Taylormade 2017 m2 irons face caving in

Just like the title says, I have had them about a month now and have played maybe a total of 3 rounds with some range time and all the irons from 4 to 7 the faces are caving in by the slot on the toe. I tried to search to see if anyone has posted about it but I didn't find anything. Anyone experiencing the same thing?

Photos please.

Photos please.

I can't right now I'm at work. I'll post them when I get a chance.

6 iron face

4 iron face

The badge on the 4 iron fell out

My 5 iron looked fine and the 7 has a small dent by the toe. I know they will get warrantied out I was just curious to see if it has happened to anyone else.

Yet another failure of TM 'face slotted irons'...Seems to be a flawed design ..Probably best to just avoid any iron TM set that has those!.. This is not something you should have to worry about.

TM Face Slotted irons include the RSi, Rsi2, RsiTP, PSi, PSi Tour, and now the 2017 M1/M2 irons.. :beee:

Note: The TM warranty is 2-years on those face slotted irons purchased new

:golfer:

Yet another failure of TM 'face slotted irons'...Seems to be a flawed design ..Probably best to just avoid any iron TM set that has those!.. This is not something you should have to worry about.

 

TM Face Slotted irons include the RSi, Rsi2, RsiTP, PSi, PSi Tour, and now the 2017 M1/M2 irons.. :beee:

 

Note: The TM warranty is 2-years on those face slotted irons purchased new

 

:golfer:

I love the irons, easy to hit and they go a mile. I just don't know how I could play them and not worry about it happening again.

Yet another failure of TM 'face slotted irons'...Seems to be a flawed design ..Probably best to just avoid any iron TM set that has those!.. This is not something you should have to worry about.

 

TM Face Slotted irons include the RSi, Rsi2, RsiTP, PSi, PSi Tour, and now the 2017 M1/M2 irons.. :beee:

 

Note: The TM warranty is 2-years on those face slotted irons purchased new

 

:golfer:

I love the irons, easy to hit and they go a mile. I just don't know how I could play them and not worry about it happening again.

_______

Would you describe yourself as a high swing speed player ?

Given they are a few years into this design, one would think they would have resolved it with future releases or dumped the design.

I had 4 heads cave in on the Rsi1's and 1 on the 2017 M2 so I know exactly what your talking about.

Take them back to where you bought them and TM will replace the head or you can ask if the store will buy them back.

Yet another failure of TM 'face slotted irons'...Seems to be a flawed design ..Probably best to just avoid any iron TM set that has those!.. This is not something you should have to worry about.

 

TM Face Slotted irons include the RSi, Rsi2, RsiTP, PSi, PSi Tour, and now the 2017 M1/M2 irons.. :beee:

 

Note: The TM warranty is 2-years on those face slotted irons purchased new

 

:golfer:

I love the irons, easy to hit and they go a mile. I just don't know how I could play them and not worry about it happening again.

 

_______

 

Would you describe yourself as a high swing speed player ?

Probably between 105 and 110 with a driver.

My rsi1s did the same. Hopefully you bought them new.. if so, taylormade will replace them or you may be able to ask for another set. I've heard some people have suggested the psi, but it still has face slots. The only other option is the 770s. Which would be a sweet free upgrade

I've seen it over and over again. Slotted face is a TERRIBLE design feature, especially for anyone with moderate to high swing speed. I have no idea how any of the pros play them other than they hit the center most of the time where they resist caving in better.

They'll warranty them and they will fail again. Painful idea.... Get them replaced and put them on the Bay and get rid of them and let them be someone elses problem.

I disagree that the slots are a bad design feature. They are very innovative. Awesome tech. The problem seem to be more related to the material selection and/or processing while making the heads. I'm not sure what the head is made out of but it's not strong enough considering production variation issues. A better heat treatment method may be needed, or maybe a different material altogether (something stronger). Mizuno and Bridgestone went to 4140 on their newest spring face irons because it has a higher strength than 17.4 for example. Taylormade needs to do something to increase the safety margin relative to the heads caving in, but at the same time not hurt performance.

