How much concern should this cause..?

[Big SoIL]

I cut open the only Chromesoft ball I had in the retired pile, and found a great example of a perhaps borderline ball. The core is visually off center but not horrible. I measured with calipers and the thinnest part of the orange layer is ~0.300 and the thickest ~0.345, so 0.023. 1 of 1 sampled. Now what?

I’m of the opinion that balance is important, and that some of the more extreme examples of core shift are concerning. I’m not sure what tolerance is deemed acceptable or how that relates to actual on course performance, but even 0.023 on .323 is 7% off. 14% different layer thickness one side to the other on a marginal example.

That has me curious what’s acceptable from a QC standpoint for the core being centered throughout the golf ball industry. Just by my eye the ball Dax cut is a bit off center also. Has anyone cut open something like a TP5 to see how well 5 layers can be manufactured?

 

[GraniteRoost]

Anyone know the weights of the core vs mantle?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you dig into the patent literature you can find the claims related to materials and durometer (at least). I am not sure about densities. The core and mantle I think are both polybutadiene rubber of different durometer. So densities probably vary slightly, while stiffness varies comparatively more. So maybe you get different ball speeds, different spin rates on different sides of the ball aside from whatever weight imbalance effects.

 

[Golf Ghost]

If you dig into the patent literature you can find the claims related to materials and durometer (at least). I am not sure about densities. The core and mantle I think are both polybutadiene rubber of different durometer. So densities probably vary slightly, while stiffness varies comparatively more. So maybe you get different ball speeds, different spin rates on different sides of the ball aside from whatever weight imbalance effects.

Solid info. That's sort of why I asked. I don't have a very in-depth knowledge of the ball and materials like some here, but my assumption was that different layers were generally for different compression levels effected speed or spin rate. Would that lead the ball to spin on a different axis (my apologies if the wrong teen here) though or would weight have more of an effect on that?

Like does this actually throw off the "balance" of the ball? For example if both are the same weight then the balance wouldn't be off?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DG_1234]

This thread has caused me to jump off the fence and try the 2019 Srixon Z-Star balls.

 

[JDax]

That has me curious what’s acceptable from a QC standpoint for the core being centered throughout the golf ball industry. Just by my eye the ball Dax cut is a bit off center also. Has anyone cut open something like a TP5 to see how well 5 layers can be manufactured?

To the naked eye it looked fine, but now you have me staring at it like one of those pictures that if you stare at it long enough you see another picture.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Big SoIL]

To the naked eye it looked fine, but now you have me staring at it like one of those pictures that if you stare at it long enough you see another picture.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s nothing like the #BallGate pic, but I don’t see an example of a perfectly manufactured golf ball kinda like GraniteRoost’s ball. Could very well be within specs, but who knows what tolerances the golf ball industry tries to adhere to. Damnit...now I feel like I need to buy a PVC cutter to examine some balls in the shag bag...from several different OEM’s. Curiosity is getting the better of me...

 

[GraniteRoost]

I'm jumping in here late.

I have never made golf balls but I have been involved with other products that are made in a similar fashion. What we are seeing there is what I would have termed as "core shift" and its an extremely common defect in any overmolding/cored casting process. I would hope that whomever made those balls has a system in place for preventing that and catching it when it does happen. It should be one of their most common defect modes. Everyone who is making a multi-layer ball has to worry about this happening.

What would happen with that ball? Well, what is the density difference between the two materials? If its not much then you probably would barely be able to notice the ball having an off center - center of gravity. The ball wouldn't roll funny or wobble in the air. If the difference is significant, then it would.

The biggest thing I would think you would see would be that strikes on the thin side would give you different spin and distance than on the thick side. The whole intent of that multi-layer ball is to give you good spin on short shots and less on shots where you really hit it. This variation would screw with that.

A question for someone with molding experience... Why is it apparently so much harder to maintain alignment of the rubber core, than the subsequent operation of applying the cover layers which are clearly thinner and more uniform though debatably not perfect. I don't get it.

 

[GraniteRoost]

Damnit...now I feel like I need to buy a PVC cutter to examine some balls in the shag bag...

Pruning shears will do...

 

[ArmyGolf]

I got curious and cut some balls. I have the video if anyone cares lol.

 

[JDax]

It’s nothing like the #BallGate pic, but I don’t see an example of a perfectly manufactured golf ball kinda like GraniteRoost’s ball. Could very well be within specs, but who knows what tolerances the golf ball industry tries to adhere to. Damnit...now I feel like I need to buy a PVC cutter to examine some balls in the shag bag...from several different OEM’s. Curiosity is getting the better of me...

I think the fact that I didn’t make a perfect cut make it look off...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CBaker]

I got curious and cut some balls. I have the video if anyone cares lol.

That TM ball doesn’t look completely symmetrical either. Oddly enough, I’ve had really good success with those too...weird.

 

[ArmyGolf]

That TM ball doesn’t look completely symmetrical either. Oddly enough, I’ve had really good success with those too...weird.

It's not a perfect picture, but the CSx and the TP5 are both off by a very small margin.

 

[CBaker]

It's not a perfect picture, but the CSx and the TP5 are both off by a very small margin.

And I think someone already mentioned that the large center core balls are easier to make centered? So yea, I’m not worrying about it as things being slightly off don’t seem to have enough of an affect on my game/scores.

