ANNOUNCEMENT:
Please have patience. We understand that this sucks and it will get MUCH better. Link to full post HERE

Please add any bugs (problems) with new software in the Website Help Forum. There is a dedicated thread HERE.

M5 and M6 CT Numbers

JStangJStang Advanced Members Posts: 2,369 ✭✭
edited February 16 in WRX Club Techs
We have all seen the ads about how TM has manufactured these clubs beyond the legal limit and then brought them back to legal with their resin.



I just saw a tour issue head with a CT of 240 on the label. Wouldn't you think that TM would keep all of the tour issue stuff as high as possible so their claims dont seem so outrageous? I was shocked to see the CT number on a tour issue product.



I know the legal limit was set at 239 with a tolerance of +18 giving the maximum allowable CT at 257. Are they just shooting for the 239 number?
F9 Rogue Fairway | 915H 2 & 3 | 718 CBVokey SM6 52, 58Byron Morgan DH89
«1

Comments

  • davo32683davo32683 Advanced Members Posts: 2,020 ✭✭
    I agree. I expected all the tested heads to be much closer to the legal limit
    Cobra F9 Avalanche 8° Accra TZ6 65 M5
    Titleist TS3 15° 3 Wood Diamana Thump 75X
    Bridgestone J15 CB 4-PW KBS $ Taper 130X
    Titleist SM7 Raw 50°
    Titleist Oil Can Wedgeworks 54°
    TaylorMade Hi Toe 60°
    Custom Torched Evnroll ER2
    Custom MannKrafted WB-XL Long Pipe Neck
  • shakeyshakey OvenWRX 1 Advanced Members Posts: 5,640 ✭✭
    I watched a video from TM and they constantly talk about COR testing and not CT when talking about the new drivers being maxed out. I don’t know how much correlation those numbers would have to one another.
    TM M6 10.5 w/PX Evenflow Blue 65 Stiff
    TM M4 3HL w/Diamana D+ Ltd 70 Stiff
    NIKE VR Pro II Hybrid 3 (21) w/PX Graphite 5.5
    Mizuno JPX 919 Tour 4-PW w/Modus 120 Stiff

    TM Milled Grind Black 52 SB and 58 LB w/Modus Tour 125 Wedge
    TM TP Black Copper Mullen 2

    TM TP5x
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,249 ✭✭
    Yep. I saw that too OP. I grabbed a screen shot of that head and label. If I can get it resized I’ll post.



    Pretty clear proof that the TM marketing campaign is all lies. The tour heads aren’t even at max.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • JStangJStang Advanced Members Posts: 2,369 ✭✭
    I did some research on how CT translates to distance and found this from Tom Wishon:



    "So that means a CT 257 is equivalent to a COR 0.830.  For the comparison sake, a CT 239 correlates to a COR of 0.822.   So that means a driver head with a 245 CT and another head with a 255 CT are only going to be separated in COR by 0.0045.   255 CT will be 0.8285 and 245 CT will be 0.8240.   In terms of ball speed that is really REALLY small and hardly even worth worrying about - basically you are talking about a 1 to 1.5 mph difference in ball speed at the very most.   1mph increase in ball speed is equivalent to about 1.8 yards in carry distance."
    F9 Rogue Fairway | 915H 2 & 3 | 718 CBVokey SM6 52, 58Byron Morgan DH89
  • LlortamaiseyLlortamaisey Advanced Members Posts: 5,861
    Wait... so the limit manufacturers are legally required to shoot for is 239. They are given a little leeway for manufacturing tolerances. Taylormade comes up with a superior manufacturing technique that allows for tighter tolerances. They shoot for 239 and hit 240 (very impressive in my opinion), and people are upset about that? Honestly, I am more convinced that the resin works now. If I saw a bunch of heads with 250/248/245 I would say that the resin doesn’t work and they still have industry standard flaws in their manufacturing tolerances.
  • jgard320jgard320 ClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 268 ClubWRX
    edited February 17


    Wait... so the limit manufacturers are legally required to shoot for is 239. They are given a little leeway for manufacturing tolerances. Taylormade comes up with a superior manufacturing technique that allows for tighter tolerances. They shoot for 239 and hit 240 (very impressive in my opinion), and people are upset about that? Honestly, I am more convinced that the resin works now. If I saw a bunch of heads with 250/248/245 I would say that the resin doesn’t work and they still have industry standard flaws in their manufacturing tolerances.




    1 single tour issue head is all it takes to convince you? I can find several tour issue Taylormade heads at 240 going back several years. Doesn't that just mean that they have been at the limit all along, and this is just marketing hype?



    The tour issue heads we get on ebay are the duds that the tour players don't want. As stated above, 257 correlates to .830 cor, and tour players want to maximize distance. The fact that they claim they can now make heads at the limit all around and have to dial them down, yet still produce clubs that fall below the limit, suggests that the speed injection is more of the same gimmick marketing.



    Variable face thickness has been around for awhile now. Almost all clubs will be close to .830 cor in the sweet spot, and almost all clubs will do what they can to spread that .830 cor across the face as far as possible. This concept is nothing new, and Taylormade is taking advantage of a lot of people with deceptive marketing.
  • JStangJStang Advanced Members Posts: 2,369 ✭✭
    Wait... so the limit manufacturers are legally required to shoot for is 239. They are given a little leeway for manufacturing tolerances. Taylormade comes up with a superior manufacturing technique that allows for tighter tolerances. They shoot for 239 and hit 240 (very impressive in my opinion), and people are upset about that? Honestly, I am more convinced that the resin works now. If I saw a bunch of heads with 250/248/245 I would say that the resin doesn’t work and they still have industry standard flaws in their manufacturing tolerances.


    Look at Ebay. The heads are certainly all over the place in regards to CT. If you have the ability to dial back the heads to maximize ball speeds, then do it. Do we really think that they test every single head?



    I thought the idea was brilliant but only if they are doing it to maximize ball speeds which they clearly are not doing.
    F9 Rogue Fairway | 915H 2 & 3 | 718 CBVokey SM6 52, 58Byron Morgan DH89
  • jgard320jgard320 ClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 268 ClubWRX
    edited February 17
    JStang wrote:


    Look at Ebay. The heads are certainly all over the place in regards to CT. If you have the ability to dial back the heads to maximize ball speeds, then do it. Do we really think that they test every single head?



    I thought the idea was brilliant but only if they are doing it to maximize ball speeds which they clearly are not doing.




    The only thing M5/M6 is accomplishing is fitting the current trend of injecting foam into a hollow body cavity. They're taking something trendy and familiar with irons and applying it to woods. All it is doing is accomplishing a variable thickness face in a different way. Maybe it is a subtle improvement, but it isn't anything that's going to give you a 1.5 smash dead off the low heel.



    COR has been maximized for awhile now. The next number that manufacturers need to reach is the 5900 g/cm^2 MOI, while keeping launch and spin down. Find the right hottest face/loft/face angle/weight with the right shaft combo that takes the highest MOI head (G400 Max) and gives you the most ideal launch and spin numbers for your swing speed. That's the key to getting the most consistent driver performance.
  • JStangJStang Advanced Members Posts: 2,369 ✭✭
    jgard320 wrote:
    JStang wrote:


    Look at Ebay. The heads are certainly all over the place in regards to CT. If you have the ability to dial back the heads to maximize ball speeds, then do it. Do we really think that they test every single head?



    I thought the idea was brilliant but only if they are doing it to maximize ball speeds which they clearly are not doing.




    The only thing M5/M6 is accomplishing is fitting the current trend of injecting foam into a hollow body cavity. They're taking something trendy and familiar with irons and applying it to woods. All it is doing is accomplishing a variable thickness face in a different way. Maybe it is a subtle improvement, but it isn't anything that's going to give you a 1.5 smash dead off the low heel.



    COR has been maximized for awhile now. The next number that manufacturers need to reach is the 5900 g/cm^2 MOI, while keeping launch and spin down. Find the right hottest face/loft/face angle/shaft combo that takes the highest MOI head (G400 Max) and gives you the most ideal launch and spin numbers for your swing speed. That's the key to getting the most consistent driver performance.


    COR limit is maximized. Manufacturing to the limit is still not happening and I'm sure tolerances make it extremely different for mass produced heads.
    F9 Rogue Fairway | 915H 2 & 3 | 718 CBVokey SM6 52, 58Byron Morgan DH89
  • jgard320jgard320 ClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 268 ClubWRX
    JStang wrote:

    jgard320 wrote:
    JStang wrote:


    Look at Ebay. The heads are certainly all over the place in regards to CT. If you have the ability to dial back the heads to maximize ball speeds, then do it. Do we really think that they test every single head?



    I thought the idea was brilliant but only if they are doing it to maximize ball speeds which they clearly are not doing.




    The only thing M5/M6 is accomplishing is fitting the current trend of injecting foam into a hollow body cavity. They're taking something trendy and familiar with irons and applying it to woods. All it is doing is accomplishing a variable thickness face in a different way. Maybe it is a subtle improvement, but it isn't anything that's going to give you a 1.5 smash dead off the low heel.



    COR has been maximized for awhile now. The next number that manufacturers need to reach is the 5900 g/cm^2 MOI, while keeping launch and spin down. Find the right hottest face/loft/face angle/shaft combo that takes the highest MOI head (G400 Max) and gives you the most ideal launch and spin numbers for your swing speed. That's the key to getting the most consistent driver performance.


    COR limit is maximized. Manufacturing to the limit is still not happening and I'm sure tolerances make it extremely different for mass produced heads.




    Well, just like any process, you'll get some that come out too low and some that come out over the limit. It's possible that you could get either of those off the rack, as they aren't sorting and testing tens of thousands of heads. All tour issue accomplishes is hand picking and measuring heads that fit the specs that the golfer needs, including picking the hottest head possible. The reason you see sub 245 ct heads on ebay is because whoever the golfer the head was picked for didn't want it due to the less hot face.



    Either way, speed injection is a gimmick, and variable face thickness to spread the sweet spot across the greatest portion of a head has been around for awhile now. The OEMs are just taking one possible measure of forgiveness in the form of retained ball speeds across the face, attempting to do it a little bit better (you'll never get a 1.5 smash off the low heel, for example) and calling it something new.
  • WoodersonWooderson Advanced Members Posts: 1,966 ✭✭
    edited February 17
    Tom has also stated that manufacturers are supposed to shoot for the actual limit which is 239 miliseconds. In fact there have been cases where manufacturers have been put on notice for products consistently approaching the 257 number. If TM was to start manufacturing clubs at the 257 limit consistently they would get in trouble. 257 is meant to be a buffer, not the goal.
    Let me tell you what Wooderson is packin'
    Ping G400 Max 9° Tour 65 Stiff

    Callaway Epic Flash 15°
    Callaway Epic Heavenwood
    Ping G410 22°
    Titleist 818 H1 25°
    TM p790 6-PW Modus 105 Stiff
    Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth GW/SW
    Ping Eye2 LW
    Odyssey Marxman
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,249 ✭✭
    JStang wrote:

    Wait... so the limit manufacturers are legally required to shoot for is 239. They are given a little leeway for manufacturing tolerances. Taylormade comes up with a superior manufacturing technique that allows for tighter tolerances. They shoot for 239 and hit 240 (very impressive in my opinion), and people are upset about that? Honestly, I am more convinced that the resin works now. If I saw a bunch of heads with 250/248/245 I would say that the resin doesn’t work and they still have industry standard flaws in their manufacturing tolerances.


