For your PC needs
Callaway's new FT-i driver:
http://www.callawaygolf.com/ft%2Di/
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I don't have a solution but I admire the problem'
Callaway's new FT-i driver:
http://www.callawaygolf.com/ft%2Di/
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I don't have a solution but I admire the problem'
First impression...
weird and ugly!
Felix
"lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:12rqhdocsvlg2de@news.supernews.com...
>
> Callaway's new FT-i driver:
>
> http://www.callawaygolf.com/ft%2Di/
>
>
>
> --
>
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> =====
> http://pw352.blogspot.com/
> 'I don't have a solution but I admire the problem'
>
>
Felix wrote:
> First impression...
>
I reckon that being square it would be easier to aim. And having weight
distribution parallel to the flight path has to be an advantage. I've
hit one, and they go really well. The balance and feel is great! and I
love the sound it makes. I reckon i picked up at least 10 metres with
it. This is the way/shape of the future in drivers I feel.
> weird and ugly!
>
> Felix
>
>
> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:12rqhdocsvlg2de@news.supernews.com...
>
>> Callaway's new FT-i driver:
>>
>> http://www.callawaygolf.com/ft%2Di/
>>
>>
>>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'It's obvious to me that your sole purpose in life is as a warning to others'
David Geesaman wrote:
> Miss Anne Thrope wrote:
>> Sunrises are awesome.
>> Satellite radio is awesome.
>> Fettucini Alfredo with shrimp is awesome.
>>
>> Golf clubs are somewhere between irrelevant and inconsequential.
>>
>
> Ha for once I agree.
>
> But seriously, you think this lump of overpriced titanium is going to
> hit it straighter than the last lump of overpriced titanium? Because
> they dont' say so - they only ask the question.
>
> And yet highly paid morons will buy it immediately, convinced of its
> superiority. And they fall for this trick with an astoundingly
> consistent 12 month recurrence.
>
> Dave
Do you seriously think that with all the research and technology that
went into it (if you bothered to read about it) it hasn't improved on
previous models? And do you seriously think that the equipment we use
now is not better than what we had twelve months ago, and twelve months
before that, and so on? If you seriously think so, then you would be
seriously wrong. Pros, golf commentators, and golfing experts, all agree
that technology has advanced the game considerably, allowing for those
400 yard (and more!) drives that golfers decades ago could only dream of.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?'
lynx wrote:
> Felix wrote:
>
>> First impression...
>>
>
> I reckon that being square it would be easier to aim. And having weight
> distribution parallel to the flight path has to be an advantage. I've
> hit one, and they go really well. The balance and feel is great! and I
> love the sound it makes. I reckon i picked up at least 10 metres with
> it. This is the way/shape of the future in drivers I feel.
The question remains, did you buy one? If not, why not?
Bert Robbins wrote:
> lynx wrote:
>> Felix wrote:
>>
>>> First impression...
>>>
>>
>> I reckon that being square it would be easier to aim. And having
>> weight distribution parallel to the flight path has to be an
>> advantage. I've hit one, and they go really well. The balance and
>> feel is great! and I love the sound it makes. I reckon i picked up at
>> least 10 metres with it. This is the way/shape of the future in
>> drivers I feel.
>
> The question remains, did you buy one? If not, why not?
>
>
They haven't been released here in Australia yet, and when they are they
will cost $800.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'If at first you DO succeed, try not to look astonished!'
lynx wrote:
> David Geesaman wrote:
>
>> Miss Anne Thrope wrote:
>>> Sunrises are awesome.
>>> Satellite radio is awesome.
>>> Fettucini Alfredo with shrimp is awesome.
>>>
>>> Golf clubs are somewhere between irrelevant and inconsequential.
>>>
>>
>> Ha for once I agree.
>>
>> But seriously, you think this lump of overpriced titanium is going to
>> hit it straighter than the last lump of overpriced titanium? Because
>> they dont' say so - they only ask the question.
>>
>> And yet highly paid morons will buy it immediately, convinced of its
>> superiority. And they fall for this trick with an astoundingly
>> consistent 12 month recurrence.
