Speed injected - is it a lie

[Phisim89]

Is it just me or is the taylormade marketing a bit of BS.  Doesn’t really look injected in all fairness. Someone enlightened if possible.
 

• Speed Injected Twist Face

  Speed Injected Twist Face improves ball speed by calibrating each head to the threshold of the legal speed limit with corrective face curvature also protecting against heel and toe mis-hits.

   

 

[QuigleyDU]

This is a fair question. I know on previous heads it was much different. Maybe this is really a different deal than before but they are just running with it. 

 

It really looks like it is basically pre installed hot melt. 

[Phisim89]

Agree, just another “visible tech” marketing point that does absolutely nothing by the looks of it.

[Corsair]

Maybe just me and not understanding the manufacturing process - but how can you inject anything into "solid" metal?

[third-times-a-charm]

6 minutes ago, Corsair said:

Maybe just me and not understanding the manufacturing process - but how can you inject anything into "solid" metal?

 

It gets injected behind the face, not 'into it'.

 

 

[third-times-a-charm]

23 minutes ago, Phisim89 said:

Is it just me or is the taylormade marketing a bit of BS.  Doesn’t really look injected in all fairness. Someone enlightened if possible.
 

• Speed Injected Twist Face

  Speed Injected Twist Face improves ball speed by calibrating each head to the threshold of the legal speed limit with corrective face curvature also protecting against heel and toe mis-hits.

   

 

 

In fairness, that cutaway could not have the injection in it yet? Not sure.

 

If the 'injection' is supposed to be that goop between the two orange things, then yeah it doesnt seem to do much but who knows. If COR is off by whatever many tiny points too much then it wouldnt take much to bring it down.

 

Looks like theres a jig at the manufacturing plant and an injection needle like hotmelt that does it.

[jll62]

I've seen this comment made many times since M5/M6 were introduced. I don't know if TaylorMade did a poor job of marketing this feature or what, but it's not a lie. I had the chance to sit down with TM driver engineers and have this process explained in great detail when M5/M6 was introduced.

 

For every head they produced with M5/M6 and SIM, the manufacturing goal was to produce heads were just past the USGA threshold (some would be above, some would be below, due to manufacturing tolerances). They then measured every head in multiple places and an algorithm would determine how much resin to inject in the heel and toe for the heads that were over. This would deaden the responsiveness of the face slightly to bring the club back below the limit. For heads that were below the limit, no injection was needed. The goal here was to increase the number of heads that were close to the limit. Regular manufacturing tolerances made it really hard to do, but this tuning of the heads meant that many more could be produced closer to the limit than were before. They ended up with far less "slow" heads.

 

All that being said, I don't know much about the new system in SIM2 with only the one resin port in the toe. My theory is that there are 3 likely reasons for the change:

 

1) Having two ports and the internal structure to support them was a detriment to the CG goals with SIM2, so it was redesigned

2) With their new milled ICT face, they were able to shrink manufacturing tolerances so that they only needed to have one port on the toe to bring the head back into compliance

3) There were many reports of things coming loose and rattling in SIM heads that I saw, so perhaps some of this redesign was to reduce defects that required warranty replacement.

 

It's fine to be skeptical of claims made by the OEMs, but I really don't understand the continued questioning of this tech. It does exactly what TaylorMade claims it does: it overcomes tolerances that exist during manufacturing of heads and allows them to make more of their drivers in a tighter distribution with regard to the USGA limit for face speed.

 

33 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

It really looks like it is basically pre installed hot melt. 

 

It's not pre-installed hotmelt. In the old system, there would be 0g - 2g max in each port, so never more than 4g total resin in the head. With the new system, it's maybe 0g to 3-4g resin. It never affects the weight of the head in a significant way.

Edited January 19, 2021 by jll62

[QuigleyDU]

45 minutes ago, jll62 said:

I've seen this comment made many times since M5/M6 were introduced. I don't know if TaylorMade did a poor job of marketing this feature or what, but it's not a lie. I had the chance to sit down with TM driver engineers and have this process explained in great detail when M5/M6 was introduced.