    Look at Ebay. The heads are certainly all over the place in regards to CT. If you have the ability to dial back the heads to maximize ball speeds, then do it. Do we really think that they test every single head?



    I thought the idea was brilliant but only if they are doing it to maximize ball speeds which they clearly are not doing.




    That’s been my point all along. Tm hints and leads us to believe that hey are testing every single retail head. They most certainly are not. This new manufacturing process isn’t what it’s being advertised to be.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • jgard320jgard320 ClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 268 ClubWRX
    Wooderson wrote:


    Tom has also stated that manufacturers are supposed to shoot for the actual limit which is 239 miliseconds. In fact there have been cases where manufacturers have been put on notice for products consistently approaching the 257 number. If TM was to start manufacturing clubs at the 257 limit consistently they would get in trouble. 257 is meant to be a buffer, not the goal.




    A lot of amateur golfers would be better off going to a Tom Wishon certified fitter and playing Wishon components. Until you get into the 100+ mph swing speed/very aggressive tempo transition area, his components can fit just about anyone well. I personally haven't been able to find anything that beats Wishon fairway woods, hybrids, and irons. My only gripe is that his component designs don't include a lot of heavier shaft options.
  • chris975dchris975d GeorgiaClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 1,798 ClubWRX


    Wait... so the limit manufacturers are legally required to shoot for is 239. They are given a little leeway for manufacturing tolerances. Taylormade comes up with a superior manufacturing technique that allows for tighter tolerances. They shoot for 239 and hit 240 (very impressive in my opinion), and people are upset about that? Honestly, I am more convinced that the resin works now. If I saw a bunch of heads with 250/248/245 I would say that the resin doesn’t work and they still have industry standard flaws in their manufacturing tolerances.




    You may have seen where it's been discussed a little in a different TM M5/M6 thread. I linked to Tom Wishon's post on this from a few years ago.



    Other thread: http://www.golfwrx.c...0#entry18625602



    Part of what I quoted from Mr. Wishon's original post:



    I'm not sure if the USGA would even allow all heads to be right at 257ct, based on this post by Tom Wishon in late 2015.



    http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1241826-ct-scores-on-tour-issue-heads-and-clubs/#entry12379114



    Lots of good info in that post, but a few interesting quotes from it:


    The reason that there is a designation for 239 vs 257 in CT measurements is because the USGA wants club companies to design their high COR clubheads so that the design specs point to a 239 CT when every spec in the production of the head model is achieved perfectly. They do not want companies to design their faces so that the CT would be 257 if all specs are hit perfectly.



    In fact, when you send high COR models into the USGA for conformity testing, if the driver/wood is found to have a CT over 239 but less than 257, it is ruled provisionally conforming - which means the USGA is warning the company to watch their specs on the heads or to dial down the face specs so as to avoid the possibility of heads coming off the line over the CT/COR limit when the +/- tolerances affecting the CT/COR come into play. If your test samples are at 239 or lower for the USGA CT test, then you get a fully conforming, no warning, letter from the USGA.



    Now it will be true that when it comes to the tour players' drivers and high COR clubs, the companies will perform repeated CT measurements to be 100% sure that no club they give a tour player would be over the 257CT limit. Most will not even get that close to 257 with their tour players' clubs and will keep their clubheads not higher than 250 CT. Reason is because whoever is putting on the tournament in which the pros are playing, whether that be the USGA, PGA Tour or whoever, does have the right to perform their own CT testing at the tournament - should there be any suspicion that a player might be using a club with a CT over the limit.




    So it looks like, if this hasn't been updated by the USGA to accommodate TaylorMade's new manufacturing process, that the USGA wants the clubs to be closer to 239 than 257 to qualify as "fully conforming". Especially if they (manufacturer) won't even typically issue heads to Tour players that cross 250 CT, as the last quote states.



    ADDED: The way that I read all of that suggests that 239 is the mark the USGA wants clubs at (or below), but there's some headroom if a few come in slightly over. So anything above 239 (again, my opinion) would be a "spicy" or "hot" (but still legal) head...looks like this is traditionally what Tour pros were given...all the heads above 239. TaylorMade's process is probably just insuring that all heads are at least 239.
    TaylorMade 9* M5 w/GD AD-IZ 6
    TaylorMade M5 3-wood
    TaylorMade M5 5-wood
    Srixon H85 4
    Srixon 5-PW, AW Z585 w/Project X LZ 6.0
    Cleveland RTX4 54*, 58*
    TaylorMade Spider X Copper
  • chris975dchris975d GeorgiaClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 1,798 ClubWRX

    JStang wrote:

    Wait... so the limit manufacturers are legally required to shoot for is 239. They are given a little leeway for manufacturing tolerances. Taylormade comes up with a superior manufacturing technique that allows for tighter tolerances. They shoot for 239 and hit 240 (very impressive in my opinion), and people are upset about that? Honestly, I am more convinced that the resin works now. If I saw a bunch of heads with 250/248/245 I would say that the resin doesn't work and they still have industry standard flaws in their manufacturing tolerances.


    Look at Ebay. The heads are certainly all over the place in regards to CT. If you have the ability to dial back the heads to maximize ball speeds, then do it. Do we really think that they test every single head?



    I thought the idea was brilliant but only if they are doing it to maximize ball speeds which they clearly are not doing.




    That's been my point all along. Tm hints and leads us to believe that hey are testing every single retail head. They most certainly are not. This new manufacturing process isn't what it's being advertised to be.




    We know this how? I also have no way of really knowing if it's true or not, but I have also had far too many people within the company that I trust tell me it is something they are doing for me NOT to believe it.
    TaylorMade 9* M5 w/GD AD-IZ 6
    TaylorMade M5 3-wood
    TaylorMade M5 5-wood
    Srixon H85 4
    Srixon 5-PW, AW Z585 w/Project X LZ 6.0
    Cleveland RTX4 54*, 58*
    TaylorMade Spider X Copper
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Advanced Members Posts: 9,572 ✭✭
    What you guys don't understand is the difference between 257 and 239 is literally like a yard. Aka it doesn't matter. Buy a tour head because you wanna know the specs exactly not because of ct which is a microscopic difference
    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
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,249 ✭✭
    chris975d wrote:


    JStang wrote:

    Wait... so the limit manufacturers are legally required to shoot for is 239. They are given a little leeway for manufacturing tolerances. Taylormade comes up with a superior manufacturing technique that allows for tighter tolerances. They shoot for 239 and hit 240 (very impressive in my opinion), and people are upset about that? Honestly, I am more convinced that the resin works now. If I saw a bunch of heads with 250/248/245 I would say that the resin doesn't work and they still have industry standard flaws in their manufacturing tolerances.


    Look at Ebay. The heads are certainly all over the place in regards to CT. If you have the ability to dial back the heads to maximize ball speeds, then do it. Do we really think that they test every single head?



    I thought the idea was brilliant but only if they are doing it to maximize ball speeds which they clearly are not doing.




    That's been my point all along. Tm hints and leads us to believe that hey are testing every single retail head. They most certainly are not. This new manufacturing process isn't what it's being advertised to be.




    We know this how? I also have no way of really knowing if it's true or not, but I have also had far too many people within the company that I trust tell me it is something they are doing for me NOT to believe it.




    By looking at the known spec heads out there. They aren’t all 240. If all the tour heads aren’t adjusted then why would we expect alll the retail heads to be ?

    pinhigh27 wrote:


    What you guys don't understand is the difference between 257 and 239 is literally like a yard. Aka it doesn't matter. Buy a tour head because you wanna know the specs exactly not because of ct which is a microscopic difference




    That’s not the argument. The argument is that Tm is using fluff yet again to sell drivers. They aren’t doing anything they didn’t do with m3-4 except inject two small spots with goo.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,249 ✭✭
    An extremely quick eBay search just yeilded a 242, 243 , 3 248s and a 237. Same exact range I’ve always shopped and seen. And I’ve looked since the sldr days.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • chris975dchris975d GeorgiaClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 1,798 ClubWRX






    By looking at the known spec heads out there. They aren't all 240. If all the tour heads aren't adjusted then why would we expect alll the retail heads to be ?








    According to Tom Wishon's post, all heads cannot test greater than 239 for a manufacturer, or the are ruled "provisionally conforming" and not fully conforming. So the mark is 239 or less, with an allowance for some to be above that 239. Again, I'm assuming this hasn't changed with the USGA.
    TaylorMade 9* M5 w/GD AD-IZ 6
    TaylorMade M5 3-wood
    TaylorMade M5 5-wood
    Srixon H85 4
    Srixon 5-PW, AW Z585 w/Project X LZ 6.0
    Cleveland RTX4 54*, 58*
    TaylorMade Spider X Copper
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,249 ✭✭
    edited February 17
    chris975d wrote:







    By looking at the known spec heads out there. They aren't all 240. If all the tour heads aren't adjusted then why would we expect alll the retail heads to be ?








    According to Tom Wishon's post, all heads cannot test greater than 239 for a manufacturer, or the are ruled "provisionally conforming" and not fully conforming. So the mark is 239 or less, with an allowance for some to be above that 239. Again, I'm assuming this hasn't changed with the USGA.




    Right. Not arguing that.



    What irks me is the commercials for retail heads. They lead us to believe each head is illegal. , then injected and tuned to the limit. Spec stickers say that’s not true. They are just injecting a measured amount and backing them back into the range of legal. No tuning or measurements to get the amount of injection same. Some even less than 239. They aren’t measuring or tuning Or else they’d all be same spec. Which nets us the exact same specs as m3-m4. It’s just no different.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • Natural1Natural1 Advanced Members Posts: 86 ✭✭
    TM has come up with a process that works/trys to ensure that nobody gets a dud head, and I think that's a great idea.

    The problem with all this is the marketing, but that's totally understandable... "Everybody get faster!" sounds a lot lot better than "Nobody gets a dud!"



    Marketing of pretty much anything and everything, regardless of manufacturer or segment, is all a bunch of fluff. We all know that. It just doesn't really bother me.
  • chris975dchris975d GeorgiaClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 1,798 ClubWRX

    chris975d wrote:



    By looking at the known spec heads out there. They aren't all 240. If all the tour heads aren't adjusted then why would we expect alll the retail heads to be ?








