Cobra's new King F9 Speedback Driver, Woods, Hybrids and Irons (NO BUY SELL TRADE POSTS)

[vwgolfer]

I can't believe anyone in 2019 is still bringing up the made for vs aftermarket shaft debate. stupid.

[Duffer222]

You guys didn't really read what I wrote. All I said is that Fuji probably setup a high volume line to mass produce the Atmos Shafts for Cobra. With intention of achieving same specs. But that high volume will lead to lesser tolerances. Not unlike the HZRDUS line of regular and Handcrafted shafts.

 

Most people who tried a handcrafted HZRDUS says it is superior to the regular non-handcrafted version due to "tighter tolerances". Yet there is a post here on golfwrx where Project X claims that their non-handcrafted shafts actually have "tighter tolerances" as they have more processes done by machine vs. the handcrafted models.

 

Yet Project X charges triple for the "lesser" shaft.

 

You guys can believe whatever you want.

 

There is no way you can go from a low volume tight tolerance shaft production with the Atmos to a very high volume production scale without some sacrifice in tolerance.

 

I said that they are the same shafts, or at least the honest intention is to make the same shaft. But I know business and I guarantee that they found ways to cut corners to mass produce these shafts, and will claim that those "cut corners" are not going to affect performance one bit. And yet, there is always downside to going to mass production. In this case, my guess is less tight tolerances.

Working in business is great, but unless that business is high end, huge numbers, repetitve manufacturing, then you’re really not qualified to play the role of an expert. Numbers don’t lie. Again, I’ve tried the real deal for over a year, and have tested that shaft vs. the new TS, again with the same head, I.e. EXACT same everything you can possibly think of, from grip to tipping to same head and the numbers, feel, results, etc. and they are, without a doubt, the same EXACT shafts. You admittedly are “guessing”. I’m stating facts.

#over

[dlamb83]

Will ordering from Cobra directly or DD make it possible to get a Tour Length shaft that's tipped 1"?

 

I'm not seeing that option currently.

 

DD will send you an order form to fill out and you can specify that.

[GooseHook]

Will ordering from Cobra directly or DD make it possible to get a Tour Length shaft that's tipped 1"?

 

I'm not seeing that option currently.

 

Yes. Just write it like this:

 

Length: standard (Tour length will be 44.5 with arcos, 44.25 without)

Tipping: 1"

[wobgon]

IMO, these are "made for shafts". I know that Fujikura stated that they are not. But I just don't see how you put a $300 shaft into a (slightly more than) $300 driver (when bought at the right places).

 

When I say "made for", what I am speculating is that Fujikura probably setup a high volume, fast output line for OEM stock shafts. They may even use the same materials (or source cheaper materials of lesser quality/purity; as an analogy think US steel vs. Chines steel with "same" specs) and the shafts have same specs/design/kick points, etc. But lower tolerances.

 

This is just my complete uneducated speculation, and many will disagree. But I just don't see how it's possible to offer $300 shafts as stock options (and yes, I understand it is much cheaper to produce them than $300, as gross margins are high).

 

 

... I think any WRX regular knows P790's produce 25 yd fliers from a clean lie, MB blades are the only irons a decent ball striker can use and both club and shaft OEMs lie about stock shafts being true aftermarket shafts.

Yea, but after all, his fitter from club champion said so.

[wobgon]

You guys didn't really read what I wrote. All I said is that Fuji probably setup a high volume line to mass produce the Atmos Shafts for Cobra. With intention of achieving same specs. But that high volume will lead to lesser tolerances. Not unlike the HZRDUS line of regular and Handcrafted shafts.

 

Most people who tried a handcrafted HZRDUS says it is superior to the regular non-handcrafted version due to "tighter tolerances". Yet there is a post here on golfwrx where Project X claims that their non-handcrafted shafts actually have "tighter tolerances" as they have more processes done by machine vs. the handcrafted models.

 

Yet Project X charges triple for the "lesser" shaft.

 

You guys can believe whatever you want.