>>
>> Dave
>
> Do you seriously think that with all the research and technology that
> went into it (if you bothered to read about it) it hasn't improved on
> previous models? And do you seriously think that the equipment we use
> now is not better than what we had twelve months ago, and twelve months
> before that, and so on? If you seriously think so, then you would be
> seriously wrong. Pros, golf commentators, and golfing experts, all agree
> that technology has advanced the game considerably, allowing for those
> 400 yard (and more!) drives that golfers decades ago could only dream of.
eBay and the used golf club shops are littered with the next
revolutionary driver for pennies on the dollar prices.
The lab and the golf course are two vastly different places.
A guy hacking his way around his local goat track isn't the same as a
manufacturer's staff player "testing" the club at the country club.
Jack Nicklaus won how many majors with wood head drivers?
lynx wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>
>> lynx wrote:
>>> Felix wrote:
>>>
>>>> First impression...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I reckon that being square it would be easier to aim. And having
>>> weight distribution parallel to the flight path has to be an
>>> advantage. I've hit one, and they go really well. The balance and
>>> feel is great! and I love the sound it makes. I reckon i picked up at
>>> least 10 metres with it. This is the way/shape of the future in
>>> drivers I feel.
>>
>> The question remains, did you buy one? If not, why not?
>>
>>
>
> They haven't been released here in Australia yet, and when they are they
> will cost $800.
Is that Australia dollars or US dollars? It would be difficult to pry 8
large from my wallet just to be the first guy on the course with this
new technology. I'd like to see the guy with a windmill swing buy it
first and see how it helps him, then buy if used for $200 at most.
Oh, and Callaway hasn't had that many driver successes since the
original Big Bertha's.
Bert Robbins wrote:
> lynx wrote:
>> David Geesaman wrote:
>>
>>> Miss Anne Thrope wrote:
>>>> Sunrises are awesome.
>>>> Satellite radio is awesome.
>>>> Fettucini Alfredo with shrimp is awesome.
>>>>
>>>> Golf clubs are somewhere between irrelevant and inconsequential.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ha for once I agree.
>>>
>>> But seriously, you think this lump of overpriced titanium is going
>>> to hit it straighter than the last lump of overpriced titanium?
>>> Because they dont' say so - they only ask the question.
>>>
>>> And yet highly paid morons will buy it immediately, convinced of its
>>> superiority. And they fall for this trick with an astoundingly
>>> consistent 12 month recurrence.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>> Do you seriously think that with all the research and technology that
>> went into it (if you bothered to read about it) it hasn't improved on
>> previous models? And do you seriously think that the equipment we use
>> now is not better than what we had twelve months ago, and twelve
>> months before that, and so on? If you seriously think so, then you
>> would be seriously wrong. Pros, golf commentators, and golfing
>> experts, all agree that technology has advanced the game
>> considerably, allowing for those 400 yard (and more!) drives that
>> golfers decades ago could only dream of.
>
> eBay and the used golf club shops are littered with the next
> revolutionary driver for pennies on the dollar prices.
So? second hand equipment is cheaper. So what?
>
> The lab and the golf course are two vastly different places.
>
> A guy hacking his way around his local goat track isn't the same as a
> manufacturer's staff player "testing" the club at the country club.
That's irrelevant as to whether the clubs are better or not.
>
> Jack Nicklaus won how many majors with wood head drivers?
>
>
Yeah, and any pro using the equipment he used wouldn't stand a chance in
today's comps.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I hit the CTRL key but I'm still not in control! '
Bert Robbins wrote:
> lynx wrote:
>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>> lynx wrote:
>>>> Felix wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> First impression...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I reckon that being square it would be easier to aim. And having
>>>> weight distribution parallel to the flight path has to be an
>>>> advantage. I've hit one, and they go really well. The balance and
>>>> feel is great! and I love the sound it makes. I reckon i picked up
>>>> at least 10 metres with it. This is the way/shape of the future in
>>>> drivers I feel.
>>>
>>> The question remains, did you buy one? If not, why not?
>>>
>>
>> They haven't been released here in Australia yet, and when they are
>> they will cost $800.
>
> Is that Australia dollars or US dollars?
Aussie.
