Bryan, thanks for your response. I suspect we are fairly close to on the same page on this issue.
I don't have any more balatas to continue the experiments, at least not any that haven't been hit to death. As I said I did this test a number of years ago.
Why did you focus on carry distance? How were the total distance numbers? If I recall correctly the Pro V1x had a higher percentage of total distance as carry, as compared to the Balata. At least with the Latex Lynn.
How big a sample did you use? Surely you are not so consistent that one hit with each sufficed? If you used a large enough sample then I am surprised that your swing speed differed between the two balls. I believe the Latex Lynn was set for a few mph less than yours (about 92 or 93 for both balls if I recall correctly (I don't have the complete data in front of me.) So that might explain a bit of the difference in result. My Balatas were a few years fresher as well.
2.3 yards per MPH is a LOT lower than the numbers in the USGA study. How did you come up with this number? Not sure why you conclude that perhaps your launch monitor wasn't working quite right regarding this number?
Did you test the Pro V1 as well Pro V1x?
___________________________________
As to showing how the lines actually cross, it would be terrific to have a wider range of data from a wider range of balls, and the USGA could easily produce such data whether or not they had Balatas. (Surely they have old statistics from the balata.) They also have their balls they requested from the manufacturers and they also have a wide range of balls produced today.
But one can see how different balls have different slopes even from the narrow range of state of the art tour balls tested in their own study! Take a look at Figure 3 in the Quintavalla Study, and focus on Ball A and Ball C. One can see that at 90 mph Ball C flies farther than Ball A but what appears to be around 4 or 5 yards. But at 125 Miles Per hour, Ball A flies farther than Ball C by what appears to be about 8 or 9 yards. Thus, even over the 90+ mph swing speeds tested, there is a significant difference in distance produced between these two balls as swing speed increases. The slopes seem to cross somewhere a bit above 100 mph swing speed. All else being equal, those below that point would benefit distance wise from Ball C compared to Ball A, and all those above this point would benefit distancewise from Ball A compared to Ball C. The difference is quite pronounced by the time we get up to 125, and given that Ball C's slope appears to be dropping off relatively substantially by this point it is probably that the gap will be even greater as swing speeds increase further.
I've tried to isolate these two lines in Photoshop to make the point more evident . . .
Conversely if we continue the cap backward with slower swingspeeds, one can see that the gap distance gap of Ball C over Ball A will increase as swing speed slows. (This based on the conclusion of the study that the slope will flatten as swing speed increases.
___________________________________________
I have not spoken with the USGA Tech guys to tell them where their study falls short. I would be shocked if the USGA science guys aren't well aware of the limits of their study. If they aren't then the USGA is hiring fifth rate science guys who wouldn't understand an explanation anyway. Surely this is more an indication of the
policy approach at the USGA rather than a misunderstanding in the lab. The USGA had the science guys narrowly design a study to get the result the USGA wanted, and then the USGA spun it a manner that allowed them to tell us what the USGA wants us to hear. Frankly, all those reports read like lame apologies and excuses to me; as if the USGA has been putting out fires through P.R., and trying to quell justified criticism about how they have dropped the ball (literally and figuratively) when it comes to keeping this technology in check.
If not, then the USGA and their science guys are blind if they truly believe that this technology has not benefited big hitters more than short hitters, and a phone call from me will not change that. I am neither science guy nor miracle worker and cannot make the blind see. I did not even stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
____________________________________
As for how I would come up with a standard, as I said I am not a science guy so I cannot say for certain. I think I would base it generally on past ratios of long and short in actual play, however. I would surely not use balls like the Pinnacle that, whatever their length, were considered too inferior in other respects for top long hitters to use. They wouldn't provide any indication of the past ratio between long and short, because longer, better players refused to use them! (Arguably, a case could be made for using these types of balls on the low (slow swing) end of the scale because recreational golfers with slow swing speeds were using these balls. However, I suspect that there wasn't much distance benefit from these balls to slower swingers anyway. Or at least least the distance benefit was greatly exaggerated.)