Clone Equipment

[indacup]

That was the same year they got busted with drivers taht were too hot, correct? If memory serves (and it's hit-or-miss with me, sometimes... LOL) I think that's when it happened. Correct me if I'm wrong, though!

 

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.

[indacup]

 

 

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I gamed Pinemeadow gear for almost two years and I never had an issue. My driver, hybrid, SW and LW were Pinemeadows. There's a guy on my old league that gamed a full set of Pinemeadows, going on 5 years of having them. He shoots in the high 70's-low 80's, so I'm pretty sure they're still working for him.

 

If people think only the offbrands are using "cheap" material... sorry, but they aren't. The major OEMs do, as well... but it's a loose definition of "cheap". 6-4 and 15-3-3-3 Ti are the two most common materials used- by both the OEMs AND The "offbrands" (just as what indacup said). It's the counterfeiters that use poor material, like a mixture of Ti and who knows what else. is just some inferior mix, they've opened themselves up to a lawsuit... what reputable company would do that?

 

You can't use breakage as an issue, either... So OEM clubs are indestructable? Not likely. A buddy of mine had a FT-3 break on its third usage. Does that make it inferior? No, it's just one of those things... it stinks, but it happens. To everyone, at some point.

 

Personally, I think it's more about having perceptions shattered than anything else. Some people don't like hearing that their $1500 gear won't yield them anything better than the $300 I paid for mine. They get defensive... like trying to justify going out and buying a Lambo, when they know deep down they don't need it. I don't understand that, though... it isn't about what you buy or how much you spent (so long as it isn't counterfeit). If it's fit for your game and swing, you can spend whatever you want.

 

I'm going to restate this, but anyway: more people need to realize that this game can be accessible AND affordable. From talking to people, they don't like feeling like they have to spend $1,000+ just to get started. There's also that perception of elitism still because they hear about the $1000+ gear and the $100+ rounds of golf. They're told they aren't REAL golfers unless they're gaming the Pings, Callaways, etc., or not going to Pebble and St. Andrews. It gets disheartening, and frankly, shouldn't be that way. I tell them about my gear and it changes their mind- not for all, but most. It shows them that there ARE alternatives- quality alternatives- to getting started.

 

@indacup- you might be surprised to know that there are OEMs that use "open molds", as well. Reps from the OEMs go to the foundry and pick out a design they like. It then gets stampped/stickered with their name on it. Maltby has talked about this before, but he, like everyone else, won't name names (much like the "which Tour players are using Miura/Endo/other forgings with their sponsor's stamping on them" discussion)... which is a practice I think should stop. Everyone has the right to feel the way they do, but for me personally, I don't feel this qualifies as "stealing".

 

Yeah, I edited this. After rereading it, that highlighted line sounded pretty freaking superficial and not what I was trying to say at all... Sheesh, I thought I was a better proofreader than that.

 

Very good post!

 

But they aren't "stealing". They are allowed to use those designs, one way or the other. If it were stealing, it's a pretty safe bet the clone companies like GigaGolf, Pinemeadow and DiamondTour would have their equipment confiscated, business taken and website shut down, since they'd be a HELLUVA lot easier to find than the counterfeiters.

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"

 

The major OEMs do, as well... but it's a loose definition of "cheap". 6-4 and 15-3-3-3 Ti are the two most common materials used- by both the OEMs AND The "offbrands" (just as what indacup said). It's the counterfeiters that use poor material, like a mixture of Ti and who knows what else.

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

 

indacup- you might be surprised to know that there are OEMs that use "open molds", as well. Reps from the OEMs go to the foundry and pick out a design they like. It then gets stampped/stickered with their name on it.

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.

[GolfSpy_X]

PAINT:

 

Well I have been a part of a couple hundred designs both on the OEM and component side. And when you work with the companies you are designing for and the foundries the process is much different. In order to keep costs lower for the components but still have similar technology compared to the OEM's they generally do not put as much as an investment in the finishes and paint. Paint is not always just on the crown of a driver...often times is surrounds the edges of the face and sole and also the sole often has a different types of finishes like bead blasting/painting/paintfill and also large depressed areas that are filled with large amounts of paint as well (example Nike Sumo). And often times the amount of coats of paint and quality of clear coats are much different. Which leads to them wearing down faster...but 99% of the time golfers in the market for clones or components are less interested in paint wear in comparison to technology and price point. And over my years in the industry watching these designs grow in years you definitely notice a difference.

 

CRACKING DRIVERS:

 

Cracking drivers has little to do with the actual titanium material used for the face INDACUP and much more to do with the welding joints and type of welding used on drivers. This is not hard to back up at all actually. If you were to open up a component head or clone driver compared to a OEM this is where you will see one of the drastic differences between to two. Common welding practices are much cheaper then the types of welding the OEM's now use. Most often the breakeage happens at one of the joints where the crown and the face are welded together. This is the reason you see things like cup face designs, vacuum welding, plasma welding, brazing, etc. being used now by major OEM's.

 

And yes 9-6-4 titanium is cheaper then some others used in golf but it still has its advantages in some applications for example slower swing speeds it shows better rebound results then SP700 or 15-3-3 titanium and often times it is a better material for the crown. This is because when the ball is struck the crown actually swells and 9-6-4 has been shown to perform better then some of the higher cost titaniums.

 

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.

[Justin66]

 

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.

 

We can see that copying between OEMs with the new irons that are coming out with that "Y-Tuning Port" deal that Mizuno had already used. Sometimes it makes me wonder if they think the golfing population is just blind and/or ignorant. I guess I'll really get my answer if Ping comes out with PowerBow technology .

 

Golf Magazine has done an article about the difficulty of naming a club, but they didn't get into the bullying/stealing that OEMs do. Indacup, I hope you can stand up to them, especially given the crap you went through the first time. From my point of view this seems like a flat-out strong-arm tactic by an imaginationless OEM. I know it's just a name, but still...

 

However, with your posts I see where you're coming from in all this- I can respect that.

[indacup]

PAINT:

 

Well I have been a part of a couple hundred designs both on the OEM and component side. And when you work with the companies you are designing for and the foundries the process is much different. In order to keep costs lower for the components but still have similar technology compared to the OEM's they generally do not put as much as an investment in the finishes and paint. Paint is not always just on the crown of a driver...often times is surrounds the edges of the face and sole and also the sole often has a different types of finishes like bead blasting/painting/paintfill and also large depressed areas that are filled with large amounts of paint as well (example Nike Sumo). And often times the amount of coats of paint and quality of clear coats are much different. Which leads to them wearing down faster...but 99% of the time golfers in the market for clones or components are less interested in paint wear in comparison to technology and price point. And over my years in the industry watching these designs grow in years you definitely notice a difference.

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.

 

CRACKING DRIVERS:

 

Cracking drivers has little to do with the actual titanium material used for the face INDACUP and much more to do with the welding joints and type of welding used on drivers. This is not hard to back up at all actually.

If you were to open up a component head or clone driver compared to a OEM this is where you will see one of the drastic differences between to two. Common welding practices are much cheaper then the types of welding the OEM's now use. Most often the breakeage happens at one of the joints where the crown and the face are welded together. This is the reason you see things like cup face designs, vacuum welding, plasma welding, brazing, etc. being used now by major OEM's.

 

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.

 

And yes 9-6-4 titanium is cheaper then some others used in golf but it still has its advantages in some applications for example slower swing speeds it shows better rebound results then SP700 or 15-3-3 titanium and often times it is a better material for the crown. This is because when the ball is struck the crown actually swells and 9-6-4 has been shown to perform better then some of the higher cost titaniums.

 

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.

[indacup]

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!

[GolfSpy_X]

You can think it is irresponsible for me to claim that clone welds are worse then OEM's all you want Indacup but this is the truth sorry to break it to you. When you compare the two (clones vs major OEM's) there is no compariosn to be made when it comes to the welding done. The clones definitely cut corners when it comes to this aspect of the club design. And the main reason is because the golfers don't see it and they care more about price point then quality when it comes to what the golfers can't see. Internal weightong issues caused by cheap welding is not a concern of the clone manufacturers...once again 9999 ot of 10000 times no clone club business owner is going to scrutinize the foundries work of the internal structure of a head. I have seen the QC done by them and you would not be impressed.

 

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.

