Driver COR, or CT

gvogelgvogel Members Posts: 7,334 ✭✭
Thinking about some of the new driver offerings - (TaylorMade, I am looking at you, and also Callaway's AI Epic Flash) - the marketing push for drivers this year would seem to be to offer a driver face as close as CT as possible.



Here's my take. When you go to the supermarket, you can buy Grade AA eggs, Grade A eggs, or Grade B eggs. Or maybe even Grade AAA eggs. I don't buy eggs too much, but I am aware of the difference of grades.



Wouldn't it be so much better for the consumer, for the driver manufacturers to test their driver heads and label them accordingly: Grade A for those that are so very close to the CT limit; Grade B for those that are not so close, but still playable; and Grade C for those that are duds, but are put on the market for extreme price conscious consumers.



A smart golf equipment manufacturer would only sell Grade A and Grade B - with different price points separating them - and take Grade C off the market and recycle the titanium.



Wouldn't this make so much more sense than injecting some resin behind a hot face in order to make the club conforming? Or paying for an artificial intelligence mega computer to compute an appropriate face design?



Hey, if you are a budget conscious consumer, you could opt for Grade B, and marry that head with a really good aftermarket shaft. Perhaps Grade C heads could be sold inexpensively to juniors or beginning golfers - an inexpensive way to get into the game. When your game becomes more consistent, you move to grade B; or, you drop out of the game because the game isn't for you, and your initial outlay was not extravagant.



If you have money to burn on your golf equipment, you would buy Grade A, and plan to spend upwards of $700 or 800 or more for that grade.



I think that this would be better for the consumer.



If you buy a Subaru Impreza WRX, you know that you are paying extra for a more powerful engine. Golf drivers should be marketed the same way. My humble opinion.
Boyhood, like measles, is one of those complaints which a man should catch young and have done with it, for when it comes in middle life it is apt to be serious. - P. G. Wodehouse
Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove.
«1

Comments

  • MysteryVMysteryV Members Posts: 337 ✭✭
    There's a cost to managing inventory across multiple SKUs.

    There's value to a good marketing pitch (as we all know) regardless of the effectiveness of the technology being marketed.

    This is already happening to some extent. If people want the highest performance head, they can pay through the nose for Tour Issue stuff via secondary market.



    I like your post, and idea. It's essentially extending "Tour Issue" to the public at a price. I think it would be tough in practice however, as the differences in performance betweens heads given todays manufacturing tolerances, likely isn't large enough to matter to Joe Public. I'd imagine that if a company were to entertain this strategy, Rick Shiels or someone would instantly go on YouTube, show that there wasn't a huge difference in performance, and everyone would simply buy the cheapest version - resulting in price erosion.



    The alternate could also be true, the high performance version could be worth the extra money, and the folks who couldn't afford it would simply choose another brand, resulting in excess inventory.



    At the end of the day, I'd assume it's just more profitable to sell all heads at the same price and avoid inventory and branding issues.
    Driver: Ping G400 Max w/ Tensei PO
    3 Wood: Epic 3+ w/ GD AD-DI
    Irons: Miura CB-1008 w/ Oban CT-115
    Wedges: Miura Y Grind 51, Miura K Grind 56,60 w/ Modus Wedge
    Putter: Scotty Newport 2 - AOP Oval Track
  • yourhonoryourhonoryourhonoryourhonor Members Posts: 449 ✭✭
    When drivers are tested and under the limit they all hit retail as “grade A “ no matter where they fall are they not? What are their acceptable tolerances?
  • MysteryVMysteryV Members Posts: 337 ✭✭
    GREAT post by Wishon in this thread: http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1241826-ct-scores-on-tour-issue-heads-and-clubs/#entry12379114



    Essentially, manufacturing tolernaces for face thickness is +/- 0.1mm. "For a clubhead speed of 110mph, which is close to average on the tour, the difference in carry distance between a driver of 0.830 and one at 0.890 for the COR would not be more than 10 yds or so. So if you are talking a difference between 0.822 (239CT) and 0.830 (257CT), even at 110mph you are talking about a tiny difference. And as clubhead speed is lower, so too is the distance difference per each increment difference in the CT of the face."



    Just wouldn't really be a big deal (and also casts question on the new TM marketing campaign).
    Driver: Ping G400 Max w/ Tensei PO
    3 Wood: Epic 3+ w/ GD AD-DI
    Irons: Miura CB-1008 w/ Oban CT-115
    Wedges: Miura Y Grind 51, Miura K Grind 56,60 w/ Modus Wedge
    Putter: Scotty Newport 2 - AOP Oval Track
  • gvogelgvogel Members Posts: 7,334 ✭✭
    MysteryV wrote:


    GREAT post by Wishon in this thread: http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1241826-ct-scores-on-tour-issue-heads-and-clubs/#entry12379114



    Essentially, manufacturing tolernaces for face thickness is +/- 0.1mm. "For a clubhead speed of 110mph, which is close to average on the tour, the difference in carry distance between a driver of 0.830 and one at 0.890 for the COR would not be more than 10 yds or so. So if you are talking a difference between 0.822 (239CT) and 0.830 (257CT), even at 110mph you are talking about a tiny difference. And as clubhead speed is lower, so too is the distance difference per each increment difference in the CT of the face."



    Just wouldn't really be a big deal (and also casts question on the new TM marketing campaign).




