Golf Ball Cover with Diene Rubber and Methacrylic Acid for Spin Control
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Conventional golf balls with rubber covers have high spin rates on shots with a driver, leading to reduced distance and inferior production efficiency compared to resin-covered balls, while attempting to lower spin rates for drivers risks decreasing spin rates in short games.
Innovation Solution
A golf ball design featuring a rubber cover composition with diene rubber, methacrylic acid, metal oxide, and organic peroxide, along with an intermediate layer of resin material, optimized for Poisson's ratio, Shore D hardness, and thickness to achieve lower spin rates on driver shots and improved controllability in short games.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If a rubber cover is used to improve durability and scuff resistance, then the golf ball achieves better durability, but the spin rate on driver shots increases leading to reduced distance
Solution Approach 1:
The golf ball is divided into multiple functional layers: a core layer, one or more intermediate layers, and a cover layer. This segmentation allows each layer to be optimized independently - the cover can be soft rubber for durability while intermediate layers control spin characteristics
Solution Approach 2:
The patent uses composite material structures where the cover is made of rubber composition and intermediate layers use different material compositions. This allows combining the durability benefits of rubber with the spin control properties of other materials in a multi-layer composite structure
2Speed
If the cover hardness is reduced to lower spin rate on driver shots, then flight performance improves, but the spin rate in short game decreases affecting controllability
Solution Approach 1:
Different layers of the golf ball are given different local qualities - the cover has specific hardness and elasticity properties optimized for durability and spin control, while intermediate layers have different material properties to maintain spin generation in short game situations
Solution Approach 2:
The patent addresses the spin rate contradiction by adding dimensional complexity through multiple layers. Instead of relying on a single cover hardness parameter, the solution operates in multiple dimensions by controlling the properties and thicknesses of separate cover and intermediate layers to independently influence driver spin and short game spin
3Reliability
If a rubber cover is used instead of resin cover, then durability is improved, but production efficiency decreases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent specifies precise parameter ranges for the rubber cover composition (Poisson's ratio ≥0.49, Shore D hardness ≤45, thickness ≤0.6 mm) and intermediate layer properties to optimize both performance and manufacturability. These parameter controls enable consistent production while maintaining durability benefits
Data Source
AI summary
In a golf ball having a core, a cover and at least one intermediate layer therebetween, the cover is formed of a rubber composition which includes a diene rubber, methacrylic acid, a metal oxide and an organic peroxide. The cover has a specific Poisson's ratio, Shore D hardness and thickness. At least one intermediate layer has a specific Shore D hardness and thickness. This golf ball, even with the use of a rubber cover, compares favorably with balls having conventional resin covers, both in that it can achieve a lower spin rate on shots with a driver (W #1) and thus has an excellent flight performance and also in that it can improve controllability in the short game.