MyGolfSpy's 2013 ULTIMATE Driver Test

[kygolfer1980]

I hit the Covert, Covert tour, Cobra Amp, R1, and 913 D2 on the launch monitor. Overall the R1 was the best performer but my dispersion was best with the 913.

[TWShoot67]

.

 

 

I like this #Datacratic, #TheHottestList

Good job buddy!

[sailer]

As most of you know: When a golfer hits one driver better then another it is because it simply fits him/her better in regards to length, loft, face angel, swing weight/moi, total weight, shaft flex, shaft bend profile, grip size and texture. Not because there is something magical about the 460cc head as all heads are pushing the .830 COR and are all quite good on off center hit performance.

There will never be one driver that 100% of golfers will hit better then all others because all golfers are different in their strength, athletic ability, swing speed, tempo, and where they release the club (where the wrists unhinge) during the swing. Although having real golfers test clubs is a good thing, a more accurate test to see which diver is longest would be a robot that swings the same with every driver - set for a plus two degree ascending angle of attack, a 1.1 second tempo, medium transition, mid release, and a 100 mph swing speed. Then do the test with contact 1/2" toward the two and then 1/2" toward the heel to test off center hit performance. This would obviously make sure all swings are the same.

[furu]

Robots don't play golf

 

I'm more interested in hearing what other golfers think about products, do my own testing and base my decision on my own numbers. Tests are inspiration and information. They are not definitive results.

[Walkerjames]

Robots don't play golf

 

I'm more interested in hearing what other golfers think about products, do my own testing and base my decision on my own numbers. Tests are inspiration and information. They are not definitive results.

Well said +10

[fsav]

Robots don't play golf

 

I'm more interested in hearing what other golfers think about products, do my own testing and base my decision on my own numbers. Tests are inspiration and information. They are not definitive results.

Agreed. the forum reviews are set for real life interaction. finding a club that has your specs would be on you. there are many shaft reviews and such. best thing is go get fitted then you can play with differnt clubs heads in differnt shafts to see which one outplays the other. I have recently went through this and am always tinkering with the newbies. last years' RBZ is in my bag until taken out. I have tried the G15, Adams 9064lds, Hathaway V4 based on reviews and none outperformed the RBZ. I have already tried the Adams Super S this year with a differnt shaft but same profile as my Matrix XCON 7 and the head spun way too much. BALLOON BALLS. I have the R1 in the stable reshafted last night but will not get to hit it until thursday. if it outperforms the RBZ it will be bagged. more to come on this!

[SeeRed]

Holy smokes. Look what happens when I come late to the party! What a phenomenal list and undertaking. I am most interested to read about how the G25 and Callaway offerings perform. But it will all be interesting reading, I'm sure!

 

(I suppose it was inevitable that the r-word would find its way into this thread.)

[Tony Covey MGS]

We still have plenty of testing to go, but I wanted to share an observation I've made which I believe will probably hold up for the duration of our test, and ultimately play a significant role in the results.

 

There are clubs that are performing exceptionally well (almost across the board) for our higher swing speed players.

There are also clubs that are performing well across the board for our slower swing speed players (sub 100 MPH average)

 

There are a select few which are performing at high levels for both groups, and it stands to reason the winner is going to come out of that group.

 

Of course, I say this having only looked at distance numbers. Accuracy and consistency will be factors as well, but yeah...just distance, really interesting to see what's performing near the top.

[JBones]

I'll play too.

 

For the higher swing speed guys.

1. R1

2. Covert

3. XHot

 

For the lower swing speed guys

1. G25

2. AirForce One

3. XHot

 

I think the XHot will be one that is up there for both groups.

[Tony Covey MGS]

Prefaced with "These are just estimates based on what is known at this moment", here is a bit of background on the 6 testers participating in the Ultimate Driver Test.

 

Name: Blake

Age: 30

Swing Speed: 100-105

Angle of Attack: Negative

Launch: Low

Spin: High

 

 

Name: Brian

Age: 30-something

Swing Speed: 116-120

Angle of Attack: Neutral to postiive

Launch: High

Spin: Mid

 

 

Name: Joe

Age: 50-something

Swing Speed: ~85

Angle of Attack: presumed positive

Launch: mid

Spin: mid

 

 

Name: Mark

Age: 50-something

Swing Speed: mid-high 90s

Angle of Attack: neutral to positive

Launch: mid

Spin: mid

 

 

Name: Lou

Age: 60ish

Swing Speed:low 80s

Angle of Attack: negative

Launch: often very low

Spin: high

 

 

Name: Tony

Age: 40

Swing Speed: 107-112

Angle of Attack: presumed slightly positive at this point

Launch: mid-high

Spin: low

 

We're likely going to do a more detailed post on the testers as we get closer to publication.

