We've launched the new forums! Read more here

2020 Chrome Soft vs V1 vs TP5

SuperStroke
Jeff58

Jeff58

New member
Joined
Mar 26, 2020
Messages
21
Reaction score
22
BBD51D7A-A0AE-428D-97EB-E751B9AFB6F1.jpeg

This is an on-course review of the Chrome Soft (CS) 2020, and how it compares to the V1 and TP5. I usually play the TP5. My understanding of how the 2020 Chrome Soft differs from prior models is limited.

Executive summary-

The ball went straight at the expected height for the expected distance - V1

The shot came off better than I thought it would or could - TP5

I hit a lot of good shots and felt good about my game, and had fun - Chrome Soft

Every ball has a portfolio of play characteristics that are not easily described by statistics. Some, such as the e6 series, are highly biased. Tour-level models can’t afford to be. In some ways these traits may make them a better ball generically, in others they’re personal preference. For better or worse, the Chrome Soft is more of an individual than the other two here. The two most significant differences are feel and trajectory.

Feel - The Chrome Soft is far softer in feel than the V1 or TP5 off of every club. It’s sound is also more muted and lower in frequency. Personally, I don’t play a ‘clicky’ ball. The problem with ‘clicky’ is that every shot clicks. It blinds you to your impact quality. A communicative ball, like the V1 or TP5, speaks volumes, which I find useful. The Chrome Soft, for me, moves a bit in the opposite direction. Everything is a little soft. Marginal impacts are obviously more pleasant. My irons are P790’s and driver M6. I consider them neither overly hard nor soft. In this regard, the Chrome Soft seems biased towards harder game improvement gear and/or slower swing speeds. The CS’s energy transfer (or rebound) feel on the other hand, is not soft, and in this regard is the most obvious change from the prior version, which I would call ‘composed’. The 2020 reminds me of the Cobra F9 driver. The feeling is of greater dwell time on the club face and an energetic or lively rebound. To me, the combination of lively and soft produces an ‘I’m kicking ****’ reaction, but not one of poise and control.

Trajectory - The standard for optimal distance trajectory for most swing speeds with driver is the high launch, low spin model. The Chrome Soft supports this approach to a greater degree than the others, to the point that every club takes on this characteristic to some extent. As with feel, this may benefit some players (slower SS, difficulty achieving height) more than others. However, this type of flight doesn’t provide the degree of distance repeatability as (particularly) the V1, and isn’t really optimal for short irons or full wedges.

Short game - For literally any shot from around 40 yards or less, the V1 is the best ball I’ve ever used. It’s ability to vary height through attack angle, wrist action, and face manipulation are just better. The TP5 and Chrome Soft are very similar to each other. That was initially surprising, as I expected the Chrome Soft to express its happy puppy / soft feel, which it doesn’t. I believe that the separation of feel isn’t a coincidence, rather a clear design choice that shows a high level of design and manufacturing control on Callaway’s part.

My feeling overall is that comparing the Chrome Soft to the V1 and TP5 isn’t apples to apples. Callaway’s target audience is not not the scratch/tour level/club champion. It’s the better player with a modest swing speed who values assistance in launch and distance, and probably plays cast game improvement clubs. Since that group outnumbers (and outspends) the elite players by orders of magnitude, it’s hard to question the logic.

If there is an aspect that’s questionable, at least to me, it’s cost. The V1 is now retailing for $52 per dozen (yes, it went up while you were asleep). The Chrome Soft is $48. The problems are that while the V1 is insultingly expensive, at least Titleist can make the argument that it’s the best manufactured and best playing ball available. Worse, the TP5 is currently selling for $34 / dozen in groups of 4. I play the TP5. The Chrome Soft just isn’t as good in too many ways. The kicker for me though, is the $18 / dozen Q Star Tour 2 (see my other post). I *believe* that the Chrome Soft is somewhat longer, and has less tendency to balloon on shorter shots. The Srixon has better feel, and they otherwise play remarkably similarly, to the point that very few would be able to differentiate them.
 
nice read, thank you.
 
Sorry for the somewhat old bump but this thread matches my question. I have been chipping and putting in the basement in quarantine and have been thinking about changing golf balls. I have been playing chrome soft for years. I really like the truvis because it helps me focus on the ball, track it and find it. That said, last year's version was rather clicky. As I was just playing around, it struck me that the 2019 chromesoft really didn't stick out chipping and putting versus other random balls.

Then I found this data:

ROBOT TESTED: Which golf ball suits my game?

ROBOT TESTED: Which golf ball suits my game?
www.todaysgolfer.co.uk

That basically says that the chrome soft sucks. At least, the 19 version. I actually kind of noticed the distance dispersion issues last year and didn't know what to make of it.

