Driver Test Fails at Safeway

Genuinely surprised that there have been failures, you would have thought that the manufacturers would have been testing everything before the official tests took place just to avoid the possibility.

> @MattyO1984 said:

> Genuinely surprised that there have been failures, you would have thought that the manufacturers would have been testing everything before the official tests took place just to avoid the possibility.

I've heard they have failures constantly, and that we the public, just started to really hear about it. And it could be OEMs are doing something about it but the fact they use different machines with different tolerances, measured by different people.... there's just so much uncertainty at play. At the end of the day, if you're just 1 point over the upper end of conforming vs not conforming, I think that gains you all of like 3 inches or something of carry all else equal. If ruling bodies truly cared this much, they'd measure all clubs at all OEMs right at the factory instead of letting them get into the hands of players. Either way, it's pretty much a non issue, and even the article says so.

> @MattyO1984 said:

> Genuinely surprised that there have been failures, you would have thought that the manufacturers would have been testing everything before the official tests took place just to avoid the possibility.

According to the article apparently the clubs are slowly exceeding specs over time through use, rather than being manufactured outside of the legal limits. Really not sure how an OEM is supposed to account for (what I assume is) random "performance creep". With how competitive the driver market is, I doubt there is much appetite from OEMs to put out a product that is safely enough below the limits to account for whatever potential increases over time they are finding.

> @Celebros said:

> > @MattyO1984 said:

> > Genuinely surprised that there have been failures, you would have thought that the manufacturers would have been testing everything before the official tests took place just to avoid the possibility.

>

> According to the article apparently the clubs are slowly exceeding specs over time through use, rather than being manufactured outside of the legal limits. Really not sure how an OEM is supposed to account for (what I assume is) random "performance creep". With how competitive the driver market is, I doubt there is much appetite from OEMs to put out a product that is safely enough below the limits to account for whatever potential increases over time they are finding.

This is the life cycle of all drivers. They get progressively hotter until they fail.

Will that actually convince us WRXers to keep a driver for more than 50 rounds, in the hope it gets hotter?

> @QuigleyDU said:

> This is the life cycle of all drivers. They get progressively hotter until they fail.

Yes, this is correct. The face material becomes more elastic as it is repeatedly strikes a ball at 112 MPH or more.

> @Soloman1 said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

>

> > This is the life cycle of all drivers. They get progressively hotter until they fail.

>

> Yes, this is correct. The face material becomes more elastic as it is repeatedly strikes a ball at 112 MPH or more.

There should not be any stigma to drivers failing a test. I do not believe in 90% plus that players are trying to cheat. They should not be looked down on or anything. You simply remove the driver till further testing can be done to confirm tolerances. I also think that if a driver passes as legal at the beginning of the season it should be good for that year. Every driver should be tested at the first event the player enters and it should be labeled as passed if it does. then they should just have to confirm that the driver in play has a 2020 drivers license or pass cert as it were and leave it alone after that. Mark it in a way that can't be dupped or transferred.

I do not think it is right to test a head that has passed multiple times within a season.

> @Celebros said:

> > @MattyO1984 said:

> > Genuinely surprised that there have been failures, you would have thought that the manufacturers would have been testing everything before the official tests took place just to avoid the possibility.

>

> According to the article apparently the clubs are slowly exceeding specs over time through use, rather than being manufactured outside of the legal limits. Really not sure how an OEM is supposed to account for (what I assume is) random "performance creep". With how competitive the driver market is, I doubt there is much appetite from OEMs to put out a product that is safely enough below the limits to account for whatever potential increases over time they are finding.

This is the problem though, the limit is x ( I'm gonna make up 2 numbers because I'm not sure what they actually are)...so x is the limit a driver can be built to, let's call it "200" but there is also a variance that is acceptable due to known "performance creep", let's call that "230".

There is a belief that manufacturers are building driver to just under "230", which is technically legal, but won't be once they are used a little bit because of "performance creep" and this is why a lot of them are getting into hot water.

> @OutBackHack said:

> > @Celebros said:

> > > @MattyO1984 said:

> > > Genuinely surprised that there have been failures, you would have thought that the manufacturers would have been testing everything before the official tests took place just to avoid the possibility.

> >

> > According to the article apparently the clubs are slowly exceeding specs over time through use, rather than being manufactured outside of the legal limits. Really not sure how an OEM is supposed to account for (what I assume is) random "performance creep". With how competitive the driver market is, I doubt there is much appetite from OEMs to put out a product that is safely enough below the limits to account for whatever potential increases over time they are finding.

>

> This is the problem though, the limit is x ( I'm gonna make up 2 numbers because I'm not sure what they actually are)...so x is the limit a driver can be built to, let's call it "200" but there is also a variance that is acceptable due to known "performance creep", let's call that "230".

> There is a belief that manufacturers are building driver to just under "230", which is technically legal, but won't be once they are used a little bit because of "performance creep" and this is why a lot of them are getting into hot water.

No need to make up the number it’s a well known published spec of 239 microseconds with tolerance of 257.

> @Soloman1 said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

>

> > This is the life cycle of all drivers. They get progressively hotter until they fail.