[sailer]

Yes, robots don't golf...although Duval came close when he was #1. You're missing my point. Maybe I'll just be a viewer regarding this thread. I look forward to the results. Thank you.

[Walkerjames]

Yes, robots don't golf...although Duval came close when he was #1. You're missing my point. Maybe I'll just be a viewer regarding this thread. I look forward to the results. Thank you.

Every body can have an opinion on the site it's what makes it such a good site please continue to give your point of view. Just know that you may be met with a different opinion.

[lmh3]

Yes, robots don't golf...although Duval came close when he was #1. You're missing my point. Maybe I'll just be a viewer regarding this thread. I look forward to the results. Thank you.

 

Never be afraid to voice your opinion. Just to fill you in, there was a debate on this idea of robot testing versus human testing in the fairway wood review.

 

While I feel there are benefits to both types testing, I would prefer to see how clubs perform being used by players with different swings. This is more of a real world type of test in my mind, you said that in a perfect scenario, there isn't much of a difference in club heads. I want to see which club works for the widest variety of swing types.

[MikeG]

I'll want to know Mark's best drivers, cuz he's me, (mid to upper 90's, mid launch and spin).

[mavric]

I have only hit a couple of these models but what the heck, I will have a crack at it...

 

For the Higher swing speed testers

 

Distance:

1st - Callaway Razr Fit Xtreme

2nd - TM R1

3rd - Nike Covert

 

Dispersion:

1st - Cleveland Classic XL

2nd - Titleist 913D2/D3

3rd - Callaway Razr Fit Xtreme

 

For the slower swing speed testers

 

Distance:

1st - TM RBZ Stage 2

2nd - Callaway X-Hot

3rd - Cobra Amp Cell

 

Dispersion:

1st - Mizuno JPX-825

2nd - TM RBZ Stage 2

3rd - Cleveland Classic XL

 

Can't wait for the results!

[Drahcir]

What am I missing here??

 

Why did the comments and the thread just stop??

[Tony Covey MGS]

What am I missing here??

 

Why did the comments and the thread just stop??

 

I think we're in a little bit of a lull. There was lots of excitement as clubs were being announced. Testing is now underway (so there's not a ton to talk about until we're finished). In the meantime, all are free to ask questions about the test.

[HillWilliam]

We can always compare the average distances of the pros from a decade ago to today. But with the modern drivers of today being so technologically advanced with shafts, heads and computer design, it would be interesting to see the numbers of a couple of the top drivers of 2003 vs. the MGS top rated drivers of today when the test is complete. I know the Trackman came out about 2003 but don't know it's capabilities then. So grab a Callaway ERC Fusion, TM's 500 series driver, a Titleist 983E etc. and put them on a Trackman and have your testers see what they can do with 10 year old tech. Would be fun..I'd assume modern tech would be at least a little longer, but I'm thinking the biggest gains may be in accuracy. Might not go over with manufacturers, but would be interesting to see if the difference is minimal or drastic.

[sailer]

PGA driving distance and accuracy in the past 10 years:

 

http://bobsailergolf.blogspot.ca/2012/12/pga-driving-distance-and-accuracy-in.html

[TwoSolitudes]

For the adjustable drivers, are the testers allowed to fiddle with the settings for a while to find what they like before the actual 'test'? Or do they have to pick their expected setting in advance and just use it.

 

I can see someone midway through a Covert test resetting from 9* to 11* and changing the results pretty dramatically.

[TwoSolitudes]

We can always compare the average distances of the pros from a decade ago to today. But with the modern drivers of today being so technologically advanced with shafts, heads and computer design, it would be interesting to see the numbers of a couple of the top drivers of 2003 vs. the MGS top rated drivers of today when the test is complete. I know the Trackman came out about 2003 but don't know it's capabilities then. So grab a Callaway ERC Fusion, TM's 500 series driver, a Titleist 983E etc. and put them on a Trackman and have your testers see what they can do with 10 year old tech. Would be fun..I'd assume modern tech would be at least a little longer, but I'm thinking the biggest gains may be in accuracy. Might not go over with manufacturers, but would be interesting to see if the difference is minimal or drastic.

