Ebay Balls

[MAHALLEDAY]

Hey, I am sure this has been asked before but what do you guys think of knetgolf? They ahve sweet deals on balls, I was thinking of buying some from them. I don't care too much if they are quite new. I'd rather play with good balls though ie Strata tours, PRO V1's etc. and I fi can get a bunch cheap from them I dont think i could go wrong?

[Rockford35]

If they are refurbished, no.

If they are factory blems, then yes.

It's been a well discussed topic that refurbished balls are often water balls that are known to react to being submerged, resulting in shorter drives and reduced feel.

If they are factory blems/X-outs, snap them up. So the ink leaked, big deal. They still fly as far as a perfect one.

I get Knetgolf e-mails almost every week. They have great specials, but i've never taken advantage to date.

R35

[Silver]

R35, it's my understanding that new balls are significantly more resistant to the "water ball" problem than the old wound balata balls.

In essence, it's almost a non-issue anymore...or so I've heard. I'd be interested in seeing some stats on that if anyone has any, though.

I might be trying to justify it to myself though as I like to buy cheap balls off of ebay from a local guy.

[MAHALLEDAY]

I'm sure a pro v1 water ball is still better than a new topflight xl

[goatster]

i started using prov 1 x-outs last yr.because i read that the way new balls are made with solid cores the reason they are x-outs is for cosmetic reasons and dont effect the play of the ball.this was an article in golf digest or golf magazine.wich said if you can play a $50 a dozen ball for $25 then it was better then buying a $25 a dozen new unblemished ball.havent realy heard anything on the effects of water on he new balls that are on the market nowadays.

[Rockford35]

Originally Posted by Silver

R35, it's my understanding that new balls are significantly more resistant to the "water ball" problem than the old wound balata balls.

Here's a study done by Golf Digest. Take from it what you want, but it makes sense to me.


Here's how we went about investigating the playability of balls pulled from the water, and keep in mind that the test was not all-inclusive. We used only three-piece, balata-covered balls and two-piece balls with a lithium-Surlyn cover.

Step 1: We took 11 new three-piece balls and 11 new two-piece balls and submerged them in a pond for eight days. We took another 22 new two- and three-piece balls and submerged them for three months. Then we took a third batch of 22 new balls and let them sit in the water for six months. The average water temperatures ranged from 36 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit during this period.

Step 2: We recovered the balls last November and tested them using a robotic hitting machine. The golf club used was a standard-length metal driver (9.5-degree loft) with an extra-stiff shaft. Clubhead speed was 93.7 m.p.h., launch angle was 9 degrees and the average spin rate was 2,800 r.p.m. On the day of the testing, the wind was calm and the fairway was a bit damp.

Step 3: We started testing by hitting 11 new two- and three-piece balls as a benchmark (same brands and models as the water balls). The average carry and roll for the new three-piece balls was 250.7 yards. These numbers are not the maximum carry and roll for two- and three-piece balls, simply the average carry and roll under our test conditions.

The next stage was to hit the balls that had been retrieved from the water. The average carry and roll for three-piece balls that had been in the water for eight days was 235.7 yards. That distance shrunk to 229.4 yards after three months and to 226.2 yards after six months. The differences? A six yard loss of distance after eight days, a 12-yard loss after three months and a 15-yard loss after six months.

For the two-piece ball, the carry and roll after eight days in the water was 244.9 yards compared with 250.7 yards for the new two-piece balls. The average carry and roll for two-piece balls after three months in the drink was 241.6 yards. The two-piece balls that spent six months under water averaged 242.5 yards. The bottom line is that the two-piece ball came up almost six yards shorter after being submerged for eight days. It lost another 3.3 yards (9.1 total) after three months, yet interestingly enough, after six months in the water, the two-piece ball averaged one yard farther than the ball that had been in the water for three months.

"Golf balls basically have a non-porous cover," says Mike Sullivan, senior director of research and development worldwide for Spalding, maker of Top-Flite golf balls, "but like with any plastic or polymer, they are subject to chemicals passing through them. We have looked at this in great detail, because we certainly don't want the balls to be affected one way or the other by humidity or wet fairways.

"For a two-piece ball, being in the water typically makes the ball harder in terms of compression, and it also slows down the coefficient of restitution (the ability of the ball to regain its roundness after impact), and that makes it fly shorter. Three-piece balls are the opposite in that they get softer in terms of compression, but they will also fly shorter. We have no data that says water hurts three-piece balls more than two-piece balls, but soft-cover balls are obviously a bit more permeable than hard-cover balls."

Another opinion comes from Ron Vanasdale, a senior executive vice president for the golf ball division of Sport Supply Group, a publicly held company that claims to operate the largest golf ball recycling business in the nation. "I can honestly say that we have done tests in the tens of thousands utilizing our environments, and I'll tell you this much, your numbers are off. It's all relative to the types of balls, the makes of balls, when the balls were made and the types of composition of the cover stock," says Vanasdale.