    So what you are saying is that with a 90 mph club head speed, shaving the face of my driver to get to .90 COR wouldn't make a difference of 10 yards?
    Boyhood, like measles, is one of those complaints which a man should catch young and have done with it, for when it comes in middle life it is apt to be serious. - P. G. Wodehouse
    Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove.
  • LorenRobertsFanLorenRobertsFan Members Posts: 1,413
    One of our OEM reps said this:



    Average driver on the market in 2018 was tested at .817 with the legal limit at .830. And that it’s just too expensive to get them closer to .830 while being mass produced. Now Taylormade’s M5/6 drivers are supposedly averaging .825, and having more checks on the CT of the face are why they had to increase prices from $429/$500 to $500/$550.
    9.0* Callaway Epic Flash w/ HZRDS Yellow
    16.5* Callaway Rogue FW w/ Rogue Silver 70
    21* Callaway Big Bertha Hyb
    4-PW Callaway Apex 19 Irons w/ TT Elevate Tour
    52* Callaway MD4 S Grind
    56* Callaway MD4 S Grind
    60* Callaway PM Grind
    Odyssey OWorks Black 7S

    Z Cord grips
  • LaymanMLaymanM Cincinnati, OHMembers Posts: 2,123 ✭✭
    gvogel wrote:


    Thinking about some of the new driver offerings - (TaylorMade, I am looking at you, and also Callaway's AI Epic Flash) - the marketing push for drivers this year would seem to be to offer a driver face as close as CT as possible.



    Here's my take. When you go to the supermarket, you can buy Grade AA eggs, Grade A eggs, or Grade B eggs. Or maybe even Grade AAA eggs. I don't buy eggs too much, but I am aware of the difference of grades.



    Wouldn't it be so much better for the consumer, for the driver manufacturers to test their driver heads and label them accordingly: Grade A for those that are so very close to the CT limit; Grade B for those that are not so close, but still playable; and Grade C for those that are duds, but are put on the market for extreme price conscious consumers.



    A smart golf equipment manufacturer would only sell Grade A and Grade B - with different price points separating them - and take Grade C off the market and recycle the titanium.



    Wouldn't this make so much more sense than injecting some resin behind a hot face in order to make the club conforming? Or paying for an artificial intelligence mega computer to compute an appropriate face design?



    Hey, if you are a budget conscious consumer, you could opt for Grade B, and marry that head with a really good aftermarket shaft. Perhaps Grade C heads could be sold inexpensively to juniors or beginning golfers - an inexpensive way to get into the game. When your game becomes more consistent, you move to grade B; or, you drop out of the game because the game isn't for you, and your initial outlay was not extravagant.



    If you have money to burn on your golf equipment, you would buy Grade A, and plan to spend upwards of $700 or 800 or more for that grade.



    I think that this would be better for the consumer.



    If you buy a Subaru Impreza WRX, you know that you are paying extra for a more powerful engine. Golf drivers should be marketed the same way. My humble opinion.




    Your not in sales or marketing huh lol.



    1. No one would buy grade B drivers.

    2. Manufacturer's would have tons of old stock they discount at cost.

    3. Would be bad for industry



    I would like the USGA to mandate CT test be published on the packaging however that will never happen.
    PING G410 9* PX Evenflow Black 75 6.0
    PING G410 LST 3w PX Evenflow Black 85 6.0
    PING G410 5w PX Evenflow Black 85 6.0
    PING G410 4-PW AWT 2 0 stiff
    PING Stealth Glide 2.0 50ss/54ss/58ss
    PING Sigam G Tyne
  • KRW59KRW59 Hoarder Members Posts: 856 ✭✭
    edited Jan 7, 2019 12:08pm #8


    One of our OEM reps said this:



    Average driver on the market in 2018 was tested at .817 with the legal limit at .830. And that it’s just too expensive to get them closer to .830 while being mass produced. Now Taylormade’s M5/6 drivers are supposedly averaging .825, and having more checks on the CT of the face are why they had to increase prices from $429/$500 to $500/$550.




    This is not new technology...it has been done before...Adams XTD driver...

    Their last release before the Taylormade takeover...



    The face was milled in such a way to expand the surface area that was at ,or

    very close to the COR / CT limit , by " deadening " the sweet spot to the

    conforming limit. Multiple checks were made during production to ensure the

    the limit was not exceded....Great ball speeds...Terrible dispersion...



    Cobra King F9 10.5* / Fuji Speeder Evo IV  569-SR
    TEE EX10 Beta 16.5* / Fuji Platinum Speeder 5-SR
    TEE EX10 19* / Fuji Platinum Speeder 6-S
    TEE EX9 22* / Attas 4U 7-S.
    TEE EX9 25* / Attas 4U 7-X
    I have added about 10 grams of weight to all the fwy / hybrid
    shafts , using Sensicore inserts wrapped with lead tape.

    Cobra Forged Tec Black / 28* 6 iron thru 49.5* GW / 4.5* gapping
    Recoil 780 Es Smac wrap F3 / GW shaft internally weighted to 95 grams

    King Black Wedges / 54* versatile/ Recoil 95 F3 shaft weighted to 110 grams
    58* versatile / Recoil 110 F4 shaft weighted to 125 grams ( heat shrink tube )

    Piretti Savona 2 Elite《Murdered》or 1/1 GSS High Toe Potenza II

    Flask - Crown Black
  • jll62jll62 ClubWRX Posts: 2,028 ClubWRX
    KRW59 wrote:



    One of our OEM reps said this:



    Average driver on the market in 2018 was tested at .817 with the legal limit at .830. And that it’s just too expensive to get them closer to .830 while being mass produced. Now Taylormade’s M5/6 drivers are supposedly averaging .825, and having more checks on the CT of the face are why they had to increase prices from $429/$500 to $500/$550.




    This is not new technology...it has been done before...Adams XTD driver...

    Their last release before the Taylormade takeover...



    The face was milled in such a way to expand the surface area that was at ,or

    very close to the COR / CT limit , by " deadening " the sweet spot to the

    conforming limit. Multiple checks were made during production to ensure the

    the limit was not exceded....




