Square head driver wars?

[golfernut78]

This is pretty sweet...now we're looking at patents...awesome.

 

What kind of plug-in do I need to view the images? I can open the website, but can't see any of the images.

 

Regards,

Tyler

 

dido here too - can't any of the images to appear

[gjones77]

i'm sure they said the same thing about the futura and 2-ball putters which basically revolutionized golf technology as we know it...

 

No, they didn't

 

The shape and design of the 2-Ball conformed since the alignment disks on top were flat, and the shape fell into various acceptable categories.

 

This driver is by no means "plain in shape" and hence I doubt it would pass as conforming.

[DB MACHINE]

The Nike patents linked above are for the original driver sole pattern, not any new square driver.

 

To view the images on the USPTO site, click the "images" button on teh top or bottom of the page. You can then shuttle between pages, and scroll around to see teh entire image, or simply "drag and drop" onto yoru desktop or another image browser...

 

As to the plain in shape requirements, there are no definitions of plain in shape as having to be pear shaped. Their are many interpretations, with specifics to no holes through the head, clear aiming devices, solid construction, etc., etc., but no stated (or known) requirements for round or pear shape...that being said, the rules are still too objective, IMHO.

 

Back on topic, does anyone think they would buy and / or play one of these square drivers? Thanks for everyone's input on this!

 

*XS*

[DB MACHINE]

Sorry, should read too "subjective" *XS*

[matt411]

i'm sure they said the same thing about the futura and 2-ball putters which basically revolutionized golf technology as we know it...

 

No, they didn't

 

The shape and design of the 2-Ball conformed since the alignment disks on top were flat, and the shape fell into various acceptable categories.

 

This driver is by no means "plain in shape" and hence I doubt it would pass as conforming.

 

i think "plain in shape" is a very good description of a square driver. Is the Hibore "plain in shape?" Do you really think 2 major OEM's would be working on a driver for over a year that possibly would not be conforming? Don't kid yourself. They probably got assurances before millions and millions of dollars were spent on R & D.

[jscw]

As expected, Cally finally combine X sole with FT-3. That will be my next driver :-)

 

The X sole is really useful when you are in the back 9 -- you are tired and the fairway hit is still important. I chose X460 rather than longer FT-3 just because of the X sole.

 

For the shape...Well, if it works for me, why not? Lots pp had joked around the sound of FT-3, and lots pp get used to it now.

 

For the USGA conformance, I don't know. In fact I don't know why hibore is a "plain in shape". Hibore, it should be hibore-shaped, far from "plain".

[dfung]

A couple of comments:

 

1) The appearance of the driver head in the patent is very similar to the appearance of the i-trax putter that Callaway put out last year.

 

2) There are two kinds of US Patents, the "Design" patent and the "Utility" patent. The Callaway patent mentioned above is a Design Patent, which only protects the way that the object looks. Utility patents protect aspects of how an object works. Most of the discussion here has been about the functionality of a square head, but that's not what this patent covers. This only prevents somebody else from making a head that looks squarish from the top and has an "instep" on the bottom. It doesn't directly stop anybody from making a club that works on the same principles. A utlilty patent which discusses why to make the head squared or why the sole should be that shape and is approved would block production of clubs that work on that principle but look different.

 

Design patents are easier to get and even cover things like the icons on your computer desktop. You can bet that all the club companies are feverishly working to try to get a utliity patent for this sort of design approved.

[gjones77]

As expected, Cally finally combine X sole with FT-3. That will be my next driver :-)

 

The X sole is really useful when you are in the back 9 -- you are tired and the fairway hit is still important. I chose X460 rather than longer FT-3 just because of the X sole.

 

For the shape...Well, if it works for me, why not? Lots pp had joked around the sound of FT-3, and lots pp get used to it now.

 

For the USGA conformance, I don't know. In fact I don't know why hibore is a "plain in shape". Hibore, it should be hibore-shaped, far from "plain".

 

Actually the Hi-Bore is "plain in SHAPE", shape being from address, the side shape is not important as long as it doesn't surpass the volume rule (460cc).

 

And yes, companies have put millions into clubs that are non-conforming, remember the Callaway ERC-2?

 

Non-conforming yet they made and sold thousands prior to Japan and Europe adopting the COR Rule

 

None the less, they really haven't invested much capital into this, just the time it took to make the design and the cost of patenting the design.

