Tour New Ping i240 irons - 2025 Memorial

[javierruis]

1 hour ago, raywutang said:

According to his heat maps, it doesn't seem like the i240 is as forgiving overall as the i230

According to Ping the I240 is more forgiving. So who do we believe? And this is not a sarcastic question. 

[MilesVJackson]

25 minutes ago, javierruis said:

According to Ping the I240 is more forgiving. So who do we believe? And this is not a sarcastic question. 

 

I trust the party that conducted a systematic test of the club and shared the data for all to see.

[chollier986]

1 minute ago, MilesVJackson said:

 

I trust the party that conducted a systematic test of the club and shared the data for all to see.

I tend to question any test that suggests a 22mm heel and 17mm low strike results in a 4% drop in ball speed.

[KnoxvilleReb]

52 minutes ago, javierruis said:

According to Ping the I240 is more forgiving. So who do we believe? And this is not a sarcastic question. 

I think both are likely correct "technically". If you look at the Cool Clubs robot testing, essentially every spot on the face improved in dispersion. The toe distance dropped off a lot, but the total dispersion area for toe strikes actually improved. AskGolfNut is my favorite club reviewer on youtube, and his heat map looks to be in line with their findings, but it only notes ball speed drop off. Ping just says "11% more forgiveness" or something like that, which could be cherry picking any set of metrics, or even using great metrics that are supported by Cool Clubs test, e.g. "overall average of dispersion across 5 primary face locations on robot testing showed an 11% improvement overall". Ultimately, the club is likely to perform well, just like the i230, and it will just come down to what you prefer. Seems to be a question of more launch, spin, and improved dispersion on low face contact versus a drop off in distance on toe strikes. 

[karstens_ghost]

On 7/10/2025 at 2:54 AM, ryanmn4 said:

What's getting me is $217 per iron with stock steel...I paid $125 per for my i210s.  Granted, that was late 2018, and inflation is what it is, but almost double?  The whole point of the i-series was that it was forgiving enough for a mid and good enough for low/tour, while still being affordable.  A T100 is $206 per???  What are we doing here?  I'm not one of the poors or anything and I get that this is WRX, but I doubt the bang for buck is going to be there.

 

At no point was it about "being affordable". Remember eye2's in the 80's costing $700? I'll let you work the inflationary maths out, but the price wasn't ever a cheap set. And 210s were released in 2018 as you noted. There were also no looming tariffs.

[karstens_ghost]

1 hour ago, javierruis said:

According to Ping the I240 is more forgiving. So who do we believe? And this is not a sarcastic question. 

One can look at this differently...

On one hand, you have more spread -- better for someone like me who isn't pinpoint.

On the other hand, if you know you're going to be off by a little bit every time, you want that little bit to be the same.

It's a hard choice, like everything else. I prefer the fuzzy 230, but someone who's a bit more consistent with a common miss (like toe side by 4mm consistently as a fake example) might get more consistent speed out of that 240 face.

 

Golf is hard.

[Lobbing Iron]

58 minutes ago, KnoxvilleReb said:

I think both are likely correct "technically". If you look at the Cool Clubs robot testing, essentially every spot on the face improved in dispersion. The toe distance dropped off a lot, but the total dispersion area for toe strikes actually improved. AskGolfNut is my favorite club reviewer on youtube, and his heat map looks to be in line with their findings, but it only notes ball speed drop off. Ping just says "11% more forgiveness" or something like that, which could be cherry picking any set of metrics, or even using great metrics that are supported by Cool Clubs test, e.g. "overall average of dispersion across 5 primary face locations on robot testing showed an 11% improvement overall". Ultimately, the club is likely to perform well, just like the i230, and it will just come down to what you prefer. Seems to be a question of more launch, spin, and improved dispersion on low face contact versus a drop off in distance on toe strikes. 

They might not be designing it for toe strikes to all be delivered with a square face either.   When Callaway does "AI" optimization of their drivers I would be certain they are optimizing bulge, roll, face thickness and CG to fit a distribution of delivery profiles for a set of personas.  It is also possible that whatever changes Ping made would be better for most people in their target set but worse for a particular individual.   

[MilesVJackson]

1 hour ago, chollier986 said:

I tend to question any test that suggests a 22mm heel and 17mm low strike results in a 4% drop in ball speed.

