Synthetic V/S Wood.

[jimcross]

Firstly, let me say, that this a completely serious question, and I would thank in advance those who contribute who have proper knowledge of the subject. This is not to say, that those with opinions only should not contribute.

Until about 2 decades ago, generally, all lanes and approaches were wood, and with few exceptions, the one type of wood.

Some of the earlier centres which went to synthetic, either overlay or full, were not much in favour with most bowlers. Especially the early approaches, which tended to be hard to slide on.

Before I stopped bowling for a few years until a couple of years ago, there still weren't many about. I can appreciate the maintenance differences, but my query more relates to their 'playability.'

Some time in the 90s, probably around 1995 / 96, I attended some sort of seminar in Brisbane, run by a representative of one of the major US equipment manufacturers. I think he was a Vise President or something similar. I think his name was Mike ? something. Can't remember exactly.
The seminar was about lane maintenance / preparation, etc. Importantly, his company was a manufacturer / supplier of wood and synthetic lanes. In brief, his stated view, despite the above was, that wood was, and would probably always remain ( subject, of course, to proper maintenance ) the superior bowling surface.

As I intend to resume bowling again as soon as practical, ( and on wood lanes where I live ) and I have been on this site regularly recently, catching up on what's happening, I have gathered the firm impression that synthetics are definately the superior and totally preferred surface, and wood lanes are looked down upon, almost as something to be avoided at all costs.
Like, " oh yeah - but that was on wood lanes, and like comments."

Why is it so? Can someone bring me up to date?

 

[Troyza]

At the moment I prefer my old wooden lanes, but that's only because I haven't bowled for 2 months, & have only just started going back to practice, but this time on synthetic lanes.

Instead of people saying Synthetic lanes inflate scores, perhaps they need to say wooden lanes decrease scores, instead. Why? Well my reasoning is that synthetic lanes are a lot harder but consistant compared to wooden lanes. Wooden lanes are softer, thus the ball creates a larger ball foot print on the lane, making it react differently. But in the end, they are both only a change in condition.
Think of it like, clay courts to grass courts in tennis. Not a completely different game, but a completely different playing field. Low friction to high friction. Anyways that's just what I think.

 

[WAC4504]

I know I'm new to the site but maybe I can help a little with this question. It wasn't very long ago we were bowling on wood lanes here at Billy Hardwicks, I hated to see them go mostly due to the fear of the unknown. The hard wood is softer than the synthetics which helps create moor hook. On the other hand the synthetics tend to level the playing field by being laid in solid sheets instead of individual boards. It reminds me of a huge counter top being laid, and although it is harder holds oil better. It does take some getting used to but, on fresh oil all lanes are the same. And there are different synthetic lanes out there, I bowled on some you would swear were wood but, they weren't. It just depends on who made them and when. Personally I like both but, here in Memphis area there are no wood lanes that I know of. Good luck and good bowling
Bill

 

[GeorgeF]

Hi Jim

I remember reading an article about this a few years ago, I'm not sure if this is the one below but it's pretty good on explaining it

Wood v Synthetics

WOOD LANES HAD EPOXY SURFACES LAID ONTOP OF THE WOOD.THEY WERE SANDED OFF TO RESURFACE THEM FOR A GOOD AS NEW LOOK.THIS WAS DONE LIGHTLY 1/16" UP TO 1/4" DEPENDING ON THE DAMAGE TO THE LANES.THIS IS TO REMOVE ALL SPLINTERS & INDENTATIONS TO MAKE SMOOTH.THE SURFACE THAT THE EPOXY MADE WAS SUPPOSEDLY UNEVEN & ROUNDED LANDS & GROVES.THINK OF IT LIKE YOUR GOLF EQUIPMENT. THE OLD ROUNDED GROOVES GRABBED THE BALL LESS THAN THE NEW V GROOVED SLITS WITH SHARP EDGES.THE SHARP V GROOVED SLITS GRABBED THE GOLF BALL MORE.THE POROUS EPOXY SURFACES HAD ROUNDED PITS WITH ROUNDED TOPS COMPARED TO V PITS WITH SHARP TOPS ON SYNTHETICS.THE SYNTHETIC POURS WERE ALSO EVENLY FOUND.WERE TALKING UNDER A MICROSCOPE, YOU FIND PATTERNS LIKE UUU & VVVV & UWUV ON THE SURFACES.THE SYNTHETICS ARE MADE FOR UNIFORMITY(VVVVVVVV)AN EVEN UNIFORMITY ON THE CUPS TO HOLD THE LANE OILS ARE THOUGHT TO HOLD THE OIL WITH LITTLE CARRY DOWN.SO THEY MADE WAY SOFTER BALL SURFACES TO TAP INTO THE DEEPEST CUPPS MESSING THINGS UP ALL OVER AGAIN.

THEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE TOP EDGES OF THE SURFACES. ON EPOXY WOOD, YOU COULD FIND UNEVEN LIKE MMNIUWH(WERE LOOKING AT THE VERY TOP)AS FLUID(OIL) SETTLED INTO THE UNEVEN POURS,YOU GET UNEVEN OILS LIKE MICRO PUDDLES & SHALLOW GROOVES THAT DO NOT HOLD OIL FOR LONG.THIS WOULD ACCELERATE CARRY DOWN & AN UNEVEN ROAD TO THE POCKET. THE SYNTHETIC SURFACES ARE MICROSCOPICALLY DIFFERENT DUE TO DIFFERENT COMPANIES COPYRIGHTS ARE BASICALLY UNIFORMED(VVVVVVV,WWWWWWWW). THE TOP OF THE CUPS ARE SHARP & UNIFORMS FOR EVEN OIL & EVEN TRACTION FOR THE BALLS.

TODAY,THERE ARE OVER 60 DIFFERENT YOU COULD SAY VISCOSITY LIKE 10W 40,5W 30 WHERE THERE WAS ONLY 2 FOR WOOD 501 & 511 WINTER & SUMMER.THE OILS ARE SO LIGHT NOW SO THEY CAN RUN SMOOTH THROUGH THE FINE SPRAYERS IN THE OIL MACHINES THEY LOOSE THE IDEA ON STABILIZING THE CARRY DOWN.IT IS HARDER TO REMOVE A OIL FROM A GROOVE THAN THINNER WATER.

TODAY, YOU GET A BUNCH OF HOOK ON DRY & A WHOLE LOT OF SKID ON OIL.BECAUSE OF THE LANDS & GROOVES IN THE SYNTHETIC LANES & THE BALLS LANDS & GROOVES.LIKE RUBBING 2 PIECES OF SAND PAPER TOGETHER OR 2 DRY PIECES OF RUBBER & ADD A LITTLE OIL YOU GET MAX SLIP.
WOOD, YOU GET AN ARC EVEN FLOW TYPE OF A SHOT DUE TO SMOOTHER LANDS & GROOVES.NOW YOU GET SLIP OR GRAB.

THE WOOD CONDITIONS ALLOWED SEVERAL ADJUSTMENTS LIKE STATIC WEIGHTS & SURFACES IN A BALL FOR A MORE IDEAL LINE TO THE POCKET FOR THE BOWLER. NOW IT IS PIN PLACEMENTS & TYPE OF ROLL.SINCE THE LANDS & GROOVES ARE NOW A LOT SHARPER, THE BALLS TRACK IN (WEAR OUT)A LOT FASTER. ONCE THE BALL HITS DRY, THERE IS NO 3RD COMPOUND FOR SLIPPAGE SO THE HEAVY HOT FRICTION BETWEEN BALL & SYNTHETIC LANE IS HARSH.

COMPARED TO WOOD & SYNTHETICS NOW ?
WOOD WAS MORE OF A SMOOTHER REACTION & THE NEW SYNTHETICS HAS A WAY SHARPER HOOK POINT OR A WHOLE LOT OF SKID CREATING A SKID/SNAP TYPE OF ROLL. THE LATEST SOFT SHELLED BALLS CREATE CARRY DOWN WITH THE OIL AGAIN! BUT REACTIVE RESINS SOAK UP MORE OIL THAN OLDER URETHANES,PLASTICS & RUBBER WITH THE LIGHT OIL JUST RE-CREATES CARRY DOWN.

 

[Easy Tiger]

I don't have much to add from a technical perspective but from a bowling perspective I much prefer wood and always have. I don't mind HPLs but I hate anvilane, horrible surface.

 

[jimcross]

Thanks people, so far. George, can I get your impressions and opinion re both surfaces, and apparently different synthetics?

 

[GeorgeF]

Depends on the brand of Synthetics Jim

This is my summary on some of them I've bold

HPL/SPL - Most friction I have found of any lane surface, gutters tend to be forgiving and because of the extra angle your ball is able to generate it usually means higher strike percentage. All of my big high game sets have come on this lane surface. Alot of world scoring records have been set on this lane surface.

Anvilane (Old Brunswick Synthetics) - Lowest friction of any lane surface, for me its more about creating mid lane roll with this lane surface and getting the ball to set up. Even on the chance your able to get the ball to break hard at the back on this surface, you wont carry, corners are brutal.