We also asked Howard Stone, a professor of chemical engineering and applied mechanics at Harvard University, for his opinion on what effect water could have on golf balls. Given how long they were in the water, there are two things that might have happened," says Stone. "You might have absorbed a little bit of water into the ball so the ball might not only be a bit heavier, but it might have a slightly larger radius, and both of those factors, in general, will tend to affect the aerodynamic performance, making the ball fall faster. Water may also affect the structure of the molecules in the ball and might cause it to swell a little, a common effect in polymers (the scientific name for various materials used to make golf balls, such as Surlyn, balata, elastomer, etc.)."


The missing link in this equation is that when you scoop a ball from the water, you never know how long that ball has been sitting there. So, the next time you see a little white orb shimmering in the shallows of a nearby pond, remember the adage, all that glitters is not gold.



My take is that softer, more expensive balls are more suceptable to water logging. And those harder covered cheap balls are not. So, if the balls are cheap to begin with, why not buy them new?

Just my thoughts.

Hope this helps.

R35

[Bravo]

This Does help.

I had no effing clue about this.

You know it does make horse sense that the ball may absorb just a tiny bit of water - making it heavier.

I learned something here....

BTW - a good friend who is a 2-3 index told me something to this effect about water balls about six months ago. He is a pro-v1x guy and said he would never touch the recycled balls sold on the internet.

[Rockford35]

Originally Posted by Bravo

He is a pro-v1x guy and said he would never touch the recycled balls sold on the internet.

I don't care what he golfs with, I'd never touch "balls" bought off the internet either!

R35

[Silver]

Interesting read, and that reminded me that I have read that before. I don't really think that it's "conclusive", but definitely helpful. I'd really like to know which balls they used, etc, but nonetheless, it's an indication.

Originally Posted by rockford35

So, if the balls are cheap to begin with, why not buy them new?

R35

Two words: starving student.

Box of Noodles - $20'ish
48 Noodles in practically brand new shape and a quick drive out to N. Van - $22

How many are water balls? I dunno...

How many will I notice a difference with? I dunno...

How long will the bloody things last anyhow? Not very if I play like I did today.

[Rockford35]

Gotcha.

If you're losing balls like mad, then grab some cheaps until you get a little more on track.

The worst feeling is grabbing a crisp HX Tour and hammering it 75 yards into the trees.

Actually, the worst feeling is after the shot when I stand on the bench by the tee box and jump ass first onto the ball washer because i just shot 8 bucks into the trees.

Yep, that's the worst.

R35

[Silver]

That's why the sleeve of ProV1Xs that my little bro gave me for Xmas is still sitting in my stash...why waste a perfectly good ball with the way I've been hitting. What a bust.

[Loop]

Originally Posted by Silver

That's why the sleeve of ProV1Xs that my little bro gave me for Xmas is still sitting in my stash...why waste a perfectly good ball with the way I've been hitting. What a bust.

I read somewhere that time also affects the performance of the ball...

[Rockford35]

Originally Posted by Loop

I read somewhere that time also affects the performance of the ball...

I've read this too, althought the article stated that the times we would be talking about are 10-12 years, not a few months.

Basically the article stated, any new Pinnicles (for example) you find out at the cabin from 1993 are probably not going to fly as far as todays balls. (Now, my argument is that technology makes the ball fly farther every year.....so isn't this quite obvious anyways?)

But I wouldn't chance it. Go slash those bad boys into the trees, it'll totally be worth it!

R35

[Golfbum]

I wonder how many guys on here leave their sticks in the trunk of their car during the summer? I am guilty of that, however I do not leave too many spare balls in the trunk. From what I have read it can get mighty hot in the trunk of a car (Mine is not that bad, I have a hatchback so heat escapes from it better than a trunk) Golf Balls are effected by heat, so you really should not leave them sitting in your car's trunk.
Plus, clubs are effected by the heat, the epoxy will actually loosen up and a club head can move. Grips are effected too.
As for pond balls, it all depends on how long they have been under water. Most courses with water have contracts to have balls removed on a regular basis, so those balls are not sitting in the water very long. I bet the average golfer would not notice much difference in feel and length of those balls. A golfer with an index lower than 10 might notice. JMO and I realize no one agrees with this but hey I can live with that!

[Rockford35]

Originally Posted by Golfbum

I am guilty of that, however I do not leave too many spare balls in the trunk.

Speaking of Canada (?), my uncle was in Arizona once and bought some balls as a joke that had been cryo frozen. They were supposed to have increased distance.

I remember at his home course he gave me one which I promptly swung out of my shoes at and sent about 350 yards straight into the creek.

I said "Ya, they work great. They go just far enough that I can't reach them with your ball retriever. Nice pick up!"

R35