Chip Brewer Responds to Failed Driver Test

JB

Follow @THPGolf on Social Media
Albatross 2024 Club
Staff member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
283,258
Reaction score
433,090
Location
THP Experiences
Chip Brewer, CEO of Callaway, responded to the recent news of Xander Schauffele's driver failing a CT test.

"While the industry continues to talk about this driver testing issue, I want to stand up for and defend Xander. He is one of the highest integrity, most talented and nicest young men in golf. And, he has a fair and reasonable point of view on this equipment testing issue.

If anybody deserves blame or criticism for the driver test failure at the Open Championship, it’s us. We provide Xander his equipment. But in all fairness, I’m not sure we did anything wrong. We do everything in our power to design equipment that performs at the limit of USGA / R&A rules but does not exceed it. As long as I am in charge, we will never knowingly produce non-conforming equipment or condone its use, especially in tournament play.

We test our drivers hundreds of times throughout the manufacturing process to make sure they are conforming. For tour product, we have a tour certification process that tests 100 percent of these products again at our facility prior to sending anything out to a player. We have also installed CT testing equipment on our primary tour trailers so we are now able to test in the field on both new and 'played in' parts, where high swing speed players could experience what we term CT 'creep,' and a driver that originally conformed could become, through play, non-conforming or deemed damaged into a non-conforming state. We are also doing fundamental research on managing or preventing 'creep' but more on that later.

We know Xander’s driver was conforming when he received it. Probably in the range of 245 – 250 CT. At the Open we tested it at 255 CT, still conforming but close to the limit. The R&A tested it at 258, one over the limit. This sort of testing variation is going to happen. Because the R&A tested it over the limit, the driver was taken out of play and we replaced it with one that tested well within the limits. All before the event began and conforming with the rules of golf and intent of all the testing (both ours and the R&A’s).

We don’t have an opinion on if all drivers should be checked or if sampling is sufficient. We respect Xander’s point of view as well as the R&A’s.

We believe the ruling bodies are doing a good job in managing the equipment standards, testing and rules. But just like the rest of us, they are not perfect. In this case, I believe the testing process should be more confidential. Multiple drivers failed the CT test at the Open championship and yet Xander is the one who is being talked about. That’s probably wrong and needs to be addressed. Part of the issue is the testing location, a tent on the back of the range, where folks not directly involved in the specific testing can walk in-and-out too freely.

We are going to do our job to the best of our ability. That means we will make golf equipment that is right up to the limit, but not over. We will use our full resources to make sure our players play with the best possible conforming clubs. That part is on us and we take full responsibility.

Xander is one of the highest quality, highest integrity individuals I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. Let’s leave him out of this conversation going forward and focus on the real issues."
 
Good response. It appears that they tested it at The Open as well. I wonder if you run the test over and over again if the results would change a few points each time.
 
I'm confused by the confidential statement and multiple drivers failing the test. Didn't Xander publicly announce it? I don't remember anyone releasing a list of names/drivers that failed.
 
Sort of makes me wonder if the test itself is even accurate enough from day to day? Although, if so, that would mean the OEMs should probably quit toying with the extreme limits.
I'm curious if a Taylormade M5/M6 failed. That would be a blow considering their main marketing line was how every head is brought to the bang on limit individually.
 
I'm confused by the confidential statement and multiple drivers failing the test. Didn't Xander publicly announce it? I don't remember anyone releasing a list of names/drivers that failed.

What I heard on PGA Tour Radio last week was that he heard it from another player that his driver failed. The hosts, I forget which, also said that the player may have just been joking with Xander. That's a strange coincidence, if so.
 
Glad they acknowledged it and confirmed that they test.
 
That is a well crafted response.
 
I like the response. Trying to take the heat off of Xander ... just as it should be.
 
Interesting that with use it gets closer and closer to the limit as well, eventually putting it over the limit

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
that's a really good response. this stood out to me:
We test our drivers hundreds of times throughout the manufacturing process to make sure they are conforming.

that's a lot of testing if true. has to really slow down the manufacturing process.

the fact that xander's driver tested 1 point over the limit makes me wonder how many times the relevant authority tests the driver. is it multiple tests? or just one over-limit reading yields a failure?
 
Sort of makes me wonder if the test itself is even accurate enough from day to day? Although, if so, that would mean the OEMs should probably quit toying with the extreme limits.
I'm curious if a Taylormade M5/M6 failed. That would be a blow considering their main marketing line was how every head is brought to the bang on limit individually.

I think I'm most concerned that they test in a tent on the back of the range, how can ensure (specifically at The Open) weather and testing conditions are neutral for all tests?

Great response by Callaway.

Curious to see what other drivers/players failed.
 
