Have we reached the pinnacle of what is possible with a driver head?

[TimZ]

There must be a point to where the ball just can't go any farther or be meaningfully more consistent while staying within the rules of design for the driver head. We've been moving weights around the driver head for 15 years, and virtually every material and size has been experimented with. At what point have we reached the apex of distance and consistency when it comes to driver advancements if we haven't already reached it?  I think this is why we see more and more tour pros keeping older clubs in their bag and not seeing the need to "upgrade".

[PuffyC]

Distance hasn't really increased in the past 20 years assuming you hit it somewhere remotely close to the center of the face, however the forgiveness is better on those bad swings. So I'd wager distance is pretty done but there could be ways to make a driver head even more forgiving when you hit way on the outside. Won't be a lot, maybe a couple yards here or there, but that's all we really got before anyway.

[sweetcelery]

11 minutes ago, PuffyC said:

Distance hasn't really increased in the past 20 years assuming you hit it somewhere remotely close to the center of the face, however the forgiveness is better on those bad swings. So I'd wager distance is pretty done but there could be ways to make a driver head even more forgiving when you hit way on the outside. Won't be a lot, maybe a couple yards here or there, but that's all we really got before anyway.

I think we’re nearing a point where golfers are no longer looking for the most forgiving drivers out there and just want something that performs well with a consistent swing, especially with the ever increasing prices for these things. There’s already videos of bad toe and heel shots on the new Callaway Ai Smoke  going miles. So yes, I believe both the distance and forgiveness wars for drivers are about to reach their apex in both metrics. 

[toastinato]

I'd imagine they could very much so build a driver that increases distances drastically. Idk the legality of certain materials but I'm sure that plays a part. I'd imagine it's similar to the tech industry where if they wanted to, I'm sure they could engineer things years ahead. But that wouldn't make sense from a business stand point. I'm sure Apple and dell have technology planned out for the next 10 years and release it incrementally. Probably similar to golf. Instead, they'd rather say you'll gain 5 yards for the next 10 years. I'm sure golf is a bit different because there are limits to things. Like the golf ball... I'm sure they could build a ball that goes 10 yards further but they are held back by the limits of what is allowed. Also just my opinion so I could be completely wrong. But I am in an industry that I do see this first hand. We have product plans for the next 3 years but release them yearly instead of all at once. 

[getitdaily]

Top end...yes.

 

However, watch what callaway is saying with ai smoke. The gains will be made by breaking the launch/spin rules of bulge and roll. 

 

Ballspeed drops off or picks up depending on where you strike the face. Launch and spin go up or down based on strike. 

 

Imagine a face design that breaks those rules...tighter launch/spin/ballspeed deviation across the face. That's what's left.

 

Imagine 1.49 smash in the high toe and low heel section. Imagine a low heel strike being close in launch and spin to a high toe strike. That would be innovative. 

Edited January 4, 2024 by getitdaily

[Poor Mans Ty Webb]

Well, we haven't tried teflon non-stick driver faces yet...

[Long_Left]

The Hammer Turbo X Air was released a few years back, everyone else is simply trying to close the gap...

 

In all seriousness, the numbers from off center hits on the newest Callaway look to be fairly impressive, but the actual gains will be minimal from an on course performance standpoint. Ball speed on center strikes hasn't changed in years, I think the major innovations will come in the space of making ball flight move towards "optimal" with a sub-optimal delivery. 

 

You may see a move towards material science that can "cheat" the announced new testing model as well, it was rumored for years that balls and clubs were "hotter" for higher swing speeds etc. but I never saw any proof of it, if an OEM wanted to sell more clubs, they'd figure out how to pass the new test while making the driver hotter for 100 mph chs.

 

Edit: Or like the metal baseball bat manufacturers, make the product get hotter over time as it is used, until it fails catastrophically. Built in renewable revenue.

Edited January 4, 2024 by Long_Left

[manima1]

It's all ballspeed retention outside of center strike and minimizing standard deviation on spin and launch angle regardless of where on the face the ball is struck.  There is still a LOT to be gained there and I feel like every year this gets better and better.  Even the OG Stealth - you can hit that thing all over the face and ballspeed retention is incredible   

[caniac6]

I don’t think the driver has peaked, and, with the ball rollback, there will be more innovation.

[Valtiel]

3 hours ago, manima1 said:

It's all ballspeed retention outside of center strike and minimizing standard deviation on spin and launch angle regardless of where on the face the ball is struck.  There is still a LOT to be gained there and I feel like every year this gets better and better.  Even the OG Stealth - you can hit that thing all over the face and ballspeed retention is incredible   

Agreed, I think the issue is that the minutiae that IS still very much possible to create incremental gains is getting more technical and hard to surface to the consumer. Manipulating launch conditions via pulling different levers with MOI (horizontal AND vertical) bulge and roll tweaks combined with face tech advancements (like @getitdaily mentioned) and continuing manipulation of CG via lighter materials means that the conversation has to steer away from "COR/CT has been maxed out for decades, there is nothing left!". 

