Jump to content

z1ggy16

Member
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

46 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

139 profile views
  1. I have. Cradle doesn't give you as much info as SAM or Quintic. Generally my results were validated using Ping app after having done 3 putter fits now. My issue is I generally putt much better in a fitting than I do on course. I was fit into a Newport style head but I also got told if I wanted a mallet, what I should look for. I am currently looking at getting back in to a mallet for the added forgiveness.
  2. Just my .02 but the Atmos reallllyyy minds me of the old Motore Speeders. So much so, that I'm about 95% convinced that Atmos is just a painted Motore, with maybe tiny material change here or there. Profile feels identical (to me).
  3. Well after seeing the high speed data come out today, I'm firmly convinced that the F9 is a real winner. Almost identical numbers to M5, but for much less $$. Subjectively, the F9 feels/sounds so much better to me... The M5 was rather firm and hard feeling, especially on a miss hit. The F9 was extremely pleasing to strike, almost having some kind of 'softness' to it which I enjoyed. Lastly... there's just something really cool and edgy about the F9 that M5/M6 doesn't have. I think it's that the design of the M series is getting a little bit old. Cobra is keeping it pretty fresh. F9 does seem to spin a little high but I think that's a problem one could solve with some addition of weight further up in the head. I believe Rickie Fowler stated he had to add a bunch of hot melt near the face to get the flight he needed. And besides, a little higher spin can benefit most of us as it really helps stabilize flight. Unless somebody is really hitting down on their driver, I've always found adding like 300 more RPM than "ideal" Trackman numbers helps me stay in the fairway. One thing I'd love to see MGS do is to release the detailed data set for the testers. This test still looks like it was a summed up average of various skills and speeds, even for each sub set of swing speed. I'm really curious how each driver performed under specific condtions in their testing such as guys around the 112-115 mph range, swinging up on the ball. Everything I've seen outside of this test looks to put the M5 in the extreme spin killing range, where F9 is toward the higher range. Epic SZ was also spinning much higher than I thought, too.
  4. My coach swears by the hi toe, but he's also on staff with Taylormade. I could see how good it would be if you played tons of knockdowns and partial shots off tight lies.... but the club that I get lessons at is not like the Muni's that I normally play which are soft as heck. I could see myself keeping the hi toe to play very specific courses but for me those situation are few and far between. I don't really have too many issues using my 10* glide 2.0 lob wedge to nip shots off regular turf. It's also many times better than the hi toe from the rough... that higher bounce is much friendlier.
  5. Interesting... It almost looks like a mix between ProV and Chrome Soft dimples. One thing though... don't proV have varying dimples every so often? These look all very similar in size except I notice every so often there's a small bit of random space between a cluster of them.
  6. Yeah $48 a dozen isn't bad IF the ball can last 20 holes. I never now how long mine last because I just play a ball until it's lost or the cover is so beat up looking it's embarassing to see somebody let you tee that up...
  7. How's durability been? I tend to not lose balls but with the MGS guys saying even minor cuts and whatnot can affect performance, I'll probably start using 2 or even 3 balls per round before they end up in the shag bag (which is already now about 40 balls deep). Anything more than 2 balls or so being used per round and that starts getting a little cost prohibitive for me to start gaming ProV1x at $48 a box. The low price of the Snell is very appealing if thee things aren't wildly flying offline like testing was showing.
  8. I'm interested in what he says. I doubt he'd reveal it but I wonder how they do QC. Do they inspect each ball and reference a certain set of specs and pass/fail every single one, or might they inspect by "lot" sampling. That is, they produce say 10,000 balls in a "lot" (batch) and randomly select X% (say 2% for example) and check each one. If all of them pass with respect to some sort of reference ball or set of specs, ALL 10,000 in that lot pass. Depending on their manufacturing scales, I'd assume the latter is done to save on time/cost. However, that could potentially lead to somebody like MGS getting a entire box of duds that purely by chance, had an extremely high rate of non-conformance present that we aren't seeing so far from our users here.
  9. I see, thanks. That would lead to me to believe then the MTB-X has some kind of superior aero. package. Would you be so kind as to maybe post a close up view of the dimples, and it would be really cool to see that right next to a ProV1X and also a CSX if possible. Lastly, have you found the ball to be inaccurate? Having a wedge into a 430 par 4 means your speed must be at least in the 110 range, unless that hole was very down wind/down hill. I'd imagine after enough shots, this whole 21 yard std deviation on dispersion would have reared it's head a little bit by now? I do really wonder how it applies to real humans hitting balls vs a robot. How do we know when the wind took a ball a little offline and not the ball, and vice versa?
