Simulation shows distance based on speed and trajectory angle for a standard mass. It doesn't factor in the increased momentum gained from a heavier ball. As others have stated: take the damn thing outside
Umm no. If that was the case they would go at least the same distance on the simulator. Those simulators are accurate. Plus his club head speed was faster. Watch the full video.
@@jbw5485 The simulator has no way to measure the actual air drag a ball would experience. If one were to construct a ball that were heavier than a standard ball (no idea whether the Nitro actually is), then it would have a lower velocity coming off the club, but would be less affected by air resistance. Depending upon how it was hit, the reduction in drag could outweigh the reduction in velocity, but a simulator would have no way to measure that.
@@jbw5485 not necessarily. A heavier ball would be slower in the simulator, but have more inertia. Heck, you could probably get epic shots with a ping-pong ball in the sim if it doesn't have time to slow down.
@@kommi1974 The system uses an assumed drag coefficient built into the flight model. It would be completely unable to measure any difference between golf balls.
The super stiff core reduces the trampoline effect and thus reduces speed. It'd probably help to understand how golf balls create distance before you assume a ball created with 1990 top flight technology could compete with a pro v1.
@@kommi1974 "super accurate testing". You sound like someone. "I know testing, I have the best testing". How about you try the balls, outside, for yourself. Don't stroke your kommi. Hit the ball, with a club, the way the sport is actually played. Try it for yourself.
No, definitely not true, the science of it would prove that it won't fly farther. You don't even have to go to the lengths of on-course testing for it. It's false advertising. Obviously name-brand ball makers have always been in the business of trying to make the ball fly the fastest and farthest. And what they found is that rubbery ball that gives off just the right spring in it is what makes it travel faster. You don't even have to hit the ball once to understand that it's rubbish.
@@OldHickory7 sure just like how in the middle ages they had the best medical knowledge ever and it's never changed in any way shape or form for the better because "they really had things figured out"
PLEASE review those terrible gimmicky clubs you always see on the golf channel like the c3i wedge and that fairway wood you swing like a 7 iron but it goes like your driver!!!!! Please it would be hilarious
bloody hell, rick would have a FIELD DAY over those dastardly clubs you mentioned....lmao (if c3i an that funky new 7i/driver) so good why aint no pga usin 'em?)
@@flamedestructer7127 he mite actually get a swing or two in between laughing his ass off. a 7i that goes like a D? ya that person would fail a drug test....lol
Exactly, however, he is English, and therefore went to school in the British education system, and therefore isn't too bright when it comes to material and projectile physics..
The test might not be valid. GC is simulating the ball flight. Part of the simulation is assumptions about the ball which might not be valid in an illegal ball. Eg, if weight was different, undersized, illegal ball cover, or weight distribution was different, it couldn't pick that up with cameras.
@@aussieexpat I'm not gonna be as rude as him but the fact is the cameras can pick up ball speed and even with differences in ball structure the fact the non-conforming ball was 12mph slower off the club tells me all I need to know that these results are valid.
@@cruelabduhl if the ball was heavier, then 12mph slower is an advantage. The lower the speed, there is significantly lower wind resistance. So you get higher energy and lower energy loss. With a real ball flight, this is likely to travel further than a simulated flight.
@@cruelabduhl if you are having trouble visualizing a heavier balls flight, imagine a lighter ball. It might be easier to generate higher initial top speed for the camera, but it will have less energy than a normal ball unless the ball speed was hugely different. Think wiffle ball. Even if you launched a wiffle ball at 1000kmh, it would still struggle to match a real golf balls flight.
Yes, there's no way the simulators of today can interpret the aerodynamics of a ball through the entirety of it's flight. But then I'm no pro golfer, or engineer. Seems logical to me--if DIMPLES make a difference and the sellers of balls are pretty adamant about that.
I used the XDS version of these today. 50% correcting. These things are amazing. Feel great around the green. Was carrying over 270 yds. Hit one roughly 325 yds in the cold and rain. These balls have renewed my love for the game. So much fun to use. Some of the best shots I have ever hit. And drove a 320 yd par 4 to the green. I highly recommend these to the average golfer.
Don't worry mate, you didn't waste your money, this guy in the video is English and unfortunately, physics isn't a compulsory subject in the British education system.. These balls will fly further on account of their core and dimple design, the latter of which is what makes them illegal..
They are longer outside. Their density is higher and they do better moving through the wind. The simulator isn't going to assume you're using an illegal ball, but given the clubhead speed and ball speed (ball speed down due to weight), it could probably be set up to detect them. I'd bet the reduced flight range balls (lighter) probably look a lot longer than they actually are on this simulator because they come off the club at a high speed from being underweight, and then don't fare that well going through the wind.
When I did a project back in Engineering school and was looking at different golf ball types, I saw one that was supposed to fly straight that was non-conforming. The dimpling wasn't uniform and was supposed to reduce side spin. I think it'd be interesting to see you test those at some point and see if they work as advertised.