I disagree that the slots are a bad design feature. They are very innovative. Awesome tech. The problem seem to be more related to the material selection and/or processing while making the heads. I'm not sure what the head is made out of but it's not strong enough considering production variation issues. A better heat treatment method may be needed, or maybe a different material altogether (something stronger). Mizuno and Bridgestone went to 4140 on their newest spring face irons because it has a higher strength than 17.4 for example. Taylormade needs to do something to increase the safety margin relative to the heads caving in, but at the same time not hurt performance.

I agree that a stronger metal is needed for this to work right.

We don't know the thickness of the metal there... which is suspect to be very thin which helps that area spring a bit more, keeping ball speed up along the edges of the face. A "stronger" material might just crack more. They need to return to the drawing board.

I disagree that the slots are a bad design feature. They are very innovative. Awesome tech. The problem seem to be more related to the material selection and/or processing while making the heads. I'm not sure what the head is made out of but it's not strong enough considering production variation issues. A better heat treatment method may be needed, or maybe a different material altogether (something stronger). Mizuno and Bridgestone went to 4140 on their newest spring face irons because it has a higher strength than 17.4 for example. Taylormade needs to do something to increase the safety margin relative to the heads caving in, but at the same time not hurt performance.

You contradicted yourself within this post...It obviously is a design flaw which is why your last sentence reads "Taylormade needs to do something"

I disagree that the slots are a bad design feature. They are very innovative. Awesome tech. The problem seem to be more related to the material selection and/or processing while making the heads. I'm not sure what the head is made out of but it's not strong enough considering production variation issues. A better heat treatment method may be needed, or maybe a different material altogether (something stronger). Mizuno and Bridgestone went to 4140 on their newest spring face irons because it has a higher strength than 17.4 for example. Taylormade needs to do something to increase the safety margin relative to the heads caving in, but at the same time not hurt performance.

 

You contradicted yourself within this post...It obviously is a design flaw which is why your last sentence reads "Taylormade needs to do something"

Incorrect. I said the slots are great tech. Just because there is a weakness in the overall design that doesn't mean the whole slot methodology is bad.

I disagree that the slots are a bad design feature. They are very innovative. Awesome tech. The problem seem to be more related to the material selection and/or processing while making the heads. I'm not sure what the head is made out of but it's not strong enough considering production variation issues. A better heat treatment method may be needed, or maybe a different material altogether (something stronger). Mizuno and Bridgestone went to 4140 on their newest spring face irons because it has a higher strength than 17.4 for example. Taylormade needs to do something to increase the safety margin relative to the heads caving in, but at the same time not hurt performance.

 

You contradicted yourself within this post...It obviously is a design flaw which is why your last sentence reads "Taylormade needs to do something"

No, as a matter of fact he isn't. You're missing the distinction of face slots in general being a bad design idea (statement made by Jagpilotohio that ness is contradicting) vs the specific implementation being a bad design.

And a few failures aren't a conclusive indication of a poor design by any means. There are other possible reasons for failure that have little to do with the integrity of the design.

Another thing that comes to mind...

There could be some residual stress formed in the head during the manufacturing process that is manifesting itself in the face sagging inward. It would be interesting to look at some heads coming off the assembly line to see how flat they are. Maybe they are sagging before anyone even hits them? Maybe there is a heat treatment process where the face is sagging during that process? I don't know. What I do know it that there is typically more to these issues than what meets the eye.

All due respect to Ness and Stuart, but I think you're Not differentiating between theory and practice.

I say its a terrible design feature because it has been proven to fail over and over again. Thousands and thousands of times.

In THEORY it's a great design idea, but in PRACTICE it has proven to be an absolute disaster.

I look at used sets constantly at my local stores being the club Ho that I am. In the past 3 years I have come across 6-7 used sets of various Taylor's with slotted faces. I swear to you, I can only remember 2 of those sets that didn't have at least one caved face in the set. Combine that personal experience with post after post on this site of the same thing happening and you have a picture of a horribly flawed product.

It's no coincidence the 700 series "players" clubs don't have slotted faces now.

All due respect to Ness and Stuart, but I think you're Not differentiating between theory and practice.

It's not really a differentiation between theory and practice but rather a differentiation between a generalized viability of a feature and the viability a specific design that implements that feature.