I'm really curious about the tp5 pix but I'm not sure which one I should try out. I have a swing speed around 105 and get a lot of spin on long shots. That said, my biggest problem is around the green which is why I went to the chromesoft in the first place.

Any thoughts on 2020 chromesoft vs tp5 vs tp5x? How big is the difference in feel and distance?
 
@HackerFish , the original post was using the 2020 Chromesoft.

Short answer- at 105 mph driver SS, I think there are a significant number of better choices than the CS. Either of the TP5’s would by excellent choices. There’s no way I’d select the CS over either of the TP5’s at your SS.

The CS feels very soft, launches high, and doesn’t spin a lot. Players with a slower swing speed may value those attributes. Those with higher SS who are looking for accuracy, repeatability, and maximum distance perhaps not so much.
I thought that the CS’s short game characteristics were fine. Again though, it’s so soft that it doesn’t provide a lot of feedback. To me, sound and feel are critical to understanding what your swing is doing on any less than full shots. The TP5 for me is the Goldilocks of communicators. It’s neither so hard that everything is clicky, nor so soft that everything is muted.

Between the TP5 and TP5x, you need to get a sleeve of each and use the ‘putter backwards’ fitting approach. Overall, I think you’re likely to find that the X flies farther and straighter on full shots, and the standard model feels better on anything from pitching wedge or shorter. Depends which one you value more.

Lastly, much has been said about Callaway’s manufacturing issues. While the decentered cores were clearly an issue, I’m fairly certain that that isn’t the main cause of the poor dispersion numbers in the test you linked. If it was *every category with a dispersion statistic should be repeatably bad*. Instead, what we see is that a ball with poor driver dispersion at high speed may have excellent dispersion with a 7 iron. Again, if a ball’s center of mass is decentered, it must by definition have the same response to a repeatable input, which was indeed a robot.
Looking at their data a bit more, I think that what they’re seeing to a significant extent is the effect of hitting a soft ball with an aggressive dimple pattern too hard. It’s likely creating a knuckleball type of response where the dimple pattern is overwhelming the spin rate. I’ve raised the question with them and have had no response.
 
Jeff58 said:
@HackerFish , the original post was using the 2020 Chromesoft.

Short answer- at 105 mph driver SS, I think there are a significant number of better choices than the CS. Either of the TP5’s would by excellent choices. There’s no way I’d select the CS over either of the TP5’s at your SS.

The CS feels very soft, launches high, and doesn’t spin a lot. Players with a slower swing speed may value those attributes. Those with higher SS who are looking for accuracy, repeatability, and maximum distance perhaps not so much.
I thought that the CS’s short game characteristics were fine. Again though, it’s so soft that it doesn’t provide a lot of feedback. To me, sound and feel are critical to understanding what your swing is doing on any less than full shots. The TP5 for me is the Goldilocks of communicators. It’s neither so hard that everything is clicky, nor so soft that everything is muted.

Between the TP5 and TP5x, you need to get a sleeve of each and use the ‘putter backwards’ fitting approach. Overall, I think you’re likely to find that the X flies farther and straighter on full shots, and the standard model feels better on anything from pitching wedge or shorter. Depends which one you value more.

Lastly, much has been said about Callaway’s manufacturing issues. While the decentered cores were clearly an issue, I’m fairly certain that that isn’t the main cause of the poor dispersion numbers in the test you linked. If it was *every category with a dispersion statistic should be repeatably bad*. Instead, what we see is that a ball with poor driver dispersion at high speed may have excellent dispersion with a 7 iron. Again, if a ball’s center of mass is decentered, it must by definition have the same response to a repeatable input, which was indeed a robot.
Looking at their data a bit more, I think that what they’re seeing to a significant extent is the effect of hitting a soft ball with an aggressive dimple pattern too hard. It’s likely creating a knuckleball type of response where the dimple pattern is overwhelming the spin rate. I’ve raised the question with them and have had no response.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the details. Its surprisingly hard to find a sleeve of balls right now.

Regardless, now that TP5 has the pix pattern it makes the switch much easier. I'll try out both like you said and go from there. I'm kind of disappointed in myself in just picking the CS based on feel and sticking with it. I really had no idea how poorly it performed. Apparently this was common knowledge among experts and I just missed it. I really shouldn't have been playing it and last year's version was turrible but I kept buying them to maintain consistency.

