Tony Covey MGS

Sschaffer24 · April 19, 2016

Does this mean that the "made for" versions no longer exist and TM uses real aftermarket versions or are they still using "made for" variants without the customized logo?

No...many companies are still using Made for variants...most aren't being completely transparent about it.

While there can always be exceptions, a good rule of thumb...if the driver is under $400, the shaft is likely co-engineered.

Undershooter · April 19, 2016

You are obviously quite clueless about the SLDR-C Driver. Fact is, it is a totally different clubhead than the Silver "S" or the original Charcoal Gray SLDR 460cc Driver. The SLDR-C is a completely different clubhead shape. If you had actually compared the heads up close you would know this, so you are clearly just spouting B.S. here.

Before criticizing my driver choice you should at least educate yourself. When you do an up close comparison AND compare performance, the differences in the "C" vs the other SLDR's are quite obvious indeed, and as for the color, the new gloss black color looks GREAT on this new SLDR head, (contrary to what you said above).

BTW, although I don't play it, the TM "57" stock shaft is the same co-engineered stock shaft used in the original SLDR, just slightly different TM SLDR graphics with the Fujikura name removed. TM moved away from the using the "made for" shaft graphics in 2015 and no longer pays royalties to Fujikura in exchange for using their name on TM shafts. (You may have noted that the stock shafts for TM's M-Family use the shaft manufacturer's graphics, so TM's "made for" graphics on driver shafts appear to be history now). The SLDR-C's stock 57 shaft probably fits a fairly wide array of players as TM says, but it's not for me. I prefer the premium Miyazaki Kusala Black 61s. (I used the upgraded "TP" Tourspec 7.3 shaft in the original SLDR 430/460 Drivers so upgraded shafts are the norm for me).

Hopefully this clears up the clueless and false assumptions made by "Undershooter30" about the 2015 SLDR-C Driver.

I wasn't going to jump in on this, but in the interest of actual education, let me clear up any misconceptions or other cluelessness about what the SLDR-C is or is not.

It is not a repainted SLDR-S, but it is based on a pre-existing shape...likely an older shape...think Burner, JetSpeed...something from a non-SLDR line. What it is is a big box exclusive that comes at a discount price with plenty of cost-cutting built into the head.

What I mean by that is multi-fold:

1) There's no fresh/unique/dedicated R&D - everything built into the head is pre-existing technology. Nobody engineers specifically for big box.

2) Tolerances are not nearly as tight as they are with a main line product. You get what you pay for.

How that generally manifests itself is thicker crowns, degraded face technology (inverted cone ain't what it is in the main line), sloppier welds (less internal polishing), and a stock shaft that's more questionable than a standard sub-$400 stock offering. Basically, there's a whole lot less attention to detail, because details cost money.

It is intended for the bargain shopper, and is designed (or more accurately not designed) with that audience in mind.

Now this is not to say it won't perform well for some people. There's going to be more variance between good copies and bad, but at the end of the day, the loft, CG, etc. properties will work for some golfers (even with a garbage shaft).

That said...knowing what it is - it's not something I would recommend anyone actively seek out.

This is how TaylorMade does big box exclusives (although some Japanese SLDR 430s made their way to Dick's). This isn't true for every company. Cobra has done exclusives for both Dick's and Golf Galaxy. In those cases the only differences between the main line and the exclusive product was the paint...the design, and manufacturing tolerances were the same.

Callaway also has some big box exclusives...same rules apply. Bargain products for bargain shoppers. To reach the lower price point, there are tradeoffs.

April 16, 2016

Does that hold true for a SLDR to M-series jump as well?

We don't have a huge sample size, but my guess would be M1's target is .5 degrees over stamped, with M1 430 likely closer to a degree. M2 is interesting. Our measurements show below spec, but with tolerances it could be on spec. TaylorMade is saying that loft for loft (presumably stamped) there's no difference in spin between M1 and M2. CG differences being what they are, this would fly in the face of the actual physics, but TaylorMade also claims texture on M2's face provides the comparative reduction.

I'm not sure if the texture would be enough to offset the impact of loft, but if we started at lower loft, then one could see how it might work.

April 16, 2016

I'm still hanging with my 2014 SLDR. I just can't make the switch. I recently bought a 2015 R15 but to date it just can't match my SLDR. Admittedly, I don't have it setup properly yet. I have a golf outing coming up next weekend and the SLDR will be in my bag.

The full story of how SLDR came to market when it did and how it was actually marketed is probably one of the most interesting I've ever heard...might be something for publication one of these days.

For the purposes of this discussion what's relevant is that for SLDR TaylorMade decided to move against the trend it was a part of for years and NOT vanity loft the SLDR. In releases prior to SLDR, a 9.5 TaylorMade would likely measure at least 10.5 and in some cases more.

With SLDR the company decided to be true to loft. Some of the heads we measured actually came in under spec. If you've read our CG articles you know that the distance to the neutral axis (CGNA) is loft dependent, so by reducing loft, TMaG was able to bump the CG closer to the impulse line and create a really efficient driver (on center struck shots).

The true loft coupled with the low forward CG, well, most of us know how that went. It's what necessitated the Loft Up campaign. Effectively guys who, whether they knew it or not, were previously playing 10.5-11 degree drivers were now playing 9.5 degrees of loft...and in some cases less. The loft voodoo is why SLDR worked so well for some, and so poorly for others.

The quick aside for this post: This was also around the time that TaylorMade moved away from TP and started labeling everything Tour Preferred. The goal of the entire initiative was to reposition itself as an authentic golf company for REAL (ie better) golfers. That lasted about as long as Ben Sharpe's tenure as CEO.

