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

[dmbrill719]

1 hour ago, StillCantPutt said:

Just throwing this out there, I really don’t care. If I can leak anything Golf related to the public, I’m going to do it. I would never reveal my sources, but I believe that if one person out there has seen the pictures or the items, we’re on a GOLF FORUM. Everyone deserves to see it if possible. I’m all for the people, not the big companies. Sorry, not sorry. 

Actually, the complete opposite is true.  Not a single person actually deserves to see it.  Companies have the right to make public information on upcoming launches on a timeline of their choosing.  What would you like?  Webcams in the ceilings of all the R&D departments?  

[bbjr]

28 minutes ago, dmbrill719 said:

Actually, the complete opposite is true.  Not a single person actually deserves to see it.  Companies have the right to make public information on upcoming launches on a timeline of their choosing.  What would you like?  Webcams in the ceilings of all the R&D departments?  

 

As a business owner, there are many plans that I don’t want to be made public prior to being ready; however, when a company starts playing the game of dangling the carrot, you can’t get pissed when someone gets a bite out of that carrot.

[StillCantPutt]

11 minutes ago, dmbrill719 said:

Actually, the complete opposite is true.  Not a single person actually deserves to see it.  Companies have the right to make public information on upcoming launches on a timeline of their choosing.  What would you like?  Webcams in the ceilings of all the R&D departments?  

Respectfully, I disagree. If "not a single person actually deserves to see it" then why show anyone? Why not just unveil it the day it goes for sale? Why show shop owners, pro shops, retailers, etc? Could you imagine if Tesla followed that practice and didn't show the public the cyber truck 3+ years early? They garnered 1.25 million pre-orders because of showing folks what's coming. Golf companies can learn a lot from the marketing of arms of the world's biggest brands. 

[dmbrill719]

6 minutes ago, StillCantPutt said:

Respectfully, I disagree. If "not a single person actually deserves to see it" then why show anyone? Why not just unveil it the day it goes for sale? Why show shop owners, pro shops, retailers, etc? Could you imagine if Tesla followed that practice and didn't show the public the cyber truck 3+ years early? They garnered 1.25 million pre-orders because of showing folks what's coming. Golf companies can learn a lot from the marketing of arms of the world's biggest brands. 

Telsa doesn't have a current truck they're selling.  There are plenty of reasons to show product to trade partners early (forecasting, feedback) and tons of reasons why that should be kept from the general public (competitive advantage, counterfeiting).

[radiman]

13 minutes ago, StillCantPutt said:

Respectfully, I disagree. If "not a single person actually deserves to see it" then why show anyone? Why not just unveil it the day it goes for sale? Why show shop owners, pro shops, retailers, etc? Could you imagine if Tesla followed that practice and didn't show the public the cyber truck 3+ years early? They garnered 1.25 million pre-orders because of showing folks what's coming. Golf companies can learn a lot from the marketing of arms of the world's biggest brands. 

They'll show it when they're ready.  They're showing pro shops and retailers because they're placing orders for the drivers right now.  We're talking a matter of weeks until we see it.  You are not entitled to see it.  That's the point.  It's their product and they're the ones marketing it.  They want a specific message surrounding it.  Now, if you think Taylormade is somehow alone in this, you are mistaken.  This song and dance has been going on for years from all golf OEMs.  

[reggie9908]

A friend who’s a PGA Pro tested it at the golf store/ website he works for. Full carbon head and the fastest ball speed he’s ever had apparently.

[StillCantPutt]

9 minutes ago, radiman said:

They'll show it when they're ready.  They're showing pro shops and retailers because they're placing orders for the drivers right now.  We're talking a matter of weeks until we see it.  You are not entitled to see it.  That's the point.  It's their product and they're the ones marketing it.  They want a specific message surrounding it.  Now, if you think Taylormade is somehow alone in this, you are mistaken.  This song and dance has been going on for years from all golf OEMs.  

