We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Why no indepeendant testing of drivers?

SuperStroke
zooropa said:
The original thought behind the OP was not for anyone here (or the site) to pay for it to happen. Just wondering why it doesn't happen. I have no idea what sort of dollars it would take to do this.

Some people like taking others experience (which is perfectly fine btw) I like numbers and i like seeing things as opposed to reading an opinion.
Click to expand...

I understood what you were saying. Just merely explaining why we dont do it.
However to be fair, Hawk has included numbers in many of his reviews and here is a perfect example of what I think is the most complete driver review done on the internet.

http://www.thehackersparadise.com/?p=19051
 
personally, I prefer the average golfer review also.
 
Last edited:
I think it would definitely be interesting to see the numbers and how all the drivers compare when being hit in exactly the same spot.
It wouldn't sway me much because I don't have a robotic swing... But Id still like to see it
 
JB said:
I understood what you were saying. Just merely explaining why we dont do it.
However to be fair, Hawk has included numbers in many of his reviews and here is a perfect example of what I think is the most complete driver review done on the internet.

http://www.thehackersparadise.com/?p=19051
Click to expand...

Thank you, haven't read it yet but I am interested to. I haven't read his reviews as jman seems to get the gear I am interested in reading about.

Thanks also for taking the time to read what someone actually says rather than just making some glib comment.
 
I like both ways of reviewing clubs personally. There is something satisfying to me about hard numbers but I'll be the first to admit that I get completely sidetracked and consumed by them. I think using both methods of reviewing in tandem is ideal; the more information the better right? Hawk's R1 review is proof of that.

I am curious what we would find, and beyond that, if people would listen to the results anyways.
 
I get what the op is saying and I think it would be awesome info I'd love to know about clubs I'd potentially buy....would demo/hit them myself too. I've tried more than a few clubs that were well received in their reviews that just didn't work for me, not to say robots hitting them first would change that. I could definitely see the benefit of every driver being hit exactly the same over various points.
 
Canadan said:
Defensive? I just don't see the point. I'd rather read reviews from people swinging over a robot.

I'd put about as much stock in a robot test as I would a golfdigest hotlist.
Click to expand...

I feel the same.....just for the record.
 
There was a thread last year where one of the golf stores sent out a catalog with their robot test results. I forget which one. It was mildly interesting. Personally, I like to demo the clubs I'm considering buying and then I like to read reviews to compare my thoughts with the reviewer. Machine testing does very little for me. It's like the saying statistics is an art not a science. I'm sure you can get the hard data to say what you want anyways.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
One thing I'll add quickly. The downside of having drivers put head to head on a robot arm is that the OEM's will scratch and claw to emerge from that dogfight as the victor. What this means is that the craze of ultralight heads, lighter and longer shafts will come back in a big way. I don't think an OEM could afford to be hammered in a test like this as it is potentially dangerous data.

Heck what do I know, I'm just your average club ho haha.
 
Philly Golf Guy said:
There was a thread last year where one of the golf stores sent out a catalog with their robot test results. I forget which one. It was mildly interesting. Personally, I like to demo the clubs I'm considering buying and then I like to read reviews to compare my thoughts with the reviewer. Machine testing does very little for me. It's like the saying statistics is an art not a science. I'm sure you can get the hard data to say what you want anyways.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Wilson Staff D100 was the winner if I remember correctly.
 
Philly Golf Guy said:
There was a thread last year where one of the golf stores sent out a catalog with their robot test results. I forget which one. It was mildly interesting. Personally, I like to demo the clubs I'm considering buying and then I like to read reviews to compare my thoughts with the reviewer. Machine testing does very little for me. It's like the saying statistics is an art not a science. I'm sure you can get the hard data to say what you want anyways.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I remember the one, the Edwin Watts ARC Testing. The funny thing about it is that the testing done showed the XCG6 and the Wilson D-100 as overall winners (very broadly speaking) and yet the masses weren't exactly lining up to get the "ultimate driver".

