Wilson Staff Model R Golf Balls
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #127
Million dollar question, but if I was a betting man, I would say the latter.
Using very rough estimates:
- the coating on a golf ball weighs something like 0.2 gram, or about 0.4% of the maximum allowable weight of a golf ball
- If 10% of the dimples have twice the coating thickness, that's about a 7% increase in coating weight, or about 0.01% of the golf ball weight. It seems likely that any change in golf ball flight is caused by aerodynamics and not the distribution of coating weight.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #129
Speaking with Wilson Staff just now, the price confusion was from top to bottom. The cost is $44.99 despite their press materials and website saying otherwise currently. I have been told that the price will be changed on the site today.
Just tracking on this. I don’t want to just be a negative ninny, but WTF. I don’t get it. Why are they also selling painted balls if this is so super duper? This all feels like a cluster.
Wilson should sell a Prove-It pack: 6 Staff and 6 Staff-R for a sale price.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #132
Based on the response, most had a similar reaction to me in that selling both these and painted makes for a cloudy message.
With that said, I believe there is something to it in the idea that anytime you eliminate variables, good things happen. Wilson is eliminating variables so there should be a consistency increase.
To me this is not a product issue. It is a messaging one and my hope is a brand shrouded in as much history as this one has can clear it up and get back to where they were.
With that said, I believe there is something to it in the idea that anytime you eliminate variables, good things happen. Wilson is eliminating variables so there should be a consistency increase.
To me this is not a product issue. It is a messaging one and my hope is a brand shrouded in as much history as this one has can clear it up and get back to where they were.
I agree in parts. In this case, good things should happen by eliminating variation, but the question is will the average gofler notice it? And by notice, I mean acknowledge it even it is real for him/her. As far as the message, I think it's a potential New Coke situation. Look at all the reaction here to an unpainted ball, and it's not unreasonable for Wilson to straddle the issue with raw and unpainted balls - for now.
This company needs a Harry Arnett type person more than any company I’ve ever seen. They make excellent irons but they are also very hard to take seriously
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #135
I can't answer the part about will the golfer notice it, because I believe a lot is at play there.
For instance will the golfer notice a shaft change after a handful of swings?
Will the golfer notice 1 degree loft changes?
Will the golfer notice 5 gram differences in shaft or head designs?
Without knowing them, maybe? Probably? Probably not?
We as internet golfers pay a lot closer attention, but a lot of it is just like cutting the balls open. Schrodingers Cat is the analogy I use and those that will understand that reference, know exactly what I mean.
Things are bad, believe us.
In this instance a black light allows for that, but you must first purchase and "hope" you get a bad ball to identify. And if you do, you might see 7-9 yards of dispersion difference. Thats a lot mind you, but I am not sure golfers would notice that either.
In this instance removing the variables, could be a good thing. Because after all, they are variables, and there are a lot of them in manufacturing. I believe they had a chance with this to be really bold. They went a different direction, and I get it, it takes a lot of horses to make that messaging stick.
I like Wilson, and I like the idea behind perhaps eliminating variables. It's a little painful to see the pricing slip up on release day. As a fan of Wilson, I still for whatever reason pause at a $45 dozen. I tend to wait for sales or good value offerings, and prefer that $32-38 sweet spot. Would love to try this ball at $35-40 to lure me in.
I’m curious what ball they chose to represent the competition? If it was a ProV1, which I seriously doubt, ok there might be something here. If it was a Nitro golf ball, well that’s just marketing hype. And, if the extra layers of paint and protectant are a big concern, are there any other OEMs that don’t paint their golf balls? Lastly, does this mean that refurbished balls are terrible?
I was absent when they taught quantum mechanics
, but I think I get the cat paradox. Impressive citation!I guess what I'm saying is that if the data are convincing - and you have shown some pretty powerful stuff - there are golfers like me who might consider removing a variable that can account for as much as 7-9 yards of dispersion, even though my overall dispersion might be as much as 35 yards. But I need to know that that reduction is real, especially if I have to put up with side effects like a stainable ball and that price point.
It reminds me of when TM made the SLDR and they realized it didn't work for most mortals and started the whole "loft up" campaign. Then a year later the R15 was like, "okay, you can loft back down." Anytime a company goes all in on one product line, while contradicting other products in their own line, it's a bit unnerving. If they had just said that this raw ball has less drag because of the lack of paint, or eliminates possible inconsistencies from paint, without essentially denigrating their other products, it would have made more sense.
So in the inspection process of manufacturing golf balls, you have to look at the paint job too??
$50 though ... sounds like a ball that needs to be a testing product here at THP in order to find out if they are worth it.
$50 though ... sounds like a ball that needs to be a testing product here at THP in order to find out if they are worth it.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #143
So in the inspection process of manufacturing golf balls, you have to look at the paint job too??
$50 though ... sounds like a ball that needs to be a testing product here at THP in order to find out if they are worth it.
See the update in the article. Cost is $45.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #144
That goes back to my Schrödinger Cat take. It is impossible to know if the reduction is real, without also knowing if you have golf balls that are flawed.I was absent when they taught quantum mechanics
I guess what I'm saying is that if the data are convincing - and you have shown some pretty powerful stuff - there are golfers like me who might consider removing a variable that can account for as much as 7-9 yards of dispersion, even though my overall dispersion might be as much as 35 yards. But I need to know that that reduction is real, especially if I have to put up with side effects like a stainable ball and that price point.
I didn't hear about these until I got an email in my inbox a few minutes ago. Figured THP had to have the skinny on them. Wasn't disappointed! When I glanced through the email and the product page, I was extremely confused with the messaging on this product. Immediately noticed how they "painted" (see what I did there, lol) the regular Staff ball in a negative light by touting the benefits of a raw ball. Now, I am not in marketing. But, I would probably assume that the painted version of their ball is going to be the better seller of the two. Putting out a message that undercuts the performance of their flagship tour ball seems odd.
When I saw this thread was 6 pages long already, I assumed I wasn't the only one who felt that way. It's sad. For as good as their products are, Wilson seems to be continuously shooting themselves in the foot in terms of how they try to sell their story to the consumer. It can't be that hard for them to take a step back and figure out what some of these other OEMs with similar market share have done with their marketing to drive consumer awareness.
That being said, I won't be buying these raw golf balls. I think the price is too high and I am probably too much of a traditionalist to play a golf ball that isn't painted white. But, I can't bring myself to play yellow balls either. So, not a knock on the concept of the raw ball. I likely will never see the painted version in person either. So, will pass on those as well.
When I saw this thread was 6 pages long already, I assumed I wasn't the only one who felt that way. It's sad. For as good as their products are, Wilson seems to be continuously shooting themselves in the foot in terms of how they try to sell their story to the consumer. It can't be that hard for them to take a step back and figure out what some of these other OEMs with similar market share have done with their marketing to drive consumer awareness.
That being said, I won't be buying these raw golf balls. I think the price is too high and I am probably too much of a traditionalist to play a golf ball that isn't painted white. But, I can't bring myself to play yellow balls either. So, not a knock on the concept of the raw ball. I likely will never see the painted version in person either. So, will pass on those as well.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2012
- Messages
- 21,395
- Reaction score
- 13,412
- Location
- Parker, Colorado, United States
- Handicap
- 5.4
Will be interesting how this pans out. Would take a lot more than $5 difference to get a nod.
i think we’re in agreement. I would accept the applicability of a reduction to my game if the reduction could be measured in a controlled experiment. That may have been done already. It would be fairly easy to do. Then it becomes how I choose to deal with those probabilities - IF I get a flawed ball then I suffer this much variation as compared to playing with a “flawless” ball.
The race isn’t always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #148
Correct. It was done. With that said they did choose some pretty flawed paint issues. That is where the numbers came from in the article, testing was done in TN.
