Blade users thread (NO DEBATING CLUBHEADS! NO Buy Sell Trade!)

[NRJyzr]

So as to adjusting for CG with an adapter, how do you know that for sure? I have never seen the technology that would counterweight the adapter weight. Maybe there is some weighting inside the head near the toe with adapter drivers, but I can't see it. By adding weight near the hosel, the adapter is going to pull the CG closer to it, and...LOL...wait for it...by the laws of physics, there needs to be some counterweight on the other side of the CG so that it will bring it back away from closer to the hosel, and I simply don't see this in adapter driver designs. And you know that I am OPEN to the possibility that this has been accounted for and so if you could illuminate me on your logic that CG location is in fact "accounted for", I would appreciate it. Although LOL later you conceded the point anyway that there is an anecdotal observation of it. (And remember, I was also making the point that it may not matter anyway.)

 

Not much logic I'm afraid. It's purely reading comments of designers saying the weight of the adapter is taken into account in designing the club. As well as comments that they have a bit more discretionary weight to work with in a bonded hosel configuration, because they don't have to account for the weight of the adapter, or the weight of the larger hosel section.

 

It's worth noting the adapters are only about 7g or thereabouts. They're generally aluminum, in part to keep the weight down. Most comments I've seen refer to the weight of the hosel configuration to allow adapter use being a more significant issue.

 

 

 

Here is my take on it: the effect of adding the heavier adapter pulls the CG in closer to the hosel much like the "draw" setting of an adjustable weight driver where you can set weight at the toe for a fade and set it at the hosel for a draw. So just for arguments sake, let's ASSUME that the CG isn't counterweighted. That driver with adapter is nothing more than the adjustable driver 'stuck' at the draw setting with the weight closer to the hosel.

 

And I'm NOT saying this is a bad thing nor permanent issue. A golfer will simply adjust to that adapted driver's new CG location and maybe have a slightly different swing/swing timing with it than one without the adapter. No big deal. (Which was my point that CG location isn't as significant as we think.)

 

The weight does indeed move the CG a bit heel side, but at 7g for an adapter, it's not going to move much. One could even say negligible. ;)

 

And the bigger picture of what I'm getting at is that with the heavier adapter, the 460cc titanium driver head MUST be made lighter somehow to keep the SW the same as a glued driver. So now a manufacturer can put more plastic or carbon fiber or anything lighter and cheaper and weaker than titanium in the head and save on the cost because titanium is VERY expensive relative to the other head materials.

 

This to me is entirely why manufacturers are trying so hard to make a clubhead with less and less titanium. Now they would NEVER market this, instead they would tie it to some (often pointless) "science" but at the end of the day they haven't improved any driver performance over older all titanium 460cc drivers. They just ended up using cheaper materials to sell the club at the same price as before!

 

Most driver heads, even at 460cc, are quite easy to make lighter than the spec weights to which we've become accustomed. Even before the adaptable head revolution, you could get a driver clubhead under 190g, and most were centered around 196-198g. Which I found annoying, since I like my drivers rather shorter than 45" and with somewhat higher swingweights, LOL.

 

Ultimately, the carbon fiber usage is more about weight distribution. The more of the clubhead they can make out of something other than titanium, the more discretionary weight they have to move the CG. It's now become all about managing the CG for the purposes of launch conditions. The SLDR showed you could really drag the spin down, and the King LTD showed you could get it pretty low while being more forgiving than the SLDR. And so on and so on. ;)

 

There's where the carbon fiber comes in super handy. I don't know that it's about cost savings so much, I've heard it said it's a hint more expensive to manufacture a clubhead with both carbon fiber and Ti. And since it was on the internet, it must be true. LOL

(fwiw, that comment was a brief side comment in an interview, not part of usual OEM-speak talking about new releases and the like)

 

With or without the "technology" advancing, today's drivers are being made with less titanium as before. And LOL I'm seeing posts about how the plastic or carbon fiber heads are having manufacturing issues like the plastic separating or bulging from the stress of impact. These weren't issues back when heads were all titanium!

 

That just means they didn't properly mix their JB Weld epoxy ;)

[NRJyzr]

Alright. So we are in agreement. This is the blade users and heavy driver thread. Any deviation of heavy drivers makes you one of them perimeter weighted vageena types.

 

Today is the launch of a new beginning for this thread.

 

 

It just means I like heavier drivers. Lighter and/or longer drivers are fine, too, just not for me.

 

Not everyone is the weird combination of gorilla and T-Rex that I am. LOL

[DevilDog]

Hit some 681 Titleists yesterday. Forgot how good those irons are and how sweet the feel is with the hickory inserted into the hosel end of the shaft. Still, my MP 33s are the king of the bag.

[NRJyzr]

Just got my muirfield irons in this afternoon And holy rabies are those small heads...really really small. Even side by side with the hogan pc they were significantly tiny..

 

 

I have a set of Muirfields and yes, they are indeed fairly small. Golden Rams tend to be similarly sized.

 

Once you're used to hitting something like Muirfields, it's hard to look at a lot of modern irons. They're just too damn big. LOL

[db2]

I have a set of Muirfields and yes, they are indeed fairly small. Golden Rams tend to be similarly sized.

