Correlation Between Distance and Dimple Number

162.5529163.718

164.5754

108.045

R2 = 0.9297

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 336 392 432

Dimple Number

Dist

ance

(yds

)

Caesar Dimpleless

Ball

N=10

N=14

Nike One Platinum

336 Dimples

Smooth

N=10

N=11

Calloway Big Bertha

336 Dimples

Hexx

N=10

N=12

Precept Laddie

392 Dimples

Steep

N=10

N=14

TitlelistPro V1x

336 Dimples

Smooth

N=10

N=10

Nike TA2-LNG

392 Dimples

Steep

N=10

N=10

Titlelist

N-X-T

392 Dimples

Smooth

N=10

N=10

Precept Lady

432 Dimples

Smooth

N=10

N=14

Wilson Ultra

432 Dimples

Smooth

N=10

N=12

Nike Spin and

Control

432 Dimples

Smooth

N=10

N=14

Attach to Golf Ball Suspension System (GBSS)

Record Angle at 51 kph to calculate drag force

Launch Golf Balls and record accuracy and distance in meters

Statistical analysis by Pearson (p<.05)

Results

Photo Generated by Author

Graph 1- Shows the mean distance +/- standard deviations when compared to dimple number. As dimple number increased distance increased as

well. Statistical analysis by Pearson (p<.05) showed that there was a significant correlation. r= .9642

Graph 2- Shows how dimple configuration effects mean distance +/- standard deviations. Dimpleless reported a significantly lower

distance while none of the other dimpled patterns were significantly different. Statistical analysis by Pearson (p<.05) showed that there

was a significant correlation. r = 0.9457

Graph 3- Shows the effect of dimple number on mean drag force +/- standard deviations. As dimple number increased the drag force decreased.

Statistical Analysis by Pearson (p<.05) showed that there was a significant correlation. r= .9367

Graph 4- Shows how dimple configuration effects mean drag force +/- standard deviations. The smooth configuration had the least amount

of drag, while the other patterns were significantly different. Statistical Analysis by Pearson (p<.05) showed that there was no significant

correlation. R =.459

Methodology

http://eng.monash.edu.au/uicee/worldtransactions/

WordTransAbstractsVol5No3/23_NjockLibii15.pdf

Libii, 2005

Graph 1

N=15N=35

N=40 N=35

Correlation Between Distance and Dimple Configuration

108.0454

166.3305162.0598

167.6

R2 = 0.8943

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Dimple-less Steep Smooth Hexx

Dimple Configuration

Dis

tanc

e (y

ds)

Graph 2

N=14N= 25

N=42 N=20

Correlation Between Dimple Configuration and Drag Force

165.812

141.629156.862125.2655

R2 = 0.2107

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Dimple-less Steep Smooth Hexx

Dimple Configuration

Dra

g Fo

rce

Graph 4

N=10

Correlation Between Dimple Number and Drag Force

165.812

138.396 140.008

105.969

R2 = 0.8779

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 336 392 432

Dimple Number

Dra

g Fo

rce

Graph 3

N=10

1-5 6-10

11-15

16-20

21-25

26-30

31-35

36-40

41-45

46-50

51-55

56-60

61-65

66-70

71-75

76-80

81-85

86-90

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4Lift to Drag Ratio for Reynolds Number

98,391

Dimple-less

Angle

Lift

/Dra

g Ra

tio

10482 31446 45422 64639 90704 98391 1153020

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5Lift to Drag Ratio For Different

Reynolds Numbers

Dimple-less

Reynolds Number

Lift

/Dra

g Ra

tio

1-5 6-10 11-15

16-20

21-25

26-30

31-35

36-40

41-45

46-50

51-55

56-60

61-65

66-70

71-75

76-80

81-85

86-90

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4Lift to Drag Ratio For Reynolds Number

90,704

Dimple-less

Angle

Lift

/Dra

g Ra

tio

Graph 5

Graph 6 Graph 7

Smooth Airfoil 112 Dimpled Airfoil54 Dimpled Airfoil

Lift to Drag ratio and stall angle calculated using the Pitsco Flight Test

Analyzer

Statistical analysis by One Way ANOVA (p<.05)

Photo Generated by Author