Taylormade M5 & M6 Woods - Pics added page 46

[SirHoselRocket]

Cant help but wonder if the thing that looks like a buttplug on the m6 going from behind the speedslot all the way to the back got a purpose or if its just a way to let us know they f***** us again

 

This is gold hahahaha

[TheMoneyShot]

I sure hope they kept the 2 tone top for the new drivers. Let’s see if these beat out the 16’ M2 I’m still gaming!

 

They kept it for 2019 as well. Black and silver this time around..

[Lemonde]

I’m in the minority here who prefers the look of the M5 better. I cannot wait for the annual driver shooout at my club.

 

I also prefer the M5. I think the track is simpler and the silver carbon is “flashy”

[csiachos]

I like both

[Valtiel]

Cant help but wonder if the thing that looks like a buttplug on the m6 going from behind the speedslot all the way to the back got a purpose or if its just a way to let us know they f***** us again

 

Serious answer, positioning weight back and down, which is good for both performance and forgiveness.

 

Non-serious answer, LOL.

[Golf64]

Just have to wait to see what Ping has in store and I have seen them all. ;)

[TheMoneyShot]

Just have to wait to see what Ping has in store and I have seen them all. ;)

 

No offense, but what does anything Ping have to do with this thread?

[Gary Gutful]

The CG on M6 looks like it will be more low and back than any recent TM driver.

[shakey]

Just have to wait to see what Ping has in store and I have seen them all. ;)

 

No offense, but what does anything Ping have to do with this thread?

I read it as the Ping is the only driver left to have pics leaked. Come on Ping. We’re waiting.

[noodle3872]

The CG on M6 looks like it will be more low and back than any recent TM driver.

 

Seems to be the trend now. Ping’s G400 Max got the ball rolling now everyone is trying to beat their performance/forgiveness blend.

[Valtiel]

The CG on M6 looks like it will be more low and back than any recent TM driver.

 

Seems to be the trend now. Ping’s G400 Max got the ball rolling now everyone is trying to beat their performance/forgiveness blend.

 

And i'll keep shouting from the rooftops that that is a good thing. The M4 was further back than any recent TM driver by a decent margin BUT it was also very high. I can't imagine that the design and marketing people don't plan for this kind of thing though with modern equipment release cadences. It will be very easy to show average performance gains with the M6 over the M4 if they took the same weight depth and simply lowered it. If they can push it even further back then great! I predicted about a dozen pages ago that if they took the M4, increased the MOI a bit and got it moderately lower than they would have a direct competitor to the G400 Max and it looks like they may very well be trying that.

[Gtyler14]

I’d give both a shot. I like the looks of both of them but my m4 has been killer for me. Anyone have a pic of the fairway wood yet? That what I’m most interested in.

[Gary Gutful]

The CG on M6 looks like it will be more low and back than any recent TM driver.

 

Seems to be the trend now. Ping’s G400 Max got the ball rolling now everyone is trying to beat their performance/forgiveness blend.

Depends what you rate higher. King Ltd wasn't as far back but was super low. Ping G400 is ridiculously far back but still fairly high.

 

Super high MOI with super low CG is virtually the only thing left in driver design.

[BearQ]

Not happy with where driver aesthetics are headed. I know performance is king but these cannot be compared to legendary drivers in terms of looks.

 

Wish they’d release the ‘16 M2 in 430-440 snowflake style. These are so busy and meh in appearance. And yes I’m sure they perform, just like all drivers do these days...

[getitdaily]

The CG on M6 looks like it will be more low and back than any recent TM driver.

 

Seems to be the trend now. Ping’s G400 Max got the ball rolling now everyone is trying to beat their performance/forgiveness blend.

 

And i'll keep shouting from the rooftops that that is a good thing. The M4 was further back than any recent TM driver by a decent margin BUT it was also very high. I can't imagine that the design and marketing people don't plan for this kind of thing though with modern equipment release cadences. It will be very easy to show average performance gains with the M6 over the M4 if they took the same weight depth and simply lowered it. If they can push it even further back then great! I predicted about a dozen pages ago that if they took the M4, increased the MOI a bit and got it moderately lower than they would have a direct competitor to the G400 Max and it looks like they may very well be trying that.

 

Lowering the cg will also raise spin, correct? So they have to find a way to lower cg without raising spin?

 

That's the holy grail, right?

 

Also, do you think TM already knows how to get moi high and cg low but doing that in one shot basically limits product advancement so they're dragging us along?

 

It's physics...they have to have models that show what needs to be done...

