My Golf Spy Ball Test - General Discussion

[crazygolfnut]

Waiting for the second part of the test to prove that brand new golf balls are attracted to water, and the power of the attraction is in direct proportion to how much the balls cost.

[GoGoErky]

> @rkelso184 said:

> > @Popeye64 said:

> > > @cxx said:

> > > Wishon did mention one time that the ball that maximizes energy transfer from a driver is a titanium spherical shell. Makes sense. Impedance matching for maximum transfer is the best you can do.

> > >

> > > I wonder if Callaway is going to take legal action. I don't think the testing that was performed would stand up to inquiry. Doesn't really conform to any industry standards much less anything more rigorous. I suppose the authors could claim that they were providing an entertainment product and not performing actual testing.

> >

> > Legal action,,,,,,, what?????? They simple published their findings. I swear I F ing hate the mentality of people who are sue happy.

>

> Holy cow! Didn't this escalate quickly. **** clearly cover them self saying get a ball fitting. They never ever also set a list of balls 1 - ? They simply had 4 categories. Also alot of slow balls in the test but we all are going on about Callaway not the others...

 

The Callaway defenders have been the only ones complaining. It’s funny to watch/read the comments all over the place like it was an mgs vs Callaway study.

[darsony]

> @rjp322 said:

> This test messed with my mind so I had to do some testing myself. I’m a +1 handicap with about a 102mph swing speed and have been playing the callaway chrome soft truvis balls since they came out. I will say that off the driver I do not generate a ton of spin because I hit up on the ball like 4 degrees. I went and bought some 2019 pro v1x, Srixon z star, Taylormade tp5, and the snell sample pack.

>

> I started with them all on the green chipping. If I don’t like the way a ball performs or feels chipping, it’s not getting a chance with the full swing. Thought the titleist Pro V1x felt like a rock and frankly didn’t notice a huge difference. This ball was cut immediately. All the other balls made the cut as far as if I could get used to the feel.

>

> First up to get a real try was snell mtb x. I was most intrigued to try the snell balls. Still on lower compression side which I like. To me this ball lived up to hype. Felt good everywhere. Low spin off driver, medium spin on irons and enough around the greens. This spun more for me around the putting green than snell black which surprised me

>

> Next up was snell mtb black. Again was super super impressed. Went even farther off the driver for me than the mtb x because I think it spun a touch more and for me that’s a good thing. I’d play this over the X but it’s simply due to the softer feeling. I’d guess most would think the x is a better ball. You can’t go wrong with either of these for the price.

>

> Had similar findings with tp5 and Srixon. Both good balls, performed well, tp5 felt better to me tho.

>

> In the end none were better than chrome soft FOR ME. I didn’t lose any distance with this ball vs the above and to me it feels way better than the others. It spins the most around the greens for me and does what I want. I was hoping to find a ball to pick up those 6-7 yards that I may have been giving up by playing this ball but that just wasn’t the case. This ball just flat out works for me and does what I want.

>

> Would be happy to answer any questions . Only ball left to try is the Bridgestone bx which I eventually will

>

>

 

This is what people are missing. Not too many golfers swing at 115+mph. You are great golfer and only swing 102mph. Maybe if you were 15mph faster CS wouldn't work for you. But you aren't so CS does perform for you. A ball manufacturer would have to be super dumb to make balls in volume for the 115+mph market, just like they would be super dumb to make as much LH equipment as RH. They would be better served to make balls for the 95-105 range and the 80-90 range, if they only made two versions, AND then have special balls for their high swing speed pros. I expect Titleist, Bridgestone, Callaway,... ALL recognize this.

[Pittknife]

> @cxx said:

> > @trackcoach13 said:

>

> > Here you go genius:

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> You know that video is Wilson DUO advertising right?

> And the weatherman's article?

>

> Your evidence is not convincing. If you have it, you should reference the measured data directly. Temperature vs compression for several designs.