 

They did that here with clubs ranging for hickory shafted drivers from 1923 up to the TM R9. Pretty interesting. Biggest change seems to really have been in spin numbers. Way way lower now.

 

http://www.milesofgolf.com/blog/golf-clubs/vintage-vs-technology/

[fsav]

I think we're in a little bit of a lull. There was lots of excitement as clubs were being announced. Testing is now underway (so there's not a ton to talk about until we're finished). In the meantime, all are free to ask questions about the test.

So T....Bones gave his driver fitting experience inthe forum review thread. He and I both had a chance to hit the R1 both fitted to our specs. compared tothe RBZ last year I gained easy 8-10 yards..Lowered ball flight and increased ball speed=distance and now I actually get roll out too which in the summer may equate to anothe 5-7 yards. Not just distance either accuracy, when i swung like a normal perosn was amazing. Toe hits ended up at target same with heal adn low onthe face. I couldn't beleive the results and hit the RBZ time and time again to try and beat it.

 

I beleive that all the equipment this year is going to be beautiful across the board I am just hard pressed to see anything beating the R1 (no I am not drinking the cool aid). Althought I think callaway is on to something Phil's win helped spark ads but all he did was rave about that driver and its ease then the thing went bonkers again after that tourney. now he is raving about the 3 wood. It's golf some days you have it and most days you don't. Obviously he is on another level than 99.9% of the world but I am just saying the in tournament plugs are getting a bit much. I do love his interviews though.

 

Also, the airforce is going to be a club of high interest this year in the review since the last one was a beast. The Cleveland is going to be interesting for me too since you have keegan using it one of the games bombers.

 

 

Can't wait for the results..WHAT A LIST OF COMPETITION

[Tony Covey MGS]

For the adjustable drivers, are the testers allowed to fiddle with the settings for a while to find what they like before the actual 'test'? Or do they have to pick their expected setting in advance and just use it.

 

I can see someone midway through a Covert test resetting from 9* to 11* and changing the results pretty dramatically.

 

While we're not doing comprehensive fittings (hard to do with only the stock shafts). We have made adjustments where the results suggest they should be made. In some cases that means using a different loft/flex. Where adjustability is concerned, simple tweaks have made a pretty substantial difference.

 

Obviously the R1, Covert, and AMP Cell are prime examples of where loft simply must be tuned. We've also seen pretty impressive improvements through minor tweaks with the PING drivers as well as the Callaway clubs. While it requires a little bit more reading that most, I've also come to appreciate what can be done with the Titleist clubs. For some golfers, even the R1 sole plate has produced apparent changes.

 

One philosophical note: I tend to approach *most* adjustable drivers with the minset of altering the face angle (as opposed to a loft-based approach). Short of Nike. you can't alter one without changing the other, but we've had the most success when using adjustability to alter where the ball starts (face angle), rather than focus on launch angle.

 

For example, if I guy is pulling everything (my miss), opening the face (which removes loft) sometimes improves the initial starting line of the ball. Remember, 90% of where a ball starts is determined by where the face is pointing at impact. If a guy is fighting a slice, it may make sense to close the face so he can start the ball further left (and hopefully gently fade back to the middle).

 

Of course, in any fitting scenario, even a limited one such as ours, there are no absolutes. In some cases, for a guy consistently pulling the ball left, what works is actually closing the face. On paper this should produce a more leftward starting line, however, because of what I can only assume is how the face is perceived at address, closing the face will actually cause the golfer to make a correction that results in a more rightward starting line.

 

Bottom line...with every club, and with every golfer it's not always pure science. Sometimes what works is the last thing that should.

 

Painting with a broad brush here, but...if tweaking the face angle has a measurably negative impact on other launch conditions (vertical launch, spin rates), where possible I'll put the golfer in a different loft and adjust the face accordingly. With the R1, Nike, and Cobra, obviously that's not possible.

 

Again...painting with broad strokes, based on what I've seen in our testing so far I've come to believe the following:

 

• Unless you're getting an absolute perfect fit (and you have a perfectly repeatable (tour quality) swing), you're likely sacrificing performance and definitely sacrificing options by purchasing a traditional glued hosel driver.
• All-lofts-in-one heads also result in an unnecessary compromise at the highest and lowest lofts. Using the R1 as an example...at 8* the club is visibly open (not horrible, but not ideal for some). at 12* it' looks WAY closed. In the middle...either direction it's not bad. Even the Nike, where loft/face angle are supposedly decoupled, at 12* the face looks closed (even in the "right" position). I don't have the tools to measure face angle, so I can't say if that's real, or just how my eyes perceive the extra face visible at address.