With lessons learned from SLDR, TaylorMade used the R15 as an opportunity to revert back to vanity lofting. In fact, early R15 samples came back WAY high for loft with the initial run of 10.5 degree clubs often measuring at more than 12Â° of actual loft. In production runs, I believe they got a bit closer to the intended spec (which was still well above stamped).

While true CG locations aren't much different from SLDR to R15, the additional loft means at equivalent STAMPED lofts, R15's CG is farther from the neutral axis.

So having made a short story very long, what guys looking to transition from SLDR to R15 should understand is that to get the closest to equivalent performance between the two, the R15 will need to have at least one degree less stamped loft than the SLDR.

Sschaffer24 · April 15, 2016

Tr

T - Thanks for all of the information! It's pretty interesting how scientific it all is, and to know that our bodies are capable of making all of these crazy calculations to make something perform a certain way. We take it for granted sometime I think, but at the end of the day people in general really are pretty amazing!

That being said, I guess the root of my question was this (and this may end up being a completely different question to you, so if it is I apologize):

Let's pretend that with my driver I tend to hit it in a certain location. For the sake of this example, let's assume that my repeatable impact position is high and towards the heel of the driver (my question applies to all of the four quadrants you listed that Andrew Rice talks about but I just picked high/heel for this example). Let's also assume that because of that impact position I tend to generate a lot of spin on my shots, which I feel is a pretty reasonable expectation based on the strike.

Does that mean that for someone who is in my position in this example that it makes sense to attempt to match that strike location to a driver with that type of CG placement? I would think so.

But does that mean that for that golfer with that driver, that even though a high/heel CG location may be known to add spin, etc. That it would actually create less spin for the player from them hitting it more efficiently? So for THAT specific golfer would that mean that instead of the accepted "low spin driver" where the CG is low and forward their "low spin driver" would actually be high and heel based?

I hope that makes sense because I confused myself asking it. Haha.

Trying to keep this simple...Regardless of the CG location, we'll see our best results when impact aligns with CG. As Jaskanski has pointed out, ball speed is the greatest contributor to distance, and peak speed comes from center impact. Playing with CG location helps us optimize the other parameters around that speed.

So with that said left/right deviation from the CG doesn't impact the amount of spin, only the directionality - more specifically it influences the tilt of the spin axis. High Toe/ High heel...for this discussion it doesn't much matter, it's all just 'high'.

So if we look at top/bottom CG, these rules are simple and absolute. Relative to center (centered/inline CG) impact; impact made below the CG will increase spin. Impact made above the CG will decrease spin. These rules are absolute. There's no condition I'm aware of where other swing parameters would result in, for example, a relative decrease in spin from a below CG strike. On CG is ideal...after that, the rules are the rules. I think that's probably the answer to your question.

Again...regardless of the CG location, impact above CG decreases spin, impact below it increases spin (all relative to a centered/inline CG impact condition).

This is why lower CG is preferable for many golfers...the area of the face that will reduce spin on a mishit is greater. Decreasing spin can mitigate, and under some conditions, eliminate the distance penalty for an above CG hit.

It's also why high CG is beneficial for fewer golfers - it increases the area of the face that increases spin. Increased spin coupled with the decreased ball speed from off-CG hits...now you have a compounding distance loss situation.

There are some golfers (generally high face, positive AoA guys and/or slower swing speed golfers who need more spin to keep the ball in the air), for whom spin-reducing gearing (above CG impact) can produce a too-low spin condition. The ball will appear to abruptly drop out of the air. These are guys for whom high CG drivers make a lot of sense.

But again...nothing trumps ball speed, which is why aligning CG with your most frequent impact position makes sense. And yes, we must allow for the fact that even if our CG location is as optimized as it can be for the way we deliver the club, most of us will sometimes miss by enough that we'll still see both excessive and too low spin conditions.

Finding the right driver (the right CG location) serves to minimize those occasions while helping us achieve best possible results when we don't miss.

April 15, 2016

Well id say this has been an interesting series of comments for me to read through.

I do have a question though, and this might be a little out there, so feel free to tell me I'm crazy.

But I've seen some research of golfers and their strike patterns that proves the golfers who tend to be more skilled are able to essentially "hunt" for the CG location. The idea basically says that the player is naturally trying to align the two most efficient CG locations with each other (ball and club) in order to create the most efficient energy transfer. The idea is this.

Say you present the club face to the ball completely wide open. At that point the effective center of the CG would be in the heel and that's why the golfer would strike the ball in that location, or try to. In order to put an efficient swing on the ball.

My question is, assuming this is true, how does that skill translate into certain CG locations working for or against a certain golfer. If my "natural" CG location is high in the club face does that mean I would have less EFFECTIVE spin and a more efficient strike with a club that has a CG higher in the face compared to lower in the face?

I just find this whole CG thing to be such a mysterious thing. It's extremely interesting.

Not sure I completely understand what you're asking, but I'll take a stab based on my interpretation...

It's almost certainly true that better players, tour pros in particular, are more capable of making adjustments to whatever club they're given. I believe it was Rocco Mediate who said something along the lines of the difference between tour pros and the average golfer is that you can give a tour pro any club and by the 3rd swing the tour pro will have figured out how to hit it. I think there probably is an element of the feel of the club in space that comes into play and professionals being more adept at controlling what they're feeling. But it's also worth mentioning that a club you can adjust to and hit well-enough isn't the same as a club that's optimized for your swing...even at the tour level.