 

For every head they produced with M5/M6 and SIM, the manufacturing goal was to produce heads were just past the USGA threshold (some would be above, some would be below, due to manufacturing tolerances). They then measured every head in multiple places and an algorithm would determine how much resin to inject in the heel and toe for the heads that were over. This would deaden the responsiveness of the face slightly to bring the club back below the limit. For heads that were below the limit, no injection was needed. The goal here was to increase the number of heads that were close to the limit. Regular manufacturing tolerances made it really hard to do, but this tuning of the heads meant that many more could be produced closer to the limit than were before. They ended up with far less "slow" heads.

 

All that being said, I don't know much about the new system in SIM2 with only the one resin port in the toe. My theory is that there are 3 likely reasons for the change:

 

1) Having two ports and the internal structure to support them was a detriment to the CG goals with SIM2, so it was redesigned

2) With their new milled ICT face, they were able to shrink manufacturing tolerances so that they only needed to have one port on the toe to bring the head back into compliance

3) There were many reports of things coming loose and rattling in SIM heads that I saw, so perhaps some of this redesign was to reduce defects that required warranty replacement.

 

It's fine to be skeptical of claims made by the OEMs, but I really don't understand the continued questioning of this tech. It does exactly what TaylorMade claims it does: it overcomes tolerances that exist during manufacturing of heads and allows them to make more of their drivers in a tighter distribution with regard to the USGA limit for face speed.

 

 

It's not pre-installed hotmelt. In the old system, there would be 0g - 2g max in each port, so never more than 4g total resin in the head. With the new system, it's maybe 0g to 3-4g resin. It never affects the weight of the head in a significant way.

I am saying hot melt in the sense that it is a sound deal.

 

Also, I am not saying it has no purpose or does not do what they say it does. I am simply curious if it is actually injected.. I don’t know that.

[Krt22]

44 minutes ago, jll62 said:

I've seen this comment made many times since M5/M6 were introduced. I don't know if TaylorMade did a poor job of marketing this feature or what, but it's not a lie. I had the chance to sit down with TM driver engineers and have this process explained in great detail when M5/M6 was introduced.

 

For every head they produced with M5/M6 and SIM, the manufacturing goal was to produce heads were just past the USGA threshold (some would be above, some would be below, due to manufacturing tolerances). They then measured every head in multiple places and an algorithm would determine how much resin to inject in the heel and toe for the heads that were over. This would deaden the responsiveness of the face slightly to bring the club back below the limit. For heads that were below the limit, no injection was needed. The goal here was to increase the number of heads that were close to the limit. Regular manufacturing tolerances made it really hard to do, but this tuning of the heads meant that many more could be produced closer to the limit than were before. They ended up with far less "slow" heads.

 

All that being said, I don't know much about the new system in SIM2 with only the one resin port in the toe. My theory is that there are 3 likely reasons for the change:

 

1) Having two ports and the internal structure to support them was a detriment to the CG goals with SIM2, so it was redesigned

2) With their new milled ICT face, they were able to shrink manufacturing tolerances so that they only needed to have one port on the toe to bring the head back into compliance

3) There were many reports of things coming loose and rattling in SIM heads that I saw, so perhaps some of this redesign was to reduce defects that required warranty replacement.

 

It's fine to be skeptical of claims made by the OEMs, but I really don't understand the continued questioning of this tech. It does exactly what TaylorMade claims it does: it overcomes tolerances that exist during manufacturing of heads and allows them to make more of their drivers in a tighter distribution with regard to the USGA limit for face speed.

 

 

It's not pre-installed hotmelt. In the old system, there would be 0g - 2g max in each port, so never more than 4g total resin in the head. With the new system, it's maybe 0g to 3-4g resin. It never affects the weight of the head in a significant way.

As an engineer, this all seems legit. The COR differences being measured are pretty small, so it really shouldn't take a lot of goop to dampen the trampoline effect slightly

[jll62]

7 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

I am saying hot melt in the sense that it is a sound deal.

 

Also, I am not saying it has no purpose or does not do what they say it does. I am simply curious if it is actually injected.. I don’t know that.

