Storm | Durometer Test Follow-Up

Click Here To Get The Best Price <<<

We continue to work to be open with our customers regarding our manufacturing and testing process and products in the future.

Last week, we shared a test conducted by our R&D Team that showcased the variances that come with durometer testing. Today, we’re sharing a follow-up that will answer some of the most frequently asked questions our customers posted after the first video was shared. We have also been receiving exchange balls back to Storm, and we thought we’d also share some durometer readings from the vast inventory of balls that the USBC claims do not test hard enough.

Here are the results. - 20 Years Online - Free Shipping Every Item Every Day

Discount Bowling Balls and Discount Bowling Bags

31 Comments on “Storm | Durometer Test Follow-Up”

  1. I find it ironic that the USBC is so stringent with parameters concerning ball specs while turning a blind eye to the specs of a THS.

    1. Absolutely. 230 Ave in Bristol, 190 in kpt house and league leaders this half in kpt. So much ridiculously harder every week

    2. Good luck getting house owners to follow any lane condition guidelines. Even back then the ABC (at the time) still employed regular lane inspection teams, houses were bending and breaking the lane conditioning rules. Now that there are no lane inspections, and houses are on the honor system, there’s no chance of enforcing them. And before you complain about lane inspection teams being gone… it was a choice of the ABC cutting back awards programs as scores exploded throughout the 90s resin revolution… and cutting their budget elsewhere. The bowlers made their choice then… now they are living with it.

  2. Is there anything that can be done about those bowling balls, or will USBC stubbornly keep them banned regardless?

    As others have said, the timing of all of this was REALLY strange.

    1. Well they are only banned for national events so if you aren’t bowling any upcoming national events the ball is free use anywhere you go

  3. I would want to see USBC to perform this same test with their machine for full transparency. But they won’t. So again, why are these balls banned if they are above the threshold. Why didn’t you guys fight the ruling? It seems Storm has done enough to prove the point, so why did You guys accept the punishment? Or is there something going on behind the scenes already.

    1. They “accepted”. There’s more to it that will never be known, Storm didn’t say “Yes, we agree with everything”

    2. @R B I understand, but being forced to “accept” it is a hard pill to swallow. It’s bizarre. Isn’t it clear by now there’s nothing wrong with these bowling balls? But the 17/18 Purple Hammers are still kosher even though they test softer than every ball that was banned here?

    3. @BriGuyInSi For 99% of bowlers, the effect created by hardness difference is negligible at best. USBC changed the standard from 72D to 73D even though they admit there’s 8 other factors that have more influence than hardness.
      Until everyone drags Chad Murphy from his throne we won’t know.

    4. @R B Of course, THS being one of the main problems, but you’re right it won’t make an ounce of difference to league bowlers, which in theory I guess why they are technically still allowed on that front.

  4. Will you be re-releasing the banned brands with a harder mix? Or with new names, but same core/surface combos as banned (also w/ harder mix)?

  5. Hmmm think you guys got trolled into this one! All this ball surface talk reminds me of baseball ‘sticky substance’ or football ‘deflategate’

    Want to keep your loyal customers? Keep making the greatest bowling balls! As Simo said “They cant stop Us!” USBC has lost more credibility then SPI. USBC took legal balls out of your customers hands.

  6. After seeing this follow up video, I have no doubt that some politics were in play with the ‘Ballgate’ issues surrounding the USBC.

    If at any point the leadership of the USBC changes, we may see a tell-all book that goes back into what really happened with the Jackal/Jackal Carnage years ago, as well as the Purple Hammer and then all the Storm products. The common denominator here is that the Motiv and Hammer balls got more scrutiny after one or more wins in a tournament by a bowler who typically didn’t finish in the top 15 of all tourneys. Let’s call it out… we haven’t seen Gary Faulkner Jr or Matt Russo on TV lately.

    So, the Storm balls seem to be some sort of a huge backlash against complaints that certain equipment was giving fringe bowlers an unfair advantage, and great bowlers even more of an advantage. Again this is just speculation and admittedly conspiracy but I believe there is some truth in there somewhere.

  7. Sorry but I will Trust Storm over the USBC any day. They tested the Bowlers equipment at a Tournament behind a Black Curtain without the Bowlers being allowed to Watch or being told what was Done. What is so Secret?

  8. One follow up from the previous video you were talking about how polishing makes a difference and you measured a ball that used a generic polish. Why not start with one of the banned balls right out of the box, measure it, then sand it down to 500 and measure again. This would better prove your point.

  9. interesting that the “banned everywhere” Spectre had the highest readings of them all. Think I’ll just paint mine a different color and keep using it. Best ball I’ve ever thrown in 10 years of bowling.

    1. That pissed me off, because I wanted that ball, and there appears to be nothing wrong with it. Seems like a hit piece against storm. Did USBC even check Brunswick balls? I fucking doubt it.

  10. Here’s the issue that I’m seeing. When testing the “banned” bowling balls you can see there is an average hardness of around 74D on Storm’s testing. USBC approval has been around for ages, they have had to stamp USBC product numbers on the cover stock of a bowling ball for god knows how long now. Why is it that the “banned” bowling balls all have essentially the same hardness as the brand new Hy-Road. These balls aren’t old enough to have aged in hardness that much. So if the ball that is five years old and has been on the storm line for the longest time and is still legal is testing the same hardness brand new out of box as the new “banned” balls I see some sort of transparency issue between companies here and also to the public. They essentially said that the Altered Reality had a 100% fail in hardness across the bored. Yet the swapped Altered Reality in this video tested the same as the brand new Hy-Road yet again. So why is it that they took a chunk of the brand new bowling balls and are ignoring the fact that the old storm line balls are testing the same on their durometer. No matter the calibration that shines true on the machines across the board. So if what USBC is saying is true about the Storm bowling balls then we would see that the products from storm that are veterans on the line would be testing illegal on their machine yet we haven’t seen anything nor heard anything from them about it. So it thoroughly impresses me that Storm has went out of their way to do this for the public and USBC won’t even take a 20 minute video to explain how they came across their decision. Something here doesn’t add up so the transparency here does help whether you are on the side of Storm or not.

  11. Can SPI sue USBC over their findings? There is clearly a flaw in their decision and it’s probably costing tens of millions to this innocent company.

  12. I would pay a lot of money to have that specially made unmarked ball to keep in a display case. I appreciate the transparency provided by the company. Please reverse the ban so I can use my Spectre again.

  13. Wow, I really appreciate this transparency! I wish politicians were this transparent when running for office!

  14. I have so much respect for you guys. I love my Storm bowling balls and will continue to support you all. Thank you for being transparent with this and shoving it in USBC’s face. Ball is in their court now.

Leave a Reply

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