R15 v SLDR Test

[Deleted member 16999]

http://www.mygolfspy.com/taylormade-r15-vs-sldr/
For those interested

 

[MadAdey]

http://www.mygolfspy.com/taylormade-r15-vs-sldr/
For those interested

Tests like this do not really interest me that much. If the person testing it had both drivers fitted to him with the weights in the best fitment for them, then it may be worth reading. The club being tested is no good as a reliable comparison if it is not set up to its optimum for that player.

At least when people like a Rick Shiels is doing driver reviews he is more often than not using a club that has been fitted to him.

 

[duncan mackie]

http://www.mygolfspy.com/taylormade-r15-vs-sldr/
For those interested

always interesting, although I would tend to favour Adey's comment that adjustable drivers should be adjusted to optimise in any testing.

it's also worth noting that the R15's dual weighting could have been used to improve the offline element and that may have affected the ball speed etc it's my understanding that this is exactly what the clubhead was developed around!

 

[Canary_Yellow]

There was a link to a Rick Shiels comparison of the 915D3 v the R15 yesterday (or maybe earlier). That was more interesting as both clubs were fitted for him.

On the other hand, the way he hits the ball is nothing like me or pretty much anyone else on here I suspect!

 

[Maninblack4612]

We've had the usual mumbo jumbo techspeak from Taylormade about the dual weight system. Put the weights wide apart for forgiveness, I can understand that. But then they say put them together for power. Well, I'm not an expert in physics but, surely, two weights at equal distances from the C of G = two weights at the C of G. With the former configuration you get the advantage of forgiveness, you get nothing beneficial with the latter as far as I can see, although some would say more "workability" (more likely to be unintentional in my case!)

 

[MadAdey]

There was a link to a Rick Shiels comparison of the 915D3 v the R15 yesterday (or maybe earlier). That was more interesting as both clubs were fitted for him.

On the other hand, the way he hits the ball is nothing like me or pretty much anyone else on here I suspect!

It was me who put it up :thup:

The only way to get a fair testing with a human being is to have both clubs optimised for the user. If I was to do a comparison of the R11s against the SLDR with both in neutral setting and stock shafts, I can tell you the R11s would win as I got on better with it's stock shaft compared to the SLDR one. Also I did not have the settings that far from neutral, compared to the SLDR. But after having it fitted to me, the SLDR out performs the R11s.

The thing is someone else might get on better with a stock SLDR compared to the R11s, that is why people should only do club comparison testing if both clubs are fitted to them.

 

[MadAdey]

We've had the usual mumbo jumbo techspeak from Taylormade about the dual weight system. Put the weights wide apart for forgiveness, I can understand that. But then they say put them together for power. Well, I'm not an expert in physics but, surely, two weights at equal distances from the C of G = two weights at the C of G. With the former configuration you get the advantage of forgiveness, you get nothing beneficial with the latter as far as I can see, although some would say more "workability" (more likely to be unintentional in my case!)

I think the idea is that by moving the weight to the perimeter you create more stability which increases the consistency on off centre strikes, but you sacrifice distance on the centre strike. Putting the weights behind the sweet spot gives more weight behind the ball, thus giving it a higher ball speed. But like at any point in golf, when you go for more distance you sacrifice a bit of control and consistency.

 

[Maninblack4612]

I think the idea is that by moving the weight to the perimeter you create more stability which increases the consistency on off centre strikes, but you sacrifice distance on the centre strike. Putting the weights behind the sweet spot gives more weight behind the ball, thus giving it a higher ball speed. But like at any point in golf, when you go for more distance you sacrifice a bit of control and consistency.

Would a scientist like to comment. As far as I understand, the peripheral weights act through the C of G in exactly the same way as if they were behind the ball.

 

[Region3]

Would a scientist like to comment. As far as I understand, the peripheral weights act through the C of G in exactly the same way as if they were behind the ball.

Not a scientist, but I assume moving the weights to a wide position helps the club resist twisting on an off center hit.

 

[Maninblack4612]

Not a scientist, but I assume moving the weights to a wide position helps the club resist twisting on an off center hit.

I agree but I can't see how it can affect ball speed. It's the same amount of weight applied through the C of G at the same place.

 

[Region3]

I agree but I can't see how it can affect ball speed. It's the same amount of weight applied through the C of G at the same place.

Again a non-scientific guess, but I'd say with both weights centred, the sweetspot will have a much higher moment of intertia than the rest of the face. With the weights split the MOI will be distributed more evenly.