EDIT: I don't think it's a coincidence that both of those drivers are light, and long shafted.
 
I personally like to see reviews done by someone with a similar handicap as me. I know it's not perfect but it gives me something to start with. Having a machine or someone with a 5 handicap really doesn't give me much. Now I may be wrong in my thinking but I also won't just go by a review I'll go out and try something first.
 
Edwin Watts did something like that last year. I saw it in on of their catalogs.
 
Frankly there is no single test/review done by any one man or machine that is going to tell you everything about a club as it pertains to you. My feeling is that you're looking for general consensus from multiple sources (like random people from this forum as well), to formulate an idea of what you should personally go test and get fit for. Would it be nice if in addition to all the awesome reviews and insights we get the from THP staff, and that we could also have more feedback in the way of an iron byron? Sure. But i also like the current rate of an Albatross membership (which i see OP you do not subscribe too), and ultimately the time and cost of something like that is not free. So between one or the other, i prefer the reviews we get here. Do they all apply to me? No, but they tell me enough of what i need to know to make a decision if i'm interested in finding out for myself what the real personal experience would be for me.
 
ArmyGolf said:
One thing I'll add quickly. The downside of having drivers put head to head on a robot arm is that the OEM's will scratch and claw to emerge from that dogfight as the victor. What this means is that the craze of ultralight heads, lighter and longer shafts will come back in a big way. I don't think an OEM could afford to be hammered in a test like this as it is potentially dangerous data.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this, because they would be designing the club to be the best club for that test not really for those of us with beating hearts. Who needs adjustability if you have this driver that under optimum conditions hits it the farthest?

Yes, you could test for off center forgiveness, but then what do you do with regards shafts/lofts etc? Then there is the pure personal aesthetics of a club. I had a Cobra L5v that hit really well.. but it sounded like an aluminum softball bat so I rolled it down the line cause I did not like the look and absolutely hated the sound.

I also think it would be very dangerous for the "average" consumer who makes their purchase off the rack without doing a real fitting to pick the "winner."

I have no skin in the game, but as some one who has bought something blindly many times, I like THP reviews especially since you can interact with Hawk, Jman etc and find out if their swing is anything like you. To me, I read these and make a list of what I want to make sure I try when I go do a legit fitting with a trained pro.
 
JB, thank you for the link to the r1 review. You were correct, that was an amazing review! Numbers, off center hit forgiveness and thoughts on the shaft. I really liked it and will keep an eye out for more of his reviews, even if the club is not something i might be interested in.
 
ArmyGolf said:
I like both ways of reviewing clubs personally. There is something satisfying to me about hard numbers but I'll be the first to admit that I get completely sidetracked and consumed by them. I think using both methods of reviewing in tandem is ideal; the more information the better right? Hawk's R1 review is proof of that.

I am curious what we would find, and beyond that, if people would listen to the results anyways.
Click to expand...

I agree. I normally look at a little bit of both. I like the reviews by regular golfers here on the site & I also like pure unbiased comparisons with just the data.

As an example of unbiased reviews, one site just did a driver review/comparison of 22 current drivers. The Callaway SLDR finished 1st...while the Big Bertha Alpha finished 9th and the regular Big Bertha finished 20th. Makes you wonder if the Big Berthas are worthy of all the hype.
 
Why no indepeendant testing of drivers?

bobgeorge said:
I agree. I normally look at a little bit of both. I like the reviews by regular golfers here on the site & I also like pure unbiased comparisons with just the data.

As an example of unbiased reviews, one site just did a driver review/comparison of 22 current drivers. The Callaway SLDR finished 1st...while the Big Bertha Alpha finished 9th and the regular Big Bertha finished 20th. Makes you wonder if the Big Berthas are worthy of all the hype.
Click to expand...

Which site is that.
 
Callaway SLDR?
 
Unbiased!!!! Hahahaha
 
Only 2700 spin with the SLDR?

I think I topped out near 9k. #justsayin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top