>

> It's my understanding, as stated before, that the optimal ball for transfer of energy is one with the same hardness as the club face. Somewhat impractical for playing golf, but supported by the M.G.S. conclusion that higher compression results in faster ball speed.

> If you have evidence that golf balls change compression due to temperature in some way other than monotonically, that might support you idea, then let's see it.

> If anyone has real evidence, whether public or proprietary let's see it.

>

>

> Edit: Two of the three linked articles that referred to drop in distance due to temperature got it wrong. Should be 2% per 10 deg F rather than 2 yards. Thanks Larry That part is based on changes in air density rather than compression. They must have copied it from somewhere.

 

Your understanding of hardness as it pertains to the transfer of energy to a ball is completely wrong. Track coach provided a very good video explaining temperature and compression.

 

I’ll explain why your matching if the hardness theory is incorrect. You probably google searched the famous steel ball will bounce higher than a rubber ball and found “proof” that a material like steel will bounce higher than rubber on a steel surface. If you look you will see a golf ball that is harder and more compressed than a basketball and a couple other ball types that have less hardness and compression will not bounce as high. Think of if this way, if you take a 100 lb steel ball and drop it on that steel plate what will happen? Take a rubber ball the same size and what will happen? This doesn’t apply to dissimilar materials, which is polymer (ball) against titanium.

 

Elastic if the material and it’s ability to deform and undeform directly affects its kinetic potential. Easy talk: the more a ball can be compressed to an extent the more energy it can covert to rebounding. When you talk about elastomers they are greatly affected by temperature. Notice the wording extent, you can over or under compress a ball to where you won’t have optimal transfer of energy. Let’s say you have two balls 100 compression and 70 compression (that have same characteristics except compression) for your swing the 100 compression has optimal compression when it’s 80 f outside, when it changes to 40 f the 100 compression ball will not be able to compression optimally because colder temperature contracts the material and makes it harder for it to compress further. Now the 70 (softer) ball becomes optimal. It’s a pretty simple principle.

 

By the way, harder anything doesn’t mean better. Titanium especially grade 5 which is mainly used in golf is not considered hard for metals. Hardness and toughness are not he same thing, titanium is actually very soft when measured using hrc and can’t be heat treated to change its molecular structure like carbon steel. Carbon is much harder and can achieve over 60 hrc easily. Why isn’t carbon used in driver heads? It’s because density and the need for the face to be able to deform and not past the plastic deformation phase and crack. Basically, you need a softer metal that can have variable thin walls to act like a trampoline.

 

Another way to think about this, when you buy a trampoline the surface isn’t made of steel. WhT would happen if you jump on a steel surface, you won’t be bouncing, the polymer netting of trampolines provides a higher bounce.

 

To say you want harder materials to match the club face is just as wrong as saying lower compression won’t go further when it’s colder. It’s just simply not true, it’s called science.

 

And as a former golf industry designer, I won’t be posting data sets that belong to the companies I worked for. That would be very stupid of me to post proprietary data that I may have worked in and do not own. This isn’t even a data issue, it’s a simple physics and material science issue.

[Mahamilto]

Well said.

 

The science of energy transfer is incredibly complex and there are tons of elements as well described above. All of these factors can be plotted/evaluated on performance curves. Someone posted a video recently where they had made the golf ball explode when shooting it out of a 500mph cannon and they actually showed some of these performance curves and discussed the physics behind it. It was a good discussion beyond the simple joy of watching the ball/watermelon explode and a driver head get caved in.

 

Simply put, there is an ideal input force that maximizes energy transfer/rebound. Things like elasticity, compression, coefficient of restitution, and properties of deformation are all involved; these are intrinsic properties of the ball/club face and vary widely depending on materials and design. The clear point here is the ball and the club are both designed with these physics in mind. While it is an over simplification, hard things tend to break, soft things tend to deform; if you want to make a golf ball or club face that maximizes energy transfer, it needs to be hard enough to transfer energy and survive the impact, soft enough to deform properly, and elastic enough to restitute to original shape quickly. It is a delicate balance.