> It would be difficult to pry 8 large from my wallet just to be the
> first guy on the course with this new technology. I'd like to see the
> guy with a windmill swing buy it first and see how it helps him, then
> buy if used for $200 at most.
I need to buy a new driver, since what I have doesn't suit. I'm
considering buying one.
>
> Oh, and Callaway hasn't had that many driver successes since the
> original Big Bertha's.
>
Mickelson won the Masters last year with Callaway clubs. But TaylorMade
is still no.1 in drivers on the PGA tour I think.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it'
lynx wrote:
> David Geesaman wrote:
>
>> But seriously, you think this lump of overpriced titanium is going to
>> hit it straighter than the last lump of overpriced titanium? Because
>> they dont' say so - they only ask the question.
>>
>> And yet highly paid morons will buy it immediately, convinced of its
>> superiority. And they fall for this trick with an astoundingly
>> consistent 12 month recurrence.
>>
>> Dave
>
> Do you seriously think that with all the research and technology that
> went into it (if you bothered to read about it) it hasn't improved on
> previous models?
Yes, in fact I do. I'm glad you asked.
My consumer/golfers are trapped in the 'logic' that so many marketers
play like a drumbeat: if it costs more, it must have more value. If
it's newer, it must be better. In reality, advancement doesn't march
along steadily, and in a mature industry regulated by USGA and R&A
regulations, the each advancement is smaller than the last. The result
is that golf equipment manufacturers must craft ways to make their gear
look like it's improving every year, while it actually moves in little
spurts every several years. Consumers have been spoiled by the
incredible progress of electronics and computers, and now expect design
changes annually for almost everything.
> And do you seriously think that the equipment we use
> now is not better than what we had twelve months ago, and twelve months
> before that, and so on?
I think that the last major breakthrough in golf equipment design was
with the 3-piece high spin balls. That was several years ago, and these
have not improved much since then. Clubs have had no advancement since
the invention of high COR clubfaces (spring face technology), dating
back to 2000. Some may argue rescue woods and hybrids count, but I
don't since they are a rehashed design that fell out of style some years
ago rather than usefulness. And even that was much further back than
just last year.
Prior to that, my list of significant advances include oversized
metalwoods with titanium construction, graphite shafts (for some), and
cavity back irons. My list totals 5 advances worth speaking of in the
last 30 years. Most of those advancements were fully fleshed and
developed within one or two seasons, and only one ever had enough affect
to change the rules - COR - which has since been locked down since 2001.
Doing the math, that leaves a lot of years and club models that
weren't fueled by a true design advance.
Every other club release, which industry practice must occur yearly, is
just a recycling of old ideas or new styles. With metalwoods, the
distance permitted is locked in by club testing, so even if they could
improve distance they can't. It's been that way since 2001.
> If you seriously think so, then you would be
> seriously wrong. Pros, golf commentators, and golfing experts, all agree
> that technology has advanced the game considerably, allowing for those
> 400 yard (and more!) drives that golfers decades ago could only dream of.
The only time the pros have seen substantial gains are recently, with
extra distance from the 3-piece balls and high COR drivers. The 3 piece
ball doesn't really support that argument strongly, since there were/are
longer hitting balls available all along which the pros chose not to
use. Even still, the balls the pros use are not as long as what is
legally available by using a 2 piece.
The pros say what they are paid to say. They use the clubs they are
paid to use because they could win with just about any club technology,
as long as it's fitted to their game. (And custom fitting has been
around since the first mashie).
Then there are the claims of individuals who have seen substantial
changes in performance. "I gained 15 yards!". I don't doubt the
validity of their statements, so much as I disagree with the implied
cause. Nearly all of these are only circumstantial evidence, and when
the individual is making a fair comparison (many aren't), the
improvement comes from a better fitting club or ball, not from new
technology or equipment design. Golf is a marriage of equipment and
golfer, and its tempting to believe we are the more consistent of the
two - but I think deep down we all agree it's the other way around.
I have spent the last 15 years of my golfing 'career' watching these
things with the inquisitive eye of a mechanical engineer. I have
studied each new technology, material, and design feature. Most of the
time, there is no substantial change, and the manufacturers use veiled
statements and flawed comparisons. (If you read the fine print, they
always compare against an old persimmon driver). I have studied the
physics involved in the equipment and the game in general. The
advancements I listed above I feel are legitimate and measurable
improvements under controlled circumstances. Pretty much everything
else isn't.