[The Mad Bomber]

7 hours ago, Poor Mans Ty Webb said:

Well, we haven't tried teflon non-stick driver faces yet...

Somebody get Clark Griswald on the case

[gdb99]

I would like to see a driver face built for my swing speed, which is pretty low.

[Valtiel]

2 hours ago, gdb99 said:

I would like to see a driver face built for my swing speed, which is pretty low.

Honestly you can look into some of the driver face shaving services for something like that. The only thing that helps lower speeds is to go non-conforming. 

[Tbone107]

3 hours ago, gdb99 said:

I would like to see a driver face built for my swing speed, which is pretty low.

May be not your taste but Krank does this. I have a Krank head and love it but it's a conforming one. 

[Howard_Jones]

4 hours ago, Valtiel said:

Honestly you can look into some of the driver face shaving services for something like that. The only thing that helps lower speeds is to go non-conforming. 

Or to get a REAL club fitting....
A player with too much variables to impact position, will for sure see a gain with a non conforming head, but he will be better of, and get more fairways via a real club fitting, since ball speed alone cant prevent the rough or OOB.

Depending on how much OEMs focus on club fitting, thats where i think the future might be. Heads thats more adjustable for RCOG and VCOG to match the players mishit patterns.

As it all looks like now, higher COR will NOT help the average Joe with a of the rack club, it will be fun on the good ones, and even worse on the bad ones, (they go longer into the rough)

So club fitting is, and has always been they key, and the future might be more options to take care of each players typical mishit patterns, where we will see improvements to this GRID numbers. (100 mph)

LESS Face roll ratio will be more common for sure. (it will stabilize launch angle)

[phizzy30]

The only thing OEMs can improve upon is forgiveness at this point, IMO.  Retaining higher ball speeds and keeping spin consistent across the face.  With 10k MOI drivers coming out this year for TM and PING, I believe it's a significant leap in tech that other OEMs will soon follow suit.   

[WristySwing]

5 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

Or to get a REAL club fitting....
A player with too much variables to impact position, will for sure see a gain with a non conforming head, but he will be better of, and get more fairways via a real club fitting, since ball speed alone cant prevent the rough or OOB.

Depending on how much OEMs focus on club fitting, thats where i think the future might be. Heads thats more adjustable for RCOG and VCOG to match the players mishit patterns.

As it all looks like now, higher COR will NOT help the average Joe with a of the rack club, it will be fun on the good ones, and even worse on the bad ones, (they go longer into the rough)

So club fitting is, and has always been they key, and the future might be more options to take care of each players typical mishit patterns, where we will see improvements to this GRID numbers. (100 mph)

LESS Face roll ratio will be more common for sure. (it will stabilize launch angle)

 

To add onto this, I have been a fitter for a very long time now.  I hear OP's complaint every January when TM and Callaway inevitably release a new driver and someone has to make the comment that it is the same stuff rebadged.  I can say hand on heart, I have fit people coming in with product that is 25 years old, all the way to a couple of months old, and it never ceases to amaze me the level of absolutely disgustingly poor fits out there walking around a golf course.  There is no reason that someone with a fairly modern driver (say last 4-5 years) should be sacrificing any yardage off the tee, provided something drastic hasn't changed with their ability, swing, or health.  Yet, day in and day out, I see people walking in with 1-2 year old equipment that I can beat the everloving snot out of easily because it is such a bad fit with poor ball speed due to off center strikes.

That is where the improvement is seen.  Sure, you can absolutely rip a 510TP from 20 years ago, but I have my money on the Stealth2+ any day of the week being on average longer and straighter.

[Howard_Jones]

2 hours ago, phizzy30 said:

The only thing OEMs can improve upon is forgiveness at this point, IMO.  Retaining higher ball speeds and keeping spin consistent across the face.  With 10k MOI drivers coming out this year for TM and PING, I believe it's a significant leap in tech that other OEMs will soon follow suit.   

That number for MOI must be the summary of 2 axises, the limit on each is still 5900 so as theory the sum could be max 2 x 5900 or 11800

If you recall what we had almost 20 years ago now, with heads like Callaway FTI and Nike (the square ones), they was made to the MOI limit of 5900, but the issue with them was that we could NOT go shorter and add weight without making them non conforming (MOI would be higher than 5900) so they had to dial back on standard MOI value to be able to get this clubs fitted correct for each player.