There's a reason why Bubba Watson's driver is significantly different from Phil Mickelson's.

Building on that, and getting back to the point about tee height...professionals have much better control of the club, so if the shot calls for more or less spin, or more fade/draw, they can hit it where they need to. Andrew Rice has a video about the 4 quadrant drill. Basically the goal is to take for swings and hit the 4 quadrants (high toe, low toe, high heel, low heel) on demand.

Of course, by the time we start talking about tour level, the fitting is at a whole other level. Not only are heads being hot melted to achieve desired results (CG, MOI, feel), but things the average golfer seldom considers (sole grinds for example) are a key fitting element. Worth noting, the reason why Rory switched back to his old irons, and why Jordan has stayed in his old AP2s is the sole grind/turf interaction.

Also as a bit of an insiders aside...while TaylorMade was pushing low forward CG and the SLDR to the consumer, a healthy number of its tour staff was playing with little or no weight and compensating for it by adding hot melt (mass) towards the rear of the club, thus boosting MOI and making it play differently. Playing with weights and adding hot melt to achieve different than stock results is a fairly common tour practice. Ask anyone in the industry...golfers who truly need low forward is perhaps the smallest niche within the larger driver market.

As for your question about EFFECTIVE CG...Obviously actual CG is fixed, as is the CGNA measurement (the better measure of potential efficiency). Back CG is desirable because of the increased MOI. The trade off is back gets you more dynamic loft (benefit or hindrance depending on the player) and that brings higher launch and more spin. You mitigate the spin piece by pushing the CG closer to the neutral axis.

One way to think of it is that CGNA sets your gearing parameters. So in theory a CG precisely on the neutral axis would have no gearing on a center strike. Depending on the location of the strike, gearing can either add or remove spin, and can cost ball speed as well (this is one area where drivers have improved...expansion of the sweet zone).

And so to maximize efficiency (ball speed, distance, launch and spin parameters...it's all tied together), you ideally want to align the CG with impact. This is why higher CG drivers can be beneficial for guys who hit the ball high on the face...why draw biased drivers can be effective for heel strikers, etc.. The best results will come when impact is inline with the CG.

There are also dynamic loft components at play...really simple demonstration...hold a driver head against a ball to simulate an impact condition. Without moving the ball (because the ball is fixed on a tee in the real world) slowly add and remove loft (tilt the head forward and back) and notice how the impact location changes based on how the loft is presented. This is why low/back CG designs, in the hands of some golfers, will result in undesirable low face (spin added through gearing) contact.

The flip side of that is that high or forward CG clubs (decrease dynamic loft) can sometimes raise impact location and produce what I call happy gearing (spin reduction).

High spin players are high spin players because of spin loft - specifically high spin loft, if we can reduce dynamic loft and improve the gearing scenario we ultimately achieve better results for these players. This is generally your negative AoA, high speed, aggressive swing player. It's almost counter-intuitive...we associate hitting down with delofting, but in certain scenarios, dynamic loft actually increases, and so what we see is golfers hitting down on the ball while actually increasing dynamic loft...two things that tend to add spin

So to hopefully answer your questions: If your natural impact position is high on the face then you need to consider higher CG clubs. From there Angle of Attack and Dynamic loft will dictate whether you should be looking high back, high forward, or somewhere in the middle.

JohnSmalls · April 14, 2016

So we've moved from CG doesn't matter (it does)

to well we're only talking about an insignificant 1.85 yards (again, an oversimplification, and arguably an inaccuracy)

to well, humans aren't robots.

The last one we can agree with. This isn't a conversation about the repeatability of the human swing, it's about CG locations and whether or not they impact what the ball does. Nobody who does any fitting...including the guys in this thread who are looking to try different things and essentially self-fit, are expecting every swing will produce the same results. We all fit to tendencies, and more specifically trying to optimize for those tendencies.

At no point will any decent fitter say well, humans are inconsistent, so we shouldn't bother considering dynamic loft, etc. It's exactly why we look at averages vs. a single shot, and it's why better fitters not only consider those averages, but also the standard deviations. Finding a CG location that works for you...taking optimal off the table for a moment...can make the golfer more consistent.

It's true, better golfers will achieve near optimal results more often, but that doesn't mean everyone doesn't have optimal parameters, and and optimal driver CG location. And as I hinted at, MOI (which is CG dependent) is something less consistent golfers need more of (more consistent results). You can argue CG doesn't matter that much when we know MOI matters...as I've said, MOI is tied to CG.

CG also contributes dramatically to feel. Not only at impact, but the feel of the club as it moves through space. The semi-interesting thing is that studies by at least golf companies that I know of have shown a strong correlation between feel through the swing (not just at impact) and the club that produces the best results. Like anything else, there are exceptions, but what feels the best, often plays the best.

I'd agree, when you consider ball speed, launch, and spin, spin would certainly have the least influence on a proportional basis, but we're not talking just about spin. We're talking about spin, dynamic loft, and because dynamic loft works with Angle of Attack to dictate spin loft (which Trackman calls compression itself - it's basically the efficiency that dictates ball speed), which means we're also talking about ball speed.

So on an individual basis, CG location contributes to launch angle (dynamic loft), spin rate, and because dynamic loft is 1/2 the spin loft equation, CG location also contributes to ball speed. All 3 pieces of the triangle inarguably tied CG location.

So as to whether 600RPM is significant...I don't know the ball speed of the guys asking the questions, but lets assume some reasonable parameters.