If there is a particular technology or marketing claim out there you
wish to know a little more about, just ask. I will offer my opinion and
justification for it, hopefully in a useful and approachable manner.
(Although I only read rsg, not asg).
Dave
Felix wrote:
> First impression...
>
> weird and ugly!
>
> Felix
>
>
> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:12rqhdocsvlg2de@news.supernews.com...
>
>>Callaway's new FT-i driver:
>>
>>http://www.callawaygolf.com/ft%2Di/
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>rgds,
>>
>>Pete
>>=====
>>http://pw352.blogspot.com/
>>'I don't have a solution but I admire the problem'
>>
>>
>
>
>
All the OEMs will have similar drivers on the market soon enough, they
cannot afford not to! The reason these 'square' drivers are appearing is
that the R&A/USGA recently introduced a new 'equipment rule' that limits
the moment of inertia of the clubhead about its own Centre of Gravity.
Until now that new limit far exceeded any MOI presently observed on OEM
clubs. (The high MOI reduces any tendency for the clubhead to twist
during the swing and on impact). The equipment rules already limit the
maximum length of the clubface (5"), and the front-to-back dimension
must be less than the face length. The only way the MOI could be
increased, without increasing the clubhead weight, is to spread all the
clubweight out to the furthest extremeties permitted..thus the 'square'
arrangement.
Now...can you imagine any one major OEM clubmaker who would NOT have a
'square' driver on the store shelves when all the others have?
Experts will soon find that they cannot 'work' the ball as well with
these type of clubs.....because their ball flight is just too damned
uncontrolled and straight!
cheers
david
david s-a wrote:
> Felix wrote:
>> First impression...
>>
>> weird and ugly!
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>
>> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:12rqhdocsvlg2de@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>> Callaway's new FT-i driver:
>>>
>>> http://www.callawaygolf.com/ft%2Di/
>>>
>>
> All the OEMs will have similar drivers on the market soon enough,
> they cannot afford not to! The reason these 'square' drivers are
> appearing is that the R&A/USGA recently introduced a new 'equipment
> rule' that limits the moment of inertia of the clubhead about its own
> Centre of Gravity. Until now that new limit far exceeded any MOI
> presently observed on OEM clubs. (The high MOI reduces any tendency
> for the clubhead to twist during the swing and on impact). The
> equipment rules already limit the maximum length of the clubface (5"),
> and the front-to-back dimension must be less than the face length. The
> only way the MOI could be increased, without increasing the clubhead
> weight, is to spread all the clubweight out to the furthest
> extremeties permitted..thus the 'square' arrangement.
>
> Now...can you imagine any one major OEM clubmaker who would NOT have a
> 'square' driver on the store shelves when all the others have?
>
> Experts will soon find that they cannot 'work' the ball as well with
> these type of clubs.....because their ball flight is just too damned
> uncontrolled and straight!
That will be good for me! Seems like this is a club for the 'average'
golfer then.
>
> cheers
> david
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to?'
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 07:22:09 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
wrote:
>Jack Nicklaus won how many majors with wood head drivers?
I like your style Bert, throw in a bit of logic, and see the result.
David Geesaman wrote:
> lynx wrote:
>> David Geesaman wrote:
>>
>>> But seriously, you think this lump of overpriced titanium is going
>>> to hit it straighter than the last lump of overpriced titanium?
>>> Because they dont' say so - they only ask the question.
>>>
>>> And yet highly paid morons will buy it immediately, convinced of its
>>> superiority. And they fall for this trick with an astoundingly
>>> consistent 12 month recurrence.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>> Do you seriously think that with all the research and technology that
>> went into it (if you bothered to read about it) it hasn't improved on
>> previous models?
>
> Yes, in fact I do. I'm glad you asked.
Well I guess we either believe what they say about it or not. They say
it improves on previous models.
