Can anyone PROVE the RBZ is longer?

[goplutus]

When golfwrx buys an ironbyron, we'll know. I'll chip in $25.

[onafriday]

[quote name='muxi87' timestamp='1328880909' post='4251357']
I'm a TM fan, but here's the straight truth:

With a perfectly fit SFTP 2.0 and an identically setup RBZ Tour, I anticipate you will gain 5-7 yards with the same strike.

With balls hit on other parts of the face, I expect a slightly bigger gain with the RBZ.

If the average consumer goes from just a standard off the rack fwy such as last year's Burner to the new RBZ, they will see substantial gains. That's where the 17+ yards comes from. 1) The RBZ is hotter on a wider span of the face...so an average golfer that hits it all over the face will see a huge difference in normal play. 2) The RBZ is a hair longer and does deliver a higher COR. It will produce longer shots than your average fwy.

You have to remember, there's only a very small population of the golfing public that uses Flightscopes to be fit and/or have an obsession with custom fit equipment. To the huge, vast majority of the golfing public, going from stock fwy to stock fwy, the RBZ will blow them away. That is the population that TM is really marketing to. That's where they make most of their money.

I'll know more when my RBZ Tour gets here and I can test it straight head to head against my SFTP 2.0. I love my SFTP 2.0. I will not make the change unless Flightscope tells me there is an advantage by swapping. The same is true for my driver. I DO NOT anticipate switching drivers. I think last year's SFTP 2.0 L will still provide the best numbers for me. I DO anticipate making the switch in my 3 and 5 woods.
[/quote]


^ Gets it.

[Buckhornio]

I'll throw in on that. Great idea!
[quote name='goplutus' timestamp='1328893189' post='4252935']
When golfwrx buys an ironbyron, we'll know. I'll chip in $25.
[/quote]

[TCMP]

[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1328892927' post='4252895']
I'm confused by your characterization of smash factor. Doesn't that measure how good the strike is, i.e whether it's a center hit to impart the most energy on the ball? I thought it maxed out in the 1.5 range.

Seems like the better indicator in swinging two different clubs is speed and resultant distance. Am I not correct about that?9
[/quote]

We are trying to see if the face is actually hotter or the increases are coming from club head speed and launch angle and /or spin. A longer lighter shaft isnt exactly revolutionary. Smash factor will go up with the same swing speed if the face is hotter assuming you hit it well. Compared to Exotics fairways the RBZ is still behind in CT measurement.

[KDMullins]

[quote name='TCMP' timestamp='1328896291' post='4253489']
[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1328892927' post='4252895']
I'm confused by your characterization of smash factor. Doesn't that measure how good the strike is, i.e whether it's a center hit to impart the most energy on the ball? I thought it maxed out in the 1.5 range.

Seems like the better indicator in swinging two different clubs is speed and resultant distance. Am I not correct about that?9
[/quote]

We are trying to see if the face is actually hotter or the increases are coming from club head speed and launch angle and /or spin. A longer lighter shaft isnt exactly revolutionary. [b]Smash factor will go up with the same swing speed if the face is hotter assuming you hit it well.[/b] Compared to Exotics fairways the RBZ is still behind in CT measurement.
[/quote]

Is that true? I've always thought a guy swinging a driver 85 mph could achieve a 1.5 smash factor just like a guy swinging 120 mph. Put another way, I thought it was just measuring the quality of the hit. I didn't think the hotness of the face was a variable at all. Isn't COR used to measure that?

[TCMP]

[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1328896773' post='4253541']
[quote name='TCMP' timestamp='1328896291' post='4253489']
[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1328892927' post='4252895']
I'm confused by your characterization of smash factor. Doesn't that measure how good the strike is, i.e whether it's a center hit to impart the most energy on the ball? I thought it maxed out in the 1.5 range.

Seems like the better indicator in swinging two different clubs is speed and resultant distance. Am I not correct about that?9
[/quote]

We are trying to see if the face is actually hotter or the increases are coming from club head speed and launch angle and /or spin. A longer lighter shaft isnt exactly revolutionary. [b]Smash factor will go up with the same swing speed if the face is hotter assuming you hit it well.[/b] Compared to Exotics fairways the RBZ is still behind in CT measurement.
[/quote]

Is that true? I've always thought a guy swinging a driver 85 mph could achieve a 1.5 smash factor just like a guy swinging 120 mph. Put another way, I thought it was just measuring the quality of the hit. I didn't think the hotness of the face was a variable at all. Isn't COR used to measure that?
[/quote]
Driver yes. They are all maxed out on cor. Fairways are not all maxed out. The titanium versions like TEE will give you a higher smash factor with the same swing speed than many of the steel fairways out there today. CT measurement is used on fairway woods and higher lofted clubs.

