My Golf Spy Ball Lab Report-Wilson Staff Model and Staff Model R

[Golfspy_CG2]

It's been a while since the last Ball Lab, but here's one I've been interested in seeing.   What are your thoughts?

https://mygolfspy.com/ball-lab-wilson-staff-model-and-staff-model-r/

 

[Berg Ryman]

Intrigued by the firmness of the models but also really happy to see that as far as comparable static measurements you really are getting the same ball, which could have been a concern with the R model. 

A ball that doesn't really fit my profile for flight as I need a higher launching ball, but for those who need what this ball gives, it looks like solid value for money

[TR1PTIK]

I started to post a question to Tony on the blog, but had internet issues that I just now resolved.

I wonder if it would make sense for the consumer to lump the results of these two balls together given that they are constructed exactly the same and the only point of separation is paint and clearcoat which had absolutely no bearing on the results in Ball Lab. ??? That would result in just 10% out of 72 balls that are bad instead of 6% out of 36 and 14% out of 36.

Thoughts?

BTW, this is mostly a hypothetical as the number of bad balls in any dozen is not an absolute certainty. Even while Ball Lab provides us with significantly more information than we've ever had at our disposal, you would have to repeat the tests multiple times to determine any sort of conclusive results. I don't say that to try and discredit Ball Lab, but to caution those who look at the results and see ball quality as a black & white issue when it's actually quite grey still.

[Kansas King]

7 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

I started to post a question to Tony on the blog, but had internet issues that I just now resolved.

I wonder if it would make sense for the consumer to lump the results of these two balls together given that they are constructed exactly the same and the only point of separation is paint and clearcoat which had absolutely no bearing on the results in Ball Lab. ??? That would result in just 10% out of 72 balls that are bad instead of 6% out of 36 and 14% out of 36.

Thoughts?

BTW, this is mostly a hypothetical as the number of bad balls in any dozen is not an absolute certainty. Even while Ball Lab provides us with significantly more information than we've ever had at our disposal, you would have to repeat the tests multiple times to determine any sort of conclusive results. I don't say that to try and discredit Ball Lab, but to caution those who look at the results and see ball quality as a black & white issue when it's actually quite grey still.

I had the same thoughts as well regarding combining the bad ball rate as they proved to be the same ball. I think most are smart enough to put two and two together but it would have been nice to see. I also agree that ball quality testing is still very grey. I love what MGS is doing and hopefully there are insights to be gained on the aggregate ball data. However, the biggest grey area to me is regarding what is actually a bad ball. Are balls that MGS notes as bad actually going to lead to real world performance losses? I think this is a prime opportunity for future robot testing. Have a robot hit a hundred balls then round them all up, measure them and see if the bad balls actually performed materially worse. That's just my thoughts though. I know robot testing is difficult to get right. 

[Berg Ryman]

17 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

I started to post a question to Tony on the blog, but had internet issues that I just now resolved.

I wonder if it would make sense for the consumer to lump the results of these two balls together given that they are constructed exactly the same and the only point of separation is paint and clearcoat which had absolutely no bearing on the results in Ball Lab. ??? That would result in just 10% out of 72 balls that are bad instead of 6% out of 36 and 14% out of 36.

Thoughts?

BTW, this is mostly a hypothetical as the number of bad balls in any dozen is not an absolute certainty. Even while Ball Lab provides us with significantly more information than we've ever had at our disposal, you would have to repeat the tests multiple times to determine any sort of conclusive results. I don't say that to try and discredit Ball Lab, but to caution those who look at the results and see ball quality as a black & white issue when it's actually quite grey still.

My .02 on this @TR1PTIK is that from a pure numbers standpoint you are right. However, if I recall from the video Adam and Harry did about Staff R and is dropped very early on in the article the performance in the wet is so dramatically different for the Raw ball I wouldn't classify them as the same if only because of that wide performance difference.

[TR1PTIK]

3 minutes ago, Kansas King said:

I had the same thoughts as well regarding combining the bad ball rate as they proved to be the same ball. I think most are smart enough to put two and two together but it would have been nice to see. I also agree that ball quality testing is still very grey. I love what MGS is doing and hopefully there are insights to be gained on the aggregate ball data. However, the biggest grey area to me is regarding what is actually a bad ball. Are balls that MGS notes as bad actually going to lead to real world performance losses? I think this is a prime opportunity for future robot testing. Have a robot hit a hundred balls then round them all up, measure them and see if the bad balls actually performed materially worse. That's just my thoughts though. I know robot testing is difficult to get right. 

The guys at MGS have done their homework and routinely speak with industry experts on the subject of which material defects will/won't affect golf ball performance. As for the robot testing it is absolutely impossible to cut a ball open, identify a defect, and then test with a robot. It is also difficult to intentionally replicate certain defects into a sample of balls for testing. The only way to do it is to hit the balls first, identify outliers, and cut them open for inspection which is exactly what happened in the 2019 Ball Test that led Tony down the path to Ball Lab. Even in this scenario, you may not properly identify all defects.

[TR1PTIK]

1 minute ago, Berg Ryman said:

My .02 on this @TR1PTIK is that from a pure numbers standpoint you are right. However, if I recall from the video Adam and Harry did about Staff R and is dropped very early on in the article the performance in the wet is so dramatically different for the Raw ball I wouldn't classify them as the same if only because of that wide performance difference.

That's just it though. Up until paint and clearcoat are applied to a subset of balls, they are the exact same ball.

It would seem the determination of which balls receive paint and which ones do not is arbitrary since there is no structural difference between the two and any structural defects could wind up in either box of golf balls.

Perhaps Wilson has a specific process for this, but if they share the same construction I sure wouldn't.

[fixyurdivot]

What is the advantage or disadvantage of non painted balls?  While I suspect we'd be working in the 3rd or 4th decimal place to the right as it pertains to any aerodynamic effect, it seems like non painted and clear coat balls would stain and be tough to keep clean.

[TR1PTIK]

28 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

What is the advantage or disadvantage of non painted balls?  While I suspect we'd be working in the 3rd or 4th decimal place to the right as it pertains to any aerodynamic effect, it seems like non painted and clear coat balls would stain and be tough to keep clean.

Based on what Ball Lab says about launch and spin, the advantage is for Wilson to present two options without the investment required to manufacture balls of different construction. It's a truly brilliant move on their part. Like you mentioned though, the balls will look pretty rough after just a few holes and as noted in Tony's analysis, the lack of paint and clearcoat will negatively impact performance in wet conditions.