Taylormade M5 & M6 Woods - Pics added page 46

[hardcaliber]

I’ve heard that the m6 driver is higher launching and maybe higher spinning than the recent m4 and m2. If I want a similar launch as my 2016 m2 HL, do I go with the m6 10.5 or the m6 12 degree head?

 

Thanks in advance.

[edryer3]

I’ve heard that the m6 driver is higher launching and maybe higher spinning than the recent m4 and m2. If I want a similar launch as my 2016 m2 HL, do I go with the m6 10.5 or the m6 HL?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

For me I tested both heads at 9deg with with my Tensei Pro White 70TX. And I was launching, had better consistency, and below 2k spin the M6 better than the M5. It just fit my swing better and the M5 didn’t give me better numbers. I was coming from a 2016 M2. And I found both heads to be low spinning for me. Just got to go out and compare on the monitor if you are able!

[hardcaliber]

I’ve heard that the m6 driver is higher launching and maybe higher spinning than the recent m4 and m2. If I want a similar launch as my 2016 m2 HL, do I go with the m6 10.5 or the m6 HL?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

For me I tested both heads at 9deg with with my Tensei Pro White 70TX. And I was launching, had better consistency, and below 2k spin the M6 better than the M5. It just fit my swing better and the M5 didn’t give me better numbers. I was coming from a 2016 M2. And I found both heads to be low spinning for me. Just got to go out and compare on the monitor if you are able!

 

Thanks for the response. Did you you have to change loft or did the same loft translate from the m2 translate into the m6?

[edryer3]

I’ve heard that the m6 driver is higher launching and maybe higher spinning than the recent m4 and m2. If I want a similar launch as my 2016 m2 HL, do I go with the m6 10.5 or the m6 HL?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

For me I tested both heads at 9deg with with my Tensei Pro White 70TX. And I was launching, had better consistency, and below 2k spin the M6 better than the M5. It just fit my swing better and the M5 didn’t give me better numbers. I was coming from a 2016 M2. And I found both heads to be low spinning for me. Just got to go out and compare on the monitor if you are able!

 

Thanks for the response. Did you you have to change loft or did the same loft translate from the m2 translate into the m6?

 

My M2 was 9.5 and the M6 was 9deg. But the M6 launched as high but spun less and had better ball speed (M6)

[Kale_m]

Cracked my 3rd M2 tour...

 

Wonder what they will send me this time? Thinking an m4 tour thatvis left over..

[BearQ]

Cracked my 3rd M2 tour...

 

Wonder what they will send me this time? Thinking an m4 tour thatvis left over..

 

Me thinks I should keep a couple back up 3woods on deck once I start playing my m2 tour 3w build...

[kiddoc]

Cracked my 3rd M2 tour...

 

Wonder what they will send me this time? Thinking an m4 tour thatvis left over..

 

You will be please with the replacement.

[BearQ]

Cracked my 3rd M2 tour...

 

Wonder what they will send me this time? Thinking an m4 tour thatvis left over..

 

You will be please with the replacement.

 

If it’s an m4 tour he won’t be. Totally different club. Upright. Nearly zero tour or elite amateur presence.

 

M4 tour fairway was flop imo

[rxk9fan]

Cracked my 3rd M2 tour...

 

Wonder what they will send me this time? Thinking an m4 tour thatvis left over..

 

You will be please with the replacement.

 

If it's an m4 tour he won't be. Totally different club. Upright. Nearly zero tour or elite amateur presence.

 

M4 tour fairway was flop imo

LOVE mine. Great head with the right shaft!

[rxk9fan]

I've heard that the m6 driver is higher launching and maybe higher spinning than the recent m4 and m2. If I want a similar launch as my 2016 m2 HL, do I go with the m6 10.5 or the m6 HL?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

For me I tested both heads at 9deg with with my Tensei Pro White 70TX. And I was launching, had better consistency, and below 2k spin the M6 better than the M5. It just fit my swing better and the M5 didn't give me better numbers. I was coming from a 2016 M2. And I found both heads to be low spinning for me. Just got to go out and compare on the monitor if you are able!

 

Thanks for the response. Did you you have to change loft or did the same loft translate from the m2 translate into the m6?

