Jump to content
TESTERS WANTED! ×

indacup

Member
  • Posts

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by indacup

  1. That would be huge! I think many people will be shocked when they see the low quality mat'l being used in OEM products.
  2. I mentioned this thread to a couple customers and mentioned since about 1998, we've had dozens of OEMS come back with cracked faces and usually cracked welds (where face meets crown.... I don't keep records. But I am guessing the worst offender was the first generation 460 Cleveland Launchers....then when the carbon crown/Ti face fad hit, many of those failed from multiple companies (Callaway being the worst). All in all, I bet dozens, and dozens of OEM...and maybe a dozen Clones? But then, as someone pointed out to me, we don't really SELL any clones...so those numbers would probably be that way. I have worked many times with Jason over at Diamondtour....but most of the clones I get from Alvin over at Integra. They both back up what they sell...as do the OEMS. For the most part. As far as components go, we rarely get those breaking unless it's someone on the LDA we fit or similar swing speeds.
  3. I believe there is some miscommunication between us…let's see if I can add some clarity to this. I am not trying to insinuate that clone quality is inherently good…I am trying to emphasize that the OEM is not as good as what many think…and with the exception of some specific models from a few companies, much of the quality of OEMs is every bit as sloppy and off spec as many clones out there. I would say that for the most part, based on years of testing and comparison, I have seen many clones and OEM comparable to eachother in mediocre quality, that most people, would never notice.. Specifically, the single biggest criteria where we have found the most error is adherence to claimed specs. With woods, it's usually actual loft not what is stated…with irons, it's lie and loft not as stated. I am kind of surprised that you seem so determined to condemn clones in these last few posts, yet have said on multiple occasions how you are going to surprise everyone by showing how well they are compared to OEM their counterparts. Am I missing something? Or are you sharing mixed messages? Like I said, I may be misunderstanding, and don't mean to be difficult…I guess I am confused with the direction/stand you are taking. Sorry!
  4. BTW - I want to make sure it is understood, that I am not trying to be obstinate....this is a GREAT thread and I really appreciate one such as this that is addressed with open minds and respect...something lacking in so many other forums!
  5. Okay, I grant you some of what you stated...but usually, if the paint used in fill is same as crown paint, it is usually applied during the same pass thru process...a cost savings measure...and really, under normal circumstances, the only area that will "wear" which is what you brought up would be on the sole....that is the only area that would experience wear due to contact...which is why I asked you if you had actual sample cases where you confirmed a one year degradation difference as you stated...stating one year difference in wear is quite a bold statement. So are you saying the welding process between clones and OEM are dramatically different? I will grant you, the difference between plasma welding and standard welding is different....but not just due to strength issues, but also less weight involved which frees up weight to be distributed elsewhere along the head...but trust me, there are many OEMS that have equally good and bad welds as clones...to flat out say clone welds are inherently worse, is irresponsible. Metals can be subjected to a process of precise heating over specific amounts of time to ordain the FINAL REAL mechanical properties of the metal in the specific part being made. While the science of heat treatment or post-forming treatment is very detailed, in short, the post-forming treatment of the metal is intended to cause the molecular structure of the metal to be changed in specific and predictable ways to achieve a variety of final mechanical and structural properties that may be more desired for the performance of the part. For example, depending on the heat treatment followed, the tensile strength of 6-4 Titanium will range from 120,000 psi up to 170,000!! Or as another example, depending on the heat treatment process, 10-2-3 beta Titanium will range in tensile strength from 135,000 psi to 210,000 psi! Most clubmakers assume that 10-2-3 Beta Titanium will always have a much higher strength than 6-4 Titanium. This is not true unless you know the post-forming heat treatment process used. The same is true for all of the Titanium alloys used in the manufacture of wood heads. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE without knowing the heat treatment procedure to know what any mechanical property of any Titanium alloy will be in the end product. As a result, heat treatment or post-forming treatment procedures are a CRITICAL part of the designer's and the foundry's responsibility to ensure the performance of the wood head's parts are properly created. Heat Treatment of a Titanium wood head will affect each and every mechanical property in addition to the one example mentioned in the previous paragraph. Because each of the properties plays its own important role in the manufacture and ultimate performance of a Titanium wood head, a high quality head not only requires a good design but excellent control on the processing of the materials used in its creation. This is one reason you can see the price of titanium club heads constructed of the same alloys vary considerably. Heat treating is as much or more important than using a specific titanium alloy.