    According to Tom Wishon's post, all heads cannot test greater than 239 for a manufacturer, or the are ruled "provisionally conforming" and not fully conforming. So the mark is 239 or less, with an allowance for some to be above that 239. Again, I'm assuming this hasn't changed with the USGA.




    Right. Not arguing that.



    What irks me is the commercials for retail heads. They lead us to believe each head is illegal. , then objected and tuned to the limit. Spec stickers say that's not true. They are just injecting a measured amount and backing them back into the range of legal. No tuning or measurements to get the amount of injection same. Or else they'd all be same spec. Which nets is the exact same specs as m3-m4. It's just no different.




    I think they are testing...something. Not sure what it is, or if they are testing every head. Again, I've not seen that process with my own eyes. But I do know that heads (M5/M6, either one) can have differing amounts of resin in them, and in different locations...some having it only in the toe side port, some only in the heel, and some in both ports. So there's something that determines where resin goes.
    TaylorMade 9* M5 w/GD AD-IZ 6
    TaylorMade M5 3-wood
    TaylorMade M5 5-wood
    Srixon H85 4
    Srixon 5-PW, AW Z585 w/Project X LZ 6.0
    Cleveland RTX4 54*, 58*
    TaylorMade Spider X Copper
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,249 ✭✭
    Maybe true. And I’ll stop my ranting by saying I’m not down on TM. At least not their equipment. I’ve tested a low lofted m5 titanium 3 wood and it’s rediculous how long it is. I could not carry driver on most any course locally I’ve played if I had one in the bag. But their marketing just puts me off. Feels like shaking hands with the devil playing one of their sticks.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • TollBrosTollBros Overseer of the Test Range Sponsors Posts: 4,813 ✭✭
    Most of the Tour issue TM heads we have/had are 245-255 in the CT range. Occasionally you'll get one a little lower but honestly it equates to a yard or two.
    http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/forum/608-greengrassevaluationscom/

    Please click the link above for our Sponsor area with rare and Tour only products.
  • noodle3872noodle3872 Chilliwack B.C. CanadaAdvanced Members Posts: 2,560 ✭✭
    chris975d wrote:


    chris975d wrote:



    By looking at the known spec heads out there. They aren't all 240. If all the tour heads aren't adjusted then why would we expect alll the retail heads to be ?








    According to Tom Wishon's post, all heads cannot test greater than 239 for a manufacturer, or the are ruled "provisionally conforming" and not fully conforming. So the mark is 239 or less, with an allowance for some to be above that 239. Again, I'm assuming this hasn't changed with the USGA.




    Right. Not arguing that.



    What irks me is the commercials for retail heads. They lead us to believe each head is illegal. , then objected and tuned to the limit. Spec stickers say that's not true. They are just injecting a measured amount and backing them back into the range of legal. No tuning or measurements to get the amount of injection same. Or else they'd all be same spec. Which nets is the exact same specs as m3-m4. It's just no different.




    I think they are testing...something. Not sure what it is, or if they are testing every head. Again, I've not seen that process with my own eyes. But I do know that heads (M5/M6, either one) can have differing amounts of resin in them, and in different locations...some having it only in the toe side port, some only in the heel, and some in both ports. So there's something that determines where resin goes.




    How are you able to tell where the foam is injected?
    Taylormade M6 driver with MCA Tensei CK Pro White 60 S Flex
    Taylormade M6 fairway wood with MCA Tensei CK Pro Blue 70 S Flex
    Taylormade M4 hybrid with MCA OT Tour Hybrid 80 S Flex
    Mizuno MP 18 MMC irons 5-PW Irons with Modus3 Tour 105 S flex
    Mizuno S18 Gunmetal Wedges 50-07, 54-12, 58-08 and 62-08 with Modus3 105 Wedge
    Scotty Cameron Futura 7M
    Scotty Cameron Select Fastback 2
    Titleist Pro V1
  • Dcoop86Dcoop86 Advanced Members Posts: 141 ✭✭
    TollBros wrote:


    Most of the Tour issue TM heads we have/had are 245-255 in the CT range. Occasionally you'll get one a little lower but honestly it equates to a yard or two.




    I want that yard though... I want all the yards I can get 😂
  • TollBrosTollBros Overseer of the Test Range Sponsors Posts: 4,813 ✭✭
    Dcoop86 wrote:

    TollBros wrote:


    Most of the Tour issue TM heads we have/had are 245-255 in the CT range. Occasionally you'll get one a little lower but honestly it equates to a yard or two.




    I want that yard though... I want all the yards I can get 😂




    Haha. As long as the CT is in the 240's somewhere I am satisfied. The really high CT ones over 252 or so sell for a super premium even though it's less than a yard of carry from 245 to 255. Still guys will pay 15% more or so for that yard.
    http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/forum/608-greengrassevaluationscom/

    Please click the link above for our Sponsor area with rare and Tour only products.
  • CwingCwing Advanced Members Posts: 7,965 ✭✭
    Interesting topic. In to read responses.
    TaylorMade Kingdom M4 9.5* Red 5S stiff Atmos
    TaylorMade M4 3HL 16.5* fairway stiff Atmos
    TaylorMade M4 3 hybrid stiff Atmos
    TaylorMade M4 4 hybrid stiff Atmos
    PING G25 5-U
    Cleveland RTX 54*
    TaylorMade Hi Toe 58*
    Seemore si5
    Garmin g6/Caddytek V2
    http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/838786-cwings-witb-2013/
  • jll62jll62 ClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 1,966 ClubWRX

    chris975d wrote:



    By looking at the known spec heads out there. They aren't all 240. If all the tour heads aren't adjusted then why would we expect alll the retail heads to be ?








    According to Tom Wishon's post, all heads cannot test greater than 239 for a manufacturer, or the are ruled "provisionally conforming" and not fully conforming. So the mark is 239 or less, with an allowance for some to be above that 239. Again, I'm assuming this hasn't changed with the USGA.




    Right. Not arguing that.



    What irks me is the commercials for retail heads. They lead us to believe each head is illegal. , then injected and tuned to the limit. Spec stickers say that's not true. They are just injecting a measured amount and backing them back into the range of legal. No tuning or measurements to get the amount of injection same. Some even less than 239. They aren't measuring or tuning Or else they'd all be same spec. Which nets us the exact same specs as m3-m4. It's just no different.




    So you're irked by the truth, because the process they advertise is exactly what's happening. Every single head is tested for face hotness after construction. The test results are run through an algorithm that determines how much resin to add into the heel and toe ports for that head based on the head's test results. So yes, the amount of resin is tuned for that specific head. After injection, the head is tested again to insure it's as close to the limit as they can currently get it. Some heads will need more resin, some less. Some will need more in the toe than the heel, some the opposite. The goal is not to inject the same amount of resin in each head; rather, the goal is to inject the correct amount of resin into each head to bring that head as close to the limit as they can get it. These are facts, not marketing BS. If this was a lie or stretch of the truth, their VP of Product Creation would be in a lot of hot water for describing it as such. Obviously that's not the case.



    This injection process has far tighter tolerances than simply constructing a head, which is why they can get every head hotter than they could before. There is still going to be a tolerance with the resin injection and the performance of the algorithm, so every head will not measure exactly the same. This means you will see different CT values on spec stickers. But all heads at retail will be right up close to the highest legal value, whereas before the normal head construction process resulted in heads with a wider variance. With M3/M4 and all prior heads, the target face hotness value had to be intentionally dialed back below the limit so that too many heads didn't end up over the limit.



    One thing to keep in mind is that TaylorMade has never advertised anything about CT scores. When I first head about the process, I too assumed we were talking about heads close to 257, but then I did some research and found Tom Wishon's comments about the USGA and provisional conformance. I even asked TaylorMade specifically about CT and the response was framed as "legal limit" rather than a specific CT score. But this doesn't invalidate the claims. Manufacturers have to target 239 and not 257. There is no lie or marketing handwaving here on the part of TaylorMade. They're now making every head as hot as they can currently make them, just as they claim.



    You keep saying you don't bag on TM, but you really do. You seldom take the time to understand what's actually going on and instead spread FUD around based on your dislike of the marketing. That's not helpful for anyone.
    TaylorMade M5 9.0, Tensei Pro White 60 S, 44.75"
    TaylorMade M5 Rocket 3, Tensei Pro White 70 S, 42.5"
    TaylorMade P-790 UDI 2, Aerotech SteelFiber i95 S
    TaylorMade P-760 3, KBS C-Taper S
    TaylorMade P-770 4, DG X100 (SSx1)
    TaylorMade RSi TP 5-PW, KBS C-Taper S+
    TaylorMade Milled Grind 52 Raw, DG S400
    TaylorMade Hi-Toe 60 (58), DG S400
    TaylorMade DJ Itsy Bitsy Proto, 34"
    TaylorMade TP5x #12

    jll62's WITB
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,249 ✭✭
    jll62 wrote:


    chris975d wrote:



    By looking at the known spec heads out there. They aren't all 240. If all the tour heads aren't adjusted then why would we expect alll the retail heads to be ?








    According to Tom Wishon's post, all heads cannot test greater than 239 for a manufacturer, or the are ruled "provisionally conforming" and not fully conforming. So the mark is 239 or less, with an allowance for some to be above that 239. Again, I'm assuming this hasn't changed with the USGA.




    Right. Not arguing that.



    What irks me is the commercials for retail heads. They lead us to believe each head is illegal. , then injected and tuned to the limit. Spec stickers say that's not true. They are just injecting a measured amount and backing them back into the range of legal. No tuning or measurements to get the amount of injection same. Some even less than 239. They aren't measuring or tuning Or else they'd all be same spec. Which nets us the exact same specs as m3-m4. It's just no different.




    So you're irked by the truth, because the process they advertise is exactly what's happening. Every single head is tested for face hotness after construction. The test results are run through an algorithm that determines how much resin to add into the heel and toe ports for that head based on the head's test results. So yes, the amount of resin is tuned for that specific head. After injection, the head is tested again to insure it's as close to the limit as they can currently get it. Some heads will need more resin, some less. Some will need more in the toe than the heel, some the opposite. The goal is not to inject the same amount of resin in each head; rather, the goal is to inject the correct amount of resin into each head to bring that head as close to the limit as they can get it. These are facts, not marketing BS. If this was a lie or stretch of the truth, their VP of Product Creation would be in a lot of hot water for describing it as such. Obviously that's not the case.



    This injection process has far tighter tolerances than simply constructing a head, which is why they can get every head hotter than they could before. There is still going to be a tolerance with the resin injection and the performance of the algorithm, so every head will not measure exactly the same. This means you will see different CT values on spec stickers. But all heads at retail will be right up close to the highest legal value, whereas before the normal head construction process resulted in heads with a wider variance. With M3/M4 and all prior heads, the target face hotness value had to be intentionally dialed back below the limit so that too many heads didn't end up over the limit.



