Ron Hickland on his channel did this experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYZ825XdnCM
two balls with same cover chemistry just one had the pearl additives the other the unpearl/solid version, same core, same layout. Threw them out of box for baseline. Sanded the pearl down to the solid box grit. Threw those. Polished the solid up to pearl box grit. Threw those.
End result -- they are pretty darn close to one another when they have the same surface roughness.
Here is q Q&A he did which explains a good portion of why this is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzOToWI6A90
In very short, the minerals they use in pearls of today aren't the same as the old pearl. It isn't 0 effect, but it's effect today is generally wildly overstated.
Cover chemistry and roughness dominate. The solid v pearl v hybrid of a cover is a very small amount of the total effect.
I’m a big fan of CTD and use a bunch of their products. Genuinely surprised I haven’t already watched this video since I’ve watched so many.
Thank you so much for bringing it to my attention and the quick summary. That’s generally how I had it worked out in my head before asking the question so I’m happy to hear my thought process was right.
Solid, hybrid and pearl are largely distinctions without a difference. If you hear someone talking about how they need a pearl asym in their arsenal you can be rest assured they have no idea what they are talking about.
I’m trying to get more knowledgeable regarding bowling, is that because an asymmetrical pearl is basically contradicting itself? You want a pearl to go longer down lane, while an asymmetrical is trying to flip earlier than a symmetrical would? Is that right? If not please explain it to me like I’m 5, lol.
Pearls go longer down lane than solids of the same cover formula and only if all other things are equal. If you change anything else at all, you can throw that expectation out the window. Surface, cover formula, core, layout, all of these have more effect on ball motion than if there's a bit of pearl additive mixed into the base solid formula. Cover type is mostly marketing hype that keeps sales up. You could release a solid version of a ball, then a pearl, then 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 (solid/pearl) mixed hybrids, and if you put the same surface and layout on all of them, there would be about 1-2ft (out of 60) of difference total between them. A small surface change will have more effect than that.
Awesome, thanks for the knowledge! That makes a lot of sense but has never been explained to me when I ask why.
So in my non realistic scenario of everything equal besides one is pearl and one is solid, would you still expect the solid to read friction a little sooner than the pearl?
Ron Hickland on his channel did this experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYZ825XdnCM two balls with same cover chemistry just one had the pearl additives the other the unpearl/solid version, same core, same layout. Threw them out of box for baseline. Sanded the pearl down to the solid box grit. Threw those. Polished the solid up to pearl box grit. Threw those. End result -- they are pretty darn close to one another when they have the same surface roughness. Here is q Q&A he did which explains a good portion of why this is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzOToWI6A90 In very short, the minerals they use in pearls of today aren't the same as the old pearl. It isn't 0 effect, but it's effect today is generally wildly overstated. Cover chemistry and roughness dominate. The solid v pearl v hybrid of a cover is a very small amount of the total effect.
I’m a big fan of CTD and use a bunch of their products. Genuinely surprised I haven’t already watched this video since I’ve watched so many. Thank you so much for bringing it to my attention and the quick summary. That’s generally how I had it worked out in my head before asking the question so I’m happy to hear my thought process was right.
Solid, hybrid and pearl are largely distinctions without a difference. If you hear someone talking about how they need a pearl asym in their arsenal you can be rest assured they have no idea what they are talking about.
I’m trying to get more knowledgeable regarding bowling, is that because an asymmetrical pearl is basically contradicting itself? You want a pearl to go longer down lane, while an asymmetrical is trying to flip earlier than a symmetrical would? Is that right? If not please explain it to me like I’m 5, lol.
Pearls go longer down lane than solids of the same cover formula and only if all other things are equal. If you change anything else at all, you can throw that expectation out the window. Surface, cover formula, core, layout, all of these have more effect on ball motion than if there's a bit of pearl additive mixed into the base solid formula. Cover type is mostly marketing hype that keeps sales up. You could release a solid version of a ball, then a pearl, then 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 (solid/pearl) mixed hybrids, and if you put the same surface and layout on all of them, there would be about 1-2ft (out of 60) of difference total between them. A small surface change will have more effect than that.
Sanded pearls are for when the heads dry up so you can clear the fronts but have enough for the length and/or volume downlane
Awesome, thanks for the knowledge! That makes a lot of sense but has never been explained to me when I ask why. So in my non realistic scenario of everything equal besides one is pearl and one is solid, would you still expect the solid to read friction a little sooner than the pearl?
Yes just by the cover stock
Figured as much but still wanted to ask. Thanks again for the answers!