Abstract:
Golf balls in accordance with the principles of the present invention are economical to produce with the known equipment, and provide spin control, durability, and feel while conforming to regulations. The core  10  provides spin control and a solid resilient structure for a mantle  11  to be molded. The mantle  11  provides high resilience. The cover is comprised of an inner cover  13  and an outer cover  14  to provide adequate resilience and performance while still being able to accept dimples.

Description:
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS  
       [0001]    This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/226,032, entitled “Multilayered Balanced Golf Ball” filed on Aug. 22, 2002 by Simonutti and Bradley and incorporated herein by reference. 
     
    
     
       FIELD OF THE INVENTION  
         [0002]    The present invention relates to the field of golf balls.  
         BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION  
         [0003]    The golf club/ball impact can best be described as a violent collision. The typical professional can swing a 200 to 300 gram (7.06 to 10.6 ounce) driver and attain club speeds at the moment of impact of 105 mph (169 km/h) to 115 mph (185 km/h) striking a 46 gram (1.62 ounces) golf ball resting on a tee. One side of the golf ball is smashed against the face of the club which can result in the balls of the prior art compressing nearly 20% before the golf ball leaves the tee. The golf ball then accelerates from rest to speeds of approximately 155 mph (249 km/h) to 170 mph (274 km/h) and spin rates of 2000 to 4000 rpm&#39;s in less than half a millisecond, experiencing 50,000 times the force of gravity.  
           [0004]    For a great number of years, golf balls were molded using wound cores, which comprised a soft rubber center surrounded by a layer of thread rubber windings. In the late 1960s to early 1970s, balls with ionomer covers (produced by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, 1007 Market ST Wilmington, Del. 19898 (“DuPont”) under the trade name Surlyn®) were introduced. Balls molded with Surlyn® covers were produced with both thread wound cores and solid rubber cores. The balls molded using initial grades of Surlyn® and solid cores (hereafter referred to as “two-piece balls”) were significantly less expensive to produce; however, the initial two-piece golf balls were hard, having an unpleasant feel to the golfer.  
           [0005]    Recently, the introduction of the multi-piece solid ball has been a success with products such as the Titleist® Pro V1 (produced by Fortune Brands, Inc. 300 Tower Parkway, Lincolnshire, Ill. 60069), and the Precept® Tour Premium (produced by Bridgestone Sports Co., LTD., Omori Bellport E Bldg. 6-22-7, Minami-oi Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo 140-0013 Japan). These golf balls, while being solid and not wound, have polyurethane covers that lend themselves to the shot making qualities that are possessed by the balls preferred by the better golfers. The golf balls are also less expensive to produce.  
           [0006]    Existing golf balls, however, have some drawbacks. Prior art golf balls are generally manufactured with a core made primarily from polybutadiene rubber, which is covered with a fairly hard, thin, ionomer inner cover, which is subsequently covered by a polyurethane or balata/polybutadiene outer cover. While providing adequate playing characteristics at a less expensive production cost, these solid balls typically exhibit lower velocities at driver impact than wound balls using like cover materials. Prior art golf balls have used in their cores, mantles, and cover layers, either thermoset materials or thermoplastic materials. The prior art thermoplastic material allows for greater ease in manufacturing, but reduces resilience. Conversely, thermoset material is difficult to work with, but provides the needed resilience.  
           [0007]    In addition, all of the various materials used in the construction of golf balls, from wound core constructions to multi-layer solid core constructions, have varying densities. Accordingly, the mass per unit volume of these materials varies. For example, typically the materials used to produce the cover layer possess a low mass per unit volume than the materials used to produce the core. If a golf ball is manufactured perfectly, that is if the core or center of a ball is perfectly spherical, and if the cover layer thickness and intermediate layer thickness (if applicable) are constant throughout the entire ball, the ball will be “balanced”, and should fly true when struck with a golf club, or should roll true when putted.  
           [0008]    However, in manufacturing of a golf ball, it is very difficult to ensure that the core of the golf ball is exactly and perfectly spherical and centered within the ball. Moreover, it is also very difficult to ensure that the thickness of the cover layer, and the thickness of the intermediate layer(s) of multi-piece balls, are uniform and consistent about the periphery of the core. Further, it is difficult to ensure that the materials comprising the cover layer and the intermediate layer (if applicable) are properly and sufficiently mixed or homogenized such that the composition and density of the cover layer or intermediate layer is consistent throughout the ball.  
           [0009]    Thus, there is a need for a golf ball that is economical to produce with known manufacturing equipment and provides spin control, durability, and feel while conforming to regulations. More particularly, there is a need for four-piece golf ball that performs well and is made of highly workable material.  
         SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
         [0010]    A golf ball in accordance with the principles of the present invention is economical to produce with known manufacturing equipment and provides spin control, durability, and feel while conforming to regulations. One aspect of the present invention relates to a four-piece golf ball that performs well and is made of highly workable material. In accordance with the present invention, the golf ball has a core, a mantle, an inner cover layer, and an outer cover layer. The core provides spin control and a solid resilient structure to which the mantle can be molded. The mantle provides high resilience. The cover is comprised of two layers to provide adequate resilience and performance while still being able to accept dimples. 
       