[indacup]

You can think it is irresponsible for me to claim that clone welds are worse then OEM's all you want Indacup but this is the truth sorry to break it to you. When you compare the two (clones vs major OEM's) there is no compariosn to be made when it comes to the welding done. The clones definitely cut corners when it comes to this aspect of the club design. And the main reason is because the golfers don't see it and they care more about price point then quality when it comes to what the golfers can't see. Internal weightong issues caused by cheap welding is not a concern of the clone manufacturers...once again 9999 ot of 10000 times no clone club business owner is going to scrutinize the foundries work of the internal structure of a head. I have seen the QC done by them and you would not be impressed.

 

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!

[RookieBlue7]

Indacup, which thief, excuse me, clone company do you work for? I'm just curious, as you are making it appear you work for one.

[GolfSpy_X]

Not condemning clones at all...actually just saying what the truth is about the quality of their welding. But a bad weld job does not equate to a driver not performing well. I have hit many clones that outperform the club they are cloning when it comes to comparing distance.

 

Not making a stand either...simply replying to your comments and questions.

 

 

 

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!

[JBones]

I've only read the last few posts, but I will add this. I have busted the face on 5-6 clone drivers, opposed to only 1 OEM (Callaway Steelhead). Take what you will from that.

[indacup]

I've only read the last few posts, but I will add this. I have busted the face on 5-6 clone drivers, opposed to only 1 OEM (Callaway Steelhead). Take what you will from that.

 

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.

[Justin66]

Not to beat the dead horse, but how about a test? Can we get a clone G10 and the real deal (it can be any brand, really), cut them up and let everyone see what's inside? Same with FWs and hybrids- they have to have welds, as well. I've seen pictures of a counterfeit Callaway driver that had shoddy welding and no weight chip, but I've never heard of the clones doing a bad job... Makes me curious.

[GolfSpy_X]

Yes Justin this is one we definitely want to do in the near future. We will look into cutting them open and also getting metallurgical tests done as well.

[GolfSpy_X]

We are one step closer to having a really compelling Clone (vs) Name Brand review done soon. I think you guys are REALLY going to like what we are going to do.

 

I have never seen anyone else in the industry do this before so it should be very interesting to see the results.

[Moecat]

I wonder if Name Brand should be nervous

[cheymike]

I'm really wondering that myself Moecat!

MGS, just a thought... How about before doing the cutting... could ya do some testing on 'em and compare stats between the clone and the club it is suppose to be a clone of??? That plus the "cutting" should either confirm or remove any doubts people might have about them.

[GolfSpy_X]

We got you covered CheyMike

[indacup]

Yes Justin this is one we definitely want to do in the near future. We will look into cutting them open and also getting metallurgical tests done as well.

 

That would be huge! I think many people will be shocked when they see the low quality mat'l being used in OEM products.

[GolfSpy_X]

We spent a good portion of our day speaking with the companies that will be involved with the metallurgical tests and the other tests that will be performed on the heads.

 

For right now we are going to do 1 Name Brand Driver (vs) 1 Clone Driver...but might offer this as an on-gong series down the road if it is received well.

 

We will also test both drivers like we do the other clubs we test as well to get good data on how they compare.

[Justin66]

We spent a good portion of our day speaking with the companies that will be involved with the metallurgical tests and the other tests that will be performed on the heads.

 

For right now we are going to do 1 Name Brand Driver (vs) 1 Clone Driver...but might offer this as an on-gong series down the road if it is received well.

 

We will also test both drivers like we do the other clubs we test as well to get good data on how they compare.

 

No matter how this ends up, at least we can be at ease knowing MGS is going to be fair and unbiased... If Golf Digest or the like did this, it's be a fair bet that wouldn't be the case. This is pretty exciting!

[cycleguy55]

On 10/12/2010 at 7:16 PM, GolfSpy_X said:

We spent a good portion of our day speaking with the companies that will be involved with the metallurgical tests and the other tests that will be performed on the heads.

 

For right now we are going to do 1 Name Brand Driver (vs) 1 Clone Driver...but might offer this as an on-gong series down the road if it is received well.

 

We will also test both drivers like we do the other clubs we test as well to get good data on how they compare.

I seem to recall reading about this test. Do you have a link to it?

[Micah T]

On 3/23/2010 at 10:26 AM, Moecat said:

When I first picked up golf, I started off with clone clubs made by www.pinemeadowgolf.com ... great customer service, and very high quality stuff.

Me too: they reminded me of the taylormade burners : they were awesome and I had zero complaints once I re-gripped them...