  10. I don't mind a firm ball. I feel like it helps with feedback on strike across all clubs. One thing I didn't consider - Did MGS do their testing well above see level? The numbers I got off FlightScope were at an elevation of 0 feet. Maybe if they were around 2000+ft elevation, I can see the MTB-X going further than predicted. It would also probably exacerbate any offline stuff, too. But then that means the CSX was much shorter than it should be... which then flips the question about aerodynamics. The Snell would be "normal" and the CSX's would be poor.
  11. I'm curious what about the MTB-X package for aerodynamics is much different than everything else? According to my FlightScope data back last page, physics/calculations says the ball shouldn't haven't flown as far as it did on average. All the balls have to conform to the rules of golf, so what did Mr. Snell figure out that a huge company like Titleist, Bridgestone, etc haven't to make the ball get like an extra 5-7 yards in the air than predicted?
  12. I know people are saying this is paralysis by analysis but I find this interesting and sort of fun. Sry long post ahead: I used a FlightScope optimizer to try and at least confirm some of the MGS numbers concerning the CSX and MTBX since those seem to be the two really 'controversial' balls right now. https://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/ With the exact average numbers from the table (high speed driver), at sea level you get 277 carry for CSX and 282 for the MTB-X. So honestly, I'm much more questioning the MTB-X longer distance than I am the CSX shorter distance. It makes me think that either A) the aerodynamics packages of the Snell is much better than the CSX and thus GCQ wouldn't show that large difference or B) wind or other factors were at play (which I think is much more likely). The reason I think B) is more likely is because the peak heights and descent angles between the two balls are pretty different on the MGS table. You've got the CSX flying on average 17 feet lower, despite almost identical launch and spin conditions. The FlightScope sim showed the CSX peak height to be 115 vs the MTBX to be 120. So just based on these FlightScope calcs there are 2 things really sticking out: 1) the MTB-X should not be carrying 289 on average unless other factors are at play, and 2) the CSX flew about 10% lower in the MGS data than it should have but the overall carry distance is in line with predicted values. Lastly, I couldn't replicate the offline numbers MGS was showing inside this simulator. I set the side launch to 2 degrees to the right (due to my assumption of them setting up for slight draws) with a spin axis of 2.4 & 2.7 degrees L (from the MGS table). The balls both finished to the right of the target line by a few yards. According to the MGS data table, both balls finished on average 8 or so yards LEFT of target. Since the confidence interval is 85% and from above it seems they hit at least 20 (different) balls for each make, I really am starting to think wind was a factor here. I'm really hesitant to think that on average, both balls were basically introducing 10+ extra yards of draw off high speed driver purely from QC issues. If that does happen to be the case, wow that is not awesome... both balls had standard devs over 15 yards. In conclusion, either wind or some environmental factors would seem to be at play and this MGS testing isn't really ideal, and thus no 'major' conclusions should be drawn in regards to the actual distance and dispersion numbers. Compression measurements still valid, so is ball speed I'd say, too. However, if wind wasn't a factor... I think we have a much bigger issue on our hands in regards to quality control of the balls not used on Tour released from some OEMs (not all, but a select few). If anybody thinks I'm way off base, please let me know. If you made it through that novel of a post, congrats.
  13. Not surprised by the TXG results honestly. I think this is such a controversial topic that we might start seeing a lot of YT channels releasing their own GCQ data (I'm sure Mr Parfield will get on the click train). However, even if MGS does do some retesting, I find it somewhat hard to think they'd walk any claims back and suddenly say, oh actually we didn't maybe do the best job, here's some more accurate data, and suddenly Chrome Soft goes further and MTB X doesn't. It undermines their entire company and I'm not so sure it would provide much else useful but it sure would confuse the heck out of us, and make even more controversy. The best thing here is just more and more high visibility people within the community run their own tests as scientifically as possible, but I doubt anybody will/can do it to this scale & magnitude as MGS has done, especially with outdoor Trackman. There also aren't many 'unbiased/unsponsored' channels with Trackman. I know the guys said the day they did testing, winds were 2mph or so, but that doesn't account for gusts/swirls that aren't felt on the ground. I'm fairly convinced something environmental was going on or MGS simply got a weird batch of balls...Something more out of spec than you'd normally see in a box which would have caused the Cally balls to lose yardage in the air. Still, you'd think if a gust hit a ball and put it 15 yards short, that would have been removed if most of the other shots didn't show that end result. Do the Tour Only Chrome Soft balls have a different dimple pattern?
  14. My Glide 2.0 was better than the Hi Toe at everything except hard pan/firm bunkers (likely just a bounce issue). I don't play flop shots because I'm not Phil so if I short side myself into deep rough, that's my issue to deal with and accept that just get it somewhere within 10ft of the stick and be happy. The biggest draw back for me was the feel. It's subjective, but this thing was just yucky to hit on any shot that had to travel more than like 8-10 yards. Very firm and unforgiving feeling, and it was very bad on more full swings. Used it on course 2x and that was enough to tell it wasn't going to suite me.
×
×
  • Create New...