 

Once you're used to hitting something like Muirfields, it's hard to look at a lot of modern irons. They're just too damn big. LOL

 

I agree. For most of my golfing life I played the Muirfields and the FG-17, which are the same size. If you're looking for a modern version of those classics, check out the Cobra King MB. It has the same blade length, but is softer and has a more forgiving sole grind. The Miura MB-001 is the same size too. Of course, you can go smaller than all of them and get the Miura BB, which is what I've done.

[Bigmean]

Just got my muirfield irons in this afternoon And holy rabies are those small heads...really really small. Even side by side with the hogan pc they were significantly tiny..

 

 

I have a set of Muirfields and yes, they are indeed fairly small. Golden Rams tend to be similarly sized.

 

Once you're used to hitting something like Muirfields, it's hard to look at a lot of modern irons. They're just too damn big. LOL

 

Amen to that. I would have never guessed in taking the BB leap that it would foreer change looking down on clubs. IN all reality, they are not much different than my MP14s so it wasn't as shocking as could be, but they are still smaller. I am still really adjusting to the Staffs, and they are certainly small for cbs, but I couldn't go any bigger. Ruined for life on that....or awoke for life maybe is the proper way to look at it.

[Nard_S]

Hit some 681 Titleists yesterday. Forgot how good those irons are and how sweet the feel is with the hickory inserted into the hosel end of the shaft. Still, my MP 33s are the king of the bag.

 

I picked up a set last year but have only taken various irons to the range, I'm really impressed by how good they are. Nice feel & very accurate They surprise to the upside.

[Z1ggy16]

So I went back and hit my cast Hot Metal irons last night in a lesson. Gosh I have been so spoiled by the butter soft MP54's the past month or two. IT was like hitting balls with a cast iron skillet or something. It felt good don't get me wrong, but certainly not that soft feel I've gotten used to. Although the forgiveness was way better, even when I hit my 5i literally off the toe... still went about 190 yards. In my 54's that would have probably gone about 170.

[NRJyzr]

Just got my muirfield irons in this afternoon And holy rabies are those small heads...really really small. Even side by side with the hogan pc they were significantly tiny..

 

 

I have a set of Muirfields and yes, they are indeed fairly small. Golden Rams tend to be similarly sized.

 

Once you're used to hitting something like Muirfields, it's hard to look at a lot of modern irons. They're just too damn big. LOL

 

Amen to that. I would have never guessed in taking the BB leap that it would foreer change looking down on clubs. IN all reality, they are not much different than my MP14s so it wasn't as shocking as could be, but they are still smaller. I am still really adjusting to the Staffs, and they are certainly small for cbs, but I couldn't go any bigger. Ruined for life on that....or awoke for life maybe is the proper way to look at it.

 

 

I know I've said this before, but when I dedicated myself to playing the Eye2+, it took me a full two months, minimum, to adjust to the larger clubhead. One of the weird manifestations of that was my constantly setting up to the ball such that I could only hit it on the toe. It's counter to what you'd expect would happen in going to a larger head, or so it seems to me.

 

And doubly odd when one considers my main miss with irons is towards the heel, and has been for most of the time I've played golf. Until I started playing the Pings. LOL

[NRJyzr]

I have a set of Muirfields and yes, they are indeed fairly small. Golden Rams tend to be similarly sized.

 

Once you're used to hitting something like Muirfields, it's hard to look at a lot of modern irons. They're just too damn big. LOL

 

I agree. For most of my golfing life I played the Muirfields and the FG-17, which are the same size. If you're looking for a modern version of those classics, check out the Cobra King MB. It has the same blade length, but is softer and has a more forgiving sole grind. The Miura MB-001 is the same size too. Of course, you can go smaller than all of them and get the Miura BB, which is what I've done.

 

 

I kind of miss my FG-17s, but I *do* have a set of 78 Staffs in the garage, though I'd have to reshaft them to be able to play them. So I've been able to get over my disappointment. LOL

[Kingcat990]

Alright. So we are in agreement. This is the blade users and heavy driver thread. Any deviation of heavy drivers makes you one of them perimeter weighted vageena types.

 

Today is the launch of a new beginning for this thread.

 

That sucks - as I have a Covert, do I have to trade the blades in for some shovels?

 

I do have a Powerbilt TPS Persimmon in my practice bag, I think my handicap might suffer if I use it all the time though :)

I'd argue that the science of a driver is still being perfected, while the science behind an iron has already been perfected with the blade.

 

I'd say this is a pretty accurate statement. The engineering design of the driver has changed significantly. Pretty obvious all they are really doing to irons is adding exotic polymers and moving some weight around. The biggest thing I have seen in iron design and manufacturing in the last 10 years is the Vs ole shared by Hogan and Srixon.

 

I guess I can't forget about Parsons. That is a unique way to distribute perimeter weighting, albeit not easily adjustable and in my Eyes. Maybe something he will improve on in the years to come

[Bigmean]

Just got my muirfield irons in this afternoon And holy rabies are those small heads...really really small. Even side by side with the hogan pc they were significantly tiny..

