2019 Official Forum Member Review - Bridgestone e12 Speed and Soft Golf Balls

[azstu324 930]

Hey group! So I thought I'd stop in as it's been a good minute since my last post. So as the trend and comments continue regarding the durability.. or lack thereof.. I'm concluding that maybe Bridgestone is blazing a new trail for the "disposable" golf ball. I'm finding that I'm not too interested in playing this ball for more than 1 round due to the amount of ball damage showing at the end of the round. The only hope that a ball has to see another round, is if it was pulled at mid or end of the previous round due to a throw away or a shankering to the golf Gods. When used during a launch monitor session, it's an automatic throwaway because the face is just unrecognizable after a hundred+ smacks through my club lineup.  

In comparison to my Project (a) and higher priced balls such as the Bridgestone Tour B XS and ProV1, I've got balls that are going on their 3rd rounds with definite scuffing but nothing resembling the wear on the e12's.. The same goes with both the Callaway Super Soft and the Wilson Staff Duo. They just have much better wear stats. 

Hopefully I'm not being too harsh or critical but I feel this is why we're here. I really want to see Bridgstone continue to excel in the ball/equipment arena and stuff like this should only help them improve right? So throw out the lost ball factor.. throw out the performance factor (both appearing somewhat negligible). Quantifying cost per play at: (cost for 12) / (rounds per ball * 12) = Cost per play (welcome to my brain) ..  I'm beginning to find it difficult to stomach paying $30/12 balls to get roughly 12 rounds of play at $2.50 per play per ball when I can pay about the same price for my Project (a)'s which will gladly give me 2-3 rounds each and amount to about $.83 - $1.25 per play/ball. To add to that, a box of Calaway Super Softs run roughly $20/12 which are also good for 2-3 or so rounds and equate to $.56 - $.83 per play. Even crazier is that a box of Tour B XS or ProV 1's at around $45/12 will definitely hold up to the 2-3 round challenge. Again.. $1.25 - $1.88 per play. 

Sorry if I just blew up anybody's brain with this.. but it's definitely an important factor to me as a budget-conscious golfer trying to get the most out of my equipment. The e12's just don't seem to be a budget-friendly option IMO. 

thoughts/comments/opinions are always welcome!  

[azstu324 930]

Edited April 22 by azstu324

[MaxEntropy 3,567]

22 minutes ago, azstu324 said:

thoughts/comments/opinions are always welcome!

I very much appreciate this thought - I had never really considered it, as I typically lose a ball long before it wears out. After all, I suck at golf.

But... as I attempt to  improve, I am always looking for a good performing ball with a good price point because I have become a little cheap with age and can't stomach the thought of losing a $4 ball that may not have much use. If I can get to the point of a ball getting too scuffed to use, I tend to think I would still want something at an appealing price point and your analysis seems like an excellent way to look at it.

[azstu324 930]

35 minutes ago, MaxEntropy said:

I very much appreciate this thought - I had never really considered it, as I typically lose a ball long before it wears out. After all, I suck at golf.

But... as I attempt to  improve, I am always looking for a good performing ball with a good price point because I have become a little cheap with age and can't stomach the thought of losing a $4 ball that may not have much use. If I can get to the point of a ball getting too scuffed to use, I tend to think I would still want something at an appealing price point and your analysis seems like an excellent way to look at it.

Thanks Max! I'm glad you chimed in with your comment. I'm definitely in no way claiming exempt from wild shots resulting in the disappearing ball. I guess if you break this down into 2 sub-categories under the umbrella of "bang-for-buck": 1. if you're a better player who doesn't loose many golf balls, this ball wouldn't be for you and there's actually a better value with a higher-priced ball. 2. If your a beginner, or even decent player who does lose a ball (or more) per round, again there are better looking options available in this ball profile category.   

