Do Drivers With Smaller Heads Hit The Ball Farther?

[Red4282]

Yea ok smaller is better, thats why you see so many pros with tiny drivers...

[BMC]

Yea ok smaller is better, thats why you see so many pros with tiny drivers...

 

We're not Tour Pros. We play golf for recreation. We try to play what works best for us.

 

All the clubs mentioned in this thread have been played by Tour Pros at one time.

 

FYI: PGA Tour players, as a group, hit 55% of fairways.

[Buzzkill]

I hit my PT driver same distance as other drivers (460s) owned.

[NRJyzr]

It's maybe not a fair comparison, because of its nature, but I hit my J's Professional Weapon similar distance as my Fly-Z+, King LTD, XCG7 Beta, etc.

 

It's *really* a small clubhead, though. Smaller than anything else I've seen, and I play a fair number of persimmons.

 

Thumbnail image:

 

This is a pic of the J's next to a 260cc Golfsmith driver:

 

[Valtiel]

If you can middle an older driver while swinging it at the same speed as a modern driver then you will likely see similar results. Those are two big ifs though! The "modern" driver has moved in the direction of longer lengths and lighter shafts to swing the club faster and bigger heads with higher MOI to help mitigate the inconsistencies introduced by the former. If you have a driver with a decently hot face (in the neighborhood of the COR limit) that is the same loft and can hit it flush just about every time with the same or similar swing speed to a "modern" driver then you do not need what the modern driver provides. BUT, until you actual figure out the specs (as the OP seems to be doing) then you can't really determine much. Swing weight, static weight, playing length, loft...all these things need to be accounted for otherwise you don't have enough date to draw a conclusion.

[grochol17]

When hit on the screws, yes. Larger clubs often have larger mass distribution, vs a smaller club which will have more of its mass in a smaller, more concentrated area.

 

You’d have to hit a nail a lot harder with a frying pan in order to get the same result as hitting it with a hammer unless you hit it in the correct spot, which is harder to find in a frying pan than it is with a hammer.

 

Sorry, but this is a terrible analogy because the golf ball is nothing like a nail.

 

When you hit a nail with a hammer, both are effectively rigid objects and there's relatively little energy lost in the collision of those two. On the other hand, if you use a thin frying pan, you introduce a source of energy loss because of the flexing of the frying pan.

 

However, in the collision between a golf club and ball, most of the energy lost from the system is due to the compression (and subsequent internal friction) of the golf ball. On the other hand, the metal face of a golf club does a much better job of conserving energy while flexing and rebounding. By making the face of a golf club more flexible, during the collision between a ball and club the face flexes more and the ball less than what would happen if the face were completely rigid. Since the club loses less energy than the ball while flexing, a flexible face driver thus allows the impact to transfer more energy to the ball than you'd get with a rigid face driver where the ball is doing all of the flexing.

 

 

Ultimately, a much better analogy would be this:

 

If you drop one marshmallow onto a balloon and another onto a concrete floor, which one is going to bounce higher?

[Valtiel]

When hit on the screws, yes. Larger clubs often have larger mass distribution, vs a smaller club which will have more of its mass in a smaller, more concentrated area.

 

You’d have to hit a nail a lot harder with a frying pan in order to get the same result as hitting it with a hammer unless you hit it in the correct spot, which is harder to find in a frying pan than it is with a hammer.

 

Sorry, but this is a terrible analogy because the golf ball is nothing like a nail.

 

When you hit a nail with a hammer, both are effectively rigid objects and there's relatively little energy lost in the collision of those two. On the other hand, if you use a thin frying pan, you introduce a source of energy loss because of the flexing of the frying pan.

 

However, in the collision between a golf club and ball, most of the energy lost from the system is due to the compression (and subsequent internal friction) of the golf ball. On the other hand, the metal face of a golf club does a much better job of conserving energy while flexing and rebounding. By making the face of a golf club more flexible, during the collision between a ball and club the face flexes more and the ball less than what would happen if the face were completely rigid. Since the club loses less energy than the ball while flexing, a flexible face driver thus allows the impact to transfer more energy to the ball than you'd get with a rigid face driver where the ball is doing all of the flexing.

 

 

Ultimately, a much better analogy would be this:

 

If you drop one marshmallow onto a balloon and another onto a concrete floor, which one is going to bounce higher?