    One thing to keep in mind is that TaylorMade has never advertised anything about CT scores. When I first head about the process, I too assumed we were talking about heads close to 257, but then I did some research and found Tom Wishon's comments about the USGA and provisional conformance. I even asked TaylorMade specifically about CT and the response was framed as "legal limit" rather than a specific CT score. But this doesn't invalidate the claims. Manufacturers have to target 239 and not 257. There is no lie or marketing handwaving here on the part of TaylorMade. They're now making every head as hot as they can currently make them, just as they claim.



    You keep saying you don't bag on TM, but you really do. You seldom take the time to understand what's actually going on and instead spread FUD around based on your dislike of the marketing. That's not helpful for anyone.




    Lol.



    If every head is tested. Why don’t they take advantage of that marketing windfall and list the test score for each head ? They could adjust and advertise each head at the limit and people would flock to that.



    Secondly. If they have the ability to adjust CT ....why are we seeing sooo many tour heads advertised with such a variation of CT scores? I think it’s much more logical that they have a measured amount to add that they know gets the heads legal. They add that and they fall where they fall. The same testing as before ( random heads from random batches ) are tested for retail level. As usual all tour heads are tested and we then see the variance in the manufacturing process.



    I’ve shopped , been given and owned over 20 Tm tour heads in the last 3/4 years. The specs on those heads have been as hot or hotter than anything I’ve seen from m5-m6. Nothing is happening here except material added to the face. Resulting in feel or sound difference . Again if every retail head was checked no way TM passes the chance to state this and market off the test numbers. And where is this new TM testing facility? Would take a large operation just to test every head made ... Twice.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • chris975dchris975d GeorgiaClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 1,798 ClubWRX
    edited February 18
    jll62 wrote:


    chris975d wrote:



    By looking at the known spec heads out there. They aren't all 240. If all the tour heads aren't adjusted then why would we expect alll the retail heads to be ?








    According to Tom Wishon's post, all heads cannot test greater than 239 for a manufacturer, or the are ruled "provisionally conforming" and not fully conforming. So the mark is 239 or less, with an allowance for some to be above that 239. Again, I'm assuming this hasn't changed with the USGA.




    Right. Not arguing that.



    What irks me is the commercials for retail heads. They lead us to believe each head is illegal. , then injected and tuned to the limit. Spec stickers say that's not true. They are just injecting a measured amount and backing them back into the range of legal. No tuning or measurements to get the amount of injection same. Some even less than 239. They aren't measuring or tuning Or else they'd all be same spec. Which nets us the exact same specs as m3-m4. It's just no different.




    So you're irked by the truth, because the process they advertise is exactly what's happening. Every single head is tested for face hotness after construction. The test results are run through an algorithm that determines how much resin to add into the heel and toe ports for that head based on the head's test results. So yes, the amount of resin is tuned for that specific head. After injection, the head is tested again to insure it's as close to the limit as they can currently get it. Some heads will need more resin, some less. Some will need more in the toe than the heel, some the opposite. The goal is not to inject the same amount of resin in each head; rather, the goal is to inject the correct amount of resin into each head to bring that head as close to the limit as they can get it. These are facts, not marketing BS. If this was a lie or stretch of the truth, their VP of Product Creation would be in a lot of hot water for describing it as such. Obviously that's not the case.



    This injection process has far tighter tolerances than simply constructing a head, which is why they can get every head hotter than they could before. There is still going to be a tolerance with the resin injection and the performance of the algorithm, so every head will not measure exactly the same. This means you will see different CT values on spec stickers. But all heads at retail will be right up close to the highest legal value, whereas before the normal head construction process resulted in heads with a wider variance. With M3/M4 and all prior heads, the target face hotness value had to be intentionally dialed back below the limit so that too many heads didn't end up over the limit.



    One thing to keep in mind is that TaylorMade has never advertised anything about CT scores. When I first head about the process, I too assumed we were talking about heads close to 257, but then I did some research and found Tom Wishon's comments about the USGA and provisional conformance. I even asked TaylorMade specifically about CT and the response was framed as "legal limit" rather than a specific CT score. But this doesn't invalidate the claims. Manufacturers have to target 239 and not 257. There is no lie or marketing handwaving here on the part of TaylorMade. They're now making every head as hot as they can currently make them, just as they claim.



    You keep saying you don't bag on TM, but you really do. You seldom take the time to understand what's actually going on and instead spread FUD around based on your dislike of the marketing. That's not helpful for anyone.




    Lol.



    If every head is tested. Why don’t they take advantage of that marketing windfall and list the test score for each head ? They could adjust and advertise each head at the limit and people would flock to that.



    Secondly. If they have the ability to adjust CT ....why are we seeing sooo many tour heads advertised with such a variation of CT scores? I think it’s much more logical that they have a measured amount to add that they know gets the heads legal. They add that and they fall where they fall. The same testing as before ( random heads from random batches ) are tested for retail level. As usual all tour heads are tested and we then see the variance in the manufacturing process.



    I’ve shopped , been given and owned over 20 Tm tour heads in the last 3/4 years. The specs on those heads have been as hot or hotter than anything I’ve seen from m5-m6. Nothing is happening here except material added to the face. Resulting in feel or sound difference . Again if every retail head was checked no way TM passes the chance to state this and market off the test numbers. And where is this new TM testing facility? Would take a large operation just to test every head made ... Twice.




    One reason for the lack of using the CT scores in actual marketing is probably related to this quote from Mr. Wishon's post I linked to above:



    "As to the companies' stickers and all that, the USGA has told all companies that they do not want any company using CT measurements in any form of marketing of the companies' clubs."



    So quite simply they aren't allowed to do so. Or trust me, more companies would do so.
    TaylorMade 9* M5 w/GD AD-IZ 6
    TaylorMade M5 3-wood
    TaylorMade M5 5-wood
    Srixon H85 4
    Srixon 5-PW, AW Z585 w/Project X LZ 6.0
    Cleveland RTX4 54*, 58*
    TaylorMade Spider X Copper
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,249 ✭✭
    edited February 18
    Wonder why that is ? Every head is at the limit. I’m guessing that was a statement from before everybody was ?





    Is there a statement by TM posted anywhere claiming to test every single retail head ?



    Ask. I’m not sure why this was moved to club techs instead of being merged with the m5-6 thread. It’s a pertinent discussion that I’m sure many would have found interesting but will never see it here.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • chris975dchris975d GeorgiaClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 1,798 ClubWRX
    Wonder why that is ? Every head is at the limit. I’m guessing that was a statement from before everybody was ?





    Is there a statement by TM posted anywhere claiming to test every single retail head ?




    That statement is from Mr. Wishon in 2015. I'd say we were at the limit (more or less) back then as well, so I'd say it's still valid today.



    As far as an official statement, I'm not sure. I will say it's part of the sales presentation and info given to us as account holders/buyers, and backed up by people within the company. For all the BS that ALL marketing for these companies spew, it's rare that the manufacturer's and manufacturers' rep actually lie to the account holders. It can happen though, but usually doesn't because it if comes out, you risk account holders not buying from you anymore/burning bridges. We usually get pretty straight info from the reps and contacts we've made years and decades long friendships with. That's a topic for a discussion over some beers maybe one day...the stories of how employees/reps of various companies get upset/ticked off and marketing and other questionable tactics used by the industry...even the company they may be working for. When a company's marketing is basically flat out lying, or even embellishing the truth, our rep friends will typically tell us (as they usually don't agree with it in principal), even if it's the company they work for. Most of these companies don't want to break the trust of the actual account holders that stock and do the lion's share of the actual she's for them.
    TaylorMade 9* M5 w/GD AD-IZ 6
    TaylorMade M5 3-wood
    TaylorMade M5 5-wood
    Srixon H85 4
    Srixon 5-PW, AW Z585 w/Project X LZ 6.0
    Cleveland RTX4 54*, 58*
    TaylorMade Spider X Copper
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,249 ✭✭
    chris975d wrote:

    Wonder why that is ? Every head is at the limit. I’m guessing that was a statement from before everybody was ?





    Is there a statement by TM posted anywhere claiming to test every single retail head ?




    That statement is from Mr. Wishon in 2015. I'd say we were at the limit (more or less) back then as well, so I'd say it's still valid today.



    As far as an official statement, I'm not sure. I will say it's part of the sales presentation and info given to us as account holders/buyers, and backed up by people within the company. For all the BS that ALL marketing for these companies spew, it's rare that the manufacturer's and manufacturers' rep actually lie to the account holders. It can happen though, but usually doesn't because it if comes out, you risk account holders not buying from you anymore/burning bridges. We usually get pretty straight info from the reps and contacts we've made years and decades long friendships with. That's a topic for a discussion over some beers maybe one day...the stories of how employees/reps of various companies get upset/ticked off and marketing and other questionable tactics used by the industry...even the company they may be working for. When a company's marketing is basically flat out lying, or even embellishing the truth, our rep friends will typically tell us (as they usually don't agree with it in principal), even if it's the company they work for. Most of these companies don't want to break the trust of the actual account holders that stock and do the lion's share of the actual she's for them.






    fair enough ... Im familiar with the Reps conversations , so i get exactly what you mean . I just havent been able to ask our rep yet ..( not my shop but im a frequent flier of a old green grass shop and this affords me time with reps and products way before release alot of times...pretty much like a right hand employee, they just dont pay me ..lol) ..and the TM rep is new so im not nearly as familiar with him ... yet..lol..



    If the reps are repeating that , then maybe so .. They are usually very forthcoming with good or bad findings on equipment... A conversation about twist face and what misses it helps vs hurting comes to mind.. he flat out told me " it wont be good for some people "... so yes.. i agree there
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • jll62jll62 ClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 1,966 ClubWRX


    Lol.



    If every head is tested. Why don't they take advantage of that marketing windfall and list the test score for each head ? They could adjust and advertise each head at the limit and people would flock to that.



    Secondly. If they have the ability to adjust CT ....why are we seeing sooo many tour heads advertised with such a variation of CT scores? I think it's much more logical that they have a measured amount to add that they know gets the heads legal. They add that and they fall where they fall. The same testing as before ( random heads from random batches ) are tested for retail level. As usual all tour heads are tested and we then see the variance in the manufacturing process.



    I've shopped , been given and owned over 20 Tm tour heads in the last 3/4 years. The specs on those heads have been as hot or hotter than anything I've seen from m5-m6. Nothing is happening here except material added to the face. Resulting in feel or sound difference . Again if every retail head was checked no way TM passes the chance to state this and market off the test numbers. And where is this new TM testing facility? Would take a large operation just to test every head made ... Twice.




    Blade - it's exactly as described to you by chris975d's reply. They can't advertise CT scores, and I know from discussions I had with TM folks that they had some serious talks with the governing bodies to ensure that what they were doing, and how they were planning to advertise it, were okay. And besides, if you're making everything that's within a small tolerance, your retail partners would not want spec stickers anyway because then you'd have customers shopping around trying to get something that's a point or two higher. An individual store might lose out on a sale because all they have are 238 in stock and the shop down the road has 240, which would be dumb because they're almost exactly the same in practice.



