Ping Eye2 lofts

birly-shirlybirly-shirly Members Posts: 3,247 ✭✭
So I've seen the "official" lofts - with the Eye2s weaker than the Eye2+, especially from the PW to LW.



What I'm curious about is whether, after the design and release of the Eye2+, Ping continued to make and sell the original design Eye2s (presumably with Eye2+ spec grooves) and if so, whether they also strengthened the lofts.



I have picked up a set of Eye2s. They have JZ shafts, which I think is a relatively modern shaft compared to the bulk of Eye2s which I think were sold with either ZZ Lite or KT, and the wedges are surprisingly strong - like 47*/53*.



So either someone has bent their old Eye2s, which is in itself quite an impressive athletic feat. Or Ping offered the "old" head design with modernised lofts for a while.



I have emailed Ping with the serial numbers - although the first 2 digits are pretty hard to read and I'm not 100% certain I've got them correct.



Just wondering whether anyone has any general insight on this.

Comments

  • disco111disco111 Members Posts: 1,016 ✭✭
    The eye 2+ had slightly stronger (2.5 degrees) lofts. Had original eye 2's and those shafts regardless of the label were stiff to x stiff. The eye 2's had more forgiving shafts in contrast to the originals. They also either came with stiff or regular. The color on the shaft band dictates which is which.
  • scruffynickscruffynick manchester, UKMembers Posts: 1,498 ✭✭
    What I remember the eye2 plus were stronger lofts and if the label was red the shaft was stiff.. Blue was regular. Could be wrong but its what I think I remember
  • highergr0undhighergr0und Members Posts: 10,141 ✭✭
    I doubt Ping would've redone the casts for stronger lofts back in the day. Remember they moved onto the new Eye 2 model with the radiused soles and the "illegal" grooves (plus no plus) and then post lawsuit started producing the radiused model with the + on it to signify the new grooves.



    I'd imagine you got a set that someone, ping or otherwise, managed to bend them.
  • NRJyzrNRJyzr Allez Allez Allez Minnesota, USAMembers Posts: 6,371 ✭✭
    edited Sep 13, 2018 #5
    It's possible they could be Eye2 Dot irons? I'm not seeing anything that references lofts, unfortunately, so it's only haphazard speculation.



    The Eye2 Dot set had Eye2 clubheads, but with Eye2+ grooves. Since they had to change the molds for the grooves anyway, they could have changed the lofts as well. <shrug>
    The Ever Changing Bag!

    Driver: Cobra King LTD, ProtoPype 80x or RIP 80x, 43.5" -or- SuperDeep 9.5*, ProtoPype 80x or NV85x, 43.5"
    3w: Cobra King LTD, Motore F1 85 X, 42.5"
    2h:  TM Stage 2 Tour, Nv105 stiff -or- 1 iron: Maxfli Revolution, DGS400
    2-PW, Golden Ram Tour Grind, Dynamic S
    SW: Ram Tour Grind Feel Matched 58*, DGS
    Putter: Snake Eyes Viper Tour Sv1, 34.5", PP58 midsize grip
    (Cleveland Huntington Beach #1 35" -or- Mizuno TPM-2, 35" as backups)
    Balls: in no particular order... Wilson Staff FG Tour, Duo Urethane, or 50 Elite, Srixon ZStar/ZStar XV, Snell MTB Black... will trot out Maxfli HT-100 or Elite 90 from time to time
    Shoes by True Linkswear
  • birly-shirlybirly-shirly Members Posts: 3,247 ✭✭
    There's no sign of these being "Dot" clubheads, which I think should indicate that they're pre-1990. But them I'm struggling to reconcile them being that old, with them having JZ shafts.



    It's possible that, since I'm in the UK, the "dot" identification wasn't used. I'm assuming that the difference in groove spacing isn't going to be sufficiently apparent at home as a way to age the heads. Still hoping that Ping come through with info based on the serial number.



    If I get confirmation that these started out with "conventional" Eye2 weaker lofts, then I'd feel more confident about bending them back. But 4* is a lot of bending in these heads. If they left the factory set at the stronger lofts, I'd be a lot more concerned about breakage.
  • birly-shirlybirly-shirly Members Posts: 3,247 ✭✭
    Have not heard back from Ping, but went ahead and bent them back to the published specs anyway. Thankfully no breakages, but quite a lot of work. The wedges were about 4* out, with progressively smaller adjustments needed through the rest of the set. Looking forward to seeing how they play now with loft and bounce restored.



    FWIW, lie adjustments seem quite a bit easier to make than loft. I know the conventional wisdom is to send them back to Ping, and depending on what it might cost you to have them done locally this might still make sense, but it can certainly be done.
  • dcr147dcr147 Members Posts: 607


    There's no sign of these being "Dot" clubheads, which I think should indicate that they're pre-1990. But them I'm struggling to reconcile them being that old, with them having JZ shafts.



    It's possible that, since I'm in the UK, the "dot" identification wasn't used. I'm assuming that the difference in groove spacing isn't going to be sufficiently apparent at home as a way to age the heads. Still hoping that Ping come through with info based on the serial number.



    If I get confirmation that these started out with "conventional" Eye2 weaker lofts, then I'd feel more confident about bending them back. But 4* is a lot of bending in these heads. If they left the factory set at the stronger lofts, I'd be a lot more concerned about breakage.
    If you want them bent, do not use a bending machine, send them back to Ping and have them do them. They use a process that will not cause any damage to the hosels or in the neck.
  • birly-shirlybirly-shirly Members Posts: 3,247 ✭✭
    Have you seen a ping damaged in a bending machine?
Sign In or Register to comment.