 

There is no way you can go from a low volume tight tolerance shaft production with the Atmos to a very high volume production scale without some sacrifice in tolerance.

 

I said that they are the same shafts, or at least the honest intention is to make the same shaft. But I know business and I guarantee that they found ways to cut corners to mass produce these shafts, and will claim that those "cut corners" are not going to affect performance one bit. And yet, there is always downside to going to mass production. In this case, my guess is less tight tolerances.

Wow....You went from uneducated speculation to an expert pretty quickly.

[awtryau89]

You guys didn't really read what I wrote. All I said is that Fuji probably setup a high volume line to mass produce the Atmos Shafts for Cobra. With intention of achieving same specs. But that high volume will lead to lesser tolerances. Not unlike the HZRDUS line of regular and Handcrafted shafts.

 

Most people who tried a handcrafted HZRDUS says it is superior to the regular non-handcrafted version due to "tighter tolerances". Yet there is a post here on golfwrx where Project X claims that their non-handcrafted shafts actually have "tighter tolerances" as they have more processes done by machine vs. the handcrafted models.

 

Yet Project X charges triple for the "lesser" shaft.

 

You guys can believe whatever you want.

 

There is no way you can go from a low volume tight tolerance shaft production with the Atmos to a very high volume production scale without some sacrifice in tolerance.

 

I said that they are the same shafts, or at least the honest intention is to make the same shaft. But I know business and I guarantee that they found ways to cut corners to mass produce these shafts, and will claim that those "cut corners" are not going to affect performance one bit. And yet, there is always downside to going to mass production. In this case, my guess is less tight tolerances.

Wow....You went from uneducated speculation to an expert pretty quickly.

 

Not sure why he's still posting in this thread. We've already learned from him the F9 is a hook machine with a crappy made for shaft. I would have moved on to other drivers by now.

[Warrick]

Mine is finally on the way, went with white, 9* Atmos black 7s @ 46"

[stk123]

You guys didn't really read what I wrote. All I said is that Fuji probably setup a high volume line to mass produce the Atmos Shafts for Cobra. With intention of achieving same specs. But that high volume will lead to lesser tolerances. Not unlike the HZRDUS line of regular and Handcrafted shafts.

 

Most people who tried a handcrafted HZRDUS says it is superior to the regular non-handcrafted version due to "tighter tolerances". Yet there is a post here on golfwrx where Project X claims that their non-handcrafted shafts actually have "tighter tolerances" as they have more processes done by machine vs. the handcrafted models.

 

Yet Project X charges triple for the "lesser" shaft.

 

You guys can believe whatever you want.

 

There is no way you can go from a low volume tight tolerance shaft production with the Atmos to a very high volume production scale without some sacrifice in tolerance.

 

I said that they are the same shafts, or at least the honest intention is to make the same shaft. But I know business and I guarantee that they found ways to cut corners to mass produce these shafts, and will claim that those "cut corners" are not going to affect performance one bit. And yet, there is always downside to going to mass production. In this case, my guess is less tight tolerances.

Working in business is great, but unless that business is high end, huge numbers, repetitve manufacturing, then you’re really not qualified to play the role of an expert. Numbers don’t lie. Again, I’ve tried the real deal for over a year, and have tested that shaft vs. the new TS, again with the same head, I.e. EXACT same everything you can possibly think of, from grip to tipping to same head and the numbers, feel, results, etc. and they are, without a doubt, the same EXACT shafts. You admittedly are “guessing”. I’m stating facts.

#over

 

I think that you don't understand the definition of "facts". In addition, nothing you wrote contradicts anything I stated in my post (as in we are in agreement that the shaft should play very similar/virtually identical). As I said, a lot of you are misreading what I am saying. Please re read what I wrote with some basic reading comprehension and you will see what I am saying. Going from low volume/ high selling price to high volume/low selling price (and dropping cost significantly) will lead to some cost cutting measures taken by the manufacturer:

 

more automation

using lower priced raw materials (possibly from new suppliers)

speeding up processes

etc.