    The bottom line is that you are flat out incorrect in your reply to me about the process. What you think is logical and might be happening is wrong. Every head gets tested, an algorithm determines how much resin to add for that specific head based on the test, resin is injected, and then the head is measured again to ensure it conforms. Every. Single. Head. This second test is important because it also feeds data back into the algorithm to tune it and ensure that it's resin recommendations are accurate.



    There are going to be variations in CT scores of these heads because of the precision of the tests, the precision of the resin injection, and the performance of the algorithm, but this process is producing heads that are all much closer to the limit than just building a head. Yes, this is a large and costly operation to test every single head twice. It's one of the reasons the price went up this year.






    Wonder why that is ? Every head is at the limit. I'm guessing that was a statement from before everybody was ?





    Is there a statement by TM posted anywhere claiming to test every single retail head ?



    Ask. I'm not sure why this was moved to club techs instead of being merged with the m5-6 thread. It's a pertinent discussion that I'm sure many would have found interesting but will never see it here.




    Go to the episode from Feb 4, 2019, "Spicy Drivers and Unicorns" with Brian Bazzel, and start listening around 8:45 into the pod (but just listen to the whole thing).

    https://www.taylorma...om/podcast.html



    "Each and every head that we do now, every single one goes through this tuning process...Every single head, it gets measured--it gets made illegal essentially, at first--measured, and then we put it through an algorithm to understand exactly what that head needs in the toe and the heel with resin to kinda bring it back right to that limit."



    Bazz is the VP of Product Creation and is the same person with whom I spoke about the process in person. He very literally could not make these claims publicly unless they are true. There is no wiggle room. Every head goes through this tuning process.
    TaylorMade M5 9.0, Tensei Pro White 60 S, 44.75"
    TaylorMade M5 Rocket 3, Tensei Pro White 70 S, 42.5"
    TaylorMade P-790 UDI 2, Aerotech SteelFiber i95 S
    TaylorMade P-760 3, KBS C-Taper S
    TaylorMade P-770 4, DG X100 (SSx1)
    TaylorMade RSi TP 5-PW, KBS C-Taper S+
    TaylorMade Milled Grind 52 Raw, DG S400
    TaylorMade Hi-Toe 60 (58), DG S400
    TaylorMade DJ Itsy Bitsy Proto, 34"
    TaylorMade TP5x #12

    jll62's WITB
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,249 ✭✭
    jll62 wrote:



    Lol.



    If every head is tested. Why don't they take advantage of that marketing windfall and list the test score for each head ? They could adjust and advertise each head at the limit and people would flock to that.



    Secondly. If they have the ability to adjust CT ....why are we seeing sooo many tour heads advertised with such a variation of CT scores? I think it's much more logical that they have a measured amount to add that they know gets the heads legal. They add that and they fall where they fall. The same testing as before ( random heads from random batches ) are tested for retail level. As usual all tour heads are tested and we then see the variance in the manufacturing process.



    I've shopped , been given and owned over 20 Tm tour heads in the last 3/4 years. The specs on those heads have been as hot or hotter than anything I've seen from m5-m6. Nothing is happening here except material added to the face. Resulting in feel or sound difference . Again if every retail head was checked no way TM passes the chance to state this and market off the test numbers. And where is this new TM testing facility? Would take a large operation just to test every head made ... Twice.




    Blade - it's exactly as described to you by chris975d's reply. They can't advertise CT scores, and I know from discussions I had with TM folks that they had some serious talks with the governing bodies to ensure that what they were doing, and how they were planning to advertise it, were okay. And besides, if you're making everything that's within a small tolerance, your retail partners would not want spec stickers anyway because then you'd have customers shopping around trying to get something that's a point or two higher. An individual store might lose out on a sale because all they have are 238 in stock and the shop down the road has 240, which would be dumb because they're almost exactly the same in practice.



    The bottom line is that you are flat out incorrect in your reply to me about the process. What you think is logical and might be happening is wrong. Every head gets tested, an algorithm determines how much resin to add for that specific head based on the test, resin is injected, and then the head is measured again to ensure it conforms. Every. Single. Head. This second test is important because it also feeds data back into the algorithm to tune it and ensure that it's resin recommendations are accurate.



    There are going to be variations in CT scores of these heads because of the precision of the tests, the precision of the resin injection, and the performance of the algorithm, but this process is producing heads that are all much closer to the limit than just building a head. Yes, this is a large and costly operation to test every single head twice. It's one of the reasons the price went up this year.






    Wonder why that is ? Every head is at the limit. I'm guessing that was a statement from before everybody was ?





    Is there a statement by TM posted anywhere claiming to test every single retail head ?



    Ask. I'm not sure why this was moved to club techs instead of being merged with the m5-6 thread. It's a pertinent discussion that I'm sure many would have found interesting but will never see it here.




    Go to the episode from Feb 4, 2019, "Spicy Drivers and Unicorns" with Brian Bazzel, and start listening around 8:45 into the pod (but just listen to the whole thing).

    [url="https://www.taylormadegolf.com/podcast.html"]https://www.taylorma...om/podcast.html[/url]



    "Each and every head that we do now, every single one goes through this tuning process...Every single head, it gets measured--it gets made illegal essentially, at first--measured, and then we put it through an algorithm to understand exactly what that head needs in the toe and the heel with resin to kinda bring it back right to that limit."



    Bazz is the VP of Product Creation and is the same person with whom I spoke about the process in person. He very literally could not make these claims publicly unless they are true. There is no wiggle room. Every head goes through this tuning process.




    Happy to be wrong.



    But I do wonder why this info is buried so deeply ? I literally searched and could not find it. Maybe it’s just this dinosaur not being a pod cast listener ?



    That being said. For what ? Anybody seeing actual gains ? I’d love to see some.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • chris975dchris975d GeorgiaClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 1,798 ClubWRX

    jll62 wrote:



    Lol.



    If every head is tested. Why don't they take advantage of that marketing windfall and list the test score for each head ? They could adjust and advertise each head at the limit and people would flock to that.



    Secondly. If they have the ability to adjust CT ....why are we seeing sooo many tour heads advertised with such a variation of CT scores? I think it's much more logical that they have a measured amount to add that they know gets the heads legal. They add that and they fall where they fall. The same testing as before ( random heads from random batches ) are tested for retail level. As usual all tour heads are tested and we then see the variance in the manufacturing process.



    I've shopped , been given and owned over 20 Tm tour heads in the last 3/4 years. The specs on those heads have been as hot or hotter than anything I've seen from m5-m6. Nothing is happening here except material added to the face. Resulting in feel or sound difference . Again if every retail head was checked no way TM passes the chance to state this and market off the test numbers. And where is this new TM testing facility? Would take a large operation just to test every head made ... Twice.




    Blade - it's exactly as described to you by chris975d's reply. They can't advertise CT scores, and I know from discussions I had with TM folks that they had some serious talks with the governing bodies to ensure that what they were doing, and how they were planning to advertise it, were okay. And besides, if you're making everything that's within a small tolerance, your retail partners would not want spec stickers anyway because then you'd have customers shopping around trying to get something that's a point or two higher. An individual store might lose out on a sale because all they have are 238 in stock and the shop down the road has 240, which would be dumb because they're almost exactly the same in practice.



    The bottom line is that you are flat out incorrect in your reply to me about the process. What you think is logical and might be happening is wrong. Every head gets tested, an algorithm determines how much resin to add for that specific head based on the test, resin is injected, and then the head is measured again to ensure it conforms. Every. Single. Head. This second test is important because it also feeds data back into the algorithm to tune it and ensure that it's resin recommendations are accurate.



    There are going to be variations in CT scores of these heads because of the precision of the tests, the precision of the resin injection, and the performance of the algorithm, but this process is producing heads that are all much closer to the limit than just building a head. Yes, this is a large and costly operation to test every single head twice. It's one of the reasons the price went up this year.






    Wonder why that is ? Every head is at the limit. I'm guessing that was a statement from before everybody was ?





    Is there a statement by TM posted anywhere claiming to test every single retail head ?



    Ask. I'm not sure why this was moved to club techs instead of being merged with the m5-6 thread. It's a pertinent discussion that I'm sure many would have found interesting but will never see it here.




    Go to the episode from Feb 4, 2019, "Spicy Drivers and Unicorns" with Brian Bazzel, and start listening around 8:45 into the pod (but just listen to the whole thing).

    https://www.taylorma...om/podcast.html



    "Each and every head that we do now, every single one goes through this tuning process...Every single head, it gets measured--it gets made illegal essentially, at first--measured, and then we put it through an algorithm to understand exactly what that head needs in the toe and the heel with resin to kinda bring it back right to that limit."



    Bazz is the VP of Product Creation and is the same person with whom I spoke about the process in person. He very literally could not make these claims publicly unless they are true. There is no wiggle room. Every head goes through this tuning process.




    Happy to be wrong.



    But I do wonder why this info is buried so deeply ? I literally searched and could not find it. Maybe it's just this dinosaur not being a pod cast listener ?



    That being said. For what ? Anybody seeing actual gains ? I'd love to see some.




    If you want my opinion that's totally not based on anything other than being in the industry for quite some time, and some application of manufacturing that I acquired from watching my father work in QC for a large company through his career, my OPINION is that the resin injection process was more than likely developed to be able to use/sell a greater percentage of the heads that are produced, i.e, decrease waste. If a manufacturing facility is making a part to a target spec (in this case, a COR/CT number), as most of us know, tolerances are going to put some of them under that target, some of them over that target. For example's sake, let's say that value for this is 239-257, and anything higher than that is no-good and becomes waste/scrap. In previous manufacturing processes, you'd have to make your actual manufacturing target a value considerably lower than 239 to make sure that the majority of the made heads fall under that...think of a bell curve with the highest allowable CT value to the right...to maximize the number of heads produced that you could actually use/sell, your heads would have to be on the bell curve to the left of the cut-off limit.



    I'm ASSUMING TaylorMade looked at this and said that there's a better way of increasing efficiency/decreasing waste of heads by bumping up the target spec a bit, and then testing every head after manufacturing. From their research on resin and face deflection effects, they can just add resin in the ports to bring every head back into the USGA's acceptable range for conformance. Barring no other defects being present in a head other than this higher than spec CT value, with the resin addition to lower that CT value, TaylorMade could/can now sell every functional head they produce. No heads thrown out due to higher than allowed CT values.



    I have no "on paper" proof of this, but I have heard that a company's normal range of face deflection values during production can range from the .79xx's to the .86xx's or higher (values in COR, not CT, as I've only heard it referred to with this value). This is a pretty wide range, it seems. Now if what I've said above is even remotely true, then TM could slide that range north (to the right on the Bell curve) and get the value MUCH closer to the .82-.830 range, as they can now take the vast majority of the heads over the .83 limit and dial them back into conformance with the addition of the resin. Netting out more usable/sellable heads near the intended max value that the USGA allows. Pretty clever, in my opinion...as they would have narrowed their bell curve's lower and upper limit, and moved the average MUCH closer to the USGAs .830 limit.