The real question is after all of these years of making balls is Nitro still IN business? I've never found a Nitro during my round and been excited, they usually get tested to see how far into the corn field I can Happy Gilmore them. I've never hit a ball that felt as hard or unpleasant as a Nitro, there are pondside pebbles that feel better coming off the club. The only thing that could possibly be selling these balls is price point and they must be selling them to someone who doesn't know any better. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE BUYING NITROS? WHO ARE YOU? WHO'S INFORMING YOU ON GOLF EQUIPMENT? WHO LET YOU BUY THESE? WHO STOCKS THESE? WHHHHHHHHHHHHHY?
I have no idea if this golf is any good, but the simulator used in the video has no way of measuring the drag characteristics of the ball; it uses an assumed drag coefficient built into the flight model. It can measure the ball state vector after impact but that's all.
😂 Piece of crap 💩 ball!!!! 😂 Just like all the late-night infomercials about magic golf clubs that will take STROKES off your score! Great video, as always, Rick. 👍 You’re THE BEST!! 👏👏👏👏
The computer doesnt have the data of the cheater ball so when it simulates his shot, it assumes the regular standard ball... so unless he can somehow plug in all the physics of the cheater ball into the simulator, he is just hitting the same ball
I have the most expensive range finder out there that Rick also has reviewed, the Garmin Z80, all the extra features it has is really fucking cool but if we are only talking getting the distance I doubt it will be any more accurate than my old Nikon one, a yard here and there perhaps vs the really cheap ones but as an amature that won't matter the least.
I have a £60 range finder from Boblov. It lacks the bells & whistles of an expensive range finder, the biggest shortcoming is a lack of shake stabilisation (we all will shake a bit). However, it does seem fairly accurate. I would suggest lasering twice each time. I typically use it for practice so I can try hitting specific distances with specific clubs. Would I recommend it? Yes. It is solidly made, good battery life, usb charging. It is basic, but entirely functional, and some of the extras on the more expensive models cannot be used in competition in any case
@@justinstephenson9360 I purchased a similar one from Boblov and took it with me on a golf trip to Phoenix. I used it at least one round everyday, sometimes multiple rounds a day, and it performed like a champ. Like you said the stability is lacking but if it's a bit windy or I'm a bit pumped, I squat down and rest my elbows on my knees and, viola, it's fabulous! I've tested it against the other expensive range finders and, shaking aside, there was no difference in accuracy. I have slope on mine and the adjusted slope readings were also the same as the pricey models. Love the fact that it uses a 3.7V lithium battery which didn't even use 1/2 a charge despite all the zapping! USB charging is a huge plus. Best golf purchase ever!
How can you tell with a simulator ffs its completely different to real life the ball would travel differently In the air, all the simulator will do is work out your power and angle you will hit it at
Bob Kuralowicz if it were super low compression higher swing speeds would still benefit with increases in ball speed. The ball would just be less stable and less durable but it would go extremely far.
Doubtful. The computer's just picking up ball speed / spin. That being outside won't magically improve things if the ball is leaving the clubhead 10-12 miles per hour slower it will not go further outside.
The sheer lack of basic understanding of material and projectile physics in this thread is astounding.. Can any of you fucktards see that it's an asymmetrical dimple design?!? This ball WILL have a different drag coefficient than a regulation ball, and THIS is why it's an illegal ball, because the dimples aren't identical all over.. Additionally, this machine and simulator cannot predict the distance traveled by a ball with that internal core and asymmetrical dimple design. The machine and simulator ONLY has regulation ball physics programmed into it.. So can all you fucking armchair experts fuck off and just think before you type..
@@Funkteon lol you call people "fucktards" that they dont undestand physics .. but undersatand this .. ball speed is ball speed .. with dimple design you can maybe gain on distance if 2 balls leaves the face of the club the same speed .. but that's not the case here .. nitro is way lower of the face .. and even with alien dimple tech .. more ball speed = more distance .. always
I've gotten pretty serious about golf over the last 5-6 months after getting a new set of irons (Callaway XR's), and its really opened my eyes to the unbelievable amount of marketing mumbo-jumbo there is in this industry. It's crazy
Hey Rick, I noticed that you were testing these balls indoors on a simulator. They may be non conforming because of the dimple pattern and size, similar to the polara golf balls which have asymmetrical dimples on each half of the ball. The dimple profile on these Nitros may be different and may slice through the air differently. Thus producing longer carry. I highly recommend to testing this out on a course.
all you'd do is make short hitters non competitive. Dustin and Rory will still hit it 300, while Furyk will be regulated to 240 and won't be able to compete anymore.
Every study shows the ball has basically not improved distance over the years(since prov1 first came out), it's the players getting stronger/fitter and more efficent with launch monitors & SLIGHTLY better equipments in form of clubs.
