Xander Schauffele's Callaway Driver Failed COR Test

[bladehunter]

> @"15th Club" said:

> Bladehunter the limit is 239 microseconds, with a variant-limit above that. So the Schauffele driver was many microseconds above 239. Not close.

>

> I saw a quote from somebody at PXG, in the course of denying that one of their drivers was found non-conforming at the Open. He said that none of their drivers were over the limit. But that they were “right at the limit.” What does that even mean? Knowingly over the 239 microseconds limit and consciously using the extra allowance for testing error?

>

> This again is more of the cops-and-robbers aspect of golf equipment. Makes me even more of a fanatical supporter of the ruling bodies.

 

Missing my point.

 

The limit is 239. But every single player knows the real working limit is 257. Period. Look on eBay for tour heads. Rarely see one under 240. Under 239 is always cheaper price and considered a dud. I’m not defending that practice. I’m just saying it as fact. If they want the actual limit to be 239. They need to cut out the 18 microsecond allowance. I’m guessing the test isn’t accurate enough to do that.

[Stuart_G]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Stuart_G said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > I agree they shouldn’t push that limit for the allowed variance. But. If they didn’t want oems to push it they shouldn’t allow the variance.

> >

> > No, that would only change where the limit was, not how much it would be 'pushed'.

> >

>

> If they have no level of variance above 239 then guys wood be below 239.

 

As I said, it only changes where the limit is. The OEM's will still try to get as close to whatever the limit might be regardless of what that number actually is. The only thing it does is change the relationship between CT and COR. So at best it might change and lower the actual COR that might cause a failure - but it wouldn't do anything to change the percentage of drivers that would end up failing in these random tests.

 

[bladehunter]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Stuart_G said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > I agree they shouldn’t push that limit for the allowed variance. But. If they didn’t want oems to push it they shouldn’t allow the variance.

> > >

> > > No, that would only change where the limit was, not how much it would be 'pushed'.

> > >

> >

> > If they have no level of variance above 239 then guys wood be below 239.

>

> As I said, it only changes where the limit is. The OEM's will still try to get as close to whatever the limit might be regardless of what that number actually is. The only thing it does is change the relationship between CT and COR. So at best it might change and lower the actual COR that might cause a failure - but it wouldn't do anything to change the percentage of drivers that would end up failing in these random tests.

>

 

Sure. But I assume that 239 is part of the formula for the calculated max distance they want guys to hit it. Otherwise it’s just an arbitrary number ? Right ? So why not force them to max using 239 .... who cares how many fails they find. The point of the test is to cap distance.

[15th Club]

Bladehunter let’s stipulate that for competitive and marketing reasons, a company like PXG, or Callaway, it seems, will push the boundary to the limit, and past, to the very limits of testing accuracy. Fine. Be that way. I won’t defend any of it; I’m just acknowledging that those business people may do that.

 

But then don’t effing whine, when a club of yours is just one microsecond over the limit-above-the-limit! Too effing bad, if that happens to you. It’s like a policeman who tells a speeding motorist that he might not have written a ticket if a driver was doing 10 mph over the limit but the driver was 11 over. That’s not a violation of “1 over.” It’s 11 over.

 

[Stuart_G]

> @bladehunter said:

>

> Sure. But I assume that 239 is part of the formula for the calculated max distance they want guys to hit it. Otherwise it’s just an arbitrary number ? Right ? So why not force them to max using 239 .... who cares how many fails they find. The point of the test is to cap distance.

 

The point is to have a limit. The particular limit's arbitrary - and that little variance will be very minimal in terms of actual distances. I doubt anyone really cares what exactly the cut-off number might be. All they care about is whether the clubs they use are legal or not.

 

Besides 239 micro-sec's CT value actually corresponds to a COR of 0.822 and CT of 257 gives a COR of .830 (according to Tom Wishon). So the limit and tolerance of the test is already working towards making sure the COR stays below the actual limit.

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> >

> > Sure. But I assume that 239 is part of the formula for the calculated max distance they want guys to hit it. Otherwise it’s just an arbitrary number ? Right ? So why not force them to max using 239 .... who cares how many fails they find. The point of the test is to cap distance.

