Maltby ISO-T Driver and MPF Pro Series DR Shaft

[games]

I picked up the new Maltby driver off the bay from Dave, the guy who does YouTube reviews as "Fit2You Golf." I recognized him from the listing description. He was super to buy from, and even gave me a "preview of his review" before it hit YouTube.

 

About me and the club: 90-92mph SS; head is 10.5*; club is cut to length of 45" with a regular flex MPF Pro Series DR shaft. On a good day, I'm a bogey golfer. This initial test was done on a windy 6,600 yard course, and I shot a respectable 89. Given the course was backed up and I was playing as a single, I got to hit the club about 20-24 times during the round.

 

First, this is a tour-weight shaft, and it plays as one of the more "stout" R-flex shafts I've swung, being somewhat comparable to a Ping Tour 65R. Other reviews describe it playing "firm" to flex, but I've swung S-flex shafts with more kick, including my current gamer (a counter-balanced ALTA CB55 in a Ping G400 Max).

 

On my best swings, the club produced a low-to-mid piercing trajectory, throwing the Maltby MPF rating as a high launch shaft out the window. (The UL version would likely produce higher flight.) On this windy day, the lower trajectory with straighter flight was a bonus. On a more calm day, I would have definitely preferred the higher flight of my gamer. About seven or eight of my good swings resulted in a block. I felt my gamer would have turned the ball over a little bit, but that was not happening with this shaft which really wants the ball to go straight.

 

At address, the head reminds me of a Titleist driver, especially the "aiming" arrow. The head is solid and presents a very pleasant sound like the "tink" of a muted aluminum bat. Comparatively, my G400 Max sounds like an explosion caused by a car hitting a train crashing into the side of a gasoline tanker. For forgiveness, I felt the ISO-T was just average, as there were a few holes where I hit two drives where I stuck one and missed on the other, and the difference in distance was significant.

 

Summary: As tested, I give it a "B." (My instinct tells me the UL (ultralight) version of the shaft (cut to a firm or stiff flex) would be an "A." Again, the inherent downside with Maltby products is you can't "demo" the club ahead of time, so you're left taking your "best guess.") That said, for $200, this Maltby driver continues to be a great alternative to OEM pricing, as most of us who would dare consider a Maltby club will never see the incremental benefit (if any) from paying an additional $200-$300 for a new OEM.

[ode1]

Thx for the review. I recently put a Ping G LST in play, curious if you can comment on the face height between the ISO T vs. your g400 Max. I'm really enjoying the deeper/tallish face height of the Ping vs. my gamer Cobra f6 which is a great driver, but the only negative is it's a bit shallow for my liking.

[games]

Not at home to compare, but I will. I do think the matte black of the Ping may make it appear larger than the ISO-T which has a darker gray/black with a glossier finish.

[03trdblack]

Pictures?

[games]

Some pics...

 

[dcopp7]

I don't care for that head profile at address.

[games]

> @dcopp7 said:

> I don't care for that head profile at address.

 

Sorry about the lighting, don't know if that affected your view...

[games]

First, the Max is about an inch longer than the ISO-T, which might explain the "boardy" feeling I get from the Maltby shaft. Also, to answer a previous question, the face of the ISO-T is definitely shallower than the G400 Max. Also, it might not be clear from the pix, but the G400 Max sits a bit open at address, while the ISO-T sits square.

 

Yesterday, I went to the launch monitor to compare the ISO-T with the G400 Max, where I confirmed the ISO-T's blocks are real and spectacular (in their severity). But, after I stood closer to the ball and put it more forward in my stance, it immediately straightened out. The trajectory of the ISO-T is still low to my eye, but it is kind of growing on me.

 

I learned hitting the ISO-T on the heel is the driver equivalent of hitting a wood bat on the label. In fact, the feedback (sound and feel) was so negative, I forgot to check the LM for yardage forgiveness. All I know is if I hit it on the heel, I get taken to the woodshed. One more reason to stand a bit closer to the ball...

 

Finally, I think @Popeye64 may have mentioned this characteristic in a post on another thread, but you can't baby the MPF Pro Series shaft. It wants you to stay aggressive through impact. Again, IMO, this is closer to a Tour-weight shaft and it is not your typical "house" or OEM stock shaft.