 

Like it or not for any material/design there will be some point of force that provides the best performance; any less you won't get maximum transfer/result, any more and you don't get an additional gain (and may get less performance...). There is also a point where the object receiving the force will outright fail. These maxims of physics pertain to both the ball and the club face.

 

Regardless of design or even validity, the espionage test did demonstrate something significant. The softer balls are lower on the performance curve as far as energy transfer at the degree of force they experience from a golf swing. People are in an outrage about this, but it has been stated long before the espionage test and discussed at length by numerous golf ball manufacturers both past and present. There is a reason that tour players don't play the low compression offerings. Phil Mickelson's comment about the Chrome Soft, which Callaway even used for marketing, was "I've never seen a ball this soft go this far..."

 

If you fully understand the physics behind it, it actually makes sense that performance gap widens as the input force increases. Please understand I am specifically commenting ONLY about ball speed in this regard, as other elements such as spin, trajectory, and even total distance have a significant number of variables that must be accounted for. This does NOT mean that simply making the ball harder/higher compression will make for more energy transfer/ball speed, there is an ideal point on all of these curves and maximum performance involves matching swing (impact force) to the object it is striking.

 

As far as the elements argument, the compression of any ball increases as the temperature drops; this changes the performance curves. I do not know at what point the higher compression ball is overcome by the lower compression ball, but it should also be realized that metal (i.e. the club face...) is more susceptible to temperature changes than rubber, so there is another element to consider. Just remember these performance variables are all CURVES, they are not linear relationships, so there can be exponential changes in performance with incremental differences in certain variables.

 

In the end, the best ball is the one you shoot the best scores with. Ball speed, distance, feel, spin, and trajectory all impact scoring, and each golfer benefits differently from changes to each of those categories. Oh... and we aren't robots either.

[dlygrisse]

Seems like the ball companies have some ex associates here shilling for them for damage control purposes. So which is a bigger scandal? The ball test? The shills? The Russians?

[Mahamilto]

Why would Ex associated be shilling for damage control? Wouldn’t they be associates then?

 

And to answer your question, the Russians, by a long shot lol.

[Pittknife]

> @dlygrisse said:

> Seems like the ball companies have some ex associates here shilling for them for damage control purposes. So which is a bigger scandal? The ball test? The shills? The Russians?

 

I didn’t work for Callaway, I worked for their #1 rival down on fermi court. I also worked with the guy that benefited most from this test dean snell, so how am I shilling? I have nothing to gain besides trying to correct some misinformation by misinformed people. I don’t play a Callaway ball, I’m a prov1 guy, always have been.

 

*and you can read my posts on how upset I was with Callaway clubs with regards to fitting me into a driver that I could not use. Maybe instead of working on post count you could read first before posting, seems to be a trend with some people.

[tyorke1]

was the bridgestone the best overall, spin , distance accuracy?

[more]

I'm so confused. I'm a 7 handicap, 59 years old. I have played the ProV1 or X since the ball came out. I got some Chrome Softs at the RBC Heritage Wednesday Pro Am. Played it in the Pro Am and drove it distances I have never been before at Harbour Town. Go out to Pebble the next week and hit it further than I ever have there and at Spyglass. Now the ball is supposed to be a marshmallow? What do I believe now?.

[howellhandmade]

Would have liked to see a bit more investigation into the phenomemon of the occasional ball curving offline 20 yards. If it were me, I’d go get THAT BALL, or go get all the, let’s say, Callaways, and hit it or them again until the miss occurred again, and isolate the ball(s) that curved and figure out why. If it never happened again, maybe the phenomenon wasn’t the ball. If one ball proves to curve consistently, was the chore shifted, were the dimples malformed, or what? I don’t know that I’ve ever had a ball behave erratically, but perhaps they have and I’ve just blamed it on myself.

[North Texas]

> @more said:

> I'm so confused. I'm a 7 handicap, 59 years old. I have played the ProV1 or X since the ball came out. I got some Chrome Softs at the RBC Heritage Wednesday Pro Am. Played it in the Pro Am and drove it distances I have never been before at Harbour Town. Go out to Pebble the next week and hit it further than I ever have there and at Spyglass. Now the ball is supposed to be a marshmallow? What do I believe now?.