    
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
       [0011]    The FIGURE illustrates a cross-section of a golf ball in accordance with the principles of the present invention. 
     
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION  
       [0012]    One aspect of the present invention relates to a four-piece golf ball that performs well and is made of highly workable material. Referring to the FIGURE, a golf ball in accordance with the principles of the present invention comprises a four-piece solid golf ball  10 , wherein the four layers consist of (1) a center layer or core  12  comprising a first composition, (2) a middle layer or mantle  14  comprising a second composition, (3) an inner cover layer  16  comprising a third composition, and (4) a outer cover layer  18  on which the dimples are molded comprising a fourth composition. In accordance with the principles of the present invention, the core  12  provides some control of spin as well as a solid resilient structure to which the second layer is molded; the mantle  14  provides high resilience for the ball and increases spin; the inner cover  16  provides a suitable material for durability, control, and spin; and the outer cover  18  provides a suitable material for durability, control, spin, and dimple molding.  
         [0013]    In an embodiment of the present invention, the core  12  is a solid comprised of a diene rubber, has a diameter of between about 1.00 (25.4 mm) and about 1.40 inches (35.6 mm), and has a deflection under a 200 lb. (90.7 kg) static load of between about 0.100 inches (2.5 mm) and about 0.180 inches (4.6 mm). In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the core has a diameter of 1.20 inches (30.5 mm) to 1.38 inches (35.1 mm) and comprises a high cis-1,4 content (94% or greater) polybutadiene, 20 to 28 parts by weight of a co-crosslinking agent comprised primarily of a zinc salt of an unsaturated acrylate; 3 to 5 parts by weight of a metal oxide activator, preferably zinc oxide; and 0.8 to 1.5 parts per hundred resin of a free radical initiator.  
         [0014]    The mantle material requires a trade-off to achieve the desired results: the more material used, the more resilient the ball; however, this results in an increased spin rate for driver shots. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the mantle  14  is a thermoplastic material having a thickness of between about 0.050 inches (1.27 mm) and about 0.27 inches (6.9 mm); a Shore D hardness of 62 or below; and comprises about 7% to 12% by weight of a carboxylic acid, preferably acrylic acid, about 12% to 20% by weight of an acrylate salt, preferably n-butyl acrylate, and about 71% to 80% by weight of ethylene. The carboxylic acid in the mantle is 100% neutralized with metal ions, preferably magnesium ions. If the material used in the mantle is not 100% neutralized, the resultant resilience properties such as coefficient of restitution (C.O.R.) and initial velocity will not be sufficient to produce the performance required for a premium golf ball. The C.O.R is a measurement of the amount of energy returned in an inelastic collision, such as the impact between the golf ball and the club face. It is expressed as a ratio of energy present in the system before the impact to energy present in the system just after impact. This relates to the energy present in the ball and clubhead velocity just after the ball/club impact.  
         [0015]    In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the inner cover layer  16  comprises a blend of ionomers having a Shore D hardness of 65 or more and a thickness of about 0.020 inches (0.51 mm) to about 0.050 inches (1.27 mm).  
         [0016]    In a preferred embodiment, the outer cover layer  18  comprises thermoplastic polyurethane or thermoset material having a Shore D hardness of greater than 53 and a thickness of greater than 0.040 inches (1.02 mm).  
         [0017]    In a preferred embodiment a ball made in accordance with the principles of the present invention has a core with a deflection of between about 0.100 inches (2.5 mm) and 0.180 inches (4.6 mm) under an applied load of 200 lb (90.7 kg). The mantle  14  has a thickness of about 0.065 inches (1.65 mm) to 0.140 inches (3.6 mm), and a Shore D hardness of 55 to 62, and comprises a terpolymer consisting of approximately 70% to 80% ethylene; approximately 8% to 10.5% acrylic acid; and approximately 12% to 20% n-butyl acrylate, where 100% of the carboxylic acid groups are neutralized with magnesium ions. The inner cover layer  16  comprises a blend of ionomers with a Shore D hardness of between 68 and 73, and a thickness of 0.025 inches (0.635 mm) to 0.045 inches (1.14 mm). The outer cover layer  18  comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane or a thermoset material having a Shore D hardness of between 56 and 62, and a thickness of approximately 0.040 inches (1.02 mm) to 0.055 inches (1.40 mm).  
         [0018]    In one embodiment, the ball may be balanced. A balanced ball does not depart from its intended flight or roll path due to an off-center core or outer layers of inconsistent thickness. In accordance with the principles of the present invention the ball would have a core, mantle, inner and outer cover layer that are of uniform density without any uneven areas of distribution. This can be accomplished by blending essentially non-reactive materials with the particular components of the golf ball. Thus, a truly balanced ball in accordance with the principles of the present invention has a uniform density. Materials suitable for use in adjusting the density of the component parts can be chosen from the group consisting of inorganic materials, organic materials, and combinations thereof. Preferred inorganic fillers comprise zinc oxide, barium sulfate, titanium dioxide, or a combination thereof.  
         [0019]    An unbalanced ball will generally have a light spot and a heavy spot. When an unbalanced ball is repeatedly spun in a salt water solution of the float test described below, the ball will tend to consistently orient itself in the solution with its light spot up and its heavy spot down. The “float” test is performed by filling a container with warm water. A salt, such as sodium chloride, is then added to the solution in sufficient amount to enable one or more golf balls to float in the solution. Preferably, a few drops of detergent are added to the container. The ball is spun and when the ball stops spinning in water, then the top is marked. The spinning is repeated to determine if the same portion will again be at the top when the ball stops. A balanced ball would exhibit no orientational preference when placed in a salt bath of equivalent density. In a preferred embodiment, the cover layer is adjusted to a target specific gravity of about 1.125 using inert fillers. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the core, mantle, inner cover layer and outer cover layer all have a specific gravity of between about 1.118 and about 1.132, with the golf ball preferably having a specific gravity of about 1.125.  
       EXAMPLE OF THE INVENTION  
       [0020]    The following are non-limiting illustrative examples of golf balls in accordance with the principles of the present invention, wherein certain teachings in each example can be combined and mixed in other embodiments thereby more fully illustrating the scope of the inventions. The four-piece construction in accordance with the principles of the present invention results in greater distance and performance than the prior art three-piece golf balls as exhibited by the following non-limiting examples.  
         [0021]    A golf ball in accordance with the principles of the present invention was made having a core as set forth below in the master batch formulas:  
                                           TABLE 1                           Master Batch Formula                Material   Phr                            Polybutadiene Rubber   97.56           Millable Polyurethane   2.44           Zinc Diacrylate   90.28           Zinc Oxide   4.88           Titanium Dioxide   18.3           Colorant   .16                      
 
