Segway and Golf Car Wear on Bermudagrass Fairway Turf

John C. Sorochan, 252 Plant Sciences Bldg., Department of Plant Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville 37996; Douglas E. Karcher, 316 Plant Sciences Bldg., Department of Horticulture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701; John M. Parham, 252 Plant Sciences Bldg., Department of Plant Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville 37996; and Michael D. Richardson, 316 Plant Sciences Bldg., Department of Horticulture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701

Corresponding author: John C. Sorochan. sorochan@utk.edu

Abstract

Golf cars have contributed significant revenue to the golf industry; however, their traffic adversely affects turfgrass systems through wear injury and soil compaction. The Segway GT is a new personal golfer transportation unit that is a possible replacement, or partner, to traditional golf cars. The objective of the following research was to compare the wear of a bermudagrass fairway turf as affected by a traditional golf car and a Segway. Studies were conducted on simulated bermudagrass fairways in Arkansas and Tennessee to compare the effects of vehicle (Segway versus golf car) and traffic type (stop/start versus turning) on turf quality, turf coverage, and surface hardness. At each site, an equivalent number of weekly traffic passes were made on replicate plots with each vehicle from 10 August to 9 September in 2005. Segway traffic did not reduce turf quality, percent turf cover, or increase surface hardness compared to golf car traffic. Furthermore, turning traffic with a golf car resulted in significantly reduced turf quality and turf coverage compared to a Segway. In addition, golf car traffic resulted in a harder turf surface than Segway traffic. These results demonstrate that the Segway has less impact on turfgrass performance than traditional golf cars and could have a positive, long-term impact on golf course operations.

Introduction

In 1930, Curtis Willock introduced the golf car, which forever changed the way that golf could be played (6). By the 1950s the sales and use of golf cars was booming and golf car sales exceeded $1.25 billion in 1981 (6). Golf cars have positively affected the golf industry by increasing the number of rounds from speeding up play, and by providing an opportunity to play golf for those who may not otherwise because of health, age, or even laziness. Unfortunately, the golf car has taken a toll on turfgrass conditions and can severely reduce turfgrass performance compared to foot traffic.

Many studies investigating the effects of golf car traffic on turfgrass have determined that turfgrass injury and soil compaction are the two greatest negative impacts (2,3,5,9,10). Turfgrass injury is a result of the wear caused by the golf car speed and the amount of stopping, starting, and turning (3,10). Researchers also determined that the type of golf car, particularly its weight, may influence turfgrass wear, and warrants further investigation (4,5). Tire tread and width also impact the effects of golf car traffic on wear and compaction (3,5,10).

The Segway GT is a new personal transportation unit that is a possible replacement, or partner, to traditional golf cars. This personal transportation unit utilizes complex software and algorithms that control traction and enable its low-pressure tires to carry the golfer over a variety of turf surfaces (1). Since the Segway has more narrow tires and a tighter turning radius than a traditional golf car, research comparing the effects of traffic on turfgrass quality between the two vehicle types would be valuable. Therefore, the objective of the following research was to determine if the Segway produced more, less, or equivalent wear on a bermudagrass fairway versus a traditional golf car.

Traffic Application and Evaluations

Experimental area. This study was replicated on ‘Tifway’ bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L. × C. transvaalensis Burt-Davy) turf maintained as golf course fairways at the University of Arkansas Research and Extension Center in Fayetteville and at the University of Tennessee Intercollegiate Golf Practice Facility in Knoxville. The Arkansas site was located on a silt loam soil (Captina silt loam soil, typic hapludult) which was mowed three times per week at a 12-mm mowing height. Nitrogen was applied monthly at a 48-kg/ha rate from mid-April through October. Phosphorous and potassium applications were made in March to correct deficiencies as recommended by soil test results. Irrigation was applied as needed to prevent the development of wilt (applied twice weekly at a 1.3-cm depth during periods of no rainfall). The Tennessee site was also located on a silt loam soil (Sequatchie silt loam soil, fine-loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Humic Hapludults). Turfgrass mowing, nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium fertility, and irrigation were applied similar to the Arkansas location.