All due respect to Ness and Stuart, but I think you're Not differentiating between theory and practice.

 

It's not really a differentiation between theory and practice but rather a differentiation between a generalized viability of a feature and the viability a specific design that implements that feature.

If the viability of a feature is dependent on a design that demonstrates a high failure rate then the feature is not viable. I find it very hard to believe that this was not discovered in the product development and testing process.

If the viability of a feature is dependent on a design that demonstrates a high failure rate then the feature is not viable. I find it very hard to believe that this was not discovered in the product development and testing process.

The viability of any theoretical feature is ALWAYS dependent on the ability to produce a specific viable design. A poor failure rate for a specific design is only a reflection on that specific design, and not the viability of the feature in general.

And if a problem wasn't encountered during the product development stages, it's actually more likely to mean a problem in the manufacturing process, not the design. But that's just a general statement. Speculate all you want but the fact is we don't have anywhere near enough details to come to any conclusions about anything at this point - nor is TM likely to release the info we'd need to accurately make such a determination.

A TM 'face slot' design that has shown frequent failures across multiple TM iron product lines is clearly a flawed TM design. Whether it's the elastomer material TM uses to fill the slots or a weakness in the metal itself doesn't really matter. Either way, it's clearly a Taylormade design flaw that owners and potential buyers of these iron sets need to be wary about.

Should any of TM's 'face slotted' iron products fail after the warranty period you are stuck with an unplayable or 'incomplete' set of irons. Why take that risk?

:golfer:

Even if the face has a little concave curvature to it I doubt it would affect playability. I'm not supporting Taylormade here mind you, I just don't think all the doom and gloom is justified.

Even if the face has a little concave curvature to it I doubt it would affect playability. I'm not supporting Taylormade here mind you, I just don't think all the doom and gloom is justified.

I don't think anyone serious about the game would want to play any iron with a "concave curvature" to the clubface... :swoon:

:golfer:

Update

The golf shop I bought them from is sending them to Taylormade to get new heads installed. He recommended that I look at the p770 irons when we get my irons back. He said they have had a decent amount of the slotted face irons come back with dented faces.

If the viability of a feature is dependent on a design that demonstrates a high failure rate then the feature is not viable. I find it very hard to believe that this was not discovered in the product development and testing process.

 

The viability of any theoretical feature is ALWAYS dependent on the ability to produce a specific viable design. A poor failure rate for a specific design is only a reflection on that specific design, and not the viability of the feature in general.

 

And if a problem wasn't encountered during the product development stages, it's actually more likely to mean a problem in the manufacturing process, not the design. But that's just a general statement. Speculate all you want but the fact is we don't have anywhere near enough details to come to any conclusions about anything at this point - nor is TM likely to release the info we'd need to accurately make such a determination.

This is a problem that has now occurred in more than one generation of the face slotted irons. Its possible that TM engineers determined that any change to make the face less susceptible to deformation would result in losing the performance benefits of the vertical face slots. In other words the slots would still be visible but performance on mishits would not be maintained across the face as the marketing campaign claimed. So they made what is commonly referred to as a business decision.

If the viability of a feature is dependent on a design that demonstrates a high failure rate then the feature is not viable. I find it very hard to believe that this was not discovered in the product development and testing process.

 

The viability of any theoretical feature is ALWAYS dependent on the ability to produce a specific viable design. A poor failure rate for a specific design is only a reflection on that specific design, and not the viability of the feature in general.

 

And if a problem wasn't encountered during the product development stages, it's actually more likely to mean a problem in the manufacturing process, not the design. But that's just a general statement. Speculate all you want but the fact is we don't have anywhere near enough details to come to any conclusions about anything at this point - nor is TM likely to release the info we'd need to accurately make such a determination.

This is a problem that has now occurred in more than one generation of the face slotted irons. Its possible that TM engineers determined that any change to make the face less susceptible to deformation would result in losing the performance benefits of the vertical face slots. In other words the slots would still be visible but performance on mishits would not be maintained across the face as the marketing campaign claimed. So they made what is commonly referred to as a business decision.

The possibilities are endless.