 

In the end I trust that Fujikura is making "real deal" Atmos shafts that are on a production line specifically setup and "made for" Cobra. By going to very high volume for Cobra, I am certain that they had to setup new production lines (probably more automated than previous ones) and had to source way more raw materials (and probably found other "cheaper" suppliers to keep costs down).

 

In the end it is the "same" shaft, albeit "different". You guys can believe what you want.

[BostonWRX]

You guys didn't really read what I wrote. All I said is that Fuji probably setup a high volume line to mass produce the Atmos Shafts for Cobra. With intention of achieving same specs. But that high volume will lead to lesser tolerances. Not unlike the HZRDUS line of regular and Handcrafted shafts.

 

Most people who tried a handcrafted HZRDUS says it is superior to the regular non-handcrafted version due to "tighter tolerances". Yet there is a post here on golfwrx where Project X claims that their non-handcrafted shafts actually have "tighter tolerances" as they have more processes done by machine vs. the handcrafted models.

 

Yet Project X charges triple for the "lesser" shaft.

 

You guys can believe whatever you want.

 

There is no way you can go from a low volume tight tolerance shaft production with the Atmos to a very high volume production scale without some sacrifice in tolerance.

 

I said that they are the same shafts, or at least the honest intention is to make the same shaft. But I know business and I guarantee that they found ways to cut corners to mass produce these shafts, and will claim that those "cut corners" are not going to affect performance one bit. And yet, there is always downside to going to mass production. In this case, my guess is less tight tolerances.

Working in business is great, but unless that business is high end, huge numbers, repetitve manufacturing, then you’re really not qualified to play the role of an expert. Numbers don’t lie. Again, I’ve tried the real deal for over a year, and have tested that shaft vs. the new TS, again with the same head, I.e. EXACT same everything you can possibly think of, from grip to tipping to same head and the numbers, feel, results, etc. and they are, without a doubt, the same EXACT shafts. You admittedly are “guessing”. I’m stating facts.

#over

 

I think that you don't understand the definition of "facts". In addition, nothing you wrote contradicts anything I stated in my post (as in we are in agreement that the shaft should play very similar/virtually identical). As I said, a lot of you are misreading what I am saying. Please re read what I wrote with some basic reading comprehension and you will see what I am saying. Going from low volume/ high selling price to high volume/low selling price (and dropping cost significantly) will lead to some cost cutting measures taken by the manufacturer:

 

more automation

using lower priced raw materials (possibly from new suppliers)

speeding up processes

etc.

 

In the end I trust that Fujikura is making "real deal" Atmos shafts that are on a production line specifically setup and "made for" Cobra. By going to very high volume for Cobra, I am certain that they had to setup new production lines (probably more automated than previous ones) and had to source way more raw materials (and probably found other "cheaper" suppliers to keep costs down).

 

In the end it is the "same" shaft, albeit "different". You guys can believe what you want.

In the end who cares if they perform the same. All that matters. Back to the F9 Thread

[stk123]

Exactly! Don't understand why so many people got bent out of shape with my posts.

[Duffer222]

Exactly! Don't understand why so many people got bent out of shape with my posts.

It’s easy enough to understand. You’re just wrong and you have not a clue about how manufacturing economies of scale.

 

Clearly a waste of time to educate you as your mind is made up, but not once have you said, “they’re the same shaft”.

 

Back to the important stuff!

[wobgon]

You guys didn't really read what I wrote. All I said is that Fuji probably setup a high volume line to mass produce the Atmos Shafts for Cobra. With intention of achieving same specs. But that high volume will lead to lesser tolerances. Not unlike the HZRDUS line of regular and Handcrafted shafts.

 

Most people who tried a handcrafted HZRDUS says it is superior to the regular non-handcrafted version due to "tighter tolerances". Yet there is a post here on golfwrx where Project X claims that their non-handcrafted shafts actually have "tighter tolerances" as they have more processes done by machine vs. the handcrafted models.