    Checking for conformance is not new tech, but the way TaylorMade has gotten close to the limit is. Even with the XTD and Adams testing it as the heads were going along the production line, there were still manufacturing tolerances to deal with. There were a range of values that were acceptable as the XTD heads were tested, so they weren't all pushing right up against the limit. TaylorMade's injection process should produce heads that are all consistently closer to the limit that the XTD heads were, but albeit at differences that are likely marginal.



    Fun fact, Adams deadened the sweet spot by using TaylorMade's Inverted Cone Technology (ICT).
    TaylorMade M3 9.5, GD Tour AD GP-6s, 44.75"
    TaylorMade M3 T3, Tensei Pro White 70 S, 42.5"
    TaylorMade P-790 UDI 2, Aerotech SteelFiber i95 S
    TaylorMade P-770 3-4, DG X100 (SSx1)
    TaylorMade RSi TP 5-PW, KBS C-Taper S+
    TaylorMade Milled Grind 52 Raw, DG S400 Tour Issue
    TaylorMade Hi-Toe 58, DG S400 Tour Issue
    TaylorMade DJ Itsy Bitsy Proto, 34"
    TaylorMade TP5x #12

    jll62's WITB
  • KRW59KRW59 Hoarder Members Posts: 856 ✭✭
    Who will be the first Wrxer , to try removing the CT / COR governor from a

    M5 or M6 head using endoscopic surgery ??
    Cobra King F9 10.5* / Fuji Speeder Evo IV  569-SR
    TEE EX10 Beta 16.5* / Fuji Platinum Speeder 5-SR
    TEE EX10 19* / Fuji Platinum Speeder 6-S
    TEE EX9 22* / Attas 4U 7-S.
    TEE EX9 25* / Attas 4U 7-X
    I have added about 10 grams of weight to all the fwy / hybrid
    shafts , using Sensicore inserts wrapped with lead tape.

    Cobra Forged Tec Black / 28* 6 iron thru 49.5* GW / 4.5* gapping
    Recoil 780 Es Smac wrap F3 / GW shaft internally weighted to 95 grams

    King Black Wedges / 54* versatile/ Recoil 95 F3 shaft weighted to 110 grams
    58* versatile / Recoil 110 F4 shaft weighted to 125 grams ( heat shrink tube )

    Piretti Savona 2 Elite《Murdered》or 1/1 GSS High Toe Potenza II

    Flask - Crown Black
  • MysteryVMysteryV Members Posts: 337 ✭✭
    My question is who will be the first WRXer to create a portable version of the USGAs testing machine and go from retail shop testing heads, buying the hot ones, and selling the at a markup.
    Driver: Ping G400 Max w/ Tensei PO
    3 Wood: Epic 3+ w/ GD AD-DI
    Irons: Miura CB-1008 w/ Oban CT-115
    Wedges: Miura Y Grind 51, Miura K Grind 56,60 w/ Modus Wedge
    Putter: Scotty Newport 2 - AOP Oval Track
  • TollBrosTollBros Overseer of the Test Range Sponsors Posts: 4,873 ✭✭
    gvogel wrote:


    Thinking about some of the new driver offerings - (TaylorMade, I am looking at you, and also Callaway's AI Epic Flash) - the marketing push for drivers this year would seem to be to offer a driver face as close as CT as possible.



    Here's my take. When you go to the supermarket, you can buy Grade AA eggs, Grade A eggs, or Grade B eggs. Or maybe even Grade AAA eggs. I don't buy eggs too much, but I am aware of the difference of grades.



    Wouldn't it be so much better for the consumer, for the driver manufacturers to test their driver heads and label them accordingly: Grade A for those that are so very close to the CT limit; Grade B for those that are not so close, but still playable; and Grade C for those that are duds, but are put on the market for extreme price conscious consumers.



    A smart golf equipment manufacturer would only sell Grade A and Grade B - with different price points separating them - and take Grade C off the market and recycle the titanium.



    Wouldn't this make so much more sense than injecting some resin behind a hot face in order to make the club conforming? Or paying for an artificial intelligence mega computer to compute an appropriate face design?



    Hey, if you are a budget conscious consumer, you could opt for Grade B, and marry that head with a really good aftermarket shaft. Perhaps Grade C heads could be sold inexpensively to juniors or beginning golfers - an inexpensive way to get into the game. When your game becomes more consistent, you move to grade B; or, you drop out of the game because the game isn't for you, and your initial outlay was not extravagant.



    If you have money to burn on your golf equipment, you would buy Grade A, and plan to spend upwards of $700 or 800 or more for that grade.



    I think that this would be better for the consumer.



    If you buy a Subaru Impreza WRX, you know that you are paying extra for a more powerful engine. Golf drivers should be marketed the same way. My humble opinion.




    It somewhat is that way. Tour issue is spec tested, generally very close to max CT and carries a premium. I'd say Tour issue heads are your grade A product.
    http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/forum/608-greengrassevaluationscom/

    Please click the link above for our Sponsor area with rare and Tour only products.
  • tx33tx33 Members Posts: 454
    Although there is a difference between CT and COR values because of the way in which they are measured, that (output) difference is not as big as that caused by manufacturing tolerances. As always, it is MOSTLY marketing BS to sell a product. The easiest way to find the highest possible/allowed value: test various heads with your own ball and check PTR, then BUY THE DEMO image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />
  • TomWishonTomWishon Sponsors Posts: 3,653 ✭✭
    edited Jan 8, 2019 2:30pm #14
    Last I heard, the USGA does not allow their CT machine to be used in a commercial manner. Meaning that anyone who began to offer to perform CT measurements for golfers would have their licence for the CT machine software rescinded if they did that. I recall the USGA telling companies several years ago that they were not to publish CT measurements for clubs because that constituted using the machine for possible commercial benefit.