Please don't...the number of tournaments I've played where yardage set up took me from the longest to the shortest off the tee is ridiculous. I'm a 335+ hitter and state tourney's and usga qualifiers are often played around 6700 yrds...this means any wood or driver is too long from the tee shot...I am already forced to hit 260 yrs 3 irons where every one get to hit their 285 yrd driver even though I'm usually the longest hitter in the field...
Some apparatus, whether radar, camera, or laser based, tracks the ball and club head at and just after impact, it then takes into account different variables like the ball’s launch angle, spin rate, spin axis, speed and from there it’s just one big physics equation. Plug all the variables in adjust for factors like drag and gravity’s pull on the ball and you have a VERY accurate representation of any given shot’s flight.
A harder ball will definitely travel the least distance. What you need is a spring loaded or more bouncy ball. That's why a harder driver does not make a ball go faster. It needs to have the proper spring in it. It's a common misnomer. One that even the ball creators didn't understand apparently. But it ads extra speed to it like tennis strings, and the looser strings at that, provide the extra spring speed as well.
I have two thoughts about this test. 1, being the use of the simulator. It can't pick up the airflow around the ball. The laser's tract speed and arch and spin. Not how the air flows around the ball. As well as if the inside of the ball is much like a superball. The bounce after the landing may be greater. Which will add distance. This tells me to take it to a driving range and see how far you can hit them. 2, You may have misinterpreted the meaning of the "Go ahead and cheat", on the box. It might mean have your opponents use this ball, and you use the regulation balls.
So for a physics answer we can consider the physics of the compression of the ball similar to the physics of the compression of a bow and arrow. The thing that makes a bow a bow is not it's draw weight but it's ability to transfer the draw weight into speed of the arrow. So there is a ratio of how much weight it takes to draw the bow versus the speed at which it snaps back into place. Then the weight of the bow itself will determine from that ratio how heavy your arrow should be to maximize the speed of the bow. This all can be applied to the ball as well in terms of its material's properties of snapping back into place after it undergoes compression. The hardness of the ball represents the ball's "draw weight" but the actual speed that material is able to snap back to a stable state represents the speed the bow snaps back to it's original position. The weight of the ball should be proportioned with the weight of the club head to maximize speed for in this case the club head weight is the bow's weight and the ball's weight would be the arrow's weight. The inertia is why this must be done. People might think that the only thing that matters is the club head speed and that the club head weight wouldn't contribute to the speed of the ball but it certainly does. If you take two club heads of the same shape and size but with different densities and swing them both at the same speed to two balls of similar weight, the transfer of force will occur quicker for the heavier club head even though they are the same speed because of inertia and this is called it's impulse force which is Impulse = Force/T. The shorter the time the higher the force but since they are the same speed they have the same time and so since the Force = Mass*Acceleration we have a greater force with the heavier club head and therefore a greater impulse which is almost like an electric shock. It's actually the impetus of the transfer of force, of overcoming the inertia of one thing against another. The heavier club head will resist being forced back more than the lighter club head. It will move through the ball faster. Thus, you must optimize your swing speed with as heavy of a club head as you can in order to maximize your own ability to hit the ball further. But I digress, going back to the golf ball's physics, now that we have an optimized club head for the speed you can swing it with, we will need to optimize the draw weight of the ball (it's hardness) with it's own weight by itself with your club head weight. Imagine a dimple bouncy ball with very low compression and high speed that it bounces back. There is a point where it doesn't matter how heavy the club head will be since the compression and the weight of the ball are so small, it basically only matters the speed. But as you increase the weight and hardness of the ball just a fast club head is not enough to get the ball further. You need speed and weight which is akin to power, more power. So in this case, this Nitro ball is very hard and would thus require a much higher critical speed to obtain the full benefit of it's compression. I imagine the golf ball's are similar in weight but they will deviate by so many grams for sure but we will neglect the aspect. Finally, what we don't know about any ball is it's speed at which it bounces back to a stable state and is probably a best kept secret by the manufacturers. For this ball however, I would say that it does not have a good ratio at all and is more like hitting a hard rock than hitting a bouncy ball which is like saying you've made a stick and called it a bow rather than having the benefit of what a true bow's mechanics are. And this is what makes the Titleist Pro V1 the better ball because it is a real bow, using the mechanics of compression and weight to it's advantage to add speed to the ball's flight.
You can’t do a test like this on a simulator. Even if it’s true you still don’t know for sure unless you test in real conditions. Thanks for wasting my time.
I know this is an older video but the problem is compression. The ball needs to be able to compress to make the "spring" effect from the club face. Just because a rock is harder doesn't mean you can hit it further. I'd like to see a slow motion compression of the Nitro vs the ProV1and there would be a huge difference. The GC Quad data is accurate for those who think hitting it into a mat is false.
