SNELL GOLF BALLS??? anyone???

[Philomathesq]

> @flushem said:

>

> another temperature test by TXG validating Dean's statement

>

>

 

Not to be a ****, but how did you watch the TXG video and come away with the impression that TXG's test validates Dean's statement? Dean says: 70* F to 90* F is the best for balls and that you should keep balls in your pocket to keep them warm. TXG's video shows that a ball at 42* F handily outperforms a ball at 90* F. I'm not saying that the methodology used by TXG is perfect, but I also don't see how you can view TXG's conclusions as support or evidence of the validity of Dean's statements. If anything, TXG's test shows that 70* F to 90* F is not the optimal temperature range for balls and that the range is likely much lower than that.

[BeerPerHole]

I use the aim line for whatever ball I'm playing when I putt. Realized the seam, being flatter, might be a good thing. I have been putting better than I ever have before with this MTB-X. Have sunk many 7-10 footers for pars and birds lately with this ball. Don't know if any studies have been done regarding this. Back when I used to play the Project a I played the old version with the seam - loved that ball. Another sleeper that stayed under the radar. Actually a little surprised not to see it make an appearance on tour.

[storm319]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @flushem said:

> >

> > another temperature test by TXG validating Dean's statement

> >

> >

>

> Not to be a ****, but how did you watch the TXG video and come away with the impression that TXG's test validates Dean's statement? Dean says: 70* F to 90* F is the best for balls and that you should keep balls in your pocket to keep them warm. TXG's video shows that a ball at 42* F handily outperforms a ball at 90* F. I'm not saying that the methodology used by TXG is perfect, but I also don't see how you can view TXG's conclusions as support or evidence of the validity of Dean's statements. If anything, TXG's test shows that 70* F to 90* F is not the optimal temperature range for balls and that the range is likely much lower than that.

 

 

Agreed that the video not really supporting the Snell video from a driver perspective. However, Dean's reference to optimal performance was not isolated to ball speed off the driver. I am sure that had TXG compared shots off of irons and wedges, the cold ball would have resulted in a big drop off in spin. Also TXG's test does not take into account the likely difference in environmental conditions (when would you ever play a ball that is 42* in 70 to 90* ambient temp outside? or 90* ball in 40* ambient temp?).

[Philomathesq]

> @storm319 said:

>

>

> Agreed that the video not really supporting the Snell video from a driver perspective. However, Dean's reference to optimal performance was not isolated to ball speed off the driver. I am sure that had TXG compared shots off of irons and wedges, the cold ball would have resulted in a big drop off in spin. Also TXG's test does not take into account the likely difference in environmental conditions (when would you ever play a ball that is 42* in 70 to 90* ambient temp outside? or 90* ball in 40* ambient temp?).

 

I completely agree with your points, hence my statement that I don't think TXG's methodology was perfect. I was more just trying to point out the ridiculous statement that the TXG test supports Dean's statements. Dean may be 100% right, but TXG'S test doesn't support his statements.

[Snell Golf]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @storm319 said:

> >

> >

> > Agreed that the video not really supporting the Snell video from a driver perspective. However, Dean's reference to optimal performance was not isolated to ball speed off the driver. I am sure that had TXG compared shots off of irons and wedges, the cold ball would have resulted in a big drop off in spin. Also TXG's test does not take into account the likely difference in environmental conditions (when would you ever play a ball that is 42* in 70 to 90* ambient temp outside? or 90* ball in 40* ambient temp?).

>

> I completely agree with your points, hence my statement that I don't think TXG's methodology was perfect. I was more just trying to point out the ridiculous statement that the TXG test supports Dean's statements. Dean may be 100% right, but TXG'S test doesn't support his statements.