 

All the mumbo-jumbo scientific stuff, people need to read this post and then take a step back and see if they understand what they are reading. This post says more than probably any post in this thread. Especially the long-winded ones.

[kylesilk]

> @more said:

> I'm so confused. I'm a 7 handicap, 59 years old. I have played the ProV1 or X since the ball came out. I got some Chrome Softs at the RBC Heritage Wednesday Pro Am. Played it in the Pro Am and drove it distances I have never been before at Harbour Town. Go out to Pebble the next week and hit it further than I ever have there and at Spyglass. Now the ball is supposed to be a marshmallow? What do I believe now?.

 

Believe what your eyes tell you.

[North Texas]

> @kylesilk said:

> > @more said:

> > I'm so confused. I'm a 7 handicap, 59 years old. I have played the ProV1 or X since the ball came out. I got some Chrome Softs at the RBC Heritage Wednesday Pro Am. Played it in the Pro Am and drove it distances I have never been before at Harbour Town. Go out to Pebble the next week and hit it further than I ever have there and at Spyglass. Now the ball is supposed to be a marshmallow? What do I believe now?.

>

> Believe what your eyes tell you.

 

Again, another post that people should read over and over. Says way more than all the scientific mumbo-jumbo and says it in only 6 words.

[NRJyzr]

The forums are more interesting reading when guys aren't waving around their e-peens...

[soregongolfer]

> @Pittknife said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > Seems like the ball companies have some ex associates here shilling for them for damage control purposes. So which is a bigger scandal? The ball test? The shills? The Russians?

>

> I didn’t work for Callaway, I worked for their #1 rival down on fermi court. I also worked with the guy that benefited most from this test dean snell, so how am I shilling? I have nothing to gain besides trying to correct some misinformation by misinformed people. I don’t play a Callaway ball, **_I’m a prov1 guy, always have been_**.

>

> *and you can read my posts on how upset I was with Callaway clubs with regards to fitting me into a driver that I could not use. Maybe instead of working on post count you could read first before posting, seems to be a trend with some people.

 

Skank ;)

[lambo428]

One thing that I noticed in the summary statistics is that as the swing speed went to 85 mph (me), the Pro V1x went to number 1 for driver distance and accuracy/dispersion. So I played the Pro V1x last weekend and I loved it off the driver (+10 yards vs usual NXT Tour S) and it performed well for all other shots. It's a firm ball but so what - it was a beautiful day out.

[tsecor]

if you look at the swing speeds, the CS is not good at high speeds but gets better in comparison to all the other balls as your swing speeds decrease towards the 85 mph mark. At 100mph, it still flies far.....I think the CS negativity is overblown because the hard core data shows the cs perfroming very well with 85-100 mph speeds. It kicks butt at 85mph, especially with the 7 iron. It actually one of the best balls at that swing speed...which is what it was designed to do......> @more said:

> I'm so confused. I'm a 7 handicap, 59 years old. I have played the ProV1 or X since the ball came out. I got some Chrome Softs at the RBC Heritage Wednesday Pro Am. Played it in the Pro Am and drove it distances I have never been before at Harbour Town. Go out to Pebble the next week and hit it further than I ever have there and at Spyglass. Now the ball is supposed to be a marshmallow? What do I believe now?.

 

 

[North Butte]

> @tsecor said:

> if you look at the swing speeds, the CS is not good at high speeds but gets better in comparison to all the other balls as your swing I think the CS negativity is overblown because the hard core data shows the cs perfroming very well with 85-100 mph speeds. It kicks butt at 85mph, especially with the 7 iron. It actually one of the best balls at that swing speed...which is what it was designed to do......

 

Chrome Soft was the 8th longest ball off the 7-iron in the "85mph" speed category. That's 8th out of 36th so it's definitely in the top quartile but not sure that comprises "kicks butt". Still, 32 of the 36 balls had a 7-iron distance between 130 and 134 yards so once you throw out the losers like K-Sig 3pc the 7-iron butt-kicking is all much of a muchness.

 

At "115mph" driver speed category, off the 7-iron Chrome Soft fell back in the pack but was merely average (17th out of 36 balls) rather than awful.

 

This sort of close reading of the Chrome Soft results illustrates the general trend. Most of MGS's trends and "findings" consist of over hyping angels on the head of a pin. The supposedly too-soft Chrome Soft works fine at high clubhead speeds and very well at lower clubhead speeds. Most of the balls are fairly similar in most tests, unless you really think two yards here or three yards there is going to save any strokes in your game.

[tsecor]

If you look at the 7 iron, 85 -100 MPH carry of the CS, you see it beats all the balls marked excellent......and it beats the Srixion by 4 yards which could be the difference between sand and the green. It beats the famed prov 1's in many areas as well.....only with the driver is it noticeably shorter, but it the fairway a few yards really is meaningless as you pointed out. The wedge stats are great too and in comparison to the excellent balls, it "kicks butt", given its rating of FAIR in the test. > @"North Butte" said:

> > @tsecor said:

> > if you look at the swing speeds, the CS is not good at high speeds but gets better in comparison to all the other balls as your swing I think the CS negativity is overblown because the hard core data shows the cs perfroming very well with 85-100 mph speeds. It kicks butt at 85mph, especially with the 7 iron. It actually one of the best balls at that swing speed...which is what it was designed to do......

>

> Chrome Soft was the 8th longest ball off the 7-iron in the "85mph" speed category. That's 8th out of 36th so it's definitely in the top quartile but not sure that comprises "kicks butt". Still, 32 of the 36 balls had a 7-iron distance between 130 and 134 yards so once you throw out the losers like K-Sig 3pc the 7-iron butt-kicking is all much of a muchness.

>

> At "115mph" driver speed category, off the 7-iron Chrome Soft fell back in the pack but was merely average (17th out of 36 balls) rather than awful.

>

> This sort of close reading of the Chrome Soft results illustrates the general trend. Most of ****'s trends and "findings" consist of over hyping angels on the head of a pin. The supposedly too-soft Chrome Soft works fine at high clubhead speeds and very well at lower clubhead speeds. Most of the balls are fairly similar in most tests, unless you really think two yards here or three yards there is going to save any strokes in your game.

 

 

[dlygrisse]

> @tsecor said:

> If you look at the 7 iron, 85 -100 MPH carry of the CS, you see it beats all the balls marked excellent......and it beats the Srixion by 4 yards which could be the difference between sand and the green. It beats the famed prov 1's in many areas as well.....only with the driver is it noticeably shorter, but it the fairway a few yards really is meaningless as you pointed out. The wedge stats are great too and in comparison to the excellent balls, it "kicks butt", given its rating of FAIR in the test. > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @tsecor said:

> > > if you look at the swing speeds, the CS is not good at high speeds but gets better in comparison to all the other balls as your swing I think the CS negativity is overblown because the hard core data shows the cs perfroming very well with 85-100 mph speeds. It kicks butt at 85mph, especially with the 7 iron. It actually one of the best balls at that swing speed...which is what it was designed to do......

> >

> > Chrome Soft was the 8th longest ball off the 7-iron in the "85mph" speed category. That's 8th out of 36th so it's definitely in the top quartile but not sure that comprises "kicks butt". Still, 32 of the 36 balls had a 7-iron distance between 130 and 134 yards so once you throw out the losers like K-Sig 3pc the 7-iron butt-kicking is all much of a muchness.

> >

> > At "115mph" driver speed category, off the 7-iron Chrome Soft fell back in the pack but was merely average (17th out of 36 balls) rather than awful.

> >

> > This sort of close reading of the Chrome Soft results illustrates the general trend. Most of ****'s trends and "findings" consist of over hyping angels on the head of a pin. The supposedly too-soft Chrome Soft works fine at high clubhead speeds and very well at lower clubhead speeds. Most of the balls are fairly similar in most tests, unless you really think two yards here or three yards there is going to save any strokes in your game.