 

 

I have a set of Muirfields and yes, they are indeed fairly small. Golden Rams tend to be similarly sized.

 

Once you're used to hitting something like Muirfields, it's hard to look at a lot of modern irons. They're just too damn big. LOL

 

Amen to that. I would have never guessed in taking the BB leap that it would foreer change looking down on clubs. IN all reality, they are not much different than my MP14s so it wasn't as shocking as could be, but they are still smaller. I am still really adjusting to the Staffs, and they are certainly small for cbs, but I couldn't go any bigger. Ruined for life on that....or awoke for life maybe is the proper way to look at it.

 

 

I know I've said this before, but when I dedicated myself to playing the Eye2+, it took me a full two months, minimum, to adjust to the larger clubhead. One of the weird manifestations of that was my constantly setting up to the ball such that I could only hit it on the toe. It's counter to what you'd expect would happen in going to a larger head, or so it seems to me.

 

And doubly odd when one considers my main miss with irons is towards the heel, and has been for most of the time I've played golf. Until I started playing the Pings. LOL

.

 

So this is highly interesting. In my 3 rounds with the staffs, I have more toe misses than probably last 10 or more rounds with my miuras. So much so that it has been something I have been very aware of. Specifically I should say that my perfectly good iron shots are on the toe side of center vs heel side of center with the miuras.

 

I figured it was because with that more head I was setting up with the ball farther from the heel, it in reality I feel like I address the ball center with both so I have 100% had same experience that is not a coincidence, it is a flat trend, and really don't have a good explanation why.

[Nard_S]

Just got my muirfield irons in this afternoon And holy rabies are those small heads...really really small. Even side by side with the hogan pc they were significantly tiny..

 

 

I have a set of Muirfields and yes, they are indeed fairly small. Golden Rams tend to be similarly sized.

 

Once you're used to hitting something like Muirfields, it's hard to look at a lot of modern irons. They're just too damn big. LOL

 

Amen to that. I would have never guessed in taking the BB leap that it would foreer change looking down on clubs. IN all reality, they are not much different than my MP14s so it wasn't as shocking as could be, but they are still smaller. I am still really adjusting to the Staffs, and they are certainly small for cbs, but I couldn't go any bigger. Ruined for life on that....or awoke for life maybe is the proper way to look at it.

 

 

I know I've said this before, but when I dedicated myself to playing the Eye2+, it took me a full two months, minimum, to adjust to the larger clubhead. One of the weird manifestations of that was my constantly setting up to the ball such that I could only hit it on the toe. It's counter to what you'd expect would happen in going to a larger head, or so it seems to me.

 

And doubly odd when one considers my main miss with irons is towards the heel, and has been for most of the time I've played golf. Until I started playing the Pings. LOL

.

 

So this is highly interesting. In my 3 rounds with the staffs, I have more toe misses than probably last 10 or more rounds with my miuras. So much so that it has been something I have been very aware of. Specifically I should say that my perfectly good iron shots are on the toe side of center vs heel side of center with the miuras.

 

I figured it was because with that more head I was setting up with the ball farther from the heel, it in reality I feel like I address the ball center with both so I have 100% had same experience that is not a coincidence, it is a flat trend, and really don't have a good explanation why.

 

It confirms my goofy belief that your swing will always find the CG of a club. :)

[Bigmean]

Better than any theory I have. Reading NR say that was like "holy crap" because especially after last round it was really in my mind. I should stress, quality shots and contact, but probably a full 3/8" toward the toe than same quality shots with my Miuras. I would love to say feels like 1/2" or so but in reality that is a lot more than it sounds.

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

I only had about 20 minutes to browse Festival Golf in Shinjuku yesterday, but it was enough time to check the irons and quickly look at putters. Pick of the irons was a "Limited" set of Miura F-type blades, 4i-PW. Nice small compact head, but unfortunately nowhere to hit them. Also, the price tag was slightly over 120,000 yen.

There was also a nice set of Honma TW 717 blades, 3-PW with DGX100, which looked very tasty.

It was the putters that really impressed me though. A really great bronze Yamada, and an even better bronze custom Masda. 40,000 yen, though.

Also saw a black-ox George Spirits 58* wedge in the same style as the GT-MBs that I like.

[DeNinny]

...

Not much logic I'm afraid. It's purely reading comments of designers saying the weight of the adapter is taken into account in designing the club. As well as comments that they have a bit more discretionary weight to work with in a bonded hosel configuration, because they don't have to account for the weight of the adapter, or the weight of the larger hosel section.

 

It's worth noting the adapters are only about 7g or thereabouts. They're generally aluminum, in part to keep the weight down. Most comments I've seen refer to the weight of the hosel configuration to allow adapter use being a more significant issue.

 

So I consider the added hosel configuration as part of the total adapter weight because it is necessary to support the adapter and it is not needed in the bonded case, so absolutely the overall weight of everything needed for the implementation of the adapter itself is part of the overall head design change. So it would be important to consider that as well. To continue with the point made earlier, that total weight needs to be countered on the other side of the CG somewhere in order to "account for it". True, 7g isn't all that much, but I would like to know that added hosel weight and also some evidence of counterweighting to offset the CG shift. Otherwise, the added weight at the hosel is simply going to behave like that "draw" setting on an adjustable weight driver.