Edited April 22 by azstu324

[DannyDips 86]

2 hours ago, M. Parsons said:

Just curious...those "pin high" shots on #5 & #8; did they roll out to pin high from your typical carry distances, or did you magically get those to stop? 

I'm super shocked at the lack of durability in this ball, as I typically scuff up a soft ball more so than a hard ball like the e12 Speed.

The shots on #5 and #8 both landed just short of the target and had a slight bit of roll with enough spin to stop after a few feet. Most of my typical iron shots spin and stop even when I've played with cheaper balls. I usually get plenty or even too much spin on my iron/wedge full shots. 

Now if I could get the balls to stop when I'm chipping/pitching... that would be magical..  

[Apes44 737]

2 hours ago, azstu324 said:

Hey group! So I thought I'd stop in as it's been a good minute since my last post. So as the trend and comments continue regarding the durability.. or lack thereof.. I'm concluding that maybe Bridgestone is blazing a new trail for the "disposable" golf ball. I'm finding that I'm not too interested in playing this ball for more than 1 round due to the amount of ball damage showing at the end of the round. The only hope that a ball has to see another round, is if it was pulled at mid or end of the previous round due to a throw away or a shankering to the golf Gods. When used during a launch monitor session, it's an automatic throwaway because the face is just unrecognizable after a hundred+ smacks through my club lineup.  

In comparison to my Project (a) and higher priced balls such as the Bridgestone Tour B XS and ProV1, I've got balls that are going on their 3rd rounds with definite scuffing but nothing resembling the wear on the e12's.. The same goes with both the Callaway Super Soft and the Wilson Staff Duo. They just have much better wear stats. 

Hopefully I'm not being too harsh or critical but I feel this is why we're here. I really want to see Bridgstone continue to excel in the ball/equipment arena and stuff like this should only help them improve right? So throw out the lost ball factor.. throw out the performance factor (both appearing somewhat negligible). Quantifying cost per play at: (cost for 12) / (rounds per ball * 12) = Cost per play (welcome to my brain) ..  I'm beginning to find it difficult to stomach paying $30/12 balls to get roughly 12 rounds of play at $2.50 per play per ball when I can pay about the same price for my Project (a)'s which will gladly give me 2-3 rounds each and amount to about $.83 - $1.25 per play/ball. To add to that, a box of Calaway Super Softs run roughly $20/12 which are also good for 2-3 or so rounds and equate to $.56 - $.83 per play. Even crazier is that a box of Tour B XS or ProV 1's at around $45/12 will definitely hold up to the 2-3 round challenge. Again.. $1.25 - $1.88 per play. 

Sorry if I just blew up anybody's brain with this.. but it's definitely an important factor to me as a budget-conscious golfer trying to get the most out of my equipment. The e12's just don't seem to be a budget-friendly option IMO. 

thoughts/comments/opinions are always welcome!  

I love this cost per play calculation... however I dont think I've ever made a round without losing at least 1 ball!

[ga_pike 254]

2 hours ago, azstu324 said:

Hey group! So I thought I'd stop in as it's been a good minute since my last post. So as the trend and comments continue regarding the durability.. or lack thereof.. I'm concluding that maybe Bridgestone is blazing a new trail for the "disposable" golf ball. I'm finding that I'm not too interested in playing this ball for more than 1 round due to the amount of ball damage showing at the end of the round. The only hope that a ball has to see another round, is if it was pulled at mid or end of the previous round due to a throw away or a shankering to the golf Gods. When used during a launch monitor session, it's an automatic throwaway because the face is just unrecognizable after a hundred+ smacks through my club lineup.  

In comparison to my Project (a) and higher priced balls such as the Bridgestone Tour B XS and ProV1, I've got balls that are going on their 3rd rounds with definite scuffing but nothing resembling the wear on the e12's.. The same goes with both the Callaway Super Soft and the Wilson Staff Duo. They just have much better wear stats. 