    Then marketing gets a hold of this, and spins it in a creative way. Which, if any/all of what I've said is correct above, isn't being dishonest. "Everyone gets faster" is somewhat right, because as a whole, the heads' AVERAGE COR/CT value got higher across production from previous models. If we cherry pick the highest value CT heads from a previous line against the same in the M5/M6, I think we are all smart enough to know that there's not going to be any significant increase in distance from say an M4 to an M6. But we are talking average of all M4 heads made vs. all M6 heads made (in this theoretical example). And if the average speed (indicated by this COR/CT value) has in fact increased across all heads produced, the the marketing isn't "wrong"...it's just spin and making something bigger than it actually is...which ALL companies do in this industry. No one is innocent.



    And if you make another assumption that I've heard for a long time in this industry that testers/reviewers/magazines/etc (basically talking about YouTube/online reviewer here) get cherry picked heads (fastest of the bunch), well, the online reviews we see with launch monitor data and ball speeds don't really do us a lot of good, as they would always be on the higher end of CT/COR value heads, anyway.



    In short, I personally think (from all the info I've seen/heard, and applying some outside of the industry knowledge) that the injected face tech was a way to make tolerances (to the USGA's CT/COR limit) get much tighter on the lower side without increasing scrap heads on the high side, and maybe in fact greatly decrease scrap heads overall, which also conveniently (for marketing purposes) had a nice secondary benefit of making the driver model, from lowest spec head to highest, be "faster".
    TaylorMade 9* M5 w/GD AD-IZ 6
    TaylorMade M5 3-wood
    TaylorMade M5 5-wood
    Srixon H85 4
    Srixon 5-PW, AW Z585 w/Project X LZ 6.0
    Cleveland RTX4 54*, 58*
    TaylorMade Spider X Copper
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Advanced Members Posts: 9,572 ✭✭
    chris975d wrote:


    jll62 wrote:



    Lol.



    If every head is tested. Why don't they take advantage of that marketing windfall and list the test score for each head ? They could adjust and advertise each head at the limit and people would flock to that.



    Secondly. If they have the ability to adjust CT ....why are we seeing sooo many tour heads advertised with such a variation of CT scores? I think it's much more logical that they have a measured amount to add that they know gets the heads legal. They add that and they fall where they fall. The same testing as before ( random heads from random batches ) are tested for retail level. As usual all tour heads are tested and we then see the variance in the manufacturing process.



    I've shopped , been given and owned over 20 Tm tour heads in the last 3/4 years. The specs on those heads have been as hot or hotter than anything I've seen from m5-m6. Nothing is happening here except material added to the face. Resulting in feel or sound difference . Again if every retail head was checked no way TM passes the chance to state this and market off the test numbers. And where is this new TM testing facility? Would take a large operation just to test every head made ... Twice.




    Blade - it's exactly as described to you by chris975d's reply. They can't advertise CT scores, and I know from discussions I had with TM folks that they had some serious talks with the governing bodies to ensure that what they were doing, and how they were planning to advertise it, were okay. And besides, if you're making everything that's within a small tolerance, your retail partners would not want spec stickers anyway because then you'd have customers shopping around trying to get something that's a point or two higher. An individual store might lose out on a sale because all they have are 238 in stock and the shop down the road has 240, which would be dumb because they're almost exactly the same in practice.



    The bottom line is that you are flat out incorrect in your reply to me about the process. What you think is logical and might be happening is wrong. Every head gets tested, an algorithm determines how much resin to add for that specific head based on the test, resin is injected, and then the head is measured again to ensure it conforms. Every. Single. Head. This second test is important because it also feeds data back into the algorithm to tune it and ensure that it's resin recommendations are accurate.



    There are going to be variations in CT scores of these heads because of the precision of the tests, the precision of the resin injection, and the performance of the algorithm, but this process is producing heads that are all much closer to the limit than just building a head. Yes, this is a large and costly operation to test every single head twice. It's one of the reasons the price went up this year.






    Wonder why that is ? Every head is at the limit. I'm guessing that was a statement from before everybody was ?





    Is there a statement by TM posted anywhere claiming to test every single retail head ?



    Ask. I'm not sure why this was moved to club techs instead of being merged with the m5-6 thread. It's a pertinent discussion that I'm sure many would have found interesting but will never see it here.




    Go to the episode from Feb 4, 2019, "Spicy Drivers and Unicorns" with Brian Bazzel, and start listening around 8:45 into the pod (but just listen to the whole thing).

    https://www.taylorma...om/podcast.html



    "Each and every head that we do now, every single one goes through this tuning process...Every single head, it gets measured--it gets made illegal essentially, at first--measured, and then we put it through an algorithm to understand exactly what that head needs in the toe and the heel with resin to kinda bring it back right to that limit."



    Bazz is the VP of Product Creation and is the same person with whom I spoke about the process in person. He very literally could not make these claims publicly unless they are true. There is no wiggle room. Every head goes through this tuning process.




    Happy to be wrong.



    But I do wonder why this info is buried so deeply ? I literally searched and could not find it. Maybe it's just this dinosaur not being a pod cast listener ?



    That being said. For what ? Anybody seeing actual gains ? I'd love to see some.




    If you want my opinion that's totally not based on anything other than being in the industry for quite some time, and some application of manufacturing that I acquired from watching my father work in QC for a large company through his career, my OPINION is that the resin injection process was more than likely developed to be able to use/sell a greater percentage of the heads that are produced, i.e, decrease waste. If a manufacturing facility is making a part to a target spec (in this case, a COR/CT number), as most of us know, tolerances are going to put some of them under that target, some of them over that target. For example's sake, let's say that value for this is 239-257, and anything higher than that is no-good and becomes waste/scrap. In previous manufacturing processes, you'd have to make your actual manufacturing target a value considerably lower than 239 to make sure that the majority of the made heads fall under that...think of a bell curve with the highest allowable CT value to the right...to maximize the number of heads produced that you could actually use/sell, your heads would have to be on the bell curve to the left of the cut-off limit.



    I'm ASSUMING TaylorMade looked at this and said that there's a better way of increasing efficiency/decreasing waste of heads by bumping up the target spec a bit, and then testing every head after manufacturing. From their research on resin and face deflection effects, they can just add resin in the ports to bring every head back into the USGA's acceptable range for conformance. Barring no other defects being present in a head other than this higher than spec CT value, with the resin addition to lower that CT value, TaylorMade could/can now sell every functional head they produce. No heads thrown out due to higher than allowed CT values.



    I have no "on paper" proof of this, but I have heard that a company's normal range of face deflection values during production can range from the .79xx's to the .86xx's or higher (values in COR, not CT, as I've only heard it referred to with this value). This is a pretty wide range, it seems. Now if what I've said above is even remotely true, then TM could slide that range north (to the right on the Bell curve) and get the value MUCH closer to the .82-.830 range, as they can now take the vast majority of the heads over the .83 limit and dial them back into conformance with the addition of the resin. Netting out more usable/sellable heads near the intended max value that the USGA allows. Pretty clever, in my opinion...as they would have narrowed their bell curve's lower and upper limit, and moved the average MUCH closer to the USGAs .830 limit.



    Then marketing gets a hold of this, and spins it in a creative way. Which, if any/all of what I've said is correct above, isn't being dishonest. "Everyone gets faster" is somewhat right, because as a whole, the heads' AVERAGE COR/CT value got higher across production from previous models. If we cherry pick the highest value CT heads from a previous line against the same in the M5/M6, I think we are all smart enough to know that there's not going to be any significant increase in distance from say an M4 to an M6. But we are talking average of all M4 heads made vs. all M6 heads made (in this theoretical example). And if the average speed (indicated by this COR/CT value) has in fact increased across all heads produced, the the marketing isn't "wrong"...it's just spin and making something bigger than it actually is...which ALL companies do in this industry. No one is innocent.



    And if you make another assumption that I've heard for a long time in this industry that testers/reviewers/magazines/etc (basically talking about YouTube/online reviewer here) get cherry picked heads (fastest of the bunch), well, the online reviews we see with launch monitor data and ball speeds don't really do us a lot of good, as they would always be on the higher end of CT/COR value heads, anyway.



    In short, I personally think (from all the info I've seen/heard, and applying some outside of the industry knowledge) that the injected face tech was a way to make tolerances (to the USGA's CT/COR limit) get much tighter on the lower side without increasing scrap heads on the high side, and maybe in fact greatly decrease scrap heads overall, which also conveniently (for marketing purposes) had a nice secondary benefit of making the driver model, from lowest spec head to highest, be "faster".




    if that is actually what happened then it's a pretty cool innovation and obviously smart on their part
    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
  • 24Linc24Linc Members Posts: 20 ✭✭
    So TM told us the resin in M5 and M6 reduces CT and COR while the foam in P790 increases CT and COR. How does this even make sense?
  • North Shore Golfer21North Shore Golfer21 Advanced Members Posts: 318 ✭✭
    I’m +8 mph with my M5 driver from my M3 gamer. My ballspeed is also nearly equal to my new driver with M5 Rocket 3W.



    Speedfoam supports the face to enhance ballspeed and improve sound/feel.
  • chris975dchris975d GeorgiaClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 1,798 ClubWRX
    24Linc wrote:
    So TM told us the resin in M5 and M6 reduces CT and COR while the foam in P790 increases CT and COR. How does this even make sense?




    The foam in the irons is much more pliable than the resin, and in the irons allows to faces to be thinner and flex more while the foam helps to support the thin faces(and dampen some of the harsh vibrations from the thin face). In the woods, the resin is a much harder material (think cured epoxy) to stop a bit of the face flex and slow it down.
    TaylorMade 9* M5 w/GD AD-IZ 6
    TaylorMade M5 3-wood
    TaylorMade M5 5-wood
    Srixon H85 4
    Srixon 5-PW, AW Z585 w/Project X LZ 6.0
    Cleveland RTX4 54*, 58*
    TaylorMade Spider X Copper
  • 24Linc24Linc Members Posts: 20 ✭✭
    chris975d wrote:

    24Linc wrote:
    So TM told us the resin in M5 and M6 reduces CT and COR while the foam in P790 increases CT and COR. How does this even make sense?




    The foam in the irons is much more pliable than the resin, and in the irons allows to faces to be thinner and flex more while the foam helps to support the thin faces(and dampen some of the harsh vibrations from the thin face). In the woods, the resin is a much harder material (think cured epoxy) to stop a bit of the face flex and slow it down.


    Yes the foam is more pliable, I get how it improves sound and feel, but if you look at the physics of how a high COR face works adding any type of foam, resin reduces the COR, because the face would flex inward less. So saying speed foam increases ball speed is misleading.