Anvilane PRO (new Brunswick Synthetics) - In between HPL and Anvilane I think Brunswick have finally sorted out their stuff. Corners are able to be kicked out a little better not and there is a touch more friction at the back. Again though for me this lane surface is about mid lane more than backend.

Kegel - Very similar to Anvilane PRO, a decent amount of friction however the corners are tough to get out.

There is a few more brands out there but these are the ones I constantly bowl on. I feel comfortable enough to win on any lane surface these days as I know how to play them. A few years ago I'd struggle on and Brunswick lane surface but now I feel even more confident.

Wood is a whole different kettle of fish and I'd write an essay comparing it. Let's just say over time you can 'burn' a track into wood which results in it coming into play sooner on most patterns. You dont see it that much these days but looking at the first 15ft of the lane is a good indication where that track is before you even bowl a ball. In may case, there is never a left, especially on 5 board

 

[steve jones]

You are aware that the current synthetic brands you're discussing here are supplied by and large by third party manufacturers - and that the development of the science comes from these suppliers and is not unique to this industry.

Now such has not always been the case but for some time, very particularly in more recent history, with the massive drop off in sales of capital bowling equipment globally the sourcing from third party suppliers for much of the complete bowling equipment package has become the norm [by necessity of survival in fact]. To drive the point home you might want to read the recent overall corporate financial report [year 2009]of the biggest publicly listed company in the industry - it is sobering to say the least.

 

[jockey]

I would take wood over synthetics any day Jim.

As has already been mentioned synthetics give a more consistent playing surface day in day out so to me this defeats part of the challenge of bowling.
What I mean is they play almost the same across the house whereby that was never the case with wood.

Wood provides a challenge still to the bowler whereby sadly I beleive synthetics take the challenge away.

Sadly as wooden lanes have disappeared here in Melbourne I believe so has the depth of skill level that the current bowling crop have at their disposal. There is no substitute for learning your craft on tough wooden lanes.

Chadstone bowler now but forever Northcote at heart! I in doubt go to the trusty Northcote shot. Never fails!

 

[jimcross]

Thanks everyone, so far. Let me clarify why I want to know as much as possible about this. When I'm able to resume bowling, I want to TRY to apply 1960s bowling techniques to modern conditions and equipment, hopefully in a way which hasn't been done before.
Obviously, synthetics form part of the differences I need to appreciate.

If I am to succeed, I need to try to understand all the current technology. If I was to fill a cup with water from Sydney Harbour, then the cup would hold my total understanding of present ball technology, with the harbour representing how far I have to go.

The differences are obviously huge. In the 1960s there was no ball technology. Balls were round and had holes in them so they fitted your hand properly, or at least better than a house ball did. That was the only difference.

Everything depended, solely on bowler technique and consistancy of approach, release, speed accuracy, and so on. Sure, lanes changed. A pair of lanes would vary lane to lane, and the next pair different again, no different from now ( with the possible exception of synthetics, you tell me ) The lanes also differed from centre to centre, but generally speaking, not all that much.

Surely, combining the two ( balls with built-in homing devices, apparently ) with a bowling method that doesn't rely on that, should work. Shouldn't it? Without carrying 20 balls? Or am I missing something?

 

[bigman]

ive only been bowling for just over a year now avging 214 on wooden lanes i bowl in 2 centers ones syn one wooden i like wooden lanes better so far but i bowl just as good on syn lanes i get hell of alot more hook on wooden lanes then syn.

 

[GeorgeF]

Jim

It comes down to angles as you can appreciate. Friction matched with the ball surface and drilling is one of the biggest challenges in our sport. This whole synthetics v wood thing really doesnt matter too much to be honest. If you can create strong angles, you'll strike on any surface.

For me, I start at the pins and work back. I know what my optimum strike angle is, I then work back and try to ensure my entry angle is going to allow my ball to follow that pathway through the pins. Next time your in Brissy give me a call, I'll be happy to discuss it over a coffee. I dare say its worked for me for 10yrs now Especially in the last 5

G

 

[Geoff300]

Wood lanes = Bowling , learning the game, true averages
Synthetic lanes = High Tech Bowling balls and lanes = unrealistic high Scoring

Give me the old days of real bowling on wood lanes any day !!!

 

[jimcross]

Geoff300, I agree, but that doesn't matter, because it's not what is. I'm about coping ( actually, more than coping ) with the reality of what is. Takung advantage of it.