140 MPH, 13 degrees launch, and 3000 RPM as our baseline. To keep things simple, we'll assume sea level, medium/average ground conditions, and a ball that goes perfectly straight.

Using the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer we get:

230.8 Carry 238.4 Total

Lower Spin by 600 RPM

233.2 Carry 242.8 Total

So we've picked up 2.4 yards carry and 4.4 yards total. I'd take 4.4 yards, I think most would.

But wait, there's more...that's not exactly how this works. With that drop in spin, we're going to also drop dynamic loft by roughly .6 to .8 degrees (golfer dependent...let's split the difference at .7), and because we've now reduced our spin loft, we're actually going to increase ball speed. So let's plug those same numbers back in, this time adding a conservative 1.5 MPH of ball speed.

Now we're up to 235.4 carry and 245.4 yards of roll.

So we're up 3.1 Carry and 244 yards. We're now up 7 yards total, and we haven't even considered whether the reduction in dynamic loft is resulting in an increased tendency to hit the ball slightly higher on the face (slightly higher launch with lower spin). This too is golfer dependent but it absolutely does happen, and for the guy it happens to, if we can maintain ball speed while reducing spin and increasing launch, gains are greater still.

7 yards isn't huge, but I think all other factors being equal, all of us would take it.

The fact of the matter is that most of us would see the greatest distance benefits from increasing our angle of attack, but that doesn't negate the importance of CG location...not even a little.

And of course, that's before we talk about how CG/MOI influence closure rates and by extension accuracy.

One final thought...much of this conversation has been with the Cobra F6+ as the example case. 600RPM is solid, but when we look at the market as a whole...consider the difference between a high back CG offering (Mizuno JPX-850 EZ) and a low forward CG offering (TaylorMade M1 430), the differences discussed here will be even greater.

April 14, 2016

It's a fairly simple exercise in aligning driver CoG with the centre of the ball at impact. It's called a tee peg.

If I could quote Tom Wishon for a moment :

"C of G in driver heads is hardly a big deal for performance differences because of one very big reason. . . . we put the ball on a tee and we can control the distance from the ball's CG to the clubhead CG by how much we stick the tee in the ground or not.  Stick the tee more in the ground and a lower CG driver head now becomes a higher CG head - and vice versa if you leave the ball sitting more up on the tee.

If you want to significantly lower ball flight with a driver, the ONLY ABSOLUTE SURE WAY TO DO THAT IS WITH A LOWER LOFT.   Period, end of sentence.

Shaft changes only offer small height changes and only for golfers with a later to very late release.  And even for those with a late release, the new shaft has to be substantially stiffer or more tip stiff than the old shaft to even have a chance to slightly affect shot height.   Nope, loft is the only sure way to lower shot height for all golfers".

TOM

So as you can see, CoG only has so much influence on spin and launch. What it CAN actually do (if you have adjustability) is to fine tune the spin figure to achieve the best possible launch characteristics - what is commonly phrased as "optimal".

Good fitters know BS from manufacturers when they see it and treat it accordingly - the same applies to shafts. Whichever way you look at it, you can't change the laws of physics and you certainly can't argue with Tom because he virtually wrote the book on fitting and developing technologies for golf clubs.

Once you're maxed out with a particular fitted driver, it is doubtful whether significant gains can be achieved with a different model based purely on design and construction, unless you can increase ball speed, either directly by swinging faster, or indirectly by increasing shaft length, which itself creates further problems with reliable impact positions.

There's so much of what Tom has written that's either been taken out of context, misinterpreted, or misapplied. It borders on scary as it frequently leads to the distribution of misinformation. Not his fault...people misinterpret my writing weekly. It happens to all of us.

Yes, tee height is an excellent way to vary impact location. In addition to altering face impact location, raising the tee can also promote a more positive angle of attack as well as a more in to out path. Tour pros do this all the time...tee it high to assist a draw, lower to promote a fade. So while tee height can help, the resulting change in AoA and path can also cause problems. It's not a one variable thing. Yes...you change impact, but you change other stuff too.

Nevertheless, you can set the tee at any height you want and I can vary your impact location and subsequently your ball flight by changing your driver (even if our theoretical drivers have EXACTLY the same loft).

While your statement may make perfect sense, you're not specific enough when you say the only way to lower ball flight is with lower loft.

In actuality the only way to lower ball flight is with less DYNAMIC loft. The only way to raise ball flight is to add dynamic loft. Obviously removing/adding static loft is the easiest way, but it's most definitely not the only way. That's where CG comes in.

Before we get to that...a quick diversion. We all find things that suit our eyes. A driver needs to look right and for many of us the presentation of loft needs to look right. I'm generally a forward CG guy, but that I mean I tend to hit down slightly and hit the ball a bit lower on the face than I'd like (even with high tees). Roughly 10 driver fittings in the last 4 years by 5 different company's and I've consistently been fit at 9Â° or less (usually less). In some cases I've had to go down to 7.5Â° at that loft one can barely see any face...more loft results in undesirable launch parameters. But what if I could move to a more forward CG option...the change in dynamic parameters would allow me to play more loft without sacrificing performance. The point in this is that when fitting (whether ourselves or others) we must also consider variables (feel is another) that are much more difficult to quantify.

Now back to why CG actually does matter.

Take any adjustable weight head that offers a reasonable amount of front to back CG movement. M1 and F6+ both move decent amounts of mass around (the latter offers the most significant movement in the industry) and most golfers will see meaningful changes from the redistribution of mass. Cobra F6+ changes the CG by about 6mm front to back, which results in about 600RPM spin difference between the front and back positions. While not to quite the same extent, TaylorMade's M1 works in a similar fashion.

