Another great video!! Just seems backwards to me, but interesting for sure. Counteracts my theory of using a softer ball in the wintertime here when I play when it is 40 degrees out.
Cold Impact on Golf Balls?
Enjoyed the video and the test. I suppose if the test was correct, balls fly shorter distances in the winter simply due to the cooler, more dense air.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reading the responses (I'm at work and can't see the video) the results seem bizarre, definitely not what I would have expected!
I'll watch the video when I get home.
I'll watch the video when I get home.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #29
Very possibly. Or because of more layers and less speed coming from the golfer.
Again, if the device is accurate. We are going to do a series of more tests with it.
Miller79
New member
Im curious about this too. I used to play with a guy that was convinced heated golf balls gave him more distance. He used to boil his golf balls and bring them to the course in a thermos. He was a terrible golfer, but it was entertaining.
The results were the complete opposite of what I was expecting and made me wonder if the cold affected the device in some way. It's hard for me to reconcile cold balls not being firmer. Of course this began the question as to if it is more the cold air or the cold equipment affecting distances in winter
Soooo...are we boiling the balls next?
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Soooo...are we boiling the balls next?
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
I have this image of a guy tipping out a Thermos with a golf ball, bouncing it in his hands, going "hot hot HOT!" and dropping it to the ground...
In my mind he also brought tongs with him, which is equally ridiculous.
I was surprised to see the pro v be softer after freezing, though I suppose that isn't out of the realm of possibility.
Another good test would be to see how the coefficient of restitution is affected by the temperature, and to see if it is correlated at all with the compression. Drop the balls from the same height and see how high they bounce. My hypothesis would be lower c.o.r. for the cold ball, regardless of compression.
Another good test would be to see how the coefficient of restitution is affected by the temperature, and to see if it is correlated at all with the compression. Drop the balls from the same height and see how high they bounce. My hypothesis would be lower c.o.r. for the cold ball, regardless of compression.
JayB
Well-known member
This doesn’t pass the smell test. Test each ball a dozen times and see if there is consistency to get a sense of the relative accuracy of the meter. Also the soft / firm scale is pretty subjective.
I don’t believe for a single second that any ball gets softer when frozen....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t believe for a single second that any ball gets softer when frozen....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #37
It was tested five additional times with the same results.
If you scroll through the thread, there are some interesting thoughts on how it could come out that way, including one thought from an industry expert.
Im not sure I am following how its subjective though, its supposed to be based on ATTI compression. Can you elaborate?
OITW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2013
- Messages
- 50,264
- Reaction score
- 16,848
I thought it would get firmer.
This intrigues me.
Great idea!
Based on the industry experts thought that it could be ball to ball, I think you need to use the same ball standard then boil/freeze it and see what the difference is there.
Also, I have serious doubts about whether the procheck is legitimate, but of course that is me
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #39
That is the plan for tomorrow. I will video the test of the ball and then freeze that same ball and check it again in the same 5 hours.
If it is ball to ball, would this be something possibly worthwhile if there were larger swings depending on brand?
I checked a dozen chrome soft and they all came out the same.
A dozen Wilson Duo U all came out the same.
This one I only had a sleeve and the results were seen.
Then a dozen TP5 and I had two balls that were 1 bar different, but 1 bar could be as little as 1-3 numbers.
I think depending on where the average is for a given brand/model has the potential of making a ball look less consistent, since the compression scores are discretized. If something is right on the edge of two categories, it could bounce back and forth even with a 1 point change. On the flip side, you could have a ball that varies by 3-4, but if it sits right in the middle of the range, it will look spot on.
Agree - as pointed out in the Procheck thread, 10 points variance is way too much.
Give us a number on the device, and a chart to compare it to. I can see that a 45 is in the X range and 55 is in the Y range. Consumers aren’t idiots.
That’s a good start but the freezer isn’t going to get cold enough to test the extremes. It is highly likely that a freezer will not cause the core to lose meaningful elasticity (or materially alter it) because it simply does not get cold enough.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well I live in Tennessee so our winters get down to about 20-25F at nights. And I have a deep freeze in the garage that sits at 0F. Thats’s the extremes the average person will have in this area, though further north it’s colder.
If the material isn’t freezable until -32F (random number) for instance, then cold won’t make much difference for most anyway and it’s kinda moot point then.
My working theory is that the cold was affecting the thinner outer layers but not impacting the inner layers and core.
Anyone else ready for some liquid nitrogen play?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Anyone else ready for some liquid nitrogen play?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The tricky thing there is that there are two sources of variance in the reading - variance from the device, and manufacturing tolerance. I agree that consumers aren't idiots, but without knowing what the variance in measurement is, it's hard to interpret a hard number. The cynic in me wonders if the device has enough variability where the binning is there to make the device look more consistent (though there's issues at the edges).
Cold Impact on Golf Balls?
Which was my thought immediately on reading the sketchy reasons for using bars and not numbers. Every measuring device has a +/- range. So is the bar readout hiding flaws?
I have so many questions about the science here, and I’m not even a trained scientist.
Which was my thought immediately on reading the sketchy reasons for using bars and not numbers. Every measuring device has a +/- range. So is the bar readout hiding flaws?
I have so many questions about the science here, and I’m not even a trained scientist.
JPR1959
Well-known member
Test the ball before you heat/freeze it. I would suggest using 3 of each. It could be a variance between a couple of balls, or it could be the testing device isn't too accurate either.
Exactly! It’s tough to say without know the exact material but we could be talking -70 C levels. I think the thinner thermoplastics should freeze before the rubbers but the average freezer is only -18 C.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it's such a small amout of change ( or variance if that's what it it) that it's neglegable. You would need a little more precise (and expensive) tester that'll read actual number compression. It would be interesting to see what the same ball would measure out at from ambient to cold though.
I think the distance loss in colder weather has more to do with wearing layers, joints being not as flexible, and air density. I just try not to play when it's cold so I don't have to think about it.
I think the distance loss in colder weather has more to do with wearing layers, joints being not as flexible, and air density. I just try not to play when it's cold so I don't have to think about it.
Drop it in liquid nitrogen for a couple minutes and test it again.