[KDMullins]

I see. Thanks. So the issue is whether the COR is greater in the RBZ than others? And if so, it will yield a higher smash factor with the same swing and hit?

[TCMP]

[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1328897366' post='4253615']
I see. Thanks. So the issue is whether the COR is greater in the RBZ than others? And if so, it will yield a higher smash factor with the same swing and hit?
[/quote]

What Taylormade advertises is the RBZ fairway has an .810 COR. Meaning it will return 81% of the energy from the clubhead to the ball. Taylormade's older fairway woods (as in last year) are .770 COR. Meaning they will only return 77%. Tour Edge Exotics and Adams have COR values at the .830 limit in their titanium (more expensive of course) fairway woods.

When gathering test data, Characteristic Time or CT measurement is used to test how long the ball stays on the face. It's measured in milliseconds and the higher the CT measurement, the more spring like effect the face has (from staying on the face longer). I believe the USGA CT maximum is 239 +/- the test reproducability. TEE claims the XCG-4 fairway has a CT of 241 (which makes it legal due to the test variance window allowed).

The RBZ will yield a higher smash factor when compared to lower COR woods given the same swing.

The RBZ has several things going in its favor for increased distance.

1. Longer shaft
2. Lighter weight
3. Higher COR than previous steel TM woods

[SpenceT47]

[quote name='onafriday' timestamp='1328894885' post='4253221']
[quote name='muxi87' timestamp='1328880909' post='4251357']
I'm a TM fan, but here's the straight truth:

With a perfectly fit SFTP 2.0 and an identically setup RBZ Tour, I anticipate you will gain 5-7 yards with the same strike.

With balls hit on other parts of the face, I expect a slightly bigger gain with the RBZ.

If the average consumer goes from just a standard off the rack fwy such as last year's Burner to the new RBZ, they will see substantial gains. That's where the 17+ yards comes from. 1) The RBZ is hotter on a wider span of the face...so an average golfer that hits it all over the face will see a huge difference in normal play. 2) The RBZ is a hair longer and does deliver a higher COR. It will produce longer shots than your average fwy.

You have to remember, there's only a very small population of the golfing public that uses Flightscopes to be fit and/or have an obsession with custom fit equipment. To the huge, vast majority of the golfing public, going from stock fwy to stock fwy, the RBZ will blow them away. That is the population that TM is really marketing to. That's where they make most of their money.

I'll know more when my RBZ Tour gets here and I can test it straight head to head against my SFTP 2.0. I love my SFTP 2.0. I will not make the change unless Flightscope tells me there is an advantage by swapping. The same is true for my driver. I DO NOT anticipate switching drivers. I think last year's SFTP 2.0 L will still provide the best numbers for me. I DO anticipate making the switch in my 3 and 5 woods.
[/quote]


^ Gets it.
[/quote]

I could not agree more.

[Dscvrr St Louis]

All I know is that side by side with my SFTP 2.0, 15*, 43.5 inches, Kaili 80X against the RBZ 15*, 43.5 inches, Matrix 50S is that I hit them both very straight, both very solid and the RBZ is 12-15 yards longer. Have hit the RBZ on courses I play all the time , off the tee and out of the fairway, conditions not withstanding, it is just longer.

Everyone is missing the point of the extra distance...if you are hitting it better than your gamer and still have enough room between the RBZ 3 and your driver, get the 3.
If you hit it TOO FAR, then buy the 4 or 5 wood and keep similar distance that you currently hit your 3 wood in a shorter,easier to hit club...

The extra distance is great if it fits your game, but if you can get a shorter club, more loft, better hold into a green and this club is as long as a longer club with lower loft...why wouldn't you!! Easier to hit, more accurate, and performs better than the harder to hit club.

I may have gained a couple of MPH in SS with the lighter shaft, but the gain in Ball Speed is higher by ratio than the SS increase would create, so I give credit to the face design for the difference.

