Dimple design

Hi.

I read so many posts on how the construction of the ball will make it perform differently. For example, a urethane cover will provide more green-side spin, or a mantle layer will help pinch the cover to add to the green-side spin, or a dual core will contribute in other ways, etc..

What I haven't seen many posts on is the number of dimples a golf ball has (I'm sure there are threads but not as many).

Typically there are 336 dimples on a golf ball but can range from 300 to 500. I understand dimples help keep the ball airborne.

The Titleist Velocity has 376, clearly to give the distance. The new Titleist Tour Soft has 342. It is this ball that replaces the NXT series (S and non S).

The NXT series, along with some Wilson Staff balls (both 2 and 3 piece balls) only have 302 dimples, that is considerably less than the typical 336.

What is the thinking behind just having 302 dimples? What are the pros and cons?

It’s alot more complicated than just the number of dimples. Size, depth, the geometry of dimple arrangement and how these variables interact with the cover material all come into play.

Also, the profile of dimples (single radius, dual radius, catenary....) can affect the flight performance.

Okay, so with the NXT Tour series and the Wilson DX3 tour all having 302 dimples, and presuming these ball have the same depth and shape dimples, then what flight should I expect with a ball having 302 dimples?

Well if you presume everything is exactly the same then the ball flight is exactly the same.

Depth matters. Shape matters. Pattern they are arranged matters. Ball speed matters. Spin matters. But yeah, if the number of dimples and their shape and their depth and the pattern are all the same and both balls are moving at the same speed and both balls spin the same then you'll get the same flight.

That never actually happens in the real world. And each of those things is at LEAST as important as number of dimples. So the moral of the story is, don't try to predict a golf ball's performance from its number of dimples. That's like trying to predict the performance of an iron from the number of grooves on the face.

I think there was also some input in a thread I dug up a long time ago with relationship to size of dimples and durability of the balls most out cover (paint). It turned out to be no correlation but, pretty interesting read.

Designing a golf ball is pretty complex. As a broad rule the deeper the dimple the lower the flight and the shallower the dimple the higher the flight. Number of dimples is one of the variables the designer takes into consideration. Years ago Titleist balls had 392 dimples in their Tour Balata, the wound surlyn DT and the 2 piece surlyn Pinnacle. All three of those had much different flight and spin characteristics however so many other factors come into play. The bottom line is most higher end balls are all really good performers so pick one out that you like and enjoy.

I think it's part of the marketing mumbo jumbo.

As others have said, it's a polyfactorial problem, and simply counting dimples is not determinative.

Yet ... someone counts them ... but why?

I think it's box detail porno. 392? Wouldn't 393 intrigue us? How about 400? And don't get me started on microdimples inside of dimples!

Never seen 1 big dimple...

Speaking of, how about dumplings? Does their reference suggest the existence of a bigger "dumple," as it were?

These are all good questions.

> @cristphoto said:

> Designing a golf ball is pretty complex. As a broad rule the deeper the dimple the lower the flight and the shallower the dimple the higher the flight. Number of dimples is one of the variables the designer takes into consideration. Years ago Titleist balls had 392 dimples in their Tour Balata, the wound surlyn DT and the 2 piece surlyn Pinnacle. All three of those had much different flight and spin characteristics however so many other factors come into play. The bottom line is most higher end balls are all really good performers so pick one out that you like and enjoy.

... I was pretty amazed talking to the Srixon Ball Engineering VP several generations ago who told me changing the depth by 3/1000 changes the spin and trajectory. As you stated he went on to say the size, number and depth of dimples make almost an infinite number of variables that all effect performance and they are constantly experimenting and tweaking their balls.

> @chisag said:

> ...changing the depth by 3/1000 changes the spin and trajectory.

I wonder if it is quite that sensitive. Quick research indicates that 0.001" is about as precise as they can get with cast urethane manufacturing tolerance, which means the bad ones (e.g. cheapest DTC outsourced production) are probably worse. Which would suggest a decent likelihood of new balls coming out of the same sleeve with variations in flight performance, especially in the DTC case of cheapest manufacturing possible. Maybe that is happening now and we just blame the flight variation on our terrible swings when part of it might be attributed to the ball.

I’m curious because we’ve seen some of the different or gimmicky designs fade away. I’ve noticed that over the last 15 years Callaway has significantly rounded off their hexagon design. Same for Bridgestone/TopFlite and their double dimple.

> @c50sooner said:

> > @chisag said:

> > ...changing the depth by 3/1000 changes the spin and trajectory.

> I wonder if it is quite that sensitive. Quick research indicates that 0.001" is about as precise as they can get with cast urethane manufacturing tolerance, which means the bad ones (e.g. cheapest DTC outsourced production) are probably worse. Which would suggest a decent likelihood of new balls coming out of the same sleeve with variations in flight performance, especially in the DTC case of cheapest manufacturing possible. Maybe that is happening now and we just blame the flight variation on our terrible swings when part of it might be attributed to the ball.

>

... Changes the trajectory by very minor amount. But when designing dimples depth, size and shape there are millions of variables. Obviously these kinds of changes would be imperceptible to even the best players, but those are the parameters engineers are working with. It was an interesting conversation as he told me that basically everything they do is a trade off. More spin means less roll and/or a higher trajectory but it also means a longer carry or better green holding ability. Pro's give them conflicting feedback because each player is unique and one may want a higher trajectory and the next a lower trajectory. What is the best combo for the average high index or low index player, the high swing speed or low swing speed player? And this doesn't even take into account compression and feel. I walked away thinking I would not want their jobs.