Wilson Staff Model R Golf Balls

[JB]

Any idea based on testing (yours or theirs) what the impact would be of playing an unpainted ball in wet/rainy/muddy conditions other than the cosmetic impact? The price point pushes me out of this one, but I'm genuinely curious about the possible negative impacts here. This seems like a feature, that if it were such an advantage, would have been exposed prior to 2020. Says the armchair commentator.

None. Meaning none of their testing said anything about wet, rainy or muddy conditions. Although based on construction, I don't believe it would differ much.

 

[buckeyewalt]

Wilson just showed how to kill 2 birds with one stone!!

I still buy the Duo Professional as my winter ball because it performs.

 

[Templet0n]

None. Meaning none of their testing said anything about wet, rainy or muddy conditions. Although based on construction, I don't believe it would differ much.

I feel that it would end up very similar to Matte golf balls in performance. Meaning, it would perform worse. It is going to collect dirt easier and because of the surface texture water will pool more and cause inconsistencies in the rain. Just a guess based on experience with matte balls. These could prove to be different. But I am not convinced. They say themselves it will stain easier. So that means stuff will stick to it more..

 

[JB]

I feel that it would end up very similar to Matte golf balls in performance. Meaning, it would perform worse. It is going to collect dirt easier and because of the surface texture water will pool more and cause inconsistencies in the rain. Just a guess based on experience with matte balls. These could prove to be different. But I am not convinced. They say themselves it will stain easier. So that means stuff will stick to it more..

View attachment 8974655

The staining is less about stuff sticking to it and more about urethane being more susceptible to color changes.

 

[BigDill]

I feel that it would end up very similar to Matte golf balls in performance. Meaning, it would perform worse. It is going to collect dirt easier and because of the surface texture water will pool more and cause inconsistencies in the rain. Just a guess based on experience with matte balls. These could prove to be different. But I am not convinced. They say themselves it will stain easier. So that means stuff will stick to it more..

View attachment 8974655

Serious question here:

In a world where golfers can be picky and distracted to a degree of specificity that includes things like shaft labels, ferrule colors, MMs of topline thickness, and even logos on a golf ball, would that purported 1/2 stroke per round gain be negated by the golfer potentially being distracted by a grass or scuff mark? It is the most common criticism of matte golf balls.

And in that regard, how is this not marketed as the next evolution of matte finishes? Seems like it would be a fairly obvious pull from those who may have started out playing something like the Maxfli SoftFli balls because of cost and have now improved to a point that they want a closer to tour level ball.

 

[annsguy]

So this is becoming Tech Tuesday. Unpainted balls. 3D enhanced putters. All I know is the Tech Tuesday is expensive.

 

[Tywithay]

I think there's something to the paint aspect, as nearly every ball has a dimple or two with pooling or pits. I just don't understand what you're paying for in this instance. They cut paint costs and charge more than ever before for one of their products? I'll wait until they're BOGO when Dick's is trying to get rid of them, but can't see anyone really buying them at retail. Used market is pretty much nonexclusive as well, because of the staining. Wilson makes a nice product, but I have no clue where they're steering that ship.

 

[USAF Retired]

Can't see paying $50 a dozen for a Wilson ball, much less one that scuffs and stains easy

 

[Templet0n]

Serious question here:

In a world where golfers can be picky and distracted to a degree of specificity that includes things like shaft labels, ferrule colors, MMs of topline thickness, and even logos on a golf ball, would that purported 1/2 stroke per round gain be negated by the golfer potentially being distracted by a grass or scuff mark? It is the most common criticism of matte golf balls.

And in that regard, how is this not marketed as the next evolution of matte finishes? Seems like it would be a fairly obvious pull from those who may have started out playing something like the Maxfli SoftFli balls because of cost and have now improved to a point that they want a closer to tour level ball.

Good question. I do not know the answer. I am personally not a fan of matte balls but I understand the popularity..

 

[YukonLiving]

Curious to see how these actually look after one hole of play if Wilson themselves admit that it will stain easier. How many holes will it take for the ball to become unplayable because it more closely resembles a patch of woodland camo?

 

[annsguy]

They appear to be changing the price to $45 all of the sudden, but as you can see from their own messaging, it was $50. They will be available at select retailers as well.

View attachment 8974642

I think the "select" retailers may be the ones willing to buy STAFF balls after being told they couldn't with the initial version.

 

[SirShives]

Technically it might be the opposite. Minor scuffing that occurs is actually the paint scuffing, since urethane is a harder material.

Thanks. That is good information to have. I do not see myself purchasing these balls to try out but I’m sure they have their niche out there.

 

[Scorp]

This is where I disagree a bit.

If Wilson Golf had come out and said the golf industry has been lying to you. Like Fashion Week they have an "Aesthetics Issue". Paint makes balls lose precision, for the sake of looks.

Then announce all of their balls will be paint free and if you learn to accept the imperfections, you will have better precision and control.

In my opinion that message brings curiosity.

But they didn't. They just came out with this R version... I wonder when they drop it quietly into their bad idea trash can like the baller box subscription?

Apparently someone at Wilson Staff is reading THP... they're reacting to our reactions. They need to talk to us as their focus group.

I would really like to see the actual science on how the extremely thin paint thickness impacts golf balls as much as they suggest. I just can’t get my head around the claims being messaged with respect to this ball.

I can "almost" see it happening. Paint has weight. I remember hearing that the C-141b (USAF cargo plane that has been retired and replaced by the C-17) had several hundred pounds of paint applied to it. Add in the hydraulic fluid the paint absorbed from leaks, and it was probably close to a thousand pounds or so. Not a lot of weight to a cargo plane...