[Ed Settle]

M5 looks like a wide shallow face. Maybe M6 is a deeper face?

 

I think the picture of the face is of the M6.

[syders]

They look great

[radiman]

The CG on M6 looks like it will be more low and back than any recent TM driver.

 

Seems to be the trend now. Ping’s G400 Max got the ball rolling now everyone is trying to beat their performance/forgiveness blend.

 

And i'll keep shouting from the rooftops that that is a good thing. The M4 was further back than any recent TM driver by a decent margin BUT it was also very high. I can't imagine that the design and marketing people don't plan for this kind of thing though with modern equipment release cadences. It will be very easy to show average performance gains with the M6 over the M4 if they took the same weight depth and simply lowered it. If they can push it even further back then great! I predicted about a dozen pages ago that if they took the M4, increased the MOI a bit and got it moderately lower than they would have a direct competitor to the G400 Max and it looks like they may very well be trying that.

 

Lowering the cg will also raise spin, correct? So they have to find a way to lower cg without raising spin?

 

That's the holy grail, right?

 

Also, do you think TM already knows how to get moi high and cg low but doing that in one shot basically limits product advancement so they're dragging us along?

 

It's physics...they have to have models that show what needs to be done...

 

At this point, I don't think they would pull any punches. They would do whatever it takes to trump Callaway and Ping.

[SubaruWRX]

The CG on M6 looks like it will be more low and back than any recent TM driver.

 

Seems to be the trend now. Ping’s G400 Max got the ball rolling now everyone is trying to beat their performance/forgiveness blend.

 

And i'll keep shouting from the rooftops that that is a good thing. The M4 was further back than any recent TM driver by a decent margin BUT it was also very high. I can't imagine that the design and marketing people don't plan for this kind of thing though with modern equipment release cadences. It will be very easy to show average performance gains with the M6 over the M4 if they took the same weight depth and simply lowered it. If they can push it even further back then great! I predicted about a dozen pages ago that if they took the M4, increased the MOI a bit and got it moderately lower than they would have a direct competitor to the G400 Max and it looks like they may very well be trying that.

 

Lowering the cg will also raise spin, correct? So they have to find a way to lower cg without raising spin?

 

That's the holy grail, right?

 

Also, do you think TM already knows how to get moi high and cg low but doing that in one shot basically limits product advancement so they're dragging us along?

 

It's physics...they have to have models that show what needs to be done...

 

At this point, I don't think they would pull any punches. They would do whatever it takes to trump Callaway and Ping.

Kind of how Apple does the same to trump Samsung, Google, and the rest? And how Chevrolet does to trump Ford & Dodge? And how Toyota does to trump Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Etc...?

 

No. They’ll string the consumer along to ensure future sales. If you bought the end all be all of drivers this year, you wouldn’t replace it until it broke. And then, you’d buy another of that old model on eBay.

[Valtiel]

The CG on M6 looks like it will be more low and back than any recent TM driver.

 

Seems to be the trend now. Ping's G400 Max got the ball rolling now everyone is trying to beat their performance/forgiveness blend.

 

And i'll keep shouting from the rooftops that that is a good thing. The M4 was further back than any recent TM driver by a decent margin BUT it was also very high. I can't imagine that the design and marketing people don't plan for this kind of thing though with modern equipment release cadences. It will be very easy to show average performance gains with the M6 over the M4 if they took the same weight depth and simply lowered it. If they can push it even further back then great! I predicted about a dozen pages ago that if they took the M4, increased the MOI a bit and got it moderately lower than they would have a direct competitor to the G400 Max and it looks like they may very well be trying that.

 

Lowering the cg will also raise spin, correct? So they have to find a way to lower cg without raising spin?

 

That's the holy grail, right?

 

Also, do you think TM already knows how to get moi high and cg low but doing that in one shot basically limits product advancement so they're dragging us along?

 

It's physics...they have to have models that show what needs to be done...

 

Other way around, lowering CG lowers average spin across the face vertically. Spin raises quickly when you start striking below the CoG, therefore the lower the CoG the less physical space there is below it and the more above it. Striking above the CoG lowers spin, so the lower the CoG the easier that is to accomplish.

