TaylorMade M1 vs. R7 SuperQuad - MGS Comparison

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

So, did you guys read the head to head test of TMag's M1 vs the 10 year old R7 SuperQuad?  

 

If not, read it here.

 

Again, some of the comments get a little comical...

 

What do you guys think?

[null]

Get off my lawn!

 

Golf hipsters will never admit that 10 year old tech is inferior, no matter how much evidence you have that says otherwise

[MmmmmmBuddy]

I found it to be an interesting case study. Just looking at the 3 key numbers (LA, SR,and BS) I am not at all surprised at the results. This is EXACTLY what I would expect from drivers that are of that vintage.

• Ball speeds are going to be almost identical on center hits.  The rules mandate this.  I would expect a very slight improvement in the newer club due to forgiveness improvements made in the last 10 years.  
• Launch Angles should be higher on the newer drivers.  That has been the trend in recent years, so I am not at all surprised to see the M1 have a higher launch angle than SQ.
• The lower spin rate also is to be expected. The trend line has been towards lower spin/higher launch for years.  

I think that the thing to take away from this is that a properly fit driver from a few years back can be almost as good as something that is properly fit from today, just not as forgiving on off center hits.

[Kenny B]

How much yardage was gained by the M1 for the 110-115 swing speed and how much yardage was gained by the 90-95 swing speed if 14 yards was the average?  Inquiring minds want to know.

[JudgeSmails]

I didn't see anywhere in the article, were they using identical shafts in both?

[ole gray]

I have a friend who still plays the old TM SuperQuad..  He tried the latest Nike and couldn't keep in on the golf course so he went back to old reliable.  

[Golfspy_CG2]

I read it and as I commented in the blog, I was glad to see it show that much distance gain over the 10 years.  Sure the tech is greater now, even though COR hasn't changed, so I think there is so much emphasis and info put out about Low Spin being the way to go (all be it not for everyone) it definitely showed in modern tech that low spin can help.   Now I had one of he low spin drivers from Adams about 8 years ago or so, and I couldn't keep it on the planet, but I did hit some of my longest drives ever with it, when I did.   FWIW

[MmmmmmBuddy]

I didn't see anywhere in the article, were they using identical shafts in both?

 

I believe that the stock shafts for each driver were used in the testing..  At least that is what I could glean from reading the test results and comments..

[Kenny B]

I believe that the stock shafts for each driver were used in the testing..  At least that is what I could glean from reading the test results and comments..

Most any stock graphite shaft from 10 years ago had quality issues.  Good ones and not so good ones.  Lots more variation in construction.  Today's shafts are much better.  I suspect that some of the difference in spin and launch were due to the difference in shafts.  But that's a different test if we are comparing OTR clubs from two eras.

[MmmmmmBuddy]

Most any stock graphite shaft from 10 years ago had quality issues.  Good ones and not so good ones.  Lots more variation in construction.  Today's shafts are much better.  I suspect that some of the difference in spin and launch were due to the difference in shafts.  But that's a different test if we are comparing OTR clubs from two eras.

 

Correct.

 

But the takeaway is that a properly fit driver, even if it is a few years old, can be as good as a premium high $$$ driver from today on center hits.  It's on miss hits that we are able to start seeing the differences.  

 

Then it becomes a simple math equation...  is spending X $ worth Y % improvement on miss hits.  There is no one correct answer to this equation, and we all have to figure out what the variables are..

 

(stupid math)

[null]

Correct.

 

But the takeaway is that a properly fit driver, even if it is a few years old, can be as good as a premium high $$$ driver from today on center hits. It's on miss hits that we are able to start seeing the differences.

 

Then it becomes a simple math equation... is spending X $ worth Y % improvement on miss hits. There is no one correct answer to this equation, and we all have to figure out what the variables are..

 

(stupid math)

Disagree completely. Launch parameters (launch and spin) on center hits has changed so much over the last 10 years. Performance on center hits has changed a ton.

[MmmmmmBuddy]

Disagree completely. Launch parameters (launch and spin) on center hits has changed so much over the last 10 years. Performance on center hits has changed a ton.