Q.) What’s your *LONGEST* ever drive?
329
290
Rick Shiels Golf 359
Rick Shiels Golf I’m 17 and furthest I’ve hit it is 345
On gc 288 on a course 301 because of a hill 😂😂
Simulation shows distance based on speed and trajectory angle for a standard mass. It doesn't factor in the increased momentum gained from a heavier ball. As others have stated: take the damn thing outside
Maybe it only works in the real World...? Travel, arc, weight, speed?
This makes sense.
Umm no. If that was the case they would go at least the same distance on the simulator. Those simulators are accurate. Plus his club head speed was faster. Watch the full video.
@@jbw5485 The simulator has no way to measure the actual air drag a ball would experience. If one were to construct a ball that were heavier than a standard ball (no idea whether the Nitro actually is), then it would have a lower velocity coming off the club, but would be less affected by air resistance. Depending upon how it was hit, the reduction in drag could outweigh the reduction in velocity, but a simulator would have no way to measure that.
Nitro balls are like $6/dozen. You guys are looking way too deep into this lol they're just garbage.
@@jbw5485 not necessarily. A heavier ball would be slower in the simulator, but have more inertia. Heck, you could probably get epic shots with a ping-pong ball in the sim if it doesn't have time to slow down.
I've played with these balls, they do go further. Try going, you know, outside.
Makes no difference. This is super accurate testing. Fucking knuckle.
@@kommi1974 The system uses an assumed drag coefficient built into the flight model. It would be completely unable to measure any difference between golf balls.
kommi1974 yea it does fuck tard
The super stiff core reduces the trampoline effect and thus reduces speed. It'd probably help to understand how golf balls create distance before you assume a ball created with 1990 top flight technology could compete with a pro v1.
@@kommi1974 "super accurate testing". You sound like someone. "I know testing, I have the best testing". How about you try the balls, outside, for yourself. Don't stroke your kommi. Hit the ball, with a club, the way the sport is actually played. Try it for yourself.
surely it tests better on the actual golf course?
That definally true
No, definitely not true, the science of it would prove that it won't fly farther. You don't even have to go to the lengths of on-course testing for it. It's false advertising. Obviously name-brand ball makers have always been in the business of trying to make the ball fly the fastest and farthest. And what they found is that rubbery ball that gives off just the right spring in it is what makes it travel faster. You don't even have to hit the ball once to understand that it's rubbish.
@@OldHickory7 sure just like how in the middle ages they had the best medical knowledge ever and it's never changed in any way shape or form for the better because "they really had things figured out"
@John Howard Stevie Wonder. Did you watch the video, fuck ass?
He probably doesn’t want to risk getting arrested.
Retest it on an actual fairway or range?
PLEASE review those terrible gimmicky clubs you always see on the golf channel like the c3i wedge and that fairway wood you swing like a 7 iron but it goes like your driver!!!!! Please it would be hilarious
bloody hell, rick would have a FIELD DAY over those dastardly clubs you mentioned....lmao (if c3i an that funky new 7i/driver) so good why aint no pga usin 'em?)
Sean Buller exactly i want rick to put em through the test to SE IF THATS THE CASE!
@@flamedestructer7127 he mite actually get a swing or two in between laughing his ass off. a 7i that goes like a D? ya that person would fail a drug test....lol
Sean Buller 😂lmao!! I personally would love to see rick hit those clubs
Rick I’ve been waiting for you to shit on the gx7 metal lol I got an ad for it while typing this comment
Your not supposed to use a simulator because it’s simulated a normal ball speed
I agree. He should have gone to a real golf course.
Exactly, however, he is English, and therefore went to school in the British education system, and therefore isn't too bright when it comes to material and projectile physics..
@@Funkteon but then he doesn't go back to his former school with an automatic weapon and a bag o' grenades like a yank would.
I love how rick has liked all the comments supporting him but not the ones telling him to test it outside 😂
Like!
I absolutely love these gimmick video reviews you do!! I would like to see you review the Bombtech 72 degree wedge on GC Quad.
Just the bomb tec wedges themselves would be good👍
@@jasonsuter13 yeah all 4 of them would be a great video
I remember seeing something about hybrid wedges a while ago. Would be cool to see some of those make an appearance!
I've just bought the wedges, except the 72😂
I have the 72, it's fun to meet around with, but doesn't go in the bag.
The test might not be valid. GC is simulating the ball flight. Part of the simulation is assumptions about the ball which might not be valid in an illegal ball. Eg, if weight was different, undersized, illegal ball cover, or weight distribution was different, it couldn't pick that up with cameras.
idiot
@@kenmay8704 So you can measure weight distribution and weight using a camera?
@@aussieexpat I'm not gonna be as rude as him but the fact is the cameras can pick up ball speed and even with differences in ball structure the fact the non-conforming ball was 12mph slower off the club tells me all I need to know that these results are valid.