[PNWgolfer]

[quote name='TCMP' timestamp='1328897921' post='4253703']
[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1328897366' post='4253615']
I see. Thanks. So the issue is whether the COR is greater in the RBZ than others? And if so, it will yield a higher smash factor with the same swing and hit?
[/quote]

What Taylormade advertises is the RBZ fairway has an .810 COR. Meaning it will return 81% of the energy from the clubhead to the ball. Taylormade's older fairway woods (as in last year) are .770 COR. Meaning they will only return 77%. Tour Edge Exotics and Adams have COR values at the .830 limit in their titanium (more expensive of course) fairway woods.

When gathering test data, Characteristic Time or CT measurement is used to test how long the ball stays on the face. It's measured in milliseconds and the higher the CT measurement, the more spring like effect the face has (from staying on the face longer). I believe the USGA CT maximum is 239 +/- the test reproducability. TEE claims the XCG-4 fairway has a CT of 241 (which makes it legal due to the test variance window allowed).

The RBZ will yield a higher smash factor when compared to lower COR woods given the same swing.

The RBZ has several things going in its favor for increased distance.

1. Longer shaft
2. Lighter weight
3. Higher COR than previous steel TM woods
[/quote]

[size="3"]Well said TCMP. [/size][size="3"]But, one other factor that's likely critical is the COR at variousplaces across the face.[/size] [size="3"]The COR may be.810 if you hit it dead center.[/size] [size="3"]But whatis it on off-center hits?[/size] [size="3"]And how doesthat compare to other clubs?[/size] [size="3"]I waslooking closely at RBZ, but I like what I'm hearing from the Nike folksregarding the VR_S technology.[/size] [size="3"]Grantedthat may just be the way they are marketing the club (TM=hype, Nike=logicalarguments).[/size] [size="3"]But, does RBZ have somesimilar technology that makes the COR more uniform?[/size] [size="3"]If so, given the statistical nature of golfshots, I'd think, on average, that would be a bigger win.[/size]

[KjBowen]

[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1328882162' post='4251437']
[quote name='smackygolf' timestamp='1328881772' post='4251409']
[quote name='tbomb' timestamp='1328880433' post='4251331']
Someone should make a 47 inch 3 wood with a 12* head and put it up against the RBZ and see which is longer....you may think I'm joking, but this is essentially what Taylor Made has been doing to us for years. Taylor Made has taken advantage of the ignorant consumer but jacking lengths and lofts for a while now...

So let's take the new TEE 12* 3 wood with a long shaft and watch it blow the RBZ out of the water...
[/quote]


Ah yes. The ignorant consumer. I'm not sure what is worse, the people claiming 50 yards of difference, or the d-bags trying show how cool they are by calling someone else "the ignorant consumer." Both types of clowns show up in every one of these threads, and I have to say the guy acting like he's cool, and if you like this fwy wood you are ignorant, is the current d-bag leader in the clubhouse.
[/quote]
My vote is for "ignorant consumer."

No one knows how or what works for any golfer until they try it. I just watched a guy with my own peepers launch bombs with a RBZ when nothing else was working for him. That was his club. People swear by Callaway, TM, Nike, etc. They use those clubs because they just work for them. Every OEM is "guilty" of making claims of massive distance. They're a business and trying to sell their product. What do you expect them to say? "Make marginal gains with Rocketballz! Add 2 yards of distance over the SF 2.0!" Come on people! Quit slamming club manufactuers because they're trying to sell you something. That's what a busines does. Until you go try it, you'll never know, then you can see for yourself is the claim is true...for YOU and YOUR game.
[/quote]

this is exactly why i play component clubs.. Not much gimmick just solid clubs

[TCMP]

[quote name='Dscvrr St Louis' timestamp='1328898964' post='4253847']
All I know is that side by side with my SFTP 2.0, 15*, 43.5 inches, Kaili 80X against the RBZ 15*, 43.5 inches, Matrix 50S is that I hit them both very straight, both very solid and the RBZ is 12-15 yards longer. Have hit the RBZ on courses I play all the time , off the tee and out of the fairway, conditions not withstanding, it is just longer.