>

> The point is to have a limit. The particular limit's arbitrary - and that little variance will be very minimal in terms of actual distances. I doubt anyone really cares what exactly the cut-off number might be. All they care about is whether the clubs they use are legal or not.

>

> Besides 239 micro-sec's CT value actually corresponds to a COR of 0.822 and CT of 257 gives a COR of .830 (according to Tom Wishon). So the limit and tolerance of the test is already working towards making sure the COR stays below the actual limit.

>

>

 

So 257 is in deed the same limit it was with COR ? If so then he’s 1 over. Still illegal. But it matters to me where the real line is. I know the rule so don’t need it repeated. But as I see it from what you just said. The real line is 257 or .830. Yes ?

[bladehunter]

> @"15th Club" said:

> Bladehunter let’s stipulate that for competitive and marketing reasons, a company like PXG, or Callaway, it seems, will push the boundary to the limit, and past, to the very limits of testing accuracy. Fine. Be that way. I won’t defend any of it; I’m just acknowledging that those business people may do that.

>

> But then don’t effing whine, when a club of yours is just one microsecond over the limit-above-the-limit! Too effing bad, if that happens to you. It’s like a policeman who tells a speeding motorist that he might not have written a ticket if a driver was doing 10 mph over the limit but the driver was 11 over. That’s not a violation of “1 over.” It’s 11 over.

>

 

 

I’m not defending anyone. I agree with you. Lol.

 

I even agree that the guys who called him a cheat are wrong.

 

I’m just trying to point our that the actual working limit seems to be 257. Otherwise move it back to 239. Currently is fence straddling in my opinion.

 

To use your analogy. If the speed limit says 35 with an addendum max of 45 underneath , doesn’t that make The actual limit 45 ?

[Stuart_G]

> @bladehunter said:

> But as I see it from what you just said. The real line is 257 or .830. Yes ?

 

That's how I understand it - at least as far as the theoretical limit is concerned. We still don't have any real data about accuracy of the testing method.

 

> But it matters to me where the real line is.

Why? You have no control over it or how the designers use it. How does it influence anything you do?

[bladehunter]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > But as I see it from what you just said. The real line is 257 or .830. Yes ?

>

> That's how I understand it - at least as far as the theoretical limit is concerned. We still don't have any real data about accuracy of the testing method.

>

> > But it matters to me where the real line is.

> Why? You have no control over it or how the designers use it. How does it influence anything you do?

 

Well in a lot of ways it’s doesn't directly. More of a curiosity. But I do play on events where the C of C are in place. So that makes it interesting to me the variance. My current driver spec decal says it tested at 254. So interesting that on another machine it maybe out of spec.

 

I didn’t pick this head for the CT score. I chose it for face angle and actual loft. Most any tour head you see is north of 240.

[dlygrisse]

The "problem" here is that Callaway is going to alienate their tour pros by 1. making them look like they have nefarious intentions. 2. irritating the pros by making them pull drivers out of play right before a major starts and forcing them to go to a back up club that they don't have the safe confidence in. Much like the QC issues with their balls it's not a good look for the company. The tour level stuff should be spot on, there are after all millions of dollars at stake.

[buckeyefl]

> @dlygrisse said:

> The "problem" here is that Callaway is going to alienate their tour pros by 1. making them look like they have nefarious intentions. 2. irritating the pros by making them pull drivers out of play right before a major starts and forcing them to go to a back up club that they don't have the safe confidence in. Much like the QC issues with their balls it's not a good look for the company. The tour level stuff should be spot on, there are after all millions of dollars at stake.

 

Callaway has sort of dropped the PR ball here. They should have already come out and given a reason , real or not, why there was a failure.

[Titletown]

Have anyone heard or read a statement from Callaway? Seems very odd for them to be silent. Almost feels like they are leaving Xander out in the cold here.

[DavePelz4]

> @"15th Club" said:

> So after all of the usual kerfuffle, the same ending to most golf Rules disputes.

>

> The ruling bodies acted correctly.

>

> The Tour players once again demonstrated their ignorance and immaturity. (In this case, the ones calling “cheater,” and Schauffele’s now-seemingly baseless claim of “leaking” versus the R&A.)

>

> The modern golfing press/media is, just about as often as not, promoting stories and not detailed facts.

