Anyone Have An Idea of What TM’s Driver Plans Are for 2022?

[Brooks_Cupcake]

11 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Define normally ?   Lol.     With driver.  I have  never been accused of being maxed out it. Let’s just say that.  When I’m not wearing 4 layers and In 42 degree temps I’m 4/5 mph faster , lol.  Good stretches  I’m efficient. Bad days I’m hitting efficient 3 woods instead.  Those were part 7 balls dead cold. So warmup swings really.   I’ll get it dialed in and show some good swings too.  

I mean at your speed, your smash is incredibly low. Essentially leaving 25+ yards on the table low unless I’m reading your radar wrong

[radiman]

4 minutes ago, Brooks_Cupcake said:

I mean at your speed, your smash is incredibly low. Essentially leaving 25+ yards on the table low unless I’m reading your radar wrong

My guess is it's the radar unit he is using.  I think it's the GPS that has a radar built in.  I am guessing were he on a legit LM the smash would be a lot better. 

[bladehunter]

8 minutes ago, Brooks_Cupcake said:

I mean at your speed, your smash is incredibly low. Essentially leaving 25+ yards on the table low unless I’m reading your radar wrong

Yes that’s what I meant or was trying to say on bad days that it’s pretty standard . which is why this was so surprising because I know that those Misses usually have the ballspeed in the mid-150s so this is definitely faster when I’m not catching it clean .  

[Red4282]

19 minutes ago, radiman said:

Man, he really going out of his way to try and discredit the stealth line haha.  I didn't watch the video all the way through.  Not a big Crossfield fan in general.  Went to the end and it looks like the stealth was at least 10 yards more carry on average?

It was hands down better in every way. He tried to give some explanation of how he had to deliver the c4 differently, then all kinds of other noise. I wouldnt even trust his data… Im sure he took out some stinkers with C4, as an “outlier”, but didnt take any out with stealth, as their misses tend to be not as much as an outlier… wow you dont say….

 

Safe to say TM REALLY hurt his feelings at some point. Scorned like an ex gf or something. 

[getitdaily]

6 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

It was hands down better in every way. He tried to give some explanation of how he had to deliver the c4 differently, then all kinds of other noise. I wouldnt even trust his data… Im sure he took out some stinkers with C4, as an “outlier”, but didnt take any out with stealth, as their misses tend to be not as much as an outlier… wow you dont say….

 

Safe to say TM REALLY hurt his feelings at some point. Scorned like an ex gf or something. 

Yeah he really has an axe wit TM. Wonder why new rogue wasn't also in the test...

[hammergolf]

22 minutes ago, radiman said:

Man, he really going out of his way to try and discredit the stealth line haha.  I didn't watch the video all the way through.  Not a big Crossfield fan in general.  Went to the end and it looks like the stealth was at least 10 yards more carry on average?

I don’t see it that, he’s obviously a very opinionated guy, but he makes valid points. He comes across as a guy who hates the marketing hype and of course TM becomes a target because they scream the loudest. Fact is, COR has been limited for years. If a robot hit my old 580xd dead perfect and a stealth dead perfect there is a minuscule if any difference in ball speed. Now, increasing off center performance over 20 years is another story. No doubt newer drivers outperform older ones. The new Stealth is a great driver, and from my experience it’s the best they’ve made. However, that’s not because of ball speed gains, it’s because they’ve made a more stable, more consistent model. The overhyped “carbonwood age” is just marketing hype and bs. Using Carbon for a face material ISNT a ball speed story. It’s a weight savings story so the driver can be made more stable. The coating on the face I think is the biggest story of the face. From what I’ve seen so far it seems like it’s really controlling spin on mishits and keeping it in a consistent range. But more forgiving and consistency isn’t what sells drivers. It’s telling people they will hit it 17 yards further, or that they gave to inject something so the face isn’t illegal. Now, that being said, I play a TM Sim Max driver that’s been really good, and chances are when it warms up, I’ll test the Stealth driver vs mine and probably end up buying one if it is more consistent and better on misses than mine. But I’m an idiot if I think the good shots off the Stealth are going to be longer than my good shots off my Sim Max, or even 580xd for that matter.

[soregongolfer]

3 minutes ago, getitdaily said:

Yeah he really has an axe wit TM. Wonder why new rogue wasn't also in the test...

Or his Srixon which is now is sponsor.  He gave a bad review of a TM driver a few years back when they sponsored him.  They cut him off and he came out with a video entitled "Taylormade hate me" IIRC.  Since then, he puts new TM products down.  I can't imagine TM sending him clubs to test.  I wonder how he gets them before the general public.  