 

Thank you for pointing this out as well. Its a lovely, pithy sounding analogy that gets trotted out every now and then that does not actually fit with golf clubs at all.

[Mudguard]

Do small heads go further than large heads? All things being equal they should go the same. The difference is when you miss the centre by 5-10mm.

[getitdaily]

Idk, Charley rymer hits it pretty far whereas justin Leonard doesn't.

 

John Daly

Angel Cabrera

Patton kizzire

 

All big headed drivers that hit the ball far..

[Wriggles]

I think driver success is all about consistency. Consistency in playing the same driver, not changing around. I've noticed, for me, that if I'm playing any driver for a period of time, like months, if I go back to a different driver, I find that I just can't hit it. Even if I hit that driver well previously.

 

If I exclusively hit a smaller driver, performance will almost match the 460cc counterpart. To get the same or slightly better performance with the big stuff, it has to be played exclusively also. Something the OEMs don't want you to know. Just keep buying the new, over and over again.

 

I feel any well made driver, no matter the size, will perform well.

 

The pros play the latest and greatest because they're paid to.

 

Some of my best drives are from a consistently played Great Big Bertha from the 1990's. I think most technology after that is just a bunch of hooey.

[rybo]

Your statement of, "If both drivers are struck on the bullseye"... Says it all. Many people have a harder time hitting the bullseye with a longer shafted driver. OEM's create drivers with longer shafts for swing speed, which creates longer drives when hit on the bullseye. Pro's all use shorter shafts for accuracy. They don't need or want longer shafts. 6'3" Bubba Watson hits a 44.75" driver.

 

I see what the OP is talking about. A smaller head with a shorter shafts will result in more center hits, and that will get you more consistent distance. I hit my 3 wood more often than my driver for accuracy, and I hit it just as far in most cases. On Flight Scope, I have the same swing speed with my 3/4 wood as I do my driver. When I'm "on" with the driver, and hitting the bullseye consistently, I will use it more often because the 7 degrees of loft difference will get me more distance.

 

We're not Tour Pros. We play golf for recreation. We try to play what works best for us.

 

All the clubs mentioned in this thread have been played by Tour Pros at one time.

 

FYI: PGA Tour players, as a group, hit 55% of fairways.

 

A very tall Rory McIlroy uses 45.5"

DeChambeau uses 45.75"

Dufner and Potter Jr use 46"

Jimenez uses 46.25"

 

There are two PGA tour players listed below 45" on Ping's website. The average length for their male tour pros is 45.25".

 

 

Comparing the PGA tour to the LPGA tour in driver accuracy shows the exact opposite stats. The woman who are significantly shorter tend to play their drivers on average about 1" longer then the men, so over 46"! And they have significantly higher fairways hit stats, to the point where the stat leader for the men would rank something like 73rd on the women's tour.

[bluedot]

FWIW, I used a G30 for four years; I was fitted to it, and got great results. In January, I did a fitting for a new driver; I hit my G30, the Epic, the M1 and the G400. The clear winner was the G400; 3 mph better club head speed and 8 yards of carry better than the next best.

 

The only reason I could figure out that would have caused that was the 20 cc's smaller size and resulting aerodynamics. I can't prove that, and we're only talking about a sample size of one here, but there it is.

[bladehunter]

When hit on the screws, yes. Larger clubs often have larger mass distribution, vs a smaller club which will have more of its mass in a smaller, more concentrated area.

 

You’d have to hit a nail a lot harder with a frying pan in order to get the same result as hitting it with a hammer unless you hit it in the correct spot, which is harder to find in a frying pan than it is with a hammer.

 

Sorry, but this is a terrible analogy because the golf ball is nothing like a nail.

 

When you hit a nail with a hammer, both are effectively rigid objects and there's relatively little energy lost in the collision of those two. On the other hand, if you use a thin frying pan, you introduce a source of energy loss because of the flexing of the frying pan.

 

However, in the collision between a golf club and ball, most of the energy lost from the system is due to the compression (and subsequent internal friction) of the golf ball. On the other hand, the metal face of a golf club does a much better job of conserving energy while flexing and rebounding. By making the face of a golf club more flexible, during the collision between a ball and club the face flexes more and the ball less than what would happen if the face were completely rigid. Since the club loses less energy than the ball while flexing, a flexible face driver thus allows the impact to transfer more energy to the ball than you'd get with a rigid face driver where the ball is doing all of the flexing.

