Anyone move iE1 to i210?

[bigmoneyp]

I love my iE1's... Also interested in the i210. Anyone make the switch? Any comparison pics? I'm in love with the i500s but I think I'll take the added forgiveness.

[Golf64]

i500s are very forgiving, almost as much as the i210s. 210s are very soft and consistent. Like Ping is saying, 210s for precision and 500s for distance. 500s are a club longer for me.

[5hort5tuff]

i500s are very forgiving, almost as much as the i210s. 210s are very soft and consistent. Like Ping is saying, 210s for precision and 500s for distance. 500s are a club longer for me.

 

They are a club longer BUT are literally 1 club loft stronger...

 

With identical lofts i bet they are nearly identical distance and forgiveness..

 

 

[Wardman]

In the same boat.... Thanks for starting the thread.

 

Currently playing iE1 with KBS Tour 90 stiffs. I've changed my swing since being fitted, and it may just be a shaft change that I need to explore.

 

But.... :-)

[Nessism]

All the i-series irons going back several generations are virtually identical in terms of playability and forgiveness. Differences are just small incremental changes for the most part. Switching from ie1 to i210 would be the same; doubt most would notice much unless the fit was better. Mind you that new club smell is always fun so that's reason enough to change for many folks. Just don't expect much difference in terms of performance.

 

BTW, i500 is a spring face club and in a different category for that reason alone. Yes, the lofts are stronger (not one club though) so not only will that add distance but there is more energy transfer at impact too. But distance is just one feature of a club, not the end all be all, and some better ball strikers may even prefer the consistency that comes with a thicker faced iron like the i210 (just as Ping mentions).

[wrmiller]

I have iE1s, although currently not playing them.

 

I spent hours on a simulator with the i200s and saw no reason to justify the upgrade. While I don't know for certain until I hit them, I suspect the i210s will not be a significant change either.

 

But as Nessism said, that 'new club smell' is more than enough justification for some. :)

[5hort5tuff]

I have iE1s, although currently not playing them.

 

I spent hours on a simulator with the i200s and saw no reason to justify the upgrade. While I don't know for certain until I hit them, I suspect the i210s will not be a significant change either.

 

But as Nessism said, that 'new club smell' is more than enough justification for some. :)

 

The new club smell is why I bought i200s. I had ie1s. Performance wise, they were pretty much identical. The i200s feel and look much better imo. I don't love that darker look to the ie1s and Gs. In terms of performance there will be little upgrade.

 

I don't plan on selling them any time soon either.

[donuts]

I tested both with x100 shafts. 210 feel better but basically identical performance. Also interesting I checked the Maltby Playability Factor and the ie1 is 566, the 210 isn’t tested yet but the 200 is only 474. Anyone else wonder why it’s significantly less??

[Nessism]

I tested both with x100 shafts. 210 feel better but basically identical performance. Also interesting I checked the Maltby Playability Factor and the ie1 is 566, the 210 isn't tested yet but the 200 is only 474. Anyone else wonder why it's significantly less??

 

i210 and i500 are in the update...https://www.golfworks.com/images/art/MPF_PING.pdf

 

I think the Ping i's tend to get poor ratings is because the CG tests high, and MPF heavily rewards a low CG. i500 has a very high MOI, as does the new i's. To me that's more important.

[North Butte]

I tested both with x100 shafts. 210 feel better but basically identical performance. Also interesting I checked the Maltby Playability Factor and the ie1 is 566, the 210 isn't tested yet but the 200 is only 474. Anyone else wonder why it's significantly less??

 

i210 and i500 are in the update...https://www.golfwork...rt/MPF_PING.pdf

 

I think the Ping i's tend to get poor ratings is because the CG tests high, and MPF heavily rewards a low CG. i500 has a very high MOI, as does the new i's. To me that's more important.

 

And as far as I can tell MPF leaves out sole width in an of itself, although obviously wide soles help with low and back CG. Sole width and leading edge bluntness are huge elements of forgiveness and are poorly represented in the MPF formulation.

[donuts]

I tested both with x100 shafts. 210 feel better but basically identical performance. Also interesting I checked the Maltby Playability Factor and the ie1 is 566, the 210 isn't tested yet but the 200 is only 474. Anyone else wonder why it's significantly less??

 

i210 and i500 are in the update...https://www.golfworks.com/images/art/MPF_PING.pdf

 

I think the Ping i's tend to get poor ratings is because the CG tests high, and MPF heavily rewards a low CG. i500 has a very high MOI, as does the new i's. To me that's more important.

 

I can’t seem to get the update. Do you mind posting the numbers for 210 and 500?

[Wardman]

210 - 338

500 - 188

 

seems odd with 200 and iE1 numbers.

[donuts]

Those seem like very low numbers.