 

My M2 was 9.5 and the M6 was 9deg. But the M6 launched as high but spun less and had better ball speed (M6)

 

If you would want to share numbers, I would certainly find it interesting. You came from what I consider to be one of the better drivers ever produced. I don't doubt that technology has moved forward and I would love to hear how far. Primarily, how have the advances changed results. I would love to see Trackman numbers but almost as good is if you can just share your results or even perceptions either on the monitor or on the course. We can all do the math involved with launch, spin, etc., but where the ball ends up is the only number that matters(though I do love data). Any comments you can make, or that others can make between the M2 and M6 would be of great interest to me!

Thank you!

[Valtiel]

I've heard that the m6 driver is higher launching and maybe higher spinning than the recent m4 and m2. If I want a similar launch as my 2016 m2 HL, do I go with the m6 10.5 or the m6 HL?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

For me I tested both heads at 9deg with with my Tensei Pro White 70TX. And I was launching, had better consistency, and below 2k spin the M6 better than the M5. It just fit my swing better and the M5 didn't give me better numbers. I was coming from a 2016 M2. And I found both heads to be low spinning for me. Just got to go out and compare on the monitor if you are able!

 

Thanks for the response. Did you you have to change loft or did the same loft translate from the m2 translate into the m6?

 

My M2 was 9.5 and the M6 was 9deg. But the M6 launched as high but spun less and had better ball speed (M6)

 

If you would want to share numbers, I would certainly find it interesting. You came from what I consider to be one of the better drivers ever produced. I don't doubt that technology has moved forward and I would love to hear how far. Primarily, how have the advances changed results.

 

I honestly think it is going to be less about technology and more about simply weight distribution. The experience of the M6 having higher ball speeds, similar launch, and lower spin all point to higher MOI with a similar or maybe even lower CG. That would line up with the head design that looks to purposefully put weight as low and as far back as possible. If they managed to keep the CG the same or even lower it compared to the 2016 M2 and increase the MOI then it will definitely be a winner.

[bladehunter]

Cracked my 3rd M2 tour...

 

Wonder what they will send me this time? Thinking an m4 tour thatvis left over..

 

You will be please with the replacement.

 

If it’s an m4 tour he won’t be. Totally different club. Upright. Nearly zero tour or elite amateur presence.

 

M4 tour fairway was flop imo

 

Agree. M2 tour was a great animal. Much like m1 17. Flat lie angle and just deep enough face. Easy to elevate. M4 was just meh. M3 is ok.

[kiddoc]

Cracked my 3rd M2 tour...

 

Wonder what they will send me this time? Thinking an m4 tour thatvis left over..

 

You will be please with the replacement.

 

If it's an m4 tour he won't be. Totally different club. Upright. Nearly zero tour or elite amateur presence.

 

M4 tour fairway was flop imo

LOVE mine. Great head with the right shaft!

 

 

Totally agree.

 

Tough to change 3W once you find what you like, Am or Pro level.

 

 

[Hedgehog]

I thought with "injected twistface" TaylorMade was able to get all drivers right to the 252 CT limit? But just saw Chris Ryan's Wentworth fitting video and they show a tour issue head with CTs of 241 238 and 245...

Seems like he has Re-Uploaded the video into Youtube with the label info blurred out.. :D

 

Original:

 

Now:

 

 

Taylormade clearly didn't like the fact that the measurements shown on label is pissing on the marketing.. Why do they keep on doing this? They have a great products, why use BS to market them?

 

The video is available here:

[chris975d]

I thought with "injected twistface" TaylorMade was able to get all drivers right to the 252 CT limit? But just saw Chris Ryan's Wentworth fitting video and they show a tour issue head with CTs of 241 238 and 245...

Seems like he has Re-Uploaded the video into Youtube with the label info blurred out.. :D

 

Original:

 

Now:

 

 

Taylormade clearly didn't like the fact that the measurements shown on label is pissing on the marketing.. Why do they keep on doing this? They have a great products, why use BS to market them?

 

The video is available here:

 

We've discussed it in a few threads on GolfWRX, one of which is here: http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1745708-m5-and-m6-ct-numbers/.

