I Weighed 100 Golf Balls and Here's What I Found

[davidrichards]

I can't play at the moment because I'm injured so decided to put my golf balls to use. I weighed 100 golf balls from 8 different manufacturers and here's what I found:

• The better the condition of the ball, the heavier it will be on average. Poor balls weighed 45.72, average balls weighed 45.73, good balls weighed 45.8 and new balls weighed 45.93 on average.
• If you play poor condition balls, you could see a weight difference of 3.3 grams from one ball to another. If you play average condition balls, they could differ up to 2.9 grams in weight from one ball to the next.
• New golf balls have very little difference in weight from one ball to another with 0.1 grams difference between the new balls I weighed.
• Playing balls in good condition means you’re only likely to see about a 1.1 gram difference in weight between balls.

Ball conditions were defined as: 

• Poor - visible damage to the point that the ball is unplayable, such as holes/cuts in the ball or sections missing.
• Average - some visible damage such as small scuffs or marks but appears fine to play with.
• Good - no visible damage to the ball, you can only just tell it's been used.
• New - brand new golf ball never been used before.

May look to expand my data set in the future so any ideas for getting more insights are welcome!

[Osnola]

How does this weight difference affect the playability of the golf balls?  What might you attribute the weight loss to?  Could the loss of weight affect the density of the inner or outer portions of the golf ball?

[iacas]

What did you use to weigh them?

[davidrichards]

41 minutes ago, Osnola said:

How does this weight difference affect the playability of the golf balls?  What might you attribute the weight loss to?  Could the loss of weight affect the density of the inner or outer portions of the golf ball?

Difficult to say but as most new balls I weighed were at the legal limit, perhaps as older balls get lighter they become marginally less efficient? I'd say weight loss affects both inner and outer portions of the ball. Obviously if a ball is missing a chunk it might get lighter but some balls appeared fine visually, but weighed less when compared to a different ball that was the same model in the same condition. Difficult to say what you could attribute the weight loss to, as some balls with chunks missing actually turned out heavier (maybe as dirt filled them).

29 minutes ago, iacas said:

What did you use to weigh them?

I used a digital scales which showed grams to the nearest tenth, I used a few different scales to validate its accuracy.

[criley4way]

The variation in weight is up to 7%.

Now does that make a difference in flight?

[Typhoon92]

Wow, you are wicked bored!  LOL

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, davidrichards said:

I used a digital scales which showed grams to the nearest tenth, I used a few different scales to validate its accuracy.

Hmmm. I don't really trust the significant digits, then, down to a tenth.

[boogielicious]

On 12/3/2019 at 12:48 PM, iacas said:

Hmmm. I don't really trust the significant digits, then, down to a tenth.

Usually scales are really only accurate to the digit above the last displayed. So a scale showing 0.1 is probably +/- .2 or .3g. The ones we have at work are Mettler Toledo and show .001 and we only trust up to .01g. And we calibrate them every 3 months.

[iacas]

20 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Usually scales are really only accurate to the digit above the last displayed. So a scale showing 0.1 is probably +/- .2 or .3g. The ones we have at work are Mettler Toledo and show .001 and we only trust up to .01g. And we calibrate them every 3 months.

And your scales cost a LOT more than the ones he probably used.

[boogielicious]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

And your scales cost a LOT more than the ones he probably used.

About $3000 a piece.

[rehmwa]

If the OP has the time, it's not hard to do a GR&R and find out how good his scale is.

Always more accurate than just reading the print on the package.  Of course, if the display doesn't go deeper than a 1/10th, then......

Edited December 4, 2019 by rehmwa

[Bonvivant]

On 12/3/2019 at 12:39 PM, criley4way said:

The variation in weight is up to 7%.

Now does that make a difference in flight?

Ever been to a TopGolf? Their balls are 70 percent the weight of a normal ball, I believe. Guess how far they go.....about 75 percent of normal distance. Applying that, a heavily used ball will go about 95 percent of a new one. Doesn't sound like a lot until you are losing 13 yards off the drive.

[TRUCKER]

1 hour ago, Bonvivant said:

Ever been to a TopGolf? Their balls are 70 percent the weight of a normal ball, I believe. Guess how far they go.....about 75 percent of normal distance. Applying that, a heavily used ball will go about 95 percent of a new one. Doesn't sound like a lot until you are losing 13 yards off the drive.

Is this true Iacas?

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, TRUCKER said:

Is this true Iacas?

I don't know. Something like that, I think. I'm sure someone can search it on the Web.

[Bonvivant]

8 minutes ago, TRUCKER said:

Is this true Iacas?

 

Just now, iacas said:

I don't know. Something like that, I think. I'm sure someone can search it on the Web.

It's probably actually worse driving numbers because with a highly used ball, you would be losing some of the aerodynamics of the dimples. But they definitely won't go as far, no matter what.

[TRUCKER]

🤔...This concerns me a little. I have 200+ prov1/prov1x/avx, and another 100+ tour level balls, (bridgestone, tm, snell, Srixon, etc), that I've found. They're like brand new, but who knows how old. Also, I will play the same ball 100 +/- holes sometimes until I lose it, or bruise it. Are you saying I could be losing 10-15 yards playing these used/old age balls as opposed to starting with a brand new ball every round?

[TRUCKER]

Ok I googled it and found an answer. There's basically no difference in performance of a brand new ball, tested against a ball that was recovered from a water hazard. They tested balls that were placed in the water for 1/3/5 months. Then tested them against a brand new version and found "maybe" a 1% difference. The balls used in this independent research were prov1.

[iacas]

30 minutes ago, TRUCKER said:

Ok I googled it and found an answer. There's basically no difference in performance of a brand new ball, tested against a ball that was recovered from a water hazard. They tested balls that were placed in the water for 1/3/5 months. Then tested them against a brand new version and found "maybe" a 1% difference. The balls used in this independent research were prov1.

That test was also conducted by a site selling found golf balls (https://golfballdivers.com). So… take it with a grain of salt.