 

Have you collected any systematic data to support your claim?  Please share.

[chollier986]

2 hours ago, MilesVJackson said:

 

Have you collected any systematic data to support your claim?  Please share.

He’s just using smash factor and strike location and interpolating the data across the face.  It’s not difficult to do.  Tedious maybe depending on how many shots he hits with each iron.  I’ll share my most sever miss hit vs a flushed shot during from my next practice session.  Will have to be with i230, as I do not have access to the i240.  My guess is the drop off is far more that 4%.

[underwater]

Hit the i240 today side by side with ZXi7 with Modus 105x in both.

 

Very similar in almost every way, but the PING's just sounded and felt quite "clacky".  I guess comparing against something like the ZXi7 is unfair being those feel so nice, but performance was similar loft for loft.  ~3y extra carry from the srixon but that's to be expected based on 32°.

 

I will say the i240 look nice at address.  I can't say the ZXi7 looked bad because they are my gamers and I'm so used to them, but the i240 have a nice setup.  Terrible looking cavity (and worse in person, frankly) but good at address.  Someone described the i240 cavity as making themlook "counterfeit".  I replied to him that they just look like a $799 iron set, not $1400.

 

 

 

Edited July 11 by underwater

[Mfischer3486]

i got 4- Uwedge  i210 with LZ Project X shafts in 2021 for$999 at the end of the product cycle. $200 per iron for these new ones and no option for LZ’s is such a downer man. I love my PING brand but Jesus they staying greedy.

Edited July 11 by Mfischer3486

[Konklifer]

I'm a Ping fanboy and have been clamoring for the i series to go back to an iron for those who want the look of a player's club with Ping forgiveness. These look great at address but, I am in the camp that has to like the look of the part they don't hit the ball with. This is a step back cosmetically. 

[davidw88]

On 7/11/2025 at 1:03 PM, Mfischer3486 said:

i got 4- Uwedge  i210 with LZ Project X shafts in 2021 for$999 at the end of the product cycle. $200 per iron for these new ones and no option for LZ’s is such a downer man. I love my PING brand but Jesus they staying greedy.

In Australia the i240 are $50 more than the new titleist.  You would think they should be less being cast.

[hackalot]

They are expensive for cast 

[Brady_Dow]

They look so similar to the shape of the old ping eye irons

[ryanmn4]

On 7/10/2025 at 5:39 PM, karstens_ghost said:

 

At no point was it about "being affordable". Remember eye2's in the 80's costing $700? I'll let you work the inflationary maths out, but the price wasn't ever a cheap set. And 210s were released in 2018 as you noted. There were also no looming tariffs.

I'm a bit too young to remember prices in the 80s, although I did play a hand-me-down set of Eye-2s in high school in the 90s.  If I recall that was (and is) the best selling set of irons of all time, in a unique time, and not really a good proxy for today.  No, I'm talking about seven years ago when I could get a full set of i-series for just over half of what they are now.  Just a few years farther back and Ping was offering i-series for roughly $700/set and Ansers for $1,400/set.  I remember drooling over the Ansers (eventually played a set for a few years), but thinking that those were for the rich guys.  Modern i-series HAVE been the affordable set.  It does seem to me like a poor value, especially if they're priced at or slightly higher than what have always been premium sets, i.e. the Titleists and Mizunos.  That goes double for it being a cast iron.  I'm actually in the market this year, and after a few decades of playing Pings they'll definitely be on the list.  I'm just saying that they'd have been a shoe-in if they were a couple hundred a set less than the Titleists.  Now it's open season.

[halfsumo]

Haven't seen these in person yet, but I guess I'm in the minority and think the cavity looks great. i-series has always had that little bit of funky styling. 

[TiScape]

On 7/10/2025 at 1:32 PM, javierruis said:

According to Ping the I240 is more forgiving. So who do we believe? And this is not a sarcastic question. 

The company selling the club, or independent testing… Tuff call 🤔 

[BlkNGld]

On 7/10/2025 at 1:32 PM, javierruis said:

According to Ping the I240 is more forgiving. So who do we believe? And this is not a sarcastic question. 

