We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Golf ball hitting steel at 150mph at 70K fps...

:DSo that's what it looks like when my driver hits it.
 
Good to know what happens when I nail a tree and the ball ends up 80 yards behind me.
 
This has been posted before, and I still don't buy that a typical ball can be distorted that much at just 150 mph. Watch this Titleist video of R&D testing with shots at up to 175 mph and the ball doesn't even close to that much distortion.

 
There is a difference between a club with a 175 mph head speed hitting a stationary ball that will move forward in the same direction as the club head and a ball travelling at 150 mph hitting an immovable object like a steel plate.

As some of the inertia of the club head is transferred to the ball and since the ball can move, that inertia then travels forward. A ball hitting an immovable object is basically one hundred percent of that inertia stopping cold since all of the energy of that inertia is transferred to that steel plate.

Different physical scenario.
 
NewGlfr said:
There is a difference between a club with a 175 mph head speed hitting a stationary ball that will move forward in the same direction as the club head and a ball travelling at 150 mph hitting an immovable object like a steel plate.

As some of the inertia of the club head is transferred to the ball and since the ball can move, that inertia then travels forward. A ball hitting an immovable object is basically one hundred percent of that inertia stopping cold since all of the energy of that inertia is transferred to that steel plate.

Different physical scenario.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make that much difference. I'd like to see how much a ball can be compressed before it starts to lose its structural integrity. I wish I was still working so I could put some different models on a 100 ton hydraulic press and see what happens. If they don't break down before they are compressed like that ball in the video, then I might give some credence to it, but I'd still like to see some sort of certification that verifies that it was an honest test with a real golf ball. People can and do post just about anything on You Tube, and half the time it's faked.
 
Completely off topic but I love how the guy says any swing speed can play the pro v because the compression is the same between 120 and 175 mph





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I can say for fact that there is large amounts of change. I watched this with my very own eyes (not the OP video) at a company that makes golf balls just this year and then slowed down via the video shot while there. Its crazy how much changes.
 
Fourputt said:
Doesn't make that much difference. I'd like to see how much a ball can be compressed before it starts to lose its structural integrity. I wish I was still working so I could put some different models on a 100 ton hydraulic press and see what happens. If they don't break down before they are compressed like that ball in the video, then I might give some credence to it, but I'd still like to see some sort of certification that verifies that it was an honest test with a real golf ball. People can and do post just about anything on You Tube, and half the time it's faked.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but the vid was shot at 70 000 fps. This means what you're seeing happening to that golf ball happens in milliseconds. Unless you can get an industrial press to compress at that speed, rate and with the exact same force, your trials would not equate to what we are seeing. Compressing a ball that is stationary is also not exactly what is happening here. I wonder if they heated the ball up at all before the test. That could change things for sure.

Is it fake? I've watched vids from that FB page before and they have always been credible. Why would you attempt to fake THAT? To what end?
 
Last edited:
NewGlfr said:
I understand what you're saying, but the vid was shot at 70 000 fps. This means what you're seeing happening to that golf ball happens in milliseconds. Unless you can get an industrial press to compress at that speed, rate and with the exact same force, your trials would not equate to what we are seeing. Compressing a ball that is stationary is also not exactly what is happening here. I wonder if they heated the ball up at all before the test. That could change things for sure.

Is it fake? I've watched vids from that FB page before and they have always been credible. Why would you attempt to fake THAT? To what end?
Click to expand...

I'll answer with another question. Do you ever watch Mythbusters? Half of their tests are drawn from internet videos that look too amazing to be real, and most of the time they aren't. This is why without some sort of unimpeachable verification, I will continue to doubt.
 
Fairly positive this was proven to be fake several years ago.
 
Not saying anything about the OP, but this was on the USGA YouTube page from 2010:



 
Second video looks legit, first one is obviously fake.
 
Must have been a DUO..
 
that is really cool!
 
A bit off topic for sake of the OP but I find it funny how Titleist says the compression is "quite similar" at different speeds.
What I mean is that firstly.....the term "quite similar" doesn't mean the same so therefore there is a difference. Golf is a game of small fractions and the smallest of fractions pertaining to just about anything from our launch ends up meaning quite a bit a couple hundreds yard away where the ball lands.
Secondly.....why use 125 to 175mph? I would like to see that done from something like 90 to 120 in 10mph increments not only because it better relates to human swings but also because perhaps there would be a much bigger difference noticed at the lower scale. I mean the ball has to start to compress more significantly at some ppint and I'm sure its not 1mph , but wherever that speed is, its of course going to increase as impact speed goes up. I assume there will then be a point when it starts to compress more significantly and also I would assume a point where it starts to become more difficult to further compress it. So it may be possible that the compression difference between 90 and 120 is much greater than it is when comparing 125 to 175 but possibly is what Titleist doesn't want us to see so they use the speeds at which the compression is less noticeable or "quite similar". And again even that still means its different.

But hey, what do I really know about this? Why not just use the more normal average golfer swing speeds vs the average tour pro ss to show us ignorant fools if it still as closely similar? And why use the term "quite similar" to try to fool us when that really means its different. A ball is only so big (its small) and tiny differences pertaining to a small object actually mean a lot.
 
Smallville said:
Not saying anything about the OP, but this was on the USGA YouTube page from 2010:


Click to expand...


Hopefully there was more than one USGA person present for the video; otherwise, it doesn't really count.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top