 

 

Ultimately, a much better analogy would be this:

 

If you drop one marshmallow onto a balloon and another onto a concrete floor, which one is going to bounce higher?

 

The point was spreading out mass. Hard for you to disprove that. Larger head spreads the mass way out. You’re arguing that the spring face takes up that slack. Which it probably does. To the point of a wash on center strikes.

 

The only people gaining real distance with today’s driver are the guys who have a plus 2-5 aoa and square the face on the big head.( usually hookers of the ball ) If you’re miss is high right off the planet the big head isn’t helping you. I’m playing one and I’m telling you I don’t hit it any farther and it doesn’t help any miss I know of. It’s just this placebo that they have brain washed us with. They could spit out a 360cc head at 10 degrees with today’s weight adjustment etc and you would not lose a yard. Plenty would gain speed and find the center of the face more.

[bladehunter]

Your statement of, "If both drivers are struck on the bullseye"... Says it all. Many people have a harder time hitting the bullseye with a longer shafted driver. OEM's create drivers with longer shafts for swing speed, which creates longer drives when hit on the bullseye. Pro's all use shorter shafts for accuracy. They don't need or want longer shafts. 6'3" Bubba Watson hits a 44.75" driver.

 

I see what the OP is talking about. A smaller head with a shorter shafts will result in more center hits, and that will get you more consistent distance. I hit my 3 wood more often than my driver for accuracy, and I hit it just as far in most cases. On Flight Scope, I have the same swing speed with my 3/4 wood as I do my driver. When I'm "on" with the driver, and hitting the bullseye consistently, I will use it more often because the 7 degrees of loft difference will get me more distance.

 

We're not Tour Pros. We play golf for recreation. We try to play what works best for us.

 

All the clubs mentioned in this thread have been played by Tour Pros at one time.

 

FYI: PGA Tour players, as a group, hit 55% of fairways.

 

A very tall Rory McIlroy uses 45.5"

DeChambeau uses 45.75"

Dufner and Potter Jr use 46"

Jimenez uses 46.25"

 

There are two PGA tour players listed below 45" on Ping's website. The average length for their male tour pros is 45.25".

 

 

Comparing the PGA tour to the LPGA tour in driver accuracy shows the exact opposite stats. The woman who are significantly shorter tend to play their drivers on average about 1" longer then the men, so over 46"! And they have significantly higher fairways hit stats, to the point where the stat leader for the men would rank something like 73rd on the women's tour.

 

So what ? I’m 6ft 3 or 4 depending on the day and what shoes. ( maybe shrinking). Do I need a 47 inch driver ? Lol. Can’t find the face with a 45 inch one. And I’m an athletic , 1 handicap or less on average. Wish I had time to build one and do some trackman comparison . I’d bet you $100 right now it moves my average push 10 yards further right. I can’t jmagine standing that far from the ball.

[kylemd]

I took out my “ old “ 983k the other day for a lark along with my 910 and m1. Other than hitting the ball slightly lower with the 983 k ( aldila NV x flex 80 grams) I saw no real diff. I absolutely hated the m1 .... cool looking club but felt dead. Sometimes new isnt better. The COR of some of the older clubs has been maxed out for years. Play what you can hit consistently.

[grochol17]

When hit on the screws, yes. Larger clubs often have larger mass distribution, vs a smaller club which will have more of its mass in a smaller, more concentrated area.

 

You'd have to hit a nail a lot harder with a frying pan in order to get the same result as hitting it with a hammer unless you hit it in the correct spot, which is harder to find in a frying pan than it is with a hammer.

 

Sorry, but this is a terrible analogy because the golf ball is nothing like a nail.

 

When you hit a nail with a hammer, both are effectively rigid objects and there's relatively little energy lost in the collision of those two. On the other hand, if you use a thin frying pan, you introduce a source of energy loss because of the flexing of the frying pan.

 

However, in the collision between a golf club and ball, most of the energy lost from the system is due to the compression (and subsequent internal friction) of the golf ball. On the other hand, the metal face of a golf club does a much better job of conserving energy while flexing and rebounding. By making the face of a golf club more flexible, during the collision between a ball and club the face flexes more and the ball less than what would happen if the face were completely rigid. Since the club loses less energy than the ball while flexing, a flexible face driver thus allows the impact to transfer more energy to the ball than you'd get with a rigid face driver where the ball is doing all of the flexing.