>

> Yes, this is correct. The face material becomes more elastic as it is repeatedly strikes a ball at 112 MPH or more.

I don't know if becoming more elastic would result in a hotter face. Just because it deforms more at impact, doesn't mean that it will rebound faster. The club was likely hot to begin with (if it were to be tested with a USGA device and personnel).

The real story here, and it will continue to be the real story, is that OEM's are trying to give Tour Players the hottest driver they can that passes the CT test. THE OEM's TEST. Unfortunately, their testing and the testing done on site is not going to be identical. As others have stated above, there are plenty of things that would give a safe number in one test and with another test (by someone else and a different machine) will result in a fail. By a very small margin.

The OEM's are either going to have to submit every driver head they give to a Tour Player to the USGA to test or they are going to have to give their players driver heads that aren't so close to the upper limit.

> @GoGoErky said:

> > @OutBackHack said:

> > > @Celebros said:

> > > > @MattyO1984 said:

> > > > Genuinely surprised that there have been failures, you would have thought that the manufacturers would have been testing everything before the official tests took place just to avoid the possibility.

> > >

> > > According to the article apparently the clubs are slowly exceeding specs over time through use, rather than being manufactured outside of the legal limits. Really not sure how an OEM is supposed to account for (what I assume is) random "performance creep". With how competitive the driver market is, I doubt there is much appetite from OEMs to put out a product that is safely enough below the limits to account for whatever potential increases over time they are finding.

> >

> > This is the problem though, the limit is x ( I'm gonna make up 2 numbers because I'm not sure what they actually are)...so x is the limit a driver can be built to, let's call it "200" but there is also a variance that is acceptable due to known "performance creep", let's call that "230".

> > There is a belief that manufacturers are building driver to just under "230", which is technically legal, but won't be once they are used a little bit because of "performance creep" and this is why a lot of them are getting into hot water.

>

> No need to make up the number it’s a well known published spec of 239 microseconds with tolerance of 257.

>

Not well known enough, as I stated I didn't know it. No need to be a dick.

What I think is the bigger issue is how/why the names of the players keep getting out. We all agree (I think) that this isn't the fault of any individual players. However, leaking the names of the players may brand those players with unnecessary scrutiny to the public. If the PGA Tour is going to continue to test drivers, they need to lock their shit down and ensure no names get leaked. I highly doubt the leaks came from the players themselves, but stranger things have happened.

A driver failing a field test may result in a whopping 0.1% to 0.2% increase in distance. That would be about 24" on an average drive. "The 24" Conspiracy."

Do manufacturers build drivers for tour players using heads that are as close as possible to the limit? Of course, wouldn't you, if you were in that business? The ball makers do the same thing. They segregate the hottest balls and a dozen in a plain white box show up in the locker of their tour players every week.

Once you understand that the world is rigged, the sooner you stop worrying about it and can get on with your life.

> @OutBackHack said:

> > @GoGoErky said:

> > > @OutBackHack said:

> > > > @Celebros said:

> > > > > @MattyO1984 said:

> > > > > Genuinely surprised that there have been failures, you would have thought that the manufacturers would have been testing everything before the official tests took place just to avoid the possibility.

> > > >

> > > > According to the article apparently the clubs are slowly exceeding specs over time through use, rather than being manufactured outside of the legal limits. Really not sure how an OEM is supposed to account for (what I assume is) random "performance creep". With how competitive the driver market is, I doubt there is much appetite from OEMs to put out a product that is safely enough below the limits to account for whatever potential increases over time they are finding.

> > >

> > > This is the problem though, the limit is x ( I'm gonna make up 2 numbers because I'm not sure what they actually are)...so x is the limit a driver can be built to, let's call it "200" but there is also a variance that is acceptable due to known "performance creep", let's call that "230".

> > > There is a belief that manufacturers are building driver to just under "230", which is technically legal, but won't be once they are used a little bit because of "performance creep" and this is why a lot of them are getting into hot water.

> >

> > No need to make up the number it’s a well known published spec of 239 microseconds with tolerance of 257.

> >

>

> Not well known enough, as I stated I didn't know it. No need to be a dick.

Wasn’t being a duck just letting you know the actual numbers are known and can easily be found with a google search and have been discussed in various threads on here.

> @Socrates said:

> I don't know if becoming more elastic would result in a hotter face. Just because it deforms more at impact, doesn't mean that it will rebound faster. The club was likely hot to begin with (if it were to be tested with a USGA device and personnel).

>

Actually, it does. But not really because of how fast it rebounds (hotter means a higher CT which means higher contact time, so actually slower in at least one context). It's because the metal of the driver is a more efficient elastic material than the polymers in the ball. The more the face deforms, the less the ball will deform, and therefor the less energy is lost to internal friction in the collision.

> @xxio said:

> Will that actually convince us WRXers to keep a driver for more than 50 rounds, in the hope it gets hotter?

Everybody carries it 350 on here; no need to keep a club in the bag with hopes that it gets hotter.

