Wilson Calls Out TaylorMade on "new" RocketBladez Technology

[Jacoby]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1351529089' post='5862401']
[quote name='ShortSticks' timestamp='1351096133' post='5839291']
I would love to hear Tom Wishon's take on this one.
[/quote]


I remember the original Wilson Reflex iron very well. It was intro'd in the early 80s and the claims as you see in the copy of their old add were to say the slot behind the face allowed there to be some trampoline effect to hit the ball longer. Plain and simple, this Reflex iron technology did not work as Wilson claimed - for several reasons.

One, the heads were cast all from stainless steel. The yield strength to modulus ratio of the castable stainless alloys simply do not allow the face to flex enough to increase the COR of the face, and with it, the smash factor of the head. Second, Wilson put a firm rubber material in the slot so this had the effect of bracing the face - even if the face had been made from an alloy with a higher strength to modulus ratio that could have resulted in a flexing of the face, this firm compound would have restricted that action.

All this being the case, it still should be noted that Wilson's Reflex iron technology most definitely can be considered to be a first move into TRYING to use a slot behind the face to enhance the ability of the face to flex inward and from it, increase the smash factor of the shot. So while Wilson's slot really did not increase the COR and smash factor, they at least had the thought to move in this direction. And with that if they feel that TM is claiming originality for their slot technology, Wilson at least has a point that they thought of going this way first.

I should also say that this slot technology used by Adams and then TM is simply another way to get to the goal of making the face more active so that the smash factor of the shot can be higher to result in more distance. It's been proven several times that the same thing can be achieved by choosing the right alloy with a high strength to modulus ratio to make the face and making it thin enough that the COR can be high while face durability is still good. The difference is only that high COR thin face designs do not have the "visible technology" that the slots in the head have - but the outcome in terms of the shot results are the same.

I've always chosen to probe these areas of using alloys with high strength to modulus ratio when I made my first high COR iron in 2000, my first high COR fwy wood in 2004 and my first high COR hybrid in 2006. So when TM and Adams chose to go the route of the slot(s) in the front of the body to increase face flexing, the result was the same as any of us who have chosen to use alloys with high strength to modulus ratio and making them very thin.

TOM
[/quote]

Thanks for your insight Tom!

[guisician]

[quote name='SurfinTurf' timestamp='1351539734' post='5863361']
I recently switched to a magnesium bronze Anser with a sound slot and I'm just CRUSHING my putts. This technology is no joke.
[/quote]

Sweet, but how's the trajectory?

[jmvargas]

i had the reflex irons and they were very good...

i also had the matching driving iron which i used a lot but the head broke in 2 during one of my tee-shots with it and i just sold the whole set..

now i wish i hadn't..

[WUGolfer3118]

[quote name='SurfinTurf' timestamp='1351539734' post='5863361']
I recently switched to a magnesium bronze Anser with a sound slot and I'm just CRUSHING my putts. This technology is no joke.
[/quote]

By sound slot do you mean rocket slot? How's the ball speed on slightly thinned putts??

[Millhill88]

[color=#282828]"what will be really interesting to see is if other companies follow suit as they did with the adjustable driver, which imo, is one of the only significant product releases in the last 10 years..."[/color]

+1

[color=#282828]Nickent was the FIRST to get totally into the adjustable driver market. They put all their eggs into it, and it cost them their company. 2 Years later, TM was promoting an adjustable driver, and it sold like crazy.[/color]

[color="#282828"]I think TM is VERY UNSCRUPULOUS with their marketing, but it works. They don't say they invented the newest technology. However they imply it at every turn.[/color]

[Jack Pearsall]

The bubble shaft brings back memories....