 

And LOL I'm sorry but an internet answer by a club designer isn't enough to validate that CG changes are all "accounted for". In my experience talking with club designers on WRX they are evasive with answers to questions that point at the core design issues of the "feature" being discussed. Sorry, but as an engineer I need the specifics of how and discussion about the actual way the weight was redistributed to offset more weight at the hosel. Like...is the metal at the toe side heavier and thicker than that at the heel? ...is there a counterweight in the toe somewhere? ...and really how much did the CG move in the first place? Sorry, but I like to "challenge perception" just as Biggie stated earlier. And engineers work on FACTS and DATA if at all possible.

 

But all that said...when CG location isn't all that significant to begin with, then for sure it is "accounted for" anyway, so LOL a club designer could state that CG is "accounted for" BECAUSE it doesn't matter that weight was added to the hosel with no counterweight at the toe.

 

And also *IF* CG location is so important, then LMAO why are there adjustable weight drivers where you can push the weight out to the toe and also pull it in close to the heel, all within the same driver?!?! Clearly moving the weight across the span of the head from heel to toe that much is going to move the head CG, and if the weight is similar to the total weight of implementing an adapter, then those adjustable weight drivers are just as significant as adding an adapter at the heel. But LMAO in the first case it is fine to move the CG around but in the latter case the CG location needs to be "accounted for"...LMAO this is a technical contradiction...

 

...unless of course the significance of CG location is not that significant in the first place. At least not as much as HALF-TRUTH carney manufacturers want us to PERCEIVE.

 

-DeNinny

 

...

 

The weight does indeed move the CG a bit heel side, but at 7g for an adapter, it's not going to move much. One could even say negligible. ;)

 

As stated earlier, it's not just 7g when the hosel also needed added weight to support the implementation of the adapter. Not saying that makes it more than negligible. Just saying 7g isn't the total weight to be "accounted for". ANY added weight to the club head or near the clubhead is going to affect the CG location.

 

-DeNinny

...

Most driver heads, even at 460cc, are quite easy to make lighter than the spec weights to which we've become accustomed. Even before the adaptable head revolution, you could get a driver clubhead under 190g, and most were centered around 196-198g. Which I found annoying, since I like my drivers rather shorter than 45" and with somewhat higher swingweights, LOL.

 

But still the density of plastic and carbon fiber is less than that of titanium. So even though before their presence in driver heads, those lighter driver heads *could* be made even lighter (and cheaper on a raw materials cost basis).

 

Ultimately, the carbon fiber usage is more about weight distribution. The more of the clubhead they can make out of something other than titanium, the more discretionary weight they have to move the CG. It's now become all about managing the CG for the purposes of launch conditions. The SLDR showed you could really drag the spin down, and the King LTD showed you could get it pretty low while being more forgiving than the SLDR. And so on and so on. ;)

 

I'm not saying that this all isn't true, but I still say it could easily also be about cost as well and cutting corners on the total amount of titanium as possible. Also I know there is "proof" that CG location affects spin, to that I don't and won't deny (but LMAO there's more to it than just this!) And really by significance I will contend that you can tweak an older (pre carbon fiber) driver with shaft, shaft stepping, lead taping, etc and still do the same things as intended through weight distribution. And so CG location change again is just a bit player in the overall bigger picture of how the ball spins (and launches)

 

And LMAO you can still make those weight distribution changes without the carbon fiber per your earlier point. You just stated the weight of drivers could significantly be reduced before carbon fiber and so if that is true then the overall weight distribution can also be done even without the carbon fiber. Removing weight is a subset of removing and redistributing weight. If you can do one, you can do both.

 

Also remember those weird Cleveland drivers that didn't have a convex crown and instead they were concave looking down on them? That design is doing the same thing as the carbon fiber crowns, but to my point, it used more titanium.

 

To me it's only "all about" managing the PERCEPTION that it is "all about" CG location through the implementation of carbon fiber! And behind this is raw materials cost savings.

 

-DeNinny

 

...

There's where the carbon fiber comes in super handy. I don't know that it's about cost savings so much, I've heard it said it's a hint more expensive to manufacture a clubhead with both carbon fiber and Ti. And since it was on the internet, it must be true. LOL

(fwiw, that comment was a brief side comment in an interview, not part of usual OEM-speak talking about new releases and the like)

 

There is no way, no how, that carbon fiber on a volume by volume basis costs more than titanium. It will be significantly cheaper. I work with all kinds of construction materials and by far titanium is one of the most expensive ones that you can buy. And carbon fiber and similar materials like it are on the market and used so much BECAUSE they are cheap. So *IF* that comment were true that the manufacturing cost are more expensive with carbon fiber, then it must be much more expensive to assemble the parts than to buy the raw materials (on a comparative basis).

 

And LOL again that side comment answer lacks clarity. Manufacturing costs can be broken down in different ways. Sure the assembly process of the manufacture *could* cost more with a multimaterial head. I totally get that. But the question is whether or not that total cost includes the raw materials. Also some costs also include the development of the new "technology" as part of the total manufacturing cost. Tough to say if that side comment answer accounted for any of this.