 

The way we do the testing is a little different.. we test with a COR machine, which is how every company tests the ball velocity. Every COR machine is calibrated to the USGA velocity test (which is difficult to mimic). So the COR machine is very accurate to predict the ball velocity. We would incubate the balls for 48 hours, then hit COR for cold, normal temp and high temp, and we test at all different ball speeds (all different types of golfers). The same procedure would be followed for iron and wedge spin... this is where we found that the ball performance is best when played from tee to green between 70-90 F temps. Each ball has a different loss in speed and spin, and it is dependent on the construction, layers used, and cover material used. But general rule of thumb is to keep the balls in your house around 70 F if you plan to play in the cold or real hot climates.

[Philomathesq]

> @"Snell Golf" said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > > @storm319 said:

> > >

> > >

> > > Agreed that the video not really supporting the Snell video from a driver perspective. However, Dean's reference to optimal performance was not isolated to ball speed off the driver. I am sure that had TXG compared shots off of irons and wedges, the cold ball would have resulted in a big drop off in spin. Also TXG's test does not take into account the likely difference in environmental conditions (when would you ever play a ball that is 42* in 70 to 90* ambient temp outside? or 90* ball in 40* ambient temp?).

> >

> > I completely agree with your points, hence my statement that I don't think TXG's methodology was perfect. I was more just trying to point out the ridiculous statement that the TXG test supports Dean's statements. Dean may be 100% right, but TXG'S test doesn't support his statements.

>

> The way we do the testing is a little different.. we test with a COR machine, which is how every company tests the ball velocity. Every COR machine is calibrated to the USGA velocity test (which is difficult to mimic). So the COR machine is very accurate to predict the ball velocity. We would incubate the balls for 48 hours, then hit COR for cold, normal temp and high temp, and we test at all different ball speeds (all different types of golfers). The same procedure would be followed for iron and wedge spin... this is where we found that the ball performance is best when played from tee to green between 70-90 F temps. Each ball has a different loss in speed and spin, and it is dependent on the construction, layers used, and cover material used. But general rule of thumb is to keep the balls in your house around 70 F if you plan to play in the cold or real hot climates.

 

So... what you are saying is that your test is slightly more scientific than TXG's? :-)

 

A couple of questions: what did your test find regarding the impact of ball temperature and driver performance? Is it similar to what TXG found (colder appears to increase distance)? Also, how did you go about heating/cooling balls? One thing about the TXG test that seems like it could lead to imperfect results is using water to heat the ball. I would imagine the hot water could have more of an impact on the cover than would a "dry" heat.

[Snell Golf]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @"Snell Golf" said:

> > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > @storm319 said:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Agreed that the video not really supporting the Snell video from a driver perspective. However, Dean's reference to optimal performance was not isolated to ball speed off the driver. I am sure that had TXG compared shots off of irons and wedges, the cold ball would have resulted in a big drop off in spin. Also TXG's test does not take into account the likely difference in environmental conditions (when would you ever play a ball that is 42* in 70 to 90* ambient temp outside? or 90* ball in 40* ambient temp?).

> > >

> > > I completely agree with your points, hence my statement that I don't think TXG's methodology was perfect. I was more just trying to point out the ridiculous statement that the TXG test supports Dean's statements. Dean may be 100% right, but TXG'S test doesn't support his statements.

> >

> > The way we do the testing is a little different.. we test with a COR machine, which is how every company tests the ball velocity. Every COR machine is calibrated to the USGA velocity test (which is difficult to mimic). So the COR machine is very accurate to predict the ball velocity. We would incubate the balls for 48 hours, then hit COR for cold, normal temp and high temp, and we test at all different ball speeds (all different types of golfers). The same procedure would be followed for iron and wedge spin... this is where we found that the ball performance is best when played from tee to green between 70-90 F temps. Each ball has a different loss in speed and spin, and it is dependent on the construction, layers used, and cover material used. But general rule of thumb is to keep the balls in your house around 70 F if you plan to play in the cold or real hot climates.