 

While everyone will be different, I've personally come to appreciate limited adjustability clubs. For me...ideal seems to be the 9 to 9.5 degree range that allows me to adjust the face open while keeping the loft above 8 degrees.

[TwoSolitudes]

While everyone will be different, I've personally come to appreciate limited adjustability clubs. For me...ideal seems to be the 9 to 9.5 degree range that allows me to adjust the face open while keeping the loft above 8 degrees.

 

And here I am thinking that the limited Ping adjustability is a waste while you are finding it to be the most effective. Interesting....

[Tony Covey MGS]

And here I am thinking that the limited Ping adjustability is a waste while you are finding it to be the most effective. Interesting....

 

I'm not saying it's 'the most' effective, but I'm saying it accomplishes what it needs to. You could argue there's benefit in a wider range, but the PING system works with the caveat that there's less margin for error with loft. That said...if you think about it in terms of face angle, it does the job.

[TwoSolitudes]

well?????

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKr6f5TB7Sg

[Super Tuna]

I suspect that even after T has all the data, it's going to take a solid week to write up

[Tony Covey MGS]

Here's a quick little update. We haven't made much progress in the last week. One of our testers has been on vacation. Two more leave for 4 days tomorrow. I've been too sick to test (I tried, but SS numbers down, and ball speed with it...basically, unfair, so I scrapped it), and today we got snowed out (which is really special for indoor testing).

 

It sucks, but we're still on schedule for an early April release.

 

What the time has allowed me to do is start building the worksheets that take the individual numbers and turn them into group averages. So far I've done it with the distance part of the scoring.

 

As it stands right now, I don't have enough data to project early distance scores on two clubs, but one of them looks to be very much in the mix near the top, but again it's way too early to say. For the others, across 15 different drivers, the current difference between #1 and #15 is all of 2.814 points. Individually the gaps are greater, but as a whole, there's not a huge difference.

 

Distance scores are derived like this:

1. We look at all shots a given tester hit during the entire test. We calculate the average of the top X number of shots to give us a reasonable approximation of what the absolute best result a given tester might be able to achieve from a distance perspective (the best of their best if you will)

2. On the other end of things, we have a proprietary formula we use to determine a legitimate average for each club a tester hits.

3. We calculate the percentage of the very best represented by the individual average for each club. A very simple example; if a tester's longest drives average 300 yards, and his average with a given club is 280, then his individual score for that club is 93.333 (280 is 93.333% of 300).

 

To determine each club's distance score we drop the lowest and calculate the average of the Top 5 testers for each club.

 

The low will be dropped for each club for all 3 categories (distance, accuracy, and consistency). When it comes time to calculate overall scores (a total value comprised of weighted distance, accuracy, and consistency scores), we'll drop the lowest total score for each club to determine overall scores.

 

As complicated as distance scoring sounds, it's actually the easiest category to score. The complexity comes into play because of the necessity to keep things in balance. What I mean by that is that the scoring system cannot give more weight to the players who hit the ball farther. We never want our results to be based on a comparison between how far our senior tester hits the ball, and how far the guy with 160+ MPH ball speed hits it. Their individual results must weigh equally on the total.

 

Another example from our accuracy category... Blake, our lowest handicap player, hits a high percentage of fairways, and keeps the ball relatively close to the target line. A good result for Blake might be something like 15 yards offline. Me...I tend to spray the ball all over the place with my driver. A good result for me (sadly) might be 25 yards offline. The scoring system has to account for the fact that while 20 yards offline might be considered a below average result for Blake, that same 20 yards represents an above average result for me. The point here is that in every case, individual scores are determined based on the tester's individual abilities, not an unfair comparison to the abilities of the other golfers in our test.

 

To that end, the scoring system was derived such that individual scores were based on how well a given tester hits a given club relative to his own abilities...not anyone else's. If it sounds complicated it's because it is, but so far, the extra work to get this as right as it can be looks to be well worth it.

[Super Tuna]

I'm willing to bet that after leaving the IT world, you did not likely expect to have to do relative qualitative math again.

[fozcycle]

Thanks much for the detail explanation. I for one appreciate the time and effort that goes into a test of this magnitude. I hope the others do as well. As far as selecting a new driver, I put all on hold pending the test results....