 

[WMac19]

Dang it... this thread got to me. I have lots of retired balls left on hand and I just ordered a ratcheting pipe cutter.

Like the X-Files, I Want To Believe.

 

[TheDoctor]

In the grand scheme of things I don't believe it is as big an issue as some people are trying to make it out to be - there will always be a level of defect in any form of production industry that will slip through the QC process and it is all about how the company handle it if you approach them with an obvious defect product you have received that matters to me

To the naked eye it looked fine, but now you have me staring at it like one of those pictures that if you stare at it long enough you see another picture.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice elephant

 

[PapaJohick]

They (MGS) owe me a ball...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

this is off center top to bottom (orientation of your picture). Unless its a weird camera angle

 

[DG_1234]

And I think someone already mentioned that the large center core balls are easier to make centered? So yea, I’m not worrying about it as things being slightly off don’t seem to have enough of an affect on my game/scores.

Probably the most sensible post of this thread !
By the way, Nicklaus won his Majors with a junk ball from MacrGregor:

Perhaps the most damning evidence of the MacGregor golf ball’s inferiority comes from Frank Thomas, who for 26 years directed testing of all golf balls used in competition as the USGA’s technical director. To make sure the balls used on Tour were the same as those originally submitted for the conforming ball list, Thomas collected sleeves of balls from Nicklaus and Weiskopf for testing at the 1977 U.S. Open at Tulsa’s Southern Hills Country Club.
When Thomas put the Tourney through its paces on “Iron Byron” at the USGA’s test center in New Jersey, he said the MacGregor ball veered 2-3 yards to the left; the next one turned a little more; and some moved as much as 15 yards off target. Having never before seen such an inconsistent ball flight, Thomas stopped the test.
“I thought something must be wrong with ‘Iron Byron,’ ” Thomas said recently in a telephone interview.
But the machine operated properly, and the results of MacGregor’s re-test were identical.
At the 2000 U.S. Open at Pebble Beach, following Thomas’ retirement, he revealed to Nicklaus the startling results of the ’77 test. Nicklaus told him he wasn’t surprised.
“He knew it wasn’t a very good golf ball,” Thomas said. “It just shows how good he really was. I truly believe he would’ve won several more majors if he had played a better ball.”

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

Probably the most sensible post of this thread !
By the way, Nicklaus won his Majors with a junk ball from MacrGregor:

Perhaps the most damning evidence of the MacGregor golf ball’s inferiority comes from Frank Thomas, who for 26 years directed testing of all golf balls used in competition as the USGA’s technical director. To make sure the balls used on Tour were the same as those originally submitted for the conforming ball list, Thomas collected sleeves of balls from Nicklaus and Weiskopf for testing at the 1977 U.S. Open at Tulsa’s Southern Hills Country Club.
When Thomas put the Tourney through its paces on “Iron Byron” at the USGA’s test center in New Jersey, he said the MacGregor ball veered 2-3 yards to the left; the next one turned a little more; and some moved as much as 15 yards off target. Having never before seen such an inconsistent ball flight, Thomas stopped the test.
“I thought something must be wrong with ‘Iron Byron,’ ” Thomas said recently in a telephone interview.
But the machine operated properly, and the results of MacGregor’s re-test were identical.
At the 2000 U.S. Open at Pebble Beach, following Thomas’ retirement, he revealed to Nicklaus the startling results of the ’77 test. Nicklaus told him he wasn’t surprised.
“He knew it wasn’t a very good golf ball,” Thomas said. “It just shows how good he really was. I truly believe he would’ve won several more majors if he had played a better ball.”

Any Tour player circa 1980 would have *killed* for a ball with the performance of a Chrome Soft, off-center core or not.

 

[Canadan]

Want to meet up next week and cut a crap ton of balls, just for fun? I might have some Molitors ready to go.

Yes. Yes I do.

 

[Parrot]

It's not a perfect picture, but the CSx and the TP5 are both off by a very small margin.

The Bridgestone cover looks to have different thicknesses.

 

[JDax]

this is off center top to bottom (orientation of your picture). Unless its a weird camera angle

It’s slightly off but probably within the acceptable deviation...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PapaJohick]

It’s slightly off but probably within the acceptable deviation...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To my eye, that’s probably off more than it should be but as many have stated here and that I agree with, very very few of us playing this awesome game would it have a huge affect on our games as we’re striping the ball every time.

Again, without measuring exactly how far, I can’t say if it’s terrible or minimal, but to me? Probably not a whole lot of causation to why I play poorly haha.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jman]

Want to meet up next week and cut a crap ton of balls, just for fun? I might have some Molitors ready to go.

Yes. Yes I do.

Can I join in?

 

[BigDill]

Again, without measuring exactly how far, I can’t say if it’s terrible or minimal, but to me? Probably not a whole lot of causation to why I play poorly haha.

Do you remember that duff I had at Patriot's Point where I hit PJ's brand new Chromesoft into the water like 50 yards in front of us? Looking back, I bet that ball had an off-center core :laughing:

Think about it like this. How many new golf balls have you in in your life? And of those, how many did something so strange while in flight that you said to yourself "hmm, that's odd. That ball flew funny." that's how much of an effect it has on your game.

 

[BuckNasty]

For those wondering what type of impact this would have on performance, apparently that ball was one of the ones used during their ball test which in theory could have contributed to the chrome soft performing so poorly from a distance and dispersion perspective in their robotic test.