And how has this approach worked out for the golf industry? Prior to Covid, is was perhaps the worst industry to work in. Sales were low, golf was declining, etc. Yet, the OEMs continue to do the same thing and expect different results. SMH.

[radiman]

1 minute ago, StillCantPutt said:

And how has this approach worked out for the golf industry? Prior to Covid, is was perhaps the worst industry to work in. Sales were low, golf was declining, etc. Yet, the OEMs continue to do the same thing and expect different results. SMH.

The people like us that are clamoring to see the next driver makes up a very low percentage of their bottom line I’d imagine. I am pretty sure them waiting an extra month to shore the driver has absolutely nothing to do with it. Not everyone who wants to see it is nearly as emotional as you appear to be about it. 
 

And they’re dedicated seeing different results. It’s not like all of these new golfers are going to disappear.

[Jota_Jota]

A golf pro I spoke to yesterday told me the Stealth has a red carbon face. Full carbon face, he said. He also mentioned that testing by the TM team has shown +5 mph of ball speed for some of their pros. He said he was doubtful of that ball speed increase, but that the first hand sources that told him were people he trusts. 

[blink3665]

It's like we have never been through this before? Of course there are pictures out there floating around. TM comes down in force on people that leak the pictures. Stuff pops up on GolfWRX occasionally, and then it's gone almost immediately. Same with other forums and social media. No one wants to deal with the headache of lawyers.

 

I wonder how hard the people at TM laugh when they read these threads every year. We work ourselves into a frenzy. At the beginning it's all speculation. About a month later reps and dealers start to get looks. A little marketing, and a few anecdotes slip out. We divide into 3 camps: THIS IS GOING TO BE AWESOME!!!!, THIS IS PURE BS!!!!!, I'll wait and see?

 

It's interesting. Everyone challenges limits and boundaries. Always. If you don't, you're going to get left behind. If that means fooling the CT test by being clever, so be it. It's like how hackers and security go round and round. It will always be a game of cat and mouse. I, for one, am super excited to see what comes out. 

 

I am in the market for a replacement to my m3 HL fairway. I might have to wait another year for when they bring the carbon face to the fairways. Thats the cycle, right? about 1 year after, they put the driver tech into the fairways? (at least thats what it was for twist face).

[BlkNGld]

1 hour ago, StillCantPutt said:

And how has this approach worked out for the golf industry? Prior to Covid, is was perhaps the worst industry to work in. Sales were low, golf was declining, etc. Yet, the OEMs continue to do the same thing and expect different results. SMH.

 

"The worst industry"?   I won't say it's the best by any means before 2020, but provide the metrics you use to assign it as "worst" and I think that can be easily refuted.

 

The golf industry isn't just equipment either.   Obviously fewer rounds played mean fewer buying gear.   How an OEM treats a club release and when they make pictures available do nothing for that.

 

The fact that people are on here clamoring for pics tends to prove their approach is working.   How is not releasing the pics costing them sales?   Instead some are getting themselves worked into a frenzy because there's a super secret special club (called retailers) that have gotten a glimpse of it.

 

We've already seen what happens when pics get out there too early.   Everyone weighs in with their opinions for a couple of weeks, then move on to something else.   Smarter to hold off until being close to being able to take pre orders.   Kinda like cybertruck.   

Edited December 3, 2021 by BlkNGld

[PhilWhitUK]

From a few Instagram posts this week it looks like in the UK people were invited to Wentworth this week to see the new clubs.  I haven’t seen any of them leak any details (assume because of NDAs).

 

My take is that we know most of the key details (red face, carbon fibre, etc)  and the only thing missing is a picture.  That of course is a key marketing impact so I can understand why the OEMs want them held back.  

[SwingBlues]

5 hours ago, radiman said:

So, I just wanted to put some of the speed gains in possible context. I haven’t hit it so not sure what I’ll see when I do. But for a little bit of anecdotal evidence, my buddy and I played a simulator round yesterday on a uneekor system. He had a ping g425 lst that he hits pretty well. I have an OG Sim. He was hovering around 160 ball speed with his driver. Handed him mine and he immediately picked up 5mph ball speed.
 