Hopefully I'm not being too harsh or critical but I feel this is why we're here. I really want to see Bridgstone continue to excel in the ball/equipment arena and stuff like this should only help them improve right? So throw out the lost ball factor.. throw out the performance factor (both appearing somewhat negligible). Quantifying cost per play at: (cost for 12) / (rounds per ball * 12) = Cost per play (welcome to my brain) ..  I'm beginning to find it difficult to stomach paying $30/12 balls to get roughly 12 rounds of play at $2.50 per play per ball when I can pay about the same price for my Project (a)'s which will gladly give me 2-3 rounds each and amount to about $.83 - $1.25 per play/ball. To add to that, a box of Calaway Super Softs run roughly $20/12 which are also good for 2-3 or so rounds and equate to $.56 - $.83 per play. Even crazier is that a box of Tour B XS or ProV 1's at around $45/12 will definitely hold up to the 2-3 round challenge. Again.. $1.25 - $1.88 per play. 

Sorry if I just blew up anybody's brain with this.. but it's definitely an important factor to me as a budget-conscious golfer trying to get the most out of my equipment. The e12's just don't seem to be a budget-friendly option IMO. 

thoughts/comments/opinions are always welcome!  

Spot on.  

[tchat07 201]

So I went all@azstu324 on my most recent test of the e12. I hit 10 full shots with 10 different clubs. All shots were hit off a turf mat and into a net.

5 of 10 clubs ended up having similar paint peel spots.

The ball on the right is the ball used for all 100 shots.
I think I figured out a bit of the issue with the e12 and it goes back to comments before on how bright white they are. It seems whatever the outer layer making them super bright comes off very easy. This I believe makes the durability of the ball come into so much question.
I hate to make this comparison but it brings to mind range balls, where the paint seems to peel away quite easily.

Sent from my SM-G950U using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[azstu324 930]

So I went all[mention=76102]azstu324[/mention] on my most recent test of the e12. I hit 10 full shots with 10 different clubs. All shots were hit off a turf mat and into a net.

5 of 10 clubs ended up having similar paint peel spots.

The ball on the right is the ball used for all 100 shots.
I think I figured out a bit of the issue with the e12 and it goes back to comments before on how bright white they are. It seems whatever the outer layer making them super bright comes off very easy. This I believe makes the durability of the ball come into so much question.
I hate to make this comparison but it brings to mind range balls, where the paint seems to peel away quite easily.

Sent from my SM-G950U using MyGolfSpy mobile app

Ha! Didn't realize that my ramblings and rantings were so inspirational..

I'm almost wondering if the surlyn is something proprietary with a softer compound than others to help improve feel? I'm heading to the monitors again tonight. I didn't think to snap a post practice pic but I will for sure.

Nice work!

the more I practice, the luckier I seem to get..

[ga_pike 254]

13 hours ago, azstu324 said:

Ha! Didn't realize that my ramblings and rantings were so inspirational..

I'm almost wondering if the surlyn is something proprietary with a softer compound than others to help improve feel? I'm heading to the monitors again tonight. I didn't think to snap a post practice pic but I will for sure.

Nice work!

the more I practice, the luckier I seem to get..
 

Maybe that Surfactant stuff??  

 

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/IlEw/bridgestone-golf-e12-translator-featuring-tiger-woods

 

 

[azstu324 930]

BOMP BOMP BOMP  .  another one bites the dust.. 

So in following the lead of @tchat07 I too have some visual data to share after my practice session last night. Actually this is about 2 rounds and 3 practice sessions worth of data collected with 3 very different balls. 

I've got another data collection formula (here we go again.. ). So I've concluded that in a normal round at a par 72 course, the ball is struck moderately to aggressively +/- 54 times. 72 / 18 = 4 strokes average per hole. Now take away 1 stroke for the putt which doesn't really do any damage. 3 X 18(holes) = 54 decent whacks per round ranging from driver through the wedges. What about par 3's you might ask? This formula does have a bit of fudge factor built in as it is an overall average and G'sIR is not really happening on every hole now is it? 