Everyone is missing the point of the extra distance...if you are hitting it better than your gamer and still have enough room between the RBZ 3 and your driver, get the 3.
If you hit it TOO FAR, then buy the 4 or 5 wood and keep similar distance that you currently hit your 3 wood in a shorter,easier to hit club...

The extra distance is great if it fits your game, but if you can get a shorter club, more loft, better hold into a green and this club is as long as a longer club with lower loft...why wouldn't you!! Easier to hit, more accurate, and performs better than the harder to hit club.

I may have gained a couple of MPH in SS with the lighter shaft, but the gain in Ball Speed is higher by ratio than the SS increase would create, so I give credit to the face design for the difference.
[/quote]

With a slight increase in swing speed, that seems about right. There is no doubt the RBZ is the longest steel fairway TM has produced.

[swanry30]

i scratch my head when i see information or threads like this. YES it has been proven on TRACKMAN. a handful of us have spent quite a bit of time getting information and chiming in here and there where possible. some people are still saying hype. say whatever you want. if it didn't work for you it didn't work. 100% of the people that i have seen HAVE GAINED significant yardage AND tightened dispersion with the STOCK shaft. did all of them like it. NO. but based on statistics alone - a winner to their optimized gamer.

[SHIVAN]

Instead of relying on LM's, why not buy one and go hit it on an actual course? Novel idea, I know.

FWIW, the jacked up GG "LM" said I had 113.5mph swingspeed and 171.5 mph ballspeed. So calculated smash is 1.511. LOL...

I posted the numbers because that's what their machine registered. Do I believe I am going to gain the 53 yards their machine indicated? NF'NW!

But my smash factor is 1.51. There, that was useful.

I'm going to buy one, re-shaft it, and hit it on the range and on a course. If it doesn't perform well, it will either go on the BST, Ebay, or rot in my garage forever.




Edit: Not directed at swanry30 at all, just a general commentary.

[PrO_D_BoMbEr]

Have hit the RBZ against my Superfast 2.0 TP 3 wood on trackman.

Ball speed was 5-6 MPH difference, but hit the RBZ lower. Have reshafted it to try and get launch up to take advantage of the higher ball speed.

This thing is legit.

[swanry30]

[quote name='SHIVAN' timestamp='1328903327' post='4254521']
Instead of relying on LM's, why not buy one and go hit it on an actual course? Novel idea, I know.

FWIW, the jacked up GG "LM" said I had 113.5mph swingspeed and 171.5 mph ballspeed. So calculated smash is 1.511. LOL...

I posted the numbers because that's what their machine registered. Do I believe I am going to gain the 53 yards their machine indicated? NF'NW!

But my smash factor is 1.51. There, that was useful.

I'm going to buy one, re-shaft it, and hit it on the range and on a course. If it doesn't perform well, it will either go on the BST, Ebay, or rot in my garage forever.




Edit: Not directed at swanry30 at all, just a general commentary.
[/quote]

not taken that way. sure on course is great and how i test as well - but who will believe you. trackman is unifluenced data that you can show. trackman/flightscope aren't jacked up like "some" big box stores.

[SHIVAN]

[quote name='swanry30' timestamp='1328907167' post='4255055']
...but who will believe you.[/quote]

The only two people who count. Me and the guy who attests to my scorecard.

[goplutus]

The issue isn't trackman data, it's comparing a well fit RBZ w/ a well fit (____) .

[jewofgolf]

[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1328892927' post='4252895']
I'm confused by your characterization of smash factor. Doesn't that measure how good the strike is, i.e whether it's a center hit to impart the most energy on the ball? I thought it maxed out in the 1.5 range.

Seems like the better indicator in swinging two different clubs is speed and resultant distance. Am I not correct about that?
[/quote]

Smash factor allows an analysis of how hot the face is, or how high the COR is. You have to assume the same quality of strike. The reason you have to look at smash factor is to single out how how the head is, and not to mistake distance gains for the other crap they throw on, like a longer, lighter shaft.

[ufgatrs82]

they were gaining 40 and 50 yards.

 

I have a hard time beleiving that

 

I was at the promotion at the PGA store. Taylormade had you hit your driver and then the RBZ driver. They paid you $10 real cash for every yard longer the RBZ was than your driver ($100 max). The only people gaining 40-50 yards were the sandbaggers that swung 50% with their driver to ensure they were walking out with $100.