@@cruelabduhl if the ball was heavier, then 12mph slower is an advantage. The lower the speed, there is significantly lower wind resistance. So you get higher energy and lower energy loss. With a real ball flight, this is likely to travel further than a simulated flight.
@@cruelabduhl if you are having trouble visualizing a heavier balls flight, imagine a lighter ball. It might be easier to generate higher initial top speed for the camera, but it will have less energy than a normal ball unless the ball speed was hugely different. Think wiffle ball. Even if you launched a wiffle ball at 1000kmh, it would still struggle to match a real golf balls flight.
You need to try this test on a golf course, the simulator does not do this experiment the justice. I would love to see that.
Yes, there's no way the simulators of today can interpret the aerodynamics of a ball through the entirety of it's flight. But then I'm no pro golfer, or engineer. Seems logical to me--if DIMPLES make a difference and the sellers of balls are pretty adamant about that.
I agree with the majority here, is don't see how the GC can adjust for this.
“Let’s test these illegal golf balls that are supposed to go farther”
Tests them inside with a computer program
246 Yards of carry??? Welcome to our world!
TJ Shine 😂😂
Love to see a test of all golf balls that are defined as 'Distance Balls' - awesome review as always Rick
I used the XDS version of these today. 50% correcting. These things are amazing. Feel great around the green. Was carrying over 270 yds. Hit one roughly 325 yds in the cold and rain. These balls have renewed my love for the game. So much fun to use. Some of the best shots I have ever hit. And drove a 320 yd par 4 to the green. I highly recommend these to the average golfer.
So what we have learnt is......PROV1's are ILLEGAL!!!! 🤣
Lmao
Pro V has a secret layer that they cant expose but they are conforming when I measure all the layers
You should make a video where you hit the illegal ball with the illegal 750cc driver
Might be my favorite of your posts ever. Your reaction when it was 25 yards shorter was priceless!
I’m going to hype these up so much to a friend of mine then give it to him for his bday lol thanks Rick.
Fuckin asshole!!! Haha haha
How about reviewing the Kirkland Signature 3 piece?
Already done somewhere un yt
I think TXG did that
Thank you That’s All well and good but I like the way Rick reviews equipment and golf balls.
th-cam.com/video/UJeSZme9aCY/w-d-xo.html
You do realise KSigs are just end of run balls made for better known manufacturers? Found one and thought it was a rebranded Project A.
I see TH-cam recommendations have brought us all together again
So, I guess I should have watched the entire video before I ordered six dozen of those balls.
Glenn Watson luckily 6 dozen probably only cost ~$40
Don't worry mate, you didn't waste your money, this guy in the video is English and unfortunately, physics isn't a compulsory subject in the British education system..
These balls will fly further on account of their core and dimple design, the latter of which is what makes them illegal..
I think this is more a novelty balls to prank friends on the course 🤣 “hey I got this illegal golf ball that goes super far “
They are longer outside. Their density is higher and they do better moving through the wind. The simulator isn't going to assume you're using an illegal ball, but given the clubhead speed and ball speed (ball speed down due to weight), it could probably be set up to detect them.
I'd bet the reduced flight range balls (lighter) probably look a lot longer than they actually are on this simulator because they come off the club at a high speed from being underweight, and then don't fare that well going through the wind.
Maybe if they should make these balls mandatory on the pga tour since they think they hit them too far these days haha !
Coming home from school to see a new Rick Shiels video😁
Btw that new swing tempo is 🔥
The simulation prolly can't simulate that golf ball try it outside
Nitro balls are like $3 a dozen at Walmart. Wouldn't even use for range balls.
Leave it to walmart to sell more cheap junk, why am I not surprised.
Wouldnt be a bad range ball, dont have to walk very far to pick them up 😂😂🤣
When I ask someone what their longest drive is...
400 yards uphill with a putter
When I did a project back in Engineering school and was looking at different golf ball types, I saw one that was supposed to fly straight that was non-conforming. The dimpling wasn't uniform and was supposed to reduce side spin. I think it'd be interesting to see you test those at some point and see if they work as advertised.
Really funny video, cheers Rick! More vlogs with the boys please
I suspect the aerodynamic effects of this ball in combination of the harder ball will make it go further.
Sims like these don't take into account the mass of the ball or core so a real world test would yield better results
go ahead and cheat, cheat yourself because it's shorter than any normal ball
"what a load of rubbish" i lol'd at that..another great video
Hey Rick it would be nice to see a comparison from lake balls to new ones 😃
What’s up rick! Loved the video. Was wondering if you were thinking about doing the cobra F9 irons review?
So illegal doesn’t necessarily mean good and definitely doesn’t mean high quality 😂😂
You may just have put them out of business Rick!!
