Great Article on Golf Ball Engineering

[jman2407]

This is a wonderful article written by one of Bridgestone's engineers on golf balls and the science behind them. For anyone that does not know what goes behind making a golf ball, this should be a sure read.

 

Hope you enjoy!

 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...195072/PDFSTART

[jaskanski]

jman - do you actually understand any of this mumbo jumbo and how it relates to a Bridgestone ball being vastly superior to anything else? I enjoy science and have an engineering background, but some data is complete nonsense.

[jman2407]

Snoopy-

 

The article was put here for reading pleasure and for those who have no idea about a golf balls interacting parts.

 

Examples:

 

Harder compression equals to higher ball velocity and more spin

The effect of dimples

etc, etc

 

It was not put here to say that BSG is the best. It was not put here to say that I know everything. It was simply put here as an insight for those that know nothing about the engineering process of a golf ball. Just know that the Titleist Pro V1 you play was made using BSG technology.

 

Now go and find Woodstock!

[jaskanski]

I would draw your attention to figure 8 to the article in your link. Static load test. It indicates that the ball has 2mm of deflection at 100kg, 4mm at 200kg etc. This does not match your example of compression given in 1/1000th inches. If a 100 compression ball was 100/1000th inches then that would equate to 2.54mm. So using their graph the compression would be 2mm = 79/1000th inches = 79 compression ball at 100kg. At 200kg it would be a 158 compression ball! So 200lb figure you have given (approx 90kg) does not stack up I'm afraid.

If I have learned anything (and to my painful cost sometimes) it's to be sure you know what the hell you're talking about when throwing figures around.

I'm not being malicious by the way, more of a friendly custard pie in the face. FWIW, I actually like Bridgestone balls. :rolleyes: :beee:

[jman2407]

I would draw your attention to figure 8 to the article in your link. Static load test. It indicates that the ball has 2mm of deflection at 100kg, 4mm at 200kg etc. This does not match your example of compression given in 1/1000th inches. If a 100 compression ball was 100/1000th inches then that would equate to 2.54mm. So using their graph the compression would be 2mm = 79/1000th inches = 79 compression ball at 100kg. At 200kg it would be a 158 compression ball! So 200lb figure you have given (approx 90kg) does not stack up I'm afraid.

If I have learned anything (and to my painful cost sometimes) it's to be sure you know what the hell you're talking about when throwing figures around.

I'm not being malicious by the way, more of a friendly custard pie in the face. FWIW, I actually like Bridgestone balls. :rolleyes: :beee:

 

There are different ways to measure compression. The two most common are the Riehle and Atti systems of compressive measure. The article that I linked to uses the Atti system of measurment, more common to Japan in its metric system of measurment. The 200 lbs that I referred to and that we currently use as the standard compressive load for our system takes into effect the Atti system of compressive measurment.

 

So, in actaulity, you are the one who should know what you are talking about before you assume that my unit of 200 lbs was in direct correlation to the BSG article that I posted. :drinks:

[e-dog9]

So a long time ago I asked why they put titanium in distance balls. People chimed in that it came down to marketing. The article states:

 

The golf ball core has improved greatly over the years. Our

engineers have conducted much research into how to improve

the rebound characteristic of the solid golf ball core. The core

rebound characteristic can be improved by the use of a polybutadiene

rubber, an unsaturated carboxylic acid metal salt as

a co-cross linking agent, a peroxide and an organic sulfur.

Using a poly-butadiene synthesized with a lanthanide catalyst

instead of a nickel or cobalt catalyst can also improve the core

rebound. Our engineers found that with a combination of the

above two methods we are able to get the greatest core rebound

property.

 

 

Can either of you gearheads let me know if this answers my quesiton? Titanium is used as "cross linking agent" designed to improve the rebound of the core?

[jman2407]

That is the basic idea. That titanium is lightweight and transfers energy well in clubheads, so why not turn it into a powder form to be used as a "glue" for all the other materials used in golf ball construction. The idea was more of a gimmick however, and in actuality, the answer you first received stating that marketing was the cause is probably the best answer to your question. Titanium is more expensive than the current materials being used in golf ball construction and honestly, with today's technology, really provides no noticeable benefit. The amount of actual Ti that was used in these golf balls was so minimal that the only reason it was put in the ball was to market it as such. People at the time were equating Ti to equal distance, which it did in clubheads, so they could sell product.

[jaskanski]

Ok. I know about Riehle and how it works. It's a standardized testing machine.

PGA compression exists for balls of the same size. It has been determined

that Riehle compression corresponds to PGA compression by the

general formula PGA compression=160-Riehle compression. Consequently, 80

Riehle compression corresponds to 80 PGA compression, 70 Riehle

compression corresponds to 90 PGA compression, and 60 Riehle compression

corresponds to 100 PGA compression. For reporting purposes, Applicant's

compression values are usually measured as Riehle compression and

converted to PGA compression.

So, 1 Riehle = 0.001 inches, or 0.0254mm. So a 100 compression ball would be 60 Riehle = 0.060" or 1.524mm. We can approximate from the scale given in Figure 8 of the link for 200lbs (Riehle standard) to the balls deflection in mm. (200lbs=90kg)

Since the ball is the same, regardless of the Atti scale, the deflection is the same. Again, at no point do Bridgestone actually say what the compression of the ball is, or use any other compression ball for comparison. Therefore, the data given is absolutely useless.

:rolleyes:

[e-dog9]

That is the basic idea. That titanium is lightweight ......used as a "glue" .........The idea was more of a gimmick however, ............People at the time were equating Ti to equal distance, which it did in clubheads, so they could sell product.

 

 

Thanks very informative!!! I alwasy figured it was largely marketing, but thought there had to be some other reason as well.

[jman2407]

The point of the graphs are to show relationships. The numbers are real. Take them for what they are worth. If you think the graphs that are in the article were just put there using some made up numbers and are useless, then you have bigger issues than I thought. Do you think this engineer would honestly have this article published and put on the internet if it were all mumbo-jumbo as you stated earlier. The graphs are there to show real data and the interactions between those two sets of data.

 

Now will you quit trashing my post with your nonsense and just let people read the article and take if for what it is worth to them. Seeing as how you are one of the world's greatest minds and are able to telepathically know that these graphs are made up, and that all the data that was used in writing the article is "useless" as you state, you should have no trouble avoiding this post.

 

Go buy some more Pro V's so Bridgestone can collect their royalties.

[jaskanski]

The point of the graphs are to show relationships. The numbers are real. Take them for what they are worth. If you think the graphs that are in the article were just put there using some made up numbers and are useless, then you have bigger issues than I thought. Do you think this engineer would honestly have this article published and put on the internet if it were all mumbo-jumbo as you stated earlier. The graphs are there to show real data and the interactions between those two sets of data.

 

Now will you quit trashing my post with your nonsense and just let people read the article and take if for what it is worth to them. Seeing as how you are one of the world's greatest minds and are able to telepathically know that these graphs are made up, and that all the data that was used in writing the article is "useless" as you state, you should have no trouble avoiding this post.

 

Go buy some more Pro V's so Bridgestone can collect their royalties.

WTF? of course he/she would post a load of BS on the internet - about 1 million people do it every second of every day (another made up statistic). If you look hard enough, you'll probably find data that links Bridgestone to the Kennedy assassination. Anyone can read a graph, you just need to look at what the figures are on axis X&Y -you don't need to be telepathic. If you really think the data is credible and relevant - fine. Perhaps Bridgestone will give you a job one day in marketing. But the whole point of publishing any form of data is to stand it up against all forms of rebuttal and criticism. Unless you're qualfied to produce any form of undisputed evidence to the contrary - shut up. You may notice that Titleist advertise their balls as the #1 in golf, because they have evidence to prove it. Legally. I'll say no more.

:rolleyes:

[Jacoby]

Thanks for posting this link jman2407! I took a quick peak while on my break at work, but I can't wait to go home and read some more.

[jman2407]

WTF? of course he/she would post a load of BS on the internet - about 1 million people do it every second of every day (another made up statistic). If you look hard enough, you'll probably find data that links Bridgestone to the Kennedy assassination. Anyone can read a graph, you just need to look at what the figures are on axis X&Y -you don't need to be telepathic. If you really think the data is credible and relevant - fine. Perhaps Bridgestone will give you a job one day in marketing. But the whole point of publishing any form of data is to stand it up against all forms of rebuttal and criticism. Unless you're qualfied to produce any form of undisputed evidence to the contrary - shut up. You may notice that Titleist advertise their balls as the #1 in golf, because they have evidence to prove it. Legally. I'll say no more.

:rolleyes:

 

You are a real idiot and are making that clear for all to see.

 

First of all, and the most obvious reason this article is not a pack of lies, who would waste their time to write such a detailed article if it was all "useless" crap as you describe it. Do you really think this guy put together some random numbers, that have no basis or real relevance, and wrote a 7 page article on golf ball design by pulling bull crap out of a hat? Let's be serious. But if that is not enough, then how about:

 

Sure people post lies all the time on the internet about movie stars, entertainment, and all other sorts of dumb stuff, but this article clearly is not one of those lies. It was written by a Bridgestone golf engineer that helped design and manufacture the B330 golf ball. Unless you are a golf ball engineer, then what makes you the almighty decider that all this is made up. You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about. The article, if you even read it, is backed up by references and data from the USGA, the R&A, multiple books about the physics associated with golf ball dimples, flight trajectory, Golf Digest, etc, etc. But you are way smarter than all of these authors as well I assume. If this article is crap, then so is the USGA, the R&A, Golf Digest, and all the other physicists that helped to write the books that this Bridgestone engineer used to reference in his article.

 

References found at the end of the article include:

 

1. www.usga.org

2. USGA Equipment guide "A Guide to the Rules of Clubs and Balls"

3. BSG "The Science of Golf Balls"

4. Physics of golf book "The effects of different dimple patterns on flight, GOLF the scientific way"

5. BSG internal R&D data taken from robotic testing

6. Golf Digest article "Mortally Wound-ed"

7. Golf Ball Patents

 

Take a look at any other golf ball manufacturer's data and you will see the same trends.

 

Get a clue Snoopy! Shouldn't you be playing football with Lucy by now anyways.

 

BTW: Snoopy stated that not once does it show any actual compression numbers in the article, which in fact is another miscue. In Figure 9 in the article it clearly shows compression numbers (measured in compressive mm instead of the way USA typically measures compression 70, 80, 90, etc.) in realationship to peak acceleration, aka ball speed.

 

A ball of US 75 compression is equal to approx. 2.6 mm in compressive mm measure.

 

Thanks to all who are enjoying the article and taking it for what it is worth!!!

[TempusFugit]

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

[Miep]

Thank you for the link !

[Critter]

Harder compression equals to higher ball velocity and more spin

The effect of dimples

etc, etc

Not always true, therefore that is an incorrect statement.

At certain clubhead speeds and at certain angles softer compression balls have higher velocity and spin.

[pu_golf88]

well that was an interesting read... now time to attempt to pass my hypersonic aerothermodynamics exam.

[jman2407]

Harder compression equals to higher ball velocity and more spin

The effect of dimples

etc, etc

Not always true, therefore that is an incorrect statement.

At certain clubhead speeds and at certain angles softer compression balls have higher velocity and spin.

 

Should have clarified statement. Thought it was common sense that this statement is true most of the time and not necessarily all of the time, in particular off of the driver. Apparently not.

 

*This is based off of driver only. Not necessarily the same relationship with irons and wedges.

 

Ask anyone who knows anything about the physics of a golf ball. There is a definite correlation between a golf balls compression and its ball velocity and spin. Not true ALL of the time, but is true MOST of the time.

 

If you read the article, there is a graph that shows this obvious relationship. It is based on normal launch angles and clubhead speeds (7-15 degrees launch and clubhead speeds of 50-120 mph) that are typically seen in golf.

 

I am sure you can make this relationship not true if you set the robot up to hit the ball at a 1 degree launch angle with a 140 mph swing or a 20 degree launch angle with a 25 mph swing, but you will never see anybody hit the ball with these types of numbers. So based on what real people launch the ball at with real clubhead speeds the statement is correct, guaranteed.

 

Manufacturer Examples:

 

Pro V1x spins more off the driver and has a higher ball velocity than Pro V1. Pro V1x has a harder compression than Pro V1.

 

B330 spins more off the driver and has a higher ball velocity than B330-RX. B330 has a harder compression than B330-RX.

[cloozoe]

A golf ball is a spring. Too soft for a given head speed = less than optimal rebound/distance. Too hard for a given head speed: same thing. Like using an 8 wt line on a 3 wt fly rod or vice versa.

 

In short, not only not "common sense", but not even correct. Optimal compresson for an 80 mph head speed is not the same as that for 110 mph.

[Desert Golf]

This is classic... Snoopy vs Uga in the battle of the eggheads.

 

Fight on!

[cloozoe]

Would a hypothetical perfectly spherical rock - hollowed as necessary to equal a golf ball in weight - generate a higher velocity than a high compression golf ball? Your take would seem to indicate that it would, putting aside spin rates, launch angles, feel, etc. I'm skeptical.

[jman2407]

Would a hypothetical perfectly spherical rock - hollowed as necessary to equal a golf ball in weight - generate a higher velocity than a high compression golf ball? Your take would seem to indicate that it would, putting aside spin rates, launch angles, feel, etc. I'm skeptical.

 

 

No, because a golf ball compression machine measures the compression of the total golf ball (cores, mantles, and cover) and not just the cover. A hypothetical perfectly spherical rock might have the hardest cover, but with it being hollowed out to reduce its weight, it will probably have a soft compression because there is nothing in the middle and it will compress a lot when put under the complete pressure of the compression machine.

 

Just because a ball "feels" hard off of your clubs does not necessarily mean that its compression is low. With the way golf balls are built today with solid cores and layers instead of wound, liquid filled layers, compression is really a moot point when talking about feel. However, compression does generally indicate a balls ability to produce ball velocity, spin, and launch angle.

 

For an example:

 

If you take one of the lowest compression balls currently on the market, Wilson TX4 - measured by a PGA compression machine and compare it across the board with swing speeds ranging from 60 mph to 120 mph against one of the highest compression balls on the market, Maxfli Noodle Lady, the TX4 has a higher ball velocity than the Noodle Lady under every swing speed. However, the Tx4 only achieves greater distance than the Noodle under the higher swing speeds (90+ mph). The Noodle Lady goes further than the TX4 under the lower swing speeds, because even though its ball velocity is not as high as the TX4, it gains distance because it has lower spin and a higher launch than the TX4 because it is able to compress a lot more on the clubface under these low swing speeds.

 

Under the high swing speeds were both balls are able to compress down to their cores, the TX4 goes further because its ball velocity is greater and comes off with a more piercing trajectory where as the Noodle compresses too much and "balloons".

[Cornbread]

[quote name='jman2407' date='16 September 2008 - 07:53 AM' timestamp='1221569585' post='1257309']
[quote name='jaskanski' post='1256605' date='Sep 15 2008, 05:23 PM']WTF? of course he/she would post a load of BS on the internet - about 1 million people do it every second of every day (another made up statistic). If you look hard enough, you'll probably find data that links Bridgestone to the Kennedy assassination. Anyone can read a graph, you just need to look at what the figures are on axis X&Y -you don't need to be telepathic. If you really think the data is credible and relevant - fine. Perhaps Bridgestone will give you a job one day in marketing. But the whole point of publishing any form of data is to stand it up against all forms of rebuttal and criticism. Unless you're qualfied to produce any form of undisputed evidence to the contrary - shut up. You may notice that Titleist advertise their balls as the #1 in golf, because they have evidence to prove it. Legally. I'll say no more.
[/quote]

You are a real idiot and are making that clear for all to see.

Get a clue Snoopy! Shouldn't you be playing football with Lucy by now anyways.

[/quote]


How did I miss this classic conversation thread ... and this wonderful come-back line ?

[Arafel]

[quote name='Cornbread' date='14 June 2010 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1276543292' post='2508595']
[quote name='jman2407' date='16 September 2008 - 07:53 AM' timestamp='1221569585' post='1257309']
[quote name='jaskanski' post='1256605' date='Sep 15 2008, 05:23 PM']WTF? of course he/she would post a load of BS on the internet - about 1 million people do it every second of every day (another made up statistic). If you look hard enough, you'll probably find data that links Bridgestone to the Kennedy assassination. Anyone can read a graph, you just need to look at what the figures are on axis X&Y -you don't need to be telepathic. If you really think the data is credible and relevant - fine. Perhaps Bridgestone will give you a job one day in marketing. But the whole point of publishing any form of data is to stand it up against all forms of rebuttal and criticism. Unless you're qualfied to produce any form of undisputed evidence to the contrary - shut up. You may notice that Titleist advertise their balls as the #1 in golf, because they have evidence to prove it. Legally. I'll say no more.
[/quote]

You are a real idiot and are making that clear for all to see.

Get a clue Snoopy! Shouldn't you be playing football with Lucy by now anyways.

[/quote]


How did I miss this classic conversation thread ... and this wonderful come-back line ?
[/quote]


It'd be even funnier if you were around for the guys original avatar. He came onto this forum with both guns a blazing kind of like you have.