Hi All,
One thing I have seen recently is the prevalence of balls with very thin coverstocks, I am talking about 1cm or so. Now if we accept that oil seeping into the coverstock kills the reaction of the ball, this will happen much quicker with thin coverstocks than with thicker coverstocks (closer to an inch in most places).
I bought a Storm Charge at the start of the year, and the reaction of the ball died within 6 weeks. OK I accept I used the ball a lot in this time, but this was far too quick for my liking. I had to resort to baking the ball every few months to get the reaction back, and I am paying the price for that now as the ball is literally cracking up. Now I stick to balls where the coverstock is much thicker, as the reaction of these balls lasts much much longer.
I get the impression that Storm have recognised this problem with the Charge (and the SuperCharge) by the fact that their latest balls in the Charge line - Depth Charge, ReCharge and Atomic Charge - have much thicker coverstocks. Also the latest X Factor and Hot Rod balls all have thicker coverstocks on them too.
But doing a check of other ball companies (Ebonite & Brunswick in particular) I have noticed that a lot of their so called 'top' balls have extremely thin coverstocks. I realise that thin coverstocks serve a purpose in enabling a lower RG to be achieved withthe ball because there is more lighter density material between the coverstock and the weightblock.
If you are willing to sacrifice ball longevity for a lower RG ball (and other people here will be able to provide a better description of how this affects the ball reaction) then that is fine. But my recommendation, if you want your ball to last more than a few months, is to go for a ball with a thicker coverstock.
Just my opinion, perhaps other people have further comments to make on this.
David.
One thing I have seen recently is the prevalence of balls with very thin coverstocks, I am talking about 1cm or so. Now if we accept that oil seeping into the coverstock kills the reaction of the ball, this will happen much quicker with thin coverstocks than with thicker coverstocks (closer to an inch in most places).
I bought a Storm Charge at the start of the year, and the reaction of the ball died within 6 weeks. OK I accept I used the ball a lot in this time, but this was far too quick for my liking. I had to resort to baking the ball every few months to get the reaction back, and I am paying the price for that now as the ball is literally cracking up. Now I stick to balls where the coverstock is much thicker, as the reaction of these balls lasts much much longer.
I get the impression that Storm have recognised this problem with the Charge (and the SuperCharge) by the fact that their latest balls in the Charge line - Depth Charge, ReCharge and Atomic Charge - have much thicker coverstocks. Also the latest X Factor and Hot Rod balls all have thicker coverstocks on them too.
But doing a check of other ball companies (Ebonite & Brunswick in particular) I have noticed that a lot of their so called 'top' balls have extremely thin coverstocks. I realise that thin coverstocks serve a purpose in enabling a lower RG to be achieved withthe ball because there is more lighter density material between the coverstock and the weightblock.
If you are willing to sacrifice ball longevity for a lower RG ball (and other people here will be able to provide a better description of how this affects the ball reaction) then that is fine. But my recommendation, if you want your ball to last more than a few months, is to go for a ball with a thicker coverstock.
Just my opinion, perhaps other people have further comments to make on this.
David.