         [0022]    The material used for molding the mantle was a terpolymer of ˜76% ethylene, ˜8.5% acrylic acid, and ˜15.5% by weight n-butyl acrylate, wherein 100% of the acrylic acid groups was neutralized with magnesium ions. This material is available from DuPont, under product number AD 1016. The terpolymer was compounded with barium sulfate and titanium dioxide to a specific gravity of 1.125.  
         [0023]    The inner cover layer of the example balls was molded using ionomers produced and provided by DuPont under the product name Surlyn™, in the following blend: Surlyn™ 6120-40 phr and Surlyn™ 8140-60 phr. The blend was compounded with barium sulfate and titanium dioxide to a specific gravity of 1.125. The outer cover layer, for the balls of examples 1 and 2, was molded using the thermoset material formula outlined below using the second pass batch, with 432 dimples in an icosadodecahedron pattern consistent through all examples, as well as in the control ball:  
                                           TABLE 2                           Second Pass Formula                Material   Phr                            Trans-polyisoprene   59.00           Peroxide   2.00           Master Batch Compound   87.57                      
 
         [0024]    The compound was mixed in two parts. First a master batch was mixed as described in Table 1, followed by a second pass procedure to mix the peroxide and balata into the compound as described in Table 2. Mixing was performed using techniques well known to those in the golf ball industry.  
         [0025]    All example balls were buffed, finished and painted using methods known in the art. Balls were tested for performance properties compared to a premium performance golf ball, specifically the Staff® True Tour™, produced by Wilson Sporting Goods Company, 8700 West Bryn Mawr Avenue, Chicago, Ill. 60631.  
       Example 1  
       [0026]    Balls of Example 1 were molded using layers as described above. Specifically, the layers were as follows:  
         [0027]    Core—1.25 inches diameter, 0.150 deflection under an applied load of 200 lb.  
         [0028]    Mantle—0.135 inches thickness.  
         [0029]    Inner cover layer—0.0325 inches thickness, Shore D hardness 72.  
         [0030]    Outer cover layer—0.0475 inches thickness, Shore D hardness 60.  
                                                                   TABLE 3                           Example 1 Physical Properties                Ball   Size   Defl.   Weight   Shore D                            Example 1   1.681   .085   45.52   61           Wilson Staff ®   1.679   .087   45.42   62           True Tour ™                       
 