 

 

Ultimately, a much better analogy would be this:

 

If you drop one marshmallow onto a balloon and another onto a concrete floor, which one is going to bounce higher?

 

The point was spreading out mass. Hard for you to disprove that. Larger head spreads the mass way out. You're arguing that the spring face takes up that slack. Which it probably does. To the point of a wash on center strikes.

 

The only people gaining real distance with today's driver are the guys who have a plus 2-5 aoa and square the face on the big head.( usually hookers of the ball ) If you're miss is high right off the planet the big head isn't helping you. I'm playing one and I'm telling you I don't hit it any farther and it doesn't help any miss I know of. It's just this placebo that they have brain washed us with. They could spit out a 360cc head at 10 degrees with today's weight adjustment etc and you would not lose a yard. Plenty would gain speed and find the center of the face more.

 

Its easy to prove that spreading out the mass doesn't matter:

 

Look at the equations for conservation of energy and momentum... both factor in the mass of the objects involved, but neither one of them has area or volume or any way of denoting the *shape* of the objects. That's because, in a collision between two rigid objects, you can effectively think of both objects as point masses. So, if you hit a nail with a 5 lb hammer or a 5 lb frying pan, as long as both are acting like rigid objects, you'll get the same result.

 

The shape only matters if by changing the shape you also change the rigidity of the object. For example, if you hit a nail with a 5 lb frying pan, but the bottom of the pan has been thinned out so that it flexes, then it will not work as well as a hammer. But that has nothing to do with mass or the distribution of mass, it's because the thinned out frying pan is nothing like a rigid object.

 

Another way of thinking about it is this: imagine you've got two 5 lb hammers that are identical in shape. But, one is made out of a low density metal and is solid while the other is made out of a high density metal and is therefore just a thin shell. Both are identical in mass and shape, but what's going to happen if you hit a nail with each hammer? Obviously the solid one is a rigid object so it is going to work better than the thin shell hammer because the thin walls of the other hammer will flex and cause the system to lose energy.

 

So, to summarize, you can have two objects with different mass distributions that give the same result and two objects with the exact same mass distribution that give completely different results. Thus, the mass distribution, in and of itself, is not the deciding factor in what happens in a collision.

 

(Edited for a typo)

[Rohlio]

Sometimes I play retro days at the local muni and I use the old equipment. I know my usual spots from the fairway with the 460cc drivers, and keep in mind that all my drivers are 43" with the exception of one (Ping G5, which is 45"). (The Ping driver goes farther, yes, but accuracy is compromised, so I only use that driver for courses with wide fairways.) Going back to the trusty old 1990 Taylor Made Burner, I belted one almost thirty years longer, and on average the rest of the drives were a little longer than with the 460cc heads. I am coming to the conclusion that the smaller the head, the more clubhead speed it generates because it whips through the air faster.

 

I am looking at my drivers and remembering my longest drives with each of them for the past couple years. My longest came from the 1990 Taylor Made Burner (190cc), and the second longest came from a Hogan Apex persimmon (190cc). I am coming to the conclusion that in order to hit the ball farther with the 460 cc heads, it will be absolutely necessary to lengthen the shafts and play them at 45", because I reckon that it is the only way to generate clubhead speed to offset the 460cc head moving more slowly in the air. True?

 

This is easy enough to verify.

 

Go somewhere with a launch monitor that measures clubhead speed and swing away. You'll find out which club you swing the fastest.

 

That said, here's something to consider.

 

What is the total weight of the different clubs? There are lots of people who swing a slightly heavier driver FASTER than a lighter one because of the feedback that it gives. If you have cut down all of your drivers to 43" it's possible that the newer ones have become to light for you to swing them fast.

 

To add to this point - I would ask the OP: in trimming your drivers down to 43", have you balanced out the swingweight when you do so? You mentioned at least one driver being 45" to start, and considering that the majority of drivers in the last few years are stock built at 45.5" or greater.....taking 2 or more inches off would require a considerable amount of weight needing added to the head to get the swingweight back to around where it started. If you don't do anything to compensate, then it comes back to what a few people have already commented on - you very well might not swing these clubs as fast due to lack of head weight you would normally be feeling.