At each site, plots were constructed for traffic simulation with either a Segway or a traditional golf car. Within each plot, two fixed locations were established; the first for simulating stopping and starting wear and the second for simulating turn wear (Fig. 1). A single traffic pass consisted of starting the Segway (Model GT, Segway, Inc., Bedford, NH) or golf car (Arkansas – Model E-Z-GO TXT Electric Golf Car, E-Z-GO a Textron Co., Augusta, GA; Tennessee – Model-DS Electric Golf Car, Club Car, Inc., Augusta, GA) at the start/stop point, making a 180° turn around the turn point, and then returning and stopping at the start/stop point (Fig. 1). Both golf carts had 45-×-21.5-cm Greenmaster tires (Greenball Corporation, Long Beach, CA) inflated to (152 kPa). The Segway vehicles had 48-×-9.5-cm 100/65-14 Innova tires (Innova Rubber Co. Ltd., Chanchua, Taiwan) inflated to 103 kPa. The left or front-left tire was used to align the Segway or golf car, respectively, at the start/stop point. Traffic treatments began on 11 August and ended on 9 September in 2005. Plots were trafficked twice weekly and the number of traffic passes on a given date was determined by the amount which caused severe wear-stress symptoms, but did not result in complete turf loss on any single plot. Therefore, all plots received the same number of traffic passes within each site.

Fig. 1. (A) Schematic of a single pass of traffic by a Segway or golf car over a bermudagrass fairway plot. A single traffic pass consisted of pulling the vehicle onto the plot, completely stopping where indicated, and then accelerating around the turning point and continuing off of the plot. (B) Segway wear being applied to a bermudagrass fairway plot at the Arkansas location.

Turf quality evaluations. At the end of each week, each start/stop and turn point was visually rated for turf quality. A 1 to 9 quality scale was used with 9 representing ideal fairway turf (dark green, dense, and uniform) and 1 representing dead turf.

Turf cover evaluations. At the end of each week, digital images were collected at the start/stop point and the turn/point of each plot to determine the percent green turf cover. At each start/stop point a single image was collected where the right tire passed over the turf (Fig. 1). At each turn point (Fig. 1), four images were collected across the worn turf, perpendicular to the direction of traffic when the turn was halfway completed. Images were downloaded and analyzed for cover using a turf analysis macro (7) that was executed from within SigmaScan Pro 5.0 software (Aspire Software International, Leesburg, VA).

Surface hardness. At the conclusion of the study, following five weeks of traffic application, surface hardness was evaluated using a Clegg Impact Soil Tester (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN). At each start/stop and turn point, a 2.25 kg Clegg Hammer was dropped at 5 random locations and the G_max values were recorded and averaged for further analysis (8).

Statistical analysis. Traffic treatments were arranged as a 2-×-2 factorial (two vehicles and two traffic types) in a split-plot randomized complete block design with four replications at the Arkansas site and three replications at the Tennessee site. For evaluations that were made repeatedly over time (turf quality and percent turf cover), a third factor (date) was included in a repeated measures analysis. Evaluation parameters were analyzed using PROC MIXED, SAS v. 9.1 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) to determine if the effects of vehicle type, traffic type, evaluation date, and their interactions were significant (P < 0.05). When effects were significant, treatment means were separated according to Fisher’s protected least significant difference test. In addition, all interaction effects with date were sliced to determine specific dates when vehicle and traffic type effects were significant (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC).

Segway and Golf Car Traffic Effects on Turf Wear

Turf quality. At Arkansas, the main effects of vehicle and traffic type were significant when evaluating turf quality. Although the vehicle × traffic type interaction was not significant when averaged across all evaluation dates (P = 0.08), it was significant for each evaluation date when sliced by date. At Tennessee, the effects of vehicle, traffic type, and their interaction were significant when evaluating turf quality.

