a discussion about polishes

[RobLV1]

IMHO, polish is never a good idea on any kind of cover; solid, hybrid, or pearl. By using a 4000 or 5000 pad, you can get the length you want without the squirrely reaction of polish.

[boatman37]

IMHO, polish is never a good idea on any kind of cover; solid, hybrid, or pearl. By using a 4000 or 5000 pad, you can get the length you want without the squirrely reaction of polish.

I mentioned the polish thing in another thread the other day. I don't have direct comparisons personally but Ron Hickland from Creating the Difference talks about it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsAIKKDiovs). CTD makes a 5000P pad that replicates a polished finished without having that fine 'film' between the ball and lane. That might not be the exact video where he talks about it but still worth watching.

[bowl1820]

I mentioned the polish thing in another thread the other day. I don't have direct comparisons personally but Ron Hickland from Creating the Difference talks about it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsAIKKDiovs). CTD makes a 5000P pad that replicates a polished finished without having that fine 'film' between the ball and lane. That might not be the exact video where he talks about it but still worth watching.

Most polishes are liquid abrasives, they don't leave a coating (film) on the ball (Note there are ones that have things called slip agents in them that's a different story). The main problem comes from the fact that they are liquids and thus are harder to control which causes inconsistent results.

This is because of the Amount used, Speed, Application pressure etc (and frankly most people don't use them properly, too much for too long). varies every time it's used and this affects what the final surface grit will be. That's why a lot people don't use them

I have the CTD Tru-cut pads their excellent pads, But note to get that "polished" surface with the 5000P pad you need a spinner. By hand it produces about a 4000 grit surface.

[boatman37]

Most polishes are liquid abrasives, they don't leave a coating (film) on the ball (Note there are ones that have things called slip agents in them that's a different story). The main problem comes from the fact that they are liquids and thus are harder to control which causes inconsistent results.

This is because of the Amount used, Speed, Application pressure etc (and frankly most people don't use them properly, too much for too long). varies every time it's used and this affects what the final surface grit will be. That's why a lot people don't use them

I have the CTD Tru-cut pads their excellent pads, But note to get that "polished" surface with the 5000P pad you need a spinner. By hand it produces about a 4000 grit surface.

Yeah I should have added that you need a spinner for the 5000P finish.

But as far as the 'film' pretty sure Ron mentioned that in one of his videos. He talked about with the 5000P you do not get anything between the ball and the lane.

[bowl1820]

Yeah I should have added that you need a spinner for the 5000P finish.

But as far as the 'film' pretty sure Ron mentioned that in one of his videos. He talked about with the 5000P you do not get anything between the ball and the lane.

Your referring to Ron's video "THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLISH AND SHINED WITH A SANDING PAD"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KXdnef5LeA

First off he's kind of misleading about the Storm Step Two "Finishing Compound" and how the 320 to 1500 doesn't give the ball a 1500 grit surface it really gives it a 5000 grit surface.

What he didn't bother to tell you is, That the 320-1500 is in US ANSI/Cami Grit scale (Storm said that I asked them awhile back) not the Europeon P-Scale that Abralon and The Tru-cut pads use that he's comparing it too.

1500 ANSI/CAMI (which is about 2-3 microns in size) if you convert that to P-Scale it is about 4000-5000 grit (which is also about 2-3 microns in size).

So it is giving the ball a 1500 grit surface!

Next he says it's the liquid the grit is suspended in (Carrier Medium) that affects the ball motion, That's suppose to be the "film" that's left on the ball.

So he proceeds to do a comparison of pad vs polish.

He takes the ball sanded at 3000 first then polishes it with the the 5000P grit pad.
He throws a inside shot (3rd arrow) it hits heavy in the pocket and he say's look how it makes a aggressive move.
He then throws a outside shot hits pocket and says look how more angle and aggressive it is.

next he demos the ball with polish

He takes the ball that's already polish/sanded at 5000P (You can see it's not as dull as it was at the start of the video when he said it was at 3000) and adds the Step two on top of that. That would have made it a even smoother surface, So the comparison test is basically meaningless now.

His First shot he doesn't throw a inside shot (3rd arrow) like he'd did before so there no comparsion there to be made.

As for the comparisons of his miss left shots, theres virtually no difference in them that can't just be attributed to variances in his release. So it doesn't really prove there's a film on the ball.

He say's there a "Massive difference" between pad and polish , but that video doesn't really show it.

Even if there was a film from the carrier medium left on the ball, it would have disappeared after just a few shots in practice (Radicals throwbot tests showed that the ball surface changes after only a few shots and by the end of the game it's totally changed), assuming it wasn't removed by cleaning the ball after polishing first, so it really wouldn't have been a issue.

