Why no indepeendant testing of drivers?

[niteowl03]

While I see this idea conceptually I believe the practical aspect just isnt there. The equipment produced today is so solid that I dont feel any is necessarily "better". The adjustments or sound etc may fit or appeal to someone more than another but I dont feel the performance club vs club is really lacking. IIRC the data on MGS showed about a 10yd total gap between the longest driver and the shortest. Thats not even enough to talk about in my book. I would be willing to wager that if you put every driver in the iron byron amd hit them all with the same swing and the same shaft that you wouldnt see a 10yd variation. Just my opinion, no facts to back that up. While some maybe more forgiving in different places I believe our testers do a great job of fleshing those things out and reporting back. I specifically recall some major foot powder testing photos in the Optiforce thread.

Im a huge numbers guy normally but I think the idea here would have people chasing after another 1/2yd of distance worse than they are now.

 

[mikeg_74]

Let's get this thing back on topic. This thread is already a train wreck. Maybe we can still save it.

Sorry Smalls, my poor attempt at trying to make a joke and break up the vibe.

FWIW testing IMO isn't an exact science. We all are different and should use testing results as a baseline not use it as "gospel" bc tester X threw out their opinion.

With that said I think THP does a great job of conveying the testing results as best they can without throwing in personal opinions & truly trying to give the best perspective they can.

As others have said, at the end of the day it's up to you to take whatever information you are digesting and apply it to your game to see what fits. Not doing that is doing a complete disservice to your game & a waste of $$ IMO.

 

[Paladin]

I think I'd file data gleaned from robotic testing on something like the Iron Byron under "interesting but irrelevant." The reality is that I probably don't swing much like Byron Nelson or the Iron Byron. I'm OK with that. Creating empirical data attempting to catalog how forgiving a driver (for example) is would take an eternity. The combination of strike location on the face, swing plane, face angle, and angle of attack (descending/ascending) would require hundreds of the swings. Compiling the data and giving merit in any reasonable way would require a) a great deal of time and b) a pretty deep knowledge of the empirical data of your own swing in order to be at all useful. "Hey, my swing plane is X, my face angle is usually about Y, and my angle of attack is about Z. What's the best driver for me?"

If you want to know how if a driver performs when hit on the screws from an Iron Byron...they all do. Courtesy of modern computer modeling a driver doesn't get the first prototype made without being aerodynamically tested, and given literally hundreds of strikes in seconds, all over the face, all in a virtual environment. Adding Iron Byron testing to nearly any review of a club would be superfluous, simply because a driver doesn't make it to market in the modern era without it already taking place.

 

[ddelloch]

I think I'd file data gleaned from robotic testing on something like the Iron Byron under "interesting but irrelevant." The reality is that I probably don't swing much like Byron Nelson or the Iron Byron. I'm OK with that. Creating empirical data attempting to catalog how forgiving a driver (for example) is would take an eternity. The combination of strike location on the face, swing plane, face angle, and angle of attack (descending/ascending) would require hundreds of the swings. Compiling the data and giving merit in any reasonable way would require a) a great deal of time and b) a pretty deep knowledge of the empirical data of your own swing in order to be at all useful. "Hey, my swing plane is X, my face angle is usually about Y, and my angle of attack is about Z. What's the best driver for me?"

If you want to know how if a driver performs when hit on the screws from an Iron Byron...they all do. Courtesy of modern computer modeling a driver doesn't get the first prototype made without being aerodynamically tested, and given literally hundreds of strikes in seconds, all over the face, all in a virtual environment. Adding Iron Byron testing to nearly any review of a club would be superfluous, simply because a driver doesn't make it to market in the modern era without it already taking place.

I agree an iron byron would be overkill but I will refer back to the R1 review; There are a lot of terms out there thrown out by different companies that are very much open to interpretation. The drivers now all talk about "forgiveness on off center hits". What is an off center hit? is it 1/4"? a 1/2"? Does callaway measure it the same as ping? Charting the impact on the club face and pairing it with the swing & ball data instantly, to myself anyway, showed where the forgiveness was on the "off center" hits.

Personally I really appreciate all of the reviewers out there regardless of website/youtube channel that can give an impartial review. Its all just more ammo for my OCD club research. Kudos to the THP staff.

 

[golf4life]

To the original question about iron byron testing...

It may not be as relevant as you think. Here's what I mean...