 

But basically, according to info we have from a post a few years ago from Mr. Tom Wishon (original post can be found through the post linked above), the USGA does not allow all heads to be close to 257ct. Their mark is 239ct, and a manufacturers heads have to be at that mark or lower to be deemed as "fully conforming". There is some wiggle room up to 257, but all heads can't test in that 239-257 range, or they would be ruled as "provisionally conforming".

 

From all the talks I've had with TaylorMade and other industry people, what it appears TM has done is weed out all the heads that fall below/well below 239, since (again, from what I've been told) manufacturing tolerances produce many heads that are well under even the 239 mark, which these are distributed to retail (pros aren't going to play heads under 239, especially well under). So TaylorMade has done things to insure that customers get a head that's much closer to or at 239, and maybe over, if you're lucky, since some can be over that mark (just not all).

[sbjinx]

I thought with "injected twistface" TaylorMade was able to get all drivers right to the 252 CT limit? But just saw Chris Ryan's Wentworth fitting video and they show a tour issue head with CTs of 241 238 and 245...

Seems like he has Re-Uploaded the video into Youtube with the label info blurred out.. :D

 

Original:

 

Now:

 

 

Taylormade clearly didn't like the fact that the measurements shown on label is pissing on the marketing.. Why do they keep on doing this? They have a great products, why use BS to market them?

 

The video is available here:

 

We've discussed it in a few threads on GolfWRX, one of which is here: http://www.golfwrx.c...6-ct-numbers/.

 

But basically, according to info we have from a post a few years ago from Mr. Tom Wishon (original post can be found through the post linked above), the USGA does not allow all heads to be close to 257ct. Their mark is 239ct, and a manufacturers heads have to be at that mark or lower to be deemed as "fully conforming". There is some wiggle room up to 257, but all heads can't test in that 239-257 range, or they would be ruled as "provisionally conforming".

 

From all the talks I've had with TaylorMade and other industry people, what it appears TM has done is weed out all the heads that fall below/well below 239, since (again, from what I've been told) manufacturing tolerances produce many heads that are well under even the 239 mark, which these are distributed to retail (pros aren't going to play heads under 239, especially well under). So TaylorMade has done things to insure that customers get a head that's much closer to or at 239, and maybe over, if you're lucky, since some can be over that mark (just not all).

 

Interesting...i assume if any heads come in above 239, that would also go to retail since they wouldn't meet the USGA standards. So the retail heads are either at the limit of 257 or well below it. I'm not a gear junkie but what would be the loss of ball speed between a 257 vs. 230 head. I assume not a lot.

[SC-TX 88]

Are we thinking about this wrong? On the flip side of the argument, how many retail heads are now at 239, that before would’ve been much lower before?

[Krt22]

Are we thinking about this wrong? On the flip side of the argument, how many retail heads are now at 239, that before would've been much lower before?

 

Very fair point. My cally experiment is over, epic flash head has been sold. Time to find an M6!

[chris975d]

Are we thinking about this wrong? On the flip side of the argument, how many retail heads are now at 239, that before would've been much lower before?

 

Thinking about it wrong? In what way? Like I said in the thread I linked to above, my personal opinion (which is founded from being in the golf business, and manufacturing knowledge, as well as industry discussions) is that the method TM is using (face injection) is bringing everything as close as possible to the USGA allowed limit...that 239 (or occasionally higher) number. Think about manufacturing...if your target number is 239, and you're not really allowed to be too much over too often, then you're going to set your target somewhere below that, to ensure that you don't produce too many heads over the target...because if you do, they are essentially scrap heads that can't be sold. But, if you have the ability to take those higher specced heads and slow them down with the resin injection, now you can move your target closer to, or even right at the 239 and produce more usable and sellable heads.

 

That's my take on it anyway. And, if that's all even remotely accurate, it would mean that TM has in fact increased the AVERAGE ct score of the all the heads they produce. Then marketing gets ahold of that and claims "everyone gets faster" (because the average CT score went up), and it's not ENTIRELY BS...just marketing embellishment, which is all marketing.

[SC-TX 88]

Are we thinking about this wrong? On the flip side of the argument, how many retail heads are now at 239, that before would've been much lower before?