 

The problem is weight distribution and the overall structural integrity if the head. The crown (high) and the face (front) need to be strong enough to withstand impact and these are two pieces that fight against moving the CG both lower and further back. Also, traditional driver design has the crown sloping downwards and the sole turning upwards to meet at the rear of the club, so the further back you place the weight the higher it ends up in relation to the whole head, which raises CG. All of the M-series Taylormade drivers have followed this pattern; which each model the weight has moved equal amounts back and up. The M6 looks to change this with that sole design to get that rear weight down, which is good. A truly low CG driver with high MOI is one of the holy grails. High/Forward CG is easy and probably the cheapest way to make a driver, hence why there are so many. Getting the weight down means using more advanced construction techniques and materials, getting it back involves crafty design.

[SwooshLT]

The CG on M6 looks like it will be more low and back than any recent TM driver.

 

Seems to be the trend now. Ping's G400 Max got the ball rolling now everyone is trying to beat their performance/forgiveness blend.

 

And i'll keep shouting from the rooftops that that is a good thing. The M4 was further back than any recent TM driver by a decent margin BUT it was also very high. I can't imagine that the design and marketing people don't plan for this kind of thing though with modern equipment release cadences. It will be very easy to show average performance gains with the M6 over the M4 if they took the same weight depth and simply lowered it. If they can push it even further back then great! I predicted about a dozen pages ago that if they took the M4, increased the MOI a bit and got it moderately lower than they would have a direct competitor to the G400 Max and it looks like they may very well be trying that.

 

Lowering the cg will also raise spin, correct? So they have to find a way to lower cg without raising spin?

 

That's the holy grail, right?

 

Also, do you think TM already knows how to get moi high and cg low but doing that in one shot basically limits product advancement so they're dragging us along?

 

It's physics...they have to have models that show what needs to be done...

 

Other way around, lowering CG lowers average spin across the face vertically. Spin raises quickly when you start striking below the CoG, therefore the lower the CoG the less physical space there is below it and the more above it. Striking above the CoG lowers spin, so the lower the CoG the easier that is to accomplish.

 

The problem is weight distribution and the overall structural integrity if the head. The crown (high) and the face (front) need to be strong enough to withstand impact and these are two pieces that fight against moving the CG both lower and further back. Also, traditional driver design has the crown sloping downwards and the sole turning upwards to meet at the rear of the club, so the further back you place the weight the higher it ends up in relation to the whole head, which raises CG. All of the M-series Taylormade drivers have followed this pattern; which each model the weight has moved equal amounts back and up. The M6 looks to change this with that sole design to get that rear weight down, which is good. A truly low CG driver with high MOI is one of the holy grails. High/Forward CG is easy and probably the cheapest way to make a driver, hence why there are so many. Getting the weight down means using more advanced construction techniques and materials, getting it back involves crafty design.

 

Isn't this the premise with Cobra F9 speedback?

[getitdaily]

The CG on M6 looks like it will be more low and back than any recent TM driver.

 

Seems to be the trend now. Ping's G400 Max got the ball rolling now everyone is trying to beat their performance/forgiveness blend.

 

And i'll keep shouting from the rooftops that that is a good thing. The M4 was further back than any recent TM driver by a decent margin BUT it was also very high. I can't imagine that the design and marketing people don't plan for this kind of thing though with modern equipment release cadences. It will be very easy to show average performance gains with the M6 over the M4 if they took the same weight depth and simply lowered it. If they can push it even further back then great! I predicted about a dozen pages ago that if they took the M4, increased the MOI a bit and got it moderately lower than they would have a direct competitor to the G400 Max and it looks like they may very well be trying that.

 

Lowering the cg will also raise spin, correct? So they have to find a way to lower cg without raising spin?

 

That's the holy grail, right?

 

Also, do you think TM already knows how to get moi high and cg low but doing that in one shot basically limits product advancement so they're dragging us along?

 

It's physics...they have to have models that show what needs to be done...

 

Other way around, lowering CG lowers average spin across the face vertically. Spin raises quickly when you start striking below the CoG, therefore the lower the CoG the less physical space there is below it and the more above it. Striking above the CoG lowers spin, so the lower the CoG the easier that is to accomplish.

 

The problem is weight distribution and the overall structural integrity if the head. The crown (high) and the face (front) need to be strong enough to withstand impact and these are two pieces that fight against moving the CG both lower and further back. Also, traditional driver design has the crown sloping downwards and the sole turning upwards to meet at the rear of the club, so the further back you place the weight the higher it ends up in relation to the whole head, which raises CG. All of the M-series Taylormade drivers have followed this pattern; which each model the weight has moved equal amounts back and up. The M6 looks to change this with that sole design to get that rear weight down, which is good. A truly low CG driver with high MOI is one of the holy grails. High/Forward CG is easy and probably the cheapest way to make a driver, hence why there are so many. Getting the weight down means using more advanced construction techniques and materials, getting it back involves crafty design.