    In my experience I have seen drivers from TM, Callaway, Titleist etc. which gives pretty low ball speed (smash) when tested on FlightScope and Trackman. What everyone is doing now is to lower the tolerance and bring a more consistent product. A good thing for teh golfers but shouldn't this be done long time ago if everyone has been marketing that their drivers have been the best every year. But now we know drivers prior to M5/6 were not the best TM could deliver to golfers because of tolerance and they knew this all long and still made the same claims every year.



    Not saying TM has bad product, but the marketing gets redundant and usually misleading.
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Advanced Members Posts: 9,572 ✭✭
    24Linc wrote:

    chris975d wrote:

    24Linc wrote:
    So TM told us the resin in M5 and M6 reduces CT and COR while the foam in P790 increases CT and COR. How does this even make sense?




    The foam in the irons is much more pliable than the resin, and in the irons allows to faces to be thinner and flex more while the foam helps to support the thin faces(and dampen some of the harsh vibrations from the thin face). In the woods, the resin is a much harder material (think cured epoxy) to stop a bit of the face flex and slow it down.


    Yes the foam is more pliable, I get how it improves sound and feel, but if you look at the physics of how a high COR face works adding any type of foam, resin reduces the COR, because the face would flex inward less. So saying speed foam increases ball speed is misleading.



    In my experience I have seen drivers from TM, Callaway, Titleist etc. which gives pretty low ball speed (smash) when tested on FlightScope and Trackman. What everyone is doing now is to lower the tolerance and bring a more consistent product. A good thing for teh golfers but shouldn't this be done long time ago if everyone has been marketing that their drivers have been the best every year. But now we know drivers prior to M5/6 were not the best TM could deliver to golfers because of tolerance and they knew this all long and still made the same claims every year.



    Not saying TM has bad product, but the marketing gets redundant and usually misleading.




    What does pretty low mean? I've never seen a stock driver that can't get very close to 1.50.



    what does the bold mean? How do you think they knew this before? Your post doesn't make any 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
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,249 ✭✭


    I’m +8 mph with my M5 driver from my M3 gamer. My ballspeed is also nearly equal to my new driver with M5 Rocket 3W.



    Speedfoam supports the face to enhance ballspeed and improve sound/feel.


    Goodness. I thought the 4 mph claim for the new ball was a stretch.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • ObiwanForAllObiwanForAll Members Posts: 31 ✭✭
    edited February 19
    chris975d wrote:


    If you want my opinion that's totally not based on anything other than being in the industry for quite some time, and some application of manufacturing that I acquired from watching my father work in QC for a large company through his career, my OPINION is that the resin injection process was more than likely developed to be able to use/sell a greater percentage of the heads that are produced, i.e, decrease waste. If a manufacturing facility is making a part to a target spec (in this case, a COR/CT number), as most of us know, tolerances are going to put some of them under that target, some of them over that target. For example's sake, let's say that value for this is 239-257, and anything higher than that is no-good and becomes waste/scrap. In previous manufacturing processes, you'd have to make your actual manufacturing target a value considerably lower than 239 to make sure that the majority of the made heads fall under that...think of a bell curve with the highest allowable CT value to the right...to maximize the number of heads produced that you could actually use/sell, your heads would have to be on the bell curve to the left of the cut-off limit.



    I'm ASSUMING TaylorMade looked at this and said that there's a better way of increasing efficiency/decreasing waste of heads by bumping up the target spec a bit, and then testing every head after manufacturing. From their research on resin and face deflection effects, they can just add resin in the ports to bring every head back into the USGA's acceptable range for conformance. Barring no other defects being present in a head other than this higher than spec CT value, with the resin addition to lower that CT value, TaylorMade could/can now sell every functional head they produce. No heads thrown out due to higher than allowed CT values.



    I have no "on paper" proof of this, but I have heard that a company's normal range of face deflection values during production can range from the .79xx's to the .86xx's or higher (values in COR, not CT, as I've only heard it referred to with this value). This is a pretty wide range, it seems. Now if what I've said above is even remotely true, then TM could slide that range north (to the right on the Bell curve) and get the value MUCH closer to the .82-.830 range, as they can now take the vast majority of the heads over the .83 limit and dial them back into conformance with the addition of the resin. Netting out more usable/sellable heads near the intended max value that the USGA allows. Pretty clever, in my opinion...as they would have narrowed their bell curve's lower and upper limit, and moved the average MUCH closer to the USGAs .830 limit.



    Then marketing gets a hold of this, and spins it in a creative way. Which, if any/all of what I've said is correct above, isn't being dishonest. "Everyone gets faster" is somewhat right, because as a whole, the heads' AVERAGE COR/CT value got higher across production from previous models. If we cherry pick the highest value CT heads from a previous line against the same in the M5/M6, I think we are all smart enough to know that there's not going to be any significant increase in distance from say an M4 to an M6. But we are talking average of all M4 heads made vs. all M6 heads made (in this theoretical example). And if the average speed (indicated by this COR/CT value) has in fact increased across all heads produced, the the marketing isn't "wrong"...it's just spin and making something bigger than it actually is...which ALL companies do in this industry. No one is innocent.



    And if you make another assumption that I've heard for a long time in this industry that testers/reviewers/magazines/etc (basically talking about YouTube/online reviewer here) get cherry picked heads (fastest of the bunch), well, the online reviews we see with launch monitor data and ball speeds don't really do us a lot of good, as they would always be on the higher end of CT/COR value heads, anyway.



    In short, I personally think (from all the info I've seen/heard, and applying some outside of the industry knowledge) that the injected face tech was a way to make tolerances (to the USGA's CT/COR limit) get much tighter on the lower side without increasing scrap heads on the high side, and maybe in fact greatly decrease scrap heads overall, which also conveniently (for marketing purposes) had a nice secondary benefit of making the driver model, from lowest spec head to highest, be "faster".




    I would agree with this. From a manufacturing background, this makes sense to me. However, running each head through testing, algorithm, injecting resin, and adding screws must add to the manufacturing process (cost). But it must be more cost efficient than throwing out non-conforming heads.



    TaylorMade has been under financial pressure for some time now. Losing Justin Rose, skipping on the PGA Merchandise Show, etc...it's no surprise if they are trying to find gains in the manufacturing world to decrease costs since it's probably hard at this stage to increase sales. I believe they even increased cost of the M5 ($550) vs. when the M3 came out ($500)? That tells me they aren't banking on increased volume of unit sales but improve margin.



    I have no problem with this especially if the result is tighter tolerances. I'm surprised I haven't heard more amateurs taking a heat gun to the face to move the resin and get a little bump against there buddies haha.
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]TM M4 7.6* - Aldila 2019 Tour Green 60 TX[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]TM M2 Deep Face 13* - Graphite Design Tour AD DI 7X[/font]
    [font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"]Srixon U65 - KBS Prototype 95X[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Srixon Z745 - Nippon Modus 120X[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]TM RAC 50 / 54 / 58 - DG S400[/font]

    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Scotty Cameron Futura 6M[/font]
  • chris975dchris975d GeorgiaClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 1,798 ClubWRX

    chris975d wrote:


    If you want my opinion that's totally not based on anything other than being in the industry for quite some time, and some application of manufacturing that I acquired from watching my father work in QC for a large company through his career, my OPINION is that the resin injection process was more than likely developed to be able to use/sell a greater percentage of the heads that are produced, i.e, decrease waste. If a manufacturing facility is making a part to a target spec (in this case, a COR/CT number), as most of us know, tolerances are going to put some of them under that target, some of them over that target. For example's sake, let's say that value for this is 239-257, and anything higher than that is no-good and becomes waste/scrap. In previous manufacturing processes, you'd have to make your actual manufacturing target a value considerably lower than 239 to make sure that the majority of the made heads fall under that...think of a bell curve with the highest allowable CT value to the right...to maximize the number of heads produced that you could actually use/sell, your heads would have to be on the bell curve to the left of the cut-off limit.



    I'm ASSUMING TaylorMade looked at this and said that there's a better way of increasing efficiency/decreasing waste of heads by bumping up the target spec a bit, and then testing every head after manufacturing. From their research on resin and face deflection effects, they can just add resin in the ports to bring every head back into the USGA's acceptable range for conformance. Barring no other defects being present in a head other than this higher than spec CT value, with the resin addition to lower that CT value, TaylorMade could/can now sell every functional head they produce. No heads thrown out due to higher than allowed CT values.



    I have no "on paper" proof of this, but I have heard that a company's normal range of face deflection values during production can range from the .79xx's to the .86xx's or higher (values in COR, not CT, as I've only heard it referred to with this value). This is a pretty wide range, it seems. Now if what I've said above is even remotely true, then TM could slide that range north (to the right on the Bell curve) and get the value MUCH closer to the .82-.830 range, as they can now take the vast majority of the heads over the .83 limit and dial them back into conformance with the addition of the resin. Netting out more usable/sellable heads near the intended max value that the USGA allows. Pretty clever, in my opinion...as they would have narrowed their bell curve's lower and upper limit, and moved the average MUCH closer to the USGAs .830 limit.



    Then marketing gets a hold of this, and spins it in a creative way. Which, if any/all of what I've said is correct above, isn't being dishonest. "Everyone gets faster" is somewhat right, because as a whole, the heads' AVERAGE COR/CT value got higher across production from previous models. If we cherry pick the highest value CT heads from a previous line against the same in the M5/M6, I think we are all smart enough to know that there's not going to be any significant increase in distance from say an M4 to an M6. But we are talking average of all M4 heads made vs. all M6 heads made (in this theoretical example). And if the average speed (indicated by this COR/CT value) has in fact increased across all heads produced, the the marketing isn't "wrong"...it's just spin and making something bigger than it actually is...which ALL companies do in this industry. No one is innocent.



    And if you make another assumption that I've heard for a long time in this industry that testers/reviewers/magazines/etc (basically talking about YouTube/online reviewer here) get cherry picked heads (fastest of the bunch), well, the online reviews we see with launch monitor data and ball speeds don't really do us a lot of good, as they would always be on the higher end of CT/COR value heads, anyway.



    In short, I personally think (from all the info I've seen/heard, and applying some outside of the industry knowledge) that the injected face tech was a way to make tolerances (to the USGA's CT/COR limit) get much tighter on the lower side without increasing scrap heads on the high side, and maybe in fact greatly decrease scrap heads overall, which also conveniently (for marketing purposes) had a nice secondary benefit of making the driver model, from lowest spec head to highest, be "faster".




    I would agree with this. From a manufacturing background, this makes sense to me. However, running each head through testing, algorithm, injecting resin, and adding screws must add to the manufacturing process (cost). But it must be more cost efficient than throwing out non-conforming heads.



    TaylorMade has been under financial pressure for some time now. Losing Justin Rose, skipping on the PGA Merchandise Show, etc...it's no surprise if they are trying to find gains in the manufacturing world to decrease costs since it's probably hard at this stage to increase sales. I believe they even increased cost of the M5 ($550) vs. when the M3 came out ($500)? That tells me they aren't banking on increased volume of unit sales but improve margin.



