2011 Callaway RAZR Hawk Driver

[Justin66]

I think that the point that you are missing is Miss-Hits. "Fusion" driver are more forgiving. Most poeple don't hit the center of the club face, and can use every advantage that they can get. Moving the center of gravity affects spin so by moving it further back and away from the face, you are helping to create a higher launch angle with less spin. This is a good thing for the majority of golfers. I can't tell you how many people that I've worked with that have no clue in terms of loft. They're hitting a club with 9* of loft when they should be in something close to 11.

Fact of the matter is this. Steel is better the wood because it's more forgiving. Ti is better than steel, because it's more forgiving. Composite is better than Ti because, it's more forgiving.

If a company could make a club that you could hit anywhere on the face and it would go 300 yards and straight 80% of the time, but was 47" long. EVERY SINGLE person on this site and any other, would buy that driver.

 

 

Composite isn't more forgiving, it's lighter. That's where the benefit comes in. Putting in a composite crown instead of Ti won't make the club more forgiving, it'll lower the head's center of gravity. The head may feel more solid at impact; it may also allow a golfer to insure the head's CG is lower than or equal to the ball's CG, which is what is necessary for best results for the average golfer. The head's still going to weigh ~200g, it's still going to be ~460cc's, it's still going to fit into a 5"x5" box and the face is still not going to be bigger than 2.8". It's forgiveness is already determined by its size and shape... not by the material in the crown.

 

It is VERY doubtful this new composite is any different (possibly cheaper, though...) than what was in the previous iterations of Callaway's FT line. They're built on the same principle, just the "newer, better" stuff is getting hyped: "It's made with help from Lamborghini- that OBVIOUSLY means it's better!". Not likely. Drivers have been forged for quite some time now... unlike with irons/wedges, it's actually CHEAPER to forge the parts of a driver then weld/braze/mechanically lock the pieces together (per multiple sources that I've mentioned to death) compared to casting the pieces. The uninitiated see the word "forged" and start to salivate, because they equate it with "better", but there are NO playability differences for well-struck shots between the processes- if they were, there wouldn't be any Tour pros putting cast cavity-back irons in their bags.

[ForeLeftPGA]

Composite isn't more forgiving, it's lighter. That's where the benefit comes in. Putting in a composite crown instead of Ti won't make the club more forgiving, it'll lower the head's center of gravity. The head may feel more solid at impact; it may also allow a golfer to insure the head's CG is lower than or equal to the ball's CG, which is what is necessary for best results for the average golfer. The head's still going to weigh ~200g, it's still going to be ~460cc's, it's still going to fit into a 5"x5" box and the face is still not going to be bigger than 2.8". It's forgiveness is already determined by its size and shape... not by the material in the crown.

 

It is VERY doubtful this new composite is any different (possibly cheaper, though...) than what was in the previous iterations of Callaway's FT line. They're built on the same principle, just the "newer, better" stuff is getting hyped: "It's made with help from Lamborghini- that OBVIOUSLY means it's better!". Not likely. Drivers have been forged for quite some time now... unlike with irons/wedges, it's actually CHEAPER to forge the parts of a driver then weld/braze/mechanically lock the pieces together (per multiple sources that I've mentioned to death) compared to casting the pieces. The uninitiated see the word "forged" and start to salivate, because they equate it with "better", but there are NO playability differences for well-struck shots between the processes- if they were, there wouldn't be any Tour pros putting cast cavity-back irons in their bags.

Once again... Close but only half correct.

Using a lighter material allows the designer to move more weight around the insides of the club head. This accomplishes two things. 1. the ability to adjust the CG more specifically within the club. 2. the ability to move weight to the parameter of the club head. Anytime you can move more weight to the parameter you increase MOI. The MOI of a Composite head is higher than an all Ti head. Thus making it more forgiving.

The head is also lighter; not 200g. This allows the manufacture to increase the length and maintain a lower swing weight. So companies just add length and keep the same head weight, giving the clubs swing weights of D7 or higher.

I've always been a believer in getting the information directly from the horse's mouth rather than making wildly speculative assumptions about a something that you truly have know knowledge about.

[Justin66]

Once again... Close but only half correct.

Using a lighter material allows the designer to move more weight around the insides of the club head. This accomplishes two things. 1. the ability to adjust the CG more specifically within the club. 2. the ability to move weight to the parameter of the club head. Anytime you can move more weight to the parameter you increase MOI. The MOI of a Composite head is higher than an all Ti head. Thus making it more forgiving.