I like the response on this.
 
Very measured and well thought out response; glad to see him stepping in
 
I wonder if he hit it between the 255 and 258 tests?

Sent from my BLA-A09 using Tapatalk
 
Totally agree with Chip when he said "I believe the testing process should be more confidential", especially when you have the variances that you have and especially when you one point over after being tested twice already. Machines could be off, calibrations done incorrectly a host of other factors could weight in the final testing. Callaway should not have been singled out. If the PGA is going to do that then they should release everybody's name out who failed their test.
Good response from Callaway!
 
Great Response, We made it, its our fault. We tested it the same week and then they tested it one over, really? I mean one over speeding is still speeding. but to make all the fuss over 1 point. I truly wonder what that translates into fo distance....?
 
Great Response, We made it, its our fault. We tested it the same week and then they tested it one over, really? I mean one over speeding is still speeding. but to make all the fuss over 1 point. I truly wonder what that translates into fo distance....?

Probably not even noticeable. I don't think there would have been much fuss if the fact that Xander's driver failed didn't get leaked.
 
Sort of makes me wonder if the test itself is even accurate enough from day to day? Although, if so, that would mean the OEMs should probably quit toying with the extreme limits.
I'm curious if a Taylormade M5/M6 failed. That would be a blow considering their main marketing line was how every head is brought to the bang on limit individually.

There's variance in any measurement. Not sure how much with the CT test, but absolutely possible you could be from say, 1 point below to 1 point above. And I completely understand these guys wanting to get as close as they can. It's tough, especially if they don't have access to the exact same equipment the R&A was using to test.
 
Sort of makes me wonder if the test itself is even accurate enough from day to day? Although, if so, that would mean the OEMs should probably quit toying with the extreme limits.
I'm curious if a Taylormade M5/M6 failed. That would be a blow considering their main marketing line was how every head is brought to the bang on limit individually.

I’m with you, I’m guessing the testing variances played a role here more so than a “hot driver” Xande/Callaway tried to sneak into play .
 
Great response by Callaway. Any reasonable person would recognize there are testing differences, as there is with most testing facilities - especially one that is set up at an event. Also, no way a player would risk his reputation for 0.5 CT points (whatever that is worth anyhow). This seems like an issue of modern driver design and the OEMs beginning to understand how wear can transform the CT of the equipment over time. Also - learning that the testing can produce discrepancies and to not settle at very close but under the limit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
When I was younger I played a lot of tournaments for softball. They ran into the same situation. Bats were being made to the absolute limit and eventually they would 'get hotter' than the legal limit because of the break in wear. the governing bodies didnt care, as long as they tested good out of the wrapper. Now all the bats are made well below because testing is done on worn bats and if they dont pass they get tossed.
I wonder if this is something the governing bodies for Golf will determine as well. Clubs wont push the legal limits because of what Chip calls the creep of a well broken in club. It would be interesting to know how many clubs test good brand new but can go over the legal limit after several rounds. This is the first i've heard of a golf club doing this.
 
Isn't the limit 239 and the "allowable variance" is 257? So Callaway had a club that was outside of the testing variance. It shouldn't matter that it tested one over the 257, but that it tested 19 over the limit of 239.

I agree that the heat should not be on Xander, but manufacturers should know that a failed test is possible if you are sending clubs out that are so close.
 
Isn't the limit 239 and the "allowable variance" is 257? So Callaway had a club that was outside of the testing variance. It shouldn't matter that it tested one over the 257, but that it tested 19 over the limit of 239.

I agree that the heat should not be on Xander, but manufacturers should know that a failed test is possible if you are sending clubs out that are so close.

I think the manufacturers do know it, which is why they tested on site. Given that testing is only done by the USGA and R&A, I'm guessing OEMs offer to test any driver being played in those events in their tour van.

At the same time the OEMs want their staffers to have the best chance of winning -- what wins on Sunday sells on Monday -- so they're going to push it as close as possible.

Good on Brewer for stepping up here, but I think the onus is also on the OEMs to understand just how much variation in a test is possible in measuring gear and conditions and steer clear of it.
 
that's a really good response. this stood out to me:

that's a lot of testing if true. has to really slow down the manufacturing process.

the fact that xander's driver tested 1 point over the limit makes me wonder how many times the relevant authority tests the driver. is it multiple tests? or just one over-limit reading yields a failure?

You'll see it when you get to walk through R&D this December. There are so many steps to the process and each step has its own set of testing in order to move on to the next. You'll also get to see a table of goodies that nearly made it to the market but didnt because of testing. They test for anything you can imagine from R&A and USGA compliance to bag chatter. Its probably why they are working on these clubs for years before release
 
Back
Top