>

> And social media makes all of it worse.

>

>

>

 

Normally agree with you 100%...however...as did Stanger, I listened to Dick Rugge yesterday on KMOT. Fascinating to listen to him explain the testing process. He referenced exactly what Stanger said which is OEM can buy the machines/license the software so they are doing the same testing as the USGA or the R&A. They can also buy the same calibration unit. However...with all that as a backdrop, he said it is possible for there to be a variance from machine to machine, even when calibrated. Yes I understand that they have a tolerance to allow for the variance but per Rugge, we're talking about 1/1,000,000th of a second which he said literally represents an inch of distance gain.

 

Some members of our group call me "The Rules Guy" so I believe in the integrity of the game, within logic. Unless you do the same test with the same machine, in the same temperature, the same altitude and mirror the conditions exactly, there can be a variance from location to location of the same machine.

 

If that same driver is tested this week at Memphis and is found within tolerance, is that measurement right, or wrong? And again, we're talking about an inch per Dick Rugge.

[Stuart_G]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> However...with all that as a backdrop, he said it is possible for there to be a variance from machine to machine, even when calibrated. Yes I understand that they have a tolerance to allow for the variance but per Rugge, we're talking about 1/100,000,000th of a second which he said literally represents an inch of distance gain.

>

 

Interesting.

 

Unless there might be a typo in the number of zero's there - a 1/100,000,000 variance would correspond to a CT value of +/- 0.01 (micro seconds). So really a non-issue as far as testing accuracy and repeatability goes (and more like a fraction of an inch).

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > So after all of the usual kerfuffle, the same ending to most golf Rules disputes.

> >

> > The ruling bodies acted correctly.

> >

> > The Tour players once again demonstrated their ignorance and immaturity. (In this case, the ones calling “cheater,” and Schauffele’s now-seemingly baseless claim of “leaking” versus the R&A.)

> >

> > The modern golfing press/media is, just about as often as not, promoting stories and not detailed facts.

> >

> > And social media makes all of it worse.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Normally agree with you 100%...however...as did Stanger, I listened to Dick Rugge yesterday on KMOT. Fascinating to listen to him explain the testing process. He referenced exactly what Stanger said which is OEM can buy the machines/license the software so they are doing the same testing as the USGA or the R&A. They can also buy the same calibration unit. However...with all that as a backdrop, he said it is possible for there to be a variance from machine to machine, even when calibrated. Yes I understand that they have a tolerance to allow for the variance but per Rugge, we're talking about 1/100,000,000th of a second which he said literally represents an inch of distance gain.

>

> Some members of our group call me "The Rules Guy" so I believe in the integrity of the game, within logic. Unless you do the same test with the same machine, in the same temperature, the same altitude and mirror the conditions exactly, there can be a variance from location to location of the same machine.

>

> If that same driver is tested this week at Memphis and is found within tolerance, is that measurement right, or wrong? And again, we're talking about an inch per Dick Rugge.

 

 

Yes /^. That woulda be a great test or indictment of the test. Show up this week at Memphis with the same driver head. And just ask to have “ my driver tested to be sure “. If it passes. Well. That bucket won’t hold water.

[bladehunter]

> @Titletown said:

> Have anyone heard or read a statement from Callaway? Seems very odd for them to be silent. Almost feels like they are leaving Xander out in the cold here.

 

May point to pending litigation if there is indeed such a variance in testing.

[I_HATE_SNOW]

> @Titletown said:

> Have anyone heard or read a statement from Callaway? Seems very odd for them to be silent. Almost feels like they are leaving Xander out in the cold here.

 

Driver sales may be through the roof? Only people concerned are on the tour.

[jubilee_links]

Not going into the actual numbers but with all these tests is it not the case that for a head to fail it has to be so far over the limit that its outwith the bounds of experimental error.

Lots of chat about intrumnet errors and callibration - thats all taken into context when drawing the fail line.

Again using the car analagy - the speed limit on a UK motorway is 70mph. Car speedometers have an error, police speeed measuring devices have an error hence you will not be stopped for doing 72mph (as there is a good chance your speedometer says 70mph). This leads lots of poeple to set their cruise control to 77mph as apparently its a 10% error - problem is if your cruise control is set at 77 and your speedo is underestimating your spped you are ctually doing 80mph you can get stopped.