    I find it very interesting that this year the latest "new technology" achievement is being able to deliver driver heads with the CT closer to the limit. Anything for that last little drip of distance to lure Joe Golfer into freeing up his plastic to keep consuming the latest new driver.



    For a golfer with a 100mph clubhead speed with the driver the carry distance between a 0.830 driver head and one at 0.900 is 10.3 yards.



    Now think about what this info is telling you (with a little math ) for the difference between a driver of 0.822/239CT and 0.830/257CT. It's barely 1 yard more for 0.830 over 0.822 at a 100mph clubhead speed.



    Is that worth a new driver that promises you a driver with a CT closer to the limit in the rules? Especially one that also happens to be 46" long which means about 98% of all golfers find themselves at a disadvantage to hit the center of the face with a decent frequency?



    Sorry to criticize. But it still is a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees with so many golfers. Find a really good clubfitter who can find the right length/loft/lie/face angle/shaft/weighting/grip for you and your swing and you can put any quality brand driver head made in the last 12 years with those determined specs and you will have the best driver you will ever hit. Period.
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Members Posts: 9,586 ✭✭
    Agreed it is hilarious people are spending hundreds of dollars extra for literally half a yard.



    I also really don't think knowing the face angle or loft is important unless someone is really good. Like deep +
    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • TomWishonTomWishon Sponsors Posts: 3,653 ✭✭
    pinhigh27 wrote:




    I also really don't think knowing the face angle or loft is important unless someone is really good. Like deep +




    I am sorry but it is absolutely of critical importance for the loft and face angle, along with the length, shaft, swingweight, total weight and grip type/size to be properly fit for EVERY SINGLE GOLFER - at least it is if their goal is to have the chance to play to the best of their ability.



    The golfer's clubhead speed + angle of attack has to be matched to the right loft so the golfer can maximize their distance. Slower swing speeds need higher lofts to achieve the right launch angle to ensure maximum distance. HIgher speeds the opposite. Regardless of speed, people with a downward angle of attack need higher lofts to achieve their best launch angle to max distance. And those with a more upward A of A need lower lofts to do the same.



    Thousands of times golfers who shoot 100 and only have a 75mph driver clubhead speed have been given an additional 10-15 yds by being fit with a higher loft driver.



    Face angle is the most important fitting spec for golfers who have a chronic misdirection problem such as a slice or a hook. Sure, in a perfect world all slicers would go take lessons and in a season they would no longer slice the ball. But this is far from that perfect world because changing a swing path from outside in to inside out to get rid of a slice is one of the most difficult swing changes a golfer could ever try to do. Most can't do it even if they had the money and time to take a lot of lessons because a major swing path change requires a form of athleticism many golfers just do not have.



    Several years ago Golf Digest had a cover story in which their research team found out that some 70% of all golfers slice the ball enough to have it cause real problems with their play. For the millions of slicers who either cannot afford, do not have the time/commitment, or do not have the ability to change swing path to get rid of or reduce a slice, having a closed face angle in the driver and the woods is the difference between having fun in the game or not.



    Unfortunately since the advent of the adjustable hosel sleeve, those companies who use these on their drivers and woods have effectively killed face angle as a viable fitting specification. 10 yrs ago you used to see face angle listed as a spec in each company's list of specifications of their drivers and woods. Not anymore because in the desire to use a hosel sleeve to change loft in the same head, the face angle is a casualty.



    But the point is, if Joe Slicer can find a closed face driver and be fit for the right loft that matches his clubhead speed and angle of attack, Joe now is a much happier golfer.
  • 95124hacker95124hacker Rare putter collection Members Posts: 1,300 ✭✭
    Thanks Tom for being the voice of reason but I hope no OEM thugs arrive at your house in the middle of the night... Ask for hush money immediately
    ‘17 M2 “K serial” 10.5* turned down a notch, Fujikura Pro Tour Spec 63S
    '16 M1 3HL (17*), Fujikura Pro 70S
    King F7 2-3 (19*), Fujikura Pro 75h, S
    Epon AF-901 22*, Roddio Pentacross I-8, S
    '11 OnOff Forged 5-PW, Roddio Pentacross I-10, S
    Cleveland RTX-3 V-MG 52* & 58*
    Odyssey WHP CSM 400g
    Ball: Performing validation testing of the M G S test
  • VinceRKGVinceRKG Members Posts: 702 ✭✭
    You give a 70mph swing speed golfer , who hits a 10.5 loft a high CT club head of around 240-250! They will be get distances they have never seen before. Have seen this personally hundreds of times. Faster swings with over CT heads will lose distance and be **** balls off the face. There is a limit to what they can on CT number before going over that hill and losing speeds. But yes like Tom stated its the whole club that best fits and suited for that golfer to get the best out of it. Cant just rely on one thing.
    #YumaMade #YTown
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Members Posts: 9,586 ✭✭
    VinceRKG wrote:


    You give a 70mph swing speed golfer , who hits a 10.5 loft a high CT club head of around 240-250! They will be get distances they have never seen before. Have seen this personally hundreds of times. Faster swings with over CT heads will lose distance and be **** balls off the face. There is a limit to what they can on CT number before going over that hill and losing speeds. But yes like Tom stated its the whole club that best fits and suited for that golfer to get the best out of it. Cant just rely on one thing.




    huh? that makes no sense
    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • sdandreasdandrea Steve Members Posts: 2,353 ✭✭
    edited Jan 8, 2019 7:07pm #20
    TomWishon wrote:


    ................. Find a really good clubfitter who can find the right length/loft/lie/face angle/shaft/weighting/grip for you and your swing and you can put any quality brand driver head made in the last 12 years with those determined specs and you will have the best driver you will ever hit. Period.