    I have no problem with this especially if the result is tighter tolerances. I'm surprised I haven't heard more amateurs taking a heat gun to the face to move the resin and get a little bump against there buddies haha.




    You won't re-flow or move the resin once it's solidified. Think of shafting epoxy. Once it's set up, it can't be re-liquefied. The resin is a lot like that.
    TaylorMade 9* M5 w/GD AD-IZ 6
    TaylorMade M5 3-wood
    TaylorMade M5 5-wood
    Srixon H85 4
    Srixon 5-PW, AW Z585 w/Project X LZ 6.0
    Cleveland RTX4 54*, 58*
    TaylorMade Spider X Copper
  • ObiwanForAllObiwanForAll Members Posts: 31 ✭✭
    chris975d wrote:


    chris975d wrote:


    If you want my opinion that's totally not based on anything other than being in the industry for quite some time, and some application of manufacturing that I acquired from watching my father work in QC for a large company through his career, my OPINION is that the resin injection process was more than likely developed to be able to use/sell a greater percentage of the heads that are produced, i.e, decrease waste. If a manufacturing facility is making a part to a target spec (in this case, a COR/CT number), as most of us know, tolerances are going to put some of them under that target, some of them over that target. For example's sake, let's say that value for this is 239-257, and anything higher than that is no-good and becomes waste/scrap. In previous manufacturing processes, you'd have to make your actual manufacturing target a value considerably lower than 239 to make sure that the majority of the made heads fall under that...think of a bell curve with the highest allowable CT value to the right...to maximize the number of heads produced that you could actually use/sell, your heads would have to be on the bell curve to the left of the cut-off limit.



    I'm ASSUMING TaylorMade looked at this and said that there's a better way of increasing efficiency/decreasing waste of heads by bumping up the target spec a bit, and then testing every head after manufacturing. From their research on resin and face deflection effects, they can just add resin in the ports to bring every head back into the USGA's acceptable range for conformance. Barring no other defects being present in a head other than this higher than spec CT value, with the resin addition to lower that CT value, TaylorMade could/can now sell every functional head they produce. No heads thrown out due to higher than allowed CT values.



    I have no "on paper" proof of this, but I have heard that a company's normal range of face deflection values during production can range from the .79xx's to the .86xx's or higher (values in COR, not CT, as I've only heard it referred to with this value). This is a pretty wide range, it seems. Now if what I've said above is even remotely true, then TM could slide that range north (to the right on the Bell curve) and get the value MUCH closer to the .82-.830 range, as they can now take the vast majority of the heads over the .83 limit and dial them back into conformance with the addition of the resin. Netting out more usable/sellable heads near the intended max value that the USGA allows. Pretty clever, in my opinion...as they would have narrowed their bell curve's lower and upper limit, and moved the average MUCH closer to the USGAs .830 limit.



    Then marketing gets a hold of this, and spins it in a creative way. Which, if any/all of what I've said is correct above, isn't being dishonest. "Everyone gets faster" is somewhat right, because as a whole, the heads' AVERAGE COR/CT value got higher across production from previous models. If we cherry pick the highest value CT heads from a previous line against the same in the M5/M6, I think we are all smart enough to know that there's not going to be any significant increase in distance from say an M4 to an M6. But we are talking average of all M4 heads made vs. all M6 heads made (in this theoretical example). And if the average speed (indicated by this COR/CT value) has in fact increased across all heads produced, the the marketing isn't "wrong"...it's just spin and making something bigger than it actually is...which ALL companies do in this industry. No one is innocent.



    And if you make another assumption that I've heard for a long time in this industry that testers/reviewers/magazines/etc (basically talking about YouTube/online reviewer here) get cherry picked heads (fastest of the bunch), well, the online reviews we see with launch monitor data and ball speeds don't really do us a lot of good, as they would always be on the higher end of CT/COR value heads, anyway.



    In short, I personally think (from all the info I've seen/heard, and applying some outside of the industry knowledge) that the injected face tech was a way to make tolerances (to the USGA's CT/COR limit) get much tighter on the lower side without increasing scrap heads on the high side, and maybe in fact greatly decrease scrap heads overall, which also conveniently (for marketing purposes) had a nice secondary benefit of making the driver model, from lowest spec head to highest, be "faster".




    I would agree with this. From a manufacturing background, this makes sense to me. However, running each head through testing, algorithm, injecting resin, and adding screws must add to the manufacturing process (cost). But it must be more cost efficient than throwing out non-conforming heads.



    TaylorMade has been under financial pressure for some time now. Losing Justin Rose, skipping on the PGA Merchandise Show, etc...it's no surprise if they are trying to find gains in the manufacturing world to decrease costs since it's probably hard at this stage to increase sales. I believe they even increased cost of the M5 ($550) vs. when the M3 came out ($500)? That tells me they aren't banking on increased volume of unit sales but improve margin.



    I have no problem with this especially if the result is tighter tolerances. I'm surprised I haven't heard more amateurs taking a heat gun to the face to move the resin and get a little bump against there buddies haha.




    You won't re-flow or move the resin once it's solidified. Think of shafting epoxy. Once it's set up, it can't be re-liquefied. The resin is a lot like that.




    Ah okay so it's not like hot melt. I'll be less suspicious now of my buddies playing the M5.
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]TM M4 7.6* - Aldila 2019 Tour Green 60 TX[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]TM M2 Deep Face 13* - Graphite Design Tour AD DI 7X[/font]
    [font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"]Srixon U65 - KBS Prototype 95X[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Srixon Z745 - Nippon Modus 120X[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]TM RAC 50 / 54 / 58 - DG S400[/font]

    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Scotty Cameron Futura 6M[/font]
  • 24Linc24Linc Members Posts: 20 ✭✭
    pinhigh27 wrote:

    24Linc wrote:

    chris975d wrote:

    24Linc wrote:
    So TM told us the resin in M5 and M6 reduces CT and COR while the foam in P790 increases CT and COR. How does this even make sense?




    The foam in the irons is much more pliable than the resin, and in the irons allows to faces to be thinner and flex more while the foam helps to support the thin faces(and dampen some of the harsh vibrations from the thin face). In the woods, the resin is a much harder material (think cured epoxy) to stop a bit of the face flex and slow it down.


    Yes the foam is more pliable, I get how it improves sound and feel, but if you look at the physics of how a high COR face works adding any type of foam, resin reduces the COR, because the face would flex inward less. So saying speed foam increases ball speed is misleading.



    In my experience I have seen drivers from TM, Callaway, Titleist etc. which gives pretty low ball speed (smash) when tested on FlightScope and Trackman. What everyone is doing now is to lower the tolerance and bring a more consistent product. A good thing for teh golfers but shouldn't this be done long time ago if everyone has been marketing that their drivers have been the best every year. But now we know drivers prior to M5/6 were not the best TM could deliver to golfers because of tolerance and they knew this all long and still made the same claims every year.



    Not saying TM has bad product, but the marketing gets redundant and usually misleading.




    What does pretty low mean? I've never seen a stock driver that can't get very close to 1.50.



    what does the bold mean? How do you think they knew this before? Your post doesn't make any sense.




    By low I am a smash of 1.43 to 1.45. Everyone may have different experience, I am simply stating mine. I have seen ball speed difference of about 4 to 5mph between 2 heads with exact specs stated on. Now how did they know the tolerance was there? From a manufacturing stand point they still tested CT of some of their drivers before to make sure it does not go over the CT limit. They had to test the Tour Issue drivers too so it's not hard to pick up the CT variances from head to head. I am sure the if every M5/6 head is tested now, it would be a better product. In my opinion, the CT of drivers should have been measured to a tighter tolerance all along. The last thing you want to happen is to get fit for a driver and spend $500 then when the driver arrives it's not producing the ball speed like the test driver you hit.
  • chris975dchris975d GeorgiaClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 1,798 ClubWRX
    24Linc wrote:

    pinhigh27 wrote:

    24Linc wrote:

    chris975d wrote:

    24Linc wrote:
    So TM told us the resin in M5 and M6 reduces CT and COR while the foam in P790 increases CT and COR. How does this even make sense?




    The foam in the irons is much more pliable than the resin, and in the irons allows to faces to be thinner and flex more while the foam helps to support the thin faces(and dampen some of the harsh vibrations from the thin face). In the woods, the resin is a much harder material (think cured epoxy) to stop a bit of the face flex and slow it down.


    Yes the foam is more pliable, I get how it improves sound and feel, but if you look at the physics of how a high COR face works adding any type of foam, resin reduces the COR, because the face would flex inward less. So saying speed foam increases ball speed is misleading.



    In my experience I have seen drivers from TM, Callaway, Titleist etc. which gives pretty low ball speed (smash) when tested on FlightScope and Trackman. What everyone is doing now is to lower the tolerance and bring a more consistent product. A good thing for teh golfers but shouldn't this be done long time ago if everyone has been marketing that their drivers have been the best every year. But now we know drivers prior to M5/6 were not the best TM could deliver to golfers because of tolerance and they knew this all long and still made the same claims every year.



    Not saying TM has bad product, but the marketing gets redundant and usually misleading.




    What does pretty low mean? I've never seen a stock driver that can't get very close to 1.50.



    what does the bold mean? How do you think they knew this before? Your post doesn't make any sense.




    By low I am a smash of 1.43 to 1.45. Everyone may have different experience, I am simply stating mine. I have seen ball speed difference of about 4 to 5mph between 2 heads with exact specs stated on. Now how did they know the tolerance was there? From a manufacturing stand point they still tested CT of some of their drivers before to make sure it does not go over the CT limit. They had to test the Tour Issue drivers too so it's not hard to pick up the CT variances from head to head. I am sure the if every M5/6 head is tested now, it would be a better product. In my opinion, the CT of drivers should have been measured to a tighter tolerance all along. The last thing you want to happen is to get fit for a driver and spend $500 then when the driver arrives it's not producing the ball speed like the test driver you hit.




    The manufacturing tolerances are not just something that TaylorMade has to deal with. All companies have a tolerance range that their finished products come out in. TaylorMade is just creating a method in which their tolerances (and potentially scrap heads) are potentially tighter than other manufacturers, with the exception of may Cobra and their milled faces. Before you can fix a problem or improve in an area, you have to figure out a way to do it, which is what the resin injection to bring faster than allowed heads back into spec is.
    TaylorMade 9* M5 w/GD AD-IZ 6
    TaylorMade M5 3-wood
    TaylorMade M5 5-wood
    Srixon H85 4
    Srixon 5-PW, AW Z585 w/Project X LZ 6.0
    Cleveland RTX4 54*, 58*
    TaylorMade Spider X Copper
  • From_Parts_UnknownFrom_Parts_Unknown Advanced Members Posts: 1,794 ✭✭
    Is Taylormade making their own heads now? I was under the impression that they contracted with a supplier to make the heads for them to their specs.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.