see their listing of finish it is that grit on each of the successive machines.

Reportedly Roto will be announcing 5 new balls at Bowl Expo

[Sourtower]

The thing with Roto grip is I have looked on the approved ball list and I'm not seeing anything that has been tested and approved at this time. So what they have to say has lil traction till the balls are tested and pass. The ok will always come out 3-4 months before WWRD. A lot can change in that time. So let's say they tell you what's coming out. Then they send it in for usbc testing your still looking at a mid fall to winter release.

That's some good info to know. Thank you very much for that. I wonder if this means that Hammer will be coming out with the Complete Aim soon lol

[Jaescrub]

The only problem with looking at the USBC approved list is that some balls are over seas releases and some company's will have a ball approved under one of there other company's names. The smack down was under the DV8 line and we all know it's not a DV8 ball! But good hunting

[rv driver]

Michael: Your question to me about the Virtual Gravity points out the problem that Storm had with this ball perfectly. It was not the Virtual Gravity that I was excited about, it was the Zero Gravity. Here's some background: In 2008, Storm introduced the Virtual Gravity which was a very aggressive, early rolling ball (rg 2.48, diff 0.048), following it up in 2009 with the Virtual Energy which had the same aggressive core with a different cover material and surface. In 2011, the next introduction in this line was the Virtual Gravity Nano with the same core, and a new, more aggressive cover material, this time followed up the same year with the Virtual Gravity Nano Pearl, with the same core and a pearlized version of the cover. Fast forward to 2013 with the introduction of the Zero Gravity.

In my humble opinion as an ex-marketing executive, the naming of the Zero Gravity represents a huge marketing error on the part of Storm. They took a name with a long history of representing early rolling, aggressive bowling balls, and arbitrarily assigned it to a ball with a high rg (2.55), and a low differential (0.037), and created massive confusion not only among bowlers, but among pro shop operators as well.

Let me give you an example. A friend of mine throws a shot with a whole lot of axis tilt; a semi-spinner. He also sets the ball well short of the foul line. Before you laugh, he averages 220+ on a house shot. Anyway, his go-to balls are the Storm Cross Road, and the Storm Frantic. He was looking for a ball that would give him a slightly different look, and I recommended the Zero Gravity. He went and talked to his ball driller (a very high rev player) who told him that the Zero Gravity would read way too early for him. Apparently he didn't realize that his high rev rate makes the friction of the aggressive cover much more important than the resistence of the rg, while the low rev rate of his customer makes the resistence much more important than the friction, and the friction can still be minimized with a surface change.

So, back to your original question, yes I bought the Zero Gravity (two, in fact), and really liked the ball. In fact, I bowled a 299 game the first week with the ball. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter I started using Brunswick equipment. Because of my belief that the ability to switch between bowling balls seemlessly is paramount in modern bowling, I really don't like to cross between brands. It just so happens, however, that the week before last I was bowling in the Senior Masters, and on the second day when I was bowling the double burn at 2:00 pm, I decided to go to another bowling center to warm up as I found the 10 minutes of practice afforded by the USBC to be insufficient to get my body loose. As all of my equipment was in the paddock at Southpoint, I grabbed an old pair of shoes and the Zero Gravity and headed over to Red Rock to try and get loose. I still really like the reaction I get from this ball. Unfortunately most of the bowlers who buy the ball are disappointed because they expect an early-rolling hook monster based on the name.

Rob: Why don't you like crossing between brands? Since I've never thrown more than one ball at a time, I'm interested in your take on this.

[rv driver]

Rob I agree with this 100% the naming of this ball really screwed up the intro of a really great ball. Everybody expected this to be the next big skid/flip heavy oil hook monster and that's not what this ball is. I had a lot of friends who bought this ball off of the virtual gravity reputation without looking at the numbers or waiting on a single video to come out. In my opinion the zero gravity is a great medium oil control ball could even be considered benchmark piece. It's a great ball that a lot of people just were looking for something different due to the name.

Upside I'm waiting for one of those guys to trade one in. It'll be second drill but if I can get it $50 can't beat that. Just no 15 lbs. yet.

A lot of the problem is that on the Storm web site, the ball is listed in the Premier Line, which is generally touted as creating "the most total hook and ball motion across the entire product line -- quickest transition, greatest entry angle." That description sounds like a testosterone-leaking, barn-burning, hairy hook-monster.

[Hampe]

Rob: Why don't you like crossing between brands? Since I've never thrown more than one ball at a time, I'm interested in your take on this.

I'd be curious to know as well. I switch between my Track and Roto-Grip stuff all the time (and before that Storm and Brunswick). For me a ball is a ball as far as brand goes.....Is it just an eccentric tick you have Rob, or is there an actual reason?

[Amyers]

The new rotogrip balls are up on rotogrips website

HP4 Sinister
HP3 Hysteria
HP2 Out Cry
HP1 Scream Shout color change

[RobLV1]

It's definitely not an eccentric tick, I have good reason. Everything about a balls core is known: shape, low rg, differential, etc. These elements are all measurements, and can easily translate from one ball company to another. The cover material is a totally different beast. There are three elements which determine how a cover material reacts to the lane: Coefficient of Friction (COF) in oil, COF on dry, and oil absorption. All of these things are routinely measured in the development of a cover material, and tested by the USBC as part of the approval process. Unfortunately, none of these numbers are shared with us (bowling consumers). What you have left is marketing rhetoric to tell you how the ball will react, and like most marketing rhetoric, they are going to tell you what you want to hear.

So, in my mind there are two reasons for staying with one companies' balls. First, the general characterics of the cover materials tend to be consistent within the companies' products. An example of this is my own observation that Storm products tend to react more to friction and skid more in oil, while Brunswick products tend to give a better read in the oil and don't over-react to friction. The other reason concerns the fact that many manufacturers use the same cover materials and the same cores over and over again in different combinations. Again, using Storm as an example, the R2S reactive cover material has been used on many of their lines of bowling balls since it's introduction on the Special Agent in 2006. If you have used that ball, any of the "Road" series, and of the Fast, Furious, and Frantic series, or the IQ Tour balls, then you already know what to expect when you buy a new Storm ball that utilizes the R2S cover material.