600 RPM change with no change to static loft is undeniably significant.

That spin reduction comes largely through the resulting change in dynamic loft, so most (though not all) golfers will also see a change in launch angle as well.

All of this results from a change in CG location, not from any change to the static loft of the club.

Distance gains are primarily realized through a decrease in spin loft (the difference between angle of attack and dynamic loft). Angle of attack is largely generated by the golfer, but center of gravity location does have an influence (just as a shaft can influence path). Dynamic Loft is derived from the initial static loft which is influenced by the golfer, the shaft, and most certainly the head - more specifically the center of gravity location of the head.

Basically it's all about improving the efficiency of the strike...Ignoring head speed for a moment, Angle of Attack, Dynamic Loft, Face angle at impact, and Impact Location those are the parameters that determine ball flight. Tee height influences the last, but CG location has some influence on AoA, an impact of face angle (dynamic closure rates are a product of CG locations) a strong influence on dynamic loft, and that dynamic addition or subtraction of loft - along with the closure rate - also directly influences impact location (which is why I said I could change your impact location simply by changing your driver).

And we haven't even talked about MOI, which is also strongly influenced by CG placement There's nothing you can do with a tee that will alter MOI.

So all of that said, to paint CG location as insignificant is totally inaccurate. Changing your tee height will not make a SLDR perform like a G30 (or vice versa). The primary reason they play differently is CG location.

Golfspy_CG2 · April 14, 2016

So just to clarify for myself then, you're saying the design of the Cavity back design is pushing the CG higher into the club because of Nike having to redistribute weight to the crown for support from the club?

Now with the Cavity pulling the CG higher in the face, for spin purposes is it better to have the CG more forward or rearward in the head? Say Nike was going to design their "low spin" club, how would they do that in their line with CG placement?

I guess spin is all relative to the golfer in the end.

I'm so surprised that fitters aren't talking more about THIS topic instead of just throwing marketing at you. I feel like a major component of a fitting should be monitoring a golfers strike location, and then finding a head that places the CG is the most relevant place to that to maximize launch characteristics.

Whether it's shaft performance, club head launch/spin characteristics, nearly everything is relative within each manufacturer's own lineup. So yeah, in relative terms...terms relative to the Nike lineup, the Flex will be the lowest spinning.

Another spin-related consideration - Nike's heads tends to be closer the stamped loft than most. Basically, with any adjustable head, the stamped (or nominal) loft is going to be in the middle of the range. So the actual loft of a Nike head is 10.5Â° (halfway between 8.5 and 12.5 . TaylorMade, Callaway and others vanity loft by upwards of a degree (sometimes more), so a 10.5Â° head from somebody else is going to be, by design closer to 11.5Â° or 12Â° degrees.

At ACTUAL equivalent lofts (and assuming identical impact conditions), the higher CG club should spin more, but when it's 10.5Â° vs. 11Â°+ well, then you're dealing with a situation where the impact of actual loft will supersede your CG differences.

As far as why the cavity moves the CG higher...rough analogy, but imagine a driver head constructed of aluminum foil or something else that's easily pliable. Start with a conventional shape, now, without removing the material (because despite appearances the cavity does not occur because material is removed - instead material is redistributed), reshape the sole...create a cavity (the Nike or bombtech shape), and do it by pushing material from the sole up towards the crown (curl your fingers underneath).

Effectively you're taking structure that was not far from the lowest point of the driver and pushing towards the highest point of the driver. Part of the bottom is now closer to the top. When you do that, the mass obviously goes with it.

You can lessen the effect on mass placement by using a lighter material in your cavity (RZN), but remember that the sole is where you need the weight to achieve low CG. So while you're not moving as much weight up as you would if the design was titanium-based, you're also losing the additional sole-placed mass that would come from a titanium sole.

As for fitting implications...good fitters now this, although I do question how many fitters are overtly aware of CG location. Ideally you want a CG that aligns with the most frequent point of impact. The obvious implication is Top/Bottom CG (with consideration for how CG placement and resulting dynamic loft changes can alter impact locations), but consider sliding and left/right movable weights. While that gets billed as shot shape correction, ultimately that too is about aligning the CG with the most predictable impact location.

mjkladis · April 14, 2016

You know Hcky I'm in a similar spot to you. I've been gaming my G30 LSTec for awhile now and am just feeling like it might be time to make a move.

The problem is to just compare something for one day when you're at the range makes it tough. I'll have to look into buying some heads/shafts like you guys do and test that way.

I've been thinking about applying for the Nike test spot, but I can't find any information on the CG of that thing. Their site says it's the lowest spinning driver they make, but I want my next driver to be SLDR/M1 430 like in its CG. Anyone have insight?

We're working to get the Nike heads added to our CG chart. I believe it's a reasonably safe assumption that it won't be radically different from last year. Ball park estimate...high-mid CG. With Pro and Speed trending towards high-back.

As with Bombtech's Grenade, the cavity is significant limiting factor in CG placement. The mandatory weight in driver design is in the face and in the crown. You can't do much about the face (it has to be durable), and even with lighter materials (composites), if your shape is traditional, there's only so much you can do to cut mass. Remember Hi-Bore...that changed the crown equation, but it was hardly traditional.

Cavities...Nike and Bombtech push more weight to the crown and that raises CG to a degree that you can't entirely compensate for. Speed will work well for guys who need help getting the ball up, but I suspect it will be spinny. Higher CG designs in general can work well for positive AoA guys who generally hit the ball higher on the face.

