Why was there no 460cc 983E/905S?

[golferdude54]

When Titleist released their first 460cc driver, the 905R, it was touted as the 460cc version of the 905T which was shallow. The 905S on the other hand was deep, with the 983E as its predecessor.

 

So why was there never a release of the 460cc version of 905S/983E then? It seems like they were both popular heads, obviously the 983K overshadowed the E but that was not the case with 905T over S. I bet such a driver would still be popular today.

[Wayside]

1 hour ago, golferdude54 said:

When Titleist released their first 460cc driver, the 905R, it was touted as the 460cc version of the 905T which was shallow. The 905S on the other hand was deep, with the 983E as its predecessor.

 

So why was there never a release of the 460cc version of 905S/983E then? It seems like they were both popular heads, obviously the 983K overshadowed the E but that was not the case with 905T over S. I bet such a driver would still be popular today.

I think the deep heads of that era were more popular on forums than in real life. 
 

I remember working in a golf store at the time, and all the popular forum drivers like the Mizuno 300s, 510TP, and 983E hardly ever moved off the racks. 
 

The 983E in particular didn’t budge. We didn’t sell one until they were discontinued and we took them down from £299 to £199. Even then, they only sold because they were cheap. 
 

One of my colleagues was off +1 and a fantastic ball striker, he tried the E and thought it was too much, so took a K instead. 

[RogerinNewZealand]

I think the Tm R7 425 was around that time and very popular with the weights being moveable.I still have 905T and love 400cc. Its the Ad Men that convince you the 360cc is too small...search 2011ish Yonex Ezone in 380 or 420. Very Cool or Nike Vr Tour420cc🙂

[PixlPutterman]

Old school deep heads were "yesterdays" tech on getting a low spin driver......but they were NOT forgiving.

 

Tech has advanced where you dont need a deep face to get low spin....and you can retain forgiveness.

 

There are still some deeper face drivers out there. Id argue the 915 D4 would be a modern 983e.

 

Current model TSi/r 3 and 4 are reasonably deep face drivers as well.

[MtlJeff]

I might be mis-remembering but back during the 983/905 heyday 460cc heads hadn't become the fully accepted norm yet. There was still a lot of drivers on the market that were smaller.

 

I believe the original R7 was 365cc for example. The original Cleveland Launcher was 400cc i think

 

My guess would be that is a big reason why, 460cc heads just weren't as common

[bcflyguy1]

5 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

I might be mis-remembering but back during the 983/905 heyday 460cc heads hadn't become the fully accepted norm yet. There was still a lot of drivers on the market that were smaller.

 

I believe the original R7 was 365cc for example. The original Cleveland Launcher was 400cc i think

 

My guess would be that is a big reason why, 460cc heads just weren't as common

Correct; in keeping with their way of doing things, Titleist was at the caboose end of the train when it came to designing drivers at the maximum legal volume. Also true for adjustable hosel tech, adjustable CG, multi-material head designs, variable face thickness etc. etc. 

Edited September 26, 2022 by bcflyguy1

[nitram]

 Not one mainstream golf company thought anyone would be interested in a club head that large. Think about it, when most golfers were still playing a lot of wooden heads that were sub-300cc as well as several early "metalheads" the same size , or marginally larger., a 460 head looked HUGE!!! You could buy 460-500cc heads from Bang and Bullet, etc. but it wasn't until Cally saw a market for the 460cc that it really caught on. And while the Big Bertha looked like a bell-pepper on a stick to me, there were obviously legions who bought it and loved it.

 

FWIW the 983K (365cc) was considered a large head for a Titleist driver in 2004 and the reason the (e) was made, you know, to accommodate the more discriminating golfer who wanted to transition to a Titleist non-wooden driver.

 

But to answer your original question, you couldn't have held a gun on the decision-makers at Acushnet and make them design, build, and offer a 460cc head in those days. It simply went against everything in their DNA to offer such an abomination with their name on it.