[radiman]

10 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

I don’t see it that, he’s obviously a very opinionated guy, but he makes valid points. He comes across as a guy who hates the marketing hype and of course TM becomes a target because they scream the loudest. Fact is, COR has been limited for years. If a robot hit my old 580xd dead perfect and a stealth dead perfect there is a minuscule if any difference in ball speed. Now, increasing off center performance over 20 years is another story. No doubt newer drivers outperform older ones. The new Stealth is a great driver, and from my experience it’s the best they’ve made. However, that’s not because of ball speed gains, it’s because they’ve made a more stable, more consistent model. The overhyped “carbonwood age” is just marketing hype and bs. Using Carbon for a face material ISNT a ball speed story. It’s a weight savings story so the driver can be made more stable. The coating on the face I think is the biggest story of the face. From what I’ve seen so far it seems like it’s really controlling spin on mishits and keeping it in a consistent range. But more forgiving and consistency isn’t what sells drivers. It’s telling people they will hit it 17 yards further, or that they gave to inject something so the face isn’t illegal. Now, that being said, I play a TM Sim Max driver that’s been really good, and chances are when it warms up, I’ll test the Stealth driver vs mine and probably end up buying one if it is more consistent and better on misses than mine. But I’m an idiot if I think the good shots off the Stealth are going to be longer than my good shots off my Sim Max, or even 580xd for that matter.

Seems to be something behind the face.  And for what it's worth, I don't recall TM claiming any absurd distance gains.  The 17 yard claim, while I know is tongue in cheek when you mention it, is used far too often considering it was a decade ago and TM is a completely different company now.  

 

https://golf.com/gear/drivers/insidegolf-exclusive-robot-testing-taylormade-stealth-driver/

[getitdaily]

7 minutes ago, soregongolfer said:

Or his Srixon which is now is sponsor.  He gave a bad review of a TM driver a few years back when they sponsored him.  They cut him off and he came out with a video entitled "Taylormade hate me" IIRC.  Since then, he puts new TM products down.  I can't imagine TM sending him clubs to test.  I wonder how he gets them before the general public.  

He definitely doesn't get TM product anymore. But he knows enough people who have the product...he hasn't reviewed the stealth+ yet tho...just the regular.  And he hasn't lofted it down to get spin under 2700. He's a hack.

[Red4282]

16 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

I don’t see it that, he’s obviously a very opinionated guy, but he makes valid points. He comes across as a guy who hates the marketing hype and of course TM becomes a target because they scream the loudest. Fact is, COR has been limited for years. If a robot hit my old 580xd dead perfect and a stealth dead perfect there is a minuscule if any difference in ball speed. Now, increasing off center performance over 20 years is another story. No doubt newer drivers outperform older ones. The new Stealth is a great driver, and from my experience it’s the best they’ve made. However, that’s not because of ball speed gains, it’s because they’ve made a more stable, more consistent model. The overhyped “carbonwood age” is just marketing hype and bs. Using Carbon for a face material ISNT a ball speed story. It’s a weight savings story so the driver can be made more stable. The coating on the face I think is the biggest story of the face. From what I’ve seen so far it seems like it’s really controlling spin on mishits and keeping it in a consistent range. But more forgiving and consistency isn’t what sells drivers. It’s telling people they will hit it 17 yards further, or that they gave to inject something so the face isn’t illegal. Now, that being said, I play a TM Sim Max driver that’s been really good, and chances are when it warms up, I’ll test the Stealth driver vs mine and probably end up buying one if it is more consistent and better on misses than mine. But I’m an idiot if I think the good shots off the Stealth are going to be longer than my good shots off my Sim Max, or even 580xd for that matter.

But it is a ball speed story. If mishits are getting 2mph more on average, then yes its more stable but it brings the total average of ball speed up. Nobody (I dont think)  is saying that its ceiling is higher. MGS were the ones who started that (funny, it wasnt TM, but its been relatively debunked. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Red4282

[Cruisin1966]

46 minutes ago, Brooks_Cupcake said:

I mean at your speed, your smash is incredibly low. Essentially leaving 25+ yards on the table low unless I’m reading your radar wrong

I'll let you borrow my G80 for a comparison.  I would say if the unit can measure ball speed accurately, that's about all I would use from it

[hammergolf]

2 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

But it is a ball speed story. If mishits are getting 2mph more on average, then yes its more stable but it brings the total average of ball speed up. Nobody (I dont think)  is saying that its ceiling is higher. MGS were the ones who started that but its been relatively debunked. 

