Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by storm319

  1. Tony mentioned during an NPG episode a while back that there seemed to be a correlation between quality/consistency and price point and that was across the board for all OEMs. I’m willing to bet that the Z Star results will be better.
  2. Pic of the new box, although the ball appears to have the same side stamp.
  3. Few things to add: *ProV1 did not exist in 1999, player testing began in the summer of 2000 and it was first put into play in October 2000. Retail release was December 2000. *First two stamps are the same ball. Titleist did not plan to go to retail with that plain text stamp but the official stamp conformance submission was not complete when they decided to move the retail release from March 2001 to December 2000. *Limited 2002 release ProV1 Star was a lower spinning alternative that ended up being the predecessor to the 2003 ProV1x. There was also an R&D prototype ProV1 Di
  4. Current version of the QStar Tour (3rd gen) was released in early 2020. Since Srixon runs approximately 2 year produce cycles for balls, I would not expect another release until early 2022. With that said, the ZStar line is due for an update considering that the current generation was released in early 2019.
  5. Brian Minneapolis, MN (trip planned in December) Titleist 915 D3 12 high 90’s TSi3
  6. Here is the response from Tony when I inquired in the comments section of the Chrome Soft Ball Lab article: “Yes, the equipment used was different. The native scale is a bit different and the conversions, from what we can tell anyway, aren’t perfect. We find that our machine is generally close to manufacturer’s stated numbers.“
  7. Ball Lab report was for the Tour B XS, not the RXS that the OP is referring to. Also Srixon uses an ATTI tester to measure overall compression which is as close to an industry standard as had ever existed during the wound era, but you are correct that it is not recommended to compare OEM provided numbers as they may not be measured the same.
  8. Brian / Minneapolis, MN 12 Titleist Vokey SM5 glare reduction
  9. Regulating the materials that a piece of equipment is made of is ridiculous. What if there end up being complications with a particular resource? (why do you think OEMs started using maple over persimmon on the first place? the answer is availability which impacted cost). If the goal is to limit some measurement of the final product, just do that (which consequently the USGA has already done on basically every attribute related to universal distance and the flatting of distance gains at the elite level was apparent after that point).
  10. Completely different balls. The Project(a) was a 3-piece urethane cover vs Project(s) was a 3-piece ionomer cover. For 2020 the Project(a) was replaced by the Tour Response and the Project(s) was replaced by the Soft Response.
  11. The USGA only runs the US Open from a PGA Tour event standpoint so they have no influence over the setups of any other tournaments. If they had control over the setups for every tournament year round, we would see higher average scores and also probably wouldn’t have seen the groove rollback.
  12. Brian / Minneapolis, MN / US Ping IWI D66 Heppler Anser 2 as plumbers neck Anser-like shapes fit my eye and stroke best
  13. Mizuno did this before any of the other major OEMs with their 2007 MP-600.
  14. Link? Their findings from last year’s study based on testing at 85 and 115 mph found that ball speed efficiency was fairly linear regardless of club head speed.
  15. I believe he is referring to regular retail price which is $40 for the ZStar. The ZStar is my favorite urethane ball regardless of price and the fact that you can find them for considerably less than the flagship urethane models from the other big OEMs is a bonus (I have paid as little as $7 per dozen for new prior gen ZStars). IMHO, the Soft Feel is a typical low compression 2-piece ionomer covered ball which are mediocre by the nature of its construction and the QStar is overpriced for a it’s category (highest priced 2-piece ball on the market that doesn’t have a Titleist stamp).
  16. As I mentioned earlier, multiple covers is an outdated reference from the early days of multilayer balls when most of the industry referred to mantles as additional covers. Basically it comes down to a matter of semantics. Keep in mind that the USGA does not determine the designations for each entry on the list nor are these designations based on any testing or analysis, the entity submitting it to the USGA simply designates it on the application so it is up to their discretion (same with the spin designations). Some companies categorize mantles as covers (Bridgestone/Callaway) while othe
  17. That is likely more of an Achushnet capacity issue than a reflection of shop trouble.
  18. At the beginning of the multilayer solid core era the industry considered mantle layers to be additional covers. The USGA has not updated the construction designations to differentiate mantles and since these are chosen by the submitter it makes cross company comparisons difficult (some OEMs count mantles as covers while others don’t).
  19. Yes some stores have closed but they’ve actually had a net increase in total number of stores in the 6 years since that article was published.
  20. What you are referring to was from 2014: http://www.golfwrx.com/239847/dicks-sporting-goods-may-close-many-of-its-golf-galaxy-stores/
  21. This has the same basic specs as last year’s EXP-01 (3-piece, TPU cover, 346 dimple pattern), so closer to the higher priced multilayer urethane offerings than the lower priced 2-piece offerings.
  22. See Below in thread for official press release. https://www.golfballs.com/m/New-Titleist-Tour-Speed.html Technology driven core design delivers maximum speed on full swing shots Fast ionomer casing layer contributes to increased speed and low long game spin Proprietary TPU cover generates greenside spin for short game scoring control 346 Quadrilateral dipyramid dimple design provides penetrating flight for long distance with tight dispersion
  23. Ping’s actual involvement with the shaft design process is kind of ambiguous, it is more likely that they are providing requirements and then the staff at Aldila and UST are designing the actual layup pattern at which point Ping tests prototypes to provide feedback. Ping takes the multi OEM private label approach mainly for supply chain reasons (multiple sources in case one of them has a problem and can’t deliver on an order). Historically the primary stock shaft (I believe this applies to the Alta) has been produced by both Aldila and UST. The Tour 65/75/80 shafts have been produced excl
  24. Two different approaches to urethane covers: Thermoplastc Urethane (TPU) - liquid material is injection molded similarly to how ionomer covers are produced. Ex models: Bridgestone Tour B, Callaway Chrome Soft, Srixon ZStar. Themoset Urethane - components are mixed in a cast mold and a chemical reaction occurs producing the final solid state. Ex models: Titleist ProV1, TaylorMade TP5. Thermoset casting tends to produce thinner, softer, more resilient covers but is more expensive as the process takes longer per part, requires additional painting steps, and the material is not reus
  25. From the 2019 ball test: ”cheaper (2-piece) balls and matte finish balls are affected more significantly by moisture.” https://mygolfspy.com/most-wanted-golf-ball/ The 2019 wedge test also went into detail on the impacts of moisture on spin, but from a club comparison standpoint. https://mygolfspy.com/2019-most-wanted-wedge/
  • Create New...