 

Thinking about it wrong? In what way? Like I said in the thread I linked to above, my personal opinion (which is founded from being in the golf business, and manufacturing knowledge, as well as industry discussions) is that the method TM is using (face injection) is bringing everything as close as possible to the USGA allowed limit...that 239 (or occasionally higher) number. Think about manufacturing...if your target number is 239, and you're not really allowed to be too much over too often, then you're going to set your target somewhere below that, to ensure that you don't produce too many heads over the target...because if you do, they are essentially scrap heads that can't be sold. But, if you have the ability to take those higher specced heads and slow them down with the resin injection, now you can move your target closer to, or even right at the 239 and produce more usable and sellable heads.

 

That's my take on it anyway. And, if that's all even remotely accurate, it would mean that TM has in fact increased the AVERAGE ct score of the all the heads they produce. Then marketing gets ahold of that and claims "everyone gets faster" (because the average CT score went up), and it's not ENTIRELY BS...just marketing embellishment, which is all marketing.

 

I think you and I are saying/thinking the same thing (I’m pro M5 btw think it’s a great product and in my bag). What I was trying to get across is folks are getting hung up on spec stickers that don’t say 257, whereas they should be looking at it as spec stickers are NOT reading below 239.

[chris975d]

Are we thinking about this wrong? On the flip side of the argument, how many retail heads are now at 239, that before would've been much lower before?

 

Thinking about it wrong? In what way? Like I said in the thread I linked to above, my personal opinion (which is founded from being in the golf business, and manufacturing knowledge, as well as industry discussions) is that the method TM is using (face injection) is bringing everything as close as possible to the USGA allowed limit...that 239 (or occasionally higher) number. Think about manufacturing...if your target number is 239, and you're not really allowed to be too much over too often, then you're going to set your target somewhere below that, to ensure that you don't produce too many heads over the target...because if you do, they are essentially scrap heads that can't be sold. But, if you have the ability to take those higher specced heads and slow them down with the resin injection, now you can move your target closer to, or even right at the 239 and produce more usable and sellable heads.

 

That's my take on it anyway. And, if that's all even remotely accurate, it would mean that TM has in fact increased the AVERAGE ct score of the all the heads they produce. Then marketing gets ahold of that and claims "everyone gets faster" (because the average CT score went up), and it's not ENTIRELY BS...just marketing embellishment, which is all marketing.

 

I think you and I are saying/thinking the same thing (I'm pro M5 btw). What I was trying to get across is folks are getting hung up on spec stickers that don't say 257, whereas they should be looking at it as spec stickers are NOT reading below 239.

 

Gotcha.. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. But, in all honesty, I don't think we will "see" too many spec stickers significantly under 239...those would never go on a Tour van anyway, so would any manufacturer spec sticker a 231 (for example) head? Seems it would just get bin sorted to go to retail.

[Kale_m]

Cracked my 3rd M2 tour...

 

Wonder what they will send me this time? Thinking an m4 tour thatvis left over..

 

You will be please with the replacement.

 

If it’s an m4 tour he won’t be. Totally different club. Upright. Nearly zero tour or elite amateur presence.

 

M4 tour fairway was flop imo

 

Agree. M2 tour was a great animal. Much like m1 17. Flat lie angle and just deep enough face. Easy to elevate. M4 was just meh. M3 is ok.

 

Had the m4 tour as a replacement for one of the M2 tours I broke. I agree was no really a fan. Have a fitting on Sunday for for the m5 /m6. Se what those are like. Like the m3 hl

[SC-TX 88]

Are we thinking about this wrong? On the flip side of the argument, how many retail heads are now at 239, that before would've been much lower before?

 

Thinking about it wrong? In what way? Like I said in the thread I linked to above, my personal opinion (which is founded from being in the golf business, and manufacturing knowledge, as well as industry discussions) is that the method TM is using (face injection) is bringing everything as close as possible to the USGA allowed limit...that 239 (or occasionally higher) number. Think about manufacturing...if your target number is 239, and you're not really allowed to be too much over too often, then you're going to set your target somewhere below that, to ensure that you don't produce too many heads over the target...because if you do, they are essentially scrap heads that can't be sold. But, if you have the ability to take those higher specced heads and slow them down with the resin injection, now you can move your target closer to, or even right at the 239 and produce more usable and sellable heads.

 

That's my take on it anyway. And, if that's all even remotely accurate, it would mean that TM has in fact increased the AVERAGE ct score of the all the heads they produce. Then marketing gets ahold of that and claims "everyone gets faster" (because the average CT score went up), and it's not ENTIRELY BS...just marketing embellishment, which is all marketing.