Edited September 26, 2022 by nitram

[bcflyguy1]

8 minutes ago, nitram said:

With the Cally 460cc ERC II being deemed illegal over a decade prior to the intro of the 983K/R510 TP, not one mainstream golf company thought anyone would be interested in a club head that large. Think about it, when most golfers were still playing a lot of wooden heads that were sub-300cc as well as several early "metalheads" the same size , or marginally larger., a 460 head looked HUGE!!! You could buy 460-500cc heads from Bang and Bullet, etc. but it wasn't until Cally saw a market for the 460cc that it really caught on. And while the Big Bertha looked like a bell-pepper on a stick to me, there were obviously legions who bought it and loved it.

 

FWIW the 983K (365cc) was considered a large head for a Titleist driver in 2004 and the reason the (e) was made, you know, to accommodate the more discriminating golfer who wanted to transition to a Titleist non-wooden driver.

 

But to answer your original question, you couldn't have held a gun on the decision-makers at Acushnet and make them design, build, and offer a 460cc head in those days. It simply went against everything in their DNA to offer such an abomination with their name on it.

ERC 2 was banned for exceeding COR limit of .830, but it was only about 350cc.

[nitram]

7 minutes ago, bcflyguy1 said:

ERC 2 was banned for exceeding COR limit of .830, but it was only about 350cc.

You're right and I thought I'd edited that part out. I'll try again.

[bcflyguy1]

30 minutes ago, nitram said:

You're right and I thought I'd edited that part out. I'll try again.

No worries...funny thing about the ERC II was that even though it was illegal I don't recall it being appreciably longer for anybody who tried it, to include myself.

Back in that '01-'02 time frame, the biggest thing in most shops was the Hippo Giant, and though it looked freakishly big compared to others even it wasn't on the limit IIRC.

[Wayside]

On 9/26/2022 at 7:17 PM, bcflyguy1 said:

No worries...funny thing about the ERC II was that even though it was illegal I don't recall it being appreciably longer for anybody who tried it, to include myself.

Back in that '01-'02 time frame, the biggest thing in most shops was the Hippo Giant, and though it looked freakishly big compared to others even it wasn't on the limit IIRC.

The ‘trick’ with the ERCII (which remained R&A legal for longer) was to go up in loft as the faces got progressively thinner as you did. Technically they were optimised for particular swing speeds, but if you went up a degree or two you could get more spring effect - but risk possibly caving it in - which is what I did with a 10° 😄 

 

I worked at a store which was unofficially a Callaway place, and when someone came in with a 10 or 11° you knew you’d be struggling to get them into a newer head based on distance. Callaway fitters hated it too. It remained popular in Europe even once illegal. 
 

The fairway woods, which were legal due to the higher lofts, were absolute rockets too. I could hit the 3+ as far as most conforming drivers at the time. 
 

Then the XR-03 came out which went miles, was forgiving, and had a beautiful head shape. 

[Chunkitgood]

905R was released about the time Wishon said 350 cc’s (or was it 250?) was all that is practically useful and when amateur driver distance peaked, according to the latest numbers I have seen.  One view is that around that time the club makers stopped selling steak (after a pretty big jump over ten years) and started selling sizzle.

 

The question is, why do people keep on paying for more “tech”?  For getting fitted and low spin and hitting up on the ball and adjustability?  When amateur distance has not gone up since the early 2000’s?

[nitram]

19 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

The question is, why do people keep on paying for more “tech”?  For getting fitted and low spin and hitting up on the ball and adjustability?  When amateur distance has not gone up since the early 2000’s?

Because people want to buy a fix instead of build a swing. And the manufacturers propagate this at every opportunity.  JMHO

[Pepperturbo]

On 9/23/2022 at 2:22 AM, golferdude54 said:

When Titleist released their first 460cc driver, the 905R, it was touted as the 460cc version of the 905T which was shallow. The 905S on the other hand was deep, with the 983E as its predecessor.