 

Companies, from time to time, do patent designs and idea that may never see daylight just to prevent competition from creating the design, and incase down the road a design becomes feasible, or in Callaway's case, in case down the road the USGA rules change and they can create such a club.

[DB MACHINE]

A couple of comments:

 

1) The appearance of the driver head in the patent is very similar to the appearance of the i-trax putter that Callaway put out last year.

 

2) There are two kinds of US Patents, the "Design" patent and the "Utility" patent. The Callaway patent mentioned above is a Design Patent, which only protects the way that the object looks. Utility patents protect aspects of how an object works. Most of the discussion here has been about the functionality of a square head, but that's not what this patent covers. This only prevents somebody else from making a head that looks squarish from the top and has an "instep" on the bottom. It doesn't directly stop anybody from making a club that works on the same principles. A utlilty patent which discusses why to make the head squared or why the sole should be that shape and is approved would block production of clubs that work on that principle but look different.

 

Design patents are easier to get and even cover things like the icons on your computer desktop. You can bet that all the club companies are feverishly working to try to get a utliity patent for this sort of design approved.

 

 

Excellent post. The design patents usually issue much faster than the utility and method patents. I have seen published utility applications too, with MANY more illustrations, and other juicy details... TBD if it gets granted, but based on Callaway's extensive track record here, I have no doubt they will get utility patents too (probably numerous patents on various iterations and extensions).

 

Not as sure about Nike, but I do think Stites did do some other work in the field as I recall, and as other posters mentioned. Maybe NikeProto can add some tidbits to the post, if he is still contributing?

 

*XS*

[DB MACHINE]

As expected, Cally finally combine X sole with FT-3. That will be my next driver :-)

 

The X sole is really useful when you are in the back 9 -- you are tired and the fairway hit is still important. I chose X460 rather than longer FT-3 just because of the X sole.

 

For the shape...Well, if it works for me, why not? Lots pp had joked around the sound of FT-3, and lots pp get used to it now.

 

For the USGA conformance, I don't know. In fact I don't know why hibore is a "plain in shape". Hibore, it should be hibore-shaped, far from "plain".

 

Actually the Hi-Bore is "plain in SHAPE", shape being from address, the side shape is not important as long as it doesn't surpass the volume rule (460cc).

 

And yes, companies have put millions into clubs that are non-conforming, remember the Callaway ERC-2?

 

Non-conforming yet they made and sold thousands prior to Japan and Europe adopting the COR Rule

 

None the less, they really haven't invested much capital into this, just the time it took to make the design and the cost of patenting the design.

 

Companies, from time to time, do patent designs and idea that may never see daylight just to prevent competition from creating the design, and incase down the road a design becomes feasible, or in Callaway's case, in case down the road the USGA rules change and they can create such a club.

 

FYI, the view from address is not the only view the USGA considers for their plain in shape requirements. Interesting for the Hi-Bore (and SQ) discussion is, the USGA actually advised they would not allow certain shapes designed to get around their new head volume rules, such as large dips in the shell, for instance. Therefore the interpretation must have been that the crown wasn't too concave, at least as compared to historical precedents of allowance. As others have noted, there were and are other clubs historically that had recessed crowns.

 

IMO, the relatively square shape also has precedent, including Stites previous work, as well as much older examples even including old wooden heads, and putters also mentioned here (although plain in shape rules are different - more lax - for putters than all other clubs: you could not have a Futura-type driver or irons for instance).

 

Callaway (and others) would certainly be working with the USGA (in confidence) as to the conformity of their designs during the process, starting with discussions, followed by drawings, engineering studies, prototypes, first article samples, etc., etc., before the final, official rulings.

 

No doubt in my mind that they have at least verbal allowance for these and that we will see them in the marketplace probably pretty soon. Other posts have confirmed testing with players too. The technology for high MOI is so compelling, I think others will join the race.

 

So get ready, for the square head driver wars! Who else thinks they will want one, if for nothing else because they will be demonstrably more forgiving? *XS*

[Birdie Retriever]

I was just looking around on the usga website and here is a pic of a conforming club with a squarish appearance

 

[golfsll]

yea i spent several hours looking at the us patent office web site and found several interesting things.