    The TRUTH ^^^ (that the OEMs don't want us to know).
    Cobra Max 10.5*
    Cobra Baffler T Rail 19*
    Cobra Baffler 5h
    Maltby Tricept F1 6-GW
    Callaway Sure Out 56*
    Odyssey V-Line
  • tx33tx33 Members Posts: 454
    TomWishon wrote:


    Unfortunately since the advent of the adjustable hosel sleeve, those companies who use these on their drivers and woods have effectively killed face angle as a viable fitting specification. 10 yrs ago you used to see face angle listed as a spec in each company's list of specifications of their drivers and woods. Not anymore because in the desire to use a hosel sleeve to change loft in the same head, the face angle is a casualty.


    This is what bugs me most about the adjustable hosel: rather than giving fitters an extra option to change FA in woods without reboring a hosel or bending it, both of which are very hard to do successfully, they basically take away loft options to reduce SKU and cover that up with BS marketing.



    Previously you could basically get every loft from 8-12 degrees (or even more handpicked) from most OEMs and after measuring one you knew the actual loft vs the stated for that model head. It was a pain, but after the initial work you could reliably get the proper head for the player. Now some driver models have only two lofts and you're out of options if you need more/less loft AND FA adjustment, which to be fair would benefit most players.



    If they just kept the old SKU count and added the loft sleeve for FA/Lie adjustment more players could be fit properly.
  • NessismNessism To measure is to know... Members Posts: 18,361 ✭✭
    .822 to .830 is .008 or .8% more energy transfer.



    On a 250 yard drive .8% gives you 2 yards, assuming the extra energy translates perfectly to extra yards.



    Nothing to get excited about.



    Ping G400 driver w/Aldila Rogue 125 Silver 60S
    Cobra (Lexi blue) F7 5 wood w/Aldila Black 70S
    Cobra (Lexi blue) F7 Hybrid w/Aldila Kuro Kage 80S
    Ping G410 irons w/Recoil 95S (i200 backups)
    Ping Glide 50/55/60 wedges w/Recoil 110S
    Ping Anser/Arna putter - the "real deal!"
  • TomWishonTomWishon Sponsors Posts: 3,653 ✭✭
    tx33 wrote:

    TomWishon wrote:


    Unfortunately since the advent of the adjustable hosel sleeve, those companies who use these on their drivers and woods have effectively killed face angle as a viable fitting specification. 10 yrs ago you used to see face angle listed as a spec in each company's list of specifications of their drivers and woods. Not anymore because in the desire to use a hosel sleeve to change loft in the same head, the face angle is a casualty.


    This is what bugs me most about the adjustable hosel: rather than giving fitters an extra option to change FA in woods without reboring a hosel or bending it, both of which are very hard to do successfully, they basically take away loft options to reduce SKU and cover that up with BS marketing.



    Previously you could basically get every loft from 8-12 degrees (or even more handpicked) from most OEMs and after measuring one you knew the actual loft vs the stated for that model head. It was a pain, but after the initial work you could reliably get the proper head for the player. Now some driver models have only two lofts and you're out of options if you need more/less loft AND FA adjustment, which to be fair would benefit most players.



    If they just kept the old SKU count and added the loft sleeve for FA/Lie adjustment more players could be fit properly.




    You are absolutely right in saying that a big reason behind the move to and retention of the adjustable hosel sleeve in drivers was the fact the companies saved a ton of money in their inventory management - at the expense of being able to really help slicers. In the pre-sleeve days as you said, companies tooled up, produced and inventoried separate driver models in 9, 10, 11 and sometimes 12 degree lofts. Multiply that by 2 because of left hand players and you have 8 SKUs to have to determine how many to buy, when to buy. No purchasing manager is perfect in predicting how many and when so the companies always fought the battle of too little of one and too many of another.



    Now a business first/money first mentality might look at that and say, 'brilliant business move.' But for the golfers, 70% of whom do need help reducing the slice to enjoy the game more. Nope. You don't count. Go take lessons.



    The other reason for the move to the adj hosel sleeve was to pretend they could offer 'custom fitting' for golfers with the contrived loft changing ability of the sleeve. I followed the move into hosel sleeves very closely because I had the pleasure of designing the first adjustable hosel sleeve back in 1995 so I was very interested to see how the big companies would run with that. Please correct me if I am wrong but in the first year of release of the adj hosel sleeves, no company actually made it crystal clear that the only way you get a loft change with these sleeves was to hold/hover the head in a square face position at address. Soling the driver caused an undefined face angle change with no change in loft. So they brought these things out and never clearly told golfers exactly how to use them.



    Good players and those who hit it straight figured it out quickly so a good player pooh poohs a gripe like this. Joe Golfer didn't.



    Anyway. Sigh. Sorry for the rant but I am so tired of companies in every field of endeavor these days making decisions first and foremost on the basis of money/stock value over quality, service and customer well being. It just frustrates the **** out of me when there are much better ways of doing things which never happen because it costs more to do it. OK, stick a fork in me, I'm done and time to disappear.
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,118 ✭✭
    edited Jan 9, 2019 12:31pm #24
    TomWishon wrote:


    Please correct me if I am wrong but in the first year of release of the adj hosel sleeves, no company actually made it crystal clear that the only way you get a loft change with these sleeves was to hold/hover the head in a square face position at address.




    More trivia than anything meaningful - doesn't really change the current state of things but ...



    The first release (TM r9 series) actually wasn't quite as bad as it is now. The adjustment originally wasn't marketed as exclusively a loft change, in fact face angle came first in the description but the specifics on how the specs changed were left out.