>
> My consumer/golfers are trapped in the 'logic' that so many marketers
> play like a drumbeat: if it costs more, it must have more value. If
> it's newer, it must be better. In reality, advancement doesn't march
> along steadily, and in a mature industry regulated by USGA and R&A
> regulations, the each advancement is smaller than the last. The
> result is that golf equipment manufacturers must craft ways to make
> their gear look like it's improving every year, while it actually
> moves in little spurts every several years. Consumers have been
> spoiled by the incredible progress of electronics and computers, and
> now expect design changes annually for almost everything.
>
>> And do you seriously think that the equipment we use now is not
>> better than what we had twelve months ago, and twelve months before
>> that, and so on?
>
> I think that the last major breakthrough in golf equipment design was
> with the 3-piece high spin balls. That was several years ago, and
> these have not improved much since then. Clubs have had no
> advancement since the invention of high COR clubfaces (spring face
> technology), dating back to 2000. Some may argue rescue woods and
> hybrids count, but I don't since they are a rehashed design that fell
> out of style some years ago rather than usefulness. And even that was
> much further back than just last year.
>
> Prior to that, my list of significant advances include oversized
> metalwoods with titanium construction, graphite shafts (for some), and
> cavity back irons. My list totals 5 advances worth speaking of in the
> last 30 years. Most of those advancements were fully fleshed and
> developed within one or two seasons, and only one ever had enough
> affect to change the rules - COR - which has since been locked down
> since 2001. Doing the math, that leaves a lot of years and club
> models that weren't fueled by a true design advance.
>
> Every other club release, which industry practice must occur yearly,
> is just a recycling of old ideas or new styles. With metalwoods, the
> distance permitted is locked in by club testing, so even if they could
> improve distance they can't. It's been that way since 2001.
>
>> If you seriously think so, then you would be seriously wrong. Pros,
>> golf commentators, and golfing experts, all agree that technology has
>> advanced the game considerably, allowing for those 400 yard (and
>> more!) drives that golfers decades ago could only dream of.
>
> The only time the pros have seen substantial gains are recently, with
> extra distance from the 3-piece balls and high COR drivers. The 3
> piece ball doesn't really support that argument strongly, since there
> were/are longer hitting balls available all along which the pros chose
> not to use. Even still, the balls the pros use are not as long as
> what is legally available by using a 2 piece.
>
> The pros say what they are paid to say. They use the clubs they are
> paid to use because they could win with just about any club
> technology, as long as it's fitted to their game. (And custom fitting
> has been around since the first mashie).
>
> Then there are the claims of individuals who have seen substantial
> changes in performance. "I gained 15 yards!". I don't doubt the
> validity of their statements, so much as I disagree with the implied
> cause. Nearly all of these are only circumstantial evidence, and when
> the individual is making a fair comparison (many aren't), the
> improvement comes from a better fitting club or ball, not from new
> technology or equipment design. Golf is a marriage of equipment and
> golfer, and its tempting to believe we are the more consistent of the
> two - but I think deep down we all agree it's the other way around.
>
> I have spent the last 15 years of my golfing 'career' watching these
> things with the inquisitive eye of a mechanical engineer. I have
> studied each new technology, material, and design feature. Most of
> the time, there is no substantial change, and the manufacturers use
> veiled statements and flawed comparisons. (If you read the fine
> print, they always compare against an old persimmon driver). I have
> studied the physics involved in the equipment and the game in
> general. The advancements I listed above I feel are legitimate and
> measurable improvements under controlled circumstances. Pretty much
> everything else isn't.
>
> If there is a particular technology or marketing claim out there you
> wish to know a little more about, just ask. I will offer my opinion
> and justification for it, hopefully in a useful and approachable
> manner. (Although I only read rsg, not asg).
What about graphite shaft technology then? I was under the impression
that it has improved significantly in recent years.
>
>
> Dave
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Computer upgrade: Take old bugs out, put new ones in'
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:51:20 -0500, David Geesaman
<dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The only time the pros have seen substantial gains are recently, with
>extra distance from the 3-piece balls and high COR drivers.
We may well discover soon that new technology shafts are the next big
thing.
lynx wrote:
> David Geesaman wrote:
>
>> lynx wrote:
>>> David Geesaman wrote:
>>>
>>>> But seriously, you think this lump of overpriced titanium is going
>>>> to hit it straighter than the last lump of overpriced titanium?