[Lobber]

[quote name='Millhill88' timestamp='1356993985' post='6145231']
[color=#282828]"what will be really interesting to see is if other companies follow suit as they did with the adjustable driver, which imo, is one of the only significant product releases in the last 10 years..."[/color]

+1

[color=#282828]Nickent was the FIRST to get totally into the adjustable driver market. They put all their eggs into it, and it cost them their company. 2 Years later, TM was promoting an adjustable driver, and it sold like crazy.[/color]

[color="#282828"]I think TM is VERY UNSCRUPULOUS with their marketing, but it works. They don't say they invented the newest technology. However they imply it at every turn.[/color]
[/quote]

Unscrupulous is just a tad harsh don't you think? Everyone markets their products. Some better than others

[reg1900]

[quote name='displayname' timestamp='1351117557' post='5841089']
I think I should update, and TaylorMade's social media staff had a very detailed response in regards to this photo from Wilson.

From TM:
"[color=#333333]The Wilson Reflex iron was introduced more than 30 years ago. Iron design has progressed significantly from that time. The Reflex incorporates a slot that enhances face flexibility to increase COR (a term that wasn’t used back then). All i[/color][color=#333333]ron heads back then were rigid, with a COR measuring around .760. The Reflex measured around .800. RocketBladez COR is about 20 points higher. [/color]
[color=#333333]Also, the Reflex didn’t have enhancements like the RocketBladez’ complex face design, Inverted Cone, high MOI and low and centered CG location. The Reflex had a constant face thickness of about 3mm, while RocketBladez’ varying face thickness is 1.6 mm at its thinnest. The Reflex’s vertical CG was relatively high, about 20 mm above the ground, and the set didn’t employ progressive head design in terms of topline, sole width and MOI."[/color]

[color="#333333"]Obviously TM didn't appreciate the joke, but they did take the time to respond, so I thought it was worth mentioning to all the technically inclined people here. [/color]
[/quote]

Everything TM said in that applies to all GI clubs today, plenty of buzz words too.

[Millhill88]

[quote name='Lobber' timestamp='1357008313' post='6146203']
[quote name='Millhill88' timestamp='1356993985' post='6145231']
[color=#282828]"what will be really interesting to see is if other companies follow suit as they did with the adjustable driver, which imo, is one of the only significant product releases in the last 10 years..."[/color]

+1

[color=#282828]Nickent was the FIRST to get totally into the adjustable driver market. They put all their eggs into it, and it cost them their company. 2 Years later, TM was promoting an adjustable driver, and it sold like crazy.[/color]

[color=#282828]I think TM is VERY UNSCRUPULOUS with their marketing, but it works. They don't say they invented the newest technology. However they imply it at every turn.[/color]
[/quote]

Unscrupulous is just a tad harsh don't you think? Everyone markets their products. Some better than others
[/quote]

I don't think that's harsh. I think it is reality. I would guess, 95% of TM's sales go to the average, or below average golfer. This golfer is looking for anything to help their game get to the next level. (We want to get to the next level also, but us WRX'ers know we have to work for it). The golfer that TM targets, is also not very knowledgeable on the facts. They believe every new TM club gets them 15-17 more yards. They believe they are buying the newest, latest technology. But it simply isn't true. TM purposely "slants" the truth so they can sell more......With that being said.....It works, and it's legal. TM is doing nothing wrong, it's just not "Total Disclosure", or the total truth. Just my 2 cents!!

[dlygrisse]

Wilson was essentially the Taylor Made of the 1970's, biggest company, biggest marketing budget, biggest presence on tour. They got run over by more innovative companies, their R and D department did not keep up with the times. Companies like TM, Callaway,Titleist, Ping and even Cleveland blew them out of the water and destroyed their market share and they have never recovered. While their ad is funny and TM's response is a nice touche' I suspect that 20 years from now the tables will be turned. I started playing golf at the beginning of the metal wood, cavity back revolution, companies like Ping, TM and Callaway made new and exciting products, companies like Wilson and MacGregor were clubs for old dudes that were my grandfathers age.

Personally I don't play TM clubs, they just don't appeal to me but I am sure they make fine equipment...to each his own.