I owned a 425lst and switched to the sim because I found the ping to be a lot shorter.  So, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that someone see some significant gains depending on what they’re using now. 

 

Hmmmh, that's funny. It's EXACTLY my experience with the 425lst as well. I felt I was losing distance and honestly the forgiveness was BS with swing, hit hooks. Went back to my Sim Max, found my distance & straightness again. Then I traded the 425lst for a Sim 2 and found even more distance than my Sim Max. Go figure... Mind you, if you asked me on Dec 2020 if I will get the 425lst, it would have been a HELLA-YEAH...

 

While this Stealth is intriguing & tantalizing with the carbon face, I wonder if this is another cool hook, ala Jailbreak. Also, so much for "Shape In Motion" much like Callaway "Oh we hired Boeing to design our turbulators in the OG Epic driver..." blah, blah, blah...

 

We all fawn over it and at the end of the day, it's "meh"....

Edited December 3, 2021 by SwingBlues

[jongalt55]

On 12/2/2021 at 12:01 PM, TaylorMade Golf said:

We have some clever, clever engineers at TaylorMade. When we push boundaries, new doors open.

 

30 ish more sleeps.

 

Seeing all the discussion assuming clubs have been maxed out for years.  Not sure that is the case.  Rebound effect used to be determined by COR (or coefficient of restitution).  They shot a golf ball at the club face and measured how fast it bounced back.  COR was the ratio of rebound speed after the collision to incoming speed prior to the collision--so a ball shot at 100 mph and rebounding off the face at 82 mph would result in a COR of .82.  Because this test used actual golf balls, realistic collision speeds and actual rebound velocities, it seems as though it would have been impossible to engineer a driver that passed the test but yielded better results in a real world setting (leaving distance gains within the realm of improved launch and spin characteristics).  But the USGA's COR test was difficult to administer in the field at a given event (can you imagine having to set up a controlled environment where you can safely shoot a ball at a fixed clubhead at 100 mph and accurately measure the incoming and exit velocity at a sectional USGA event?).

 

The CT (or characteristic time) test was developed as a way to measure whether a club was conforming in the field.  It's a pendulum that is dropped against the clubface and the (relatively portable) instrument measures the amount of time the pendulum is in contact with the clubface.  The pendulum uses a metal ball, not a golf ball, and the collision occurs at much lower speeds than would be present when a ball is actually struck (though my guess is that the mass, impact speed and material choice--i.e., COR of the pendulum itself--were designed to approximate the same collision force used in the COR test).  The point here is that I think the general population assumes that the relationship between CT and COR is constant, and I'm not sure that is the case.  I'm just speculating here--and this would be a great place for an actual physicist or materials scientist to weigh in if we have any reading this forum--but it seems to me that there may be ways in which the CT test might potentially be manipulated such that the clubhead might produce a COR above the prior .830 limit in a real world setting.  For example, if the clubface had non-linear deformation and rebound characteristics, it might experience less deformation and rebound more quickly (thus having a lower, conforming CT) when impacted with the steel pendulum, but experience higher deformation (resulting in a higher CT and COR) in real world ball collisions.  Or it might be possible to alter the characteristics of the clubhead (either via construction or materials) to cause it to return the same (or more) energy upon contact, but just do so more quickly (which I guess is what I thought was the idea behind Callaway's effort to stiffen it's clubhead by connecting the crown and sole).  I have no idea how much the CT/COR relationship could be manipulated with clubhead construction and materials, but I could certainly buy that enough manipulation is possible to pick up another 3-5 yards.

 

Any physicists or materials scientists out there--feel free to tell me why I'm wrong... 

[StillCantPutt]

Zero sleeps. You’re welcome. 

[philly2kuk]

I’ll have to see the top of it, but not a fan of the sole or face. Plus I see bits of metal overhanging the weight track. If that’s like the m5 they’ll crack.