 

I cut down my G400 LST to 43" for accuracy and I had to add 26 grams to it to get it back up to my preferred swingweight. No way I could have just cut it down that much and played it. It felt like a feather.

[justasgood]

Well, speaking for myself, my hat size is 6 7/8” so I typically wear a S/M fitted cap and I hit the ball on average around 260 carry with roll varying by conditions.

 

I have hit some 300+ drives but age is catching up quickly.

[bladehunter]

When hit on the screws, yes. Larger clubs often have larger mass distribution, vs a smaller club which will have more of its mass in a smaller, more concentrated area.

 

You'd have to hit a nail a lot harder with a frying pan in order to get the same result as hitting it with a hammer unless you hit it in the correct spot, which is harder to find in a frying pan than it is with a hammer.

 

Sorry, but this is a terrible analogy because the golf ball is nothing like a nail.

 

When you hit a nail with a hammer, both are effectively rigid objects and there's relatively little energy lost in the collision of those two. On the other hand, if you use a thin frying pan, you introduce a source of energy loss because of the flexing of the frying pan.

 

However, in the collision between a golf club and ball, most of the energy lost from the system is due to the compression (and subsequent internal friction) of the golf ball. On the other hand, the metal face of a golf club does a much better job of conserving energy while flexing and rebounding. By making the face of a golf club more flexible, during the collision between a ball and club the face flexes more and the ball less than what would happen if the face were completely rigid. Since the club loses less energy than the ball while flexing, a flexible face driver thus allows the impact to transfer more energy to the ball than you'd get with a rigid face driver where the ball is doing all of the flexing.

 

 

Ultimately, a much better analogy would be this:

 

If you drop one marshmallow onto a balloon and another onto a concrete floor, which one is going to bounce higher?

 

The point was spreading out mass. Hard for you to disprove that. Larger head spreads the mass way out. You're arguing that the spring face takes up that slack. Which it probably does. To the point of a wash on center strikes.

 

The only people gaining real distance with today's driver are the guys who have a plus 2-5 aoa and square the face on the big head.( usually hookers of the ball ) If you're miss is high right off the planet the big head isn't helping you. I'm playing one and I'm telling you I don't hit it any farther and it doesn't help any miss I know of. It's just this placebo that they have brain washed us with. They could spit out a 360cc head at 10 degrees with today's weight adjustment etc and you would not lose a yard. Plenty would gain speed and find the center of the face more.

 

Its easy to prove that spreading out the mass doesn't matter:

 

Look at the equations for conservation of energy and momentum... both factor in the mass of the objects involved, but neither one of them has area or volume or any way of denoting the *shape* of the objects. That's because, in a collision between two rigid objects, you can effectively think of both objects as point masses. So, if you hit a nail with a 5 lb hammer or a 5 lb frying pan, as long as both are acting like rigid objects, you'll get the same result.

 

The shape only matters if by changing the shape you also change the rigidity of the object. For example, if you hit a nail with a 5 lb frying pan, but the bottom of the pan has been thinned out so that it flexes, then it will not work as well as a hammer. But that has nothing to do with mass or the distribution of mass, it's because the thinned out frying pan is nothing like a rigid object.

 

Another way of thinking about it is this: imagine you've got two 5 lb hammers that are identical in shape. But, one is made out of a low density metal and is solid while the other is made out of a high density metal and is therefore just a thin shell. Both are identical in mass and shape, but what's going to happen if you hit a nail with each hammer? Obviously the solid one is a rigid object so it is going to work better than the thin shell hammer because the thin walls of the other hammer will flex and cause the system to lose energy.

 

So, to summarize, you can have two objects with different mass distributions that give the same result and two objects with the exact same mass distribution that give completely different results. Thus, the mass distribution, in and of itself, is not the deciding factor in what happens in a collision.

 

(Edited for a typo)

 

To me it sounds like you’re disagreeing with your self.

 

 

You give the example of two hammers of equal mass , and cite the truth which is that the solid one would transfer more energy. Yet. You say that the frying pan and the hammer are going to transfer the same energy although we all know that he pan is thinner and will flex even if a minute amount. Otherwise we’d see guys installing molding or hardwood floors with frying pans. Lol.

[bobcat]

Energy = Mass x Velocity squared!

 

:golfer:

[bladehunter]

Just had a thought ( scary I know ).

 

Maybe the actual thought shouldn’t be farther. Maybe it’s straighter. ? And by straighter. Maybe in turn longer on average ?