At Arkansas, turf trafficked with the Segway had significantly better quality compared to a standard golf car on all evaluation dates after 11 August (Fig. 2). The effect of traffic type depended on the vehicle as there was no effect of traffic type with the Segway; however, turning traffic significantly reduced turf quality compared to start/stop traffic with the golf car on several evaluation dates.

Fig. 2. Traffic type × vehicle interaction effect on turf quality at Arkansas and Tennessee. Black arrows indicate dates when traffic was applied with the cumulative number of passes given in parentheses. Error bars represent LSD_0.05 values for separating treatment means within each date and location.

At Tennessee, turning traffic with the golf car resulted in significantly lower quality than all other treatments on every evaluation date after 10 August (Fig. 2). In contrast to the Arkansas results, start/stop traffic with the golf car had similar quality to the Segway treatments throughout the study. In addition, turning traffic with the Segway had significantly lower turf quality to both start/stop traffic treatments on 2 September.

These results indicate that turf quality is not adversely affected by Segway traffic compared to golf car traffic. Moreover, for turf areas that are likely to receive turning traffic, Segway usage would probably improve turf quality above that if standard golf cars were used. Finally, turf quality could be improved significantly if wear from sharp turning can be minimized, regardless of the vehicle used.

It should be noted that these results were obtained when an equivalent number of traffic passes were made with each vehicle; however, if Segways replaced a golf car fleet at a given facility, the number of vehicle passes would increase since golfers sometimes share a cart but a Segway is limited to a single rider. Yet, it would not have been appropriate to compare Segway wear by doubling its traffic passes since golf cars often contain a single rider. In addition, when golfers share a cart the wear increases due to the weight of the extra rider and equipment. Further study is needed to determine the additional number of Segway passes that would appropriately represent traffic wear in such a scenario. Nonetheless, it is the authors’ opinion that Segway wear would still have been significantly less than a golf car, even if twice the number of passes had been applied.

Since Segway traffic resulted in less turf damage compared to a traditional golf car, the Segway could possibly be used under golf course conditions, where significant golf car wear is a problem, such as winter dormancy or wet soil conditions. However, further research is warranted to verify this claim.

Percent turf cover. Only the main effect of vehicle was significant when evaluating turf coverage at Arkansas. However, when slicing by evaluation date, the vehicle × traffic type interaction was significant on each evaluation date after 11 August. At Tennessee, the effects of vehicle, traffic type, and their interaction were all significant when evaluating turf coverage.

Turf coverage was near 100% at the beginning of the study in Arkansas and declined steadily as traffic applications accumulated (Fig. 3). By 18 August, at which time 60 passes of traffic had been applied, golf car turning traffic had significantly lower turfgrass coverage than all other treatments. After 330 traffic passes had been applied over nearly four weeks, turf trafficked with the golf car had significantly lower coverage compared to turf trafficked with the Segway, regardless of traffic type. At the end of the study, after 390 traffic passes, turf trafficked with the Segway had greater than 92% coverage, while golf car traffic resulted in coverage less than 76%. Also, turning traffic resulted in significantly lower turfgrass coverage at the end of the study for the golf car, but not the Segway.

Fig. 3. Traffic type × vehicle interaction effect on the percentage turf cover at Arkansas and Tennessee. Black arrows indicate dates when traffic was applied with the cumulative number of passes given in parentheses. Error bars represent LSD_0.05 values for separating treatment means within each date and location.

At Tennessee, turf coverage was at 90% at the beginning of the study and declined as the number of traffic passes accumulated, severely in the case of golf car turning traffic (Fig. 3). By 12 August and after 120 traffic passes over two days, turning traffic had reduced turf coverage significantly compared to start/stop traffic for both vehicle types. In addition, turning traffic with the golf car had lower turf coverage than the Segway on 12 August. From 30 August throughout the study, golf car traffic resulted in lower turf coverage than Segway traffic, for a given traffic type; however, this difference was much greater for turning traffic than start/stop traffic.