>>>> Because they dont' say so - they only ask the question.
>>>>
>>>> And yet highly paid morons will buy it immediately, convinced of its
>>>> superiority. And they fall for this trick with an astoundingly
>>>> consistent 12 month recurrence.
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>> Do you seriously think that with all the research and technology that
>>> went into it (if you bothered to read about it) it hasn't improved on
>>> previous models?
>>
>> Yes, in fact I do. I'm glad you asked.
>
> Well I guess we either believe what they say about it or not. They say
> it improves on previous models.
See below.
>> I have spent the last 15 years of my golfing 'career' watching these
>> things with the inquisitive eye of a mechanical engineer. I have
>> studied each new technology, material, and design feature. Most of
>> the time, there is no substantial change, and the manufacturers use
>> veiled statements and flawed comparisons. (If you read the fine
>> print, they always compare against an old persimmon driver). I have
>> studied the physics involved in the equipment and the game in
>> general. The advancements I listed above I feel are legitimate and
>> measurable improvements under controlled circumstances. Pretty much
>> everything else isn't.
The essence of marketing revolves around building a perception of value
around a product. They will always say it's an improvement, this is a
given.
One way this is done is to yo-yo with an known tradeoff - for example,
"workability" vs. "forgiveness". One year, it's more forgiving. The
next year, it's more workable.
Another trick is to get a random golfer to bring in their club, then fit
them with the newest/latest thing, and have them enjoy the benefits of a
club that better matches their delivery. Of course, they leave out the
possibility that this golfer would have enjoyed all the same benefits by
properly fitting the club they already had. A tweak in driver loft and
shaft stiffness can actually help a lot, and usually account for the 10+
yard claims by individuals.
Or just too vague to call it a complete lie. "Designed to be the
straightest driver ever" - doesn't imply that it actually IS the
straightest driver ever. You could even make no improvements on the
state of the art, and still be the straightest ever because all the
state of the art models are equally straight.
The last and most popular rhetoric is to simply talk about general
physics of designing a club, and the reader tends to assume that because
it's being discussed, it must be because they're doing it better. The
reader assumes by association that all this club must be better in this
regard, but upon close reading you'll find they have made no claims of
improvement at all.
>> If there is a particular technology or marketing claim out there you
>> wish to know a little more about, just ask. I will offer my opinion
>> and justification for it, hopefully in a useful and approachable
>> manner. (Although I only read rsg, not asg).
>
> What about graphite shaft technology then? I was under the impression
> that it has improved significantly in recent years.
I mentioned graphite technology as an advance, and somewhat unlike the
others it has progressed some through all the years since its
introduction. However, I think the performance advantage has not
changed much - just the cost and consistency of manufacturing. They are
indeed making lighter, stiffer shafts, but light and stiff is not in and
of itself a performance advantage. When graphite first came out, it did
provide a clubhead speed advantage to many golfers, but that aspect
hasn't really improved much. Since then the improvements have broadened
the range of fitting options.
Back when I entered college to study as a mechanical engineer, I thought
long and hard about making my career to be in athletic equipment design.
After a couple of years learning how engineering is applied to this
problem, and learning more about materials and design, I realized that
it's quite a mature industry and not a whole lot of innovation. I saw
that new products were not technically better, but mostly redesigned for
a new look each year. I opted to work in more industrial design, and
I'm glad I did since I now firmly believe that most sports equipment
industries (including golf) are heavily dependent on marketing and not
technical superiority.
Dave
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:07:52 -0500, David Geesaman wrote:
> Back when I entered college to study as a mechanical engineer, I thought
> long and hard about making my career to be in athletic equipment design.
> After a couple of years learning how engineering is applied to this
> problem, and learning more about materials and design, I realized that
> it's quite a mature industry and not a whole lot of innovation. I saw
> that new products were not technically better, but mostly redesigned for
> a new look each year. I opted to work in more industrial design, and
> I'm glad I did since I now firmly believe that most sports equipment
> industries (including golf) are heavily dependent on marketing and not
> technical superiority.
Without a doubt.