 

Yet Project X charges triple for the "lesser" shaft.

 

You guys can believe whatever you want.

 

There is no way you can go from a low volume tight tolerance shaft production with the Atmos to a very high volume production scale without some sacrifice in tolerance.

 

I said that they are the same shafts, or at least the honest intention is to make the same shaft. But I know business and I guarantee that they found ways to cut corners to mass produce these shafts, and will claim that those "cut corners" are not going to affect performance one bit. And yet, there is always downside to going to mass production. In this case, my guess is less tight tolerances.

Working in business is great, but unless that business is high end, huge numbers, repetitve manufacturing, then you’re really not qualified to play the role of an expert. Numbers don’t lie. Again, I’ve tried the real deal for over a year, and have tested that shaft vs. the new TS, again with the same head, I.e. EXACT same everything you can possibly think of, from grip to tipping to same head and the numbers, feel, results, etc. and they are, without a doubt, the same EXACT shafts. You admittedly are “guessing”. I’m stating facts.

#over

 

I think that you don't understand the definition of "facts". In addition, nothing you wrote contradicts anything I stated in my post (as in we are in agreement that the shaft should play very similar/virtually identical). As I said, a lot of you are misreading what I am saying. Please re read what I wrote with some basic reading comprehension and you will see what I am saying. Going from low volume/ high selling price to high volume/low selling price (and dropping cost significantly) will lead to some cost cutting measures taken by the manufacturer:

 

more automation

using lower priced raw materials (possibly from new suppliers)

speeding up processes

etc.

 

In the end I trust that Fujikura is making "real deal" Atmos shafts that are on a production line specifically setup and "made for" Cobra. By going to very high volume for Cobra, I am certain that they had to setup new production lines (probably more automated than previous ones) and had to source way more raw materials (and probably found other "cheaper" suppliers to keep costs down).

 

In the end it is the "same" shaft, albeit "different". You guys can believe what you want.

And you can believe what you want...…

[Z1ggy16]

TXG posted a vid today of fitting TS3. F9 was used after as a reference and with the same shaft, same guy same swing.... F9 was just a little better. I'm still convinced this is the best driver of 2019 from an overall POV. Maybe M5 will spin less or Flash SZ give more ball speed, but when you consider price, sound/feel, stock offerings, etc... I really think you gotta give props to Cobra this year for making a real gem.

[leftycabe]

I'm sure many have already watched Crossfield's video comparing the EFSZ and the F9 and I'm curious as to whether anyone on here is seeing poor results from the high toe area.

[BostonWRX]

I'm sure many have already watched Crossfield's video comparing the EFSZ and the F9 and I'm curious as to whether anyone on here is seeing poor results from the high toe area.

Matt at TXG lives out there and he hammers the F9

[Krt22]

You guys didn't really read what I wrote. All I said is that Fuji probably setup a high volume line to mass produce the Atmos Shafts for Cobra. With intention of achieving same specs. But that high volume will lead to lesser tolerances. Not unlike the HZRDUS line of regular and Handcrafted shafts.

 

Most people who tried a handcrafted HZRDUS says it is superior to the regular non-handcrafted version due to "tighter tolerances". Yet there is a post here on golfwrx where Project X claims that their non-handcrafted shafts actually have "tighter tolerances" as they have more processes done by machine vs. the handcrafted models.

 

Yet Project X charges triple for the "lesser" shaft.

 

You guys can believe whatever you want.

 

There is no way you can go from a low volume tight tolerance shaft production with the Atmos to a very high volume production scale without some sacrifice in tolerance.

 

I said that they are the same shafts, or at least the honest intention is to make the same shaft. But I know business and I guarantee that they found ways to cut corners to mass produce these shafts, and will claim that those "cut corners" are not going to affect performance one bit. And yet, there is always downside to going to mass production. In this case, my guess is less tight tolerances.