 

Yeah, I was only replying to your comment to give a comparable mass amount between the injected resin and the typical hot melt knowledge. Most folks tend to think you need at least 4g of hot melt to make any sort of difference. The amount of resin in the M5/M6/SIM was never more than 4g, and was usually less, so I've never thought of this as having the same effect as hot melt. It only served to make the face every so slightly more rigid in certain areas.

 

I wish I knew more about the injection process for SIM2, but it makes sense that a gen2 version of the manufacturing process would change. My hunch is that the reason for the change is a combination of all three things I listed.

[sethdavidsdad]

I just don’t like that they say speed injected. When actually they are injecting to decrease speed. In fact you could possible have a head without injection or below COR limit if what I have read is correct. 

[Red4282]

4 hours ago, jll62 said:

I've seen this comment made many times since M5/M6 were introduced. I don't know if TaylorMade did a poor job of marketing this feature or what, but it's not a lie. I had the chance to sit down with TM driver engineers and have this process explained in great detail when M5/M6 was introduced.

 

For every head they produced with M5/M6 and SIM, the manufacturing goal was to produce heads were just past the USGA threshold (some would be above, some would be below, due to manufacturing tolerances). They then measured every head in multiple places and an algorithm would determine how much resin to inject in the heel and toe for the heads that were over. This would deaden the responsiveness of the face slightly to bring the club back below the limit. For heads that were below the limit, no injection was needed. The goal here was to increase the number of heads that were close to the limit. Regular manufacturing tolerances made it really hard to do, but this tuning of the heads meant that many more could be produced closer to the limit than were before. They ended up with far less "slow" heads.

 

All that being said, I don't know much about the new system in SIM2 with only the one resin port in the toe. My theory is that there are 3 likely reasons for the change:

 

1) Having two ports and the internal structure to support them was a detriment to the CG goals with SIM2, so it was redesigned

2) With their new milled ICT face, they were able to shrink manufacturing tolerances so that they only needed to have one port on the toe to bring the head back into compliance

3) There were many reports of things coming loose and rattling in SIM heads that I saw, so perhaps some of this redesign was to reduce defects that required warranty replacement.

 

It's fine to be skeptical of claims made by the OEMs, but I really don't understand the continued questioning of this tech. It does exactly what TaylorMade claims it does: it overcomes tolerances that exist during manufacturing of heads and allows them to make more of their drivers in a tighter distribution with regard to the USGA limit for face speed.

 

 

It's not pre-installed hotmelt. In the old system, there would be 0g - 2g max in each port, so never more than 4g total resin in the head. With the new system, it's maybe 0g to 3-4g resin. It never affects the weight of the head in a significant way.

Sigh, thank you for that, I was really worried there for a minute until I saw your post. Yea “speed injected” probably isnt the best term for this process, and it is marketing driven, but to say its phooey or worthless is just not accurate.

[archer1]

31 minutes ago, sethdavidsdad said:

I just don’t like that they say speed injected. When actually they are injecting to decrease speed. In fact you could possible have a head without injection or below COR limit if what I have read is correct. 

This is exactly the point. It is a speed reduction injection!

 

Callaway do the same thing with the word "jailbreak". Imagine a prison where there has been a jailbreak and the prisoner escaped through the barred window. What would you see? Bars which had been damaged.

[jll62]

1 hour ago, sethdavidsdad said:

I just don’t like that they say speed injected. When actually they are injecting to decrease speed. In fact you could possible have a head without injection or below COR limit if what I have read is correct. 

 

Yes, you can have a club that's manufactured below the limit and doesn't get any resin injected. But that's okay; it doesn't mean it's a "slow" head. It just doesn't fit with the marketing, even though it makes perfect sense from the perspective of the manufacturing process.

[dnash13]

15 minutes ago, jll62 said:

 

Yes, you can have a club that's manufactured below the limit and doesn't get any resin injected. But that's okay; it doesn't mean it's a "slow" head. It just doesn't fit with the marketing, even though it makes perfect sense from the perspective of the manufacturing process.

To add onto and summarize a bit, "below the limit" being still extremely close to the limit because the set point will be higher without them having to worry about x amount more heads being slightly over (as injecting them brings them back down). 