Starting to remind me of NASCAR, lol

> @Celebros said:

> > @MattyO1984 said:

> > Genuinely surprised that there have been failures, you would have thought that the manufacturers would have been testing everything before the official tests took place just to avoid the possibility.

>

> According to the article apparently the clubs are slowly exceeding specs over time through use, rather than being manufactured outside of the legal limits. Really not sure how an OEM is supposed to account for (what I assume is) random "performance creep". With how competitive the driver market is, I doubt there is much appetite from OEMs to put out a product that is safely enough below the limits to account for whatever potential increases over time they are finding.

Yeah I get that. The manufacturers can do the same test that the Tour does though. They all have tour vans out there. You would have thought that testing before the test so that they could be sure that they were not going to fail might have made sense.

> @MattyO1984 said:

> > @Celebros said:

> > > @MattyO1984 said:

> > > Genuinely surprised that there have been failures, you would have thought that the manufacturers would have been testing everything before the official tests took place just to avoid the possibility.

> >

> > According to the article apparently the clubs are slowly exceeding specs over time through use, rather than being manufactured outside of the legal limits. Really not sure how an OEM is supposed to account for (what I assume is) random "performance creep". With how competitive the driver market is, I doubt there is much appetite from OEMs to put out a product that is safely enough below the limits to account for whatever potential increases over time they are finding.

>

> Yeah I get that. The manufacturers can do the same test that the Tour does though. They all have tour vans out there. You would have thought that testing before the test so that they could be sure that they were not going to fail might have made sense.

I believe that they learn at the same time as the player they need to report for the testing and it’s random so no way to know who/when will get treated other than the day.

Theybwould beed to be testing throughout the season as mentioned above drivers get hotter over time

> @MattyO1984 said:

> Yeah I get that. The manufacturers can do the same test that the Tour does though. They all have tour vans out there. You would have thought that testing before the test so that they could be sure that they were not going to fail might have made sense.

Don't assume that they didn't. The test results are very operator dependent. Two different people could test the same head on the same machine and one could get a passing result and the other could get a failure. That's exactly what happened with Xander's head - although it wasn't clear if the passing OEM test was done before or after the R+A tested it.

According to Golf dot com it is believed that Corey Conners, Robert Streb, Jason Dufner, Michael Thompson and Mark Hubbard failed the driver test. I believe that would be Ping, Titleist and Cobra?

> @Titletown said:

> According to Golf dot com it is believed that Corey Conners, Robert Streb, Jason Dufner, Michael Thompson and Mark Hubbard failed the driver test. I believe that would be Ping, Titleist and Cobra?

Per the article, this starts to happen when the face degrades so it's almost like they are all going to have this issue if they test "used" drivers from any manufacturer.

> @chigolfer1 said:

> > @Titletown said:

> > According to Golf dot com it is believed that Corey Conners, Robert Streb, Jason Dufner, Michael Thompson and Mark Hubbard failed the driver test. I believe that would be Ping, Titleist and Cobra?

>

> Per the article, this starts to happen when the face degrades so it's almost like they are all going to have this issue if they test "used" drivers from any manufacturer.

yeah i know that's kind of my point. everyone bashed callaway because of xander at the open but in reality it happens to every manufacturer.

Almost everyone is assuming that the writer of the article knows what he is talking about (re: face getting hotter as it ages). He likely is repeating something he heard somewhere and likely from someone repeating a story they heard from someone (most likely Geraldo Rivera).

I know there are some really smart guys in the engineering fields on WRX and I would like to hear their opinion on what I believe is an old club builder's tale. I would need some hard evidence that a metal that is losing it's structural strength somehow increases it's ability to impart greater rebound velocity in a collision.

Edit: I do see how a face that is more flexible due to design, but not in a structurally weakened condition will have a higher CT.

I wish my driver would start getting hotter! Seems to be going the opposite way for me ...

> @Soloman1 said:

> A driver failing a field test may result in a whopping 0.1% to 0.2% increase in distance. That would be about 24" on an average drive. "The 24" Conspiracy."

>

> Do manufacturers build drivers for tour players using heads that are as close as possible to the limit? Of course, wouldn't you, if you were in that business? The ball makers do the same thing. They segregate the hottest balls and a dozen in a plain white box show up in the locker of their tour players every week.

>

> Once you understand that the world is rigged, the sooner you stop worrying about it and can get on with your life.

Segregating balls is the stupidest thing I have heard in a while. the white box is for limited runs, or pre-production balls. Do you really think there is someone on an assembly line testing golf balls and separating out those that are .0000001% better than the rest?? Don't be ridiculous.

Don’t give them a tolerance make it exactly 239 then they would be forced to make the number lower to avoid the creep.

Probably intended to be a quiet encouragement to the OEM's to start their tolerances lower overall by identifying and measuring creep. Dropping names also ensures the players put pressure on the OEM's so that there is follow through.

> @Catty said:

> Don’t give them a tolerance make it exactly 239 then they would be forced to make the number lower to avoid the creep.

LOL! Everything manufactured has a tolerance. So playing your game what happens when the driver creeps to a 240 CT? It's non conforming, Magically making every driver head 239 CT or any other random CT number won't stop creep.