>

> So... what you are saying is that your test is slightly more scientific than TXG's? :-)

>

> A couple of questions: what did your test find regarding the impact of ball temperature and driver performance? Is it similar to what TXG found (colder appears to increase distance)? Also, how did you go about heating/cooling balls? One thing about the TXG test that seems like it could lead to imperfect results is using water to heat the ball. I would imagine the hot water could have more of an impact on the cover than would a "dry" heat.

 

haha... i am saying that we tested alittle more performance for all golf swing speeds (ball speeds), as well as spin rates and how they can be affected by the temps. We did not use hot or cold water. We incubate them in an oven and in a fridge and pull them out one ball at a time when testing... we typically do not use players for ball speed testing, as the players can hit at one speed with one test, then a different speed at another test (as they get warmed up a bit)... also, the deviation of players hitting for ball speed is very high...the COR is a calibrated machine that shoots the ball at an inbound speed and measures the outbound speed to get the coefficient.. again, depending on the cover material used, the construction type, and the layers of the ball, this performance difference can be different... but the basis of our video was to inform players to try to store them in the house when it is hot or cold outside an do not leave them in the trunk of your car then go play. This will only help performance, not hurt it..

 

[storm319]

> @"Snell Golf" said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > > @"Snell Golf" said:

> > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > > @storm319 said:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Agreed that the video not really supporting the Snell video from a driver perspective. However, Dean's reference to optimal performance was not isolated to ball speed off the driver. I am sure that had TXG compared shots off of irons and wedges, the cold ball would have resulted in a big drop off in spin. Also TXG's test does not take into account the likely difference in environmental conditions (when would you ever play a ball that is 42* in 70 to 90* ambient temp outside? or 90* ball in 40* ambient temp?).

> > > >

> > > > I completely agree with your points, hence my statement that I don't think TXG's methodology was perfect. I was more just trying to point out the ridiculous statement that the TXG test supports Dean's statements. Dean may be 100% right, but TXG'S test doesn't support his statements.

> > >

> > > The way we do the testing is a little different.. we test with a COR machine, which is how every company tests the ball velocity. Every COR machine is calibrated to the USGA velocity test (which is difficult to mimic). So the COR machine is very accurate to predict the ball velocity. We would incubate the balls for 48 hours, then hit COR for cold, normal temp and high temp, and we test at all different ball speeds (all different types of golfers). The same procedure would be followed for iron and wedge spin... this is where we found that the ball performance is best when played from tee to green between 70-90 F temps. Each ball has a different loss in speed and spin, and it is dependent on the construction, layers used, and cover material used. But general rule of thumb is to keep the balls in your house around 70 F if you plan to play in the cold or real hot climates.

> >

> > So... what you are saying is that your test is slightly more scientific than TXG's? :-)

> >

> > A couple of questions: what did your test find regarding the impact of ball temperature and driver performance? Is it similar to what TXG found (colder appears to increase distance)? Also, how did you go about heating/cooling balls? One thing about the TXG test that seems like it could lead to imperfect results is using water to heat the ball. I would imagine the hot water could have more of an impact on the cover than would a "dry" heat.

>

> haha... i am saying that we tested alittle more performance for all golf swing speeds (ball speeds), as well as spin rates and how they can be affected by the temps. We did not use hot or cold water. We incubate them in an oven and in a fridge and pull them out one ball at a time when testing... we typically do not use players for ball speed testing, as the players can hit at one speed with one test, then a different speed at another test (as they get warmed up a bit)... also, the deviation of players hitting for ball speed is very high...the COR is a calibrated machine that shoots the ball at an inbound speed and measures the outbound speed to get the coefficient.. again, depending on the cover material used, the construction type, and the layers of the ball, this performance difference can be different... but the basis of our video was to inform players to try to store them in the house when it is hot or cold outside an do not leave them in the trunk of your car then go play. This will only help performance, not hurt it..

>

 

Have you done any testing with bringing balls to an extreme temperature and then back to room temp vs balls that have remained at room temp? Like if someone leaves balls out in a non-heated garage over the winter (lows potentially below 20* F) but brings them back up to 60* F before playing in the spring. I would imagine that extreme temp changes could permanently effect the relative hardness of certain layers.