But take the weight of the paint applied to a golf ball which is probably in the microgram or even picogram... it might possibly be able to affect the flight of the ball. I don't know, maybe the THP science lab can answer that question?


Regardless, until Wilson Staff pulls their head out of the cranial rectal inversion they're in right now, I'm probably not buying anything from them. Their golf division has no rudder, no oars, and the engine's on fire. I'll take free Wilson Staff golf stuff in the meantime though.

 

[Dartgod]

I'm just finding out for the first time that golf balls (well, most of them now) are painted. I just assumed that the cover material was dyed whatever color that the ball was.

 

[Thrillbilly Jim]

@JB The ball is still white, so is the urethane layer naturally white or is pigment added to it? If the ball isn’t painted, can you still produce a yellow ball?

 

[Tywithay]

But they didn't. They just came out with this R version... I wonder when they drop it quietly into their bad idea trash can like the baller box subscription?

Apparently someone at Wilson Staff is reading THP... they're reacting to our reactions. They need to talk to us as their focus group.



I can "almost" see it happening. Paint has weight. I remember hearing that the C-141b (USAF cargo plane that has been retired and replaced by the C-17) had several hundred pounds of paint applied to it. Add in the hydraulic fluid the paint absorbed from leaks, and it was probably close to a thousand pounds or so. Not a lot of weight to a cargo plane...

But take the weight of the paint applied to a golf ball which is probably in the microgram or even picogram... it might possibly be able to affect the flight of the ball. I don't know, maybe the THP science lab can answer that question?


Regardless, until Wilson Staff pulls their head out of the cranial rectal inversion they're in right now, I'm probably not buying anything from them. Their golf division has no rudder, no oars, and the engine's on fire. I'll take free Wilson Staff golf stuff in the meantime though.

I'd say overall weight of the golf ball makes a bigger difference, since it has to conform to USGA guidelines, painted or not. Saving thousands of pounds on a cargo plane would be almost incomprehensible. I spent last year helping redesign the King Air (prop cargo/passenger plane) and we were literally shaving grams. Fuel savings for a thousand pounds over the course of the plane's life cycle would be several million dollars.

 

[Tywithay]

@JB The ball is still white, so is the urethane layer naturally white or is pigment added to it? If the ball isn’t painted, can you still produce a yellow ball?

Urethane can be whatever color pigment they want to use. It's usually clear.

 

[JB]

@JB The ball is still white, so is the urethane layer naturally white or is pigment added to it? If the ball isn’t painted, can you still produce a yellow ball?

Urethane is clear-ish by nature and pigment is added.

 

[Reframmellator]

I'd say overall weight of the golf ball makes a bigger difference, since it has to conform to USGA guidelines, painted or not. Saving thousands of pounds on a cargo plane would be almost incomprehensible. I spent last year helping redesign the King Air (prop cargo/passenger plane) and we were literally shaving grams. Fuel savings for a thousand pounds over the course of the plane's life cycle would be several million dollars.

This is why German cars are tradiitionally associated with the color silver. Back in the 1930s, German auto manufactuirers stopped painting their race cars because they realized that meant weight savings and therefore better performance.

 

[JB]

I'd say overall weight of the golf ball makes a bigger difference, since it has to conform to USGA guidelines, painted or not. Saving thousands of pounds on a cargo plane would be almost incomprehensible. I spent last year helping redesign the King Air (prop cargo/passenger plane) and we were literally shaving grams. Fuel savings for a thousand pounds over the course of the plane's life cycle would be several million dollars.

In this instance, paint would be a couple of grams probably at the most. It could also impact the diameter of the golf ball marginally.
Being a smaller seller in the space and only a single product line extension it wouldn't do a ton for shipping costs, although i your world I could see it making a huge difference.

 

[annsguy]

Since it is Wilson I will ask if they got it approved before they brought it to market. They've been known to skip that step before.

 

[tomcat]

This is why German cars are tradiitionally associated with the color silver. Back in the 1930s, German auto manufactuirers stopped painting their race cars because they realized that meant weight savings and therefore better performance.

Also why American Airlines went many, many years with just polished exteriors on their aircraft.

 

[Scorp]

I'd say overall weight of the golf ball makes a bigger difference, since it has to conform to USGA guidelines, painted or not. Saving thousands of pounds on a cargo plane would be almost incomprehensible. I spent last year helping redesign the King Air (prop cargo/passenger plane) and we were literally shaving grams. Fuel savings for a thousand pounds over the course of the plane's life cycle would be several million dollars.

You're right about that... one of the reasons the USAF moved the 141 fleet from the European camouflage pattern to the grey was to save weight in paint... the grey would absorb less fluid. It was probably cheaper too. And, had they ever gone through with Lockheed's proposed re-engine program for the birds, they would have saved thousands of gallons of jet fuel annually by running CFM-56's instead of the TF-33-P-7-A's that they had. But all that's ancient history now.

 

[BigDill]

In this instance, paint would be a couple of grams probably at the most. It could also impact the diameter of the golf ball marginally.
Being a smaller seller in the space and only a single product line extension it wouldn't do a ton for shipping costs, although i your world I could see it making a huge difference.

Given the current Wilson offerings, couldn't we just measure the painted ball and the raw unpainted ball and see if there is a difference? My uninformed guess is that variations within manufacturing tolerance within the ball components themselves would be greater than the paint difference. That is to say, I bet some painted ones would be lighter than unpainted.

 

[J4U]

Waiting on GC for site walk and had some time. Couldn't resist.