[BMC]

Just had a thought ( scary I know ).

 

Maybe the actual thought shouldn't be farther. Maybe it's straighter. ? And by straighter. Maybe in turn longer on average ?

Agreed.

[Mudguard]

Just had a thought ( scary I know ).

 

Maybe the actual thought shouldn't be farther. Maybe it's straighter. ? And by straighter. Maybe in turn longer on average ?

Agreed.

 

Again, all things being equal, then they are the same. If the COR, shaft length and loft are the same then there's no difference. However if you hit ten tee shots with both and have them measured then you'll know. A bigger head is simply more forgiving. I'm not sure what the smallest heads a tour pro uses but there aren't many going back to steel shafts and Titleist 975s! The only anecdotal evidence I have was a few years ago when I was using a Ping ISI driver and I found a Burner Bubble driver that I used around 1995, I could hit the end of the (very short) range with the Ping, but couldn't get near it with the Bubble.

With adjustable drivers and fitting cart full of shafts it would be pretty easy to do a proper test. I found an old PT driver in a cupboard the other day.

[bladehunter]

Just had a thought ( scary I know ).

 

Maybe the actual thought shouldn't be farther. Maybe it's straighter. ? And by straighter. Maybe in turn longer on average ?

Agreed.

 

Again, all things being equal, then they are the same. If the COR, shaft length and loft are the same then there's no difference. However if you hit ten tee shots with both and have them measured then you'll know. A bigger head is simply more forgiving. I'm not sure what the smallest heads a tour pro uses but there aren't many going back to steel shafts and Titleist 975s! The only anecdotal evidence I have was a few years ago when I was using a Ping ISI driver and I found a Burner Bubble driver that I used around 1995, I could hit the end of the (very short) range with the Ping, but couldn't get near it with the Bubble.

With adjustable drivers and fitting cart full of shafts it would be pretty easy to do a proper test. I found an old PT driver in a cupboard the other day.

 

Yes. But that comment was accounting for the 2 of 10 high right misses that are 40 yards OB. Account for those and 43 inches and steel in the fairway is longer. Or just hit 3 wood. That’s what I do.

 

 

[curtis1959]

No, but golfers with big heads think they do.

[Mudguard]

Yes. But that comment was accounting for the 2 of 10 high right misses that are 40 yards OB. Account for those and 43 inches and steel in the fairway is longer. Or just hit 3 wood. That's what I do.

 

Where do the 2 high right misses go with a Titleist PT? Absolutely nowhere. I am certain that I if I hit ten tee shots with a 460cc driver vs whatever the PT is I will be longer and straighter on average if the shafts are the same with the bigger head. My drivers have always been 44". Even Titleist have finally given in, I got fit for the TS3 and he handed me the driver and I couldn't believe how long the shaft felt. No wonder my ball speed was up!

Still I bought it and put my 44" 917 shaft into it

[Cwebb]

Yes. But that comment was accounting for the 2 of 10 high right misses that are 40 yards OB. Account for those and 43 inches and steel in the fairway is longer. Or just hit 3 wood. That's what I do.

 

Where do the 2 high right misses go with a Titleist PT? Absolutely nowhere.

 

That's a bit of a misconception. A "miss" to the right, doesn't necessarily mean the strike location on the face wasn't solid.

 

In other words, when someone picks up a driver and finds that for them it has a "fade bias", it isn't always because they can't strike it solidly near the "sweet-spot"

[vanillafunk616]

I mean really the answer is no. The only thing I could see it being is that if you get the club in an open position and use your hands to close it through impact, then the smaller headed club is going to be easier to manipulate. But that's the only possible advantage I can think of.

[Cwebb]

I mean really the answer is no. The only thing I could see it being is that if you get the club in an open position and use your hands to close it through impact, then the smaller headed club is going to be easier to manipulate. But that's the only possible advantage I can think of.

 

A smaller head that is also shorter from heel to toe, will usually have a horizontal COG location that is nearer the shaft line. For some players, this allows for a greater "rate of closure" as the head is released through impact.

 

It is in essence the same effect as a design that has moveable weight technology, where enough weight can be moved to the heel or toe to affect the horizontal COG location enough, for some players to find a difference in flight

[sdandrea]

Not sure about the original question, but drivers swung and center-struck by players with faster speeds go further.