[Arlin964]

@"Snell Golf" just came out with holiday pricing, saving even more when you buy 2+ dozen. I wonder how long the holiday pricing lasts, as I literally just stocked up with 3 dozen last week.

[jpbova]

Any one have durability issues with the Snell MTB-X? I played one for 4 holes the other day and I put a significant gash in it. I hadn't gashed a ball like that since I played a balata in the 90s. I am not ready to call it yet. It could be a fluke, but it was my first full round them with them, and I have 3 dozen in the garage now. I will go back to Srixon if it keeps happening. Hoping its a fluke.

[BunkerFinder]

Can’t speak for the X but the Black has been very durable for me. Last round was 1 ball, 18 holes, 8 trees (including play out of the woods) 3 cart paths and 1 rock wall.

Honestly I was most impressed that after all that I was playing the same ball at the end.

[cotterm]

Ordered 5 dozen MTB Black and received the hand written thank you on the invoice from Dean. Pretty cool. But more importantly I played the ball yesterday and thought it was fantastic. I didn’t notice a difference in distant or stopping power on the greens. It was one of by best rounds of the year for ball striking. I normally play only ProV1 but I’m a convert now. Great ball at just over half the price. 6 handicap. Good luck. MC

[skraly]

> @jpbova said:

> Any one have durability issues with the Snell MTB-X? I played one for 4 holes the other day and I put a significant gash in it. I hadn't gashed a ball like that since I played a balata in the 90s. I am not ready to call it yet. It could be a fluke, but it was my first full round them with them, and I have 3 dozen in the garage now. I will go back to Srixon if it keeps happening. Hoping its a fluke.

I’ve played a couple dz. of the MTB-X and find the durability comparable to any other tour level ball.

 

 

[BeerPerHole]

> @BunkerFinder said:

> Can’t speak for the X but the Black has been very durable for me. Last round was 1 ball, 18 holes, 8 trees (including play out of the woods) 3 cart paths and 1 rock wall.

> Honestly I was most impressed that after all that I was playing the same ball at the end.

 

"8 trees"...made me smile.

 

No issues with durability for me with Snell balls. I actually bounced one off the corner of a short brick wall guarding a lake on the first tee last round. Thought for sure it'd be damaged. Nope. Kept it through the whole round.

[Stanks]

@"Snell Golf"

 

Dean, with the success of the black, X, and Get Sum extended stays and avid fan base, is there any input from Snell Golf for future aerodynamics and dimple alterations / changes?

I played the RZN Tour Platinum and Black a long time. The Tour BX and BXS are also absolute gems and they have the dimple patterns.

What I’m asking is; are these just for glitz and glam? Are they BS? Are they worth investing time and R&D into?

Something appeals to me about them. I personally think these are some of the best golf balls made and their cult following would support that belief.

[dalehead]

Ordered a testing pack of Snell golf balls, 6 MTB-X and 6 Black and played 18 with them yesterday. Played the Black on the odd number holes and the X on the even.

My opinion? Snell should take over the golf ball world!

Seriously, I know no ball is right for everyone but the Snells performed great for me. They’re long off the tee, the X maybe a couple of yards longer. Both great off the irons. Played on a windy Florida day and both balls did fine. The X spun more on short iron/full wedge shots and on shots around the green, but both balls are very controllable. I could play either model. It would just be a case of getting some experience with the ball to get a feel for how it’s going to react. Durability was not an issue. Only played 9 holes with each ball, but they were pristine at the end of the round.

I’ve played one or the other Pro V1 since they came out and never blinked at the price, but the Snell price is a nice bonus.

Finally I like the idea of playing a ball made by a guy who’s whole career has been making golf balls and has got to know more about it than anyone. And someone who is investing in making a great product not marketing, slick commercials, and paid endorsements.