 

the

 

1st being that a man by the name of ANDREW OLDKNOW helped in the patents of several CALLAWAY clubs and putters with ROGER CLEVELAND. the FUSION appeared to be one of them

 

2nd ANDREW OLDKNOW know has his name on several patents along with TOM STITES.

 

 

 

THAT MAKES ME SAY HMMMMMMMMMM. could there be and most likely a CARBON CROWN offering or has he been working on a SQUARE driver with them. thought you would like to know what i had read.

[six00imola]

good lord... just hit the ball.

[DB MACHINE]

good lord... just hit the ball.

 

 

Six00imola: I noticed you have some pretty sophisticated equipment in your bag... certainly more modern than what I and my friends learned the game with (late 1950's era persimmon woods being "state-of-the-art" at the time). Technology matters. A bunch. Otherwise, the USGA wouldn't keep changing the rules with more and more restrictions. PErsimmon was still played on tour less than ten years ago. How many in play today? How about 180 cc steel head (low COR) drivers?

 

Hey, if you don't care for technological advancements, fine by me. But the guys you are playing with, or against if you compete likely will be using the very best and latest innovations. It doesn't replace skill, but it sure can help you achieve your best performance. Just ask Tiger why he has been upgrading his drivers as of late.

 

*XS*

[siennaslammer]

This is pretty sweet...now we're looking at patents...awesome.

 

What kind of plug-in do I need to view the images? I can open the website, but can't see any of the images.

 

Regards,

Tyler

 

dido here too - can't any of the images to appear

............................

 

for me anyway, does not seem to need any special plug-in.

you just got to move(slide) the page bar to see the image - it at the bottom-center of the page

[xxio]

I played this week with a Japanese member who had that Sasso driver. I actually found it less distracting than the SQ and HibOre at address. Had a rich dark bronish red color and a decent filament wound stock shaft.

[jscw]

A couple of comments:

 

1) The appearance of the driver head in the patent is very similar to the appearance of the i-trax putter that Callaway put out last year.

 

2) There are two kinds of US Patents, the "Design" patent and the "Utility" patent. The Callaway patent mentioned above is a Design Patent, which only protects the way that the object looks. Utility patents protect aspects of how an object works. Most of the discussion here has been about the functionality of a square head, but that's not what this patent covers. This only prevents somebody else from making a head that looks squarish from the top and has an "instep" on the bottom. It doesn't directly stop anybody from making a club that works on the same principles. A utlilty patent which discusses why to make the head squared or why the sole should be that shape and is approved would block production of clubs that work on that principle but look different.

 

Design patents are easier to get and even cover things like the icons on your computer desktop. You can bet that all the club companies are feverishly working to try to get a utliity patent for this sort of design approved.

 

Thanx for the info. Learn something except golf in golfwrx.com

[sandy]

Should have seen the looks a set of Ping KI irons got back in the 60's when I took them back to college for qualifying. Everyone had their Wilson Staffs, MacGregor MTs, Spalding Top Flights. Looks only become the big consideration if they don't perform.

[Ducky]

You need the Apple Quicktime plug-in to view the images.

[DB MACHINE]

Looks like the square driver war is heating up, with Golfwrx "pre-war intelligence" now giving us a better views (and reviews) of the Nike SUMO.

 

We have seen some of the Callaway patents, but eager to see their Fusion (FT-4?) square head in practice.

 

IMO, Nike designers and engineers did a great job incorprating the "pear shaped" driver within a square driver frame with the dual color scheme carried over from the original SQ, so that its not TOO radical. They also are using the other hot technologies in composite crown (weight savings / shift lower) and scooped (convex) crown ala HiBore for cc (volume) savings....both allowing more mass to be moved back and in the corners for increased MOI and what should be increased forgiveness on off-center hits.

 

IMO, the only technology they are missing is a customizable CG, so pros, fitters and individuals can tune the CG to optimize their shaft choice and optimum ball flight and trajectories....

 

It will be interesting to see if any other OEM's join this arms race. Is this really the shape of all woods to come?

[nikeguy]

This is like a science fair/contest on who can do what with 460cc.

 

Imagine if there was no limit on 460cc....

 

 

When will it end. What is Adam's motto now?

 

If they were any easier to hit they wouldn't need you.

 

They need my credit card. How much more forgiveness do you need? I understand that they are targeting the weekend golfer that goes out 2 times a month maybe and hits around. They want him to have a good time. But it's got to stop somewhere. I remember getting my first big bertha and saying.GOOD LORD LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THAT. I just got my x460 from the clubmaker and was comparing it. It's such a joke.