The real question is after all of these years of making balls is Nitro still IN business? I've never found a Nitro during my round and been excited, they usually get tested to see how far into the corn field I can Happy Gilmore them. I've never hit a ball that felt as hard or unpleasant as a Nitro, there are pondside pebbles that feel better coming off the club. The only thing that could possibly be selling these balls is price point and they must be selling them to someone who doesn't know any better.
WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE BUYING NITROS?
WHO ARE YOU? WHO'S INFORMING YOU ON GOLF EQUIPMENT?
WHO LET YOU BUY THESE?
WHO STOCKS THESE?
WHHHHHHHHHHHHHY?
@@gager9925 my local walmart has them on 4 colors like $6 a dozen
Im sponsored by Nitro Golf
Good too much fake it the world.fake news fake golf balls fake tits..well we can keep the fun bags but the others can go
I have no idea if this golf is any good, but the simulator used in the video has no way of measuring the drag characteristics of the ball; it uses an assumed drag coefficient built into the flight model. It can measure the ball state vector after impact but that's all.
More of these videos thanks Rick.
Love Rick Shiels the best Golf teaching pro in the world as he is the nicest cheeriest guy in golf well done Rick love you channel palxx
Sharpening your grooves. Using illegal Nitro balls. I like where this channel is going! :)
😂 Piece of crap 💩 ball!!!! 😂
Just like all the late-night infomercials about magic golf clubs that will take STROKES off your score! Great video, as always, Rick. 👍
You’re THE BEST!! 👏👏👏👏
Thanks for confirming why I don't pick these up when I find them in the woods lol.
Great video rick. Would love to see some reviews on the Snell and/or Vice golf balls.
Test the Polara slice correcting balls next!
They work. I bought some to sell in my pro shop. Had to test them. Impossible to slice, however you will lose 50 yards of distance.
Slice and be 50 yards closer to the hole it is then..
Super straight and yes it is literally AT LEAST 30-50 yards shorter than normal.
Bankrupt as well.
Liam Harrison did it on GolfVlogs UK.....they are crap based on his results.
They carry further. You cant use a computer simulator to show true carry of a ball.
Exactly! I got fitted for irons and the simulator said I'm carrying my 7 iron 195 yards. Go on the course. 180 yards.
The computer shows the ball coming off the tee at 12 mph slower. I doubt its going to carry further with that kind of loss.
@@01spaz but it could be heavier and carry more momentum
@@NaySeld don't be mad that you thought you would actually hit it 190 lmaoooo
The computer doesnt have the data of the cheater ball so when it simulates his shot, it assumes the regular standard ball... so unless he can somehow plug in all the physics of the cheater ball into the simulator, he is just hitting the same ball
I love this video! I do as much as I can to keep people from buying crappy golf equipment.
Bahahaha .thanks for the laugh this morning 😂
The simulator is modeling the way a NORMAL golf ball would behave. This is basic logic Rick, come on!
@@fella704 in a world without friction, I would agree with you.
Review a £60 range finder compared to a premium range finder
I have the most expensive range finder out there that Rick also has reviewed, the Garmin Z80, all the extra features it has is really fucking cool but if we are only talking getting the distance I doubt it will be any more accurate than my old Nikon one, a yard here and there perhaps vs the really cheap ones but as an amature that won't matter the least.
I have a £60 range finder from Boblov. It lacks the bells & whistles of an expensive range finder, the biggest shortcoming is a lack of shake stabilisation (we all will shake a bit). However, it does seem fairly accurate. I would suggest lasering twice each time. I typically use it for practice so I can try hitting specific distances with specific clubs.
Would I recommend it? Yes. It is solidly made, good battery life, usb charging. It is basic, but entirely functional, and some of the extras on the more expensive models cannot be used in competition in any case
@@justinstephenson9360 I purchased a similar one from Boblov and took it with me on a golf trip to Phoenix. I used it at least one round everyday, sometimes multiple rounds a day, and it performed like a champ. Like you said the stability is lacking but if it's a bit windy or I'm a bit pumped, I squat down and rest my elbows on my knees and, viola, it's fabulous! I've tested it against the other expensive range finders and, shaking aside, there was no difference in accuracy. I have slope on mine and the adjusted slope readings were also the same as the pricey models. Love the fact that it uses a 3.7V lithium battery which didn't even use 1/2 a charge despite all the zapping! USB charging is a huge plus. Best golf purchase ever!
A viola is like a large violin!
@@glennwiebe5128
That’s funny! I was waiting to see crazy numbers 😂
Great video Rick, high handicappers would easily be duped. Gimmick unveiled 💪
How can you tell with a simulator ffs its completely different to real life the ball would travel differently In the air, all the simulator will do is work out your power and angle you will hit it at
"Ultra Low Compression" Maybe you just over compressed it. Might be longer for lower swing speeds?
Bob Kuralowicz if it were super low compression higher swing speeds would still benefit with increases in ball speed. The ball would just be less stable and less durable but it would go extremely far.