 

I think you and I are saying/thinking the same thing (I'm pro M5 btw). What I was trying to get across is folks are getting hung up on spec stickers that don't say 257, whereas they should be looking at it as spec stickers are NOT reading below 239.

 

Gotcha.. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. But, in all honesty, I don't think we will "see" too many spec stickers significantly under 239...those would never go on a Tour van anyway, so would any manufacturer spec sticker a 231 (for example) head? Seems it would just get bin sorted to go to retail.

 

Agreed, spicy heads only for the tour boys.

[Tre4ISU]

Are we thinking about this wrong? On the flip side of the argument, how many retail heads are now at 239, that before would've been much lower before?

 

This is what's going on. Yes, they marketed it as bring everything up to toe the line but what they were really doing is getting rid of the deadest of the faces.

[Natural1]

Totally agree with the recent comments above. From a marketing perspective "Everyone gets faster!" sounds a whole lot better than "Nobody gets a dud!" - but the second statement is really what's going on, and I think it's a great idea.

[t4t3r]

Are we thinking about this wrong? On the flip side of the argument, how many retail heads are now at 239, that before would've been much lower before?

 

This is what's going on. Yes, they marketed it as bring everything up to toe the line but what they were really doing is getting rid of the deadest of the faces.

 

Definitely following this line of thinking, but I feel like we would’ve seen specced heads in past years that were under 239 in that case. I don’t think they were testing every head that came out of the factory, so there should’ve been ones that were tested fall below that 239 mark. Don’t think I’ve ever seen one in past years that was ever below 240.

 

All of this is for literally one yard give or take, but it’s interesting discussion.

[Carson33]

Are we thinking about this wrong? On the flip side of the argument, how many retail heads are now at 239, that before would've been much lower before?

 

This is what's going on. Yes, they marketed it as bring everything up to toe the line but what they were really doing is getting rid of the deadest of the faces.

 

Definitely following this line of thinking, but I feel like we would’ve seen specced heads in past years that were under 239 in that case. I don’t think they were testing every head that came out of the factory, so there should’ve been ones that were tested fall below that 239 mark. Don’t think I’ve ever seen one in past years that was ever below 240.

 

All of this is for literally one yard give or take, but it’s interesting discussion.

 

I would think that if TM tested a head and it was 239, they would NOT have bothered to even put a sticker on it and dare not hand it to a tour pro. It would have gone in the trash or back in the “retail” line.

[chris975d]

Are we thinking about this wrong? On the flip side of the argument, how many retail heads are now at 239, that before would've been much lower before?

 

This is what's going on. Yes, they marketed it as bring everything up to toe the line but what they were really doing is getting rid of the deadest of the faces.

 

Definitely following this line of thinking, but I feel like we would’ve seen specced heads in past years that were under 239 in that case. I don’t think they were testing every head that came out of the factory, so there should’ve been ones that were tested fall below that 239 mark. Don’t think I’ve ever seen one in past years that was ever below 240.

 

All of this is for literally one yard give or take, but it’s interesting discussion.

 

I would think that if TM tested a head and it was 239, they would NOT have bothered to even put a sticker on it and dare not hand it to a tour pro. It would have gone in the trash or back in the “retail” line.

 

Right. Retail heads wouldn’t be stickered. Just the heads going into the tour van bins, so that the fitters can cherry pick heads for the pros. A head testing at 235 for example wouldn’t get a sticker, it would get tossed over into the retail line. The spec stickers are just to sort those that are set aside for Tour use.

[noodle3872]

So, all this sticker talk aside, how’s everybody liking their M5/M6 woods and M6 hybrids?

 

My M6 driver, M6 3 wood and M4 hybrid are being build and should be in hand next week!

[shakey]

So, all this sticker talk aside, hows everybody liking their M5/M6 woods and M6 hybrids?

 

My M6 driver, M6 3 wood and M4 hybrid are being build and should be in hand next week!

My M6 driver is awesome on the range. It’s hasn’t seen the course though.

 

In testing, it’s a couple MPH faster than my old 2016 M2 on avg and mishits appear to be better.

 

Hopefully I can get on the course sometime soon to give it the final test.