[LOVE4LPGA]

TM possibly succeeding (we don't know yet) with their slot in iron heads, and Wilson abandoning the idea years ago, begs the question:

[b]If the Wilson irons were enabling such exceptional distance improvements, why did it not succeed in those days when Wilson was the TM of its day ?[/b]

[LOVE4LPGA]

[quote name='GooseHook' timestamp='1351096469' post='5839333']

Or the cynic's (mine) take on it: [i]we can't have a FULL slot in the first iteration of the iron, because then it would be the best version of itself. The size of the slot behind the face needs to be phased in over the course of 4 product cycles.[/i]

[/quote]

Likewise balls. Almost everything is known about cover materials, role of compression, varying hardness through out the core, role of upper layers versus lower layers, dimple size, dimple patterns, etc.

[size=5]So why they seem to make a v1, then improve it with v2, and ruin it altogether with v3 ?[/size]

Because "new" sells the golf public.

[TheDarkOne]

One of the biggest differences between these days and the days of the Wilson irons is the expectation of upgrading every season. And this usually ain't just one or two clubs, often it's the whole bag.
In the days when Wilson ruled he world, a fellow would buy a set of irons and plan on having them until the faces had to much browning or something happened to degrade their composition. There was never the thought of upgrading just because something new was out.
The advertising was also no where near as pervasive as it is now.

[Yepyukon]

Well, to make a million dollars, you don't need to invent something new and have everyone buy it. You take something everyone already uses, and make it better. I have hit the RBlades from TM and they are very long and stupid easy to control. The technology seems sound even if it is old, revised or just a different way to skin a cat. Good job TM.

[LittleBigDog]

[quote name='TheDarkOne' timestamp='1357110221' post='6152251']
One of the biggest differences between these days and the days of the Wilson irons is the expectation of upgrading every season. And this usually ain't just one or two clubs, often it's the whole bag.
In the days when Wilson ruled he world, a fellow would buy a set of irons and plan on having them until the faces had to much browning or something happened to degrade their composition. There was never the thought of upgrading just because something new was out.
The advertising was also no where near as pervasive as it is now.
[/quote]

Maybe tmag got called out by more than Wilson . . . the inferences to revolutionary breakthrough invention are no longer on the website. The sole slot now came from the slot in the rbz woods, that's where it came from . . . .

[rgk5]

I thank Tom Wishon for his continuing and valued contributions to this site but a small correction is in order. The Wilson Reflex and its sister iron the Haig Ultra Ultraflex were on the market as early as 1973. They were a distinct failure. TMAG with its marketing muscle will probably make the Rocketbladez sell, regardless of their alleged benefits to the masses.

I say alleged because the results will vary from one player to another.

[lenny318]

[quote name='WUGolfer3118' timestamp='1356992202' post='6145067']
[quote name='SurfinTurf' timestamp='1351539734' post='5863361']
I recently switched to a magnesium bronze Anser with a sound slot and I'm just CRUSHING my putts. This technology is no joke.
[/quote]

By sound slot do you mean rocket slot? How's the ball speed on slightly thinned putts??
[/quote]
Did your dispersion tighten up also??

[DblEgl]

I hit the original Wilson reflex and it was no big deal- I think it was deemed non-conforming at the time but I'm not 100% sure.

Take any good iron, jack up the loft, use a light weight balanced, longer shaft and you'll be fine.


[quote name='LOVE4LPGA' timestamp='1357065858' post='6148731']
TM possibly succeeding (we don't know yet) with their slot in iron heads, and Wilson abandoning the idea years ago, begs the question:

[b]If the Wilson irons were enabling such exceptional distance improvements, why did it not succeed in those days when Wilson was the TM of its day ?[/b]
[/quote]

[Willie Malay]

I heard bell bottoms are on their way back...

[Jackjv21]

Look what I just found in the parents attic.