Jump to content

M5 and M6 CT Numbers


JStang

Recommended Posts

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.

Callaway epic max LS 9* GD-M9003 7x 

TM Sim2 max tour  16* GD  ADHD 8x 

srixon zx 19* elements 9F5T 

Cobra king SZ 25.5* KBS TD cat 5 70 

TM p7mc 5-pw Mmt125tx 

Mizuno T22 raw 52-56-60 s400

LAB Mezz Max armlock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Callaway epic max LS 9* GD-M9003 7x 

TM Sim2 max tour  16* GD  ADHD 8x 

srixon zx 19* elements 9F5T 

Cobra king SZ 25.5* KBS TD cat 5 70 

TM p7mc 5-pw Mmt125tx 

Mizuno T22 raw 52-56-60 s400

LAB Mezz Max armlock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder why that is ? Every head is at the limit. Im 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Callaway epic max LS 9* GD-M9003 7x 

TM Sim2 max tour  16* GD  ADHD 8x 

srixon zx 19* elements 9F5T 

Cobra king SZ 25.5* KBS TD cat 5 70 

TM p7mc 5-pw Mmt125tx 

Mizuno T22 raw 52-56-60 s400

LAB Mezz Max armlock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 Stealth2 Plus 9.0, Ventus Black 6X, 45.5"

TaylorMade Stealth2 Plus 4 (16.5), HZRDUS Smoke Blue RDX 6.5 70g, 42.5"

TaylorMade P790 3 (2021), DG X100 (SSx2)

TaylorMade P7MC Raw 4-PW, DG Mid X100 (SSx1)
TaylorMade MG4 50, 54 - DG S400

Titleist SM9 58T - DG S400
Scotty Cameron Oil Can Newport, 34"
TaylorMade TP5x (2021)

My WITB Post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Callaway epic max LS 9* GD-M9003 7x 

TM Sim2 max tour  16* GD  ADHD 8x 

srixon zx 19* elements 9F5T 

Cobra king SZ 25.5* KBS TD cat 5 70 

TM p7mc 5-pw Mmt125tx 

Mizuno T22 raw 52-56-60 s400

LAB Mezz Max armlock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Callaway epic max LS 9* GD-M9003 7x 

TM Sim2 max tour  16* GD  ADHD 8x 

srixon zx 19* elements 9F5T 

Cobra king SZ 25.5* KBS TD cat 5 70 

TM p7mc 5-pw Mmt125tx 

Mizuno T22 raw 52-56-60 s400

LAB Mezz Max armlock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Discussion and links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Thorbjorn Olesen - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ben Silverman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jesse Droemer - SoTX PGA Section POY - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      David Lipsky - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Martin Trainer - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Zac Blair - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jacob Bridgeman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Trace Crowe - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jimmy Walker - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Daniel Berger - WITB(very mini) - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Chesson Hadley - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Callum McNeill - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Rhein Gibson - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Patrick Fishburn - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Peter Malnati - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Raul Pereda - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Gary Woodland WITB (New driver, iron shafts) – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Padraig Harrington WITB – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Tom Hoge's custom Cameron - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Piretti putters - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ping putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Kevin Dougherty's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Bettinardi putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Erik Barnes testing an all-black Axis1 putter – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Tony Finau's new driver shaft – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
       
      • 7 replies
    • 2024 Valspar Championship WITB Photos (Thanks to bvmagic)- Discussion & Links to Photos
      This weeks WITB Pics are from member bvmagic (Brian). Brian's first event for WRX was in 2008 at Bayhill while in college. Thanks so much bv.
       
      Please put your comments or question on this thread. Links to all the threads are below...
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 31 replies
    • 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Matt (LFG) Every - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Sahith Theegala - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Cameron putters (and new "LD" grip) - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Bettinardi MB & CB irons - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Bettinardi API putter cover - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Swag API covers - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Golf Pride Reverse Taper grips - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2024 Cognizant Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #2
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #3
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #4
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Brandt Snedeker - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Max Greyserman - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Eric Cole - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Carl Yuan - WITb - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Russell Henley - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Justin Sun - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alex Noren - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Shane Lowry - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Taylor Montgomery - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jake Knapp (KnappTime_ltd) - WITB - - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Super Stoke Pistol Lock 1.0 & 2.0 grips - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      LA Golf new insert putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Garsen Quad Tour 15 grip - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Swag covers - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jacob Bridgeman's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Bud Cauley's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Ryo Hisatsune's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Chris Kirk - new black Callaway Apex CB irons and a few Odyssey putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alejandro Tosti's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 2 replies
    • 2024 Genesis Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #3
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #4
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Rory McIlroy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Sepp Straka - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Patrick Rodgers - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Denny McCarthy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Chase Johnson - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Matt Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Si Woo Kim - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Viktor Hovland - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Wyndham Clark - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Nick Taylor - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Ben Baller WITB update (New putter, driver, hybrid and shafts) – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Vortex Golf rangefinder - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Fujikura Ventus shaft - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods & TaylorMade "Sun Day Red" apparel launch event, product photos – 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods Sun Day Red golf shoes - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Aretera shafts - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Toulon putters - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods' new white "Sun Day Red" golf shoe prototypes – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      • 22 replies

×
×
  • Create New...