That last piece is what golfers often fail to consider.

Simple answer to your question, Flex will almost certainly be closer to the Grenade than it is the M1 430. There's really not a lot new in the super low/forward space this season (it's really not a spec that's well-suited for a high percentage of golfers). F6+ in forward positions, and, I suspect, Sub Zero will be the closest from the new for 2016 crop.

silver & black · April 5, 2016

I was talking to a buddy yesterday about drivers. He suggested with some certainty that my driver face will go dead after about two years or so. Huh? He couldn't backup his claim. I haven't researched it either. Does anyone believe this? Is there any proof either way that this happens? Or...is this just a golf myth?

Dead? I'm going to go with nonsense.

What is possible is that a driver *could* develop flat spots along the face's bulge and roll radii. I say *could* because although it's theoretically possible, with current materials along with improved design and manufacturing techniques, it shouldn't happen.

We chatted with the PING R&D guys about this briefly. They do a ridiculous amount of canon testing to ensure that not only will faces not break, but that'll they'll maintain their shape for the duration.

March 31, 2016

Very interesting, I never thought about closure rates with the weight forward. I ended the round with the 430 set at 10 degrees, all the way to draw and the front-to-back setting at neutral. It did seem a little easier to keep from going right in that setting.

With the F6+ I just put the weight all the way forward and left it. I haven't played around with different setting on that one.

Ball flight comparison is interesting between those to two heads though. The 430 at 10 and neutral flights much lower for me than the F6+ at 9 and all the way forward. I'd like to try the F6+ Pro head to see if I can bring the flight down a little and allow me to move the weight back.

Might be a case of "famous last words" but I'm not buying another head until I go get fit

One other quick note about F6+, the weight channel is slightly offset such that it's slightly toe biased in the front position and slightly heel biased in the back.

Fireinthehole · March 31, 2016

I am interested to see how the m1 430 works. It supposedly is as forgiving as the 460 but with less spin.

Those two things are a bit at odds with each other. As CG moves forward, MOI drops. The best we can say is that an M1 430 with the weight back is nearly as forgiving as an M1 with the weight forward.

If that's where you'd position the weight, then it becomes a question of face impact and how the difference in resulting dynamic loft affects your impact parameters.

Also worth mentioning, weight forward positions will create slower closure rates than back weight positions. The m1 430 is a beast (albeit a super-low MOI beast) with the weight forward, but for me anyway, I really have to put more effort than I'd like into getting it close to square at impact. My miss with it is - shining the best light on it possible - a 2 to 3 fairway fade.

revkev · March 30, 2016

I recommend trying the new nike vapor drivers and the bomb tech grenade drivers

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy mobile app

I'd put chance of either beating the SLDR in this case at close to zero. Both Nike and the Grenade are high middle CG drivers. Effectively the opposite of what a guy who thrives with a SLDR would likely get his best results with.

I'm not sure I can explain the fade bias you get with the KING LTD (back CG, relatively centered on the face...if anything I'd expect more spin, and with expected closure rates being higher, a bit more of a left-starting ball flight. As much as I love the head, I find I hit it low on the face and it spins too much for me. The working theory is that it comes from the extra bit of dynamic loft resulting from the low/back CG.

It's not something you can walk into Dick's and buy, but there is an internal weight on the KING LTD. Cobra's custom department can drop in a lighter back weight and front load the head with hot melt. The end result might be something like a really low CG Na F6+. It's something I may toy with this season.

Hcky...I know you've looked at the charts.

Comps for the SLDR...M1, M1 430, F6+ weight (mid to forward), and just guess based on where I think CG will end up, Callaway Sub Zero. If you're looking at purely distance on best struck balls, I'd bet on the M1 430...dispersion plots over larger series of shots, I'd bet on the higher MOI of the F6+.

March 12, 2014

Because it's one of those days that ends in "Y", TaylorMade has yet another press release.

Man, I know some of you are going to have less than positive things to say about the volume of product (and subsequent noise) coming out of TaylorMade right now, but you have to give them some amount of credit here. They are absolutely relentless as far as keeping their name on an almost daily basis right now.

Anyway...the TMaG product du jour is the new Ghost Spider Si Putter. Like much of what's come out of TaylorMade's putter department lately, the Spider Si is a counterbalanced model (available in 35" or 38"). Like all of 'em it's got an insert (this one is the Surlyn PureRoll type). And really, what we're actually talking about is the addition of a new, high MOI, shape in the putter lineup.

I think the guys who visited TMaG HQ in January got a first-hand look at this one.

Wondering if this putter is for you? Here's what TaylorMade's relatively new Iron, Wedge, and Putter guy, Tomo Bystedt has to say about it:

â€œIt's the perfect putter for players who want the benefits of a high MOI head and counterbalanced stroke stability in a clean, elegant design."

And So here's your press release:

TaylorMade Golf Company Introduces the
Ghost Spider Si Putter

High MOI mallet features counterbalance grip to promote
stability and consistency

CARLSBAD, Calif. (March 12, 2014) â€“ TaylorMade Golf Company, a leader in golf equipment innovation, today announced the newest member of its popular â€œGhost Spiderâ€ series putter models. Introducing the Ghost Spider Si, a high MOI (moment of inertia) counterbalanced putter that is one of the most consistent and forgiving putters the company has introduced.

The large 380-gram head coupled with a 15-inch, 130-gram counterbalanced grip helps promote exceptional stability, control and feel.

