Are We Being Conned

[pendodave]

Well done 💪 like I said get fitted which you did 😃 I still stand by my post and think you'd be lonely in a queue of people who dropped 5 shots in a yr due to the latest driver being thaaat much better than the one you used previously...
Good add for custom fitting 👍

Maybe I misread the op, but he bought the r7 off eBay and is hitting it better than his custom fit rogue.?

I put custom fit salesman right up there in the endowment misselling hall of fame...

 

[Grant85]

Some maybe aware I was looking for a Taylormade R7 Quad Driver a few weeks back for a “project” at the club.
Anyway, we/I ended up with 2, the one I bought was £20.00 plus £8.00 p+p off Facebook.
Had a play with it in the simulator and found it was decent to hit and was getting some decent measurements from it, so much so I decided to take it on the course.

Well after 10 Rounds I’m averaging, according to Game Golf, 241yds and over 50% fir.
I have even driven our 10th twice with drives over 300yds, downhill, wind assisted.

My current driver is the Callaway Rogue Sub Zero and has been in my bag 15 months and this averages 230yds and an accuracy of fir also over 50%.
Plus in the 15 months I’ve had it I’ve never driven the 10th.

The R7 was launched in 2004 and has a 400cc head. Both clubs have a Regular shaft same length, slight difference in weight.

Is modern technology giving us the results we want?

Currently it’s staying in my bag, at least until the fairy dust wears off, but it really has confused me.

Completely agree. I think for average players, we have reached a plateau.

Perhaps there is a bit more to be gained in terms of some new clubs being more forgiving. And perhaps if you got a fitter that knew what he was doing and had a massive range of shafts and heads, then again, that would optimise things for you (but is probably going to cost you). And of course, no guarantee that your swing / launch won't change after you've dropped £1,000 on a club / shaft / fitting.

Occassionally I will look back at old videos from Rick Shiels or Mark Crossfield reviewing cubs from 2013 / 14. They are pretty much hitting these the same distance.

 

[Imurg]

If you hit the middle of a driver head, any head, from the last 8-10 years I don't believe you'll see a difference.
The only real progression there has been in the last 5-6 years is the level of adjustability and the forgiveness on the off centre hits.
That has improved over time..the Jailbreak bars are great if you hit very low on the face..ball speeds stay reasonably high and you don't lose as much distance.
But, as I say, hit the middle and any driver from the last 10 years will be within a gnat's of each other...

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The R7 came out in 2004 - 15 years ago, genuinely think technology has moved on over that time, but maybe it’s not about technology.

By the way I’m very happy with my Rogue and it’ll be back in the bag once the R7 has lost its fairy dust.

 

[Orikoru]

The R7 came out in 2004 - 15 years ago, genuinely think technology has moved on over that time, but maybe it’s not about technology.

By the way I’m very happy with my Rogue and it’ll be back in the bag once the R7 has lost its fairy dust.

I think Imurg hit the nail on the head. The technology is about maintaining distance on off-centre hits. If you're hitting it out of the middle the tech isn't making that much difference. So you must be hitting it well.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I think Imurg hit the nail on the head. The technology is about maintaining distance on off-centre hits. If you're hitting it out of the middle the tech isn't making that much difference. So you must be hitting it well.

Sort of, Imurg said 8-10, this is 15 yrs old.

 

[BubbaP]

Conned? Not as much as the folk who spent a fortune going to the Baku-beyond yesterday...

I am not sure heads have changed hugely in ten years, but the right set up works wonders!

Square heads are the next new big thing, you wait! ...... what, they've been and gone?? Triangle anyone???

The Innovator had a bit of a cult following back in the day
https://images.app.goo.gl/K1BS815rowE3YFZZ6

 

[BubbaP]

No doubt the 10 rounds v 15 months is not a fair comparison, the 10th is playing with my head more

Thought it would be fun to use it once, just have to wait and see how long it lasts.

Ride the wave for as long as it lasts!

This guy may be following your progress
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pg...l-tournament-presented-by-nationwide.amp.html

 

[Slime]

Club tech has moved little in 10 years , iron lofts are stronger, that's it really. My mate has splashed out on a set of pxg as some one told him it will knock 5 shots off his game .

Have his PXGs made a difference?

 

[ScienceBoy]

I’m not moving off my Cleaveland Classic XL which is about 5 years old. My last lesson I was told it performs really well for me and gives super low spin numbers.

 

[robinthehood]

Have his PXGs made a difference?

Hasnt been out with them yet, he's a decent golfer anyway, just a serial club swapper.

 

[GB72]

Adjustability is another thing that grinds my gears.

What I see is a situation whereby a manufacturer only has to make one type of head as the loft etc can be adjusted up or down to suit most people and weights can be moved for fade/neutral/draw. Previously that manufacturer would have to make half a dozen heads to suit various loft options plus some more to suit the shot shape bias required. Equally, the retailer only has to have one head and a number of shaft options in stock to do a fitting and made a sale. Previously, the retailer would have to have kept in considerably more stock to cover the various options a customer may want.

