Urethane vs. well used reactive

Bowling ball related topics including new products, arsenals and comparisons.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
EmersonScott
Member
Member
Posts: 1
Joined: February 4th, 2020, 11:09 pm

Urethane vs. well used reactive

Post by EmersonScott »

For context, I've been bowling long enough that I remember when urethane was new (an upgrade from polyester, unless you had a C300 bleeder) and reactive resin hadn't been born. With urethane balls becoming the new latest thing, I'm wondering how new urethane compares generally to reactive balls that have seen a few years of service and are more or less oil-soaked.
TonyPR
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1386
Joined: December 14th, 2014, 3:08 am
Preferred Company: Radical
Location: San Juan, PR

Re: Urethane vs. well used reactive

Post by TonyPR »

Different reaction, urethane is early rolling and smooth in the back.
Silver Level Coach
Kegel KCMP1 and KCMP2 Completed /Approved Exam
Kegel KCMP3 Completed
Kegel Certified Pro Shop Operator
Free agent
krava
Probation
Probation
Posts: 1167
Joined: March 18th, 2016, 12:43 am
Preferred Company: hammer

Re: Urethane vs. well used reactive

Post by krava »

If you want to try to get the same or close to the same reaction as a urethane with a reactive, try a Brunswick BTU. There is a brand new one on ebay for sale.

If you want to stick with urethane, then check out the storm pitch purple. If there is short oil on the lane (say like 36 feet) I would suggest the urethane. If you have longer 38 or so,(and you want a urethane type ball reaction) then the BTU is what I would use. I am not sure what is out there that could be close to the BTU (that is a reactive). Maybe a Hustle Ink drilled with a short pin.

I have a Hustle ink and it is a nice controlable curve. It hooks alot more then the BTU though. It goes longer with alot more backend. It isn't drilled with a short pin I don't believe.
Post Reply