 

Summary: The G400 Max is better for my current swing, as it is definitely forgiving. But, the ISO-T rewards me for putting a good crisp move on the ball, and that is something I really need right now.

[games]

I'm going to amend my prior post, based on a 200-bullet "pants off, dance off" at the range yesterday between the ISO-T (Maltby MPF Pro DR R-flex, FLO'd at 45") vs G400 Max (Ping Tour 65 R-flex also playing at 45"). I replaced the ALTA CB55 R shaft in the Max (which played at 45.75") with the Ping Tour which was pulled from a G30 LS Tec head. (For a few shots, I threw the ALTA CB55 in the G30 LS head, and if it weren't for a limited sample size and the G30 head violating local noise ordinances, I'm not so sure that combo wouldn't be in the mix.) Summary of yesterday's session:

 

The ISO-T head has potential!

Typical carry was 5 yards less, but total distance (wet range, slightly elevated tees) was easily 10 yards more!

 

Shocking News: I have a shaft problem and/or my swing is inconsistent.

My start line with the MPF shaft in the ISO-T was consistent, but the curvature varied. The Tour 65 produced a consistent right to left flight, but the start line was inconsistent (varying between push draws and draws).

 

The MPF Pro DR Shaft in "R" flex plays closer to stiff.

I simply could not turn the ball over with the ISO-T. Normally, I get along well with tour-weight shafts, but this one is really stout. I'm asking Dave at Fit2You if he tipped the shaft. If he did, I may step down to the A flex in this series!

[Popeye64]

> @games said:

> I'm going to amend my prior post, based on a 200-bullet "pants off, dance off" at the range yesterday between the ISO-T (Maltby MPF Pro DR R-flex, FLO'd at 45") vs G400 Max (Ping Tour 65 R-flex also playing at 45"). I replaced the ALTA CB55 R shaft in the Max (which played at 45.75") with the Ping Tour which was pulled from a G30 LS Tec head. (For a few shots, I threw the ALTA CB55 in the G30 LS head, and if it weren't for a limited sample size and the G30 head violating local noise ordinances, I'm not so sure that combo wouldn't be in the mix.) Summary of yesterday's session:

>

> The ISO-T head has potential!

> Typical carry was 5 yards less, but total distance (wet range, slightly elevated tees) was easily 10 yards more!

>

> Shocking News: I have a shaft problem and/or my swing is inconsistent.

> My start line with the MPF shaft in the ISO-T was consistent, but the curvature varied. The Tour 65 produced a consistent right to left flight, but the start line was inconsistent (varying between push draws and draws).

>

> The MPF Pro DR Shaft in "R" flex plays closer to stiff.

> I simply could not turn the ball over with the ISO-T. Normally, I get along well with tour-weight shafts, but this one is really stout. I'm asking Dave at Fit2You if he tipped the shaft. If he did, I may step down to the A flex in this series!

 

I reading your post I believe there are two things you are experiencing.

1. I have a 9.5 ISO-T and it plays like an 8.5 head. I believe people will have to loft up on these heads in order to see the right performance.

2. Those MPF shafts play stiff and its actually a serious shaft. It's far from a typical house brand. Britt built a nice shaft.

On those ISO-T heads, when the 11.5s come back into stock I'll test my theory on having to loft up..

Britt himself has played an 8.5 head forever yet now can play the 9.5 ISO-T.

[games]

> @Popeye64 said:

> I reading your post I believe there are two things you are experiencing.

> 1. I have a 9.5 ISO-T and it plays like an 8.5 head. I believe people will have to loft up on these heads in order to see the right performance.

> 2. Those MPF shafts play stiff and its actually a serious shaft. It's far from a typical house brand. Britt built a nice shaft.

> On those ISO-T heads, when the 11.5s come back into stock I'll test my theory on having to loft up..

> Britt himself has played an 8.5 head forever yet now can play the 9.5 ISO-T.

 

Hey Popeye. One thing I noticed about this head: The face / leading edge is significantly ahead of the hosel. I have to believe that is a major reason why the club is playing like 1*-2* of lower loft.

 

And, completely agree with the shaft. It is stout. I got a PM about the ISO-T that mentioned reviews on the Golfworks site were less than flattering. But, you could tell several unhappy customers were a bit older. One said he was slicing the ISO-T right of Limbaugh, then bragged about the draw on his gamer with a ProLaunch Blue. The ISO-T is playing 2* lower loft than his gamer AND two flexes stiffer...