 

-DeNinny

...

That just means they didn't properly mix their JB Weld epoxy ;)

 

Which is a step that is totally not necessary when the head is made completely from (very expensive) titanium.

 

-DeNinny

 

 

See responses above in italics. We will never know the answers without actual numbers on costs and how much CGs actually do move around relative to each other and really what is the correlation with it and spin. But LOL that is the PERSPECTIVE the manufacturer's DON'T want for us.

 

I still say the push for less titanium in drivers and less forged steel in irons is driven by cost savings with some "science" tied to it for marketing purposes. At the end of the day we still shoot about the same, even with these new drivers with all their new fancy CG changes and these new fancy "technology" laden irons.

[Bigmean]

I only had about 20 minutes to browse Festival Golf in Shinjuku yesterday, but it was enough time to check the irons and quickly look at putters. Pick of the irons was a "Limited" set of Miura F-type blades, 4i-PW. Nice small compact head, but unfortunately nowhere to hit them. Also, the price tag was slightly over 120,000 yen.

There was also a nice set of Honma TW 717 blades, 3-PW with DGX100, which looked very tasty.

It was the putters that really impressed me though. A really great bronze Yamada, and an even better bronze custom Masda. 40,000 yen, though.

Also saw a black-ox George Spirits 58* wedge in the same style as the GT-MBs that I like.

 

The type F y grinds are dope and maybe will be my next Miura set when those prices get down to 70,000JPY.

 

40000 for a slick bronze masda putter really isn't bad depending....putters are really either overpriced or luxury taxed because they can be.

[DeNinny]

I only had about 20 minutes to browse Festival Golf in Shinjuku yesterday, but it was enough time to check the irons and quickly look at putters. Pick of the irons was a "Limited" set of Miura F-type blades, 4i-PW. Nice small compact head, but unfortunately nowhere to hit them. Also, the price tag was slightly over 120,000 yen.

There was also a nice set of Honma TW 717 blades, 3-PW with DGX100, which looked very tasty.

It was the putters that really impressed me though. A really great bronze Yamada, and an even better bronze custom Masda. 40,000 yen, though.

Also saw a black-ox George Spirits 58* wedge in the same style as the GT-MBs that I like.

 

The type F y grinds are dope and maybe will be my next Miura set when those prices get down to 70,000JPY.

 

40000 for a slick bronze masda putter really isn't bad depending....putters are really either overpriced or luxury taxed because they can be.

 

If they are compact heads I would consider swapping my Retro TBs for the type F y grinds. They are dope for sure. Similar design to the BB but still different. NCN, are the heads as compact as BBs or Miuraisms?

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

I only had about 20 minutes to browse Festival Golf in Shinjuku yesterday, but it was enough time to check the irons and quickly look at putters. Pick of the irons was a "Limited" set of Miura F-type blades, 4i-PW. Nice small compact head, but unfortunately nowhere to hit them. Also, the price tag was slightly over 120,000 yen.

There was also a nice set of Honma TW 717 blades, 3-PW with DGX100, which looked very tasty.

It was the putters that really impressed me though. A really great bronze Yamada, and an even better bronze custom Masda. 40,000 yen, though.

Also saw a black-ox George Spirits 58* wedge in the same style as the GT-MBs that I like.

 

The type F y grinds are dope and maybe will be my next Miura set when those prices get down to 70,000JPY.

 

40000 for a slick bronze masda putter really isn't bad depending....putters are really either overpriced or luxury taxed because they can be.

 

If they are compact heads I would consider swapping my Retro TBs for the type F y grinds. They are dope for sure. Similar design to the BB but still different. NCN, are the heads as compact as BBs or Miuraisms?

 

Never seen either to compare, so I can't help you there. But they sure were small. When I looked at them my first thought was "so this is what BBs must look like."

 

Biggie: You're right that the price of the Masda wasn't really that bad. The main reason I passed on it was because I just bought a Masda putter that really suits my putting stroke.

[Bigmean]

I pass on 20 reasonably priced putters a week....hahaha.

 

I think they are basically the same. You won't see a BB as it is export only, but I was really under the impression the Y grind D and F type were off the BB. The Miuras sb1 or whatever is same as well. If the Ftype struck you as small "from a blades players persoective" then it is probably same platform. Remember dude that I got lessons with thought my 7 was a 5 iron, then was like "Are your clubs really strong" and then the reality of the size hit him. So, while I don't think they are mythically small (Maybe they are) they are small enough to where it is one of the first thoughts in your head upon first glance, and I mean first thoughts as someone who plays mp4s or whatever.

[NRJyzr]

There is no way, no how, that carbon fiber on a volume by volume basis costs more than titanium.

 

It doesn't have to be. The lower cost of the fiber would be offset by the additional cost in the labor involved in the assembly of the two parts. And the time spent mixing the JB Weld (LOL, had to, couldn't help myself).