[Nessism]

I tested both with x100 shafts. 210 feel better but basically identical performance. Also interesting I checked the Maltby Playability Factor and the ie1 is 566, the 210 isn't tested yet but the 200 is only 474. Anyone else wonder why it's significantly less??

 

i210 and i500 are in the update...https://www.golfwork...rt/MPF_PING.pdf

 

I think the Ping i's tend to get poor ratings is because the CG tests high, and MPF heavily rewards a low CG. i500 has a very high MOI, as does the new i's. To me that's more important.

 

I can't seem to get the update. Do you mind posting the numbers for 210 and 500?

 

clear cache in your browser...

[donuts]

I tested both with x100 shafts. 210 feel better but basically identical performance. Also interesting I checked the Maltby Playability Factor and the ie1 is 566, the 210 isn't tested yet but the 200 is only 474. Anyone else wonder why it's significantly less??

 

i210 and i500 are in the update...https://www.golfwork...rt/MPF_PING.pdf

 

I think the Ping i's tend to get poor ratings is because the CG tests high, and MPF heavily rewards a low CG. i500 has a very high MOI, as does the new i's. To me that's more important.

 

I can't seem to get the update. Do you mind posting the numbers for 210 and 500?

 

clear cache in your browser...

 

Thanks it worked :)

[bigmoneyp]

From pics the i500 seemed much shorter heel to toe than the iE1 or i210.

[SwooshLT]

From pics the i500 seemed much shorter heel to toe than the iE1 or i210.

 

Pretty much the same

[Geaux Gators]

Thats a strange rating system. shows that the playability of the i500 as being low, and the iBlade being more playable, as in easier to hit...if I am understanding the numbers, which I very likely DO NOT

[BMuller23]

If I remember correctly, ie1s has progressively longer blade length as the set gets into the long irons. Doesn’t seem like the i210 or i500 have this feature which might effect forgiveness? I could be completely off with this but let me know.

[donuts]

It looks like the numbers are specific to a 6 iron.

[Geaux Gators]

Well I will say that the iBlade 6 iron is NOT as easy to hit as the i500.

[bazinky]

i500s are very forgiving, almost as much as the i210s. 210s are very soft and consistent. Like Ping is saying, 210s for precision and 500s for distance. 500s are a club longer for me.

 

They are a club longer BUT are literally 1 club loft stronger...

 

With identical lofts i bet they are nearly identical distance and forgiveness..

 

The clubs are designed differently. I'm a die-hard Ping iron guy, and I really don't understand why someone wouldn't test both to compare. I'm planning on doing just that (as both the i210 and i500 look GREAT to me). You just need to compare the clubs that are going the same distance and look at which one is giving you better dispersion/numbers.

[300_yard_drives]

Well I will say that the iBlade 6 iron is NOT as easy to hit as the i500.

Well it's easier to hit for me than the i500 off a less than perfect lie. I have a reverse combo with iblade 4-6 and i200 7-p. I find the iblades just as forgiving and slightly higher launching while the i200 were easier to hit a nice medium flatter trajectory with and keep them out of the air too much. I was fit at ping too.

[leopoldstotch]

Well I will say that the iBlade 6 iron is NOT as easy to hit as the i500.

Well it's easier to hit for me than the i500 off a less than perfect lie. I have a reverse combo with iblade 4-6 and i200 7-p. I find the iblades just as forgiving and slightly higher launching while the i200 were easier to hit a nice medium flatter trajectory with and keep them out of the air too much. I was fit at ping too.

 

you must be the first person I've heard do that.

good case of play what works.

[300_yard_drives]

Well I will say that the iBlade 6 iron is NOT as easy to hit as the i500.

Well it's easier to hit for me than the i500 off a less than perfect lie. I have a reverse combo with iblade 4-6 and i200 7-p. I find the iblades just as forgiving and slightly higher launching while the i200 were easier to hit a nice medium flatter trajectory with and keep them out of the air too much. I was fit at ping too.

 

you must be the first person I've heard do that.

good case of play what works.

fitter said it made sense but I was the first fit for a set like that. I love them.

[andrieddle]

The looks would be better but performance wise would be negligible I think. I’m holding on to my i200 for a while.

[1oldAC]

tested both i210 and i500 and both were the same distance when you factored lofts (stronger in i500). Both felt great (as most clubs do ) when flushed but i210 was WAY softer on most shots. i500 was a little clicky in comparison. Best of both worlds (IMO): the i210s with power spec lofts. 5 iron is 25 from 27.........7 iron is 31.5 instead of 33..............9 iron 40 from 41. Not huge differences but i wanted a liitle less spin/loft as i tend to hit it too high with too much spin. If you a great player, then stick with standard....they even have a retro loft (like the old Eye2 wedge at 47).