Working in business is great, but unless that business is high end, huge numbers, repetitve manufacturing, then you’re really not qualified to play the role of an expert. Numbers don’t lie. Again, I’ve tried the real deal for over a year, and have tested that shaft vs. the new TS, again with the same head, I.e. EXACT same everything you can possibly think of, from grip to tipping to same head and the numbers, feel, results, etc. and they are, without a doubt, the same EXACT shafts. You admittedly are “guessing”. I’m stating facts.

#over

 

I think that you don't understand the definition of "facts". In addition, nothing you wrote contradicts anything I stated in my post (as in we are in agreement that the shaft should play very similar/virtually identical). As I said, a lot of you are misreading what I am saying. Please re read what I wrote with some basic reading comprehension and you will see what I am saying. Going from low volume/ high selling price to high volume/low selling price (and dropping cost significantly) will lead to some cost cutting measures taken by the manufacturer:

 

more automation

using lower priced raw materials (possibly from new suppliers)

speeding up processes

etc.

 

In the end I trust that Fujikura is making "real deal" Atmos shafts that are on a production line specifically setup and "made for" Cobra. By going to very high volume for Cobra, I am certain that they had to setup new production lines (probably more automated than previous ones) and had to source way more raw materials (and probably found other "cheaper" suppliers to keep costs down).

 

In the end it is the "same" shaft, albeit "different". You guys can believe what you want.

 

Again, you are completely confusing manufacturing efficiency with quality. "Cost cutting" implies short cuts, diminished quality, etc. That isn't the case in this day in age, volume simply means more buying/negotiating power. The more you buy, the less you pay, this applies to just about all aspects of business. Human labor is used when the volumes don't allow for more automation, that doesn't at all mean that the lower volume product is better, humans in general make more mistakes than machines. Machines dont get tired, machines dont get sick, machines dont drink too much the night before, machines dont get distracted thinking about the weekend. Less money spent on human labor means more money spent on automation, inspection, and process control. Even if your theory was correct about Fujikura having 2 production lines (which makes zero sense BTW), I could argue the "made for" shaft is actually better, which just means Fujikura gets higher profit margins on their "aftermarket" shafts.

 

Anywho..why are you still in this thread? You claim the F9 is a hook machine and the shafts are made for...so why even bother to post in here?

[stimpmeterp]

My F9 currently sits on a Speeder Evo 661 and is by far, without question, undoubtedly not a hook machine.

[VNutz]

My goodness guys, give it up on the made for argument for the sake of some of us that want to actually read about the club.

 

My F9 currently sits on a Speeder Evo 661 and is by far, without question, undoubtedly not a hook machine.

 

Same here, 10.5 on an Evo II 661. Only 1 dome range session but simply easy straight thus far. But admittedly the Atmos Black TS was giving me lots of draws on the PGASS monitors. Will see once I can finally hit outdoors, but from what I've seen so far, not a hook machine. And that's coming from someone who usually plays a draw.

[seslwr1]

I'm sure many have already watched Crossfield's video comparing the EFSZ and the F9 and I'm curious as to whether anyone on here is seeing poor results from the high toe area.

 

Check out TXG’s TS3 video posted today. Toward the end of the video, Matt hits several high toe on the F9. No loss of distance, ball speed, still low spin, etc. In the video comments, TXG says they haven’t seen an issue like Crossfield has.

[HaggisPXG]

Had my fitting for the F9 last week, Titleist TS 2 and /or 3 is taking place in the morning

For me, the F9 was pretty good but so close to my F8+ that I can’t see the benefit of a change. I have the 60s Aldila 2kxv blue and there was a small improvement with the Smoke but nothing to make me put my hand in my pocket - any news on the timing of the F10??!!

[wobgon]

Anyone try this with the Atmos TS Blue X stiff?

[Krt22]

Anyone try this with the Atmos TS Blue X stiff?

 

Yep, I ordered mine with the TS Blue 7X.

[wobgon]

Swing speed around 106 when swinging smooth......

Anyone try this with the Atmos TS Blue X stiff?