 

On stock options yes... 

 

We are not talking about the merits of stock drivers from 10 years ago vs today's clubs. There is a night and day difference. 

 

On my properly fit driver from 10 years ago, I find that I have exactly the same launch conditions as a properly fit driver from today..  Exactly.  

 

It's why I cannot replace my R9 SuperDeep.  My misses with the driver are usually pretty small, and that thing keeps putting up amazing speed/launch and spin numbers.  It is as good as anything I have hit in 10 years.  

 

I am not discounting the fact that drivers have gotten better over the years.  They have.  They are just not 15 yards better every year. 

[bullldog]

Yes I read it & with a YouTube vide help me make a decision not to digress on driver. Really thought of going back to R7 Quad.

[null]

I put a matrix black tie in my persimmon and I nothing can beat it when I hit its on the screws

[null]

 

 

I am not discounting the fact that drivers have gotten better over the years.  They have.  They are just not 15 yards better every year. 

 

I don't think anyone in here has ever said that drivers are "15 yards better every year".

[cnosil]

I don't think anyone in here has ever said that drivers are "15 yards better every year".

Hype and marketing from manufacturers seems to state that with each new release

[null]

Hype and marketing from manufacturers seems to state that with each new release

 

I know that we are really "anti-hype" here, but can you provide an example where a manufacturer states that a new release will provide 15 yards more than the previous release?

 

In fact, i doubt you can find a manufacturer that ever has any sort of yardage gain claim with a new release vs the immediate prior release.

 

If you read the fine print in almost all marketing materials, distance/yardage gain claims are always against releases that are at least 3-4 years old

[cnosil]

Taylormade RBZ claimed to gain 17 yards for better players. I don't see fine print in the specs. But I shouldn't have to look for fine print.

 

https://taylormadegolf.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-TMaG-Library/default/v1462868457362/docs/productspecs/TM_SPR_2012_Catalog_11.pdf

[null]

Taylormade RBZ claimed to gain 17 yards for better players. I don't see fine print in the specs. But I shouldn't have to look for fine print.

 

https://taylormadegolf.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-TMaG-Library/default/v1462868457362/docs/productspecs/TM_SPR_2012_Catalog_11.pdf

 

The fine print is there:

 

"Better player claim against Burner 11 Fairway, robot testing at 150MPH ball speed, total distance"

[cnosil]

The fine print is there:

 

"Better player claim against Burner 11 Fairway, robot testing at 150MPH ball speed, total distance"

So therein lies the problem. Why should I have to search for fine print? Not a golf specific issue but I believe it is designed to mislead the consumer

[Golfspy_CG2]

The fine print is there:

 

"Better player claim against Burner 11 Fairway, robot testing at 150MPH ball speed, total distance"

 

 

So therein lies the problem. Why should I have to search for fine print? Not a golf specific issue but I believe it is designed to mislead the consumer

I agree here.  I happened to be out at TMAG HQ right around the time of the RBZ release and the 17 yards longer claim was everywhere thoughout the public area of the building, even had a hallway carpet with yardage markers on it, making off 17 yards and the claim.   I didn't recall seeing any fine print on the carpet 

 

But the fact is, this was the first yardage claim that came to mind when you asked the original question a few posts above, before I even read cnosil's post.   it was very heavily marketed by TaylorMade at the time. 

[Kkaw1988]

I thought this was a great read and something most people enjoyed seeing. I'd love to see this more often and with other manufacturers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[null]

So therein lies the problem. Why should I have to search for fine print? Not a golf specific issue but I believe it is designed to mislead the consumer

Because fine print exists in marketing for just about every industry imaginable.

 

Let's stop pretending this is unique to the golf industry

[cnosil]

Let's stop pretending this is unique to the golf industry

I acknowledged in my post that it was more than golf industry. Don't personally believe that it should happen anwhere

[Kenny B]

Taylormade RBZ claimed to gain 17 yards for better players. I don't see fine print in the specs. But I shouldn't have to look for fine print.