The head i still play has a MOI value of 4800, and its way more forgiving than my FTI was, since that club was 45.75" long, who gave me max 2-3 decent drives a round, the rest was all over the course, often on a fairway next to the one we was playing, and thats useless

Higher the MOI is as standard, the less options you will have to tune head wgt and place the weight where you want it. 

Edited January 5, 2024 by Howard_Jones

[phizzy30]

Just now, Howard_Jones said:

That number for MOI must be the summary of 2 axises, the limit on each is still 5900 so as theory the sum could be max 2 x 5900 or 11800

If you recall what we had almost 20 years ago now, with heads like Callaway FTI and Nike (the square ones), they was made to the MOI limit of 5900, but the issue with them was that we could NOT go shorter and add weight without making them non conforming (MOI would be higher than 5900) so they had to dial back on standard MOI value to be angle to get this clubs fitted correct for each player.

The head i still play has a MOI value of 4800, and its way more forgiving than my FTI was, since that club was 45.75" long, who gave me max 2-3 decent drives a round, the rest was all over the course, often on a fairway next to the one we was playing, and thats useless

Higher the MOI is as standard, the less options you will have to tune head wgt and place the weight where you want it 

So the 10K MOI heads have limitations in terms of fine tuning at the cost of forgiveness is what you're saying? 

[Howard_Jones]

16 minutes ago, phizzy30 said:

So the 10K MOI heads have limitations in terms of fine tuning at the cost of forgiveness is what you're saying? 

Just do the math for MOI
Move COG further back = higher MOI = legal limit is passed
Add head weight on COG = higher MOI = legal limit is passed
Add head weight toe side = higher MOI = legal limit is passed

Mass x distance x distance = MOI

Thats why those 5900 MOI heads i mentioned is off the marked, they dialed back to MOI values at +/- 5000 to be able to tune head wgt and location of COG and still have a legal head

Be aware of thats its 2 axises here (heel to toe and face to RCOG)
When they say 10.000 + (or what ever), they should NOT be much more than 5000 on each axis, before this heads CANT be tuned. The closer each axis gets to 5900 as standards, the less option for tuning do we have on that axis.

Edited January 5, 2024 by Howard_Jones

[Feelingofgreatness]

22 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

That number for MOI must be the summary of 2 axises, the limit on each is still 5900 so as theory the sum could be max 2 x 5900 or 11800

If you recall what we had almost 20 years ago now, with heads like Callaway FTI and Nike (the square ones), they was made to the MOI limit of 5900, but the issue with them was that we could NOT go shorter and add weight without making them non conforming (MOI would be higher than 5900) so they had to dial back on standard MOI value to be able to get this clubs fitted correct for each player.

The head i still play has a MOI value of 4800, and its way more forgiving than my FTI was, since that club was 45.75" long, who gave me max 2-3 decent drives a round, the rest was all over the course, often on a fairway next to the one we was playing, and thats useless

Higher the MOI is as standard, the less options you will have to tune head wgt and place the weight where you want it. 

Does this mean a Max 10K will be useless for a lot of players because you can't move the CG location?

I'm curious, what type of driver so you game, head, length of shaft, weight, etc?

[Howard_Jones]

1 minute ago, Feelingofgreatness said:

Does this mean a Max 10K will be useless for a lot of players because you can't move the CG location?

I'm curious, what type of driver so you game, head, length of shaft, weight, etc?

Maybe you missed the edit i did to my reply
When they say MOI is above 10.000 its the SUM on 2 axises, so its really marketing bull s***, the limit is still 5900 for each of them (read over my reply with edit above)

I play Wishon 919 THI with 11* loft, and CRT face (15* roll ratio = less variables to actual loft vs impact height on the face = less variables to launch angle). 
Shaft is Grafalloy ProLaunch AXIS RED, Play length is 44.00" (SW is D0 if i recall right, so head wgt is about 206 grams, still from my memory) MOI is 4800 or 4900, and i can hardly make a draw or fade on command, its silly strait, and the most forgiving club head ive ever tried. its designed more than 10 years ago now.

[Feelingofgreatness]

3 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Maybe you missed the edit i did to my reply
When they say MOI is above 10.000 its the SUM on 2 axises, so its really marketing bull s***, the limit is still 5900 for each of them (read over my reply with edit above)

I play Wishon 919 THI with 11* loft, and CRT face (15* roll ratio = less variables to actual loft vs impact height on the face = less variables to launch angle). 
Shaft is Grafalloy ProLaunch AXIS RED, Play length is 44.00" (SW is D0 if i recall right, so head wgt is about 206 grams, still from my memory) MOI is 4800 or 4900, and i can hardly make a draw or fade on command, its silly strait, and the most forgiving club head ive ever tried. its designed more than 10 years ago now.

Much appreciated

[Glock917]

Makes sense why the new Ping G430 1K has very little adjustments that can be done. That back weight doesnt even look to be removable.