What is â€œcounterbalancingâ€? While the typical putter has one light end (grip) and one heavy end (head), putting more weight in the grip to counterbalance the weight of the head increases the MOI of the entire club, from top to bottom, which makes it 50 percent more stable and much easier to keep the head on path â€“ something the company calls â€œStroke Stability.â€*

The Ghost Spider Si, which debuted at the Humana Challenge, has been played on a weekly basis by a number of Tour professionals including Rory Sabbatini, Fred Funk, Retief Goosen and Lucas Glover.

"The player excitement on Tour over counterbalanced putters drove the creation of the Ghost Spider Si,â€ said Tomo Bystedt, TaylorMade Golf's Director of Product Creation for Irons, Putters and Wedges. â€œIt's the perfect putter for players who want the benefits of a high MOI head and counterbalanced stroke stability in a clean, elegant design."

The counterbalance concept was validated in a major way when TaylorMade staffer Justin Rose used a Ghost Spider Blade to win the 2013 U.S. Open.

Performance of the Ghost Spider Si also comes from an exceptionally high MOI. The MOI in traditional blade and mallet putter ranges from 3500-4500. The Ghost Spider Si has an MOI of more than 6000 which makes the putter head more resistant to twisting at impact and helps protect ball speed and distance-control on off-center hits.

Aesthetically, the Ghost Spider Si features a simple yet innovative design. The white head contrasts nicely with the green to promote additional alignment benefits.

The PureRoll SurlynÂ® insert promotes soft-yet-solid feel and a smooth roll straight off the face.

Pricing, Options and Availability

The Spider Si putter is offered in a 35 or 38-inch shaft. Players grip the club as they would a normal-length putter, with 2 or 3 inches of the butt-end of the grip extended above their hands, which provides the maximum benefit of counterbalancing. The 38-inch length is engineered for players who normally play a 35-inch length while the 35-inch model is built for the player who favors a 33-inch length. Players who favor a 34-inch length can choose between either 35 or 38 inches.

Available this Friday, March 14, the Ghost Spider Si is priced at $199. For more information, please visit taylormadegolf.com.

May 15, 2013

Is it just me or do a lot of the smaller companies spend too much time telling us that we're stupid because we buy the big brands? Not sure if you've got the same saying in the USA - but I'd say that they're trying to talk their product up by talking others down.

Unfortunately this is a recurring problem among some smaller brands. Unable to draw any real distinction between their own product and the mass produced product from the big boys they often resort to either telling us:

1) Everything is the same, so you might as well buy my custom clubs

2) The big guys are just marketing companies, I spend all my money on R&D...(the implication is that they spend more on R&D than big golf companies, which is basically absurd). Yes...big companies have big marketing budgets, but they also have MASSIVE R&D budgets as well. The two are not mutually exclusive.

You seldom see a viable argument for a small component brand. Mostly it's arguments against bigger companies.

I will say that one of the exceptions I've encountered is Steve Almo from Geek Golf. I've spoken with him a few times about his drivers, particularly the No Brainer we had in for our big driver test. Steve strongly believes that heavier is better, and so he's engineered his driver heavier than the just about anyone's.

Is he right? Hell if I know, but he's one of the few that will concede that off-the-rack actually fits a good number of golfers (Steve throws out 60%), and that his clubs are more suited to the 40% for whom off-the-rack doesn't work.

May 15, 2013

KZG, one of the more respected component brands on the market today, just announced their new GF X Driver.

The new driver features adjustable weights (7 different weights), but interestingly no adjustable hosel.

While attempting to draw differentiation between itself and the major OEMs, my feeling is KZG makes a couple of mistakes.

While hinting that major golf companies release too many drivers, the release mentions KZG's 9 different offerings (that allow fitters to select the design that's right for you). 9 Drivers? And somebody else is going to tell me which one is right? That's one of those ideas that's great on paper, but as consumers we like feeling like the buying decision is ours...and mostly ours alone.

The bigger mistake, IMO is that the weights in the GF X Driver can only be adjusted by the fitter. That's not all bad, but the next bit really rubs me the wrong way:

"It has been proven time and again that when golfers make their own adjustments the results have been disastrous. Golfers tend to adjust their clubs every time they have a mis-hit. After several mis-hits and adjustments, it is impossible determine the correct positioning for optimal performance and launch. And worse, their swing is never in a groove, but rather changing daily with every mis-hit and adjustment"

I get it...or at least I think I get what KZG is going for (our fitters do a better job than trying to self-fit), but how it reads to me is "The average golfer is too stupid to adjust his club the right way. When he tries, he only makes it worse, so rather than let some idiot tinker with the club he just spent $400, we're going to make him go to a fitter to have the adjustment done the right way".

To me the message comes across as arrogant and condescending.

It also raises larger questions about the reality of custom fitting...particularly with the driver. I've said this before...for all but the very best players in the world, the golf swing is not consistent enough to declare an absolute ideal fit for every golfer. Some days 9.5Â° will outperform 10.5Â°. Some days a fade bias will be better than a draw bias. Some days an open face works better than a closed one. Most of us bring a different variation of our swing to the golf course almost daily. Some days we're close to how we think we swing...other days we're way off.

As an educated golfer, I'd much rather have the ability to make adjustments to account for what I have that day than to have to go see my fitter every time I want to tweak something. There's a reason why golf companies are now releasing intuitive fitting apps with their adjustable drivers. It's about enabling the consumer, not restricting him.

Now I will concede that not everyone understands what the impact of adjustability (real or imagined) is...or should be, but I also strongly believe that one of the worst mistakes a golf company can make is to dictate absolutes to the consumer. While doing it this way is a great way to drive the consumer to a KZG dealer, I also believe it's double-effective at keeping the consumer away from KZG.