George, what you say makes perfect sense to me. The matter of angles has always been the same. If a ball, a 16lb ball anyhow, enters the pocket on the right board, at the right angle, and the pins are on spot, it is impossible NOT to strike. Trouble is, you can't achieve that angle of entry on one lane ( or even 2 ) with a straight ball. Hence the need to hook the ball.
That's fine, but what you understand, and I don't, is why one may need multiple balls to achieve this. I don't understand modern ball dynamics. I don't even understand why a modern ball ( apparently ) has a far greater chance to strike ( carry ) when entering the pins in the wrong place, than does a poly ball. Naturally we all know that all, or even the majority, of strikes are not 'perfect strikes'. Right board, right angle, etc.
I'd like to have a coffee with you again, but I think I need longer than that. But, I'll keep at it. Old time precision + Hi Tec balls ( but only a couple ) Why not, I still ask? Trouble is, Presently, I'd need someone behind me handing me the appropriate ball.

 

[AH1992]

BRING BACK THE WOOD LANES!

 

[willey]

Jim, to put it simply, it's angle of entry! It's not the Pins as some believe, just the angle the Ball can enter the Pocket.

Why these Balls can do that is mostly the Footprint and Flare, to keep it simple.

willey

 

[WAC4504]

Jim I take it that it's been quite a while since you've bowled. But I believe you will find it easier than you think, once you get started. You'll find that what ever you bowl on really makes no difference because you will learn to adjust to all situations. As for why so many balls- I like to use 3 balls, one for heavy oil: these balls tend to soak up oil much like a sponge would making room for the surface of the ball to contact the surface of the lane. Next I have a medium oil ball for when the heavy oil ball gets to hooking to hard or there's just not as much oil on the lane. This ball also absorbs oil but not as much which tames the hook you might say. The next ball is a light oil ball for lanes that have little to no oil left on them, these balls absorb very little oil but still hook. This is just a very quick and brief over view to give you an idea of what people are talking about, and why you will probably want moor than one ball. Trust me there's much moor to it as far as ball surfaces and so forth go. What you might like to do is to visit your pro shop and talk with them, the moor questions you ask the moor you will learn and the moor comfortable you will be about bowling again. And remember no matter how long it's been, the technique may have changed, but object is still the same. Hope this helps. Good luck and good bowling
Bill

 

[bowlrig]

As a bowler = wood lanes.

As a proprietor = synthetic lanes

Rob

 

[Geoff300]

Geoff300, I agree, but that doesn't matter, because it's not what is. I'm about coping ( actually, more than coping ) with the reality of what is. Takung advantage of it.

George, what you say makes perfect sense to me. The matter of angles has always been the same. If a ball, a 16lb ball anyhow, enters the pocket on the right board, at the right angle, and the pins are on spot, it is impossible NOT to strike. Trouble is, you can't achieve that angle of entry on one lane ( or even 2 ) with a straight ball. Hence the need to hook the ball.
That's fine, but what you understand, and I don't, is why one may need multiple balls to achieve this. I don't understand modern ball dynamics. I don't even understand why a modern ball ( apparently ) has a far greater chance to strike ( carry ) when entering the pins in the wrong place, than does a poly ball. Naturally we all know that all, or even the majority, of strikes are not 'perfect strikes'. Right board, right angle, etc.
I'd like to have a coffee with you again, but I think I need longer than that. But, I'll keep at it. Old time precision + Hi Tec balls ( but only a couple ) Why not, I still ask? Trouble is, Presently, I'd need someone behind me handing me the appropriate ball.

Jim

Today it is about ball choice for the lane condition and changing balls as the condition changes AND or moving your feet
It is the ability to not only make the change but make the change
at the right time that makes the difference between winning or not.
Bowling balls today are massively different in internal dynamics IE weight blocks which change ball balance
Mix that with the right cover stock along with PAP and
you have all the answers

The next part is execution of all of the above

 

[sturner]

The issue for me is the approach more than how the actual lane reacts. Currently I bowl at Cannington which I believe is still wood approach and at Joondalup which appears entirely synthetic. The difference in the 2 is huge for me. I can guarantee I will slide on wood at Cannington - perhaps too much sometimes but I can alter that. The opposite is true at Joondalup. I cant guarantee I will slide, especially in humid conditions as was the case tonight and at last years Nationals in QLD which for me usually means I end up in a heap on the floor at the foul line with a couple of bashed knees and a few pulled muscles.

If centres could still have smooth wood approach that didnt get sticky like the synthetics do, while having synthetic lanes if necessary for economic value that would solve my problems.