Unscientific Balanced Ball Test

[PlaidJacket]

Last night I was messing around out on my work bench when for some reason I thought about the Check Go sweet spot finder. So after digging around for awhile I found it. I friend gave this thing to me 5 years ago or so. And the batteries were still good if you can believe that. Anway...

 

I gathered up seven new balls out of inventory and decided to see what the thing can do or not do. Basically what the Check Go is supposed to do is find the perfect balanced point on any golf ball by spinning the ball at 10,000 rpm. At that point you mark the ball with a line while it's spinning. So I did that. For my test I used all brand new balls. There were Titleist PV1x, Snell MTB, Srixon Qstar Tour, Project a, Kirkland, Wilson Duo-U, and MG Tour C4. Sorry, I didn't have any Chrome Soft or tour model TaylorMade balls.

 

Here's how I tested: I placed each ball on the Check Go and spun the ball until the light blinked indication maximum RPM had been reached. I marked the ball and let the device spin down. After making the initial balance point on each ball I proceeded to re-spin each ball (up to 3 times) to see if they would find the balance point a second or third time. During the re-testing I would re-spin each ball and observe to see if the line would return indicating a balance. During the re-spin I would place each ball randomly on the spinner watching as the blurred line came into focus indication it has refound the original balance point on the original axis. Some balls did better than others. I found that the alignment - balance line marked on each ball did not line up if I let the balls come to a complete stop due to a slight wobble at very low RPM. AT 10,000 RPM all balls lined up to one degree or another. Some better than others if you will. Hope this makes a little sense. But I think you get it.

 

I rated these balls after doing the spin test several times. Some balls returned quickly to the balance point and others didn't. Some were close but not perfect. Here's the ranking of my Unscientific spin balance testing.

 

1. Kirkland

2. Snell MTB

3. Project a

4. MG Tour C4

5. Wilson Duo-U

6. Titleist PV1x

7.Srixon Q-Star Tour

 

 

 

http://perfectball.com/

[silver & black]

Do you think it is worth the time to balance balls since there is a wobble at low rpm? Balanced at 10,000 rpm is not good if the ball wobbles while putting?

[Canucklehead]

Very interesting!!

 

Just my 2 cents but I'd check a sleeve or another one at least. See how much consistency there is from ball to ball

 

Sent from my E6853 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[hckymeyer]

Correct me if my thinking is backwards.

 

Wouldn't you want something that doesn't come back to a specific balance point?  i.e. you want a ball that is balanced in any direction so it wouldn't come back to the same point each time?

 

So a ball that comes back to the same exact line every time is actually worse than one that could be orientated in any direction?

[PlaidJacket]

Do you think it is worth the time to balance balls since there is a wobble at low rpm? Balanced at 10,000 rpm is not good if the ball wobbles while putting?

 

Correct me if my thinking is backwards.

 

Wouldn't you want something that doesn't come back to a specific balance point?  i.e. you want a ball that is balanced in any direction so it wouldn't come back to the same point each time?

 

So a ball that comes back to the same exact line every time is actually worse than one that could be orientated in any direction?

 

You got me about the balance - spinning thing. I just did it for fun. And I don't think there is really much to my test anyway. And... I learned today by playing a Snell with a heavy line on the ball that I don't like that either. The line I mean. The Snell played great. I putted good today but always had that line in mind. Distracting to me. I just prefer to use the alignment mark provided on a ball. So the Check Go goes back in the golf lost and found box for a few years. 

[Canucklehead]

You got me about the balance - spinning thing. I just did it for fun. And I don't think there is really much to my test anyway. And... I learned today by playing a Snell with a heavy line on the ball that I don't like that either. The line I mean. The Snell played great. I putted good today but always had that line in mind. Distracting to me. I just prefer to use the alignment mark provided on a ball. So the Check Go goes back in the golf lost and found box for a few years.