Final turf coverage was much lower at the Tennessee site, which may have been the result of lower initial turf cover or greater traffic intensity, particularly during the first week of the trial. From these results, it appears that Segway traffic will not reduce turf coverage compared to golf car traffic for a given traffic intensity, and, although turning traffic has a greater negative impact on turf coverage, it is not as severe with a Segway.

Surface hardness. The main effects of traffic type and vehicle were significant for surface hardness at both locations and their interaction was not significant at either location. Stop/start wear increased surface hardness G_max values by 15.8% and 10.6%, in Arkansas and Tennessee, respectively (Fig. 4). In Arkansas and Tennessee, turfgrass trafficked with the Segway had significantly lower surface hardness (21.5% and 16.5%, respectively) compared to golf car traffic.

Fig. 4. Surface hardness as affected by the main effects of traffic type and vehicle at Arkansas and Tennessee. Bars indicate LSD_0.05 values for separating means within each location and effect.

On average, surface hardness at Arkansas was greater than at Tennessee, even though soil texture was similar at each site and slightly more traffic passes were made at Tennessee. It is possible that soil moisture was higher at Tennessee when surface hardness was evaluated, which would have resulted in lower values; however, surface moisture was not measured at either site.

These results indicate that although the Segway has a narrower tire than a traditional golf car, its usage results in less soil compaction (as measured by surface hardness). In addition, the lower soil compaction observed with the Segway may be a result of its actual weight versus the weight of the traditional golf car (43 kg and 430 kg, respectively). It is also interesting to note that although turning traffic resulted in greater turf injury, stop/start traffic had the greatest impact on increasing surface hardness. Therefore, damage to turf from starting/stopping is most likely from soil compaction, whereas damage from turning traffic is probably from direct abrasive forces.

Conclusions

Although the Segway has tighter turning radius and more narrow tires, it produced significantly less wear and surface hardness than a traditional golf car. Thus, the Segway can likely be used as an alternative to traditional golf cars without negatively impacting turfgrass management.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge following individuals for their assistance in conducting this research: University of Arkansas – Josh Landreth, John McCalla, Joel Penix; University of Tennessee - Brandon Cox, Wells McClure, Dan Strunk. Appreciation is also extended to the University of Arkansas Experiment Station, the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, and the University of Tennessee Athletic Department for their support of this research. Finally, the authors would also like to thank Segway Inc. (Bedford, NH), Ladd's Inc. (Memphis, TN), and Razorback Park Golf Course (Fayetteville, AR) for providing the vehicles used in this study.

Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 2006. Solutions for golf. Online. Segway Inc., Bedford, NH.

2. Burton, G. W., and Lance, C. 1966. Golf car vs. grass. Golf Superint. 34:66-70.

3. Carrow, R. N. 1997. Tire change offers small decline in turf wear. Golf Course Man. 65:49-51, 53.

4. Carrow, R. N., and Johnson, B. J. 1989. Turfgrass wear as affected by golf car tire design and traffic patterns. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 114:240-246.

5. Carrow, R. N., and Johnson, B. J. 1996. Turfgrass wear stress: Effects of golf car and tire design. Hort. Sci. 31:968-971.

6. Frazier, C. 1982. The history of the golf car. Golf Course Man. 50:17,19,21.

7. Karcher, D. E., and Richardson, M. D. 2005. Quantifying turfgrass color using digital image analysis. Crop Sci. 43:943-951.

8. Rogers, J. N. III, and Waddington, D. V. 1989. The effect of cutting height and verdure of impact absorption and traction characteristics in tall fescue turf. J. Sports Turf Res.Inst. June. 65:80-90.

9. Vavrek, R. 2002. How much traffic can you bear? USGA Green Sec. Rec. 40:1-6.

10. Wienecke, D. 2004. Letting the numbers tell the story on car damage. USGA Green Sec. Rec. 42:11-14.