TM Burner 2.0

[HomerJSimpson]

Haven't had the best of days and so coming back from Wimbledon decided to slide into Silveremere for a wander. They've got the new TM 2.0 burners in and to be honest these are pretty decent looking clubs. The topline is a little thinner than burners of old which is a good thing and the new darker heads look great. Wasn't in the mood to hit any but I would be interested to see how they go (compared to the pretty loft claims TM have made). I think once I rearrange the Mizzy testing I'm going to do I'll see if the pro has a demo of this.

The only thing I would say is the grip looked very fussy and didn't feel that great. Most TM's have always had tour velvet and although this may have been it did feel a little "cheap" when I gripped it

 

[kid2]

Haven't had the best of days and so coming back from Wimbledon decided to slide into Silveremere for a wander. They've got the new TM 2.0 burners in and to be honest these are pretty decent looking clubs. The topline is a little thinner than burners of old which is a good thing and the new darker heads look great. Wasn't in the mood to hit any but I would be interested to see how they go (compared to the pretty loft claims TM have made). I think once I rearrange the Mizzy testing I'm going to do I'll see if the pro has a demo of this.

The only thing I would say is the grip looked very fussy and didn't feel that great. Most TM's have always had tour velvet and although this may have been it did feel a little "cheap" when I gripped it

I havent seen them in the flesh Homer but iv seen pics and although im not a huge TM fan there is just something dark and mystical about clubs with a smoked or dark grey finish....They look well "ARD"

Look like nice bats though and everyone seems to be going the way of strong lofts now.....Even Mizzy's have gone that way

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I went back to the hospice today to see my mate and stopped back via Silvermere for some morale boosting window shopping. I was drawn back to the TM 2.0's but a huge word of warning, they are much longer than standard.

I measure the 4 iron against an R9 and R9 TP and it was at least half an inch longer and comparable with a normal 3 iron in length. It carries on down the set although the size gap does reduce until the 9 irons more or less match. It might be worth bearing in mind especially if you struggle with longer irons. Not sure I'm as keen to try them now. Had a look at the S56's again too and still fancy the I15's more. I'm going to be trying the new Mizzy range soon which has cheered me up.

 

[kid2]

I went back to the hospice today to see my mate and stopped back via Silvermere for some morale boosting window shopping. I was drawn back to the TM 2.0's but a huge word of warning, they are much longer than standard.

I measure the 4 iron against an R9 and R9 TP and it was at least half an inch longer and comparable with a normal 3 iron in length. It carries on down the set although the size gap does reduce until the 9 irons more or less match. It might be worth bearing in mind especially if you struggle with longer irons. Not sure I'm as keen to try them now. Had a look at the S56's again too and still fancy the I15's more. I'm going to be trying the new Mizzy range soon which has cheered me up.

I might be wrong here Homer but the have to lengthen the shafts to support the strong lofts of the clubs i think......I read this somewhere about the strong lofts on GI Irons and my S2's are no exception.....Ther shafts on my clubs are a 1/4" over standard... to increase clubhead speed and help get the ball airborne more easily, as a longer shaft will equal more speed. But it can also decrease accuracy, which is a problem most people have with their long irons to begin with. .....I think it has somnething to do with the ball flight....The lofts are fairly strong - the pitching wedge is 43deg, and a 49° gap wedge — because the irons have a very low center of gravity and launch the ball quite high. Strengthening the lofts keeps the ball flight in line with what golfers expect from each numbered club.

 

[Oddsocks]

its interesting in your finding about the shaft length homer, Ive got the 09 burner irons coming from supersteel burner irons which i thinkg are of the 96/98 era. Im struggling more with my 4/5 iron on the 09 burners than i ever did with the supersteels.

another interesting note on shaft length is the new era drivers. Again ive got last years burner and on saturday me and the misses swapped motors as she needs the bigger car. I had her little 206 and i was amazed that when i stopped at work to pick my clubs up, my driver would not fit in her boot as it was too long. I thought i was seeing things until i stopped back at home and grapped my olde calloway 416 great big bertha, its almost 2 inches shorter than my TM. I can now see why a shaft shop is becoming a common discussion on here and its something im thinking seriously about if my driving accuracy doesnt improve.

 

[Alex1975]

Had a look at the S56's again too and still fancy the I15's more.

Is this just on looks or have you already tryed them? I love the look of the S56 as they are pings but not so chuncky.


Also on the other point my Wilsons are strong lofts and they are like 6 years old. PW is 44*. I wonder if they are any longer to boot.

Kid are your Cobra any longer then standard?

Also Homer, if the TM 2.0 are longer do they then have less lie angle. I guess they must have as off the peg clubs are usualy made for the "average" person.

 

[thecraw]

To be honest, I don't think there is much in the way of difference between the top lines of the Ping I15 or the S56 irons.

I think the S56's look cleaner because they are finished off with a ferrul.

 

[kid2]

Alex,
The S2's are a 1/4 of an inch longer than standard clubs off the rack....I wasnt custom fit Mine are off the shelf but from the factory the S2's are longer than most off the rack clubs....
I think its got something to do with supporting the strong lofts and getting more club head speed!