 

Yep, I ordered mine with the TS Blue 7X.

Swing speed around 106 when swinging smooth.....Do you think X is a good fit.

[Man_O_War]

Had my fitting for the F9 last week, Titleist TS 2 and /or 3 is taking place in the morning

For me, the F9 was pretty good but so close to my F8+ that I can’t see the benefit of a change. I have the 60s Aldila 2kxv blue and there was a small improvement with the Smoke but nothing to make me put my hand in my pocket - any news on the timing of the F10??!!

 

i saw one on tour. an issued tour F10

[sheffield]

I'm sure many have already watched Crossfield's video comparing the EFSZ and the F9 and I'm curious as to whether anyone on here is seeing poor results from the high toe area.

 

So, I had a problem getting Crossfield's swing speed data and that is a critical missing piece to his assessment of F9 poor performance on toe strikes. Anyway...

 

Basically, he culls out one "toe strike" as having poor performance, compares it to the Flash which has a "farther out" toe strike and makes the determination that the F9 has a toe strike problem and effectively Flash doesn't. Using his own definition of far out toe strikes, several of the other F9 results have strikes even farther out on the toe and have better performance than the one he chose. Interestingly, the one he chose has the lowest ball speed. Maybe it's in part due to a slower swing speed resulting in a slower ball speed.

 

Looking further at the F9 data, one might expect an F9 strike that is 13mm toe | 7 high (2nd from top) to be worse than the one he selected (1st) which was 1m toe | 8mm high. But not so, the strike that was farther out carried 262 and the one closer to "center" carried 245. Counter indicative to the point he's trying to make: the farther out on the toe the worse the results should have been for the F9 (all things being equal) but they weren't.

 

Going back to the Flash toe strike he selected and the 2nd (and worst) F9 toe strike, the F9 toe strike is much farther out on the toe than the Flash's but the carry differences are roughly the same 264 Flash and 262 F9. The "theory" is panning out.

 

Maybe there is machine error in measuring impact location... maybe he's trying to read too much into the data. Of course, it was hard to read his data output (blurry, only quick glimpses, and missing swing speed for his output) so if someone sees it differently please let me know.

[jameshay]

I'm sure many have already watched Crossfield's video comparing the EFSZ and the F9 and I'm curious as to whether anyone on here is seeing poor results from the high toe area.

 

So, I had a problem getting Crossfield's swing speed data and that is a critical missing piece to his assessment of F9 poor performance on toe strikes. Anyway...

 

Basically, he culls out one "toe strike" as having poor performance, compares it to the Flash which has a "farther out" toe strike and makes the determination that the F9 has a toe strike problem and effectively Flash doesn't. Using his own definition of far out toe strikes, several of the other F9 results have strikes even farther out on the toe and have better performance than the one he chose. Interestingly, the one he chose has the lowest ball speed. Maybe it's in part due to a slower swing speed resulting in a slower ball speed.

 

Looking further at the F9 data, one might expect an F9 strike that is 13mm toe | 7 high (2nd from top) to be worse than the one he selected (1st) which was 1m toe | 8mm high. But not so, the strike that was farther out carried 262 and the one closer to "center" carried 245. Counter indicative to the point he's trying to make: the farther out on the toe the worse the results should have been for the F9 (all things being equal) but they weren't.

 

Going back to the Flash toe strike he selected and the 2nd (and worst) F9 toe strike, the F9 toe strike is much farther out on the toe than the Flash's but the carry differences are roughly the same 264 Flash and 262 F9. The "theory" is panning out.

 

Maybe there is machine error in measuring impact location... maybe he's trying to read too much into the data. Of course, it was hard to read his data output (blurry, only quick glimpses, and missing swing speed for his output) so if someone sees it differently please let me know.

 

Crossfield is increasingly massaging data to prove himself "correct".

[GazM]

I'm sure many have already watched Crossfield's video comparing the EFSZ and the F9 and I'm curious as to whether anyone on here is seeing poor results from the high toe area.

