Jump to content

storm319

Member
  • Posts

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Minneapolis, MN
  • Handicap:
    12

Recent Profile Visitors

2,515 profile views

storm319's Achievements

 

  (1/14)

140

Reputation

  1. Most of the major OEMs have been using the same torx bit (T25) and torque setting (40 in-lbs) for several years. Taylormade specifically has always used the same bit size but had two different torque settings (yellow r7 MWT tool used 30 in-lbs, all others since the introduction of the adjustable shafts have been the standard 40 in-lbs spec). The OP should be fine to use their existing TM tool (I don’t recall them releasing any fixed tools).
  2. Keep in mind that there really is no industry standard for measuring compression so comparing figures from different OEMs isn’t necessarily apples to apples. If your own personal testing resulted in a tossup between the TM TR and the B RXS, I would recommend the TM due to the lower price point and cast thermoset urethane cover vs the TPU cover used on the Bridgestone.
  3. The problem with your anecdotal test is that you have not isolated all variables down to just the balls. As much as you probably think each swing is consistent, a little time on a S.A.M. will prove that it is not as consistent as you may think (if you were to use a swing robot on a consistent, synthetic surface the difference would be non existent assuming both balls were symmetrical and balanced). It seems that the difference in feel between ball types is influencing your perception of what is actually happening. I encourage you to follow the suggestions above by testing blind/deaf (you will be surprised how much sound influences the perception of feel and how much it can influence stroke). Bottom line, choose the ball that you feel most confident in tee to hole.
  4. “I have to hit them more lightly for the distance.” Any difference in the ball rolling on a low impact strike like a putt is due to the stroke (as you mentioned above it appears that your stroke is different depending on the ball construction). The cover material makes no difference once the ball is moving.
  5. According to Titleist’s measurements, KBS Tour in S flex is stiffer across the board than the LZ 6.0. https://www.titleist.com/fitting/golf-club-fitting/golf-shafts
  6. Additionally, I doubt a ball with a dimple depth discrepancy drastic enough to do that would pass the USGA symmetry test. This video is exaggerated well beyond any realistic manufacturing tolerance.
  7. The problem with that approach is that qualitative descriptors like “low” and “high” are not consistently defined across OEMs so if anything that is less useful than a quantitative, objective comparison by a 3rd party (even with OEM tolerances). No content from this site (or any for that matter) should be used as the gospel, simply as an aid to potentially narrow down the ever growing number of choices. With that said, the range of CG in reality is quite small so the differences will have a negligible effect on performance for most golfers (hence the reason I feel MWT is of little benefit as it generally involves too little weight moving too little distance to have a noticeable impact on CG). I personally find the MOI measurements of this report to be more useful even though most heads are at the point of diminishing returns.
  8. Yes. These were both replaced in February 2020 so the Project balls have been discontinued for a while now. Project(a) —> Tour Response Project(s) —> Soft Response
  9. Not quite the whole story. Yes! filed chapter 7 in late 2010. Adams purchased the assets during the bankruptcy in early 2011. Then TaylorMade acquired Adams in 2012 who continued the line for a few more years. The brand has been shelved by TaylorMade and has been pretty much dormant since ~2016 I believe.
  10. Agreed. I am also not sure that the offline metric has much merit for the wedges at all. Additionally I would figure out a way to incorporate the standard deviation of each metric.
  11. It’s more likely due to the lower target price point vs the manufacturing location. Tony mentioned in a podcast that he noticed a correlation between price point and consistency during this ball lab effort.
  12. I really don’t understand why there is so much interest in Srixon’s manufacturing locations with little to no mention of Titleist (ProV1 produced in US and Thailand) or TaylorMade (TP5 core assemblies produced in South Korea and Taiwan). The ball manufacturing process is highly automated with little human intervention when it comes to any production steps that directly impact the final product. The process is far more important than the location in this instance.
  13. I would not worry about TMs process as they have had their core/mantle assemblies for urethane models produced by Nassau (South Korea, they helped establish this factory) and now Foremost (Taiwan) with urethane cover assembly/finishing completed in their South Carolina plant for like a decade.
  14. High swing speeds may see slightly higher ball speeds off the driver with the X, but the difference in distance for the majority of players will likely be negligible.
  15. Spin difference off the driver and around the greens will be negligible. Initial launch for most similarly constructed balls is usually negligible as well as peak apex being similar given the fact that both of these share the same dimple pattern. The differences in these two models lie in a) iron spin (slightly higher with the X) and b) feel (slightly harder all around for the X).
×
×
  • Create New...