The head is also lighter; not 200g. This allows the manufacture to increase the length and maintain a lower swing weight. So companies just add length and keep the same head weight, giving the clubs swing weights of D7 or higher.

I've always been a believer in getting the information directly from the horse's mouth rather than making wildly speculative assumptions about a something that you truly have know knowledge about.

 

 

According to Tom Wishon, in his "Equipment Myths" book (try reading it sometime, or are you more of an "expert" than him? And if so, why are you here and not in a Tour van or working for an OEM?), it takes 1,400 g*cm2 to actually make a difference in forgiveness. And are you talking about the face MOI (as the USGA does), the hosel MOI, or Callaway's own MOI-measuring method- since, as with every other measurement, no one has the same standards? Not oly that, but if it WERE less than the industry-standard 200g, they'd say so. Cleveland shaved off a whopping 5g and promoted it as having more distance, since it could be swung faster... and they let everyone know it. The Cally heads I've seen (including the FT-5 I own) was/is between 200 and 205.2g... within their tolerance. Yet how was each marketed? The lighter (than Ti) crown and "fusion" technology. Sound familiar?

[TWShoot67]

Funny every Cally FT9 TA or FT Tour I've seen or personally weighed, the head has been between 196 to 199. I have yet to find one over 200 grams. Heck you can see that for yourself a bunch of Callaway FT Tour head only sales on eBay by one certain seller and he has all the weight stickers right on the head comming from Cally van. Now these are heads from tour Van (not retail) now if we add some hot melt for sound I can get it in the 200 to 201 weight catagory. Now as far as FT-5's I wish I would have weighed the last one I owned before selling many moons ago. Maybe they were 200 to 205 but I believe most of those were in the high 190's. Personally I'm more of a TM driver guy as I love the weight feel of my Old Ti. R510 DF Proto. The only club that has come close to feel and distance to my R510 is my FT9 TA. The R510 gave me massive gains in yardage from my earlier drivers such as my Titleist 975D and my TM Ti.Bubble! But since the R510 none of these lastest greates drivers have givin me any more yardage that they claim,and that club was born around 2004/5 I believe. Now I never played the FT3 but I heard that's one of the longest drivers or highest ball speed drivers ever made. Or maybe that's all hype as well. All I know is my boy Graeme was using it this year in the US Open and he had access to all Cally products. maybe that's saying something and maybe its not. Maybe all it's saying is that Graeme feels comfortable with his old FT3 like I feel comfortable with my R510 DF. Both still one of the longest drivers out there and its atleast 5 years old. Bottom line is I don't think any one OEM has the lock on HYPE they all market everything today as the next big thing , because if they didn't no one would run out and buy it. Bottom line... that's all that matters and now Cally has joined in the same TM game of making new drivers every 2 months.With 4 versions of the original model. LOL

[ForeLeftPGA]

According to Tom Wishon, in his "Equipment Myths" book (try reading it sometime, or are you more of an "expert" than him? And if so, why are you here and not in a Tour van or working for an OEM?), it takes 1,400 g*cm2 to actually make a difference in forgiveness. And are you talking about the face MOI (as the USGA does), the hosel MOI, or Callaway's own MOI-measuring method- since, as with every other measurement, no one has the same standards? Not oly that, but if it WERE less than the industry-standard 200g, they'd say so. Cleveland shaved off a whopping 5g and promoted it as having more distance, since it could be swung faster... and they let everyone know it. The Cally heads I've seen (including the FT-5 I own) was/is between 200 and 205.2g... within their tolerance. Yet how was each marketed? The lighter (than Ti) crown and "fusion" technology. Sound familiar?

I'm not sure what my employment has to do with anything with what I post here...

I am VERY familure with Mr Wishon and the internal workings of clubs heads.

The information that I am giving is based on testing, both personal and professionally. Dispersion is tighter and longer with "composite" products over non-composite.

At 45 inches 200g heads equal out between D0 and D3. So using a lighter, stronger material, you can extend the club to 46 inches and still have a swingweight that is not super high like some manufactures have...

I understand that you may not like a company or it's products, but why make erroneous statements?

[Justin66]

I understand that you may not like a company or it's products, but why make erroneous statements?

 

 

'Cause that's how I roll LOL.