 

Cool driver though.

 

 

yea i spent several hours looking at the us patent office web site and found several interesting things.

 

the

 

1st being that a man by the name of ANDREW OLDKNOW helped in the patents of several CALLAWAY clubs and putters with ROGER CLEVELAND. the FUSION appeared to be one of them

 

2nd ANDREW OLDKNOW know has his name on several patents along with TOM STITES.

 

 

 

THAT MAKES ME SAY HMMMMMMMMMM. could there be and most likely a CARBON CROWN offering or has he been working on a SQUARE driver with them. thought you would like to know what i had read.

 

 

Looks like the square driver war is heating up, with Golfwrx "pre-war intelligence" now giving us a better views (and reviews) of the Nike SUMO.

 

We have seen some of the Callaway patents, but eager to see their Fusion (FT-4?) square head in practice.

 

IMO, Nike designers and engineers did a great job incorprating the "pear shaped" driver within a square driver frame with the dual color scheme carried over from the original SQ, so that its not TOO radical. They also are using the other hot technologies in composite crown (weight savings / shift lower) and scooped (convex) crown ala HiBore for cc (volume) savings....both allowing more mass to be moved back and in the corners for increased MOI and what should be increased forgiveness on off-center hits.

 

IMO, the only technology they are missing is a customizable CG, so pros, fitters and individuals can tune the CG to optimize their shaft choice and optimum ball flight and trajectories....

 

It will be interesting to see if any other OEM's join this arms race. Is this really the shape of all woods to come?

People on this Site are so knowledgeable. Great work looking up the patent information on OEM's regarding driver technology. My Sources tell me the AO Ghost Designer for Callaway but started working for Nike in Summer of 05'. I have made the statement that Nike has stolen top talent from other companies to come work with Stites and his team in Ft Worth. If Callaway can make this driver a reality than this will be the wave of the future. But since we are all looking up information about patents I have a question.

Could someone look up and Post the MOI numbers for Drivers on the market Right now. Maybe just the Top 5 or 10. High MOI will make a Driver Play larger than the 460cc Limit.

GREAT WORK GUYS!

[clamey]

Nike has the top three drivers in MOI!!!!! 1. SQ Sumo Squared 5250 MOI 2. SQ Sumo 4960 MOI 3.SQ Max 4681 MOI. Nike is the leader in Geometry and MOI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Callaway FT-3 is the closest at 4060 MOI

[nikeguy]

Nike has the top three drivers in MOI!!!!! 1. SQ Sumo Squared 5250 MOI 2. SQ Sumo 4960 MOI 3.SQ Max 4681 MOI. Nike is the leader in Geometry and MOI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Callaway FT-3 is the closest at 4060 MOI

WELL I GUESS THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION...THE POWER OF GEOMETRY SQUARED! Maybe Callaway better come out with their square driver soon HUH? :diablo:

[ocashflo]

checkout the avatar

[nikeguy]

I wonder what the reaction is going to be to the MOI numbers in Drivers. That is a really big disparity between the SQ products and the Callaway FT-3. If MOI is the new trend in Golf then NIKE is definitley the leader! Do you think MOI labels will start appearing on Drivers. My guess by the numbers below we will not be seeing that anytime soon, unless OEM's start changing the shape of drivers.

 

SUMO SQAURED 5250

SUMO 4950

SQ 4650

 

:diablo:

[DB MACHINE]

I wonder what the reaction is going to be to the MOI numbers in Drivers. That is a really big disparity between the SQ products and the Callaway FT-3. If MOI is the new trend in Golf then NIKE is definitley the leader! Do you think MOI labels will start appearing on Drivers. My guess by the numbers below we will not be seeing that anytime soon, unless OEM's start changing the shape of drivers.

 

SUMO SQAURED 5250

SUMO 4950

SQ 4650

 

:diablo:

 

Callaway Square (FT-4?) could be close to Nike, or possibly even greater, owing to their greater use of composite material in the entire Aft-back portion of their head. They add weight back in to the corners, probably with tungsten laden ribbons as wwith previous FT-3, Fusion, etc. Judging from the patent apps (published) that I have seen, they will likely offer a fade, neutral and draw biased versions. That type of fitting, though short of user-customizable CG, offers more fitting options than Nike seems to be selling with their "the only adjustment you need" marketing and advertising strategy. One size (or at least one ball flight) fits all.