+1 Don't believe the hype nor anyone on here who tells you otherwise. TM Fanboys unite!

[M-Stamp]

Smash factor = ball speed devided by head speed

e.g., head speed 100mph
balls peed 149mph
smash factor 1.49

[jabrch]

[quote name='tnord' timestamp='1328891700' post='4252703']
this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

1) people WANT the RBZ to be longer so they get free stuff.
2) people have been told time and time again that the ballmonster is better, so when they swing it they have more confidence
3) average golfer not really hitting it flush very often and the RBZ being huge and more foregiving = distance gained
4) the whole longer/lighter thing

i gave the RBZ an honest chance last weekend when i had plenty of time to mess around and get a few good whacks in. i had my current 3w there that i've been playing for 4yrs. i put a few good swings on it and hit it 287max on GG sim. wasn't a singular event either, i think 3 of my 6 swings were 280+.

i picked up the RBZ and made 6 more swings. never cracked 280. now.....the RBZ 3w wasn't fitted for me at all, and they didn't have an X flex shaft to try.....but then again my current 3w had the original re-ax TM stiff shaft from 2008 as well (i had it reshafted with the voodoo later that day in case you look at my sig and call me a liar). i will accept that maybe the RBZ oem shaft was a worse fit for me than the old 2008 OEM 3w shaft resulting in some of the distance loss.......but some of the claims truly are silly.
[/quote]

It may not have been for you - but for others, the gains are REAL. Regardless of if it comes from the head, the shaft, the grip, or from my head, the gains were real for me.

FWIW - I'm no TM Fanboy - haven't gamed a TM club in 4 years.

[jabrch]

[quote name='jewofgolf' timestamp='1328920834' post='4256679']
[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1328892927' post='4252895']
I'm confused by your characterization of smash factor. Doesn't that measure how good the strike is, i.e whether it's a center hit to impart the most energy on the ball? I thought it maxed out in the 1.5 range.

Seems like the better indicator in swinging two different clubs is speed and resultant distance. Am I not correct about that?
[/quote]

Smash factor allows an analysis of how hot the face is, or how high the COR is. You have to assume the same quality of strike. The reason you have to look at smash factor is to single out how how the head is, and not to mistake distance gains for the other crap they throw on, like a longer, lighter shaft.
[/quote]

What's wrong with gains from a longer, lighter shaft?

[Hammer99]

[quote name='M-Stamp' timestamp='1328923520' post='4256989']
Smash factor = ball speed devided by head speed

e.g., head speed 100mph
balls peed 149mph
smash factor 1.49
[/quote]

You said "balls peed 149mph" ??

[kg92lefty]

[quote name='Llortamaisey' timestamp='1328883906' post='4251561']
Operation: Ambush Scottsdale

The claims may be true on those video if they were testing against the Superfast 3 wood last year. That thing was crap.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7YW8IYeWME&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]http://www.youtube.c...be_gdata_player[/url]
[/quote]

whats stopping people from just swinging harder?

[mosesgolf]

Cmon some of you guys. The RBZ is significantly longer for too many people out on the course and on launch monitors to be a fluke. Compensating and postulating theories on why it's longer is a little ridiculous. Saying how much shorter it would be if the shaft was 1/2 inch shorter etc is cheesy.

[MtlJeff]

the only one who can prove it's longer is you. Go test it and let us know. I wanted to hate this club but after 10 swings almost bought it. The only reason i didn't is because it would be too much club at my course

[MtlJeff]

[quote name='mosesgolf' timestamp='1328925116' post='4257175']
Cmon some of you guys. The RBZ is significantly longer for too many people out on the course and on launch monitors to be a fluke. Compensating and postulating theories on why it's longer is a little ridiculous. Saying how much shorter it would be if the shaft was 1/2 inch shorter etc is cheesy.
[/quote]

+1

I was as skeptical as anyone after the initial reviews from TM staffers or notable "TM guys". But with so many people claiming distance gains now there has to be something to it. I've seen it myself in fact, and anyone who has followed MtlJeff's posts knows i hate TM marketing

[PJ0721]

Why is it that a 3 wood can be too long? Do you really have to take a full swing just because it is a wood? We all take partial swings to fill gaps with other clubs, and it works with woods as well.

Distance is a commodity that you can never have too much of unless you are only capable of full swings.

PJ