 

Once you start pushing the tolerance margins put your product into the sphere of 'illegal but I should be OK' it can backfire.

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @jubilee_links said:

> Not going into the actual numbers but with all these tests is it not the case that for a head to fail it has to be so far over the limit that its outwith the bounds of experimental error.

> Lots of chat about intrumnet errors and callibration - thats all taken into context when drawing the fail line.

> Again using the car analagy - the speed limit on a UK motorway is 70mph. Car speedometers have an error, police speeed measuring devices have an error hence you will not be stopped for doing 72mph (as there is a good chance your speedometer says 70mph). This leads lots of poeple to set their cruise control to 77mph as apparently its a 10% error - problem is if your cruise control is set at 77 and your speedo is underestimating your spped you are ctually doing 80mph you can get stopped.

>

> Once you start pushing the tolerance margins put your product into the sphere of 'illegal but I should be OK' it can backfire.

>

>

 

All that is true .

 

But again. There is no posted speed limit of 70 mph then a max posted of 80 as there is here with this test.

 

And I’m shocked at the leeway you describe on speed limits. I’ve been stopped here for doing 2 under according to my speedometer and 2 over according to the ticket. And have been cited for 5-7 over many times on the interstate while being plucked from a whole pack of cars. Some I know doing way more than me because they just blew by me. No way you drive 77 in a 70 here and expect to not be popped.

 

Side note on that. I’ve been driving since I was 14 legally since 15. Will be 40 this year. So most tickets are spread out. But all where prior to 2012 when I started driving a pickup truck full time. Before was always one mustang or another as I own several. . And I drive no differently now than ever. Cops who claim they don’t profile are full of poop. It’s human nature. They all do. End rant.

[DavePelz4]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > However...with all that as a backdrop, he said it is possible for there to be a variance from machine to machine, even when calibrated. Yes I understand that they have a tolerance to allow for the variance but per Rugge, we're talking about 1/100,000,000th of a second which he said literally represents an inch of distance gain.

> >

>

> Interesting.

>

> Unless there might be a typo in the number of zero's there - a 1/100,000,000 variance would correspond to a CT value of +/- 0.01 (micro seconds). So really a non-issue as far as testing accuracy and repeatability goes (and more like a fraction of an inch).

>

>

>

 

Apologies...it is 1 millionth of a second.

[I_HATE_SNOW]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @jubilee_links said:

> > Not going into the actual numbers but with all these tests is it not the case that for a head to fail it has to be so far over the limit that its outwith the bounds of experimental error.

> > Lots of chat about intrumnet errors and callibration - thats all taken into context when drawing the fail line.

> > Again using the car analagy - the speed limit on a UK motorway is 70mph. Car speedometers have an error, police speeed measuring devices have an error hence you will not be stopped for doing 72mph (as there is a good chance your speedometer says 70mph). This leads lots of poeple to set their cruise control to 77mph as apparently its a 10% error - problem is if your cruise control is set at 77 and your speedo is underestimating your spped you are ctually doing 80mph you can get stopped.

> >

> > Once you start pushing the tolerance margins put your product into the sphere of 'illegal but I should be OK' it can backfire.

> >

> >

>

> All that is true .

>

> But again. There is no posted speed limit of 70 mph then a max posted of 80 as there is here with this test.

>

> And I’m shocked at the leeway you describe on speed limits. I’ve been stopped here for doing 2 under according to my speedometer and 2 over according to the ticket. And have been cited for 5-7 over many times on the interstate while being plucked from a whole pack of cars. Some I know doing way more than me because they just blew by me. No way you drive 77 in a 70 here and expect to not be popped.

>

> Side note on that. I’ve been driving since I was 14 legally since 15. Will be 40 this year. So most tickets are spread out. But all where prior to 2012 when I started driving a pickup truck full time. Before was always one mustang or another as I own several. . And I drive no differently now than ever. Cops who claim they don’t profile are full of ****. It’s human nature. They all do. End rant.

 

State patrol, in my area, will let you skate on 8 (over) but at 9 you are mine. County is different as they need the revenue from out of staters.