Another big recent advance has been the wide availability of launch
monitors. Many of the yards newer clubs supposedly provide could be
because the new equipment may just fit better. An experienced fitter can
take one look at your average hack and think 10.5, regular. But having
actual numbers to point to, launch angle, spin rate, etc., helps it helps
golfers overcome the less loft, stiffer shaft impulse.
In golf as in many other things, we don't seem to make rational choices.
David Geesaman wrote:
> lynx wrote:
>> David Geesaman wrote:
>>
>>> lynx wrote:
>>>> David Geesaman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But seriously, you think this lump of overpriced titanium is going
>>>>> to hit it straighter than the last lump of overpriced titanium?
>>>>> Because they dont' say so - they only ask the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet highly paid morons will buy it immediately, convinced of
>>>>> its superiority. And they fall for this trick with an
>>>>> astoundingly consistent 12 month recurrence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> Do you seriously think that with all the research and technology
>>>> that went into it (if you bothered to read about it) it hasn't
>>>> improved on previous models?
>>>
>>> Yes, in fact I do. I'm glad you asked.
>>
>> Well I guess we either believe what they say about it or not. They
>> say it improves on previous models.
>
> See below.
>
>>> I have spent the last 15 years of my golfing 'career' watching these
>>> things with the inquisitive eye of a mechanical engineer. I have
>>> studied each new technology, material, and design feature. Most of
>>> the time, there is no substantial change, and the manufacturers use
>>> veiled statements and flawed comparisons. (If you read the fine
>>> print, they always compare against an old persimmon driver). I have
>>> studied the physics involved in the equipment and the game in
>>> general. The advancements I listed above I feel are legitimate and
>>> measurable improvements under controlled circumstances. Pretty much
>>> everything else isn't.
>
> The essence of marketing revolves around building a perception of
> value around a product. They will always say it's an improvement,
> this is a given.
>
> One way this is done is to yo-yo with an known tradeoff - for example,
> "workability" vs. "forgiveness". One year, it's more forgiving. The
> next year, it's more workable.
>
> Another trick is to get a random golfer to bring in their club, then
> fit them with the newest/latest thing, and have them enjoy the
> benefits of a club that better matches their delivery. Of course,
> they leave out the possibility that this golfer would have enjoyed all
> the same benefits by properly fitting the club they already had. A
> tweak in driver loft and shaft stiffness can actually help a lot, and
> usually account for the 10+ yard claims by individuals.
>
> Or just too vague to call it a complete lie. "Designed to be the
> straightest driver ever" - doesn't imply that it actually IS the
> straightest driver ever. You could even make no improvements on the
> state of the art, and still be the straightest ever because all the
> state of the art models are equally straight.
>
> The last and most popular rhetoric is to simply talk about general
> physics of designing a club, and the reader tends to assume that
> because it's being discussed, it must be because they're doing it
> better. The reader assumes by association that all this club must be
> better in this regard, but upon close reading you'll find they have
> made no claims of improvement at all.
You obviously know a lot more about the subject than I, and are more
qualified to speak about it given your academic accomplishments, but I
do think that you're tending to underrate club technology. I think that
there are improvements with each model, even if they're only minor ones.
Maybe just a different weight distribution, or a better shaft, clubhead
shape, or such. But I take your point that the significant improvements
can be categorized and dated- COR, etc., But in the case of Callaway,
there have been definite improvements with each model. The fusion
technology first seen in the Ft-3 (unless I'm mistaken) was an
improvement over the solid titanium or steel Big Bertha series, and now
the Ft-i boasts some new innovative technologies:
http://www.callawaygolf.com/ft%2Di/p...y.aspx?lang=en
And other manufacturers have had their unique innovations. There was the
moveable weights system pioneered by Taylor Made I believe, for example.
That has had a significant impact on club head design.
>
>>> If there is a particular technology or marketing claim out there you
>>> wish to know a little more about, just ask. I will offer my opinion
>>> and justification for it, hopefully in a useful and approachable
>>> manner. (Although I only read rsg, not asg).
>>
>> What about graphite shaft technology then? I was under the impression
>> that it has improved significantly in recent years.