         [0031]    Shore D Hardness was measured using a Shore D durometer (manufactured by Instron Corporation, 100 Royall Street, Canton, Mass., 02021) with the hardness reading taken at the surface of the ball. Deflection was measured under a 200 lb. applied load, using Wilson Dead Weight Deflection testing machine. The deflection of a test subject golf ball is taken by placing the ball between two round plates, which are supported from below by round shafts. A force is then applied forcing the bottom plate to compress the ball into the upper plate, using a lever mechanism. The force applied is a nominal 200 lbs. The deflection is determined by taking the measured distance between the inside of the two plates at contact and the measured distance between the inside of the two plates at some time after the force is applied. The deflection is calculated as the simple difference between the two measurements.  
         [0032]    The flight performance properties of the Example 1 ball were tested:  
                                         TABLE 4                           Example 1 Flight Performance Properties                Ball Speed   Spin Rate       Carry   Total       Ball   (fps)   (RPM)   Apogee   Dist. (yds)   Dist. (yds)               Example 1   233.1   2840   9.6   252.8   273.4       Wilson Staff ®   231.8   3370   9.7   251.9   267.1       True       Tour ™                  
 
         [0033]    Driver test results are an average of 3 tests at the following conditions: (1) club head velocity of 160 ft/s and (2) launch angle of 9.5°.  
       Example 2  
       [0034]    Balls of Example 2 were molded using layers as described above. Specifically the layers were as follows:  
         [0035]    Core—1.375 inches diameter, 0.135 deflection under an applied load of 200 lb.  
         [0036]    Mantle—0.0725 inches thickness.  
         [0037]    Inner cover layer—0.0325 inches thickness, Shore D hardness 72.  
         [0038]    Outer cover layer—0.0475 inches thickness, Shore D hardness 60.  
                                                                   TABLE 5                           Example 2 Physical Properties                Ball   Size   Defl.   Weight   Shore D                            Example 2   1.678   .080   45.02   61           Wilson Staff ®   1.680   .090   45.46   61           True Tour ™                       
 
         [0039]    Shore D Hardness was measured using a Shore D durometer with the hardness reading taken at surface of ball. Deflection was measured under 200 lb. applied load, using Wilson Dead Weight Deflection testing machine.  
         [0040]    The flight performance properties of the Example 2 ball were tested:  
                                         TABLE 6                           Example 2 Flight Performance Properties                            Carry   Total           Ball Speed   Spin Rate       Dist.   Dist.       Ball   (fps)   (RPM)   Apogee   (yds)   (yds)               Example 2   233.6   3000   9.6   252.0   277.1       Wilson   231.2   3420   9.8   252.8   272.3       Staff ®       True       Tour ™                  
 
         [0041]    Driver test results are an average of 3 tests at the following conditions: (1) club head velocity of 160 ft/s and (2) launch angle of 9.5°.  
       Example 3  
       [0042]    Balls of Example 3 were molded using layers as described above. Specifically the layers were as follows:  
         [0043]    Core—1.130 inches diameter, 0.135 deflection under an applied load of 200 lb.  
         [0044]    Mantle—0.0725 inches thickness.  
         [0045]    Inner cover layer—0.0325 inches thickness, Shore D hardness 72.  
         [0046]    Outer cover layer—0.0475 inches thickness, Shore D hardness 60.  
                                                           TABLE 5                           Example 3 Physical Properties            Ball   Size (in)   Defl. (in)   Weight (g)   Shore D                    Example 3   1.684   0.083   45.93   59       Wilson Staff ®   1.680   0.081   45.43   59       True Tour ™                   
 
         [0047]    Shore D Hardness was measured using a Shore D durometer with the hardness reading taken at surface of ball. Deflection was measured under 200 lb. applied load, using Wilson Dead Weight Deflection testing machine.  
         [0048]    The flight performance properties of the Example 3 ball were tested:  
                                         TABLE 6                           Example 3 Flight Performance Properties                Ball Speed   Spin Rate       Carry   Total       Ball   (fps)   (RPM)   Apogee   Dist. (yds)   Dist. (yds)               Example 3   243.5   3138   10.5   270.2   275.6       Wilson   241.4   3227   10.1   258.4   265.1       Staff ®       True       Tour ™                  
 