 

I'd love to hear Britt's story on the engineering of the ISO-T. I have to believe it was designed as a player's club. I just don't remember ever seeing a leading edge this far ahead of the hosel...

[Popeye64]

I spent some quality time with the ISO-T 9.5 and I have to say my second impression of it was a lot different. It was longer than my Rouge but that's not saying much as I'm struggling with that club right now. But it was a very playable low boring trajectory with a consistent fade. I could easily game that club. I'm tempted to mount a Paderson Kinetixx Launch shaft I have to see how it does. I will probably order a 10.5 head hand picked at 10.8. Need to get to the launch monitor to see what it's doing. It's tough in the summer though.

[games]

> @Popeye64 said:

> I spent some quality time with the ISO-T 9.5...it was a very playable low boring trajectory with a consistent fade.

 

Popeye do you have the MPF shaft in Stiff in the ISO-T? I have some heavy R-flex Paderson shafts in an Edel single length set, and they're not easy to turn over, either...

[Popeye64]

> @games said:

> > @Popeye64 said:

> > I spent some quality time with the ISO-T 9.5...it was a very playable low boring trajectory with a consistent fade.

>

> Popeye do you have the MPF shaft in Stiff in the ISO-T? I have some heavy R-flex Paderson shafts in an Edel single length set, and they're not easy to turn over, either...

 

The MPF shaft was out of stock when I grabbed the head. I have a newer Excaliber shaft I believe it's the high balance point shaft. I like the feel I was getting and it was very consistent. Just not enough launch without really changing my swing.

The current Maltby products across the board are outstanding. I'm still on the fence as to how good this ISO-T can be. I wont give a real review until I have the right setup in play. It really isnt fair.

[Popeye64]

I have had this driver in Play two rounds in a row. On two different courses. One wide open and the other a tighter setup. This is the 9.5 with an Excaliber TSL in a TS. It's not quite enough loft for me but I have been gaming it anyways. It has been a truly great surprise at how well its performing. My distance is up nearly 20 yards on average and mostly because it's in play and straight. I either hit it dead straight or a baby fade. Yes it's a bit loud compared to a composite but it has a great feel to it. Hit dead center and it sounds awesome. I'm hitting 285- 290 and popped one today 305. I have completely taken the left side of the course out of play.

 

When I first hit this driver I hated it. Felt like crap and didnt go any where. This driver is quite unlike anything I have played in years. It takes a while to get used to it. It really has not been given a fair shake in any of the reviews I have seen so far. As a comparison I hit it back to back against an M5 same loft. The M5 flew much higher but true distance was the same or the ISO-T went further because of roll out. I need more loft in the head but this combination has really worked for me so far. Hated it at first but both rounds produced drives that the playing partners just said... WOW after it left on a screaming line drive that went on and on. I honestly thought about returning this head. Something I have never done with a Maltby. In both rounds I was in positions that I had not been in quite a few years. In play and long is a good feeling.

[Popeye64]

This driver has me baffled. The 9.5 keeps up with the M5 shot for shot. In the wind the ISO-T kicked its butt. The 9.5 is very controllable, repeatable and I can truly take out the left side of the course...

I picked up a 10.5 and it's an absolute DUD! I can hit the 9.5 all over the face but the 10.5 has to be hit perfectly to go anywhere. I'm baffled with the difference in performance. The 10.5 is shafted with an Xcaliber TSL. It worked great in the 9.5 but that got reshafted with the Paderson Launch. I may reshaft the 10.5 but I'm not sure I'll get better results. Reviews on Golfworks have been all over the place. I may see why.

I know they have changed foundaries and the dies need to be reworked. I dont want to say there was a quality control issue but this has me wondering.

[Popeye64]

Reshafted the 10.5 and all is right with the world. Put in the Paderson Launch and it worked great. Really necks and neck with an M5. Almost zero difference in performance. Launch and carry is nearly the same. The 9.5 combo goes just a little further simply because its spins less.... and would be the club of choice on a windy day. Other than that both heads really perform well.

[JhawkDhead]

Not sure why I’m reading two year old posts about a driver I have never had any interest in, but “games” your post are knee-slippers. Violating local noise ordinances, hitting it right of Limbaugh...

[JhawkDhead]

Knee-slappers