>
> I mentioned graphite technology as an advance, and somewhat unlike the
> others it has progressed some through all the years since its
> introduction. However, I think the performance advantage has not
> changed much - just the cost and consistency of manufacturing. They
> are indeed making lighter, stiffer shafts, but light and stiff is not
> in and of itself a performance advantage. When graphite first came
> out, it did provide a clubhead speed advantage to many golfers, but
> that aspect hasn't really improved much. Since then the improvements
> have broadened the range of fitting options.
The early graphite shafts weren't low torque like the newer ones. that's
one major improvement. graphite now is commensurate with steel in that
regard (afaik)
>
> Back when I entered college to study as a mechanical engineer, I
> thought long and hard about making my career to be in athletic
> equipment design. After a couple of years learning how engineering is
> applied to this problem, and learning more about materials and design,
> I realized that it's quite a mature industry and not a whole lot of
> innovation. I saw that new products were not technically better, but
> mostly redesigned for a new look each year. I opted to work in more
> industrial design, and I'm glad I did since I now firmly believe that
> most sports equipment industries (including golf) are heavily
> dependent on marketing and not technical superiority.
>
> Dave
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'If you can't do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly'
lynx wrote:
> You obviously know a lot more about the subject than I, and are more
> qualified to speak about it given your academic accomplishments, but I
> do think that you're tending to underrate club technology. I think that
> there are improvements with each model, even if they're only minor ones.
Well that's part of being an engineer - we are trained (and subdued
repeatedly) on the idea that some things matter more than others. I've
decided that golf clubs are greatly overshadowed by the effect of the
golf swing. While the big technology differences (as I outlined before)
are measureable, I really can't think of anything makes for measurable
improvements.
> Maybe just a different weight distribution, or a better shaft, clubhead
> shape, or such.
But I don't believe different is better. If you look across brand and
models, there has been almost every possible variety of clubhead size,
material, weight bias, loft, shaft, etc within the first year or two of
a technological shift. The years after that are just the manufacturers
yo-yo'ing between locations on the well-worn playing field. One year
it's more MOI. The next year it's less MOI. Another year it's a
lighter shaft, the next year it's a heavier shaft. Then it's all
titanium, then back to steel, then back to graphite, lighter grips, then
a more grippy grip that puts the weight back on, then a mix of titanium
and graphite. If it's new to the Callaway line, it's almost never new
to the market on the whole.
So if a golfer finds that this years incrementally 'improved' (read:
changed around) model helps them, the reason is more likely that the new
one fits their needs better and they hadn't stumbled across this
particular setup when it first arrived by way of another brand or model
or clubbuilding specs.
> But I take your point that the significant improvements
> can be categorized and dated- COR, etc., But in the case of Callaway,
> there have been definite improvements with each model.
Changes, yes. But nothing that hasn't been done before. Graphite -
done by Yonex 10 years ago. Huge clubhead size (maximum MOI) - done
about 5 years ago. That's all they've done.
> The fusion
> technology first seen in the Ft-3 (unless I'm mistaken) was an
> improvement over the solid titanium or steel Big Bertha series,
I disagree. Both are bound, performance-wise, by the same rules. It's
hard to improve anything when both are nearly exactly at the limits of
the rules. Neither are the most extreme examples of any of their
claimed technologies.
> and now
> the Ft-i boasts some new innovative technologies:
>
> http://www.callawaygolf.com/ft%2Di/p...y.aspx?lang=en
> And other manufacturers have had their unique innovations. There was the
> moveable weights system pioneered by Taylor Made I believe, for example.
> That has had a significant impact on club head design.
Only in the sense that it's easier than before. People have been
drilling, weighting, and grinding clubs for decades. I can't give the
weight plug much credit for originality.
> The early graphite shafts weren't low torque like the newer ones. that's
> one major improvement. graphite now is commensurate with steel in that
> regard (afaik)
Part of the challenge is that graphite shafts and 'torque' are not
standardized and it can be hard to find accurate comparisons across
brands. But your'e right - for those golfers looking for a lighter and
lower torque (more torsionally stiff) shaft the technology has widened
their options. As I've studied the effects of shaft torque and shaft
weight I don't think improves performance as much as it's simply a
clubfitting parameter.
Dave
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote