Q-Star Tour ball

[arbeck]

The roundness and core centeredness are problems (how big I can't say). But the biggest problem is the variation between compression on different points on the ball. You could lose 1-2 MPH of ball speed and 500 RPM of spin depending on where you hit it on the ball. That amount of spin could be a half club of distance if the ball speed doesn't change with it.

[cristphoto]

12 hours ago, Ger21 said:

But they neglect to tell you what their "generous standard" is.

If they're not going to give you numbers, you have no idea how out of round they actually are.

 

True they don't state their standard for roundness. But what clearly stands out is 36% of the QST failed the roundness test - more than one ball out of three.  Comparing the QST with exact same roundness tests done on Kirkland 3-piece, Maxfli Tour, Snell MTB, Taylor Made TP5, and Titleist ProV1 all of these balls tested out at 0% out of round.  

[Landy]

Just cant conceive Srixon's QA allowing this type of flaw to leave the facility.

There has to be more to this...

[cristphoto]

44 minutes ago, arbeck said:

The roundness and core centeredness are problems (how big I can't say). But the biggest problem is the variation between compression on different points on the ball. You could lose 1-2 MPH of ball speed and 500 RPM of spin depending on where you hit it on the ball. That amount of spin could be a half club of distance if the ball speed doesn't change with it.

 

I have always had concerns as to how the process works to make a "gradational" compression core where its softer in the center and gradually gets firmer towards the cover like the Srixon.  I spoke with Srixon and all they said was they use a varied heat process when baking the cores.  OK.  But how do the insure the compression around the whole circumference is equal?  This test shows what can happen when manufacturing variable compression balls (left half faster than the right?).  None of these compression errors were noted in the tests of the Kirkland, Maxfli, Snell, Taylor Made or Titleist (all single compression - non-gradation cores). This is why I play a single compression ball (Prov1).  

[cristphoto]

Here are the spies discussing ball quality (discussion starts at 29:38).  Hope I can post this.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Q_u8OQnSM&t=2928s&ab_channel=Not allowed because of spam

 

 

 

 

[chippa13]

1 hour ago, cristphoto said:

 

I have always had concerns as to how the process works to make a "gradational" compression core where its softer in the center and gradually gets firmer towards the cover like the Srixon.  I spoke with Srixon and all they said was they use a varied heat process when baking the cores.  OK.  But how do the insure the compression around the whole circumference is equal?  This test shows what can happen when manufacturing variable compression balls (left half faster than the right?).  None of these compression errors were noted in the tests of the Kirkland, Maxfli, Snell, Taylor Made or Titleist (all single compression - non-gradation cores). This is why I play a single compression ball (Prov1).  

It is no different than grilling a steak to a perfect medium. Get a good hot sear on the outside to start and then manage the heat so the edge has a nice almost crust and the inside is pink and tender.

[Ger21]

1 hour ago, cristphoto said:

 

True they don't state their standard for roundness. But what clearly stands out is 36% of the QST failed the roundness test - more than one ball out of three.  Comparing the QST with exact same roundness tests done on Kirkland 3-piece, Maxfli Tour, Snell MTB, Taylor Made TP5, and Titleist ProV1 all of these balls tested out at 0% out of round.  

 

In the linked video, he talks about a number in the .005" - .006" range as the threshold for roundness.

So, a ball could be out of round by .005" and considered round, and a ball considered out of round could be .007".

If these are the numbers used, there could be very little difference between balls that they consider round and those considered out of round.

And it's likely that very few if any balls are perfectly round.

[cristphoto]

1 hour ago, Ger21 said:

 

In the linked video, he talks about a number in the .005" - .006" range as the threshold for roundness.

So, a ball could be out of round by .005" and considered round, and a ball considered out of round could be .007".

If these are the numbers used, there could be very little difference between balls that they consider round and those considered out of round.

And it's likely that very few if any balls are perfectly round.

 

I agree that we're talking about small amounts.  However going over all the other balls tested they didn't show any defects so I wonder at what point its an issue.  We are talking spin rates near 10,000 rpm with wedges. I've posted to the spy guys asking them to take the balls with errors and post photos so we can see them and make our own value judgement. Then take them to the course or range and compare them to a ball with zero defects.  What then is the playability difference?  If you measure close enough no ball is perfect but they could gather data showing when flight patterns, distance, etc. would start to appear.  

 

[Gary Gutful]

No test is ever perfect but what they do is better than anything anyone else is offerring. I have no reason to think they've got it horribly wrong. Its a budget ball. It isn't surprising that doesn't perform as well as a premium ball.

[Ger21]

I don't consider $33/dz to be a budget ball.

[rwbloom93]

1 hour ago, Gary Gutful said:

No test is ever perfect but what they do is better than anything anyone else is offerring. I have no reason to think they've got it horribly wrong. Its a budget ball. It isn't surprising that doesn't perform as well as a premium ball.

Good grief, it is not really about whether they got something wrong but about posting the actual measurements, is that too much to ask? They have the numbers...post them.

 

BTW, they didn't conclude the ball was a poor performer on the golf course...they were asked the question by a reader...and deflected. 

[Stanks]

Everyone was trashing callaway because of off center cores and the reaction to this, which seems equally disturbing, is getting very little (thus far) feedback. But, again, no one ever knew the issues with Q-Star Tours the same no one ever knew the issues with chromesofts until MGS came along and someone took these metrics. 

And all of a sudden, another company needs to fix their polices and fix their process. 

[Gary Gutful]

3 hours ago, rwbloom93 said:

Good grief, it is not really about whether they got something wrong but about posting the actual measurements, is that too much to ask? They have the numbers...post them.

 

BTW, they didn't conclude the ball was a poor performer on the golf course...they were asked the question by a reader...and deflected. 

Good grief? Calm down Ned Flanders. 

 

I saw the following statement:

 

"I don't put much weight in anything the S*G*M guys do." along with a number of other comments stating that they've never had a problem with it.

 

That implies that it may actually be about whether they got something wrong. That's fine. People are entitled to question the results of their test but don't pretend that people haven't when they clearly have.

 

As for posting additional data - sure, if thats what people want to see then they should provide it.

 

And confirming that the ball is a 'poor performer on the course'? I'm not surprised they didn't make conclusions about that given the test was about ball to ball consistency from a manufacturing perspective. On that count it most certainly rated as poor.

[Gary Gutful]

5 hours ago, Ger21 said:

I don't consider $33/dz to be a budget ball.

Its semantics but I am happy to substitute the word 'budget' with 'cheaper' if that assists. In my part of the world Srixon Q Star Tours are nearly half the price of ProV1s ($40 v $76). I guess you could buy some Hot Dots for less than the QSTs but its pretty clear that the QSTs are a long way from being 'premium' price.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Gary Gutful

[xkilgorextroutx]

4 hours ago, Gary Gutful said:

And confirming that the ball is a 'poor performer on the course'? I'm not surprised they didn't make conclusions about that given the test was about ball to ball consistency from a manufacturing perspective. On that count it most certainly rated as poor.

 

In last year's huge ball test, the QST ranked "fair" in performance, which was the second worst category. I'd assume that may be one of the reasons the ball was put through more rigorous testing this year. 

[Ger21]

The ball from the test was the last version, and completely different from the current QST.

[cristphoto]

3 hours ago, Ger21 said:

The ball from the test was the last version, and completely different from the current QST.

 

The photos in the review are of the latest QST (with Serm).  Check the side stamp. Latest ball has text blacked out; previous model didn't.  

Edited October 24, 2020 by cristphoto

[Ger21]

I was replying to the previous post, clarifying that the ball from last years test was different from this one.

[storm319]

On 10/23/2020 at 10:26 AM, cristphoto said:

 

I have always had concerns as to how the process works to make a "gradational" compression core where its softer in the center and gradually gets firmer towards the cover like the Srixon.  I spoke with Srixon and all they said was they use a varied heat process when baking the cores.  OK.  But how do the insure the compression around the whole circumference is equal?  This test shows what can happen when manufacturing variable compression balls (left half faster than the right?).  None of these compression errors were noted in the tests of the Kirkland, Maxfli, Snell, Taylor Made or Titleist (all single compression - non-gradation cores). This is why I play a single compression ball (Prov1).  

Most of the big OEMs do something similar but just don’t advertise it (aside from Bridgestone and Srixon).

[cristphoto]

4 hours ago, Ger21 said:

I was replying to the previous post, clarifying that the ball from last years test was different from this one.

 

OK - my misunderstanding.  

[jjfcpa]

On 10/21/2020 at 6:23 PM, rwbloom93 said:

I don't put much weight in anything the S*G*M guys do....but I'm skeptical by nature, especially of grandiose conclusions(they ALWAYS make) of any small "test(s)" they perform.

 

The two big issues with the QSTARTour as reported:   

1. "Roundness"

2.  Concentricity

 

Regarding #1,  S*G*M fails to tell the reader what the "generous" standard used for roundness is and how they derived that standard. For example, what if the standard is no more than +/-0.0050" measured at the seam vs. the pole of any golf ball.   What if 36 percent of the QST's were 0.0051"...that equals failure, ok.  As a comparison, when they tested the TP5, 100% were within their standard but what if all the TP5's were 0.0049"?  Does the 2/10,000ths really mean one ball is "bad" and the other is "good" in performance?....after all, none of them are truly round (in my example).  A reader asked S*G*M to show (through testing) that the 36% not living up to the "generous" standard has an adverse effect on performance....but of course they deflected as they always do and refer the reader back to the April 2019 robot test. The point is they haven't published the standard used or the actual measurements taken for each ball brand. We are blindly supposed to rely on their conclusions?

 

Regarding #2, S*G*M acknowledges this is just an eye test (no measurements) from the cuts they make(hopefully truly "centered" cuts). They also acknowledge the QstarTour has such a thin cover, and the mantle is nearly the same color as the cover, so it is a challenge to determine concentricity. But again this is just eyeball stuff, when challenged by a reader, they defended the conclusions stating "experts" do it that way also (or something like that). They don't name the "experts".

 

If you play the QST and play it well, I wouldn't change because of something these guys conclude based on such a small sample and the little actual info given the reader. Maybe the QST does have QC issues, but we haven't been provided enough actual measurements to decide.

 

Best Regards

 

 

     

They are applying the same process to all balls tested... while it may be flawed a little, the QST does not compare well to the other balls.  I played the ball for a short while and found it to be less than consistent.  Switched to the Maxfli Tour and found it to be a very consistent performed... oh, and by the way, it also tested very well by the ball lab guys.

 

[CDLgolf]

I've played the QST for the last few years and never had a problem.

If I put a good swing on it it did what I thought it would. Also never havd a problem on the greens, it seemed to putt really well. 

 

I also played the Chrome soft and they seemed to have QC issues last year. I couldn't tell those balls were defective either.

 

 

[rwbloom93]

1 hour ago, jjfcpa said:

They are applying the same process to all balls tested... while it may be flawed a little, the QST does not compare well to the other balls.  I played the ball for a short while and found it to be less than consistent.  Switched to the Maxfli Tour and found it to be a very consistent performed... oh, and by the way, it also tested very well by the ball lab guys.

 

 

I think many are not addressing the point...

 

(A) They tell the reader they Created a standard for roundness (and according to them it is "generous")...but...don't tell the reader what the standard is. Why, what the big secret?

(B) They tell the reader 36% of balls (11 of 36) failed that standard...but...didn't give us the measurements. Why? What's the big secret?

(C) We know other brands didn't have failed roundness problems...but...they were likely not perfectly round so how much different were the 36 TP5's from the 36 QST's? Significant or no? 

(D) The concentricity test has no measurements...fine....but thin covers with thin mantles makes eye examination very subjective, not very convincing IMHO.

(E) Readers raised concerns about their work....they fail to respond in some cases and/or get defensive.

 

All that said, Srixon might have a quality issue, I just want to see the standard and measurements to judge for myself....and not trust somebody else's undocumented conclusions.

 

Regards

 

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by rwbloom93

[xkilgorextroutx]

12 hours ago, Ger21 said:

The ball from the test was the last version, and completely different from the current QST.

 

So? They proved there's issues with the ball. This version for sure and there's no good reason to assume everything is 100% changed and brand new from the last one.

 

If WRX posted this same exact test, everyone would accept it as gospel. The amount of disavowal and willful ignorance because the group that ran the test goes by three different initials than this site is embarrassing. 

 

 

[Gary Gutful]

9 hours ago, rwbloom93 said:

 

I think many are not addressing the point...

 

(A) They tell the reader they Created a standard for roundness (and according to them it is "generous")...but...don't tell the reader what the standard is. Why, what the big secret?

(B) They tell the reader 36% of balls (11 of 36) failed that standard...but...didn't give us the measurements. Why? What's the big secret?

(C) We know other brands didn't have failed roundness problems...but...they were likely not perfectly round so how much different were the 36 TP5's from the 36 QST's? Significant or no? 

(D) The concentricity test has no measurements...fine....but thin covers with thin mantles makes eye examination very subjective, not very convincing IMHO.

(E) Readers raised concerns about their work....they fail to respond in some cases and/or get defensive.

 

All that said, Srixon might have a quality issue, I just want to see the standard and measurements to judge for myself....and not trust somebody else's undocumented conclusions.

 

Regards

 

 

So when you boil it down your issues are with roundness and the concentricity test which are two components of a multi-faceted test.

 

I checked the article and the thread on their forum and couldn't see questions A to D anywhere. They may get answered if they get asked. Based on someone else's comment on this thread, it sounds like they have attempted to answer the question of roundness elsewhere but I couldn't find that.

 

I agree with your comments regarding the concentricity. It would be nice to be able to measure this quantitatively. Not sure how you would do this though. Any thoughts?

 

As for E, I couldn't find any evidence of them being defensive.  Definitely some unanswered questions though.

 

 

 

 

[Ger21]

12 hours ago, xkilgorextroutx said:

If WRX posted this same exact test, everyone would accept it as gospel. The amount of disavowal and willful ignorance because the group that ran the test goes by three different initials than this site is embarrassing. 

 

 

All anyone is asking for is the numbers they are measuring. Without the numbers, nobody knows anything about the "test".

[Stanks]

1 hour ago, Ger21 said:

All anyone is asking for is the numbers they are measuring. Without the numbers, nobody knows anything about the "test".

People want the hard data. That would be the most boring read ever. 
I think we just need to work on our game and stop caring about the average of size being off my thousands of an inch (callaway magna is bigger [purposely] and that doesn’t mean anything) of a ball that is praised by thousands of golfers around the world for being affordable, reliable, durable and easily available.

You boys need to just go play 18.

Edited October 25, 2020 by Stanks

[cristphoto]

Here is the methodology of the spies testing:  

 

https://Not allowed because of spam.com/about-Not allowed because of spam-ball-lab/

 

Per the roundness test they go by the USGA method (click on USGA Ball Track Test and see section 7 of USGA document).  I didn't see any number tolerance stated - simply pass/fail.  

 

Edit:  I can't attach the link.  If you go to the site, search "Ball Lab" and you will find it.

Edited October 25, 2020 by cristphoto

[Ger21]

9 hours ago, cristphoto said:

Per the roundness test they go by the USGA method (click on USGA Ball Track Test and see section 7 of USGA document).  I didn't see any number tolerance stated - simply pass/fail.  

 

That's a size test, not an out of round test. There is no tolerance for size, it's either too small, or it's not.

[rwbloom93]

12 hours ago, Stanks said:

People want the hard data. That would be the most boring read ever. 
I think we just need to work on our game and stop caring about the average of size being off my thousands of an inch (callaway magna is bigger [purposely] and that doesn’t mean anything) of a ball that is praised by thousands of golfers around the world for being affordable, reliable, durable and easily available.

You boys need to just go play 18.

Took your advice...Played 18 holes and shot 79 (lowered my handicap to 12!)...Played the Bridgestone Tour B RX