76 replies to this topic

[lobub]

I did not find any other topics on this so here it goes...

I've been following @golf_ball_guts on instagram and he recently posted photos and video of him slicing a chrome soft truvis in half and discovering that the core was significantly off center.
I wanted to post my own findings after doing some of my own experiments for all the wrxers out there.
I  took one of my own used white/orange truvis chrome soft balls, cut it in half and discovered that it, too, had a significantly off center core. See pic below.

This prompted me to do the epsom salt test on two other chrome soft balls I have (these were found on my local course and did not come from the same package) and found that they were not balanced, ie, the same spot on the golf ball kept rising to the top indicating one side of the ball is lighter than the other.
I tested a ProV1 I have in the epsom salt bath for comparison and found that it was very well balanced.  

It's hard for me to imagine that the 3 balls I have and the ball that @golf_ball_guts cut are anomalies so I'm afraid Callaway may have a quality control issue going on here.
I also wonder if other models like Supersoft have this same issue.

Edited by lobub, 24 May 2017 - 02:49 PM.

[Viewing As Guest]

[PerseveringGolf]

isit the same for chrome soft and truvis or just truvis?

I have a sleeve of Truvis and cant bring myself to play them, fugly things, Golf balls should be pristine white, end of.

[Z1ggy16]

Is it within a measurable tolerance though? Without the drawings for this product, you don't know what's actually allowable.

Regardless, say it's imbalanced like you've shown. What affect is that having for us mere mortal golfers?

[lobub]

PerseveringGolf, on 24 May 2017 - 02:48 PM, said:

isit the same for chrome soft and truvis or just truvis?

I have a sleeve of Truvis and cant bring myself to play them, fugly things, Golf balls should be pristine white, end of.

I've only cut one Truvis. Had to borrow pipe cutters to do it.

[lobub]

Z1ggy16, on 24 May 2017 - 02:50 PM, said:

Is it within a measurable tolerance though? Without the drawings for this product, you don't know what's actually allowable.

Regardless, say it's imbalanced like you've shown. What affect is that having for us mere mortal golfers?

Your first question should be answered by Callaway.
On a 15ft putt, I'm sure it has an effect. Although us mere mortal guys almost never putt on perfect greens so it's probably a wash. But it is one more variable to worry about when using an unbalanced ball.

Edited by lobub, 24 May 2017 - 03:03 PM.

[Break81]

Not to discredit any scientific stuff going on, but a 4 pc ball would be harder to balance than a 3 pc correct?

[IHFN]

I did the salt test with a dozen of Chrome soft +'s and only one was truly round.  The rest had some sort of bias, but not terrible.  As long as you know where that bias is and it's not a huge one, there isn't much to worry about.  I'm going to do some other tests soon on other balls to see how they stack up.

[Break81]

IHFN, on 24 May 2017 - 08:49 PM, said:

I did the salt test with a dozen of Chrome soft +'s and only one was truly round.  The rest had some sort of bias, but not terrible.  As long as you know where that bias is and it's not a huge one, there isn't much to worry about.  I'm going to do some other tests soon on other balls to see how they stack up.

  What is the ratio from salt to water ?  I want to do a Ksig as I suspect with the visible seem it may have a balance issue.

Edited by Break81, 24 May 2017 - 09:35 PM.

[lobub]

Break81, on 24 May 2017 - 09:35 PM, said:

IHFN, on 24 May 2017 - 08:49 PM, said:

I did the salt test with a dozen of Chrome soft +'s and only one was truly round.  The rest had some sort of bias, but not terrible.  As long as you know where that bias is and it's not a huge one, there isn't much to worry about.  I'm going to do some other tests soon on other balls to see how they stack up.

  What is the ratio from salt to water ?  I want to do a Ksig as I suspect with the visible seem it may have a balance issue.

I just kept putting in more salt until the golf ball floated. I don't have an exact number of tablespoons, but I remember being surprised at how much salt it took. I want to say it was close to a cup and I was using a 10oz glass of water.

[SadTrombone]

[Viewing As Guest]

[lobub]

Maybe someone who knows a Callaway ball rep can get them to chime in on these findings. Would love to know how much bias falls within their acceptable manufacturing specs.

[BB28403]

Bryson dechambeau does the salt test.  Look how good his game is...

Why don't you cut open the top 10 brands and look?

[James495738]

I just salt water tested 8 Chrome Soft X and 6 Chrome Soft Truvis. All were perfect except for 2 x's which were slightly out.

[Splitter]

*This post approved by Titleist Prov1.  The only ball manufactured to "exacting standards"*

[Z1ggy16]

Without knowing the affect of this minor imbalance, I can't be sure how "upset" I should be by this. If it's within allowable standards by Callaway then this would potentially mean even the pro's get a non perfect ball every now and then, and they all seem to score just fine.

Does it mean I get more/less side spin on a very well struck ball? I can see on putts how not being 100% balanced matters, but as stated, on our public muni greens that probably won't matter much.

Also OP can you measure how off the centricity is? I can obviously see just by inspection it's not perfect, but I am curious as to how much. Maybe somebody here who doesn't mind doing some investigation can start cutting and measuring a bunch of premium multi layer balls or something. Have to remember, this is commercial manufacturing where hundreds of thousands of balls are made. It's not highly constrained military grade equipment..

[lobub]

Z1ggy16, on 25 May 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

Without knowing the affect of this minor imbalance, I can't be sure how "upset" I should be by this. If it's within allowable standards by Callaway then this would potentially mean even the pro's get a non perfect ball every now and then, and they all seem to score just fine.

Does it mean I get more/less side spin on a very well struck ball? I can see on putts how not being 100% balanced matters, but as stated, on our public muni greens that probably won't matter much.

Also OP can you measure how off the centricity is? I can obviously see just by inspection it's not perfect, but I am curious as to how much. Maybe somebody here who doesn't mind doing some investigation can start cutting and measuring a bunch of premium multi layer balls or something. Have to remember, this is commercial manufacturing where hundreds of thousands of balls are made. It's not highly constrained military grade equipment..

I wasn't able to cut the ball exactly on the equator, but measuring the wide vs narrow side of the orange area is about 9.0mm vs 6.9mm. Hard to believe that much would fall within acceptable standards.

[Z1ggy16]

I think the bigger question I have is how is QC even done? Once a layer goes over another in the process, the only way is to cut open say, 1% of a lot to inspect. If that 1% passes, the other 99% will pass by association, unless somehow the balls can be Xray'ed or something to see inside there's actually no way any multi layer ball could be sure to be perfect. I do not know how it's done, so this is just pure speculation on my end.

We'd have to find out what Callaway's allowable tolerances are on concentricity, otherwise the measurements we find are just numbers. Doubt you're going to get some sales rep weenie on the phone who knows this, let alone send you the contact of somebody who'd tell you. In my line of business, customers almost never get detail drawings of products, and if they do happen to buy them from us, we have an iron clad NDA in place so they can't tell other competitors about certain details, or try to reproduce what we make.

[SadTrombone]

I cut these open a few weeks ago.  Including an old Professional.

There's a Chrome Soft, Chrome Soft X, TP5, TP5X, Professional (100) and 2011 Pro V1X.  None of them are perfect.  I have yet to do the salt test on my new "gamer" (Chrome Soft X).  

Edited by SadTrombone, 25 May 2017 - 10:46 AM.

[xxio]

Callaway's next ball..  "True-Vis", after they pay Wilson some royalties for the True.

[BillyZ2]

I've got to believe that an out of balance golf ball will not fly as long as a balanced ball. The unbalance acts as impedance to ball flight and speed.

[Viewing As Guest]

Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

[mokedaddy]

This has been around for years.  Since there is only one pro that does this to their golf balls and the Usga actually tests this themselves you can go ahead and guess the actual validity of a salt water test.

[lobub]

 mokedaddy, on 25 May 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

This has been around for years.  Since there is only one pro that does this to their golf balls and the Usga actually tests this themselves you can go ahead and guess the actual validity of a salt water test.

I apologize for being obtuse, but I'm not following... What exactly has been around for years? The salt water test? Or that balls are unbalanced?
And what are you referring to when you say "the USGA actually tests this"? I wouldn't think they test whether the balls are well balanced. My guess is they only verify whether the diameter, weight and dimple pattern meets guidelines, but I could be wrong.

[mokedaddy]

 lobub, on 25 May 2017 - 01:37 PM, said:

 mokedaddy, on 25 May 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

This has been around for years.  Since there is only one pro that does this to their golf balls and the Usga actually tests this themselves you can go ahead and guess the actual validity of a salt water test.

I apologize for being obtuse, but I'm not following... What exactly has been around for years? The salt water test? Or that balls are unbalanced?
And what are you referring to when you say "the USGA actually tests this"? I wouldn't think they test whether the balls are well balanced. My guess is they only verify whether the diameter, weight and dimple pattern meets guidelines, but I could be wrong.

Yes the salt water test.  And yes you are incorrect on the usga testing criteria.

[03trdblack]

I was given a Check-Go device a few years ago like this one:

https://www.rockbott...c-check-go-pro/

It spins the balls at 10,000 RPM and you use a pen to mark a line on the equator where any heavy side would end up by spinning it.  I use this line to line up putts as well as lining up the line on the tee just so I know where I'm pointing.  Don't have any proof it makes any difference but I've had some balls that were so unbalanced they wouldn't even spin inside the device because they wobbled and flew off the cup that the ball sits in.  It was almost like driving on tires that aren't balanced and the vibration you feel on the road.  I figure if they are that unbalanced that they can't spin in the device correctly then I don't need to use them.  It has to have some effect on shots and/or putts.

Edited by 03trdblack, 25 May 2017 - 02:20 PM.

[mokedaddy]

If these devises work and have been around forever than why does only one pro use it?

What do you guys know that no manufacturer or professional doesn't?

Edited by mokedaddy, 25 May 2017 - 02:24 PM.

[SadTrombone]

 mokedaddy, on 25 May 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

If these devises work and have been around forever than why does only one pro use it?

What do you guys know that no manufacturer or professional doesn't?

Some pros still don't believe in "new" ball flight laws.

Davis Love still played persimmon as late as 1996.

Not everyone is exactly an "early adopter".

[mokedaddy]

 SadTrombone, on 25 May 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

 mokedaddy, on 25 May 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

If these devises work and have been around forever than why does only one pro use it?

What do you guys know that no manufacturer or professional doesn't?

Some pros still don't believe in "new" ball flight laws.

Davis Love still played persimmon as late as 1996.

Not everyone is exactly an "early adopter".

THe test can be traced at least in the 50s when the balls were basically rubber bands. I think it would have caught on by now.

Edited by mokedaddy, 25 May 2017 - 02:32 PM.

[SadTrombone]

 mokedaddy, on 25 May 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

 SadTrombone, on 25 May 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

 mokedaddy, on 25 May 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

If these devises work and have been around forever than why does only one pro use it?

What do you guys know that no manufacturer or professional doesn't?

Some pros still don't believe in "new" ball flight laws.

Davis Love still played persimmon as late as 1996.

Not everyone is exactly an "early adopter".

THe test can be traced at least in the 50s when the balls were basically rubber bands. I think it would have caught on by now.

The "new" ball flight laws have existed since forever.  That should've caught on by now, too...

[mokedaddy]

 SadTrombone, on 25 May 2017 - 02:33 PM, said:

 mokedaddy, on 25 May 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

 SadTrombone, on 25 May 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

 mokedaddy, on 25 May 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

If these devises work and have been around forever than why does only one pro use it?

What do you guys know that no manufacturer or professional doesn't?

Some pros still don't believe in "new" ball flight laws.

Davis Love still played persimmon as late as 1996.

Not everyone is exactly an "early adopter".

THe test can be traced at least in the 50s when the balls were basically rubber bands. I think it would have caught on by now.

The "new" ball flight laws have existed since forever.  That should've caught on by now, too...

New flight laws came with trackman.  And which pros are you talking about?

[SadTrombone]

 mokedaddy, on 25 May 2017 - 02:35 PM, said:

 SadTrombone, on 25 May 2017 - 02:33 PM, said:

 mokedaddy, on 25 May 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

 SadTrombone, on 25 May 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

 mokedaddy, on 25 May 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

If these devises work and have been around forever than why does only one pro use it?

What do you guys know that no manufacturer or professional doesn't?

Some pros still don't believe in "new" ball flight laws.

Davis Love still played persimmon as late as 1996.

Not everyone is exactly an "early adopter".

THe test can be traced at least in the 50s when the balls were basically rubber bands. I think it would have caught on by now.

The "new" ball flight laws have existed since forever.  That should've caught on by now, too...

New flight laws came with trackman.  And which pros are you talking about?

The new flight laws are physics, which didn't change with the invention of trackman.  Tiger, for one...

[Viewing As Guest]

Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.