         [0049]    Driver test results are an average of 3 tests at the following conditions: (1) club head velocity of 167 ft/s and (2) launch angle of 9.5°.  
       Test Results  
       [0050]    A test of various golf balls was performed, with the course fairway spotty with a variable 6-12 mph right to left crosswind and the temperature was 62° F. The golf balls in accordance with the principles of the present invention are designated “Example 3” in the test results, below:  
                                                                                                     TABLE 7                           Club   Ball   Ball   Launch   Apogee   Carry   Carry   Roll   Total               Velocity   Velocity   Spin   Angle   Angle   Distance   Direction   Distance   Distance   SAA       N = 12   (fps)   (fps)   (rpm)   (deg)   (deg)   (yds)   (yds)   (yds)   (yds)   (sq. yds)                                Staff ® True Tour ™                                               Average   161.5   231.4   3453   9.0   9.8   238.2   −4.0   6.3   244.5   199       Trim 50%   161.4   231.5   3514   9.0   9.8   237.5   −4.3   5.5   243.7       StDev   0.3   1.0   260   0.1   0.2   3.9   4.1   3.4   5.9       Max   161.9   233.1   3711   9.2   10.1   246.0   3.0   13.0   259.0       Min   161.2   229.6   2894   8.6   9.2   234.0   −9.0   3.0   238.0       Example 3       Average   161.3   234.2   2915   9.3   9.9   249.9   −3.2   6.3   256.2   365       Trim 50%   161.3   234.1   2850   9.3   9.9   249.7   −3.3   5.5   256.0       StDev   0.4   0.9   331   0.1   0.1   5.0   5.8   3.0   6.0       Max   161.9   235.9   3590   9.6   10.1   259.0   9.0   12.0   269.0       Min   160.9   232.8   2531   9.1   9.8   241.0   −14.0   3.0   245.0       Titleist Pro V1       Average   161.3   229.8   3240   9.2   10.1   245.1   −4.7   5.4   250.5   136       Trim 50%   161.3   229.8   3202   9.1   10.1   244.5   −4.3   5.0   249.5       StDev   0.2   0.9   196   0.2   0.1   3.9   2.8   3.5   5.3       Max   161.6   231.3   3763   9.6   10.3   255.0   0.0   11.0   266.0       Min   160.9   228.3   3053   9.0   9.9   241.0   −10.0   1.0   246.0       Titleist Pro V1*       Average   161.3   230.0   3088   9.2   9.8   239.8   −2.7   11.7   251.4   113       Trim 50%   161.2   230.0   3084   9.2   9.9   240.0   −2.8   11.3   251.3       StDev   0.3   0.7   274   0.1   0.1   2.5   3.7   5.8   5.6       Max   161.9   231.0   3484   9.4   10.0   245.0   5.0   19.0   260.0       Min   160.9   228.8   2427   8.9   9.6   235.0   −7.0   4.0   244.0       Maxfli M3       Average   161.4   230.8   3298   9.1   9.9   242.6   −4.0   7.0   249.6   148       Trim 50%   161.3   230.8   3283   9.0   9.9   241.7   −4.0   7.2   249.2       StDev   0.3   1.0   228   0.2   0.2   2.6   4.5   2.6   3.9       Max   161.9   232.1   3769   9.3   10.2   248.0   4.0   11.0   258.0       Min   161.2   229.0   3018   8.8   9.8   239.0   −11.0   2.0   244.0       Maxfli A10       Average   161.2   231.0   3366   8.9   10.1   243.8   −5.3   4.6   248.3   173       Trim 50%   161.2   231.0   3389   8.9   10.0   243.3   −5.7   3.5   248.5       StDev   0.2   0.7   190   0.2   0.2   3.3   4.2   3.3   4.2       Max   161.6   232.2   3620   9.3   10.7   250.0   1.0   11.0   254.0       Min   160.9   229.9   3013   8.7   9.9   240.0   −10.0   1.0   242.0       Precept U Tri Extra       Spin       Average   161.2   233.8   3030   9.3   10.3   250.2   −7.0   2.7   252.8   128       Trim 50%   161.2   233.9   3041   9.3   10.2   249.8   −6.8   2.8   252.2       StDev   0.2   1.0   234   0.2   0.3   3.5   2.9   2.0   4.4       Max   161.6   235.0   3325   9.6   10.8   256.0   −2.0   5.0   260.0       Min   160.9   232.1   2694   9.0   10.0   246.0   −11.0   0.0   247.0       Precept U Tri Extra       Distance       Average   161.4   230.3   2891   9.4   10.0   246.3   −3.3   8.0   254.3   143       Trim 50%   161.3   230.3   2908   9.3   10.0   246.2   −2.7   7.3   253.3       StDev   0.4   1.0   159   0.1   0.2   2.9   3.9   5.4   7.5       Max   162.3   232.4   3149   9.6   10.3   250.0   1.0   16.0   266.0       Min   160.9   228.2   2660   9.1   9.8   241.0   −12.0   1.0   242.0       Callaway HX Blue       Average   161.4   230.0   3066   9.1   10.2   244.8   −2.6   4.5   249.3   172       Trim 50%   161.3   230.0   3079   9.1   10.2   245.3   −2.7   3.2   248.8       StDev   0.3   1.1   158   0.2   0.2   2.7   5.0   3.8   4.0       Max   161.9   231.6   3325   9.8   10.8   248.0   5.0   13.0   258.0       Min   161.2   227.6   2768   8.8   10.0   240.0   −9.0   1.0   244.0       Callaway HX Red       Average   161.3   232.2   3012   9.3   10.2   248.0   −3.4   3.3   251.3   195       Trim 50%   161.3   232.2   3040   9.2   10.2   247.3   −3.5   3.0   250.7       StDev   0.3   0.9   149   0.2   0.2   2.8   5.6   2.8   4.5       Max   161.9   233.7   3244   9.8   10.7   253.0   7.0   8.0   259.0       Min   160.9   229.8   2768   8.8   10.0   244.0   −15.0   0.0   245.0       Hogan Apex Tour       Average   161.3   229.4   2959   9.2   9.9   240.7   −3.2   6.7   247.3   118       Trim 50%   161.4   229.5   2974   9.2   9.9   241.2   −3.3   6.3   247.8       StDev   0.3   0.7   178   0.2   0.2   2.1   4.4   3.7   4.6       Max   161.6   230.4   3164   9.5   10.2   244.0   4.0   15.0   256.0       Min   160.9   227.9   2527   8.9   9.4   236.0   −10.0   2.0   241.0                  
 