Lets say you test 20 drivers. OK, to make it relevant to all the different golfers you would have to account for the range in club head speed generated. So lets say 85,90,95,100,105,110,115 to cover the majority of golfers.

You'd need 3 shaft flexes for that range of swing speeds to properly represent the drivers. So that's 60 drivers.

You'd need at least 3 attack angles to properly represent golf swings, lets say -1.5, 0 and +1.5 as attack angle greatly affects spin and launch angles. More would be better. So that's 20 drivers with 3 different shafts each, at 7 swing speeds and 3 different attack angles. And lets say we test those drivers at 3 different loft settings. Well, that would be 1260 different tests to cover the driver's performance for everyone who would care. And this still doesn't account for swing tempo, swing path and some other variables.

Obviously this isn't realistic. And picking one arbitrary speed, loft and shaft to go with is not going to be useful to 99% of golfers out there. And as for testing off center contact, I seriously doubt the club is going to twist in Iron Byron's cold metallic clamps the same way it does in my hands.

So yeah, I get more value out of flesh and blood testing done by THP testers here, absolutely. Plus they give me a little insight into feel and sound that I don't think Iron is going to divulge.

 

[golf4life]

I should have also mentioned that no one should ever buy a driver without hitting it themselves, based on any kind of review. Because every swing is so different that no driver will work the same way for 2 different golfers. What was said earlier is true, for many years every major manufacturer is building drivers that are right up to the COR limit for ball speed performance. Its about finding the right driver to maximize distance based on your swing characteristics, and based on your typical misses on the club face.

 

[TheHeez]

I think the original question of "why there are no independent driver tests" is pretty well answered by the way this thread has degenerated. No matter how independent or unbiased, any sort of test is going to be met with varying degrees of acceptance and skepticism. Pre conceived bias and the unwavering adherence to one's opinion will "prove" a tests worth depending on how it falls in line.

 

[Shanep10]

I would love to see robot results for driver heads with the same shaft installed at the same length and same measured loft. Would then give us a true indication of each heads launch, spin and ball speeds compared to the rest. This would need to be done for centre and off-centre hits to show forgiveness of each head also.

 

[zooropa]

I should have also mentioned that no one should ever buy a driver without hitting it themselves, based on any kind of review. Because every swing is so different that no driver will work the same way for 2 different golfers. What was said earlier is true, for many years every major manufacturer is building drivers that are right up to the COR limit for ball speed performance. Its about finding the right driver to maximize distance based on your swing characteristics, and based on your typical misses on the club face.

Where you live plays a part in that. Living half way around the world in a tiny market means waiting, in some cases months, before you can test something. I've bought a couple of drivers sight unseen and they have worked great. That said, the best performing driver I have used was one I tested first. Bought the demo straight after the round it was so good!

 

[crazygolfnut]

I like to see both Robot numbers and Human numbers/reviews. There are a lot of drivers out there and a robot in a controlled environment can help eliminate drivers that would not be anywhere near suited for me. I also like the human reviews and look for reviewers hitting products that are more suited for me. Bottom line is I like to see both.

 

[Lynchburg14]

It would be interesting. But I believe too many golfers would rely on it, rather than actually demoing clubs and see what really works for them.

I think you are 1000000000000000% correct

 

[Jeff Spicoli]

I like to see both Robot numbers and Human numbers/reviews. There are a lot of drivers out there and a robot in a controlled environment can help eliminate drivers that would not be anywhere near suited for me. I also like the human reviews and look for reviewers hitting products that are more suited for me. Bottom line is I like to see both.

I would be interested in seeing the robotic tests as well as I think it would be interesting to see how different drivers compare in terms of launch and spin in a static enviroment, but if I had to choose between the robotic and THP method, I would choose the THP way.

 

[jitzy]

Personally what I would love to see is reviews done by golfers that hit it at different distances. For example if a golfer hits it normally 210 to 220 then I'd love to see what he gained from a different driver. Test them like that 210 to 220, 230 to 240, 250 to 260. That to me would be interested to see the gains how much the miss hits miss by. Not someone on youtube that can carry the ball 275 yards and hit it perfect almost every time.

 

[JPR1959]

The demoing of clubs is relatively new. It used to be you had to buy clubs without hitting them. Then retailers started having hitting bays with nets. Now, it's launch monitors. I also question the accuracy of these monitors from one manufacturer to another. I much prefer today's methods, but I've rarely regretted ANY club purchase.