So, adjustability has streamlined the manufacturing process, reduced the amount of stock that a shop needs to hold and yet we are paying for the privilege of having this technology. Surely these benefits to the manufacturer and the retailer mean we should be paying less.

OK there may be a few of you that know enough about what you are doing to take the time to analyse what each adjustment is doing to your shot and tinker about yourselves but I suspect a large majority just leave it as it was set when purchased. To my mind, the golf industry has developed a technology to simplify the lives or retailers and manufacturers and reduce production costs and yet has found a way for golfers to pay through the nose for the perceived benefits to them.

 

[Orikoru]

Adjustability is another thing that grinds my gears.

What I see is a situation whereby a manufacturer only has to make one type of head as the loft etc can be adjusted up or down to suit most people and weights can be moved for fade/neutral/draw. Previously that manufacturer would have to make half a dozen heads to suit various loft options plus some more to suit the shot shape bias required. Equally, the retailer only has to have one head and a number of shaft options in stock to do a fitting and made a sale. Previously, the retailer would have to have kept in considerably more stock to cover the various options a customer may want.

So, adjustability has streamlined the manufacturing process, reduced the amount of stock that a shop needs to hold and yet we are paying for the privilege of having this technology. Surely these benefits to the manufacturer and the retailer mean we should be paying less.

OK there may be a few of you that know enough about what you are doing to take the time to analyse what each adjustment is doing to your shot and tinker about yourselves but I suspect a large majority just leave it as it was set when purchased. To my mind, the golf industry has developed a technology to simplify the lives or retailers and manufacturers and reduce production costs and yet has found a way for golfers to pay through the nose for the perceived benefits to them.

Is it not possible that manufacturing a fully adjustable head costs more than manufacturing a static one though? Plus the research and development in creating it costing more?

 

[Jacko_G]

Sounds like your Callaway was poorly fitted (if it was fitted) are you have picked up completely the wrong shaft/loft for your game and its having a negative effect.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Sounds like your Callaway was poorly fitted (if it was fitted) are you have picked up completely the wrong shaft/loft for your game and its having a negative effect.

Can't have been that bad, he dropped 5 shots after getting it. As someone has already said, maybe the TM just suits him even better. It doesn't mean the Rogue doesn't suit, it does. The TM is an even better fit though.

There is no negative here. One club hits well, the other better. There is no bad club in the equation.

I agree with Imurg's point. Club tech really helps the off centre hits. Those out of the sweet spot are likely similar, tests seem to show this. TM do have a habit of making long drivers mind.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Sounds like your Callaway was poorly fitted (if it was fitted) are you have picked up completely the wrong shaft/loft for your game and its having a negative effect.

There is no negativity! Very happy with my Rogue and gained significantly over my Titleist 917 with it (Game Golf shows the avg with the Rogue as 230yds, the 917 was 201yds) went through a lengthy fitting process, every model available, different shafts etc.
Took the R7 out for fun, maybe it’s the smaller head that suits me or whatever, once it stops working I’ll pick up the Rogue again.

 

[Crazyface]

I’m not moving off my Cleaveland Classic XL which is about 5 years old. My last lesson I was told it performs really well for me and gives super low spin numbers.

Shut up. I was looking at them 6 months ago (winter blues an all). Don't start me again.

 

[Jacko_G]

There is no negativity! Very happy with my Rogue and gained significantly over my Titleist 917 with it (Game Golf shows the avg with the Rogue as 230yds, the 917 was 201yds) went through a lengthy fitting process, every model available, different shafts etc.
Took the R7 out for fun, maybe it’s the smaller head that suits me or whatever, once it stops working I’ll pick up the Rogue again.

An 11 yard gain still shouts out that something is "wrong" with the Callaway. Either shaft or loft isn't quite right.

My original post wasn't supposed to come across as "negative" and if it did I apologise. It was just my observation/point of view.

 

[USER1999]

UK spec R7 quads were non conforming, with the trampoline effect face.
Mine was American spec, and was conforming.

Just saying.

 

[robinthehood]

Some maybe aware I was looking for a Taylormade R7 Quad Driver a few weeks back for a “project” at the club.
Anyway, we/I ended up with 2, the one I bought was £20.00 plus £8.00 p+p off Facebook.
Had a play with it in the simulator and found it was decent to hit and was getting some decent measurements from it, so much so I decided to take it on the course.

Well after 10 Rounds I’m averaging, according to Game Golf, 241yds and over 50% fir.
I have even driven our 10th twice with drives over 300yds, downhill, wind assisted.

My current driver is the Callaway Rogue Sub Zero and has been in my bag 15 months and this averages 230yds and an accuracy of fir also over 50%.
Plus in the 15 months I’ve had it I’ve never driven the 10th.

The R7 was launched in 2004 and has a 400cc head. Both clubs have a Regular shaft same length, slight difference in weight.

Is modern technology giving us the results we want?

Currently it’s staying in my bag, at least until the fairy dust wears off, but it really has confused me.

Is it the r7 quad max, that's the non conforming one.