    TaylorMade® Flight Control Technology - Change the face angle, lie angle and loft to affect side-to-side flight by up to 40 yards – 8 clubhead positions



    But the actual labels on the hosel were "L" and "R" (left and right) instead of references to loft or height of the flight. Although the ball flight charts showed both directional and elevation changes.



    https://www.taylorma...0_Driver_SS.pdf





    Callaway's first adjustable hosel release was explicitly labeled and marketed as a face angle adjustment with "open", "square", and "closed" settings. It didn't last long though. Only a year or two before they changed to match what the other OEM's were doing.





    Titleist was actually the one that started their first design listed with loft as one of the adjustment parameters. Ping did as well - but they were quite late to the party so did it after all the other companies had already changed over to referencing their hosel adjustments as 'loft' changes.





    Then of course for the TM R11, they added the sole plate as the 'face angle' adjustment and switched the hosel adjustment labels to be the loft adjustments. Just a guess but likely because they didn't want to confuse customers with two different face angle adjustments. But whatever the reason, the consequences were the same.



    Although the r11 was also released at the same time as Titleist's first adjustable hosel models - so whether Titleist's or TM's was the first to decide to reference loft as the primary adjustment function is impossible to say.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • TollBrosTollBros Overseer of the Test Range Sponsors Posts: 4,873 ✭✭
    tx33 wrote:




    This is what bugs me most about the adjustable hosel: rather than giving fitters an extra option to change FA in woods without reboring a hosel or bending it, both of which are very hard to do successfully, they basically take away loft options to reduce SKU and cover that up with BS marketing.




    I agree with you 100%. The only reason to not offer every true loft is nothing but a reason to limit sku's and lower production costs. In my opinion it is vital to be able to choose loft independent of face angle. That's why I only play Taylormade woods. I need 7 degrees of true loft at less than 1 degree open face angle. This is totally unachievable except in a Taylormade head in 2019. I don't want to have to hover the club, manipulating it from 4 degrees open at address.
    http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/forum/608-greengrassevaluationscom/

    Please click the link above for our Sponsor area with rare and Tour only products.
  • TollBrosTollBros Overseer of the Test Range Sponsors Posts: 4,873 ✭✭
    TomWishon wrote:

    tx33 wrote:

    TomWishon wrote:


    Unfortunately since the advent of the adjustable hosel sleeve, those companies who use these on their drivers and woods have effectively killed face angle as a viable fitting specification. 10 yrs ago you used to see face angle listed as a spec in each company's list of specifications of their drivers and woods. Not anymore because in the desire to use a hosel sleeve to change loft in the same head, the face angle is a casualty.


    This is what bugs me most about the adjustable hosel: rather than giving fitters an extra option to change FA in woods without reboring a hosel or bending it, both of which are very hard to do successfully, they basically take away loft options to reduce SKU and cover that up with BS marketing.



    Previously you could basically get every loft from 8-12 degrees (or even more handpicked) from most OEMs and after measuring one you knew the actual loft vs the stated for that model head. It was a pain, but after the initial work you could reliably get the proper head for the player. Now some driver models have only two lofts and you're out of options if you need more/less loft AND FA adjustment, which to be fair would benefit most players.



    If they just kept the old SKU count and added the loft sleeve for FA/Lie adjustment more players could be fit properly.




    You are absolutely right in saying that a big reason behind the move to and retention of the adjustable hosel sleeve in drivers was the fact the companies saved a ton of money in their inventory management - at the expense of being able to really help slicers. In the pre-sleeve days as you said, companies tooled up, produced and inventoried separate driver models in 9, 10, 11 and sometimes 12 degree lofts. Multiply that by 2 because of left hand players and you have 8 SKUs to have to determine how many to buy, when to buy. No purchasing manager is perfect in predicting how many and when so the companies always fought the battle of too little of one and too many of another.



    Now a business first/money first mentality might look at that and say, 'brilliant business move.' But for the golfers, 70% of whom do need help reducing the slice to enjoy the game more. Nope. You don't count. Go take lessons.



    The other reason for the move to the adj hosel sleeve was to pretend they could offer 'custom fitting' for golfers with the contrived loft changing ability of the sleeve. I followed the move into hosel sleeves very closely because I had the pleasure of designing the first adjustable hosel sleeve back in 1995 so I was very interested to see how the big companies would run with that. Please correct me if I am wrong but in the first year of release of the adj hosel sleeves, no company actually made it crystal clear that the only way you get a loft change with these sleeves was to hold/hover the head in a square face position at address. Soling the driver caused an undefined face angle change with no change in loft. So they brought these things out and never clearly told golfers exactly how to use them.



    Good players and those who hit it straight figured it out quickly so a good player pooh poohs a gripe like this. Joe Golfer didn't.



    Anyway. Sigh. Sorry for the rant but I am so tired of companies in every field of endeavor these days making decisions first and foremost on the basis of money/stock value over quality, service and customer well being. It just frustrates the **** out of me when there are much better ways of doing things which never happen because it costs more to do it. OK, stick a fork in me, I'm done and time to disappear.




    Very well said sir. There really isn't anything to add after this.
    http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/forum/608-greengrassevaluationscom/

    Please click the link above for our Sponsor area with rare and Tour only products.
  • VinceRKGVinceRKG Members Posts: 702 ✭✭
    pinhigh27 wrote:

    VinceRKG wrote:


    You give a 70mph swing speed golfer , who hits a 10.5 loft a high CT club head of around 240-250! They will be get distances they have never seen before. Have seen this personally hundreds of times. Faster swings with over CT heads will lose distance and be **** balls off the face. There is a limit to what they can on CT number before going over that hill and losing speeds. But yes like Tom stated its the whole club that best fits and suited for that golfer to get the best out of it. Cant just rely on one thing.




    huh? that makes no sense






    The slower the swing speed, that golfers needs more POP on the face, a bigger looser trampoline.

