Operation: Beat SLDR

[jaskanski]

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.

 

[Tony Covey MGS]

 

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 9° or less (usually less). In some cases I've had to go down to 7.5° 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.

[jaskanski]

600 rpm with no change in static loft equates to around 1.85 yards of carry to 98% of the golfing population. If you're tour level with 180 mph ball speed, you can probably eek out an extra 6 yards total distance (carry and roll).

I've said it before and I'll say it again - of all the components that make launch characteristics effect the total distance, spin is the least significant. Fact.

Yes it's true that it's all about the efficiency of the strike, but that equates to greater ball speed, which is the one metric in any formula for driving distance that will trump all. Period.

[jaskanski]

Guys, the point is - there is a big difference between being fitted for real and fitting a robot.

What I mean by that is it's a lot easier to crunch launch numbers at an imaginary ideal that a robot could achieve - a set amount of figures that promote "optimal" distance.

However, in the real world the only thing that is consistent is inconsistency itself. That means if even a robot hit 20 shots, not one of them would be identical. The odd dimple or minute anomaly in the ball makes the difference.

For a human however, this inconsistency is a much broader margin. The swing is not as repeatable, the face angle is not identical - and neither is the dynamic loft, spin, speed etc. This leads to a wide set of figures which are then thinned down using mean, median and mode mathematics which give an overall "average" picture of trends, traits and baselines.

The disparity in these trends depends on the ability of the golfer and the fit of the clubs. The fitters job is to  find the best set of clubs to give the best chance of matching those trends to a launch "window" - an imaginary spot in the sky where it would be "ideal" to launch a ball through. The size of the window depends  again on the ability of the golfer and the fit of the clubs - e.g. an accomplished golfer would hit a wider window more successfully with a better fitting set of clubs. The wider the launch window, the less "optimal" the figures become, but the easier it is to launch through it. The more the figures trend towards "optimal", the smaller the launch window becomes and the ability to reach it.

It's that simple. 

Where CoG fits into that proposal is within the small window - the attainable by ability and fit, but by no means will CoG ever make the launch window bigger, or will make it any easier to hit.

That is difference between fitting a human and getting a set of numbers to fit your argument. Either one will work eventually, but the latter simply doesn't happen often enough to be of use to any golfer of any ability.

It's all very easy to look at 10 shots on Trackman with one club and compare them with 10 shots with another, but anyone who considers themselves "fitted" after this process must have no idea of what a fitting entails. It cannot be achieved by hitting balls into a net at a superstore either. It takes a lot of analysis of a lot of shots with the human eye - before launch data even gets involved.

Golf is a sport played by humans - and it takes a human to decipher human nature. The LM data is just there to prove what the ball did.

[Tony Covey MGS]

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.

[silver & black]

This discussion is why this site rocks! So much information, opinion, and knowledge in one thread. I'm just a mere average, Joe golfer guy. I understand some of this stuff..... but, it hurts my head to try and digest all of it!  I'll just stick with what feels good and delivers "most" of the time.

[Undershooter]

Whose bringing me a beer? 

[Sschaffer24]

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.

[Kor.A.Door]

I've read through most of this, the way I understand what golf companies are trying to do with CG is to find a way for every golfer to get the ball up in he air with the least amount of spin, since everyone has a different swing path, the Optinal CG for everyone is different, that's why there are so many options. If I am reading his correctly, even if you have the CG in less than optimal location, by changing other things you can achieve better numbers also known as distance and accuracy. The job of he fitter is to find combination that works best based on what they see, and also what the customer wants. I try not to get caught up in the deep thoughts of this, we as golfers have to be able to know what we are somewhat looking for, I want distance and accuracy, but I will give up distance for accuracy, I won't give up accuracy for distance, but there are ways to accommodate both.

[Tony Covey MGS]

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.

[jaskanski]

I wish I had a penny for every OEM that contradicted what they said about the previous years model with it's current model. In the case of Tmag, I guess that would make me pretty rich.

But if I also had an additional penny for every piece of internet info passed off as wisdom from a self-proclaimed expert, then I would probably need to quit my day job too. 

If you think that CoG location can radically transform your game, then I see no reason not to explore that avenue and come to your own conclusion. The point is, that is what most OEM's are counting on too.

[Sschaffer24]

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.

[bobcat]

There is a newer and far more forgiving SLDR Driver now and I think it is likely the best performing SLDR model for most players.  I have played all the SLDR's and it certainly is the best one for me.

 

Mid-way through 2015, Taylormade announced a redesigned 460cc version of the SLDR and this new model is called the SLDR-C, (aka the SLDR C-Series Driver).  It is long, straight, and super forgiving with a huge sweetspot and a very "hot" face.  It has a non-adjustable, (bonded), hosel like "Classic" TM Drivers of the past, and a "speed pocket" replaced the Slider mechanism just as with the SLDR Mini Driver. The new color is gloss black, and there is no need to "loft up" with this late addition to the SLDR Family.

 

This was actually the last 100% Titanium Driver that TM introduced, because it was introduced AFTER the R15 and AeroBurner. Almost a silent announcement because TM kept their ad campaign focused on the R15/AeroBurner which makes sense I suppose since the SLDR-C was a late addition to an older line of products.  However, for those of you who wished for a more forgiving SLDR Driver, this is it!  There is a truly forgiving SLDR now that still offers the characteristic low forward CG and low spin the SLDR Family is known for.

 

I have been playing the SLDR-C for over 9-months now and I can assure you it delivers long, straight, drives.  With a premium shaft, this is as good as a driver gets!  (I have a 45.5" Miyazaki Kusala Black 61s tipped 1/2" in mine).  In case you are curious, the SLDR-C replaced a Tour issue 12* SLDR 430 with Fuji Motore Speeder 7.3 Tourspec that I was hitting well, but in a head-to-head competition, this new 9.5* SLDR-C/Kusala Black combo just proved superior in every conceivable way.  