 

Granted, I'm not a professional, and I don't own or are part of a company (I do wish sometimes that I were...) but everything I've done has been on my own. I haven't been able to test every single thing out there, but as a lefty living in the equivalent of golf's Antarctica, I've burnt a LOT of money on stuff to test. Was it worth it? You bet. Was it complete? As far as I'm concerned, no, but it's never ending- and nothing as near as I can tell is set in stone (call me wishy-washy, it doesn't matter to me). I also own nearly every equipment book available (still have to pick up "The Search For The Perfect Driver" and "Dear Frank"). I also have my own personal dealings, working in the automotive industry (no jokes... we're getting better, I think) working with composites, plastics and the need to turn a profit.

 

I've never claimed expertise, just what I know. I can fit a person to a club or clubs, I can (and do) build them from scratch- swingweighted, MOI-matched (the easy way or the hard way), counter-balanced, whatever, but I'm missing one maybe important piece of equipment: a membership into a clubmaker's guild. Do I want one, though? Nope, but again, maybe I will, eventually. I've never felt the need to "belong" to a group- not to mention having to pay an annual fee to be a member in said organization never really appealed to me, as well.

 

I'm also the first person to put my hand in the air and say "I f'ed up" when it's clear I did- I do it here and in the "real world". It happens, and as the old saying goes, "No one's perfect". But will I apologize? Nope. I don't apologize for the way I feel- and I don't expect others to do so, either. I consider MGS a place to learn about golf equipment. Everyone has their own way, but they're never "erroneous". Everyone also has the right to believe what they believe, gathering it through either their own studying, accepting advertisements as fact, or just listening to friends/associates talk about their equipment.

 

Since I'm opening up (by the looks of it, more than I ever have here) one little interesting tidbit: the "66" in my name isn't golf-specific. It's my old football number, and has become a kind of "call signal" for me throughout the years. I don't know why I still use it...

[ForeLeftPGA]

'Cause that's how I roll LOL.

 

Granted, I'm not a professional, and I don't own or are part of a company (I do wish sometimes that I were...) but everything I've done has been on my own. I haven't been able to test every single thing out there, but as a lefty living in the equivalent of golf's Antarctica, I've burnt a LOT of money on stuff to test. Was it worth it? You bet. Was it complete? As far as I'm concerned, no, but it's never ending- and nothing as near as I can tell is set in stone (call me wishy-washy, it doesn't matter to me). I also own nearly every equipment book available (still have to pick up "The Search For The Perfect Driver" and "Dear Frank"). I also have my own personal dealings, working in the automotive industry (no jokes... we're getting better, I think) working with composites, plastics and the need to turn a profit.

 

I've never claimed expertise, just what I know. I can fit a person to a club or clubs, I can (and do) build them from scratch- swingweighted, MOI-matched (the easy way or the hard way), counter-balanced, whatever, but I'm missing one maybe important piece of equipment: a membership into a clubmaker's guild. Do I want one, though? Nope, but again, maybe I will, eventually. I've never felt the need to "belong" to a group- not to mention having to pay an annual fee to be a member in said organization never really appealed to me, as well.

 

I'm also the first person to put my hand in the air and say "I f'ed up" when it's clear I did- I do it here and in the "real world". It happens, and as the old saying goes, "No one's perfect". But will I apologize? Nope. I don't apologize for the way I feel- and I don't expect others to do so, either. I consider MGS a place to learn about golf equipment. Everyone has their own way, but they're never "erroneous". Everyone also has the right to believe what they believe, gathering it through either their own studying, accepting advertisements as fact, or just listening to friends/associates talk about their equipment.

 

Since I'm opening up (by the looks of it, more than I ever have here) one little interesting tidbit: the "66" in my name isn't golf-specific. It's my old football number, and has become a kind of "call signal" for me throughout the years. I don't know why I still use it...

Thank you for that post.

Let me clarify my thoughts.

I felt that your comments had no fact base and were strictly assumptions and personal feelings about the products. Personally, I have my company that I follow and play. That being said, despite past relationships with a certain vendor, I would never "bad mouth" that company, or any other for that matter. I see equipment on this and other sites that I don't like the looks of, but I would never speak ill of that company or speak in terms that I have no information about. In fact, I doubt that I would even comment. I guess I don't understand why people feel the need to be negative.

A little back ground on me… I currently am and have been in the golf business for over 15 years. I do not consider myself an expert, as I feel that I am always learning. I am also a PGA member.

[Justin66]

Thank you for that post.

Let me clarify my thoughts.

