Xander Schauffele Driver Fails

The MLB checks player’s bats. They have the ink dot test too.
NASCAR checks EVERY car with a template before AND after every race.
The NFL ensures all footballs are inflated the same (theoretically).

Maybe it’s time the PGA/USGA checks every player’s set of clubs?
 
I don’t know what it failed by, I’ve read nothing further. If it was one point, it could be as simple as the driver getting closer to failure, which CAN make it hotter.

These guys hit the ball in essentially the same spot time after time. I assume the manufacturer tests its drivers for conformity when used in such a highly repetitive manner. What is the expected life of a driver for a tour pro? It is well-known that grooves on a wedge, or other iron, will wear down. Surely it is understood by the players that material fatigue can change the playing characteristics of the driver. Manufacturers know it. Is that shared with the player? Whether it does or doesn't, whose responsibility is it to test after 1000 or some other number of hits?
 
These guys hit the ball in essentially the same spot time after time. I assume the manufacturer tests its drivers for conformity when used in such a highly repetitive manner. What is the expected life of a driver for a tour pro? It is well-known that grooves on a wedge, or other iron, will wear down. Surely it is understood by the players that material fatigue can change the playing characteristics of the driver. Manufacturers know it. Is that shared with the player? Whether it does or doesn't, whose responsibility is it to test after 1000 or some other number of hits?

I think we are going to see this issue more as tour player speeds get closer to the long drive guys. I know they make LD specific heads because the speeds those guys produce means regular heads will breakdown fairly quickly.

Crossfield actually had a pretty good video about this last night.
 
Not saying I’m speculating this is what happened, but I could imagine someone finding a head that was right on the number, and either after a little bit of play/etc., ends up testing higher. I’m sure there’s a (very) slight bit of measurement noise as well.

This right here.

When I heard about the fail I leaned towards a near the limit or at the limit head and the margin of error between different machines performing the test. Not really but kinda like two different loft/lie machines will give different readings on the same club.
 
As to Schauffele's reaction I think it's because it was supposed to be a private matter and it got out somehow and he was hearing it around the course from others. That's a horrible feeling to experience. While those of us who frequent this site understand he most likely had no idea it was non-conforming there is now a perception to the general golfing public that he's a cheater. That's basically the worst thing you can be called in golf. I'd be pretty hot as well.
 
IMHO, he is accountable for the head being bad, but not responsible.

Callaway is responsible. They manufactured the head.

He is accountable, as he was gaming it.

Kind of like when a company messes up. The CEO is accountable, the person/group/team is responsible.

Knowing nothing about what happened in detail, here is what I assume.

Pros get the best head they can get out of a production run. So the limit is .83 and I will bet dollars to doughnuts that the head he was given was .829.

There are tolerances on test equipment as well. So test equipment will give different results.

My guess is a combination of the head being right at the edge and maybe the test equipment being a bit different than thee test equipment at Callaway lead to a head being over.


I used to race motorcycles. There is (was) a class called Super Sport. You had to use all stock items in that class, except exhaust, suspension and brakes. My bike, off the showroom floor, with standard mods allowed made 108 HP. The Pros who raced the same bike were closer to 120 HP. Why? They used all the same components I had, but their engines had all the components at the limits of "stock". The 4 pistons on their bike were exactly the same, their crank was the best balanced, gaskets were the thinnest, giving more compression, etc. All stock components, but they would go through hundred of head gaskets to find the limit. Same with all the other parts. Then assemble the engine. So it was "stock", as it was made from all the parts off the assembly line, but all those little bits of tight tolerances led to more HP.

I've heard the same thing from a club guy. Apparently there was a shaft that a particular pro liked. They went through 200+ of those shafts to find the 2 that were exactly what the pro wanted. Apparently the variances in flex were less than 1%, but the pro could tell, and wanted what he wanted. I'm sure it is the same with driver heads. They probably test hundreds to find the one that is right below the limit of .83 and give it to the pro.
 
The answer here is not for the USGA/R&A to test every player’s clubs immediately before a tournament. Instead, the equipment needs to be to spec in enough time prior to the tournament so this isn’t an issue. That falls under the responsibility of the tour van.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
IMHO, he is accountable for the head being bad, but not responsible.

Callaway is responsible. They manufactured the head.

He is accountable, as he was gaming it.

Kind of like when a company messes up. The CEO is accountable, the person/group/team is responsible.

Knowing nothing about what happened in detail, here is what I assume.

Pros get the best head they can get out of a production run. So the limit is .83 and I will bet dollars to doughnuts that the head he was given was .829.

There are tolerances on test equipment as well. So test equipment will give different results.

