Tech Talks With Dean Snell

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, Darkfrog said:

Looking at an older (2011) USGA test procedure, 3 out of 24 balls submitted can fail either weight, size, or initial velocity test and still be deemed conforming. Not sure if this document is current though. It's not a great look for a ball manufacturer if a bunch of MGS tested balls exceed the maximum allowable weight, but if MGS findings are within USGA allowances (3/24, 12.5%), maybe it's not as big of a deal as it appears. That said I think 100% of balls being within tolerance should be the goal of the manufacturer.

20 of the 24 balls were over the limit.

16 minutes ago, Darkfrog said:

I wonder how much the cutting tool deforms the mantle and core when they visually inspect the layers for irregularities. I also wonder if the compression tester might permanently deform a ball enough to affect subsequent roundness measurements.

They test the roundness out of the package and the cutting tool doesn't deform the mantle/core.

[billchao]

21 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

He is right that it happens at the best factories but what he didn't say is those factories QA them out - X-Outs.

I think, and I’m making a big assumption here, that the production moving to a new facility in China from their original plant in Taiwan had a significant impact on the end product. They’re going through growing pains all over again.

16 minutes ago, Darkfrog said:

I certainly think static data is valid. My main issue with the MGS data is that I don't have confidence in their capability to measure things, and their procedures, test data, or metadata are not public. I see photos of a bunch of gear, but there is a lot more to measurement than buying expensive tools.

I feel the same way. There’s not enough transparency in the whole process. They’re presenting it as an unbiased scientific testing procedure when it’s anything but.

[Darkfrog]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

20 of the 24 balls were over the limit.

Just read the MGS ball lab "about" article. They start with 3 dozen balls, but shit, 20/36 is pretty high rate of failure. Maybe I should weigh my Snell balls 😆

 

[GolfLug]

21 minutes ago, billchao said:

I think, and I’m making a big assumption here, that the production moving to a new facility in China from their original plant in Taiwan had a significant impact on the end product. They’re going through growing pains all over again.

That's unfortunate if true. Hopefully they get it resolved.

[saevel25]

3 hours ago, billchao said:

I think, and I’m making a big assumption here, that the production moving to a new facility in China from their original plant in Taiwan had a significant impact on the end product. They’re going through growing pains all over again.

Yea, that could be why. They might needed to cut cost in some areas, and maybe it is costing them now. 

3 hours ago, billchao said:

I feel the same way. There’s not enough transparency in the whole process. They’re presenting it as an unbiased scientific testing procedure when it’s anything but.

Yea, typically when someone does a study they publish data, procedures, and are 100% transparent. The fact they vary their publications, it doesn't look good. How you present data matters a lot. 

They could be 100% correct, and the batch they got could have been bad and deserving of that score. It is hard to trust the score with the way they presented the data. 

 

[p1n9183]

On 8/6/2024 at 9:05 AM, iacas said:

Yeah, probably… "We set the spec ranges to where the ball performance isn't affected, but we set the range at the top end so you got a longer golf ball, a better golf ball."

Good defense by sneel but this quote was unfortunate. 
 

I agree with the fact that performance on the course is what matter and it would be ideal to see what kind of difference in performance (ball fligth, spin, launch, speed, etc) you can find comparing the heaviest ball vs the lightest of a sample or the roudest vs the ones considered not round, etc. 

If the difference is 1 yard carry or 100 spin or 1 mile speed there is nothing to worry about (maybe at pga tour level), but if it came out that a "not rounded ball" spins out of the planet when a rounded doesn't then it's a real problem an can be labeled the worst golf ball in the world.

I really think that at amateur level a few decimals of a gram is not going to do a difference at all.. but it's just a guess, I really have no idea.   

[billchao]

5 hours ago, p1n9183 said:

If the difference is 1 yard carry or 100 spin or 1 mile speed there is nothing to worry about (maybe at pga tour level), but if it came out that a "not rounded ball" spins out of the planet when a rounded doesn't then it's a real problem an can be labeled the worst golf ball in the world.

I’m not an expert at physics, but I think a ball that’s not round by a very tiny amount is not going to amount to much difference. It’s going to spin off the clubface and almost immediately spin on the axis that it’s not round by. It won’t affect the ball flight by as much as a clump of mud on the ball would.

[saevel25]

15 hours ago, billchao said:

I’m not an expert at physics, but I think a ball that’s not round by a very tiny amount is not going to amount to much difference. It’s going to spin off the clubface and almost immediately spin on the axis that it’s not round by. It won’t affect the ball flight by as much as a clump of mud on the ball would.

It could curve more or less pending the orientation. Think of a frisbee right. An extreme case, it can fly in a very unstable way. A golf ball doesn’t do that.