 

Producing a driver head doesn't cost all THAT much money. We can see this in the component side of the business. You can buy a Ti driver clubhead for under $70, after all. Point being, I don't know that we're talking material numbers. (edit: for sake of clarity, I'm an accountant, "material" isn't a reference to the stuff the heads are made of)

 

Ultimately, it's all speculation. We don't *know* the costs involved, how much QC rejection rates are involved, and the like. Theoretically, working with multi material heads could increase the rejection rate, thereby increasing the unit cost. Our entire discussion point in this case is just that, though, speculation and theory. :)

 

Real numbers would be nice, but we all know that isn't going to happen. LOL

[The Mad Bomber]

Went to the range again last night and was just absolutely striping it. I started working the ball in every direction at will and just reminded myself why I love blades so much! That is all.

[DeNinny]

There is no way, no how, that carbon fiber on a volume by volume basis costs more than titanium.

 

It doesn't have to be. The lower cost of the fiber would be offset by the additional cost in the labor involved in the assembly of the two parts. And the time spent mixing the JB Weld (LOL, had to, couldn't help myself).

 

Producing a driver head doesn't cost all THAT much money. We can see this in the component side of the business. You can buy a Ti driver clubhead for under $70, after all. Point being, I don't know that we're talking material numbers. (edit: for sake of clarity, I'm an accountant, "material" isn't a reference to the stuff the heads are made of)

 

Ultimately, it's all speculation. We don't *know* the costs involved, how much QC rejection rates are involved, and the like. Theoretically, working with multi material heads could increase the rejection rate, thereby increasing the unit cost. Our entire discussion point in this case is just that, though, speculation and theory. :)

 

Real numbers would be nice, but we all know that isn't going to happen. LOL

 

I'm pretty confident (LOL enough to bet you a round of golf) on costs of titanium being higher than carbon fiber but I totally understand your point.

 

Ultimately it is also speculation (again without numbers) as to how important the CG location is in the grand scheme of things too and also the magnitude of the supposed design "benefits' of using carbon fiber instead of titanium for the sake of mass redistribution. I know manufacturers have numbers on how clubs perform based on this but the key is to evaluate the changes based on ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL which is often not the case with these manufacturers and how they set up clubs for comparison purposes. Again, as we are discussing, it is all speculation without really knowing all the context behind manufacturer's tests and supposed "data". This was my point all along. It is important to challenge our perceptions of golf "physics" as presented by manufacturers and consider their other motivations. And when you really start analyzing the "merits" of club designs and changes to said designs, often there are issues that come with them which *can* outweigh the very "benefits" provided. This is clearly the case with CB irons as compared to blades and I'm just doing the same thing with drivers. At the end of the day it is still a requirement to return a 43" to 46" driver face back to the same point within a few centimeters on a regular basis and regardless of where the CG location is. And also since the face is still titanium regardless of the crown or other parts being carbon fiber or plastic, there really isn't much change to drivers despite all this supposed "innovative tech" that is pumped out there ad nauseam in advertising.

 

Anyway, as usual, my friend, it is always good to share a dialog with you and get a different perspective on things.

[DeNinny]

I pass on 20 reasonably priced putters a week....hahaha.

 

I think they are basically the same. You won't see a BB as it is export only, but I was really under the impression the Y grind D and F type were off the BB. The Miuras sb1 or whatever is same as well. If the Ftype struck you as small "from a blades players persoective" then it is probably same platform. Remember dude that I got lessons with thought my 7 was a 5 iron, then was like "Are your clubs really strong" and then the reality of the size hit him. So, while I don't think they are mythically small (Maybe they are) they are small enough to where it is one of the first thoughts in your head upon first glance, and I mean first thoughts as someone who plays mp4s or whatever.

 

I'm pretty sure the Miuraism SB-01 is a carbon copy design of the BB (or vice versa), but the F type y grinds look a little different. I could be convincing myself of this because at times they look identical.

 

I would love side by side comparison pics of all these Miuras and also the W/S Fg59s, Ram TGs, and those special Titleists that bladehunter had a while back. I'm trying to find the true "king" of compact head blades.

 

It's funny how at first (as documented in this thread) that I was intimidated by the BB head size at address, but now I just want it. Always. Now when I address a "normal" blade it actually doesn't look quite as normal anymore.

[Nard_S]

 

I'd argue that the science of a driver is still being perfected, while the science behind an iron has already been perfected with the blade.

 

Driver tech probably peaked about 10-12 years ago. Aside from all the freedom to adjust on the fly, driver performance is been pretty much flat since then. Perfection is highly subjective and that being the case, the TM R510 is as close to driver perfection as I have ever hit. "Perfect" for the market place is another matter, just like irons. :)

[DeNinny]

I'd argue that the science of a driver is still being perfected, while the science behind an iron has already been perfected with the blade.

 

Driver tech probably peaked about 10-12 years ago. Aside from all the freedom to adjust on the fly, driver performance is been pretty much flat since then. Perfection is highly subjective and that being the case, the TM R510 is as close to driver perfection as I have ever hit. "Perfect" for the market place is another matter, just like irons. :)

 

My R5 Dual with a modern and fitted shaft is as good as anything out there today. It is as long as my TEE XLD and CB4 and also anything that I ever try to demo. And yeah that R510 is just as good as anything as well.

