Square drivers: 'Three months to live?'
TaylorMade chief gives the new fad in drivers only a limited shelf life.
Posted: 6 February 2007
by Golfmagic correspondent
TayorMade r7 SuperQuad
|
The surge towards square-headed drivers will last about three months, according to one of the rivals of Nike and Callaway, currently focussing much attention and a lot of business hopes on their respective SasQuatch Sumo2 and FT-i 'square-head' technology.
Mark King the outspoken chief executive officer of TaylorMade, which is promoting its own r7 SuperQuad and Burner drivers, predicted in an interview with Golfweek in the US: "The square-headed driver phenomenon will be over in about 90 days."
He underlines his belief in the knowledge that Nike and Callaway have 'hedged their bets' with more conventional drivers - SasQuatch Sumo and Fusion F-5 - launched around the same time, while Titleist and Cobra (both from the Acushnet company) have opted for more tapered shapes in the 907D and Speed LD drivers.
King and his researchers have bet on moveable weight technology - the opportunity to change the characteristics of a club and fit an appropriate ball flight to a player's swing - being the route to follow to maintain consistency and stability.
The decision, say many observers, has made TaylorMade the industry leader with claims that 70 per-cent of drivers sold have some version of its movable weight technology.
But TaylorMade is also engineering drivers without MW technology. Unlike the four-weight SuperQuad, the bullet-shaped Burner, had none in its 460cc head.
Nike Sumo 2 driver
|
While many agree that squeezing the weight already in the head of a driver into the corners (square shape) helps the club's stability at impact for straighter shots, by automatically squashing the depth of the face it limits ball flight and creates more spin.
"That's the design of the 3-wood," says TaylorMade's Benoit Vincent.
Square drivers have so far claimed one Tour victory in the hands of Nike's KJ Choi, while Callaway's Phil Mickelson threatens to swap between Fusion F-5 and FT-i, depending the accuracy he needs for certain PGA tour courses.
The world's top woman golfer Annika Sorenstam, who plays Callaway clubs on the LPGA tour, has yet to be convinced about the square driver until she hits it "a few more times."
It remains to be seen whether the golfing public will perceive the 'revolutionary' square heads with their distinctive sounds, as pushing back the boundaries of technology or merely another ruse by the manufacturers to take advantage of our desire to hit the ball higher, longer and straighter than our playing partners.
Discuss this story
Here is a column by Frank Thomas on the subject
What do the new square drivers do for your game?
Now we have square drivers. Frankly Speaking, ‘What was wrong with the round ones?’
With the introduction of square or squarish drivers, manufacturers are chasing the legal limit on the measure of forgiveness known as Moment of Inertia (MOI). The best way to do this is to concentrate the mass as far away as possible from the center of gravity, which lessens the club’s tendency to twist on off-center contact. The USGA has set a limit on MOI about the vertical axis, and also has a size limit for club heads of 5 inches from toe to heel, and a fraction less than 5 from the front to back. These limits form almost a square. So the best way to approach the maximum allowable MOI within the size restrictions is to get as much weight as possible into the corners of this square. Thus we now have the square driver.
The moment the USGA establishes any limit on equipment, manufacturers decide that approaching it is the thing to do, because golfers infer from any “new limit” that the closer you are to it, the better the club must be. The manufacturers take advantage of this myth and chase it, letting the consumer know that its new club or ball is the closest to that limit and therefore must be good or even the best.
Originally, the USGA proposed a standard on MOI of 4,800 gm. cm ² (see http://www.franklygolf.com/Speak/moi.asp for a simple explanation of MOI), but soon modified this after the manufacturers suggested that it was inappropriate. The USGA explained its quick change of mind by saying that it was based on input from the manufacturers, and that going from 4,800 gm. cm ² to 6,000 gm. cm ² “doesn’t mean anything in real terms.” Studies have shown that the USGA’s statement is correct, that this change doesn’t mean much in real terms. The obvious question, then, is, If this change doesn’t mean anything, would a violation of the new limit mean anything? And if not, then why set the limit?
When drivers increased in size into the 400-460 cc range, they went from MOIs of about 2,000 gm cm² to 4,000 gm cm². This was a real change that improved forgiveness and led to a significant improvement in performance on mis-hits. But there is a phenomenon known as the law of diminishing returns; every incremental increase does not lead to an equivalent increase in performance. Most of the 400cc to 460 cc drivers perform very well, and are only slightly less forgiving than the newest and latest Square Drivers with MOIs approaching the 5,500 gm cm² range. The difference in performance is simply not significant; this is a text book example of diminishing returns.
There is very little room left to improve the performance of drivers, which leaves manufacturers struggling to create distinctions for their products. In this sense, a USGA-imposed limit on anything is a godsend; they can claim to be pushing the envelope by getting as close to the limit as possible, impressing golfers who have no way to understand whether the limitation is significant to begin with. I believe that we are now in the “Big and Square” phase of a fashion cycle. In time, drivers will return to a more traditional look, as this will then be something new and different, with no perceptible difference in performance. We could quite possibly see the cycle retracing its curve back to the 400+ cc drivers and more traditional shapes as soon as all the square shapes and others have become commonplace. Hemlines go up; hemlines come down; consumers, for some reason, follow along. From a performance point of view, let me again quote the USGA: “It doesn’t mean anything in real terms.” But changing along with the fashions of the day is fun, it activates the placebo effect and it doesn’t harm anything other than your wallet.
cont...
Posted: 09/03/2007 21:15
Boanerges,
what you say is of course correct, but unfortunately, many of us (I know this is certainly the case for me) simply do not have enough spare hours in the day to spend enough time practicing and playing to get good enough to develop and perfect the skills you mention. I know that I will never be that good, and I am happy to accept that.
So, if a piece of equipment can take some of the errors out of my driving, then I am all for it. At the end of the day, it's getting the ball in the hole that counts, not how pretty your ball is in the air. I am prepared to lose some distance if I can get more accuracy. Also, there are enough cloned club manufacturers so it is possible to get a square headed driver for less than £100.
Having tried out a driver on the course for a few holes the other day (a playing partner let me have a few goes) I must say I actually like the shape of it. I find the straight lines of the square allow me to visualise a "take away path" that is not my usuall wiggly line. And after a couple of goes, I really didn't notice the noise.
I am fully convinced that for someone of my ability, a square driver will be a very welcome addition to my bag and will help me improve. I can't see the pros using them as they don't give you the control you mention, but for mid to high handicappers I think they are great.
Posted: 04/04/2007 09:03
See more comments...
|
|