A typical session at PGATSS on the mats of roughly 100 - 120 whacks should equate to nearly 2 rounds of golf. I realize that live play has the introduction of the elements i.e. cart paths, trees, cacti, grizzlies, etc but this is for general comparison purposes only.. not trying to get all crazy now.

My average score is typically mid 80's which is usually due to 2+ putts so I think the formula should still work. I'll also add that when I practice, I try my best to emulate playing actual holes on the course. In fact, I keep a couple of score cards from previous rounds handy and follow the course by yardage and just do the math in my head. PGATSS limits practice bay capabilities so this is the best I can do to randomize my practice. The same applies though at the grass range and seems to work. 

I've used the following in this comparison test: e12 Soft, TM P(a), Tour B XS. 

The e12 was solely used last night for 100 strikes off the mat at PGATSS. Both the TM P(a) and Tour B XS were both used in actual complete rounds and 75 additional strikes each off the mats. 

This is the e12 that was strictly used in last night's session of 100 total strikes of the mat using a simulator. As you can see it didn't hold up too well. Based on the formula, this isn't quite 2 rounds and was in a very controlled environment (no elements). I'm almost seeing some resemblance to what looks like used PVC pipe. All of the printing has also started to wear off. I forgot to take pictures but I noticed on a few of my clubs, actual chunks of white almost like paint that had broken off from the ball.. No bueno senor . 

This is the TM P(a). The scuff mark over the logo is definitely a cart path. Not a miss-hit but I just hit the cart path that cut across the fairway. Resulted in about a 350 yd drive . You can see as with most urethane balls, some of the top layer has worn through showing that yellow under layer. What you see here is mostly superficial and nothing damaging. But most of the dimples are still in great shape. with 1 full round and 1 + simulated rounds, I'd definitely take this one out for another spin. 

The Bridgestone Tour B XS as you can see is nearly unscathed. Even the logo is completely intact. Similar to the TM P(a), this one has one live round and 1+ simulated rounds. I'm actually extremely impressed with the durability and performance of the Tour B XS. Maybe I shouldn't be that impressed.. after all it is Tiger's gamer so what more is to be expected? I'd feel comfortable in saying that this one has a good game or 2 left and might even get retired to my backyard chipping practice bag if it makes it that far without being sacrificed to the golf Gods. 

Finally, here's a side by side of the 3 in this test to see how they all compare to each other. Just a reminder that the e12 Soft endured less than 2 simulated rounds and both the TM P(a) and Tour B XS were put through an excess of 2 rounds with 1 being live and 1+ simulated. 

[00sportsman 2,017]

Interesting...I'm testing the yellow, and I'm just not seeing the wear that you guys are.  Maybe I don't hit it as hard (a distinct probability)  because I'm pretty sure I hit it more often than you guys would on any given round.  I've got one I've played 2 full rounds with that is almost like new.  I'll have to pull it out and grab a couple of pics.

[GregB135 333]

I've got a driver lesson scheduled for tomorrow morning. I'll try to get some comparative numbers in the post lesson practice time. 

I had one very good drive in my league round this past Saturday. My playing partner remarked, 'well you've determined that test ball does go a long way'. 

[tchat07 201]

Interesting...I'm testing the yellow, and I'm just not seeing the wear that you guys are.  Maybe I don't hit it as hard (a distinct probability)  because I'm pretty sure I hit it more often than you guys would on any given round.  I've got one I've played 2 full rounds with that is almost like new.  I'll have to pull it out and grab a couple of pics.

I'd venture to guess that it's the paint coating difference, because arent the colored balls matte. Bridgestone must be using a weaker painting coating to get the glossy white finish ours have.

Sent from my SM-G950U using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[00sportsman 2,017]

55 minutes ago, tchat07 said:

I'd venture to guess that it's the paint coating difference, because arent the colored balls matte. Bridgestone must be using a weaker painting coating to get the glossy white finish ours have.