My guess is a combination of the head being right at the edge and maybe the test equipment being a bit different than thee test equipment at Callaway lead to a head being over.


I used to race motorcycles. There is (was) a class called Super Sport. You had to use all stock items in that class, except exhaust, suspension and brakes. My bike, off the showroom floor, with standard mods allowed made 108 HP. The Pros who raced the same bike were closer to 120 HP. Why? They used all the same components I had, but their engines had all the components at the limits of "stock". The 4 pistons on their bike were exactly the same, their crank was the best balanced, gaskets were the thinnest, giving more compression, etc. All stock components, but they would go through hundred of head gaskets to find the limit. Same with all the other parts. Then assemble the engine. So it was "stock", as it was made from all the parts off the assembly line, but all those little bits of tight tolerances led to more HP.

I've heard the same thing from a club guy. Apparently there was a shaft that a particular pro liked. They went through 200+ of those shafts to find the 2 that were exactly what the pro wanted. Apparently the variances in flex were less than 1%, but the pro could tell, and wanted what he wanted. I'm sure it is the same with driver heads. They probably test hundreds to find the one that is right below the limit of .83 and give it to the pro.

Those are COR measurements. The CT number is 239 and there are +/- 18 to bring it to 257 max.
If you check out the THP TV spot earlier in thread, this is explained by Michael Vrska.
 
The answer here is not for the USGA/R&A to test every player’s clubs immediately before a tournament. Instead, the equipment needs to be to spec in enough time prior to the tournament so this isn’t an issue. That falls under the responsibility of the tour van.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How many players do you think have their driver in the tour van in a given week?
These players are not getting new drivers built up weekly. You could say that a company or player's job is to check the driver before the committee decides to, but why? Tests are done beforehand, so its not as if a player is DQ'd. Something off? Just find a new head, right?
 
How many players do you think have their driver in the tour van in a given week?
These players are not getting new drivers built up weekly. You could say that a company or player's job is to check the driver before the committee decides to, but why? Tests are done beforehand, so its not as if a player is DQ'd. Something off? Just find a new head, right?

I actually don't know what the repercussion is if it's anything other than just switching out heads. Which makes me question the entire purpose of testing in the first place, but I digress.

Obviously new drivers aren't being built before every round, but allowing access and a standard process to test heads prior to the start of the tournament could be a solution to this issue. Said another way, if they're going to test these players than something should be made available to help them pass the test.
 
I actually don't know what the repercussion is if it's anything other than just switching out heads. Which makes me question the entire purpose of testing in the first place, but I digress.

Obviously new drivers aren't being built before every round, but allowing access and a standard process to test heads prior to the start of the tournament could be a solution to this issue. Said another way, if they're going to test these players than something should be made available to help them pass the test.

The last part is dead right. If we know a driver head can change. We know variables in testing are possible to exist, instead of randomly selecting a few players, tests should be mandatory by every player before events, if you are testing at all.

It seems to odd that it’s not and also seems odd that they aren’t grabbing wedges to check grooves, aren’t doing anything else, just grabbing a few dozen players and saying gimme.
 
Those are COR measurements. The CT number is 239 and there are +/- 18 to bring it to 257 max.
If you check out the THP TV spot earlier in thread, this is explained by Michael Vrska.

My bad, but the point remains. Replace .829 with 256 in my post. I was merely pointing out that he probably had a head right at the edge, and that the testing devices also have variance, so the combination of the two probably put him over. Of course this is pure speculation, since we do not know how much he failed by.
 
If the goal is to make sure all equipment is conforming, there is a real easy procedure.

Mandatory testing of all equipment for top 10 golfers. Anything out of spec results in a DQ.

You can bet your bottom dollar that they would make sure they were within spec, and safely so.
 
If the goal is to make sure all equipment is conforming, there is a real easy procedure.

Mandatory testing of all equipment for top 10 golfers. Anything out of spec results in a DQ.

You can bet your bottom dollar that they would make sure they were within spec, and safely so.
But they haven't actually played in the tournament with non conforming equipment at that point. I don't understand why the repercussion would be anything other than just having to use a different club.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
My bad, but the point remains. Replace .829 with 256 in my post. I was merely pointing out that he probably had a head right at the edge, and that the testing devices also have variance, so the combination of the two probably put him over. Of course this is pure speculation, since we do not know how much he failed by.

I heard Katrek and Maginnes on PGA Tour Radio say it was 1 millisecond, I think that was the measurement value.
 
But they haven't actually played in the tournament with non conforming equipment at that point. I don't understand why the repercussion would be anything other than just having to use a different club.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Top 10 finishers of the tournament is what I meant by "top 10 golfers"

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top