[NRJyzr]

> @BeerPerHole said:

> > @BunkerFinder said:

> > Can’t speak for the X but the Black has been very durable for me. Last round was 1 ball, 18 holes, 8 trees (including play out of the woods) 3 cart paths and 1 rock wall.

> > Honestly I was most impressed that after all that I was playing the same ball at the end.

>

> "8 trees"...made me smile.

>

> No issues with durability for me with Snell balls. I actually bounced one off the corner of a short brick wall guarding a lake on the first tee last round. Thought for sure it'd be damaged. Nope. Kept it through the whole round.

 

My last round of the year, I gave an MTB Black every opportunity for road rash, with a couple encounters with cart paths. And, it was largely untouched. I was pleasantly surprised.

 

It was cooler, in the low 40s, not sure if that had much effect. {shrug}

[Jlender21]

Ok guys need your help, I am looking for a new ball. I tried the mtb x a couple weeks ago and loved the feel but 10 yards shorter than the prov1 and b RX. My swing speed is 98-105, so not a huge hitter like most guys on here, do you think the black will be a better fit? I never have a problem stopping approach shots. Any info would be great thanks guys.

[jpbova]

You found the MTB-X to be 10 yards shorter than a PROV1 and BRX?

[arbeck]

> @Jlender21 said:

> Ok guys need your help, I am looking for a new ball. I tried the mtb x a couple weeks ago and loved the feel but 10 yards shorter than the prov1 and b RX. My swing speed is 98-105, so not a huge hitter like most guys on here, do you think the black will be a better fit? I never have a problem stopping approach shots. Any info would be great thanks guys.

 

I can't believe that the ball was 10 yards shorter than those other balls off of equivalent strikes. It's spin characteristics are basically the same as the BRX and ProV1 off the driver. And it should have a little more ball speed. If anything you should have a few extra yards of carry with it (but it would be almost impossible to see on the course).

 

Now, I could buy your irons being a few yards shorter with the MTB-X. It does spin significantly more than the BRX and slightly more than the ProV1. That will give you a few less yards of carry. But again, this is going to be nearly impossible to see without hundreds of shots on a launch monitor.

[Snell Golf]

> @storm319 said:

> > @"Snell Golf" said:

> > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > @"Snell Golf" said:

> > > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > > > @storm319 said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Agreed that the video not really supporting the Snell video from a driver perspective. However, Dean's reference to optimal performance was not isolated to ball speed off the driver. I am sure that had TXG compared shots off of irons and wedges, the cold ball would have resulted in a big drop off in spin. Also TXG's test does not take into account the likely difference in environmental conditions (when would you ever play a ball that is 42* in 70 to 90* ambient temp outside? or 90* ball in 40* ambient temp?).

> > > > >

> > > > > I completely agree with your points, hence my statement that I don't think TXG's methodology was perfect. I was more just trying to point out the ridiculous statement that the TXG test supports Dean's statements. Dean may be 100% right, but TXG'S test doesn't support his statements.

> > > >

> > > > The way we do the testing is a little different.. we test with a COR machine, which is how every company tests the ball velocity. Every COR machine is calibrated to the USGA velocity test (which is difficult to mimic). So the COR machine is very accurate to predict the ball velocity. We would incubate the balls for 48 hours, then hit COR for cold, normal temp and high temp, and we test at all different ball speeds (all different types of golfers). The same procedure would be followed for iron and wedge spin... this is where we found that the ball performance is best when played from tee to green between 70-90 F temps. Each ball has a different loss in speed and spin, and it is dependent on the construction, layers used, and cover material used. But general rule of thumb is to keep the balls in your house around 70 F if you plan to play in the cold or real hot climates.

> > >

> > > So... what you are saying is that your test is slightly more scientific than TXG's? :-)

> > >

> > > A couple of questions: what did your test find regarding the impact of ball temperature and driver performance? Is it similar to what TXG found (colder appears to increase distance)? Also, how did you go about heating/cooling balls? One thing about the TXG test that seems like it could lead to imperfect results is using water to heat the ball. I would imagine the hot water could have more of an impact on the cover than would a "dry" heat.

