Different types of urethane?

[aliikane]

I found this pretty interesting. I was reading the Golf Digest 2009 Hot List ball reviews and this is what they posted in their reviews.

 

It looks like there are 4 types of urethane: thermoplastic urethane, urethane elastomer, thermoset elastomer, and thermoplastic polyelastomer.

 

1. Titleist ProV1 and ProV1x = urethane elastomer

2. Bridgestone B330/B330S/B330-RX = thermoplastic urethane

3. Callaway Tour I/Tour IX = thermoset urethane

4. Nike One Tour / Tour D = thermoplastic urethane

5. Srixon Z-Star / Z-Star X = thermoset urethane

6. Taylormade TP Red / Black = thermoset polyurethane

 

Does anybody know the differences? Correct me but my guess is the hardness of the cover depends on the process that it is made or molded.

 

Just a guess. I think that the order from softest to hardest is:

 

1. urethane elastomer

2. thermoset urethane

3. thermoset polyurethane

4. thermoplastic urethane

[FATC1TY]

You are correct, although the thermoset urethane and the thermo polyurethane are pretty close to each other. The plain urethane will have slightly more give, while the polyurethane has more crosslinker to give it some resiliency and toughness.

Thermoplastic can give a thinner cover with the same toughness of the rest, it just doesn't feel quite as soft because there's not much too it density wise.

[AcesAZ]

Thats why Ive never really been a fan of Bridgestone and Nike balls, its pretty obvious that the cover is harder then a ProV for instance. They almost feel like a lower end ball around the greens to me.

[FATC1TY]

Its not really a matter of lower quality. Softer doesn't mean higher end. Tour balls are all generally urethane, while the less expensive balls are usually surlyn.

Its a matter of what they wanted to use and thier goal for an end product. They might want a ball that it most durable than others an opt to go for a tougher cover. They can make a soft ball core and a thin durable cover that won't respond as well to compression in the grooves as well as others.

Pro V1 aren't known to be durable, but they do perform well mainly because of the cover.

Its complicated science to get the right combo of durable and performance. Different urethane can offer that.

[AcesAZ]

They FEEL like a lower end ball to ME. JMO

[aliikane]

[quote name='AcesAZ' timestamp='1284639962' post='2699741']
Thats why Ive never really been a fan of Bridgestone and Nike balls, its pretty obvious that the cover is harder then a ProV for instance. They almost feel like a lower end ball around the greens to me.
[/quote]

+1. I agree the Bridgestone and Nike balls feel almost like a surlyn ball. They lack feel. No wonder I always liked the ProV1's and the Taylormade TP Red balls, from the type of urethane they are softer. Now I can try the Srixon Z-Star.

Good info, Fatcity.

[Timanator]

Which ones are not water permeable?

[ikester48]

Thermoplastic Urethane or Poly Urethane starts as a solid pellet, is melted and then injected into a mold at high speed and pressure. As it cools it rehardens into a solid. Generally speaking Thermoplastic is more difficult to make thin covers with because the pressure required to inject the plastic is inversley related to the thickness, i.e. thinner wall-higher pressure.

Thermoset Urethane starts as 2 liquids, the resin and the catalyst. They are mixed in a mixing head and then injected into the mold at much lower pressure as the material is much less viscous and flows quite easily. The cover becomes a solid due to a chemical reaction between the 2 liquids, much like 2-part epoxy glue.

Thermoplastic has a much quicker cycle time, i.e. more ball can be made per hour but it has the limitations of wall thickness. Also the material shrinks as it cools so the parting line where the mold halves come together can be made to be almost invisible.

Thermoset has much longer cycle time so processing cost is higher, but walls can be made thinner and I believe scrap would be lower as the core is less likely to move around during the introduction of the cover. Also since the material does not shrink usually the mold must be slightly overfilled so there is a very thin layer of flash that must be removed post molding.

Both materials can be formulated to behave similarly. It's really a matter of the equipment the manufacturer has invested in; injection molding machines vs. low pressure mixing heads and pumps; how much tooling investment the company wants to make (injection molds are much more expensive to make; and the design constraints they are looking to achieve.

Hope this did not bore anyone too much

[stansoph]

[quote name='ikester48' timestamp='1284771714' post='2702478']
Thermoplastic Urethane or Poly Urethane starts as a solid pellet, is melted and then injected into a mold at high speed and pressure. As it cools it rehardens into a solid. Generally speaking Thermoplastic is more difficult to make thin covers with because the pressure required to inject the plastic is inversley related to the thickness, i.e. thinner wall-higher pressure.