 

It all has to do with the titanium face and large head size and also, most importantly, how that face is SUPPORTED at the perimeter. 10-12 years ago is about when the driver head got to 460cc but more importantly the heads were all titanium with a nice thin face wall that allowed the head to be light but also very strong. Also the surface area became larger and so this helped to allow ball contact over a wider surface area and still advance the ball.

 

Furthermore, the driver face is very similar to a CB face in that it will behave like a trampoline. And like all trampolines, the support of the face is all the way around the perimeter of it. Also by design, the middle of the face flexes the most under a given force and as you get closer to the perimeter that same force does not flex the face inwards as much and so the face will flex inward with a biased angle that points back towards the dead center. And so with this design it is important that the ball contact the face in the dead middle more than anywhere else and also regardless of the CG location. When the ball contacts the dead middle of a trampoline, much like being able to bounce perfectly straight up and the highest at the middle of a literal trampoline, it will launch forward with the least amount of spin and with equal force pushing it forward from all sides. As soon as you start hitting away from this point, because of that varying face flex, the ball will launch with a little more spin and a slightly off face angle, BUT...with a large surface area face like with the onset of 460cc ones, in effect these issues are minor. That large surface area effectively creates a sort of "acceptable sweetspot" where missing close but still away from the dead middle is not that penal.

 

Also of importance is the shape of the face. Unlike the triangle shape of a CB, a 460cc driver face is more circular than a CB and this is more ideal, again when the face is like a trampoline, because this makes for a more even flex at the exact middle.

 

And as mentioned earlier the perimeter all around the face is very important. When the ball hits the dead center middle and the titanium face starts flexing inwards as the ball compresses against it, there is going to be tremendous pull along the ENTIRE perimeter from the force of impact and so again it is very ideal to have equal and strong structural support around the entire perimeter.

 

For all these reasons the all titanium head drivers from 10-12 years ago are as good as anything today. All of today's drivers still have all of the above features. What matters most in the physics of impact is what actually comes into literal contact with the ball and everything done in support of this. With a driver the actual CG of the clubhead is literally a virtual point in empty space somewhere in the middle of it. Although this will have some effect on the ball, again it is only in support of how the face literally touches the ball because that is the only way to change how the ball launches and spins. But the CG alone literally doesn't come into contact with the ball, so that is why all these modern designs that focus so much on it more than anything else (LOL to create a PERCEPTION to golfers so inclined to believe in it) aren't really changing anything. The fundamental ideal design of a large surface area titanium face stays the same and so the performance ends up being pretty much the same. Although there is *some* theoretical merit to evolved designs, for the most part nothing is really changing and a lot of the "innovation" is statistically insignificant. LOL driver designs are like fashion.

[Bigmean]

I pass on 20 reasonably priced putters a week....hahaha.

 

I think they are basically the same. You won't see a BB as it is export only, but I was really under the impression the Y grind D and F type were off the BB. The Miuras sb1 or whatever is same as well. If the Ftype struck you as small "from a blades players persoective" then it is probably same platform. Remember dude that I got lessons with thought my 7 was a 5 iron, then was like "Are your clubs really strong" and then the reality of the size hit him. So, while I don't think they are mythically small (Maybe they are) they are small enough to where it is one of the first thoughts in your head upon first glance, and I mean first thoughts as someone who plays mp4s or whatever.

 

I'm pretty sure the Miuraism SB-01 is a carbon copy design of the BB (or vice versa), but the F type y grinds look a little different. I could be convincing myself of this because at times they look identical.

 

I would love side by side comparison pics of all these Miuras and also the W/S Fg59s, Ram TGs, and those special Titleists that bladehunter had a while back. I'm trying to find the true "king" of compact head blades.

 

It's funny how at first (as documented in this thread) that I was intimidated by the BB head size at address, but now I just want it. Always. Now when I address a "normal" blade it actually doesn't look quite as normal anymore.

 

I think at the end of the day you won't find anything modern that is as small as the 57 blades. I am very partial to this set and I think even the offset is perfect. Zero is not exactly perfect even for offset haters. At address, and in feeling, that mold/plate regardless what is stamped on it is probably the most pure iron ever. But that is just me.

 

As I typed that I remembered when I asked tiger about what he was up to club wise last summer(taylormade was not something to come out of his mouth hahahahaha) and he said his Mizuno set of 14/29 was the "purest blades he ever played". I have to say, I thought back on that day not a ton but some, and he was clearly guarded for a lot of it, but at the same time the environment of our kids playing there was plenty he wasn't, and reading people is a strength of mine (albeit that is a situation much different than when I deal with clients), but I really took him at face value on that comment, there was a nostalgic appreciation about it we all can relate to and why my mp 14s collect dust and rust in my garage to never be sold. Guys like that don't try a myriad of weird sh*t that people with expendable incomes do, and no doubt he would probably love the 57s, but you have to believe he has hit a lot of crap in his days, and is a good a judge of irons than anyone the planet has ever seen. It wasn't that the titliest probably Miura irons he had, it was the Mizuno set he had coming up. I think it speaks volumes when a dude like that, has a regard like that for something nostalgic, that really and truly irons are as much mental as anything else. We preach it here, we live it and believe it as members of this thread. Whether NRs rams, my 57s or mp14s, or the many here that love the mp4s, the semantics are just that, and if you have a soul connection to something, regardless CB or MB or whatever, that goes so much further than the semantics of science, and what the clubs are to you is so much greater than what the clubs are. It is why I stopped HOing happily cold turkey, because I believe in just that, the soul, not the semantics. You either stand over 178 to the pin and feel like you are going to stick it or you don't, and in that moment, science is out the window.