 

Thanks for sharing though.

[TheMoneyShot]

2 minutes ago, StillCantPutt said:

Zero sleeps. You’re welcome. 

You da man!!!

[4TheKing614]

8 minutes ago, StillCantPutt said:

Zero sleeps. You’re welcome. 

Thank you!

[TheMoneyShot]

How long until these pics get taken down?

[Golf_LU]

Just now, TheMoneyShot said:

How long until these pics get taken down?

The answer is probably soon...

[noodle3872]

Just need a pic from address now

[Duffer222]

Love what I’ve seen!

[StillCantPutt]

4 minutes ago, noodle3872 said:

Just need a pic from address now

Greedy

[Golfingfanatic]

Take your screenshots asap😂

Edited December 3, 2021 by Golfingfanatic

[4TheKing614]

19 hours ago, StillCantPutt said:

This is BS. Things leak all of the time. I’ll post them if someone gets them to me. Not afraid of a lawsuit. You will never identify me. Someone call my bluff. 

You are a man of your word!

[Red4282]

37 minutes ago, jongalt55 said:

Seeing all the discussion assuming clubs have been maxed out for years.  Not sure that is the case.  Rebound effect used to be determined by COR (or coefficient of restitution).  They shot a golf ball at the club face and measured how fast it bounced back.  COR was the ratio of rebound speed after the collision to incoming speed prior to the collision--so a ball shot at 100 mph and rebounding off the face at 82 mph would result in a COR of .82.  Because this test used actual golf balls, realistic collision speeds and actual rebound velocities, it seems as though it would have been impossible to engineer a driver that passed the test but yielded better results in a real world setting (leaving distance gains within the realm of improved launch and spin characteristics).  But the USGA's COR test was difficult to administer in the field at a given event (can you imagine having to set up a controlled environment where you can safely shoot a ball at a fixed clubhead at 100 mph and accurately measure the incoming and exit velocity at a sectional USGA event?).

 

The CT (or characteristic time) test was developed as a way to measure whether a club was conforming in the field.  It's a pendulum that is dropped against the clubface and the (relatively portable) instrument measures the amount of time the pendulum is in contact with the clubface.  The pendulum uses a metal ball, not a golf ball, and the collision occurs at much lower speeds than would be present when a ball is actually struck (though my guess is that the mass, impact speed and material choice--i.e., COR of the pendulum itself--were designed to approximate the same collision force used in the COR test).  The point here is that I think the general population assumes that the relationship between CT and COR is constant, and I'm not sure that is the case.  I'm just speculating here--and this would be a great place for an actual physicist or materials scientist to weigh in if we have any reading this forum--but it seems to me that there may be ways in which the CT test might potentially be manipulated such that the clubhead might produce a COR above the prior .830 limit in a real world setting.  For example, if the clubface had non-linear deformation and rebound characteristics, it might experience less deformation and rebound more quickly (thus having a lower, conforming CT) when impacted with the steel pendulum, but experience higher deformation (resulting in a higher CT and COR) in real world ball collisions.  Or it might be possible to alter the characteristics of the clubhead (either via construction or materials) to cause it to return the same (or more) energy upon contact, but just do so more quickly (which I guess is what I thought was the idea behind Callaway's effort to stiffen it's clubhead by connecting the crown and sole).  I have no idea how much the CT/COR relationship could be manipulated with clubhead construction and materials, but I could certainly buy that enough manipulation is possible to pick up another 3-5 yards.

 

Any physicists or materials scientists out there--feel free to tell me why I'm wrong... 

yup i agree, the ct test is flawed and i could see a way to pass the ct test but still gain ball speed. We shall see

[longshanks]

I guess it might be a new driver year for me!  

[Red4282]

Whoa… not what i expected.Sold lol

[ian-500]

I really like it. Hopefully the crown looks similar to the Mini 300. Got to test it.....

[Red4282]

I kind of expexted a wrap around face… seems like an insert?