A interesting thing is to watch Ron's video "Step 2 Compound vs. TruCut Polish What is the Difference?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PmhPIoai0o

In it he point's out that polish (like the Tru-cut polish) and finishing compounds (like step two) are not the samething and that they like using Step two in the proshop on the spinner, The Tru-cut polish is made more for using by hand at the laneside. But He doesn't say anything about them leaving performance affecting films on the balls, So it kind of looks like whats said depends on whats trying to being sold.

[boatman37]

Your referring to Ron's video "THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLISH AND SHINED WITH A SANDING PAD"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KXdnef5LeA

First off he's kind of misleading about the Storm Step Two "Finishing Compound" and how the 320 to 1500 doesn't give the ball a 1500 grit surface it really gives it a 5000 grit surface.

What he didn't bother to tell you is, That the 320-1500 is in US ANSI/Cami Grit scale (Storm said that I asked them awhile back) not the Europeon P-Scale that Abralon and The Tru-cut pads use that he's comparing it too.

1500 ANSI/CAMI (which is about 2-3 microns in size) if you convert that to P-Scale it is about 4000-5000 grit (which is also about 2-3 microns in size).

So it is giving the ball a 1500 grit surface!

Next he says it's the liquid the grit is suspended in (Carrier Medium) that affects the ball motion, That's suppose to be the "film" that's left on the ball.

So he proceeds to do a comparison of pad vs polish.

He takes the ball sanded at 3000 first then polishes it with the the 5000P grit pad.
He throws a inside shot (3rd arrow) it hits heavy in the pocket and he say's look how it makes a aggressive move.
He then throws a outside shot hits pocket and says look how more angle and aggressive it is.

next he demos the ball with polish

He takes the ball that's already polish/sanded at 5000P (You can see it's not as dull as it was at the start of the video when he said it was at 3000) and adds the Step two on top of that. That would have made it a even smoother surface, So the comparison test is basically meaningless now.

His First shot he doesn't throw a inside shot (3rd arrow) like he'd did before so there no comparsion there to be made.

As for the comparisons of his miss left shots, theres virtually no difference in them that can't just be attributed to variances in his release. So it doesn't really prove there's a film on the ball.

He say's there a "Massive difference" between pad and polish , but that video doesn't really show it.

Even if there was a film from the carrier medium left on the ball, it would have disappeared after just a few shots in practice (Radicals throwbot tests showed that the ball surface changes after only a few shots and by the end of the game it's totally changed), assuming it wasn't removed by cleaning the ball after polishing first, so it really wouldn't have been a issue.

A interesting thing is to watch Ron's video "Step 2 Compound vs. TruCut Polish What is the Difference?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PmhPIoai0o

In it he point's out that polish (like the Tru-cut polish) and finishing compounds (like step two) are not the samething and that they like using Step two in the proshop on the spinner, The Tru-cut polish is made more for using by hand at the laneside. But He doesn't say anything about them leaving performance affecting films on the balls, So it kind of looks like whats said depends on whats trying to being sold.

lol. Marketing at it's best. I have wondered about some of his videos since he is trying to sell a product. I like the CTD pads and have watched about all of his videos but for some reason I don't have 100% confidence in. But now that you mention it they do sell that hand polish by Turtle Wax

[bowl1820]

lol. Marketing at it's best. I have wondered about some of his videos since he is trying to sell a product. I like the CTD pads and have watched about all of his videos but for some reason I don't have 100% confidence in. But now that you mention it they do sell that hand polish by Turtle Wax

Ron is a very knowledgable person he was involved with a lot of the research at ebonite and I dont think hes telling anyone a bunch of BS.

But he is marketing a product so there can be a slight slant to the truth in his direction, but all the companies do it.

Though i seen some resent videos where he was as they say more about the music than the money in them. Which was good.

Imo when it comes to the polishes, theres nothing overtly wrong with using them as long as you realise you have to use them consistently and sparingly if you want a consistent reaction. That and it takes practice to use them well.

Thats why many opt to just use pads now, The new pads we have now make its easier to be consistent especially if someone using them has less experience with sand and polishing.

[Amyers]

Just my opinion here but I think Ron is probably a decent guy turned into your neighborhood snake oil salesmen. I have no doubt some of what he says is true some is embellished and some is highly suspect to help sell a over priced product. I'm just not sure that any of his products are worth the super premium price that is being asked for them.

[RobLV1]

Can someone explain to me how this thread about establishing a new arsenal has degenerated into a discussion about polishes???

[bowl1820]

Can someone explain to me how this thread about establishing a new arsenal has degenerated into a discussion about polishes???

Well Rob lets see! Hmmm right there.

djp1080 told classygranny there are some solid balls that come with polished covers she might be interested in for a new arsenal.

So You said:
"IMHO, polish is never a good idea on any kind of cover; solid, hybrid, or pearl. By using a 4000 or 5000 pad, you can get the length you want without the squirrely reaction of polish. "

Then boatman37 commented on your post about polishes and I commented on boatman's and then Amyers posted.

So that hows it got started and threads get derailed.

Here we'll give this train it's own thread.