 

So we could see some version of the cleveland hibore xl, with that recessed crown come back? Was cleveland closer to the holy grail back then than anyone knew?

 

Ping hasn't done the carbon crown yet but they've found a way to continuously lower cog, right? I could see the carbon crowns being abandoned to help with structural integrity. Remaking a recessed crown should lower the cog...just not sure how much.

 

Note, I'm not even an amateur physicist so I'm just guessing here...

[bladehunter]

Play with a guy who has a GAPR-LO set down to 16 degrees. Mashes that thing.

 

Was gonna say. Stupid name. But I had gapr low with a addi in it. And it was awesome. Problem was it was a true 1 iron. I could hit it with my 3 wood. Which is my favorite long club. So no need for both. It was a rediculisly good low bullet tee club and I hit it from rough into several par 5s with good results. Club isn’t junk. But the name is .

[Valtiel]

 

Isn't this the premise with Cobra F9 speedback?

 

Yes it looks like Cobra is doing the same thing, and they have really pushed the envelope with low CG in the past.

[Valtiel]

 

So we could see some version of the cleveland hibore xl, with that recessed crown come back? Was cleveland closer to the holy grail back then than anyone knew?

 

Ping hasn't done the carbon crown yet but they've found a way to continuously lower cog, right? I could see the carbon crowns being abandoned to help with structural integrity. Remaking a recessed crown should lower the cog...just not sure how much.

 

Note, I'm not even an amateur physicist so I'm just guessing here...

 

Possibly, but I doubt the carbon crown goes away since it is a lighter material designed to move weight away from the top. Ping hasn't really lowered CG over time although the G400 Max did move both down and back which was responsible for its success. We'll see where that goes next.

 

I doubt Cleveland was close to where we are now with CG and MOI but I'm not sure to be honest.

[Noke]

So we could see some version of the cleveland hibore xl, with that recessed crown come back? Was cleveland closer to the holy grail back then than anyone knew?

 

Ping hasn't done the carbon crown yet but they've found a way to continuously lower cog, right? I could see the carbon crowns being abandoned to help with structural integrity. Remaking a recessed crown should lower the cog...just not sure how much.

 

Note, I'm not even an amateur physicist so I'm just guessing here...

 

Possibly, but I doubt the carbon crown goes away since it is a lighter material designed to move weight away from the top. Ping hasn't really lowered CG over time although the G400 Max did move both down and back which was responsible for its success. We'll see where that goes next.

 

I doubt Cleveland was close to where we are now with CG and MOI but I'm not sure to be honest.

 

You're probably right about the ol' HiBore CG location, but I've always wondered about this graphic:

 

[getitdaily]

So we could see some version of the cleveland hibore xl, with that recessed crown come back? Was cleveland closer to the holy grail back then than anyone knew?

 

Ping hasn't done the carbon crown yet but they've found a way to continuously lower cog, right? I could see the carbon crowns being abandoned to help with structural integrity. Remaking a recessed crown should lower the cog...just not sure how much.

 

Note, I'm not even an amateur physicist so I'm just guessing here...

 

Possibly, but I doubt the carbon crown goes away since it is a lighter material designed to move weight away from the top. Ping hasn't really lowered CG over time although the G400 Max did move both down and back which was responsible for its success. We'll see where that goes next.

 

I doubt Cleveland was close to where we are now with CG and MOI but I'm not sure to be honest.

 

You're probably right about the ol' HiBore CG location, but I've always wondered about this graphic:

 

 

I'd like to go on record that I called the next iteration of the recessed crown.

 

Oh, and if it doesn't happen then I didn't call it.

[kiddoc]

 

 

Was Top Flite first?

Think so.......

[4rheel]

PRGR has had success with the recessed design in their fairway metals. Wonder why it hasn't been applied to drivers other than the Hi-Bore.

[MG 1977]

I think TM have been very clever with the m5/6 heads. Callaway found a way to increase ball speed & stay within the max cor rating with jailbreak by bracing the crown & sole... since then the others have been playing catch up but they can't copy the idea of jailbreak, so what do you do to try to maximise ball speed if you can't find a technology that competes with Jailbreak without breaking copyright??? You guarantee that every head you make is at the maximum cor limit & the best way to do this is to make all faces illegal then slow them down, genius idea. Driver prices have gone up a lot in the past few years, so instead of throwing that money into more R&D to try to find a new technology put that money into testing each head and guaranteeing max cor. Sometimes the best ideas are simple.