    Make sense?



    The faster the swing speed, that golfer needs less POP on the face, a tighter trampoline.

    Make sense?



    If you were to give a faster swing speed a face that gives too much, IE..over CT.257, they were have a face that gives too much. meaning the ball is staying on the face longer. So you lose any pop. The face just gives more.



    Take it like this, you think you hitting someone with your fist would be hurt more if they moved away from you as contact is made, or if they stood and took the hit?



    So the best a manufacturer can do is find to middle grounds. One for slower speeds with hitter faces or close to over CT as possible. .

    And one for faster speeds with further away as far as allowed but still staying close to the CT limit.



    When you hit a driver that face will start to break down little by little. So you need a manufacturer needs to know that higher speeds will move a face faster to CT number than a slower speed golfer.



    Now getting DEEEEEPER into the that area comes forged vs cast club heads, the titanium they use, and the thickness of the face will all play a roll in CT movement.



    ramble over hahaha sorry......
    #YumaMade #YTown
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,118 ✭✭
    edited Jan 12, 2019 5:06am #28
    VinceRKG wrote:


    If you were to give a faster swing speed a face that gives too much, IE..over CT.257, they were have a face that gives too much. meaning the ball is staying on the face longer. So you lose any pop. The face just gives more.



    ...



    So the best a manufacturer can do is find to middle grounds. One for slower speeds with hitter faces or close to over CT as possible. .

    And one for faster speeds with further away as far as allowed but still staying close to the CT limit.




    Sorry - that's not how it works. All swing speeds will benefit from a higher COR/CT. Different speeds do not have different 'needs' for the CT value to optimize their ball speed.



    First, the club face doesn't add any 'pop'. You have to look at CT or COR as being about how much energy is lost in the impact not how much is added. At impact both the face and the ball deform as energy is transferred between the two. Kinetic to potential energy and back to kinetic. Energy is lost because neither the ball or the face are perfectly elastic so some energy is lost because of those deformations. And the amount of energy lost is going to be proportional to how much deformation occurs in each combined with the material properties of what is deforming.



    Now for any given equal impact (i.e. identical club head speed and impact) we see differences in COR because of how much the face deforms compared to how much the ball deforms. To put it simply, the total potential energy in all the deformation generally will stay the same. So If the face is stiffer and deforms less, that means the ball will deform more. Or if the face deforms more, the ball will deform less. So the issue and end result comes down to which material has better elastic properties and looses less energy during the deformation. And the answer is the Titanium in the face has much better elastic properties than the polymers of the ball.



    So it comes down to that the more the face deforms, the less the ball deforms, and the less energy is lost in the collision and the higher the COR (or CT) will be. And that applies equally for ANY club head speed.
  • VinceRKGVinceRKG Members Posts: 702 ✭✭
    Stuart G. wrote:

    VinceRKG wrote:


    If you were to give a faster swing speed a face that gives too much, IE..over CT.257, they were have a face that gives too much. meaning the ball is staying on the face longer. So you lose any pop. The face just gives more.



    ...



    So the best a manufacturer can do is find to middle grounds. One for slower speeds with hitter faces or close to over CT as possible. .

    And one for faster speeds with further away as far as allowed but still staying close to the CT limit.




    Sorry - that's not how it works. All swing speeds will benefit from a higher COR/CT. Different speeds do not have different 'needs' for the CT value to optimize their ball speed.



    First, the club face doesn't add any 'pop'. You have to look at CT or COR as being about how much energy is lost in the impact not how much is added. At impact both the face and the ball deform as energy is transferred between the two. Kinetic to potential energy and back to kinetic. Energy is lost because neither the ball or the face are perfectly elastic so some energy is lost because of those deformations. And the amount of energy lost is going to be proportional to how much deformation occurs in each combined with the material properties of what is deforming.



    Now for any given equal impact (i.e. identical club head speed and impact) we see differences in COR because of how much the face deforms compared to how much the ball deforms. To put it simply, the total potential energy in all the deformation generally will stay the same. So If the face is stiffer and deforms less, that means the ball will deform more. Or if the face deforms more, the ball will deform less. So the issue and end result comes down to which material has better elastic properties and looses less energy during the deformation. And the answer is the Titanium in the face has much better elastic properties than the polymers of the ball.



    So it comes down to that the more the face deforms, the less the ball deforms, and the less energy is lost in the collision and the higher the COR (or CT) will be. And that applies equally for ANY club head speed.




    Yes true to the coming down to what titanium is being used, also the hardness of it and thickness of the face. That all is a big part of achieving higher ball speeds.



    BUT, I can sit there and give a 110 swing speed a .270 CT head and he will lose speed. But I can give that same head to a 80 swing speed and he will hit the holy white off the ball and get his highest numbers.

    I have seen it hundreds of times and made my goal to find one where it did not work for them.



    You simply can not give any PGA PRO like Woodland speed and power and impact a .270 head and say he will achieve his highest speeds ever.

    If that were the case companies would be making their heads at .240 and having he pros hit them in practice rounds to get the number up and migration up so they could cut corners and driving greens all day long.



    Remember that for a club to be conforming via USGA rules, as long as the head submitted is tested as is before hit, and passes, it will be legal for use no matter it going past that .257 after being used.
    #YumaMade #YTown
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Members Posts: 9,586 ✭✭
    VinceRKG wrote:

    Stuart G. wrote:

    VinceRKG wrote:


    If you were to give a faster swing speed a face that gives too much, IE..over CT.257, they were have a face that gives too much. meaning the ball is staying on the face longer. So you lose any pop. The face just gives more.



    ...



    So the best a manufacturer can do is find to middle grounds. One for slower speeds with hitter faces or close to over CT as possible. .

    And one for faster speeds with further away as far as allowed but still staying close to the CT limit.




