That is just wrong

COR for this is .81 - only just short of the .83 limit. Most 3 woods are at around .75.. or thereabouts.

The only real problem I can see with this is distance gaps.
Assuming you can find a driver to outpace the RBZ 3 wood, you're going to need another club somewhere in the top of the bag to fill a huge distance gap
If your driver can go 280 and your 3 wood 260, you 5 wood 245 and your hybrid 230 but your 4 iron only goes 200 that's a big gap.........

If the RBZ 3 wood is going to be as easy to use and just as long/longer than a driver, then maybe the driver is dead...?

When your hitting you longest 4 clubs that distance, does it matter if you have a big gap to your 4i? With those distance off the tee you can reach any hole on the course despite the gap. The only time a big gap is a problem is if you're not hitting it that far. Think about it, if you can get within 200yds of every hole which you should do with the distances you mention a 30yd gap is not an issue.
 
When your hitting you longest 4 clubs that distance, does it matter if you have a big gap to your 4i? With those distance off the tee you can reach any hole on the course despite the gap. The only time a big gap is a problem is if you're not hitting it that far. Think about it, if you can get within 200yds of every hole which you should do with the distances you mention a 30yd gap is not an issue.





But fella's here is the catch.....Typical TM if you ask me.....
With a wood family thats that long all you'll be thinking of to plug the gaps at the other end is a really mental long set of irons!................................Cue the TM Burner 2.0's or the new Rocket Ballz irons......Marketing at its best......



Ill be staying with my trusty Pings...................What will TM do when they reach the MAX COR???.....
 
I'm now getting muddled (also had 2 glasses of the sangiovesy grape)
whats the difference between the r11s fairway and RBZ fairway apart from price?
 
There was some estimated prices in the mag last month think. R11s was £329 and RBZ driver £249 and fairway £199 but I am not 100% sure so if this is wrong apologies!
 
AG are getting a demo version to try in Bird Hills on Wednesday apparently. I'm going to wait a while and have a go once the warmer weather comes. If it is long then I might swap it for my 3 wood and use the drive less and less. I'm sure if I remember correctly (probably not) I use to nobble a 3 wood around Wimbledon Common off most tees. Granted it was a short course but very tight and with advance in balls etc I'm wondering how much shorter I'd be using an RBZ 3 in the summer and whether any of the long 4's on my course would actually be out of reach anyway
 
There was some estimated prices in the mag last month think. R11s was £329 and RBZ driver £249 and fairway £199 but I am not 100% sure so if this is wrong apologies!


The R11s driver costs exactly the same 'cost price' as last years R11, so hopefully should sell at same sort of £299 price tag
The RBZ Driver is being advertised in places, Now, at £219 and fairways at £169......
So quite competitive RBZ line :thup:
 
same as that Homer, I am only marginally shorter with my 3 wood but hit less slices... if I could get an extra few yards with one of these bad boyz a driver would be almost defunct for me.

Will see how the G10 I just got goes 1st, might be my wonder club :p
 
I may be a bit dumb but not sure I get how this works. If the RBZ 3 wood technology is so great, why can it not be translated in to a driver that would, in turn, go 20 yards further than those on the market now. Is it because drivers have tighter limitations under the rules than are applied to 3 woods? If so, surely this is an easy way to bypass the regulations as drivers have pretty much gone as far as they can, work on using technology in 3 woods that is banned for drivers. Or is it because the RBZ technology just does not 'scale up' to drivers.

May just be me being stupid but I am just wondering why, if you have technology that allows a 3 wood to go as far as current drivers why the same theory cannot be applied to a driver to make that go even further.
 
It is the 'Slot' in the sole, apparently that is helping achieve distance gains in the RBZ fairway wood
If this same 'Sole slot' was incorporated in the matching RBZ driver, it would be deemed illegal, breaching the COR rating legal limit
That is the Story.........
I do Presuming it has been tested
 
It is the 'Slot' in the sole, apparently that is helping achieve distance gains in the RBZ fairway wood
If this same 'Sole slot' was incorporated in the matching RBZ driver, it would be deemed illegal, breaching the COR rating legal limit
That is the Story.........
I do Presuming it has been tested

Is the correct answer..
The COR, if they put this slot on the driver, would be nearer .90.
The slot creates more of a trampoline, effectively bouncing the ball off the face faster.
 
I may be a bit dumb but not sure I get how this works. If the RBZ 3 wood technology is so great, why can it not be translated in to a driver that would, in turn, go 20 yards further than those on the market now. Is it because drivers have tighter limitations under the rules than are applied to 3 woods? If so, surely this is an easy way to bypass the regulations as drivers have pretty much gone as far as they can, work on using technology in 3 woods that is banned for drivers. Or is it because the RBZ technology just does not 'scale up' to drivers.

May just be me being stupid but I am just wondering why, if you have technology that allows a 3 wood to go as far as current drivers why the same theory cannot be applied to a driver to make that go even further.

Effectively what they have done is make a smaller headed driver. Didn't we come from here 10 years ago?

Won't be buying one. Can't see the point.
 
Top