 

There is no universal standard for what constitutes 'forgiving', which is why it's relatively easy for an OEM to claim something is "the most forgiving <model> ever".   They usually keep it to their own line, not up against someone else's.

 

AGN's is another take (and a decent one IMO) on how to measure forgiveness.   

[LoganG663]

Those are beautiful 

[chollier986]

31 minutes ago, BlkNGld said:

 

There is no universal standard for what constitutes 'forgiving', which is why it's relatively easy for an OEM to claim something is "the most forgiving <model> ever".   They usually keep it to their own line, not up against someone else's.

 

AGN's is another take (and a decent one IMO) on how to measure forgiveness.   

Idk what to make of AGNs data.  He shows the i240 to be the second most forgiving PING iron he’s ever tested, with PING i230 being number 1.  His test methods also show Blueprint S to be more forgiving that i530 and G425… He also shows Mizuno Pro 243 to be more forgiving than every iron he’s ever tested (which includes game improvement and super game improvement irons) with the exception of ZX4 MK2.

[eric61]

13 minutes ago, chollier986 said:

Idk what to make of AGNs data.  He shows the i240 to be the second most forgiving PING iron he’s ever tested, with PING i230 being number 1.  His test methods also show Blueprint S to be more forgiving that i530 and G425… He also shows Mizuno Pro 243 to be more forgiving than every iron he’s ever tested (which includes game improvement and super game improvement irons) with the exception of ZX4 MK2.

Here's what I've wondered -- and everybody should know I understand very little about science and math, so it's entirely possible I'm WAY off base: 

 

Players' distance irons with springy faces tend to have a really hot ball in them. I remember Callaway's Paradym irons (the first version) being a really clear example of this -- AGN's testing found there was a spot in the center that was like a springboard. My understanding of AGN's methods is he's measuring the drop-off vs. that iron's "best" performance, which with those players' distance irons is typically that really hot ball. It makes their drop-off look bigger than clubs that don't have that sort of hot ball in them. 

 

I think this shows up in Cool Clubs testing, too. I went to Cool Clubs' website and checked out some of their graphics -- randomly picked Mizuno as one to look at closely. I picked two irons I have some experience with, the Pro 223, which I had in the bag for a few months, and the 925 HMP, which I tested quite a bit. I know I can get away with some ridiculous strikes with the 925 HMP. But if you look at their chart, there's an "oh holy crap" ball in the 925 HMP, too -- high center of the face. The 223, while shorter, smaller and certainly marketed as a less forgiving club, has better front-to-back dispersion.

 

I know people say players' distance irons no longer have flyers in them. But I wonder if that's not quite right, and strikes in the springiest parts of their faces are causing them to look "less forgiving" in AGN and Cool Clubs-type testing. 

 

I don't really know. But I will say, this is what makes me love Ping's i2XX line (ridiculously dumb carbon strip excepted). As long as I make somewhat reasonable contact and don't like, chunk or shank or top the ball, it's going to do roughly what I expect it to do.

[TiScape]

Ppl get so caught up on this ‘forgiveness data’. Like I’ve said before a couple places here. 620 CB, T150 or T300. Go out on the course and play a few rounds w/each. I bet the results w/irons won’t differ too much. 
i230 or i240 “more forgiving”… Meh. Play the one ya like the look n feel of better. 

 

*and to paraphrase another member here. “I’m not a robot so…”. haha

 

**keep in mind I only play for recreation 

[pullfade]

I still don't understand all the drama about the cavity. I have them and they look fine in person and in the bag. Not the first set of irons to have carbon.

Edited July 17 by pullfade

[eric61]

1 hour ago, pullfade said:

I still don't understand all the drama about the cavity. I have them and they look fine in person and in the bag. Not the first set of irons to have carbon.

I wasn't playing golf when they were released and I have no idea how they were received by gear nerds at the time, but ... yeah, the backs of those TaylorMade irons are hideous. They'd look infinitely better if they were just silver like the rest of the back of the club. And plastering "Forged" on irons with carbon all over the back, while technically correct, just sounds goofy. The i240s definitely look better than the TaylorMades!