> >

> > haha... i am saying that we tested alittle more performance for all golf swing speeds (ball speeds), as well as spin rates and how they can be affected by the temps. We did not use hot or cold water. We incubate them in an oven and in a fridge and pull them out one ball at a time when testing... we typically do not use players for ball speed testing, as the players can hit at one speed with one test, then a different speed at another test (as they get warmed up a bit)... also, the deviation of players hitting for ball speed is very high...the COR is a calibrated machine that shoots the ball at an inbound speed and measures the outbound speed to get the coefficient.. again, depending on the cover material used, the construction type, and the layers of the ball, this performance difference can be different... but the basis of our video was to inform players to try to store them in the house when it is hot or cold outside an do not leave them in the trunk of your car then go play. This will only help performance, not hurt it..

> >

>

> Have you done any testing with bringing balls to an extreme temperature and then back to room temp vs balls that have remained at room temp? Like if someone leaves balls out in a non-heated garage over the winter (lows potentially below 20* F) but brings them back up to 60* F before playing in the spring. I would imagine that extreme temp changes could permanently effect the relative hardness of certain layers.

 

if the golf balls are subjected to colder temps, then brought back to the 70F temp, you should be fine as long as the whole ball has come back to 70F... most of the balls made overseas are shipping on a boat in containers, where it can be exposed to very cold temps on the trip over. We test them over there, and over here, and have not seen any differences in performance.

 

[dalehead]

> @Jlender21 said:

> My swing speed is 98-105, so not a huge hitter like most guys on here :)

 

 

[flushem]

> @Jlender21 said:

> Ok guys need your help, I am looking for a new ball. I tried the mtb x a couple weeks ago and loved the feel but 10 yards shorter than the prov1 and b RX. My swing speed is 98-105, so not a huge hitter like most guys on here, do you think the black will be a better fit? I never have a problem stopping approach shots. Any info would be great thanks guys.

 

with all due respect, your swing speed range is the widest. Span of 7mph? no wonder you had 10 yds difference in distance (I think it is about 3 mph difference).

[BeerPerHole]

My driver swing speed varies as much. So be it.

 

I was in a tourney today. After 14 holes with the MTB-X I teed up a Get Sum to finish out the round and the Get Sum played great. I can stop it on the greens great with my PW. I hit a couple of really long drives with it. And, on our most challenging long par 3 I hit the best tee shot I've probably ever hit with it. Great ball. Oh, and when I left the club I was in the lead of my flite and found out I ended up coming in 2nd!

[Quasimoto]

Changing the ball type was against the rules.

You did not come 2nd, you would have incurred 8 penalty strokes.

[BeerPerHole]

> @Quasimoto said:

> Changing the ball type was against the rules.

> You did not come 2nd, you would have incurred 8 penalty strokes.

 

No. It was still a golf ball.

[GTA SOL]

Surely it depends on whether the tournament was being payed under the ‘one ball’ rule.

[dalehead]

> @Quasimoto said:

> Changing the ball type was against the rules.

> You did not come 2nd, you would have incurred 8 penalty strokes.

 

Now how did I know some WRXer would chime in with this? And how did I know they would come down on the wrong side?

 

[BeerPerHole]

> @dalehead said:

> > @Quasimoto said:

> > Changing the ball type was against the rules.

> > You did not come 2nd, you would have incurred 8 penalty strokes.

>

> Now how did I know some WRXer would chime in with this? And how did I know they would come down on the wrong side?

>

 

The drama queens are starting to take this place over.

[tboh]

> @Quasimoto said:

> Changing the ball type was against the rules.

> You did not come 2nd, you would have incurred 8 penalty strokes.

 

Depends on if he knew where when he played the illegal ball .... otherwise slugger will have to guesstimate. ???