 

This process produces a significantly larger proportion of heads that are at/near/closer to the COR limit than competitors I would imagine... Again with the heads below the limit only being *slightly* below. 

 

 

[Jc0]

It's a way to reduce cost in manufacturing. You could produce the heads and faces to precise tolerances and make sure the COR is in the appropriate range. Problem is the processes to hit that level of preciseness are expensive and you could still have heads that come out a little slow or too hot. Simpler way is to make the faces a little to hot and slow them down with foam to still make sure every face is as hot as possible. 

[Glenn Salongo]

Yes, the injected face is not faster than others faces. The speed of the center part of the face don't vary significantly from supplier to supplier. Most brands sell faces so close to the legal limit that measuring the difference is difficult. It is just cheaper (less scrap) to use this injected face production method. It also reduce the risk of tooling and process adjustment close to SOP.

[bevans0222]

I wonder how this affects the consistency of the head weight.  There's some variance just from the manufacturing, and now there is an additional "variable" amount of weight added to each head.  It only takes 2 grams of head weight, to move swing weight by a point.  If they aren't doing something to counter that, when building the club(which I doubt), every retail club will be a different swing weight.  Even if they do something to deal with swing weight, the variance in total weight must be larger than normal.

[scooterhd2]

Better picture of it. And yes, it actually reduces speed by dampening the trampoline effect on the face. Perhaps you could take the toe screw out and scratch some of it away with some dentistry tools. or bake the head and dump it? not sure of its properties. 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by scooterhd2

[junkfry]

Looks to me like that block of injected resin would limit how much the face deflects inward upon striking the ball. I can see how that would "limit" or affect CT or COR.

[Mych]

17 hours ago, jll62 said:

I've seen this comment made many times since M5/M6 were introduced. I don't know if TaylorMade did a poor job of marketing this feature or what, but it's not a lie. I had the chance to sit down with TM driver engineers and have this process explained in great detail when M5/M6 was introduced.

 

For every head they produced with M5/M6 and SIM, the manufacturing goal was to produce heads were just past the USGA threshold (some would be above, some would be below, due to manufacturing tolerances). They then measured every head in multiple places and an algorithm would determine how much resin to inject in the heel and toe for the heads that were over. This would deaden the responsiveness of the face slightly to bring the club back below the limit. For heads that were below the limit, no injection was needed. The goal here was to increase the number of heads that were close to the limit. Regular manufacturing tolerances made it really hard to do, but this tuning of the heads meant that many more could be produced closer to the limit than were before. They ended up with far less "slow" heads.

 

All that being said, I don't know much about the new system in SIM2 with only the one resin port in the toe. My theory is that there are 3 likely reasons for the change:

 

1) Having two ports and the internal structure to support them was a detriment to the CG goals with SIM2, so it was redesigned

2) With their new milled ICT face, they were able to shrink manufacturing tolerances so that they only needed to have one port on the toe to bring the head back into compliance

3) There were many reports of things coming loose and rattling in SIM heads that I saw, so perhaps some of this redesign was to reduce defects that required warranty replacement.

 

It's fine to be skeptical of claims made by the OEMs, but I really don't understand the continued questioning of this tech. It does exactly what TaylorMade claims it does: it overcomes tolerances that exist during manufacturing of heads and allows them to make more of their drivers in a tighter distribution with regard to the USGA limit for face speed.

 

 

It's not pre-installed hotmelt. In the old system, there would be 0g - 2g max in each port, so never more than 4g total resin in the head. With the new system, it's maybe 0g to 3-4g resin. It never affects the weight of the head in a significant way.

Pretty crazy that a "speed injection" is actually intended to reduce performance. I get that the overall average performance is closer to the limit this way, but that's a feature I could imagine people trying to figure out how to remove to get back above the threshold. 

[Jc0]

1 minute ago, Mych said:

Pretty crazy that a "speed injection" is actually intended to reduce performance. I get that the overall average performance is closer to the limit this way, but that's a feature I could imagine people trying to figure out how to remove to get back above the threshold. 

 

Not worth the effort. The adjustment is to make it go from .8305 to .8300. The faces are marginally to hot, not blowing past the limit.