[karstens_ghost]

7 hours ago, ryanmn4 said:

Modern i-series HAVE been the affordable set.  It does seem to me like a poor value, especially if they're priced at or slightly higher than what have always been premium sets, i.e. the Titleists and Mizunos.  That goes double for it being a cast iron.  I'm actually in the market this year, and after a few decades of playing Pings they'll definitely be on the list.  I'm just saying that they'd have been a shoe-in if they were a couple hundred a set less than the Titleists.  Now it's open season.

 

I think you've seen EVERYONE's prices go up. It's a bit unfair to say "that one model has doubled" -- In that time, every iron set everywhere has roughly doubled.

 

I get your point; you felt like relatively it was a bit lower than others. Maybe that was true, but not by much. Go take a look at Callaway and TM and see what they're charging. I think you'll find that their adherents are roughly in the same boat.

 

It's also harder to sell your main cash cow, the 400 series, if you have a cheap alternative.

[BlkNGld]

3 hours ago, chollier986 said:

Idk what to make of AGNs data.  He shows the i240 to be the second most forgiving PING iron he’s ever tested, with PING i230 being number 1.  His test methods also show Blueprint S to be more forgiving that i530 and G425… He also shows Mizuno Pro 243 to be more forgiving than every iron he’s ever tested (which includes game improvement and super game improvement irons) with the exception of ZX4 MK2.

 

This goes back to the question -- "what constitutes a forgiving golf club".

 

Is it ball speed retention across the face?  

Is it spin retention across the face?  (aka spinsistency)

Is it high MOI?

Is it shot shape correction (twist face)

Is it high MPF?

 

If a club helps mitigate my 1 or 2 of my biggest swing flaws, I'm going to think it's the most forgiving thing ever made.   Give that same club to someone without those issues and they'll be thoroughly unimpressed.

[Lobbing Iron]

It is still going to be one of the best irons on the market from a consistent ball speed across the face perspective.   But how it looks and how it feels should matter too.  Some people won't like the high MOI design, and it looks objectively worse from the back.  I will still hit it against the i230, which I was told I could still get, because to me it looks better at address.

[KnoxvilleReb]

19 hours ago, eric61 said:

Here's what I've wondered -- and everybody should know I understand very little about science and math, so it's entirely possible I'm WAY off base: 

 

Players' distance irons with springy faces tend to have a really hot ball in them. I remember Callaway's Paradym irons (the first version) being a really clear example of this -- AGN's testing found there was a spot in the center that was like a springboard. My understanding of AGN's methods is he's measuring the drop-off vs. that iron's "best" performance, which with those players' distance irons is typically that really hot ball. It makes their drop-off look bigger than clubs that don't have that sort of hot ball in them. 

 

I think this shows up in Cool Clubs testing, too. I went to Cool Clubs' website and checked out some of their graphics -- randomly picked Mizuno as one to look at closely. I picked two irons I have some experience with, the Pro 223, which I had in the bag for a few months, and the 925 HMP, which I tested quite a bit. I know I can get away with some ridiculous strikes with the 925 HMP. But if you look at their chart, there's an "oh holy crap" ball in the 925 HMP, too -- high center of the face. The 223, while shorter, smaller and certainly marketed as a less forgiving club, has better front-to-back dispersion.

 

I know people say players' distance irons no longer have flyers in them. But I wonder if that's not quite right, and strikes in the springiest parts of their faces are causing them to look "less forgiving" in AGN and Cool Clubs-type testing. 

 

I don't really know. But I will say, this is what makes me love Ping's i2XX line (ridiculously dumb carbon strip excepted). As long as I make somewhat reasonable contact and don't like, chunk or shank or top the ball, it's going to do roughly what I expect it to do.

You hit it on the head. In the 240 vs 230 video specifically, AGN says during the pie chart comparison something along the lines of “i230 shows as having more forgiveness because it has a slow face out of the middle. If you slow down the middle it’s a lot easier to get the rest of the club to keep up. They gave i240 more speed out of the middle so it’s going to show here as less forgiving” 

Edited July 18 by KnoxvilleReb

[jjl]

18 hours ago, pullfade said:

I still don't understand all the drama about the cavity. I have them and they look fine in person and in the bag. Not the first set of irons to have carbon.

Completely agree with you, i prefer the 240's cavity over the 230's. Demo'd the i240, waiting for my set to arrive, it was almost exactly what i was looking for.