Until you forget about this! 😉

 

Sent from my E6853 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Honest Wes]

You got me about the balance - spinning thing. I just did it for fun. And I don't think there is really much to my test anyway. And... I learned today by playing a Snell with a heavy line on the ball that I don't like that either. The line I mean. The Snell played great. I putted good today but always had that line in mind. Distracting to me. I just prefer to use the alignment mark provided on a ball. So the Check Go goes back in the golf lost and found box for a few years.

I had one several years ago. If you put the line down your target line in a vertical orientation, the ball would roll end over end on the line of the putt. So many other variables. Put the trademark in alignment with target line. Bad strokes will make the ball wobble more than bad balanced balls.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[fixyurdivot]

The latest Maxfli Tour and Tour X balls got me to wondering about this whole CG thing. I wonder how Maxfli is determining the CG point and subsequent factory alignment mark?  Something similar to this device no doubt.  We all know the measure of a good test/method is reliability and validity. I have no experience using the Check-Go but was thinking it would be something to use to check the Maxfli factory markings.  Running this test and the saltwater bath test, one would expect a match in one or both tests.  

High speed wobble during ball flight, as a byproduct of an out of balance sphere, is real no doubt - but to what extent/magnitude does that affect spin rate, trajectory, and distance? We're talking the diameter of a golf ball here.  Poking around the web, I found this test and result. It seems to support the theory that aligning the ball off the tee and on the green (and lift and place if applicable) will maximize the ball flight (or roll) resulting in better results.  So my first question is "are these alignment marks truly accurate?"

https://pluggedingolf.com/does-a-golf-balls-center-of-gravity-matter-golf-myths-unplugged/

Some further reading got me into the weeds pretty deep but into areas that I'm not unfamiliar with having been involved with aerospace (military and Boeing) for over 30 years.  This is why it's always wise not to follow a "BIG BOMBER" off the tee... wake turbulence .

If you're having trouble sleeping and need a little light reading, I recommend this.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/dragsphere.html

[2SHADES]

mods please remove this, browser crashed & sent before I was anywhere near done...

Edited December 27, 2023 by 2SHADES
browser messed up & posted when not ready

[2SHADES]

Ohhhh the ridiculous golf ball balance test from the excuse makers...

The problem with all of this nonsense is... The little tiny bit a ball is off would not affect ones game at all... There are millions of physics at play in a golf game on every shot and literally every single one of them has by orders of magnitude more effect upon a golf ball than the infinitely minuscule amount of weight distribution that even a tiny piece of scotch tape barely affects it...

FFS even one blade of offset grass on a green, or the slightest of bumps would throw a golfball off by feet during its path. A grain of sand, a speck of dirt, even a dimple hitting in an offset way, a non visible to the eye foot or spike mark, ANYTHING, literally millions of variables on a green alone, let alone in the air, affects a golfball FAR MORE than ANY of this.

The gyroscopic nature of the golfball spinning at thousands pf RPMs would offset ALL of the microscopic weight issues with a golfball.

Hell, even water that sticks to the ball in the test alone throws off the entirety of it.

You would have to test this in an insanely controlled environment to prove ANY of these haphazard claims that you're making. And you'd still fail.

It's still amazing to me how many people in here & all of these posts so clearly took shop class or home economics as their elective in high school rather than a science class (or were homeschooled) and it's truly indicative of what happens when republicans fleece the educational system & put religion in the place of science. FFS.

The level of seriousness you all take this for is literally cult like and insane!

My favorite part is when you all recite the nonsense that Bryson Douchecanoe's coach says that the tiny amount of weight unbalance would throw a ball off by 20 feet on a putt.... BUT SHOW ME ANYONE WHO'S OFF BY 20 FEET ON A PUTT,  EVER.

You can't! It doesn't happen unless someone crushes the ball with a putter or is drunk AF. Were ANY of that true, nobody would be making putts, ever! Yet they're (and most of us are) insanely or pretty darn accurate.

The excuse making from pros AND all of you is just sad. And the need to gain clicks & traffic off of pure pseudoscientific bushido is just pathetic.