         [0051]    As seen by comparing the ball of Example 3 and the Titleist Pro V1, the ball of Example 3 outperformed the other balls For example the ball of Example 3 had a higher initial velocity and a lower spin rate than the Titleist Pro V1. Additionally, Example 3 carried nearly 10 yards farther and had a longer total distance than the Titleist Pro V1.  
         [0052]    A second test of various golf balls was performed, with the course fairway spotty with a variable headwind 2-10 mph with 15 mph gusts and the temperature was 59° F.:  
                                                                                                     TABLE 8                           Club   Ball   Ball   Launch   Apogee   Carry   Carry   Roll   Total               Velocity   Velocity   Spin   Angle   Angle   Distance   Direction   Distance   Distance   SAA       N = 12   (fps)   (fps)   (rpm)   (deg)   (deg)   (yds)   (yds)   (yds)   (yds)   (sq. yds)                                Staff ® True                                               Tour Control ™       Average   160.4   230.3   3301   8.8   10.0   232.1   4.6   6.5   238.7   179       Trim 50%   160.4   230.5   3258   8.8   10.0   231.2   4.5   6.3   238.1       StDev   0.4   1.0   226   0.2   0.2   3.6   4.0   1.7   3.7       Max   160.9   231.9   3823   9.3   10.2   240.0   11.0   9.0   246.0       Min   159.8   228.6   2986   8.4   9.5   228.0   −1.0   4.0   234.0       Example 3       Average   160.5   232.9   3054   9.2   10.2   240.8   1.9   4.3   245.2   268       Trim 50%   160.5   232.8   3097   9.2   10.2   240.8   1.7   4.3   245.0       StDev   0.4   1.0   263   0.2   0.1   3.1   6.8   1.2   3.9       Max   161.2   234.5   3440   9.5   10.4   245.0   12.0   7.0   252.0       Min   159.8   231.5   2628   8.8   9.9   236.0   −9.0   2.0   240.0       Titleist Pro       V1       Average   160.4   228.8   3256   9.0   10.3   235.8   2.9   4.1   239.9   59       Trim 50%   160.4   228.8   3299   9.0   10.2   235.7   3.2   4.2   239.5       StDev   0.4   0.5   172   0.2   0.2   2.4   1.9   2.2   3.1       Max   160.9   229.6   3452   9.2   10.7   240.0   5.0   8.0   246.0       Min   159.8   227.9   2962   8.7   10.1   231.0   −1.0   1.0   235.0       Titleist Pro       V1*       Average   160.5   229.1   3212   9.2   10.0   232.9   2.8   7.8   241.0   188       Trim 50%   160.6   229.1   3216   9.1   10.1   232.2   3.3   8.3   241.6       StDev   0.3   0.5   170   0.2   0.1   3.8   3.9   2.5   4.3       Max   160.9   230.1   3431   9.5   10.2   241.0   7.0   10.0   246.0       Min   159.8   228.5   2991   8.9   9.9   227.0   −5.0   3.0   230.0       Maxfli M3       Average   160.5   230.2   3296   8.9   10.1   235.2   3.2   5.9   241.1   227       Trim 50%   160.5   230.3   3297   8.9   10.1   235.0   2.7   5.8   240.7       StDev   0.3   0.7   206   0.2   0.1   3.6   5.0   1.9   4.8       Max   160.9   231.1   3573   9.1   10.4   243.0   11.0   9.0   250.0       Min   160.1   229.0   2996   8.5   10.0   230.0   −3.0   3.0   233.0       Maxfli A10       Average   160.5   230.3   3470   8.7   10.3   234.6   1.2   3.7   238.3   110       Trim 50%   160.6   230.4   3495   8.7   10.2   234.5   1.0   3.2   238.3       StDev   0.4   1.2   144   0.2   0.3   1.7   5.2   2.1   1.6       Max   160.9   232.1   3680   9.0   10.9   237.0   11.0   9.0   241.0       Min   159.8   228.2   3228   8.2   10.0   232.0   −8.0   2.0   235.0       Precept U Tri       Extra Spin       Average   160.5   232.9   3139   9.2   10.5   239.7   5.8   2.9   242.6   198       Trim 50%   160.4   232.9   3185   9.2   10.5   240.5   6.3   3.0   243.8       StDev   0.4   0.7   210   0.2   0.3   3.3   4.7   2.0   4.5       Max   161.2   234.1   3390   9.4   11.1   243.0   12.0   6.0   247.0       Min   160.1   231.5   2808   8.8   10.1   233.0   −4.0   0.0   233.0       Precept U Tri       Extra Distance       Average   160.5   229.6   2856   9.2   10.1   237.1   5.4   3.8   240.9   210       Trim 50%   160.5   229.4   2889   9.2   10.1   237.3   4.7   3.7   240.5       StDev   0.3   0.9   183   0.1   0.0   3.2   5.2   1.6   3.7       Max   161.2   231.6   3159   9.5   10.2   242.0   14.0   7.0   249.0       Min   160.1   228.5   2545   9.0   10.1   230.0   −2.0   1.0   235.0       Callaway HX Blue       Average   160.5   229.0   3264   9.1   10.5   236.1   4.7   3.4   239.5   268       Trim 50%   160.5   229.0   3245   9.1   10.5   236.0   4.5   3.0   238.8       StDev   0.4   1.3   189   0.2   0.2   4.9   4.3   2.8   6.8       Max   161.2   230.7   3550   9.3   10.8   245.0   12.0   11.0   256.0       Min   160.1   225.4   2990   8.8   10.2   229.0   −3.0   0.0   232.0       Callaway HX Red       Average   160.5   230.9   3217   9.2   10.7   238.8   3.9   2.9   241.7   361       Trim 50%   160.6   230.7   3250   9.2   10.7   239.0   3.5   2.7   241.8       StDev   0.4   0.9   231   0.2   0.3   4.7   6.1   1.8   5.9       Max   160.9   232.5   3560   9.5   11.0   249.0   20.0   7.0   252.0       Min   159.8   229.9   2798   8.9   10.2   230.0   −6.0   1.0   231.0       Hogan Apex Tour       Average   160.7   228.4   3070   9.1   10.1   234.2   0.2   6.9   241.1   329       Trim 50%   160.7   228.5   3101   9.1   10.1   234.7   0.7   6.2   241.2       StDev   0.4   1.2   240   0.2   0.1   4.2   6.3   4.2   7.4       Max   161.2   230.3   3458   9.5   10.2   240.0   10.0   15.0   255.0       Min   159.8   226.3   2685   8.8   9.9   226.0   −9.0   2.0   229.0                  
 