>

>

 

The distance the ball flies, especially with irons, is not how they were ranking balls. Driver distance and the dispersion, wedge spin and consistency seemed to be the factors that earned an excellent rating. How far a 7 iron flies is a pretty poor indicator on how a ball performs in and of itself.

[tsecor]

Not really given the driver is probably one of the least used clubs in the bag. They hit all parameters and outlined exactly how the softer balls flew with each swing speed. They claimed a slow ball is a slow ball but that doesn't actually hold true across the entire data set> @dlygrisse said:

> > @tsecor said:

> > If you look at the 7 iron, 85 -100 MPH carry of the CS, you see it beats all the balls marked excellent......and it beats the Srixion by 4 yards which could be the difference between sand and the green. It beats the famed prov 1's in many areas as well.....only with the driver is it noticeably shorter, but it the fairway a few yards really is meaningless as you pointed out. The wedge stats are great too and in comparison to the excellent balls, it "kicks butt", given its rating of FAIR in the test. > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > @tsecor said:

> > > > if you look at the swing speeds, the CS is not good at high speeds but gets better in comparison to all the other balls as your swing I think the CS negativity is overblown because the hard core data shows the cs perfroming very well with 85-100 mph speeds. It kicks butt at 85mph, especially with the 7 iron. It actually one of the best balls at that swing speed...which is what it was designed to do......

> > >

> > > Chrome Soft was the 8th longest ball off the 7-iron in the "85mph" speed category. That's 8th out of 36th so it's definitely in the top quartile but not sure that comprises "kicks butt". Still, 32 of the 36 balls had a 7-iron distance between 130 and 134 yards so once you throw out the losers like K-Sig 3pc the 7-iron butt-kicking is all much of a muchness.

> > >

> > > At "115mph" driver speed category, off the 7-iron Chrome Soft fell back in the pack but was merely average (17th out of 36 balls) rather than awful.

> > >

> > > This sort of close reading of the Chrome Soft results illustrates the general trend. Most of ****'s trends and "findings" consist of over hyping angels on the head of a pin. The supposedly too-soft Chrome Soft works fine at high clubhead speeds and very well at lower clubhead speeds. Most of the balls are fairly similar in most tests, unless you really think two yards here or three yards there is going to save any strokes in your game.

> >

> >

>

> The distance the ball flies, especially with irons, is not how they were ranking balls. Driver distance and the dispersion, wedge spin and consistency seemed to be the factors that earned an excellent rating. How far a 7 iron flies is a pretty poor indicator on how a ball performs in and of itself.

 

 

[North Butte]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the performance numbers from their test. Not their idiotic "ratings". My mistake.

I have no comment on their click-bait hype whatsoever but I enjoyed seeing the actual test results.

[tsecor]

talking both> @"North Butte" said:

> Sorry, I thought we were talking about the performance numbers from their test. Not their idiotic "ratings". My mistake.

> I have no comment on their click-bait hype whatsoever but I enjoyed seeing the actual test results.

 

 

[caniac6]

Ordered some Snell MBT-X based on the ball test. Not particularly impressed. I believe I'll stick with the PRO V1X.

[trackcoach13]

> @caniac6 said:

> Ordered some Snell MBT-X based on the ball test. Not particularly impressed. I believe I'll stick with the PRO V1X.

 

How many rounds you test it?

[cxx]

> @Pittknife said:

> > @cxx said:

> > > @trackcoach13 said:

> >

> > > Here you go genius:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > You know that video is Wilson DUO advertising right?

> > And the weatherman's article?

> >

> > Your evidence is not convincing. If you have it, you should reference the measured data directly. Temperature vs compression for several designs.

> >

> > It's my understanding, as stated before, that the optimal ball for transfer of energy is one with the same hardness as the club face. Somewhat impractical for playing golf, but supported by the M.G.S. conclusion that higher compression results in faster ball speed.

