That is just wrong

[GB72]

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.

So how come the R&A did not apply the driver rule to all woods. Seems silly that you can bypass the driver rule by applying 'illegal' technology to other clubs. I can see the development focus moving away from drivers pretty rapidly if this is allowed to continue. I can see this club being declared illegal in the future (though I suppose that Taylormade probably looked for suitable assurances that this would not be the case before they released it).

 

[moogie]

It has NOT been said anywhere that this fairway has a COR higher than the legal Driver Limit

Just that if the SLOT was applied to the driver, then this driver WOULD breach the COR limit

 

[Imurg]

So how come the R&A did not apply the driver rule to all woods. Seems silly that you can bypass the driver rule by applying 'illegal' technology to other clubs. I can see the development focus moving away from drivers pretty rapidly if this is allowed to continue. I can see this club being declared illegal in the future (though I suppose that Taylormade probably looked for suitable assurances that this would not be the case before they released it).

The COR of the 3 wood is below the 0.83 limit so if it was a driver it would be legal. Putting this tech into a driver head would create too much tramopline effect and make it illegal.
It's not the tech that's illegal, it's the effect it has on the COR. If you could make a driver with a slot that has a COR of 0.83 or less then it would be ok to use.

 

[GB72]

Now I understand (I think).

 

[Iaing]

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.

Exactly.
It does seem to be getting a bit daft.
All this talk about COR. What about MOI ?