Sent from my SM-G950U using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

I'd be inclined to think that, too.  It would be interesting to know what the differences are in the production of the different colors.

[ga_pike 254]

9 hours ago, 00sportsman said:

I'd be inclined to think that, too.  It would be interesting to know what the differences are in the production of the different colors.

I wonder if the white balls have a clear coat that add to the shiny finish and the colored balls do not?  The Vice matte yellow balls I play do not seem to have a clear over them.  With this thinking, I also wonder what effect clear coat vs no clear coat might have.  It's most likely minimal and not an issue for us peasants but any difference in production should equate to a difference in performance.  

[Ronoc 220]

Hey group! So I thought I'd stop in as it's been a good minute since my last post. So as the trend and comments continue regarding the durability.. or lack thereof.. I'm concluding that maybe Bridgestone is blazing a new trail for the "disposable" golf ball. I'm finding that I'm not too interested in playing this ball for more than 1 round due to the amount of ball damage showing at the end of the round. The only hope that a ball has to see another round, is if it was pulled at mid or end of the previous round due to a throw away or a shankering to the golf Gods. When used during a launch monitor session, it's an automatic throwaway because the face is just unrecognizable after a hundred+ smacks through my club lineup.  
In comparison to my Project (a) and higher priced balls such as the Bridgestone Tour B XS and ProV1, I've got balls that are going on their 3rd rounds with definite scuffing but nothing resembling the wear on the e12's.. The same goes with both the Callaway Super Soft and the Wilson Staff Duo. They just have much better wear stats. 
Hopefully I'm not being too harsh or critical but I feel this is why we're here. I really want to see Bridgstone continue to excel in the ball/equipment arena and stuff like this should only help them improve right? So throw out the lost ball factor.. throw out the performance factor (both appearing somewhat negligible). Quantifying cost per play at: (cost for 12) / (rounds per ball * 12) = Cost per play (welcome to my brain) ..  I'm beginning to find it difficult to stomach paying $30/12 balls to get roughly 12 rounds of play at $2.50 per play per ball when I can pay about the same price for my Project (a)'s which will gladly give me 2-3 rounds each and amount to about $.83 - $1.25 per play/ball. To add to that, a box of Calaway Super Softs run roughly $20/12 which are also good for 2-3 or so rounds and equate to $.56 - $.83 per play. Even crazier is that a box of Tour B XS or ProV 1's at around $45/12 will definitely hold up to the 2-3 round challenge. Again.. $1.25 - $1.88 per play. 
Sorry if I just blew up anybody's brain with this.. but it's definitely an important factor to me as a budget-conscious golfer trying to get the most out of my equipment. The e12's just don't seem to be a budget-friendly option IMO. 
thoughts/comments/opinions are always welcome!  

Great break down. Puts things in a different light compared to the usual stats most of us look at.
This is why I stopped playing the the e6 Softs over a year ago. The price point was around $30 (if I remember correctly) but I wasn’t impressed with their durability. At the same time I was mainly playing the SuperSofts that were $10 cheaper and lasted longer.

I will add that back the I also played the yellow e6 Softs that were a glossy/somewhat sparkly finish. Got worn out easily.
I’m testing the e12 Softs in Matte Green and like the finish with these a lot more.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[DannyDips 86]

After doing all the testing with the e12. I'm super pumped for MGS ball test coming out today. I think I know where I feel like the e12 fits in the massive test and I'm curious to know if I'm right.

https://twitter.com/MyGolfSpy/status/1122493188680441858

[ga_pike 254]

So, I've run through my allotment of balls and decided to finish up stage 2 of my review.  Check it out at the link below!!

 

[GregB135 333]

I've got a scramble event this Saturday that will give me another chance to compare the e12 Speed's performance versus my other gamer options. I expect I'll be ready to run out my Stage 2 after that.