Thermoset Urethane starts as 2 liquids, the resin and the catalyst. They are mixed in a mixing head and then injected into the mold at much lower pressure as the material is much less viscous and flows quite easily. The cover becomes a solid due to a chemical reaction between the 2 liquids, much like 2-part epoxy glue.

Thermoplastic has a much quicker cycle time, i.e. more ball can be made per hour but it has the limitations of wall thickness. Also the material shrinks as it cools so the parting line where the mold halves come together can be made to be almost invisible.

Thermoset has much longer cycle time so processing cost is higher, but walls can be made thinner and I believe scrap would be lower as the core is less likely to move around during the introduction of the cover. Also since the material does not shrink usually the mold must be slightly overfilled so there is a very thin layer of flash that must be removed post molding.

Both materials can be formulated to behave similarly. It's really a matter of the equipment the manufacturer has invested in; injection molding machines vs. low pressure mixing heads and pumps; how much tooling investment the company wants to make (injection molds are much more expensive to make; and the design constraints they are looking to achieve.

Hope this did not bore anyone too much
[/quote]
Brainiac

[aliikane]

[quote name='ikester48' timestamp='1284771714' post='2702478']
Thermoplastic Urethane or Poly Urethane starts as a solid pellet, is melted and then injected into a mold at high speed and pressure. As it cools it rehardens into a solid. Generally speaking Thermoplastic is more difficult to make thin covers with because the pressure required to inject the plastic is inversley related to the thickness, i.e. thinner wall-higher pressure.

Thermoset Urethane starts as 2 liquids, the resin and the catalyst. They are mixed in a mixing head and then injected into the mold at much lower pressure as the material is much less viscous and flows quite easily. The cover becomes a solid due to a chemical reaction between the 2 liquids, much like 2-part epoxy glue.

Thermoplastic has a much quicker cycle time, i.e. more ball can be made per hour but it has the limitations of wall thickness. Also the material shrinks as it cools so the parting line where the mold halves come together can be made to be almost invisible.

Thermoset has much longer cycle time so processing cost is higher, but walls can be made thinner and I believe scrap would be lower as the core is less likely to move around during the introduction of the cover. Also since the material does not shrink usually the mold must be slightly overfilled so there is a very thin layer of flash that must be removed post molding.

Both materials can be formulated to behave similarly. It's really a matter of the equipment the manufacturer has invested in; injection molding machines vs. low pressure mixing heads and pumps; how much tooling investment the company wants to make (injection molds are much more expensive to make; and the design constraints they are looking to achieve.

Hope this did not bore anyone too much
[/quote]


Wow, that is some knowledge about golf ball construction. Ikester, do you work for a ball company? It is your 1st post and a lot of good information. i'm reading your posts from now on.

[CosmosMpower]

That explains why Pro-V and Callaway balls feel like they have much softer covers (almost like you can dig your nail into them) and Nike and Bridgestone stuff have the harder type cover.

[ScooterMcTavish]

Funny as the Callaway balls feel so tacky and soft, yet the Z-Star feels like its cover is firmer, even though its the same type of urethane.

Guessing there is variances even in the same types of urethane.

[Man In The Miura]

I've noticed this difference between white Z-Stars and yellow Z-Stars. A white Z-Star is good for 18 holes MAX for me, and even that is pushing it, there are so many shavings gone. The yellow Z-Star, on the other hand, seems immune to punishment, and I hate to throw one away after a week. Is this a difference in urethane?

[TheBoz_from_Oz]

[quote name='ScooterMcTavish' timestamp='1285291526' post='2711390']
Funny as the Callaway balls feel so tacky and soft, yet the Z-Star feels like its cover is firmer, even though its the same type of urethane.

Guessing there is variances even in the same types of urethane.
[/quote]


[b]Hi Scooter[/b], the Callaway design is using the RIM Urethane (think soft rubber style) in a very soft hardness setting
whereas the Zstar is using TPU Urethane (think soft plastic style) in a not as soft formulation.

The interesting thing is most multilayers are using ionomer or surlyn for the mantle (2nd level) and it can
also be the match between the two materials hardness levels that gives you the REAL feel of the different balls.

[b]Hi T/Yonex[/b], There are a couple of issues that can cause what you and many players are seeing,

firstly painted balls are harder to make real durable besause in most cases the paint itself is an issue.

In reagrds to the Tour Yellow's better durability, when you add anying to the base urethane material you have
an effect on its structure. Our current testing has aour clear cover prototypes with no colouring being
a touch harder and more definitely more durable, the trade off is a slight reduction in flexibility and so
the wedge spin numbers are a little lower.

Boz.