I would like to see the methodology Gene used in the 9 point test. Reason I say this is the face on the stealth is much larger than the Sim2. So 3/4” from the center on the Stealth is considerably closer to the center than 3/4” from the center of the Sim2 is. Unless you take the size of the face into account it’s not necessarily an apples to apples comparison. 

[Red4282]

7 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

I would like to see the methodology Gene used in the 9 point test. Reason I say this is the face on the stealth is much larger than the Sim2. So 3/4” from the center on the Stealth is considerably closer to the center than 3/4” from the center of the Sim2 is. Unless you take the size of the face into account it’s not necessarily an apples to apples comparison. 

3/4” is the same distance no matter how you slice it. Im a little lost at that

[hammergolf]

9 minutes ago, radiman said:

Seems to be something behind the face.  And for what it's worth, I don't recall TM claiming any absurd distance gains.  The 17 yard claim, while I know is tongue in cheek when you mention it, is used far too often considering it was a decade ago and TM is a completely different company now.  

 

https://golf.com/gear/drivers/insidegolf-exclusive-robot-testing-taylormade-stealth-driver/

Not doubting using a face material that’s 40% lighter has tremendous potential to allow for design options that previously didn’t exist. But ball speed isn’t one of those. COR has been controlled for many years. Stability? Absolutely! Higher moi? Absolutely. But in that test, comparing a larger striking surface to a smaller striking surface using the same distance measurement without taking that into account may not be a true conclusion. If the heel/toe measurement of the Sim2 face is 4” let’s say, and the heel toe measurement of the stealth face is 4.5” there is a .5” difference in location in relation to the club head. As I said, chances are that a stealth winds up in my bag if it perform better than my current Sim Max.

[lekimann]

10 minutes ago, Cruisin1966 said:

I'll let you borrow my G80 for a comparison.  I would say if the unit can measure ball speed accurately, that's about all I would use from it

I also have a g80 and the total distance for drivers is pretty off. The carry number seem fairly accurate but not total. The roll is just added automatically I believe. My drives were really high and would just not roll and it was giving me 20-30 yards roll each time. 

I think you're just not hitting it in the sweet spot. 

[hammergolf]

8 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

3/4” is the same distance no matter how you slice it. Im a little lost at that

Ok let me explain, let’s say the entire face surface of Sim2 face is 12’’ square. (4” heel to toe and 3” crown to sole) 

and the entire face surface on the stealth face is 15.75” (4.5” heel to toe and 3.5” crown to sole) a test that moves the strike 3/4” will be much closer to the actual center of the face of the bigger striking surface than it would be on the smaller striking surface. Make sense?

Edited January 26, 2022 by hammergolf

[radiman]

1 minute ago, hammergolf said:

Not doubting using a face material that’s 40% lighter has tremendous potential to allow for design options that previously didn’t exist. But ball speed isn’t one of those. COR has been controlled for many years. Stability? Absolutely! Higher moi? Absolutely. But in that test, comparing a larger striking surface to a smaller striking surface using the same distance measurement without taking that into account may not be a true conclusion. If the heel/toe measurement of the Sim2 face is 4” let’s say, and the heel toe measurement of the stealth face is 4.5” there is a .5” difference in location in relation to the club head. As I said, chances are that a stealth winds up in my bag if it perform better than my current Sim Max.

Yes, I am aware of COR being limited.  As to the 2mph increase they saw that is over multiple spots on the face.  So, pretty significant.  I have no doubt that one of the biggest goals for OEMs is to expand the sweet spot and make the face as fast as they can on mishits.  In fact I know that to be the case.  So, you see different technology used.  Callaway and their AI faces, Cobra and their CNC milled faces.  And now, we have Taylormade with the carbon face.  

[hammergolf]

27 minutes ago, radiman said:

Seems to be something behind the face.  And for what it's worth, I don't recall TM claiming any absurd distance gains.  The 17 yard claim, while I know is tongue in cheek when you mention it, is used far too often considering it was a decade ago and TM is a completely different company now.  

 

https://golf.com/gear/drivers/insidegolf-exclusive-robot-testing-taylormade-stealth-driver/

Can you post the testing from the Rogue ST and Cobra LTD? Really interesting stuff.