[bladehunter]

> @I_HATE_SNOW said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @jubilee_links said:

> > > Not going into the actual numbers but with all these tests is it not the case that for a head to fail it has to be so far over the limit that its outwith the bounds of experimental error.

> > > Lots of chat about intrumnet errors and callibration - thats all taken into context when drawing the fail line.

> > > Again using the car analagy - the speed limit on a UK motorway is 70mph. Car speedometers have an error, police speeed measuring devices have an error hence you will not be stopped for doing 72mph (as there is a good chance your speedometer says 70mph). This leads lots of poeple to set their cruise control to 77mph as apparently its a 10% error - problem is if your cruise control is set at 77 and your speedo is underestimating your spped you are ctually doing 80mph you can get stopped.

> > >

> > > Once you start pushing the tolerance margins put your product into the sphere of 'illegal but I should be OK' it can backfire.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > All that is true .

> >

> > But again. There is no posted speed limit of 70 mph then a max posted of 80 as there is here with this test.

> >

> > And I’m shocked at the leeway you describe on speed limits. I’ve been stopped here for doing 2 under according to my speedometer and 2 over according to the ticket. And have been cited for 5-7 over many times on the interstate while being plucked from a whole pack of cars. Some I know doing way more than me because they just blew by me. No way you drive 77 in a 70 here and expect to not be popped.

> >

> > Side note on that. I’ve been driving since I was 14 legally since 15. Will be 40 this year. So most tickets are spread out. But all where prior to 2012 when I started driving a pickup truck full time. Before was always one mustang or another as I own several. . And I drive no differently now than ever. Cops who claim they don’t profile are full of ****. It’s human nature. They all do. End rant.

>

> State patrol, in my area, will let you skate on 8 (over) but at 9 you are mine. County is different as they need the revenue from out of staters.

 

Funny. Our county almost never enforced speed .. literally never worry about it. It’s these damn small cities who have somehow incorporated rights for interstate patrol. They will sit on a 2 mile section and hit everything moving. And I can count 5 Municipalities that do that in a 30 mile circle. Should absolutely be illegal. Especially since they just use the revenue to hire more police or buy new cars. I’m talking one is for a town that is a wide spot on the road. Might have 100 residents total .. might. They have 16 full time patrol cops. And a chief plus 2 reservists.

 

And then the state boys. You can flip a coin. You either get the best officer possible or a guy who you know has to be related to somebody high up to have that job. I’m distant neighbors with one of those. Stops his neighbors on their way home from work . Has for years. Yet will blow by my house doing north of 60 in a 35. Needless to say his captain has heard from me a couple times. He doesn’t speed by here anymore.

 

Now we return to our regular scheduled programming. Lol.

[Stuart_G]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @Stuart_G said:

> > > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > However...with all that as a backdrop, he said it is possible for there to be a variance from machine to machine, even when calibrated. Yes I understand that they have a tolerance to allow for the variance but per Rugge, we're talking about 1/100,000,000th of a second which he said literally represents an inch of distance gain.

> > >

> >

> > Interesting.

> >

> > Unless there might be a typo in the number of zero's there - a 1/100,000,000 variance would correspond to a CT value of +/- 0.01 (micro seconds). So really a non-issue as far as testing accuracy and repeatability goes (and more like a fraction of an inch).

> >

> >

> >

>

> Apologies...it is 1 millionth of a second.

 

No problem - then it's really just +/- 1 in terms of the CT value. Still not really anything statistically significant.

[15th Club]

If indeed Bladehunter and I agree, I’m happy with that. But to all who may be criticizing the R&A over a microsecond, and when just a microsecond equates to inches or even feet with a 300+ yard drive, I want to re-emphasize that Schauffele’s driver undoubtedly tested at more than 239 from the start and was already in the danger zone of testing tolerances. Nobody should complain if it was found to be over the limit on any number of other testing devices. I’m not sorry about anything and the R&A should not be sorry about anything. It should be, and probably is, very easy for all Tour players to avoid trouble with the CT testing. Don’t push the boundary of the variance cushion to start with.

[bladehunter]

Well. I guess we mostly agree. I think what we differ on is what the actual , functioning limit is. And it’s 257. Not 239.

