Chemical Friction vs. Mechanical Friction – #MoMonday

Click Here To Get The Best Price <<<

It's #MoMonday!

Today, Phil discusses the differences between Chemical Friction and Mechanical Friction and why Radical uses Chemical Friction in all of our bowling balls.

Here's a link to our Perception vs. Reality III from 2015 where we tested the balls out of box, with 10 games and 20 games –

#WOWThatsRadical #RadicalRevolution - 20 Years Online - Free Shipping Every Item Every Day

Discount Bowling Balls and Discount Bowling Bags

10 Comments on “Chemical Friction vs. Mechanical Friction – #MoMonday”

  1. So basically you’re saying is that you guys think that other manufacturers coverstocks are paper thin and as soon as you do anything to the surface, the original characteristics/formula/makeup of the cover is gone? You have got to be kidding me. This is probably the dumbest 2:32 of youtube I’ve ever watched.

    1. Uh there is at least 50 hours of Dr fauci spewing bullshit on YouTube. I think youre exaggerating.

    2. What he is saying is that the physical surface wears and changes during use but the chemical makeup of the ball is constant. I don’t think that he needed to say that the competition ignores chemical friction, because they obviously do care.

    3. It sounds like he is saying competitors balls only have grit in the extreme outer part of the cover, like the molds were coated before the resin was poured in. That is impossible since there is machining involved after the final pour. Another hypothesis is that he is comparing a shiny Radical ball to a sanded competitor ball that ends up with some lane shine after 30 games.

  2. Why isn’t the coefficient of friction published for various bowling balls? Who knows what you’re getting when you purchase a bowling ball?

  3. Since the spy is basically a plastic bottle with surface added to it does chemical friction still apply to this bowling ball?

  4. “It’s the same all the way through the cover but it will wear out and have to be resurfaced”. Another contradictory statement by Phil. Easy to tell he is a businessman and not a scientist. Radical may have tech that allows the Ra to stay more consistent for a longer duration but he sure can’t explain it. How about frequency and wavelength?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *