Callaway not as good as superior as i pledged earlier

Here is a photo of a callaway HX Tour ball I sectioned this morning.

clearly the upper right hand part of the ball cover is thinner than the lower right section of this ball. This is my second HX Tour ball, and the first one which displays this non-uniformity

[IMG]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2470/3903393073_867de2e97d_o.jpg[/IMG]


[IMG]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3518/3903393053_c0783927ef_b.jpg[/IMG]

Again, when I see stuff like this and that Check-n-Go gadget is sure seeming like it makes sense........OK who has one? Come outta the closet you gadget geek!

[QUOTE=noshuz]Again, when I see stuff like this and that Check-n-Go gadget is sure seeming like it makes sense........OK who has one? Come outta the closet you gadget geek![/QUOTE]
Putting a line on your ball is a b!tchmove.

[QUOTE=Horseballs]Putting a line on your ball is a b!tchmove.[/QUOTE]

Damn, thats another one to add to my collection

Edgey

[quote=Horseballs]Putting a line on your ball is a b!tchmove.[/quote]
What doya mean b!tchmove??
[ATTACH]2211[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Horseballs]Putting a line on your ball is a b!tchmove.[/QUOTE]

oh great, now I have to find out what a "b!tchmove" is now.

I do know it's legal for tournament play....and I am all for following the official
rules, but not a big fan of making up my own.

the line can only help you in driving and putting, you cant touch the ball in-between.

[QUOTE=rickmorgan]oh great, now I have to find out what a "b!tchmove" is now.

I do know it's legal for tournament play....and I am all for following the official
rules, but not a big fan of making up my own.

the line can only help you in driving and putting, you cant touch the ball in-between.[/QUOTE]

Listen in newbie, your a rocket scientist do some f ucking research.

Stop asking stupid newbie scum bag questions and STFU

Edgey

[quote=rickmorgan]oh great, now I have to find out what a "b!tchmove" is now.

I do know it's legal for tournament play....and I am all for following the official
rules, but not a big fan of making up my own.

the line can only help you in driving and putting, you cant touch the ball in-between.[/quote]

Oh young one nubie.....You will learn. They speak of such things in the "Manly" sense........Either it's manly or it's b!tch. Not much of a middle ground.
Ain't this fun?

[QUOTE=noshuz]Oh young one nubie.....You will learn. They speak of such things in the "Manly" sense........Either it's manly or it's b!tch. Not much of a middle ground.
Ain't this fun?[/QUOTE]

I am surprised edgey isn't getting in on this. all this talk about
"touching balls" seems right up his alley!

I think Professor Spank is PERFECT! You need to change it rick. We have our own resident scientist. As soon as all the open wounds heal you'll fit right in....

Not so fast noshuz. LarryGBaker is a world-reknowned nuclear engineer. That qualifies as a scientist in my book. Rick needs a new gig.

[QUOTE=Horseballs]Not so fast noshuz. LarryGBaker is a world-reknowned nuclear engineer. That qualifies as a scientist in my book. Rick needs a new gig.[/QUOTE]


yeah I am not famous about the world, that's for sure. I concede top scientist
rights and rarefied air status.

I would change my moniker, but I dont think there is a way to do it on the CP

[QUOTE=Horseballs]Not so fast noshuz. LarryGBaker is a world-reknowned nuclear engineer. That qualifies as a scientist in my book. Rick needs a new gig.[/QUOTE]

He certainly "engineered" his handicap. In fact he obtained it without ever hitting a golfball.

Edgey

[quote=noshuz]I think Professor Spank is PERFECT! You need to change it rick. We have our own resident scientist. As soon as all the open wounds heal you'll fit right in....[/quote]

Just remember when he's taken over from Larry or AGB, and we're all admirers of his eloquence, who coined the name "Professor Spank"

[QUOTE=Regulation Guy]Just remember when he's taken over from Larry or AGB, and we're all admirers of his eloquence, who coined the name "Professor Spank"[/QUOTE]

If I could find a way to change my username, I would do it!

[quote=rickmorgan]If I could find a way to change my username, I would do it![/quote]

Just start a new one.....

[QUOTE=noshuz]I think Professor Spank is PERFECT! You need to change it rick. We have our own resident scientist. As soon as all the open wounds heal you'll fit right in....[/QUOTE]


OK I have magically transformed into my new persona!!!

[quote=Professor Spank]OK I have magically transformed into my new persona!!![/quote]

here's a start for an avatar......
[ATTACH]2213[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=noshuz]here's a start for an avatar......
[ATTACH]2213[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]

well i tried but it keeps saying the upload failed. will tray again

No wonder the HX Tour feels harsh when putting.

Those balls look fine to me...

[QUOTE=golfaholic]Those balls look fine to me...[/QUOTE]
You say that about everyone's balls.

Rick, this analysis is very interesting. One question though, is your lab funded in any part by our tax dollars?

Rick, as someone who's hired plenty of low bidders in their time, I just wonder who's actually producing the balls you've tested. Last week's production run could have been done in Malaysia, while this week's could have produced in Mexico.

Any time I contracted with someone using Mexican labor, I never knew what I was going to get. Sometimes I'd need an extra cleaning crew for the burrito wrappers. If I just left the burrito wrappers lying there, then I might have had roaches to deal with before a building was even complete.

If there are roaches in Mexican factories producing golf balls, I'd expect some inconsistency. If we're talking Malaysia, the effects of rice could be completely different.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Rick, as someone who's hired plenty of low bidders in their time, I just wonder who's actually producing the balls you've tested. [/QUOTE]

Well that's a good question, and I really wouldn't know how to address something like that.
is there a method to determine the original of the ball?

I do know that the center of gravity of the ball ends up being about 2.1mm from the geometric center of the ball in the case of the Callaway HX Tour Above.
Maybe that's a big deal in the performance flight of the ball, maybe it makes no difference whatsoever. I couldn't really say either way.

one thing thought. I've weighed 120 golf balls so far the mass is surprisingly constant. Lowest mass we 45.2g and the highest was 45.9g

-Rick

[QUOTE=Professor Spank]Well that's a good question, and I really wouldn't know how to address something like that.
is there a method to determine the original of the ball?

I do know that the center of gravity of the ball ends up being about 2.1mm from the geometric center of the ball in the case of the Callaway HX Tour Above.
Maybe that's a big deal in the performance flight of the ball, maybe it makes no difference whatsoever. I couldn't really say either way.

one thing thought. I've weighed 120 golf balls so far the mass is surprisingly constant. Lowest mass we 45.2g and the highest was 45.9g

-Rick[/QUOTE]

Do you have a gas chromatograph or equipment providing similar function? (Something tells me if you work on government contracts, you do, it involves a new technology, cost 100 times as much but does basically the same thing). Anyways, if you do, maybe there's a way to trace composition to source. Not saying just rice or burrito, but something.

Doc, I think you've got something going on with this study. I'd be willing to bet that one of the major publications would pay for this research or at least incorporate it into an article. Plus, there is a small but valuable niche demographic in the golf world that would probably change their golf ball choice based on this data, regardless of performance. Of course I'm speaking about the socially awkward golf nerd.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Do you have a gas chromatograph or equipment providing similar function? (Something tells me if you work on government contracts, you do, it involves a new technology, cost 100 times as much but does basically the same thing). Anyways, if you do, maybe there's a way to trace composition to source. Not saying just rice or burrito, but something.[/QUOTE]


yeah Lorenzo I do have a couple of GCs. They probably couldn't help me with the original of synthetic polymers, however....only natural ones. evertything these days is cracked, purified, sorted, recombined, to make it difficult or impossible to do that on the molecular level. If I had a Mass Spectrometer (which I don't) then I could do something more like you are saying on the atomic level from natural isotopic abundance. sorta like carbon dating, only with Oxygen or Nitrogen.


My lab is actually pretty old and beat up.....it has been in business for 51 years and we have some old old equipment here (since the first redstone jupiter missile days).
Some of my old chemicals have addressess on them from before places had zip codes.
however, I do have some newer equipment...just not useful in this situation

[QUOTE=Horseballs]Doc, I think you've got something going on with this study. I'd be willing to bet that one of the major publications would pay for this research or at least incorporate it into an article. Plus, there is a small but valuable niche demographic in the golf world that would probably change their golf ball choice based on this data, regardless of performance. Of course I'm speaking about the socially awkward golf nerd.[/QUOTE]


Thanks EquineTestes,

But so far I have noticed that everybody has a favorite golfball, and saying anything even remotely negative about it is like calling their baby ugly.

I really think people want a ball that goes longer and stops on the green better.
Also, as hard as I have tried to devise a method for determining things like distance and spin for particular balls, it's pretty hard for be to test that important stuff.

I've done some swing speed measurements with several volunteers and found that there is as much variation between different balls of the same brand as there is between brands of balls, really. at least at the driving range and with the balls I have sacrificed to the range for science.

ball flight paths were somewhat different, but honestly for the same swing speed....if they didn't hook or slice, then the went the same distance ±8%.
Honestly brand made little difference, if any. Swing speed makes a huge difference.

I suspect the biggest difference is how well the balls are centered with mass vs geometry.
there's little chance of hitting the ball straight if the two are not at the same place.
so I bought one of those spin-n-go thingies and I am going to take some balls and measure how many hook or slice on average. then I am going to try to recover the same balls (not sure how yet) and then use the spin-n-go thingy on them and then try to measure the average # of hooks/slice again.
I think I need a same size of about 1000 balls...or maybe I can do 500 balls twice as I am pretty sure I dont have 1000 balls.

I would ask how you cut this ball. Is the thinner part on the side you started the cut at?
This would indicate to me that you have compressed the ball when applying pressure to make the cut. Im no rocket surgeon but I am calling into question the validity of your experiment.

[QUOTE=TexasJeff]I would ask how you cut this ball. Is the thinner part on the side you started the cut at?
This would indicate to me that you have compressed the ball when applying pressure to make the cut. I'm no rocket surgeon but I am calling into question the validity of your experiment.[/QUOTE]

Sure TJ, and you are about the 9th person to do so. I think you have a lot of catchup reading to do yet! But to answer you question, the balls were cross section using a 150 thousandths of an inch diamond wafering blade with 6 micron diamond abrasive blade.
Then 50 thousands of the surface of the ball were removed with alumina and diamond micropolishing wheels to provide a fresh analytical surface.

As I said previously, I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

[QUOTE=Horseballs]Doc, I think you've got something going on with this study. I'd be willing to bet that one of the major publications would pay for this research or at least incorporate it into an article. Plus, there is a small but valuable niche demographic in the golf world that would probably change their golf ball choice based on this data, regardless of performance. Of course I'm speaking about the socially awkward golf nerd.[/QUOTE]

I'm not there yet, but eventually....

[QUOTE=Professor Spank]Thanks EquineTestes,

But so far I have noticed that everybody has a favorite golfball, and saying anything even remotely negative about it is like calling their baby ugly.

I really think people want a ball that goes longer and stops on the green better.
Also, as hard as I have tried to devise a method for determining things like distance and spin for particular balls, it's pretty hard for be to test that important stuff.

I've done some swing speed measurements with several volunteers and found that there is as much variation between different balls of the same brand as there is between brands of balls, really. at least at the driving range and with the balls I have sacrificed to the range for science.

ball flight paths were somewhat different, but honestly for the same swing speed....if they didn't hook or slice, then the went the same distance ±8%.
Honestly brand made little difference, if any. Swing speed makes a huge difference.

I suspect the biggest difference is how well the balls are centered with mass vs geometry.
there's little chance of hitting the ball straight if the two are not at the same place.
so I bought one of those spin-n-go thingies and I am going to take some balls and measure how many hook or slice on average. then I am going to try to recover the same balls (not sure how yet) and then use the spin-n-go thingy on them and then try to measure the average # of hooks/slice again.
I think I need a same size of about 1000 balls...or maybe I can do 500 balls twice as I am pretty sure I dont have 1000 balls.[/QUOTE]

Actually, where there could be money to be made through coming up with a product that was able to identify the duds and the studs. The centrifuge referred to earlier might be it, but I suspect there's a more sophisticated, beneficial approach. The market would be big.

Eventually those capitalist golf ball manufacturers might improve quality. And then you'd be a hero. Private boxes at all the major golf tournaments. Pu.ssy galore (not the 007 kind, she's probably 75). If they don't change their ways, then cash cow for you.

If Lary can market a product with no credibility, think of what you could do.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Actually, where there could be money to be made through coming up with a product that was able to identify the duds and the studs. The centrifuge referred to earlier might be it, but I suspect there's a more sophisticated, beneficial approach. The market would be big.
Eventually those capitalist golf ball manufacturers might improve quality. .[/QUOTE]

good ideas Equitestes. But really I am not sure that any big name golf brand wants to hear that pretty much all golf balls are about the same. I think much of what you are buying at the $45/doz level in any ball is consistent quality from ball to ball and not really performance.

If the mantle layer does something at all, it isn't distance-related. It may reduce spin, but I haven't found a good way to measure spin. a thinner cover should, in theory provide a longer distance at the same speed, because there is more compressed material.
But it doesn't really do much in that respect. I think that what actually happens is that the ball makers end up having to make the cover more uniform just because it is so much thinner to prevent making more scrap. Then the balls are actually all about the same quality and then that's really an improvement.

honestly for me....a guy who swings about 88-92mph with a 10.5° driver....any ball over $15/dozen plays almost exactly the same....so long as you don't get a dud. about one in 5 balls (of the $15-$30 balls) is a "dud"...meaning that the center of mass is so far off center there is no possible way to hit it straight. Almost none of the Pro V1s, Nike One Blacks, Callaway Tours, or Taylormade TPs have an off-center center of mass. in fact I haven't found one yet. They have incredibly reliable quality compared to the cheaper ones....but 80% of the cheaper balls are just as good.

There aren't a lot of big name ball manufactureres who want to hear that info really,

[QUOTE=Professor Spank]good ideas Equitestes. But really I am not sure that any big name golf brand wants to hear that pretty much all golf balls are about the same.[/QUOTE]

No, he's Equitestes. I'm the Divorced Guinea Immigrant.

Yea I had just got up when I posted, kinda skimmed and whatnot. POS Callaways.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Actually, where there could be money to be made through coming up with a product that was able to identify the duds and the studs. The centrifuge referred to earlier might be it, but I suspect there's a more sophisticated, beneficial approach. The market would be big.

Eventually those capitalist golf ball manufacturers might improve quality. And then you'd be a hero. Private boxes at all the major golf tournaments. Pu.ssy galore (not the 007 kind, she's probably 75). If they don't change their ways, then cash cow for you.

If Lary can market a product with no credibility, think of what you could do.[/QUOTE]

not true cant the rest of you see this is slander