I felt that your comments had no fact base and were strictly assumptions and personal feelings about the products. Personally, I have my company that I follow and play. That being said, despite past relationships with a certain vendor, I would never "bad mouth" that company, or any other for that matter. I see equipment on this and other sites that I don't like the looks of, but I would never speak ill of that company or speak in terms that I have no information about. In fact, I doubt that I would even comment. I guess I don't understand why people feel the need to be negative.

A little back ground on me… I currently am and have been in the golf business for over 15 years. I do not consider myself an expert, as I feel that I am always learning. I am also a PGA member.

 

 

'Tis A-OK with me. I don't go the OEM route, and I do try to compliment them when I can (I've noticed I have a pattern of leaning towards the "little guy", like W/S, more). I think a big thing for me with Callaway is, their CEO was quoted in Golf magazine about making the game more affordable. Add that with this "innovation" (It's still going to be a good product, but I feel it won't be any better/worse than what's out there now) and the fact that it's still out of most people's price range... it just doesn't sit well with me. Maybe I have made it a little more personal than I need to... but Mr. Fellows shouldn't say one thing and do another. Personally, I think people should speak up more. We seem to think it's OK to sit back and say "You're charging $500 for that? OK...". It doesn't have to be that way.

 

I do have to thank you, though. I've been putting more and more thought into becoming a member of a clubmaking society, moreso than I have in a while. Maybe I should take the proverbial plunge?

[Andrew Bush]

awkaward!!!

[pgapro]

Funny every Cally FT9 TA or FT Tour I've seen or personally weighed, the head has been between 196 to 199. I have yet to find one over 200 grams. Heck you can see that for yourself a bunch of Callaway FT Tour head only sales on eBay by one certain seller and he has all the weight stickers right on the head comming from Cally van. Now these are heads from tour Van (not retail) now if we add some hot melt for sound I can get it in the 200 to 201 weight catagory. Now as far as FT-5's I wish I would have weighed the last one I owned before selling many moons ago. Maybe they were 200 to 205 but I believe most of those were in the high 190's. Personally I'm more of a TM driver guy as I love the weight feel of my Old Ti. R510 DF Proto. The only club that has come close to feel and distance to my R510 is my FT9 TA. The R510 gave me massive gains in yardage from my earlier drivers such as my Titleist 975D and my TM Ti.Bubble! But since the R510 none of these lastest greates drivers have givin me any more yardage that they claim,and that club was born around 2004/5 I believe. Now I never played the FT3 but I heard that's one of the longest drivers or highest ball speed drivers ever made. Or maybe that's all hype as well. All I know is my boy Graeme was using it this year in the US Open and he had access to all Cally products. maybe that's saying something and maybe its not. Maybe all it's saying is that Graeme feels comfortable with his old FT3 like I feel comfortable with my R510 DF. Both still one of the longest drivers out there and its atleast 5 years old. Bottom line is I don't think any one OEM has the lock on HYPE they all market everything today as the next big thing , because if they didn't no one would run out and buy it. Bottom line... that's all that matters and now Cally has joined in the same TM game of making new drivers every 2 months.With 4 versions of the original model. LOL

not exactly true. Callaway is only coming out with a new driver every year and only in the ti. versions. All others in the line are in the line for two years.

[sallyboy715]

awkaward!!!

 

U can say that again!

Btw it's Awkward. One A to many.

[One Putt]

They won't make titanium head drivers ever again.. till that becomes the "IN" thing. If it does they'll jump on the bandwagon like everyone else will do. LOL!

An extra inch is gonna equal 20 extra yards of dispersion too. People have a lot of trouble handling 45" shaft lengths.

Sorry, I'll pass.

 

 

I think you should probably notice that there is no longer a bore through into the head. Also, supposedly from testing the new RIP shaft has a higher kick point that counterbalances weighting and supposedly higher launch angle. IF and that I admit could be a very big IF the lighter head and projected higher club head speed can give you more distance the combination of everything should lead to a touch more control. Also, Callaway needed to do something to get head weight and swing weight down because at 46" their previous clubs were about D6.

Next: Question: Why is it that Callaway has gone away from Fujikura shafts? Could it be that they haven't paid their bills and Fujikura won't ship them? Why with all of the buzz on the new BLUR shaft has Callaway chosen the inferior RIP as the standard shaft? IF Callaway wanted more control and clubhead speed and they had improved weighting for off center hits didn't they go with the smaller 440cc head like they did on the Razr Tour model?

[bha2597]

ugly driver and after the people say the burner 2.0 is ugly.

[Xamilo]

ugly driver and after the people say the burner 2.0 is ugly.

 

Seriously mate, I've tried but have not understood any of your posts....