USGA: Golf balls must conform with USGA policy
NITRO: Hold my beer 🍻
Ha ha ha enjoyed that! Well and truly dooped there pal!
Perhaps it only works when you're actually golfing outside
That computer is completely inaccurate. Go outside and try them. Lol #CommonSense
Doubtful. The computer's just picking up ball speed / spin. That being outside won't magically improve things if the ball is leaving the clubhead 10-12 miles per hour slower it will not go further outside.
@@isaac6705 You're wrong.
@@isaac6705 ball has different pattern
The sheer lack of basic understanding of material and projectile physics in this thread is astounding..
Can any of you fucktards see that it's an asymmetrical dimple design?!?
This ball WILL have a different drag coefficient than a regulation ball, and THIS is why it's an illegal ball, because the dimples aren't identical all over..
Additionally, this machine and simulator cannot predict the distance traveled by a ball with that internal core and asymmetrical dimple design. The machine and simulator ONLY has regulation ball physics programmed into it..
So can all you fucking armchair experts fuck off and just think before you type..
@@Funkteon lol you call people "fucktards" that they dont undestand physics .. but undersatand this .. ball speed is ball speed .. with dimple design you can maybe gain on distance if 2 balls leaves the face of the club the same speed .. but that's not the case here .. nitro is way lower of the face .. and even with alien dimple tech .. more ball speed = more distance .. always
Thanks Rick for doing these type of videos so that we don't get fooled buying gimmicks online
Love it. Great video. The only thing illegal about those nitros is the description on the box.
"i'm so excited to see how far this ball goes"
*hits ball into a cloth on a wall 3 metres away*
I've gotten pretty serious about golf over the last 5-6 months after getting a new set of irons (Callaway XR's), and its really opened my eyes to the unbelievable amount of marketing mumbo-jumbo there is in this industry. It's crazy
It doesn’t work in a simulator. You have to use it outside
Valuable piece of information. Thanks
Awesome video rick!! Love the videos!
This ball is brilliant! Tricks everyone who wants to "cheat" and then punishes them.
Obviously it needs to be tested outside. Not sure why you didn't.
Hey Rick, I noticed that you were testing these balls indoors on a simulator. They may be non conforming because of the dimple pattern and size, similar to the polara golf balls which have asymmetrical dimples on each half of the ball. The dimple profile on these Nitros may be different and may slice through the air differently. Thus producing longer carry. I highly recommend to testing this out on a course.
didnt even know this brand exist after watching your vid...keep it up, thanks Ric 😎
Maybe this is the ball they should make tour players use! Shorter is better, no need for 7600+ yrd. course now.
all you'd do is make short hitters non competitive. Dustin and Rory will still hit it 300, while Furyk will be regulated to 240 and won't be able to compete anymore.
Every study shows the ball has basically not improved distance over the years(since prov1 first came out), it's the players getting stronger/fitter and more efficent with launch monitors & SLIGHTLY better equipments in form of clubs.
Please don't...the number of tournaments I've played where yardage set up took me from the longest to the shortest off the tee is ridiculous. I'm a 335+ hitter and state tourney's and usga qualifiers are often played around 6700 yrds...this means any wood or driver is too long from the tee shot...I am already forced to hit 260 yrs 3 irons where every one get to hit their 285 yrd driver even though I'm usually the longest hitter in the field...
4:00 try going into a mythical world called "outside"
Thanks for the vids keep it up 👊👍
Tbf it could definitely be used for smuggling. Thanks for the tip :)
Perfect ball for cheaters, robbing them of distance
How does this simulator work?
I don't understand how it could accuratly predict the flight of different balls.
Some apparatus, whether radar, camera, or laser based, tracks the ball and club head at and just after impact, it then takes into account different variables like the ball’s launch angle, spin rate, spin axis, speed and from there it’s just one big physics equation. Plug all the variables in adjust for factors like drag and gravity’s pull on the ball and you have a VERY accurate representation of any given shot’s flight.
That was funny as hell 😁😁😂😂 illegal golf Ball going 250 😂😂
A harder ball will definitely travel the least distance. What you need is a spring loaded or more bouncy ball. That's why a harder driver does not make a ball go faster. It needs to have the proper spring in it. It's a common misnomer. One that even the ball creators didn't understand apparently. But it ads extra speed to it like tennis strings, and the looser strings at that, provide the extra spring speed as well.
welcome back to another episode of "why is this in my recommended"
Did you really just "test" a golfball with a simulator? I am sure that was real world accurate. lol
lol.....yep, that's why I like Phillip Kempton's reply (near the top)
I have two thoughts about this test. 1, being the use of the simulator. It can't pick up the airflow around the ball. The laser's tract speed and arch and spin. Not how the air flows around the ball. As well as if the inside of the ball is much like a superball. The bounce after the landing may be greater. Which will add distance. This tells me to take it to a driving range and see how far you can hit them. 2, You may have misinterpreted the meaning of the "Go ahead and cheat", on the box. It might mean have your opponents use this ball, and you use the regulation balls.
