Driver Test Fails at Safeway

[Socrates]

> @Golfrnut said:

> Which begs the question of whether they were making them intentionally hot before knowing the USGA was only testing off the center of the face. Not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but people have been looking for an edge in sports for as long as people have been competing.

 

I don't think the retail ones are going to be that close - for the most part. But, I think the ones they hand select for the Tour players are too close (and apparently they are). I just don't see the need for a yard or two being greater than the bad press they get.

[Soloman1]

According to the experts here who have no experience whatsoever with tour players or the golf business, manufacturers would never hand select product for tour pros.

[cleatis]

Just get rid of the test.

[Gautama]

> @Stuart_G said:

 

> Don't assume that they didn't. The test results are very operator dependent. Two different people could test the same head on the same machine and one could get a passing result and the other could get a failure. That's exactly what happened with Xander's head - although it wasn't clear if the passing OEM test was done before or after the R+A tested it.

>

>

 

I suspect this is among the most important considerations in all this, and I'm surprised it's only come up once. If the test isn't highly accurate and precise, when coupled with the variability in manufacturing you have a testing process that's not really suitable for the way its being used.

[Stuart_G]

> @Gautama said:

> > @Stuart_G said:

>

> > Don't assume that they didn't. The test results are very operator dependent. Two different people could test the same head on the same machine and one could get a passing result and the other could get a failure. That's exactly what happened with Xander's head - although it wasn't clear if the passing OEM test was done before or after the R+A tested it.

> >

> >

>

> I suspect this is among the most important considerations in all this, and I'm surprised it's only come up once. If the test isn't highly accurate and precise, when coupled with the variability in manufacturing you have a testing process that's not really suitable for the way its being used.

 

The test is both accurate and precise. That's not the problem, nor are variations in the manufacturing. The problem is that there are an infinite number of locations on the face that could potentially be tested. That's where the vast majority of the inconsistency in the results comes from. One location on the face being conforming but another location being non-conforming.

 

The ruling bodies can argue (and have some justification) that the all parts of the face should be conforming and so the test should pass if the reading is taken anywhere on the face. However, that makes preventative testing by the OEM's and players relatively impractical or unreliable.

 

 

[zmosnot]

It’s amazing that this can’t be better regulated even with the face getting hotter after use. Roll back the ball. Make em play Balatas...that would be fun to see.

[QEight]

> @zmosnot said:

> It’s amazing that this can’t be better regulated even with the face getting hotter after use. Roll back the ball. Make em play Balatas...that would be fun to see.

 

Better regulated? I would say it is well regulated.