2015 Most Wanted Driver – Beyond the Data

We’ll post the answers to many of the questions you left in the comment section over 3 days of Most Wanted Driver coverage very soon (including ‘the Tour Edge Question‘), but today I wanted to talk about some of the things we observed during the test. It’s certainly beneficial for me to get some of the more subjective stuff out of my head, and hopefully it’s interesting for you to hear a bit about some of the stuff that isn’t easily gleaned directly from the data itself.

A Growth Year

First and foremost, this was a year of tremendous growth for us. As you can imagine, moving from six to twenty testers presented a huge challenge. After speaking with several of the major golf companies, we felt it was something we needed to do. Obviously that mean a lot more time testing, and substantially more data to mange. From laying the groundwork, to scheduling testers, to hitting balls, collecting and processing data, and of course, presenting it as we did, pulling it all together was a team effort. I’m personally immensely proud of the work we’ve done, and immensely grateful to those on the other side of the industry who helped us make a better test.

After building a series of software tools to help process the data from our previous launch monitor, switching to a new system was a little scary. We didn’t love how the data came out of the old system, but we had gotten pretty good at managing it. The Foresight GC2 launch monitor proved much more reliable than what we’ve used in the past. We saw a huge reduction in the number of totally missed shots and the number of shots with obviously bad data. Along the way we collected more data than ever before, and of equal importance, the data come out of the system in a much cleaner format.

Add in tour-quality balls from Bridgestone and this was easily the best testing experience both for us on the collection and process side and for our testers as it relates to the overall experience within the testing environment.

To say this year was a huge step forward for us technologically would be understating it.

Fitting Notes

As is always the case, we had some clubs that had some fairly specific issues.

Higher lofted testers struggled with the closed faces of most of the all-lofts-in-a-single-head design. There’s closed and then there’s too closed.

Observationally, Mizuno’s JPX-850 was the toughest on higher loft players, while Cobra’s FLY-Z produced the best results of those types of designs. It could be SmartPad, it could be something else visually that just works better.

The JPX-850 was also the most difficult for higher loft players to get off the ground. We tried every possible configuration. For some guys, it simply didn’t work. As you can see by the numbers (ball speed in particular, when it did work, it worked very well. Also, I really like that’s blue.

The same is true of Cobra’s FLY-Z+ (with respect to both launch and color). There were more than a couple of testers for whom weight forward wasn’t an option. Getting the ball airborne with any real consistency was an issue. Moving the weight to the rear mitigated, though it didn’t completely eliminate the issue for everyone.

Interestingly, Callaway’s Big Bertha Alpha 815 Double Black Diamond, despite a similarly low and forwardish CG position, proved a bit easier for our higher loft testers to manage.

For those questioning the performance of the PING G30 and G30 LS…while neither performed poorly, a segment of our testers likely would have benefited from more loft.

We didn’t have many pervasive slicers in our test group, which almost certainly impacted the results for the G30 SF Tec. The numbers suggest it’s the best at keeping the ball left. Conversely, there’s nothing better than Geek’s Fugazi Floyd for keeping the ball right.

From a less-specific perspective, we did have a few drivers that some testers absolutely could not hit (consistently or well) in any configuration. Tops on that list would be the Nike Vapor Pro and the Tour Edge E8 (standard model).

The Little Drivers that Could

There’s been some discussion about the performance of the smaller-headed drivers. From an accuracy standpoint several benefited from shorter shafts, and it’s been suggested that the more workable (more influence from the gear effect) can benefit guys whose ballflight depends on starting the ball out to either side and bringing it back to the middle.

As you might expect, forgiveness is an issue for smaller head designs. Titleist’s 915D3 was the best of the bunch in that respect.

From a distance perspective, those same designs worked especially well for higher spin golfers who produce a greater percentage of total distance through roll. It’s not always the prettiest ballflight for the very highest spinners, but it does create distance. We have a couple of testers with strongly negative angles of attack. For those guys, and I would suspect many like them, low launch with moderate spin is the best recipe for total distance.

Nike’s Vapor Flex is particularly interesting because of its shallow face design. It’s not totally unlike a 3-wood. Some guys absolutely loved it, and that’s reflected in some of the individual numbers. The shallow face design isn’t for everyone, however, as evidenced by the collection of idiot marks on the crown. While it was the most popular among the 3 Nike offerings, no driver got hit above the topline more often.

If nothing else, it’s distinct among this year’s crop.

For the Speed-Centric

For those looking for more clubhead speed, lighter and/or longer is definitely an option. As you saw by the results, the Royal Collection X7 SFD fared extremely well in this year’s test. Wilson’s D200 is every bit as fun to hit as the D100, but much more stable. AeroBurner is filthy long when you get the best of it, and Callaway’s Big Bertha V-Series is freakishly straight. Get the face pointed in the right direction, and it does a remarkable job of holding the line.

As a group these tend to produce comparatively more spin and accuracy may suffer given the longer than average shaft length, but they’re just so much fun to swing. Your scramble driver might be in this group.

Another Word About Adjustability

It’s the mother of all dead horses, but it should be mentioned again. Adjustability is an advantage. It’s good for fitters and it’s good for consumers. Having the ability to tweak loft/face angle, move some weight to take some curve out of the ball, or swap a shaft to get better launch conditions, and very often substantially improve accuracy is invaluable. Adjustability doesn’t solve every problem, but I sure as hell like having options.

Let’s get down to brass tacks. For most companies who don’t offer any sort of adjustability the motivating factor isn’t what’s best for the consumer, it’s cost driven. It costs money to develop (or license) and it costs money to produce. If you’re not doing a high volume, that cost has to be passed to the consumer. So in that respect it makes sense not to offer it, but let’s stop pretending there’s a deeper philosophical reason for not having it.

What our testers liked

In parsing the results and listing to our tester’s we found remarkably similarities in what our testers liked on an individual basis. While it’s reasonable to assume that very few golfers are conscious of CG placement when they’re testing and buying drivers, what we observed is that different golfers tend to prefer drivers with similar CG placement.

Guys who like G30, for example, also like FLY-Z (and often didn’t much care for the smaller drivers). Fly-Z+ guys liked Double Black Diamond, and Air Force One DFX Tour. My takeaway is that, even if we’re not conscious of it, each of us as has a preference for CG location. That manifests itself in how we interpret feel, and likely performance too.

Although it counts for nothing as far as scoring goes, when all is said and done, we do ask our testers which clubs they like best. The most common responses were the Cobra FLY-Z, PING G30/G30LS, Titleist 915 D2, and the TaylorMade R15.

Srixon’s two models were also popular due in no small part to their clean, classic look.

Not that you asked, but for me there were 4 standouts: Cobra FLY-Z+, Callaway BB 815 DBD, Wilson D200, and Callaway Big Bertha V-Series. As it turns out, I’m a bi-polar when it comes to my CG placement. I love low/forward-ish, but I also love lighter, higher back designs as well…even if the numbers aren’t ideal. Go figure.

On the presentation of the test results…

Some of you mentioned that you found the presentation a bit dry this year. Certainly we want to be more matter of fact in our presentation of test data. My occasional fits of whimsy are sometimes interpreted as a suggestion that what we do isn’t serious work or that there isn’t real thought and a real process behind it. Perhaps there’s a balance to be found. We’re here for you, so let us know what you want to see from the results.

Coming Soon

Check back very soon when we provide answers to your questions from our 3 days (Distance, Accuracy, and Overall) of Most Wanted Coverage.