 

[jitzy]

The demoing of clubs is relatively new. It used to be you had to buy clubs without hitting them. Then retailers started having hitting bays with nets. Now, it's launch monitors. I also question the accuracy of these monitors from one manufacturer to another. I much prefer today's methods, but I've rarely regretted ANY club purchase.

Back in the early 90's most places would let you test out a driver if you left them your license but they would take a roll of masking tape and tape the hell out of them first.

 

[russtopher]

Personally what I would love to see is reviews done by golfers that hit it at different distances. For example if a golfer hits it normally 210 to 220 then I'd love to see what he gained from a different driver. Test them like that 210 to 220, 230 to 240, 250 to 260. That to me would be interested to see the gains how much the miss hits miss by. Not someone on youtube that can carry the ball 275 yards and hit it perfect almost every time.

The MyGolfSpy review mentioned a few times earlier in the thread did that; they broke down the driver results based on average distance/swing speed, to show that some drivers made more of an impact on golfers of different abilities. I enjoyed seeing those results.

 

[JPR1959]

Back in the early 90's most places would let you test out a driver if you left them your license but they would take a roll of masking tape and tape the hell out of them first.

You're right, I'm getting too darn old. I remember testing the Taylormade drivers when they came out around 1982. So, I promptly went out and bought the first all graphite driver (head and shaft). That club sounded like you were spanking someone's behind. Man, I'm old. LOL

 

[Smallville]

You're right, I'm getting too darn old. I remember testing the Taylormade drivers when they came out around 1982. So, I promptly went out and bought the first all graphite driver (head and shaft). That club sounded like you were spanking someone's behind. Man, I'm old. LOL

I don't remember graphite heads!

 

[JPR1959]

I don't remember graphite heads!

Yonex made it. It was a Black Turbo Pro. It was sweet for it's time. It definitely had a unique sound.

 

[tequila4kapp]

One more thing to add to the mix. Robot testing focuses on the face and distance but misses shaft considerations. I think you only get feedback on shaft performance and it's pairing with the head from human reviews.

 

[SmoothC83]

Yonex made it. It was a Black Turbo Pro. It was sweet for it's time. It definitely had a unique sound.

Wow really, was it a good driver, performance wise?

 

[Hawk]

Every type of review has its plusses and minuses.

5 guys in a sim on one day can produce decent info.

1 guy spending weeks with a club both inside and outside, can give a different perspective.

A bunch of guys testing an item for months can give a few different perspectives.

A demo day where 50 people can try everything and share their thoughts has proven to be pretty good too.

A robot can tell you some good info that may or may not be relevant to an ever age golfer.

We have a pretty wide variety of ways we share info and are happy with that approach. Our primary mission is to educate and then relate as much real world info as we can. No method is perfect, but we like ours. I'm sure other sources would say the same thing.

 

[ATLGolfer]

Every type of review has its plusses and minuses.

5 guys in a sim on one day can produce decent info.

1 guy spending weeks with a club both inside and outside, can give a different perspective.

A bunch of guys testing an item for months can give a few different perspectives.

A demo day where 50 people can try everything and share their thoughts has proven to be pretty good too.

A robot can tell you some good info that may or may not be relevant to an ever age golfer.

We have a pretty wide variety of ways we share info and are happy with that approach. Our primary mission is to educate and then relate as much real world info as we can. No method is perfect, but we like ours. I'm sure other sources would say the same thing.

^^This

 

[JPR1959]

Wow really, was it a good driver, performance wise?

It was pretty good for the time. I did not like the metal woods at the time. Most of them were filled with foam, and had very little sound. I hit some bombs with it, but I ended up trading it for another driver, wedge, and grips. It cost around $150 back then, which was pretty stout.

 

[crazygolfnut]

Every type of review has its plusses and minuses.

5 guys in a sim on one day can produce decent info.

1 guy spending weeks with a club both inside and outside, can give a different perspective.

A bunch of guys testing an item for months can give a few different perspectives.

A demo day where 50 people can try everything and share their thoughts has proven to be pretty good too.

A robot can tell you some good info that may or may not be relevant to an ever age golfer.

We have a pretty wide variety of ways we share info and are happy with that approach. Our primary mission is to educate and then relate as much real world info as we can. No method is perfect, but we like ours. I'm sure other sources would say the same thing.

Well said!