         [0053]    As seen by comparing the ball of Example 3 and the Titleist Pro V1, the ball of Example 3 outperformed the other balls For example the ball of Example 3 had a higher initial velocity and a lower spin rate than the Titleist Pro V1. Additionally, Example 3 carried nearly 5 yards farther and had a longer total distance than the Titleist Pro V1.  
         [0054]    A third test of various golf balls was performed, with the course fairway spotty with a variable 3-10 mph right to left crosswind with a tail and the temperature was 52° F.:  
                                                                                             TABLE 9                           Club   Ball   Ball   Launch   Apogee   Carry   Carry   Roll   Total           Velocity   Velocity   Spin   Angle   Angle   Distance   Direction   Distance   Distance       Golf ball   (fps)   (fps)   (rpm)   (deg)   (deg)   (yds)   (yds)   (yds)   (yds)                                Staff ® True Tour                                           Control ™       Average   161.0   231.1   3371.6   9.0   9.9   235.6   1.3   7.3   242.9       Trim 50%   160.9   231.2   3382.2   9.0   9.9   235.0   0.8   6.9   242.2       Example 3       Average   161.0   233.8   2942.3   9.3   10.0   246.1   −0.1   5.8   251.9       Trim 50%   161.0   233.8   2936.7   9.3   10.0   246.1   −0.1   5.3   251.5       Titleist Pro V1       Average   160.9   229.5   3263.7   9.1   10.1   241.1   −0.3   4.7   245.9       Trim 50%   160.9   229.5   3260.4   9.1   10.1   240.8   −0.3   4.6   245.4       Titleist Pro V1*       Average   160.9   229.8   3156.3   9.2   9.9   237.2   0.2   8.9   246.3       Trim 50%   161.0   229.8   3154.6   9.2   9.9   237.2   0.4   9.0   246.6       Maxfli M3       Average   161.0   230.8   3323.8   9.0   10.0   240.1   0.6   6.5   246.6       Trim 50%   161.0   230.9   3322.6   9.0   10.0   239.5   0.3   6.4   246.6       Maxfli A10       Average   161.0   230.8   3449.4   8.8   10.2   239.6   −0.7   4.5   244.0       Trim 50%   161.0   230.9   3464.8   8.8   10.1   239.4   −0.7   3.7   244.0       Precept U-Tri       Extra Spin       Average   161.0   233.5   3124.0   9.2   10.4   245.7   0.1   3.4   249.1       Trim 50%   160.9   233.5   3158.8   9.2   10.3   246.1   0.5   3.4   249.4       Precept U-Tri       Extra Distance       Average   161.0   230.1   2929.2   9.3   10.0   242.4   1.9   5.7   248.1       Trim 50%   160.9   230.0   2966.3   9.3   10.0   242.3   1.7   5.4   247.4       Callaway HX Blue       Average   161.0   229.7   3214.2   9.0   10.3   240.8   1.0   3.8   244.6       Trim 50%   161.0   229.7   3214.8   9.1   10.3   240.9   0.8   3.3   244.0       Callaway HX Red       Average   161.0   231.7   3118.7   9.2   10.5   243.4   1.8   3.3   246.6       Trim 50%   161.0   231.7   3127.5   9.2   10.4   243.3   1.3   3.1   246.4       Hogan Apex Tour       Average   161.0   229.1   3030.7   9.2   10.0   237.7   0.6   7.3   244.9       Trim 50%   161.1   229.2   3061.6   9.2   10.0   238.3   1.1   6.9   245.0                  
 