[SwooshLT]

3 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

Ok let me explain, let’s say the entire face surface of Sim2 face is 12’’ square. (4” heel to toe and 3” crown to sole) 

and the entire face surface on the stealth face is 15.75” (4.5” heel to toe and 3.5” crown to sole) a test that moves the strike 3/4” will be much closer to the actual center of the face of the bigger striking surface than it would be on the smaller striking surface. Make sense?

 

In ratio yes but in factual dynamics no ......3/4" from center is just that

[Red4282]

5 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

Not doubting using a face material that’s 40% lighter has tremendous potential to allow for design options that previously didn’t exist. But ball speed isn’t one of those. COR has been controlled for many years. Stability? Absolutely! Higher moi? Absolutely. But in that test, comparing a larger striking surface to a smaller striking surface using the same distance measurement without taking that into account may not be a true conclusion. If the heel/toe measurement of the Sim2 face is 4” let’s say, and the heel toe measurement of the stealth face is 4.5” there is a .5” difference in location in relation to the club head. As I said, chances are that a stealth winds up in my bag if it perform better than my current Sim Max.

I see what you are saying but the only reason it can do that is because of the carbon face. Nobody else has gotten that result (that i have seen). Anf,  Its only 8% bigger than sim 2 so its not WAYYYY bigger. 

[SwooshLT]

1 minute ago, hammergolf said:

Can you post the testing from the Rogue ST and Cobra LTD? Really interesting stuff.

 

I found that video via Google search

[radiman]

2 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

Can you post the testing from the Rogue ST and Cobra LTD? Really interesting stuff.

I haven't seen it yet.  In fact I can't even watch that video anymore lol.  It looks like they want a guy to have a paid account.  Which I do not.

[Red4282]

5 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

Ok let me explain, let’s say the entire face surface of Sim2 face is 12’’ square. (4” heel to toe and 3” crown to sole) 

and the entire face surface on the stealth face is 15.75” (4.5” heel to toe and 3.5” crown to sole) a test that moves the strike 3/4” will be much closer to the actual center of the face of the bigger striking surface than it would be on the smaller striking surface. Make sense?

No, because you measure from the center. There would be more real estate outside of that, but 3/4” from center is the same on every club period

[hammergolf]

2 minutes ago, radiman said:

Yes, I am aware of COR being limited.  As to the 2mph increase they saw that is over multiple spots on the face.  So, pretty significant.  I have no doubt that one of the biggest goals for OEMs is to expand the sweet spot and make the face as fast as they can on mishits.  In fact I know that to be the case.  So, you see different technology used.  Callaway and their AI faces, Cobra and their CNC milled faces.  And now, we have Taylormade with the carbon face.  

I’m not doubting the technology of anyone. You’re making an argument that’s not there. I’m merely pointing out that those ball speed increases may not be a true conclusion. Having a face that’s 40% lighter is a HUGE technology gain. It lets designers do things that they previously couldn’t due to material constraints. It’s an extreme analogy, but if you had a 250cc driver and tested it against a 460cc driver and compared ball speeds based on a 3/4” mishit of course the bigger striking face is going to outperform it because the strike is much closer to the COR on the bigger striking surface.

[SwooshLT]

3 minutes ago, radiman said:

I haven't seen it yet.  In fact I can't even watch that video anymore lol.  It looks like they want a guy to have a paid account.  Which I do not.

 

Weird how they give Stealth results but don't want to share anyone else's without a membership 

[radiman]

1 minute ago, SwooshLT said:

 

Weird how they give Stealth results but don't want to share anyone else's without a membership 

I can't even watch the stealth one anymore. 

[hammergolf]

2 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

No, because you measure from the center. There would be more real estate outside of that, but 3/4” from center is the same on every club period

3/4” of an inch on face that’s 3/4” wide is on the extreme end of striking face. 3/4” on a face that’s 4” is still 3 1/4” from the extreme end of the striking surface.

[Red4282]

Just now, radiman said:

I can't even watch the stealth one anymore. 

I think it allows you to watch one then locks you out

[hammergolf]

Just now, Red4282 said:

I think it allows you to watch one then locks you out

Yeah I tried to watch the others but couldn’t.

[radiman]

2 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

3/4” of an inch on face that’s 3/4” wide is on the extreme end of striking face. 3/4” on a face that’s 4” is still 3 1/4” from the extreme end of the striking surface.

I understand where you are coming from with this thought.  But, I would say it's not really applicable?  A golfer isn't going to miss closer to the center because the face is a little smaller.  I don't know how they would even test a club on a robot without having a set distance from center threshold.