  6. Very good post! I guess I should elaborate my feelings a bit more...instead of saying "Stealing". I should say those who make clones have "borrowed" the time, effort and expenses others have put in designing product...so call it laziness...or whatever you want...somewhere someone designed a product and instead of exclusively selling the design they created, they are now sharing and losing, the profits with other companies who copied their efforts. People are making money off their designs...and to me, that is wrong. If it was the literary world, it would be called plagurism. In golf, it's called "cloning" All ti faces are a blend...6-4 is 90% Ti, 6% aluminum and 4% vandium (hence the 6-4 designation) whereas 15-3-3-3 is a minor step upwards with a mixture of 76% Ti, 15% vandium, 3% tin, 3% chromium and 3% aluminum Yup...fully aware of that...and can give examples....we have designed a few heads (and shafts) and have to design and pay for the molds ourselves in order to assure exclusivity. I guess the bottom line is if an OEM or component company does NOT want to be copied, they can buy their own molds...but that will not stop another company from creating an almost identical design and giving it a similar paint/name so from a distance it appears to be the genuine item. To me, that is simply wrong. A few years ago Callaway introduced a driver, the same name as a driver we introduced a few years earlier...their lawyers met us at the PGA show and told us that WE had to change the name of our heads because they registered the name! So we did...and we told them what the new name was going to be.....they agreed...that was 4 years ago and now we found out that next year they are planning on introducing a new driver with the same name as the one we all agreed would be ours...yes, legal action is now being looked into. If not, all of a sudden, all the work and effort put in is now being stolen by an OEM and WE will look like the copiers. Its a tough, cut-throat world out there.
  7. That was the "Spin" Nike put on the recall...that they were "too hot"...but in reality, the USGA tested them and they fell well within the pendulum guidelines...what Nike was unable to do was maintain consistency in wall thickness/integrity during production.
  8. I agree with this. While we don't advertise clone sales, we WILL provide them if the customer insists... My opinion parallels NGage, Someone spent time and money developing a design...and in my opinion, the clone companies stole that for their own use. To me, buying a stolen design, is akin to buying stolen property.
  9. Agreed!! 100%! Proper fitting is paramount to beginners to pros!
  10. That makes no sense to me...the only painted parts on a driver and F/w are the crowns...how do the crowns wear? And to state a whole year difference? How did you base this decision on? Did you have two test sample groups that you hit the same amount of times with the same velocity and retained them for multiple years to see actual "wear" differential? This would be very difficult to back up...there are basically 6 different grades of Ti used in driver faces and about 80% of them use the low end 6-4 blend (aka Beta-Ti) The reason it is used, is mfgs opt for low cost, very low cost material that is durable due to less density (.16 lb/in3) and lower tensile strength (135,000 psi)and therefore less prone to breakage...with the trade off less rebound capabilities. When it comes to breakage issues between clones and OEM...the only REAL outbreak I remember was a few years ago when Nike recalled the Sumo 2 in 2007 when they were breaking left and right because they thinned out the face too much to compensate for the weight displacement towards the rear (engineering screw up)...Had they used a higher grade Ti face, they would have gotten away with it...but they opted to thin out the 6-4 beyond .003 and that failed.
  11. I believe doing a test between clones and OEMS is great...w have done comparisons for years and the results really were not too surprising for us...but I am sure it would be a let down for some OEM fans My question is what makes you say Diamondtour is the best in the business? What criteria was used to rate them higher than the clones from Integra, Hierko and the others? All use open mold designs from the same three foundries and basically same low end ti material for the faces...all have strong USA distro presence, equally stellar customer support and pricing.
×
×
  • Create New...