         [0055]    As seen by comparing the ball of Example 3 and the Titleist Pro V 1, the ball of Example 3 outperformed the other balls For example the ball of Example 3 had a higher initial velocity and a lower spin rate than the Titleist Pro V1. Additionally, Example 3 carried and rolled farther and had a longer total distance than the Titleist Pro V1.  
         [0056]    The three test results were averaged:  
                                                                                                   TABLE 10                           Example Averages                Club   Ball   Ball   Launch   Apogee   Carry   Carry   Roll   Total           Velocity   Velocity   Spin   Angle   Angle   Distance   Direction   Distance   Distance       Golf Ball   (fps)   (fps)   (rpm)   (deg)   (deg)   (yds)   (yds)   (yds)   (yds)                    Staff ® Trade Tour   161.0   231.1   3372   9.0   9.9   235.6   1.3   7.3   242.9       Control ™       Example 3   161.0   233.8   2942   9.3   10.0   246.1   −0.1   5.8   251.9       Titleist Pro V1   160.9   229.5   3264   9.1   10.1   241.1   −0.3   4.7   245.9       Titleist ProV1*   160.9   229.8   3156   9.2   9.9   237.2   0.2   8.9   246.3       Maxfli M3   161.0   230.8   3324   9.0   10.0   240.1   0.6   6.5   246.6       Maxfli A10   161.0   230.8   3449   8.8   10.2   239.6   −0.7   4.5   244.0       Precept U-Tri Extra Spin   161.0   233.5   3124   9.2   10.4   245.7   0.1   3.4   249.1       Precept U-Tri Extra Dist   161.0   230.1   2929   9.3   10.0   242.4   1.9   5.7   248.1       Callaway HX Blue   161.0   229.7   3214   9.0   10.3   240.8   1.0   3.8   244.6       Callaway HX Red   161.0   231.7   3119   9.2   10.5   243.4   1.8   3.3   246.6       Hogan Apex Tour   161.0   229.1   3031   9.2   10.0   237.7   0.6   7.3   244.9                  
 
         [0057]    As seen from the data, surprisingly both examples increase ball speed, and reduce spin rate on the driver. This results in increased distance, through both carry and roll. Also with this increased speed and lower spin, more optimum dimples can be utilized which could potentially increase distance further. The ball of the present invention exhibits the desired low spin/high velocity off of the golf tee; yet, it also exhibits the desired high spin and controllability when hit on the green with a club such as a 9-iron.  
         [0058]    It should be understood that various changes and modifications to the preferred embodiments described herein would be apparent to those skilled in the art. Such changes and modifications can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention and without demising its attendant advantages. It is therefore intended that such changes and modifications be covered by the appended claims.