 

That being said 258 is failing. So absolutely fail him etc. unless.... it’s tested on say a USga machine and you get 252 or so. Then I call fowl. Today’s technology has to be able to produce a test that is not only accurate but repeatable. If it does it’s all good. But we do not know that , and statements by people in the know , leads us to think that it’s not as repeatable as it needs to be.

[15th Club]

> @bladehunter said:

> Well. I guess we mostly agree. I think what we differ on is what the actual , functioning limit is. And it’s 257. Not 239.

>

> That being said 258 is failing. So absolutely fail him etc. unless.... it’s tested on say a USga machine and you get 252 or so. Then I call fowl. Today’s technology has to be able to produce a test that is not only accurate but repeatable. If it does it’s all good. But we do not know that , and statements by people in the know , leads us to think that it’s not as repeatable as it needs to be.

 

 

If anybody can come up with a better test, great. But again I insist that no matter whose certified machine is used, if your driver fails it’s too goddamn bad for you because no driver tests at 238 on one pendulum and 258 on another.

 

If manufacturers think that they owe it to their tour stars to give them drivers that get CT readings of something very close to 257, that is a dangerous and foolish practice in the face of the actual limit being 239. There’s no more cushion; no room for testing variances and so absolutely no sympathy or surprise when drivers fail. I’d like to see a big, comprehensive test of Tour drivers — no names attached — and a public release of all CT test results. And see what percent are over the intended limit of 239.

 

Again, this is a rotten, expensive game of “cops and robbers” by the manufacturers and the Tour club techs.

[bladehunter]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Well. I guess we mostly agree. I think what we differ on is what the actual , functioning limit is. And it’s 257. Not 239.

> >

> > That being said 258 is failing. So absolutely fail him etc. unless.... it’s tested on say a USga machine and you get 252 or so. Then I call fowl. Today’s technology has to be able to produce a test that is not only accurate but repeatable. If it does it’s all good. But we do not know that , and statements by people in the know , leads us to think that it’s not as repeatable as it needs to be.

>

>

> If anybody can come up with a better test, great. But again I insist that no matter whose certified machine is used, if your driver fails it’s too goddamn bad for you because no driver tests at 238 on one pendulum and 258 on another.

>

> If manufacturers think that they owe it to their tour stars to give them drivers that get CT readings of something very close to 257, that is a dangerous and foolish practice in the face of the actual limit being 239. There’s no more cushion; no room for testing variances and so absolutely no sympathy or surprise when drivers fail. I’d like to see a big, comprehensive test of Tour drivers — no names attached — and a public release of all CT test results. And see what percent are over the intended limit of 239.

>

> Again, this is a rotten, expensive game of “cops and robbers” by the manufacturers and the Tour club techs.

 

That percent is guaranteed 99-100 % over 239.

[Fade]

> @bladehunter said:

> Well. I guess we mostly agree. I think what we differ on is what the actual , functioning limit is. And it’s 257. Not 239.

>

> That being said 258 is failing. So absolutely fail him etc. unless.... it’s tested on say a USga machine and you get 252 or so. Then I call fowl. Today’s technology has to be able to produce a test that is not only accurate but repeatable. If it does it’s all good. But we do not know that , and statements by people in the know , leads us to think that it’s not as repeatable as it needs to be.

 

The real limit is a CT maximum of 239 us, the current tolerance to allow for measurement error associated with today's technology is +18 us. That error corresponds to about 3 yards on a 300 yard drive, or about 1% relative error in distance. Good enough for me.

[bladehunter]

 

 

I searched eBay in 30 seconds dame up with first 3 new tour heads with Spec stickers. All 3 well over 239. One tested in 2 spots over 239. I’m telling you , I don’t recall the last time I saw a tour head under 239.

 

 

 

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F223593147903

 

 

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F113824007199

 

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F113811448654

 

[bladehunter]

Here’s one tested in 3 spots over 239. Rare bird. 8 degree loft , and 248 ct in one spot.

 

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F153562356294

 

Search seller “ pro clubs “ on eBay. Then go to their store. And hit the tour issue icon on the left. They list the specs for almost every head sold. They are a clearing house for last years model tour issue heads. You can get a good idea of what being used. Common sense says that The ones being used are as hot or hotter than the leftovers being sold.