 

So why was there never a release of the 460cc version of 905S/983E then? It seems like they were both popular heads, obviously the 983K overshadowed the E but that was not the case with 905T over S. I bet such a driver would still be popular today.

905s 400cc came out around 2006.  I played 905s 9.5 with a Grafalloy Blue shaft, fully inserted for quite some time, and didn't care for a larger 460 version.  Not too many people messed with 905, it was not as forgiving as 460R or small 905T.  Today TSr3 is it's evolved counterpart. 

[bcflyguy1]

905S released in 2005 (hence the '05). 905R released later, either the fall of '05 or winter of '06. Had a 905s with an OG Diamana Blue 83X. When pured, it was massive. When it wasn't, run for your life.

[Wayside]

1 hour ago, bcflyguy1 said:

905S released in 2005 (hence the '05). 905R released later, either the fall of '05 or winter of '06. Had a 905s with an OG Diamana Blue 83X. When pured, it was massive. When it wasn't, run for your life.

Hah. I’ve had a few Titleist drivers which have had that effect. In particular a 975D with a good old EI-70 Tour.
 

I struck two people with errant drives with that thing. On the second occasion I took out a junior member, fully on the fly, from an elevated tee. Dropped like a stone. Thought I’d killed him. Gave him a sleeve of Rule 35 balls and he was delighted. The 975 went back on the rack the next morning. 

Edited October 3, 2022 by Wayside

[PixlPutterman]

You all have inspired me to dust off the K with an x100 and take her to the range

[me05501]

Ah, the off-season topics are coming in early this year! 🙂 

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

On 9/27/2022 at 2:26 AM, nitram said:

 Not one mainstream golf company thought anyone would be interested in a club head that large. Think about it, when most golfers were still playing a lot of wooden heads that were sub-300cc as well as several early "metalheads" the same size , or marginally larger., a 460 head looked HUGE!!! You could buy 460-500cc heads from Bang and Bullet, etc. but it wasn't until Cally saw a market for the 460cc that it really caught on. And while the Big Bertha looked like a bell-pepper on a stick to me, there were obviously legions who bought it and loved it.

 

FWIW the 983K (365cc) was considered a large head for a Titleist driver in 2004 and the reason the (e) was made, you know, to accommodate the more discriminating golfer who wanted to transition to a Titleist non-wooden driver.

 

But to answer your original question, you couldn't have held a gun on the decision-makers at Acushnet and make them design, build, and offer a 460cc head in those days. It simply went against everything in their DNA to offer such an abomination with their name on it.

 

I may be misunderstanding you, but were golfers still playing wooden heads by the time the Titleist released the 905 (or 983)?

 

I was away from the game around that time, but when I first stepped away from golf in about 1993, wooden woods were becoming a rarity. 

 

I played a little golf at the end of the nineties, and no one I played with had wooden woods.

 

[nitram]

Maybe not everywhere but in my circles there was a "hodge-podge" of drivers and fairways being used in this time frame, and they all were as small as today's 5WD. But my main point is the 983K was considered (by most) to be a substantially larger head when it was introduced, especially coming from Titleist, who admittedly were more conservative in their designs. The 460 Big Bertha was considered a freak, albeit it didn't take very long for the masses to accept it, or more to the point, how easy it was to hit.

[jholz]

4 hours ago, No_Catchy_Nickname said:

 

I may be misunderstanding you, but were golfers still playing wooden heads by the time the Titleist released the 905 (or 983)?

 

I was away from the game around that time, but when I first stepped away from golf in about 1993, wooden woods were becoming a rarity. 

 

I played a little golf at the end of the nineties, and no one I played with had wooden woods.

 

 

At least in my neck of the woods, people had ditched wooden drivers a long time before the 905, even the 975. Metal woods had completely supplanted wood several years earlier.

 

Big Berthas and Burner Bubbles ruled for what seemed like a decade before the 975 - but in actuality it was only about 4 years.

 

During that 4 year period, the only Titleist driver I remember is the DTR Midsize. But, I was playing my dad's Callaway woods during that time.