 

Sorry for the deep thought tangent.....I have had a few drinks LOL.

[DeNinny]

I pass on 20 reasonably priced putters a week....hahaha.

 

I think they are basically the same. You won't see a BB as it is export only, but I was really under the impression the Y grind D and F type were off the BB. The Miuras sb1 or whatever is same as well. If the Ftype struck you as small "from a blades players persoective" then it is probably same platform. Remember dude that I got lessons with thought my 7 was a 5 iron, then was like "Are your clubs really strong" and then the reality of the size hit him. So, while I don't think they are mythically small (Maybe they are) they are small enough to where it is one of the first thoughts in your head upon first glance, and I mean first thoughts as someone who plays mp4s or whatever.

 

I'm pretty sure the Miuraism SB-01 is a carbon copy design of the BB (or vice versa), but the F type y grinds look a little different. I could be convincing myself of this because at times they look identical.

 

I would love side by side comparison pics of all these Miuras and also the W/S Fg59s, Ram TGs, and those special Titleists that bladehunter had a while back. I'm trying to find the true "king" of compact head blades.

 

It's funny how at first (as documented in this thread) that I was intimidated by the BB head size at address, but now I just want it. Always. Now when I address a "normal" blade it actually doesn't look quite as normal anymore.

 

I think at the end of the day you won't find anything modern that is as small as the 57 blades. I am very partial to this set and I think even the offset is perfect. Zero is not exactly perfect even for offset haters. At address, and in feeling, that mold/plate regardless what is stamped on it is probably the most pure iron ever. But that is just me.

 

As I typed that I remembered when I asked tiger about what he was up to club wise last summer(taylormade was not something to come out of his mouth hahahahaha) and he said his Mizuno set of 14/29 was the "purest blades he ever played". I have to say, I thought back on that day not a ton but some, and he was clearly guarded for a lot of it, but at the same time the environment of our kids playing there was plenty he wasn't, and reading people is a strength of mine (albeit that is a situation much different than when I deal with clients), but I really took him at face value on that comment, there was a nostalgic appreciation about it we all can relate to and why my mp 14s collect dust and rust in my garage to never be sold. Guys like that don't try a myriad of weird sh*t that people with expendable incomes do, and no doubt he would probably love the 57s, but you have to believe he has hit a lot of crap in his days, and is a good a judge of irons than anyone the planet has ever seen. It wasn't that the titliest probably Miura irons he had, it was the Mizuno set he had coming up. I think it speaks volumes when a dude like that, has a regard like that for something nostalgic, that really and truly irons are as much mental as anything else. We preach it here, we live it and believe it as members of this thread. Whether NRs rams, my 57s or mp14s, or the many here that love the mp4s, the semantics are just that, and if you have a soul connection to something, regardless CB or MB or whatever, that goes so much further than the semantics of science, and what the clubs are to you is so much greater than what the clubs are. It is why I stopped HOing happily cold turkey, because I believe in just that, the soul, not the semantics. You either stand over 178 to the pin and feel like you are going to stick it or you don't, and in that moment, science is out the window.

 

Sorry for the deep thought tangent.....I have had a few drinks LOL.

 

Tiger knows what a great blade strike feels like as compared to all the others. It is as simple as that. And he also knows that he has other irons to endorse besides the ones that speak to his golf soul.

 

And LOL you don't understand. The science is always in MY head. And it is at the core of my soul connection to my love of blades. With me I have to get the science right first in my clubs, and this is what maximizes my soul connection. The two are almost synonymous with me. If there is something wrong with the science that I know I can improve, it really doesn't sit well with me once I notice it. Like part of my golf soul is missing. I'm an OCD engineer like that.

[Bigmean]

I get that, it is the fabricator in me that appreciates a lot of the JDM stuff I know is not maybe not worth it on the course, but if I am spending $200 for something, I am definitely spending $350 for something fabricated the right way!

[DeNinny]

I get that, it is the fabricator in me that appreciates a lot of the JDM stuff I know is not maybe not worth it on the course, but if I am spending $200 for something, I am definitely spending $350 for something fabricated the right way!

 

By the way there is a theoretical ideal amount of offset. If you were to take into account the combined weight of the ball and clubhead while in contact during impact, the ideal CG location of that combined weight, in theory, should be in a parallel plane with the shaft. So in order to account for the ball's weight, some offset is needed and it will be more ideal than completely zero offset. Furthermore, it really isn't offset that is the key factor, it is really that position of the combined weight CG.

 

Also this is why stronger lofted irons will have more offset (in general). The stronger loft puts the ball more forward at impact so more offset is needed to keep that combined CG back, relatively speaking.

 

And as to the BBs and our soul connection to them, rest assured, we have science on our side. That compact head size on top of being a blade design gives it the technical edge.