> > If you have evidence that golf balls change compression due to temperature in some way other than monotonically, that might support you idea, then let's see it.

> > If anyone has real evidence, whether public or proprietary let's see it.

> >

> >

> > Edit: Two of the three linked articles that referred to drop in distance due to temperature got it wrong. Should be 2% per 10 deg F rather than 2 yards. Thanks Larry That part is based on changes in air density rather than compression. They must have copied it from somewhere.

>

> Your understanding of hardness as it pertains to the transfer of energy to a ball is completely wrong. Track coach provided a very good video explaining temperature and compression.

>

> I’ll explain why your matching if the hardness theory is incorrect. You probably google searched the famous steel ball will bounce higher than a rubber ball and found “proof” that a material like steel will bounce higher than rubber on a steel surface. If you look you will see a golf ball that is harder and more compressed than a basketball and a couple other ball types that have less hardness and compression will not bounce as high. Think of if this way, if you take a 100 lb steel ball and drop it on that steel plate what will happen? Take a rubber ball the same size and what will happen? This doesn’t apply to dissimilar materials, which is polymer (ball) against titanium.

>

> Elastic if the material and it’s ability to deform and undeform directly affects its kinetic potential. Easy talk: the more a ball can be compressed to an extent the more energy it can covert to rebounding. When you talk about elastomers they are greatly affected by temperature. Notice the wording extent, you can over or under compress a ball to where you won’t have optimal transfer of energy. Let’s say you have two balls 100 compression and 70 compression (that have same characteristics except compression) for your swing the 100 compression has optimal compression when it’s 80 f outside, when it changes to 40 f the 100 compression ball will not be able to compression optimally because colder temperature contracts the material and makes it harder for it to compress further. Now the 70 (softer) ball becomes optimal. It’s a pretty simple principle.

>

> By the way, harder anything doesn’t mean better. Titanium especially grade 5 which is mainly used in golf is not considered hard for metals. Hardness and toughness are not he same thing, titanium is actually very soft when measured using hrc and can’t be heat treated to change its molecular structure like carbon steel. Carbon is much harder and can achieve over 60 hrc easily. Why isn’t carbon used in driver heads? It’s because density and the need for the face to be able to deform and not past the plastic deformation phase and crack. Basically, you need a softer metal that can have variable thin walls to act like a trampoline.

>

> Another way to think about this, when you buy a trampoline the surface isn’t made of steel. WhT would happen if you jump on a steel surface, you won’t be bouncing, the polymer netting of trampolines provides a higher bounce.

>

> To say you want harder materials to match the club face is just as wrong as saying lower compression won’t go further when it’s colder. It’s just simply not true, it’s called science.

>

> And as a former golf industry designer, I won’t be posting data sets that belong to the companies I worked for. That would be very stupid of me to post proprietary data that I may have worked in and do not own. This isn’t even a data issue, it’s a simple physics and material science issue.

 

I accept that my analogy of the maximum power transfer in audio does not apply to ball-clubface collisions. It seemed reasonable at the time but may be a jump too far.

 

The scatter chart of the measured ball compression vs distance does look like there is a relationship, if the measurements are good. There are enough strange results in the data to cast some doubt on the quality of that.

 

So your saying the titanium shell with the same characteristics as the face does not result in the maximum speed after impact. That is disappointing. What does when you don't restrict it to golf ball materials?

[GDTBATH]

So I have a question: do the little paint marks down in the dimple (looks like where the ball came out of the mold, leaving a little mark) affect performance?

[ohiohunter2]

I might have missed it, but has anyone done any testing with new chrome soft x triple track? Supposed to be higher compression than old one.

[caniac6]

> @trackcoach13 said:

> > @caniac6 said:

> > Ordered some Snell MBT-X based on the ball test. Not particularly impressed. I believe I'll stick with the PRO V1X.

>

> How many rounds you test it?

 

Just a couple, but how many do you need to figure that you like one better than the other? To answer my own question, one less than I tried it.