Earlier this year, Wilson launched a new golf ball called Staff Model, complete with what they called a Baller Box subscription. Within just a few short days, the subscription service was scrapped, but the Staff Model golf ball remained their current premium product in line.
Today, they are launching an extension to that line with the Staff Model R. Conjuring up images of Gordon Ramsay, R stands for RAW! Yes, that’s right, Raw golf balls. You are probably asking yourself “why”, so we will get to that before getting into the nuts and bolts of the product.
“The painting process can frequently result in balls with poor, uneven paint coverage and pooling of paint in these shallow dimples,” said Frank Simonutti, Global Director of Golf Ball Innovation. “This can significantly affect the trajectory and the directional stability of the flight of the ball. By eliminating the paint, we were able to eliminate all of the short comings attributed to the paint process used on all golf balls.“
According to Bob Thurman, VP of Wilson Labs, current tour golf balls on the market can result in offline drift as much as +/- 25 feet from 200 yards, based on their internal testing. Under a black light he says it is very easy to observe the inconsistencies and paint pooling in the dimples. Wilson added the imagery to the front of the box as seen below.
Wait what? Is this true? Now I have to keep black lights away from hotel rooms I am staying in and my golf ball stash? This brings up a lot of questions, but let’s say for the sake of argument that Wilson Labs is absolutely correct. That paint is causing drift upwards of 25 feet. What does this say about their entire ball line, including the Staff Model released earlier this year?
Whether true or not, taking them on face value, it makes a little bit of sense. Dimple designs are created at a depth and configuration for aerodynamics. Introducing another layer on top of the thin urethane layer will could alter consistency. With that said, it is done for a number of reasons, including aesthetics.
Nobody likes playing a scuffed up golf ball. Well, paint is a big part of that. UV stability, resistance to staining and overall looks come from that application. The Staff Model R is not going to have that. In fact, you should expect it to stain, discolor and look pretty “pre-owned” after a short bit of play. Will a level of consistency change that way of thinking for you?
If you have made it this far, you are probably ready to hear about the Staff Model R and what makes it unique in terms of tech. Nothing. Well, not nothing as far as the golf ball performance, Staff Model is a very good golf ball. Nothing as far as it being new or different in terms of construction from that ball. The Staff Model R is the Staff Model, minus paint. Thinking about Gordon Ramsay again…”It’s Effin Raw”!
The new Staff Model R golf ball will hit Wilson.com and select retailers starting today for $50 a dozen. Joining the Staff Model as two of the higher priced golf balls on the market. Have you seen inconsistencies in the current product you choose making you want to give this a shot? Give us your thoughts below.
Update: Wilson has updated the pricing to $45. $50 was an error and that both Staff Model golf balls will be priced the same.
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 still buy the Duo Professional as my winter ball because it performs.
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.
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..
I think the "select" retailers may be the ones willing to buy STAFF balls after being told they couldn’t with the initial version.
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.
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.
Urethane can be whatever color pigment they want to use. It’s usually clear.
Urethane is clear-ish by nature and pigment is added.
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.
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.
Also why American Airlines went many, many years with just polished exteriors on their aircraft.
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.
Given the current Wilson offerings, couldn’t we just measure the painted ball and the
rawunpainted 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.Waiting on GC for site walk and had some time. Couldn’t resist.
Paint would save grams, all things being equal. Would they design the core/cover to be a few grams heavier than normal to allow for that, or go with an ever so slightly lighter, smaller ball?
Million dollar question, but if I was a betting man, I would say the latter.
Those are small numbers. It’s starting to make me think that there may be something to Acushnet’s claims that their manufacturing processes yield the most consistent golf balls.
Wilson should sell a Prove-It pack: 6 Staff and 6 Staff-R for a sale price.
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.
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.
That is a solid argument. At least then they could pass/fail on a solid position. I have always been a Staff lover. My first pay check bought my first iron set back in 1973. Still have those irons. Adjustable weights in the high toe area.
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.
$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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wowwwwwww