    Sorry - that's not how it works. All swing speeds will benefit from a higher COR/CT. Different speeds do not have different 'needs' for the CT value to optimize their ball speed.



    First, the club face doesn't add any 'pop'. You have to look at CT or COR as being about how much energy is lost in the impact not how much is added. At impact both the face and the ball deform as energy is transferred between the two. Kinetic to potential energy and back to kinetic. Energy is lost because neither the ball or the face are perfectly elastic so some energy is lost because of those deformations. And the amount of energy lost is going to be proportional to how much deformation occurs in each combined with the material properties of what is deforming.



    Now for any given equal impact (i.e. identical club head speed and impact) we see differences in COR because of how much the face deforms compared to how much the ball deforms. To put it simply, the total potential energy in all the deformation generally will stay the same. So If the face is stiffer and deforms less, that means the ball will deform more. Or if the face deforms more, the ball will deform less. So the issue and end result comes down to which material has better elastic properties and looses less energy during the deformation. And the answer is the Titanium in the face has much better elastic properties than the polymers of the ball.



    So it comes down to that the more the face deforms, the less the ball deforms, and the less energy is lost in the collision and the higher the COR (or CT) will be. And that applies equally for ANY club head speed.




    Yes true to the coming down to what titanium is being used, also the hardness of it and thickness of the face. That all is a big part of achieving higher ball speeds.



    BUT, I can sit there and give a 110 swing speed a .270 CT head and he will lose speed. But I can give that same head to a 80 swing speed and he will hit the holy white off the ball and get his highest numbers.

    I have seen it hundreds of times and made my goal to find one where it did not work for them.



    You simply can not give any PGA PRO like Woodland speed and power and impact a .270 head and say he will achieve his highest speeds ever.

    If that were the case companies would be making their heads at .240 and having he pros hit them in practice rounds to get the number up and migration up so they could cut corners and driving greens all day long.



    Remember that for a club to be conforming via USGA rules, as long as the head submitted is tested as is before hit, and passes, it will be legal for use no matter it going past that .257 after being used.




    huh? as we have discussed in this thread it's literally like a couple yards difference between " super hot " heads and regular ones. 2 yards isn't the difference between cutting a corner or driving a green.



    I still haven't heard any reasonable explanation for why someone who hits it long wouldn't benefit from a hot head just like a slow joe would
    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • Jc0Jc0 ChicagoMembers Posts: 1,872 ✭✭
    pinhigh27 wrote:

    VinceRKG wrote:

    Stuart G. wrote:

    VinceRKG wrote:


    If you were to give a faster swing speed a face that gives too much, IE..over CT.257, they were have a face that gives too much. meaning the ball is staying on the face longer. So you lose any pop. The face just gives more.



    ...



    So the best a manufacturer can do is find to middle grounds. One for slower speeds with hitter faces or close to over CT as possible. .

    And one for faster speeds with further away as far as allowed but still staying close to the CT limit.




    Sorry - that's not how it works. All swing speeds will benefit from a higher COR/CT. Different speeds do not have different 'needs' for the CT value to optimize their ball speed.



    First, the club face doesn't add any 'pop'. You have to look at CT or COR as being about how much energy is lost in the impact not how much is added. At impact both the face and the ball deform as energy is transferred between the two. Kinetic to potential energy and back to kinetic. Energy is lost because neither the ball or the face are perfectly elastic so some energy is lost because of those deformations. And the amount of energy lost is going to be proportional to how much deformation occurs in each combined with the material properties of what is deforming.



    Now for any given equal impact (i.e. identical club head speed and impact) we see differences in COR because of how much the face deforms compared to how much the ball deforms. To put it simply, the total potential energy in all the deformation generally will stay the same. So If the face is stiffer and deforms less, that means the ball will deform more. Or if the face deforms more, the ball will deform less. So the issue and end result comes down to which material has better elastic properties and looses less energy during the deformation. And the answer is the Titanium in the face has much better elastic properties than the polymers of the ball.



    So it comes down to that the more the face deforms, the less the ball deforms, and the less energy is lost in the collision and the higher the COR (or CT) will be. And that applies equally for ANY club head speed.




    Yes true to the coming down to what titanium is being used, also the hardness of it and thickness of the face. That all is a big part of achieving higher ball speeds.



    BUT, I can sit there and give a 110 swing speed a .270 CT head and he will lose speed. But I can give that same head to a 80 swing speed and he will hit the holy white off the ball and get his highest numbers.

    I have seen it hundreds of times and made my goal to find one where it did not work for them.



    You simply can not give any PGA PRO like Woodland speed and power and impact a .270 head and say he will achieve his highest speeds ever.

    If that were the case companies would be making their heads at .240 and having he pros hit them in practice rounds to get the number up and migration up so they could cut corners and driving greens all day long.



    Remember that for a club to be conforming via USGA rules, as long as the head submitted is tested as is before hit, and passes, it will be legal for use no matter it going past that .257 after being used.




    huh? as we have discussed in this thread it's literally like a couple yards difference between " super hot " heads and regular ones. 2 yards isn't the difference between cutting a corner or driving a green.



    I still haven't heard any reasonable explanation for why someone who hits it long wouldn't benefit from a hot head just like a slow joe would




    There is no reason. A driver face deflects so fast that swing speed is a non-issue. A golf ball compresses far more. To soft a ball can have the loose trampoline effect, not the driver face. The only downside for high swing speed is the face is more brittle. There use to be reinforced clubs made for professional long drivers because they would cave the face of the driver in. Also to the .240 item, the face of a club will catastrophically fail before it gets too hot. Carbon fiber can keep stretching and get more pop which is why softball has rules on length of use for carbon fiber bats, but not metal.
Sign In or Register to comment.