 

So, I had a problem getting Crossfield's swing speed data and that is a critical missing piece to his assessment of F9 poor performance on toe strikes. Anyway...

 

Basically, he culls out one "toe strike" as having poor performance, compares it to the Flash which has a "farther out" toe strike and makes the determination that the F9 has a toe strike problem and effectively Flash doesn't. Using his own definition of far out toe strikes, several of the other F9 results have strikes even farther out on the toe and have better performance than the one he chose. Interestingly, the one he chose has the lowest ball speed. Maybe it's in part due to a slower swing speed resulting in a slower ball speed.

 

Looking further at the F9 data, one might expect an F9 strike that is 13mm toe | 7 high (2nd from top) to be worse than the one he selected (1st) which was 1m toe | 8mm high. But not so, the strike that was farther out carried 262 and the one closer to "center" carried 245. Counter indicative to the point he's trying to make: the farther out on the toe the worse the results should have been for the F9 (all things being equal) but they weren't.

 

Going back to the Flash toe strike he selected and the 2nd (and worst) F9 toe strike, the F9 toe strike is much farther out on the toe than the Flash's but the carry differences are roughly the same 264 Flash and 262 F9. The "theory" is panning out.

 

Maybe there is machine error in measuring impact location... maybe he's trying to read too much into the data. Of course, it was hard to read his data output (blurry, only quick glimpses, and missing swing speed for his output) so if someone sees it differently please let me know.

 

I thought the same watching the video - at the time I thought it was either a machine reading error or a ball issue - the poor result he focused on is not consistent with the other data he collected -

[wkndhack]

Had my fitting for the F9 last week, Titleist TS 2 and /or 3 is taking place in the morning

For me, the F9 was pretty good but so close to my F8+ that I can’t see the benefit of a change. I have the 60s Aldila 2kxv blue and there was a small improvement with the Smoke but nothing to make me put my hand in my pocket - any news on the timing of the F10??!!

 

i saw one on tour. an issued tour F10

Who was playing it?

[Z1ggy16]

I'm sure many have already watched Crossfield's video comparing the EFSZ and the F9 and I'm curious as to whether anyone on here is seeing poor results from the high toe area.

 

So, I had a problem getting Crossfield's swing speed data and that is a critical missing piece to his assessment of F9 poor performance on toe strikes. Anyway...

 

Basically, he culls out one "toe strike" as having poor performance, compares it to the Flash which has a "farther out" toe strike and makes the determination that the F9 has a toe strike problem and effectively Flash doesn't. Using his own definition of far out toe strikes, several of the other F9 results have strikes even farther out on the toe and have better performance than the one he chose. Interestingly, the one he chose has the lowest ball speed. Maybe it's in part due to a slower swing speed resulting in a slower ball speed.

 

Looking further at the F9 data, one might expect an F9 strike that is 13mm toe | 7 high (2nd from top) to be worse than the one he selected (1st) which was 1m toe | 8mm high. But not so, the strike that was farther out carried 262 and the one closer to "center" carried 245. Counter indicative to the point he's trying to make: the farther out on the toe the worse the results should have been for the F9 (all things being equal) but they weren't.

 

Going back to the Flash toe strike he selected and the 2nd (and worst) F9 toe strike, the F9 toe strike is much farther out on the toe than the Flash's but the carry differences are roughly the same 264 Flash and 262 F9. The "theory" is panning out.

 

Maybe there is machine error in measuring impact location... maybe he's trying to read too much into the data. Of course, it was hard to read his data output (blurry, only quick glimpses, and missing swing speed for his output) so if someone sees it differently please let me know.

 

I thought the same watching the video - at the time I thought it was either a machine reading error or a ball issue - the poor result he focused on is not consistent with the other data he collected -

Can you really trust a channel where the main guy is on Titleist's payroll, and another on Callaway's?

 

I've pretty much cut out MC completely. His club reviews are meh, his vlogs are also meh and he's a bitter in nature at times. There's other channels who do everything he does, but much better.