Yea, I am not sure how non-round we are talking about. So, it could be negligible. It could matter. I never noticed a non-round ball ever from just looking at it. It could be non-detectable by the naked eye. 

Yea, if the core is like 95% the ball, then it being off center probably doesn’t matter as much as if it was 50%. The 50% could shift a huge amount while the larger core can only be offset a very small amount. Just thinking in terms of space in the ball. 

[iacas]

Tech Talk with Dean Snell - Episode #04

---

This week's question comes from customer, Michael Stoner, who asks:"I'm an 18 handicap and have no idea what to look for when choosing a golf ball, my drives are only about 180-200 yards, does the...

[GolfLug]

On 8/7/2024 at 6:51 PM, billchao said:

I’m not an expert at physics, but I think a ball that’s not round by a very tiny amount is not going to amount to much difference. It’s going to spin off the clubface and almost immediately spin on the axis that it’s not round by. It won’t affect the ball flight by as much as a clump of mud on the ball would.

I mean, if the ball is asymmetric, then funky stuff can happen mid-air (if you hit enough balls at Topgolf..) depending on the orientation of the spin axis. If balls are not round then chances are the core could also be eccentric. I suspect if they are bad enough then the orientation of the spin axis can change and then the really funny stuff happens mid-air (as I said, if you hit enough balls at Topgolf.. lol). The amount/tolerance of asymmetry/eccentricity is relevant for sure as virtually no balls are perfectly symmetric.

Edited August 13 by GolfLug

[boogielicious]

50 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

I mean, if the ball is asymmetric, then funky stuff can happen mid-air (if you hit enough balls at Topgolf..) depending on the orientation of the spin axis. If balls are not round then chances are the core could also be eccentric. I suspect if they are bad enough then the orientation of the spin axis can change and then the really funny stuff happens mid-air (as I said, if you hit enough balls at Topgolf.. lol). The amount/tolerance of asymmetry/eccentricity is relevant for sure as virtually no balls are perfectly symmetric.

The ball is still going to find its center of mass though and spin around it. I’ve hit balls that were very warped at the range and was surprised that the flew fairly normally.

I also suspect MyGolfSpy’s measurement technique. If you go into a measurement with bias because the product OEM isn’t paying you anymore, you may find issues. 

I spent 31 years doing doing metrology for Gillette in both my Quality Engineering duties then R&D. You’d be surprised how much training and practice you need to do it correctly.

[billchao]

1 hour ago, GolfLug said:

I mean, if the ball is asymmetric, then funky stuff can happen mid-air (if you hit enough balls at Topgolf..) depending on the orientation of the spin axis. If balls are not round then chances are the core could also be eccentric. I suspect if they are bad enough then the orientation of the spin axis can change and then the really funny stuff happens mid-air (as I said, if you hit enough balls at Topgolf.. lol). The amount/tolerance of asymmetry/eccentricity is relevant for sure as virtually no balls are perfectly symmetric.

I know it’s going to affect performance. My point is, is that effect significant, or is it negligible? Like I said, a clump of mud likely affects the ball more than it being decimals out of round.

And let’s not pretend we’re robots hitting these balls, here. I doubt the inconsistencies in the ball are going to have a greater effect on performance than the inconsistencies in my swing.

I’m willing to bet a significant amount of money that Rory will beat me in a round of golf playing with the worst ball MGS can find.

[GolfLug]

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

The ball is still going to find its center of mass though and spin around it. I’ve hit balls that were very warped at the range and was surprised that the flew fairly normally.

Not doubting your experience but if I understand rotational behavior correctly, a sphere with an eccentric COM loses spin rate much quicker. Ball flight would be affected even if not noticably. 

19 minutes ago, billchao said:

I know it’s going to affect performance. My point is, is that effect significant, or is it negligible? Like I said, a clump of mud likely affects the ball more than it being decimals out of round.

And let’s not pretend we’re robots hitting these balls, here. I doubt the inconsistencies in the ball are going to have a greater effect on performance than the inconsistencies in my swing.

I’m willing to bet a significant amount of money that Rory will beat me in a round of golf playing with the worst ball MGS can find.

Yeah, I exaggerated a bit with the Top golf balls mention. But probably not worth sweating or spending an extra $1.50 on a ball. I'm the same way with lot of stuff outside of golf. I do admit to a bit of OCD with golf balls. 

 

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

I also suspect MyGolfSpy’s measurement technique. If you go into a measurement with bias because the product OEM isn’t paying you anymore, you may find issues. 

Shame on them then as the report data is a bit damning. I would have pushed back if I were Dean.

Edited August 13 by GolfLug