 

https://taylormadegolf.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-TMaG-Library/default/v1462868457362/docs/productspecs/TM_SPR_2012_Catalog_11.pdf

MmmmmmBuddy was referencing drivers when he said that nobody claimed 15 yards more than the last version, and I agree.  I won't see that ever; I may only see a yard or two, if that.

 

Your reference is for the RBZ fairway wood, and while I did not see 17 yards better than my old fairway wood, I did see a bigger gain than other fairway woods at the time.  I think it changed the fairway woods for all OEMs.  I still have my RBZ and would still be playing it, but my SS has dropped because of old age.  lol.  I still play the RBZ hybrids because I haven't found anything better.

[cnosil]

MmmmmmBuddy was referencing drivers when he said that nobody claimed 15 yards more than the last version, and I agree.  I won't see that ever; I may only see a yard or two, if that.

 

 

If we want to look at drivers,  the best I could find was "up to 7 yards" for the Callaway V-Series against the same year Big Bertha.  

 

In the end it doesn't really matter to me;  I am a prove it to me kind of person and until I test the club the ads just tell me  what equipment is coming out.

[cksurfdude]

I have to get to the range to do my own quite UN-scientific test: happen to have an old R7 Super Quad (a bit beat up and with a stiff .. yes, old graphite .. shaft - I play Regular) and an unused RBZ (both castoffs by a step-son). Curious if either might work for me? And if so: which one might feel like it could get me into the fairway more often? (Very willing to trade off distance for accuracy.)

[Kenny B]

I have to get to the range to do my own quite UN-scientific test: happen to have an old R7 Super Quad (a bit beat up and with a stiff .. yes, old graphite .. shaft - I play Regular) and an unused RBZ (both castoffs by a step-son). Curious if either might work for me? And if so: which one might feel like it could get me into the fairway more often? (Very willing to trade off distance for accuracy.)

My bet is on the SQ for accuracy, but the RBZ might be a little longer.  However, I would still go with a driver from the last year over both of them.  

[numberonecoog]

I love everyone trying to claim the shaft and disprove these results. Im not saying that year to year an extra 3 yards is worth 500 dollars but we have learned a lot about maximizing distance. We now know high launch + low spin = Max Distance. The shaft matters but club head matters more than shaft in my opinion. Go grab a PING G SF TEC vs a M1 430 and put in the exact same shaft. I will bet a lot of money that you will launch the PING higher with more spin due to the CG of the heads no matter the shaft.

 

Some drivers found this out early on kind of accident. The burner 07 and the Ping Rapture v2 are some drivers that launched high with low spin from that same time line. When I worked at a top 100 fitter when those came in we knew we were going to have a hard time beating it. 

 

Simply put the CG in the M1 is more optimized for distance than the r7. Thats due to the fact we know more about how launch conditions affect launch. Its not a knock on the r7. Its just the facts.

 

 

I dont use the same computer I did 10 years ago. Thats not because my old computer is bad, Its just because technology has advanced. We have learned more.  

[null]

I love everyone trying to claim the shaft and disprove these results. Im not saying that year to year an extra 3 yards is worth 500 dollars but we have learned a lot about maximizing distance. We now know high launch + low spin = Max Distance. The shaft matters but club head matters more than shaft in my opinion. Go grab a PING G SF TEC vs a M1 430 and put in the exact same shaft. I will bet a lot of money that you will launch the PING higher with more spin due to the CG of the heads no matter the shaft.

 

Some drivers found this out early on kind of accident. The burner 07 and the Ping Rapture v2 are some drivers that launched high with low spin from that same time line. When I worked at a top 100 fitter when those came in we knew we were going to have a hard time beating it.

 

Simply put the CG in the M1 is more optimized for distance than the r7. Thats due to the fact we know more about how launch conditions affect launch. Its not a knock on the r7. Its just the facts.

 

 

I dont use the same computer I did 10 years ago. Thats not because my old computer is bad, Its just because technology has advanced. We have learned more.

Some drivers found this out early on kind of accident. The burner 07 and the Ping Rapture v2 are some drivers that launched high with low spin from that same time line. When I worked at a top 100 fitter when those came in we knew we were going to have a hard time beating it.

Ding ding ding!