[jll62]

2 minutes ago, Mych said:

Pretty crazy that a "speed injection" is actually intended to reduce performance. I get that the overall average performance is closer to the limit this way, but that's a feature I could imagine people trying to figure out how to remove to get back above the threshold. 

 

The TM engineers I spoke to said this was something the USGA was concerned about when TM was talking to them to make sure the process would result in conforming drivers. I don't think anyone has successfully removed the resin from any of the heads, but it wouldn't result in much extra performance. The heads are just barely non-conforming before the resin is injected.

[Krt22]

57 minutes ago, Mych said:

Pretty crazy that a "speed injection" is actually intended to reduce performance. I get that the overall average performance is closer to the limit this way, but that's a feature I could imagine people trying to figure out how to remove to get back above the threshold. 

To be fair, they don't differentiate between adding speed or reducing speed lol. But if implemented correctly, the avg COR (and thus ball speed) should uptick slightly. TM essentially moved their tolerance band up a hair and designed in a measure to reduce the outliers.

[Red4282]

How do feel when all the hottest heads go to the tour van, and the slower non speed injected goes to the big box store... 🤭

[Valtiel]

Thanks @jll62 for breaking all that down, I too am confused by people still thinking this is some sort of gimmick. 

In my anecdotal observations of spec'd heads on eBay, the CT values do seem to be tighter overall with a majority of them being right at or just barely outside the 239 CT limit with what seems like far fewer outliers on either side (220's and 250's). It all fits with what they say they are doing. 

[ChipNRun]

Try some DIY body-centered speed injection...

 

Settle in on a good gym workout, work on basic arm and core strength, and pick up 5 MPH on your swing speed. This should inject an extra 12 yards into your tee shots.

[iNeedMoreGolf]

Im sure it does have to work to a degree because if it didnt it would cause negative effects which they dont want. Does it drastically improve anything? I doubt it. I think the companys just look for ways to introduce new improvments that can be applied without really harming what the club allready does... im sure here and there they do stumble across something that might make a driver or iron go 5 more yards without going over legal limits.

[GarretG]

I don’t think it does much. But, definitely doesn’t hurt performance. I think it’s a bigger deal on the irons. 

[Hack Daddy]

On 1/19/2021 at 3:02 PM, jll62 said:

I've seen this comment made many times since M5/M6 were introduced. I don't know if TaylorMade did a poor job of marketing this feature or what, but it's not a lie. I had the chance to sit down with TM driver engineers and have this process explained in great detail when M5/M6 was introduced.

 

For every head they produced with M5/M6 and SIM, the manufacturing goal was to produce heads were just past the USGA threshold (some would be above, some would be below, due to manufacturing tolerances). They then measured every head in multiple places and an algorithm would determine how much resin to inject in the heel and toe for the heads that were over. This would deaden the responsiveness of the face slightly to bring the club back below the limit. For heads that were below the limit, no injection was needed. The goal here was to increase the number of heads that were close to the limit. Regular manufacturing tolerances made it really hard to do, but this tuning of the heads meant that many more could be produced closer to the limit than were before. They ended up with far less "slow" heads.

 

All that being said, I don't know much about the new system in SIM2 with only the one resin port in the toe. My theory is that there are 3 likely reasons for the change:

 

1) Having two ports and the internal structure to support them was a detriment to the CG goals with SIM2, so it was redesigned

2) With their new milled ICT face, they were able to shrink manufacturing tolerances so that they only needed to have one port on the toe to bring the head back into compliance

3) There were many reports of things coming loose and rattling in SIM heads that I saw, so perhaps some of this redesign was to reduce defects that required warranty replacement.

 

It's fine to be skeptical of claims made by the OEMs, but I really don't understand the continued questioning of this tech. It does exactly what TaylorMade claims it does: it overcomes tolerances that exist during manufacturing of heads and allows them to make more of their drivers in a tighter distribution with regard to the USGA limit for face speed.

 

 

It's not pre-installed hotmelt. In the old system, there would be 0g - 2g max in each port, so never more than 4g total resin in the head. With the new system, it's maybe 0g to 3-4g resin. It never affects the weight of the head in a significant way.

So using hotmelt kills cor?