Side note on Callaway's manufacturing:
- If the mass was off center, people would have noticed really quickly. Someone would have set one on a table and then watched it walk around until it got the mass at minimum height.
- That said, if the density of the core material is virtually the same as the outer layers, it could be offcenter and not cause mass to shift. The resulting variation would be wild as the contact point on one side would effectively have different stiffness and response to a driver hit than the other side. Would cause a lot of shot variation with no wobble.
 
Thanks for taking the time to write out a detailed statement of your findings as to each of the balls.
 
I still find it curious that people still focus on driver distance when looking at ball performance. At 105 mph off driver and 85 mph 7i, I find the CS is a fantastic balance of distance, accuracy, durability and short game spin. I’m 10 rounds in with the new ball and I feel I am not missing out on anything that the Pro V1 did when it was my gamer. On LM testing the CS was in a dead heat with the Pro V1.
 
I hesitate to answer this, but will anyway, on the grounds that threads here float away so quickly that no one will actually read this.

If you‘ve found something in your game that works for you, you’re better off both physically and mentally staying with it and removing it as a variable. If you’ve done that with the Chrome Soft, you have done better than I.

Also, to state the obvious, you’re in Canada. My typical ball is the TP5. For play below ~ 50f, I use a Q Star Tour 3, which I consider a virtual clone of the Chrome Soft. I hate rocks.

And consider not reading any further.




Ball manufacturers typically provide a range of optimal swing speeds for their various models. The reason they do that is that a ball has an optimum compression/distortion/impact duration/rebound function, and the further you depart from that, the less linear will be the ball’s response. As players, we have some feedback on a ball’s spin and flight characteristics, particularly with wedges and other shorter shots involving spin. However, we have no feedback whatsoever, and are therefore blind as to the degree of variation the ball induces. We attribute that to our own play, or perhaps the wind. When we look at repeatable testing using robots, we see that certain models, the V1 series as an obvious case, may have wildly lower random distribution than others. The likelihood that those results are random or are erroneous I believe is zero.

We do have sophisticated means of modeling performance - the launch monitor. We have both radar and high speed imaging systems. They are sophisticated in design and reasonably accurate when taken over multiple inputs of describing launch conditions. However, launch conditions are all that they actually model. They have no visibility of the the ball’s flight outside their search window, which is where a ball’s most significant variables occur. The flight path that’s typically illustrated is derived. The launch monitor in no way monitors the ball’s flight, which since you’re hitting into a net, obviously doesn’t actually happen.

A ball’s two aspects that we may pay some attention to are its compression and cover material, since they’re objective and fairly quantitative. What we have no visibility into the most critical, which is the dimple pattern. Golf balls are aerodynamic entities. They create lift through spin at the expense of drag. Therefore, a lower-spin, lower compression model will need a more aggressive dimple form to keep it in the air. Using this type of ball at too high a velocity and spin rate is like putting the wings from a commercial airliner on a fighter plane. It will climb too quickly, bleeds off spin and velocity, and drop at too great an angle, turning our fighter into a balloon. There’s no reason to do that.
 
Appreciate the input. You didn’t mention your swing speed. For me it really effects the ball I play. As my speeds increased I’ve begun to prefer the X model balls. Z Star XV for instance, or ProV1X. In the Distance fitting the CSX was suggested for my swingspeed. I’m around 110 mph I believe.
 
Mr. slow swing speed here and I recently switched from the Z Star to the CS 2020. Initially, I did not like the feel of the CS 2020, but the more I've played it, the better I like it. Driver distance is probably a little longer and much more consistent (could be my swing) than with the Z Star. Feel is definitely a little softer but not a marshmallow. With the irons, I find that it just inspires me to put a good swing on it because I know it will do what I want it to. I have some prior models and have not had a chance to compare, but I stopped playing the prior model because I found other balls that were longer (Z Star, Tour B RX, Oncore Elixir).
 
Excellent write-up, Jeff. To echo some of your sentiment, I also found that the CS just wasn't the ball for me, though I hadn't realized the specifics may have had to do with my swing speed. I personally thought the ball performed well with my irons and wedges, but consistently ballooned and caused a pretty significant loss in distance off my driver. This club generally tends to be my best, and losing that distance hurt.

Also, I found that the cover of the ball didn't allow for much feel or sound off the putter face. Rather than muted, I found it to be a bit dull. I personally prefer to play the TP5 Pix and BXS.
 
Unless there is a large difference in distanc ( 12-20 yards) I don't understand the stress on driver distance with a ball. If one goes 247 and the other 254 that barely changes my club selection. But how the ball reacts inside of 80-100 yards is paramount. Spin, feel and how it stops and reacts is what can change your score. how it feels off of the putter face is huge to me. But I don't swing close to 105
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top