Hey Rick. What is the mat called you are hitting into in your simulator? I am looking to build one myself and can’t find one. Thanks.
I bought a $5 box of nitros from walmart and I've hit softer rocks tbh.
The fact they got into walmart is proof someone somewhere is laughing their ass off.
Illegal driver w/illegal golf ball!
“This is a terrible, terrible golf ball...... “😂🤣😂
hahaha I'm laughing so hard!
Should've went to a real range...
Maybe if u actually went outside to like an actual golf course your tests would be more valid...... common sense
Great video! Cracked me up! 😁😁⛳⛳
So for a physics answer we can consider the physics of the compression of the ball similar to the physics of the compression of a bow and arrow. The thing that makes a bow a bow is not it's draw weight but it's ability to transfer the draw weight into speed of the arrow. So there is a ratio of how much weight it takes to draw the bow versus the speed at which it snaps back into place. Then the weight of the bow itself will determine from that ratio how heavy your arrow should be to maximize the speed of the bow.
This all can be applied to the ball as well in terms of its material's properties of snapping back into place after it undergoes compression. The hardness of the ball represents the ball's "draw weight" but the actual speed that material is able to snap back to a stable state represents the speed the bow snaps back to it's original position. The weight of the ball should be proportioned with the weight of the club head to maximize speed for in this case the club head weight is the bow's weight and the ball's weight would be the arrow's weight. The inertia is why this must be done. People might think that the only thing that matters is the club head speed and that the club head weight wouldn't contribute to the speed of the ball but it certainly does. If you take two club heads of the same shape and size but with different densities and swing them both at the same speed to two balls of similar weight, the transfer of force will occur quicker for the heavier club head even though they are the same speed because of inertia and this is called it's impulse force which is Impulse = Force/T. The shorter the time the higher the force but since they are the same speed they have the same time and so since the Force = Mass*Acceleration we have a greater force with the heavier club head and therefore a greater impulse which is almost like an electric shock. It's actually the impetus of the transfer of force, of overcoming the inertia of one thing against another. The heavier club head will resist being forced back more than the lighter club head. It will move through the ball faster. Thus, you must optimize your swing speed with as heavy of a club head as you can in order to maximize your own ability to hit the ball further. But I digress, going back to the golf ball's physics, now that we have an optimized club head for the speed you can swing it with, we will need to optimize the draw weight of the ball (it's hardness) with it's own weight by itself with your club head weight. Imagine a dimple bouncy ball with very low compression and high speed that it bounces back. There is a point where it doesn't matter how heavy the club head will be since the compression and the weight of the ball are so small, it basically only matters the speed. But as you increase the weight and hardness of the ball just a fast club head is not enough to get the ball further. You need speed and weight which is akin to power, more power.
So in this case, this Nitro ball is very hard and would thus require a much higher critical speed to obtain the full benefit of it's compression. I imagine the golf ball's are similar in weight but they will deviate by so many grams for sure but we will neglect the aspect. Finally, what we don't know about any ball is it's speed at which it bounces back to a stable state and is probably a best kept secret by the manufacturers. For this ball however, I would say that it does not have a good ratio at all and is more like hitting a hard rock than hitting a bouncy ball which is like saying you've made a stick and called it a bow rather than having the benefit of what a true bow's mechanics are. And this is what makes the Titleist Pro V1 the better ball because it is a real bow, using the mechanics of compression and weight to it's advantage to add speed to the ball's flight.
I think it was made for cheater but instade they troll u lol
LKS3G hold up. You may be onto something.
You can’t do a test like this on a simulator. Even if it’s true you still don’t know for sure unless you test in real conditions. Thanks for wasting my time.
Great review - highlights that gimmicky cack is out there in abundance 😂😂😂
Drinking game, drink every time Rick says Pro V1
Please do a video using all the different gimmick tees on the market and see if a tee will give you more distance. Love your videos btw!
this is how I feel when I am down to that last range ball I found in the woods
Now you know what it feels like to be me, yours truly a humble 3 handicapper hahahaha
Lmao love this. Cheers
I know this is an older video but the problem is compression. The ball needs to be able to compress to make the "spring" effect from the club face. Just because a rock is harder doesn't mean you can hit it further. I'd like to see a slow motion compression of the Nitro vs the ProV1and there would be a huge difference. The GC Quad data is accurate for those who think hitting it into a mat is false.
I would have liked to seen you try the bandit balls I’ve only hit one a few times but they seem as good as or better than a regular balls.
Haha this video was hilarious 😂 so weird seeing you hit 240 yards 😂😂
Cheers Rick for your review! Perhaps if the golf ball was advertised for spin rather than distance, they might have a leg to stand on then.