 

I've had some very good drivers over the years, but having played this one for awhile now, I can declare it my best driver ever, and I believe others here may like it just as much as I do!  While the SLDR-C is a 2015 model, you can still find it at Golfsmith, Edwin Watts, PGA Superstore etc, and various Online Retailers as well.  It is available in 9.5*, 10.5* and 12* lofts and in both RH and LH.  Give it a hit and compare its performance with your current and other drivers, including TM's latest M-Family.  You may be very surprised, and perhaps even shocked by this "sleeper"...

 

Highly recommended Driver!... 

[Tony Covey MGS]

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.

[revkev]

All I can say is that this discussiion makes much more sense this morning with coffee than it did last night with scotch. Lots of interesting stuff to chew on.

[Kor.A.Door]

All I can say is that this discussiion makes much more sense this morning with coffee than it did last night with scotch. Lots of interesting stuff to chew on.

Coffee at night for me, bourbon in the mornings. When you work night shift, anytime is acceptable for a drink

[PlaidJacket]

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.

[Tony Covey MGS]

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 12° 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.

[hckymeyer]

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 12° 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.

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

[Tony Covey MGS]

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.

[bobcat]

There is no need to "loft up" with the 2015 SLDR-C Series Driver....I went from a 12* Tour issue SLDR 430 (actual 11.3*), down to 9.5* on the SLDR C-Series Driver and trajectory is the same.  (9.5* is actually the loft I have played for most of my life),  

 

Seems the original 2013/2014 SLDR's were very much the exception, and not the rule for how TaylorMade measures the loft that is stamped on the sole plate. 

[Sschaffer24]

That's super interesting. And I have to say that after this conversation and looking at those charts I think am M1 430 needs to be in the cards for me. That CG placement in the draw setting would really help me I think. I'm a high spin player and really need to drop that this season. My G30 LS Tec just isn't cutting it.

[Kenny B]

I've been playing the new Bridgestone JGR driver now for 2 weeks, and there is no way I am going back to my SLDR.  

[Kanoito]

I just went to a demo day at our club to find a replacement for my Adams. Got there late, so only had a chance to test Cobra.

 

King LTD with Chrome Elements 6 beat my gamer by about 20 yards (measured on a Flightscope)

 

The sound of the LTD was much better than then F6, that's for sure.

 

But damn... 499 EUR for a driver? That's insane.

[Mr_Theoo]

I just went to a demo day at our club to find a replacement for my Adams. Got there late, so only had a chance to test Cobra.

 

King LTD with Chrome Elements 6 beat my gamer by about 20 yards (measured on a Flightscope)

 

The sound of the LTD was much better than then F6, that's for sure.

 

But damn... 499 EUR for a driver? That's insane.

There's always eBay

[Kanoito]

There's always eBay

 

Usually eBay works better for last season's gear.

For the current line-up it's still close to USD 400.

Add $50 for shipping to Germany and 22% import tax and you end up with the same price locally

 

I guess I'll have to wait until the LTD is no longer the newest/shiniest

 

BTW, I don't want my results to reflect any of the marketing mumbo-jumbo where the OEM promises 20 yards instantly... instead, let people know that a fitted driver does bring benefits compared to off-the-rack offerings (in my case, the Adams was a stock offering).

 

EDIT: hckymeyer, how did you not get along with this driver?

[Undershooter]

There is no need to "loft up" with the 2015 SLDR-C Series Driver....I went from a 12* Tour issue SLDR 430 (actual 11.3*), down to 9.5* on the SLDR C-Series Driver and trajectory is the same. (9.5* is actually the loft I have played for most of my life),

 

Seems the original 2013/2014 SLDR's were very much the exception, and not the rule for how TaylorMade measures the loft that is stamped on the sole plate.

 

The reason it's similar is because the 9.5* that's stamped on your c series is really closer to 10.5 or 11*. They generally stamp lower loft numbers than is actually on the club. Original SLDR is the exception.

[bobcat]

Yes...As I stated before, with the 2015 SLDR-C's loft measurement, TM returned  to the more "traditional" loft measurement stamping.  The original charcoal gray and silver SLDR Drivers (from 2013 and 2014) were very much the exception in loft, which is why players had to "loft up" to get the same trajectory they were used to with other drivers that had lower lofts on the soleplate.  I had to loft up to a 12* in the Tour 430, (actual 11.3*), which kind of blew me away, because I never needed a loft that high with any other driver.  Now, with the (gloss black) 2015 SLDR-C Driver I am back to 9.5* which is the driver loft I have used for most of my life, and is usually the best loft for me.

 

Having played all all the SLDR's , I much prefer the 9.5* 2015 SLDR-C with a premium shaft. It gives me consistent long, straight drives with loads of forgiveness and it seems quite effortless...basically a point-and-shoot type of driver.  It doesn't make me work nearly as hard for great drives as the 12* SLDR 430 did, which is why I recommended it.

[hckymeyer]

3rd round playing the F6+ AD BB combo.  All I can say at this point is that it's very consistent.  I don't feel like I have the occasional bombs that I did with the SLDR, but at the same time I don't have the occasional snap hooks that I had with it either.

 

Still have no idea why this has happened, but when I put the weight all the way forward I hit nothing but high fades, when I put the weight all the way back the trajectory comes down and I can hit straight balls again.  Basically the exact opposite of how it's supposed to work.

 

Wife got me a driver fitting for my birthday so I play on doing that soon and I'll see how the numbers shake out.

[Mr_Theoo]

Just regripped my SLDR for the first time since I got it. Hope it doesn't lose its magic lol