That's my read on the release. I've included the full release below. Read through it...I'd love to hear your thoughts.

-----------------------------------------------

NORTH HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (May 15, 2013) - KZG, the #1 Custom ProLineâ„¢, has introduced its new GF X Driver, incorporating Gravitational Force (GF) Technology, which features two strategically-positioned weight portals and a selection of screws in seven different weights. The elegant and sleek, all black GF X's swingweight, launch angle and draw/fade bias can be adjusted 128 ways to optimize any golfer's launch conditions.

"KZG is not a marketing company, but rather a bona fide golf equipment manufacturer." reports Jennifer King, president of KZG. "While most major brands bring out one or two driver models per season, usually designed for the masses, KZG offers nine different models to allow a professional fitter the ability to select the design features needed for any given golfer regardless of their skill, size, strength or even budget. The GF-X is an ideal model for those players who require unique adjustments with maximum forgiveness."

The 460cc GF X offers optimum power and accuracy. The weight portals are strategically positioned where changes in weight and center of gravity are most effective. The screw weights are available in 1.5, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 12 gram options. The weights can also be used to compensate for a fade or draw bias. Even spin rates and trajectory are altered by changes in the weights.

The adjustments for all KZG clubs are done solely through KZG's network of highly qualified professional fitters. It has been proven time and again that when golfers make their own adjustments the results have been disastrous. Golfers tend to adjust their clubs every time they have a mis-hit. After several mis-hits and adjustments, it is impossible determine the correct positioning for optimal performance and launch. And worse, their swing is never in a groove, but rather changing daily with every mis-hit and adjustment. KZG's GF X removes the guesswork, as a professional clubfitter will ascertain the proper weight combination and adjustments for any particular golfer, leading to confidence and consistency ... and helping the golfer hone his swing into a fine-tuned groove.

With the introduction of its new GF-X driver, KZG offers nine different drivers, comprising a wide spectrum of models to suit any golfer, regardless of skill, strength, size or budget.

The GF-X has a traditional profile with an all gloss black head with matte black screw portals, a very sexy looking driver.

All KZG drivers are custom fit and built with numerous shaft options. Retail pricing varies depending on the options selected, with MSRP starting at $399.

About KZG

Founded in 1994, KZG offers its equipment only through the finest fitters and teachers in the industry. KZG makes great equipment, but it is their professional fitters and teachers who make it unbeatable. By partnering with the true professionals who have the skill, integrity and passion to really help improve a golfer's game, KZG has catapulted to a position of prominence in customized golf equipment.

Member Reviews · March 10, 2013

Testers have been selected. The initial post has been updated.

Member Reviews · March 7, 2013

Ok. Enough fun. Bring it back on topic while there's still a topic to come back to.

Member Reviews · February 28, 2013

ManbearpigIER!

That's the only answer we would have accepted.

Member Reviews · February 28, 2013

So I'm guessing we need not apply for this one...

Anyways good luck to those chosen. Testing for MGS is a real honor and quite the experience.

So wrong. There's absolutely no rule against you, Will, or JBones signing up for this one...or even the next one which I'll be posting in the next day or two.

Member Reviews · February 28, 2013

We have chosen our Community Testers for the RBZ Stage 2 Hybrids and Fairways.

Congrats to:

JGolf

WDGOLF

Mr_Theoo

Rickles

Super Tuna

If you weren't chosen, please don't be discouraged. Another community testing opportunity is right around the corner.

We are looking for 5 MyGolfSpy Community Members to test a TaylorMade RocketBallz Stage 2 Fairway Wood and Hybrid.

Requirements:

Must be an active community member
Must be able to take and post high-quality photographs, string a few sentences together and follow our community review template
Must be a current MyGolfSpy Newsletter Subscriber
Must be able to thoroughly test a fairway wood and hybrid (kinda goes without saying, doesn't it?)
Sorry...must be a right-handed resident of the USA or Canada
Must be able to live up to the standards set by the guys who absolutely killed it with the RocketBladez iron reviews.
Access to a launch monitor is helpful but is not an absolute requirement

To Enter Tell Us:

Your handicap
What fairway wood(s) are in your bag right now
What hybrid(s) are in your bag right now

And finally...

You may have noticed that TaylorMade's RocketBallz Stage 2 Marketing Campaign is all about "-IER" as in the Stage 2 product line is RocketBallz-IER than the original Using one word or phrase containing "IER", describe the type of review you will write for our community.

Really basic and boring examples include:

Review-IER

Picture-IER

Even more MyGolfSpy-IER than a MyGolfSpy Review (which I guess is the same as Review-IER).

Go! (that means enter now)

fozcycle · January 5, 2013

Please pm me with your Paypal address and I'll look into it.

Thanks,

T

September 16, 2012

Not necessarily a City fan, but that headcover is the t*ts.

September 4, 2012

I respect the comments above regarding your concerns on asking for donations and agree with all the others replies in that in the very short time that I have been on MGS, the value of the reviews alone has saved me dollars I would have spent buying and trying until I get a club that works.

I have purchased nunchuk shafts & Adams Hydrids based on MGS reviews and can not be happier with their performance.

So, having said all that I have donated and look forward to many years of MGS.

AJ

Thanks AJ. Every donation is appreciated. I got your badge squared away.

Anybody who quotes Yoda in his signature is good by me.

Log In

Profiles

Forums

Articles

FAQ

Tests

Classifieds

Store

Group Buys

Posts posted by Tony Covey MGS