 

Personally, I like to fit, and then fine tune my CG, including to better suit different course and playing conditions... and so do more pros, judging by the total use on tour numbers.

 

I wonder if TM or other OEM's are working on something like this now. If they haven't already done so,

Callaway R&D staff is probably up all night in their labs trying to beat the MOI numbers attributed to the SUMO. Make another pot of coffee boys!

 

Nike has for the moment set the bar.

 

(and thanks again to wrx for this great site bringing us firsts in pictures and technology!).

 

There is still room for improvement under the USGA restrictions for MOI, though, so I expect to see this battle grow!

[Stiff]

I've filed 20+ records of invention with the patent office over the past several years and I can't believe a patent was issued in 11 months--takes at least 3 years! Perhaps the golf companies have a better in with the Patent Office than us software guys!

[nikeguy]

I wonder what the reaction is going to be to the MOI numbers in Drivers. That is a really big disparity between the SQ products and the Callaway FT-3. If MOI is the new trend in Golf then NIKE is definitley the leader! Do you think MOI labels will start appearing on Drivers. My guess by the numbers below we will not be seeing that anytime soon, unless OEM's start changing the shape of drivers.

 

SUMO SQAURED 5250

SUMO 4950

SQ 4650

 

;) :)

 

Callaway Square (FT-4?) could be close to Nike, or possibly even greater, owing to their greater use of composite material in the entire Aft-back portion of their head. They add weight back in to the corners, probably with tungsten laden ribbons as wwith previous FT-3, Fusion, etc. Judging from the patent apps (published) that I have seen, they will likely offer a fade, neutral and draw biased versions. That type of fitting, though short of user-customizable CG, offers more fitting options than Nike seems to be selling with their "the only adjustment you need" marketing and advertising strategy. One size (or at least one ball flight) fits all.

 

Personally, I like to fit, and then fine tune my CG, including to better suit different course and playing conditions... and so do more pros, judging by the total use on tour numbers.

 

I wonder if TM or other OEM's are working on something like this now. If they haven't already done so,

Callaway R&D staff is probably up all night in their labs trying to beat the MOI numbers attributed to the SUMO. Make another pot of coffee boys!

 

Nike has for the moment set the bar.

 

(and thanks again to wrx for this great site bringing us firsts in pictures and technology!).

 

There is still room for improvement under the USGA restrictions for MOI, though, so I expect to see this battle grow!

Exactly...This battle will be something to watch, but something tells me that Nike and AO own the patent on breadth to width ration to change the geometry. My feeling is if Callaway has a way to make a Square driver that works with a Higher MOI why would they not have this ready to go. I think conceptually they have something but from previous drivers the Composite Back Peice did not perform well or sound very good. The Whole Geometry aspect of MOI is something Tom Stites owns right now and the benefit of a Higher MOI will be something people will have to figure out without infringing on any Patents used by the SQ and SUMO. Cleveland could not get the driver to play larger in terms of MOI than the HI-Bore because they can not lengthen the Breadth(sole) of the Driver to deepen CG.

07' SHOULD BE A INERESTING YEAR FOR DRIVER TECHNOLOGY.

:diablo:

:yess:

[nutter]

you know, with all of these square drivers i sure hope that they can get the face angle correct

 

 

[emmeline]

Just finished meeting with my Nike Sales Rep earlier today for Spring orders and hit the new Sumos. I never liked the 06 Sasquatch (couldn't get comfortable with the set up position).

 

The new Sumo (traditional version) is similar to the 06 with a longer face to back measurement. The pronounced silver "ring" of 06 is now lower and more scooped (ala Hi-Bore). Felt OK, good ball flight, nothing great - nothing bad.

 

The Sumo (square version) was pretty amazing. It was incredibley ugly and incredibly loud. Launch angle and ball flight were great. As the Sales Rep informed me, it goes dead straight. It was very hard to move either way. After a few shots of getting over the looks and sound it was a pleasure to hit. Whether people will get over the looks is a different story.

 

The Sales Rep informed me that they were hoping for a 2/3 to 1/3 split in sales (trad vs square).

 

In addition - wedges looked great, new putter were good also.