Thanks for the link Brenton.
There are more variables in that particular test to have it be conclusive, starting with the standout few... I don't have time to elaborate right now, but this should entertain discussion with Robbie Buckley and Jason Doust at bare minimum.
Layouts- Layouts directly impact ANY test regarding the cores influence in ball reaction. They used 1 layout for all balls tested, and based the RG, Differential, Z Axis rotation and spin time and differential 'ratio' If the pin position is changed in the test, these values change, and would obviously influence the end result. They use points on page 66 and 67 to value these variables.
End result. If COF and oil absorption are closely related, why does the line graph imply they are not in the ending results? The values only come together in the final Bar graph, if we look at the line graph above it, the 2 values seem almost entirely contradictory.
Finally, what is this test actually giving? Is it the different levels of effect that different variables on the ball have in ball reaction? Scoring? Hit? Carry? it's hard to see exactly what the goal of this study was actually for. If someone else can pick it up in their and point it out to me, that would be great! I understand the overall test is regarding ball motion, but the yardsticks are strange...
I got into a debate with the technical advisor and ball engineer of a ball company about 3 or so months ago. The company claimed to use a certain core shape to control and improve the MOI value of the core (and end result, ball effectiveness) and I argued that although this value has significance independantly, inside a spherical object, not only did I believe a balls effectiveness with a higher MOI value was hampered, that the MOI value had nothing to do with the internal core shape, but the Radius of Gyration of the ball. Without having a physics degree, and little to no time on the spot to do the mathematical calculation for my observation, I left the conversation with neither side conceding the others viewpoint.
In page 13, USBC defines the balls the measurable Radius of Gyration as (MOI/MOB)2, which gives the exact (and definately more precise) value of my observation. This shows that the core shape itself has no influence in the balls ending MOI value regardless of the variable or static imbalances within the ball.
Aussie:1, Yank:0
Australia.... Fork yeah!
It will be interesting to see the ending result if they do choose to raise a study regarding the relevance of effect of the Static weight/CG arguement, but I hope the test is a little more controlled than this one, and takes into account a few different pin placements to give a better overview of the entire study.
Food for thought at least.....