First Look – Titleist 917 Series Drivers
Drivers

First Look – Titleist 917 Series Drivers

First Look – Titleist 917 Series Drivers

It’s been almost two years since Titleist launched its 915 Series of drivers, which means it’s time for the 917. Score one for predictability.

For its part in spreading the word, Titleist has begun to release teaser shots on Social Media and you can expect more pictures to come flooding out as the Tour Validation stage of the release kicks off this week at the Quicken Loans.

Also worth a mention, the USGA has cleared the new drivers for tournament play, which generally means we’re actually well past any sort of validation phase. Now its about getting the new clubs into tour bags and trying to build a little buzz ahead of retail.

917-twitter

Two Models

The USGA has, thus far, cleared both D2 and D3 heads (no word if other models will follow). If tradition holds, the D2 will be a 460cc head that will offer comparatively higher MOI. The D3 will be somewhere in the 440cc range, and will be billed as more workable for better players. That’s general industry-speak for a more forward center of gravity and a lower MOI.

If the 917 proves similar to the 915, don’t expect a tremendous difference in CG location (or forgiveness for that matter), so the buying decision may likely come down as much to your individual preference for shape as it does any launch monitor numbers.

917D2 917D3

 CG Adjustability

If you’ve already seen Titleist’s premium market C (concept) 16 driver, you won’t find many surprises here.

The most noteworthy feature of the 917 series is what Titleist is calling SUREFIT CG.

SUREFIT offers a horizontal weight system that runs mostly left to right, and a bit front to back, suggesting it will offer both draw/fade bias and a bit of trajectory and spin control as well. Given the size and placement of the weight, I don’t expect we’re talking about a substantial amount of mass movement, and my early read is that while Titleist is evolving, it appears comfortable existing in the mid to high Center of Gravity and MOI space.

Of course, these are just educated assumptions, and there’s always a chance Titleist could surprise us.

917D2-NCG

The Need to Compete

By largely standing still for the last year plus, Titleist has slowly fallen behind with respect to its drivers. Consider that when the 915 series launched it was one of the highest MOI offerings on the market. Now several competitors can legitimately claim they have more forgiving models with lower CG. Basically, lots of companies offer lower spin and more distance, and that’s an issue for Titleist (whether it’s willing to acknowledge it or not). In our recent Most Wanted Driver Test, Titleist’s drivers were among the shortest in the field.

On the positive side, the 915 D2 more than held its own under our Strokes Gained formulas. To me that suggests Titleist isn’t far from being back the mix, but we all know golfers seldom (if ever) buy for accuracy.

The bottom line is that the 917 needs to both drop spin compared the 915, and be appreciably longer, otherwise whatever claims Titleist makes about SUREFIT CG adjustability won’t matter to anyone except Titleist loyalists.

That said, we’ve heard from multiple sources that Titleist is excited about its innovation pipeline and believes its new technologies are compelling.

We’re definitely looking forward to hearing the full story.

Retail?

There’s no word on retail timing from Titleist yet, but past releases suggest we’ll see the 917 sometime this fall (give or take September). Titleist was the first to offer multiple legitimate stock shaft offerings for its metalwoods, and we expect that will continue.

While it’s clear that the 917 borrows heavily from the C16, we expect it will be constructed from more traditional (less expensive) materials and will be priced substantially lower. Our best guess is that the 917 will retail for $449.

For You

For You

News
Apr 22, 2024
Strength Training for Golfers: Building a Strong and Stable Core
Golf Balls
Apr 22, 2024
Callaway Supersoft Mother’s Day Bouquet
Golf Technology
Apr 21, 2024
Testers Wanted: Shot Scope V5
Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony is the Editor of MyGolfSpy where his job is to bring fresh and innovative content to the site. In addition to his editorial responsibilities, he was instrumental in developing MyGolfSpy's data-driven testing methodologies and continues to sift through our data to find the insights that can help improve your game. Tony believes that golfers deserve to know what's real and what's not, and that means MyGolfSpy's equipment coverage must extend beyond the so-called facts as dictated by the same companies that created them. Most of all Tony believes in performance over hype and #PowerToThePlayer.

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      Carolina Golfer 2

      8 years ago

      Looking forward to giving this a try at the Titleist Invitational in September.

      Reply

      Steve S

      8 years ago

      All these discussions about CT, COG, MOI, etc. mask the issue that Tony has hit on and that I’ve been yelling about for years. When the “sweet spot” is expanded to be 1/4 to 1/2 the driver face we will all hit the ball farther and straighter MORE OFTEN. That to me is the bottom line. I am also looking forward to a PHD candidate in engineering doing a thesis on this subject like Mark Broadie did on “strokes gained” (detailed in “Every Shot Counts”). Love his analysis in that it proved my point to my friends about my drives being more important than my putting.

      Reply

      Tom Duckworth

      8 years ago

      C16 has a different face than the new model. That’s part of the reason it costs more.
      Tony you must have a thick skin,what should have been a simple info piece on a new club turns into a knife fight in an alley. Once again people hide behind their keyboard and throw stones.

      Reply

      Boris Lee

      8 years ago

      Will all this technology lower my handicap? Doubt so.

      Reply

      Dee Williams

      8 years ago

      Solid

      Reply

      Evan Kelly

      8 years ago

      C16

      Reply

      Evan Kelly

      8 years ago

      Looks a lot like the cq6

      Reply

      Dave Mitchell

      8 years ago

      Nice … price of the 915 will go down!

      Reply

      Cace Smith

      8 years ago

      I bet those who dropped a grand on the C16 feel dumb.

      Reply

      Christopher Doyle

      8 years ago

      Those who dropped a grand are those who don’t even notice they’ve spent it.

      Reply

      Matt Payn

      8 years ago

      Does it stop you from slicing?

      Reply

      Troy Vayanos

      8 years ago

      The price is certainly much more affordable for the average golfer.

      I did hear online that it was going to be somewhere near the $1,000 mark which would be ridiculous.

      Reply

      Brandon Pennington

      8 years ago

      Titleist drivers always have higher spin rates compared to other companies.

      Reply

      Jack Yetton

      8 years ago

      Yep, the New Prototype 917 Drivers are now being validated by our brand ambassadors. Only just seen this myself.

      Reply

      Mark Hetherington

      8 years ago

      Very good in fact ???

      Reply

      Crike C Rombie

      8 years ago

      Nah I’m good for now

      Reply

      ANDRE

      8 years ago

      Whatever they do, the COR will never be higher than .83. So,what about the ball speed ?
      And to 99.9 % golfers, moving a few grams here and there has strictly no visble effect.
      That is just “visble technology”, the usual marketing trick…

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      The only thing more tired than this reply is how unbelievably inaccurate it is.

      The .830 limitation would be a true limiting factor if:

      1. CG locations were identical between clubs. Since ball speed is dependent on spin loft (the difference between dynamic loft and angle of attack), and CG location contributes to both of those factors it influences ball speed in ways the USGA’s tests don’t account for. Side note: It’s amazing how little people who post this stuff actually know about driver design and how the USGA tests CT.

      2. CT measurements do not account for aerodynamic differences between clubs, shaft weight, etc.. Swing it faster, ball speed goes up. This is not reflected in the USGA’s static measurement.

      3. The USGA’s test is designed for titanium faces. New materials will very likely create loopholes. This remains to be seen, of course, but it’s an exciting possibility.

      4. For the sake of expediency, lets toss MOI and face technology in one bucket to explain that while every manufacturer is at .830 in the center (more accurately, .830 at the CG projection), NOBODY is at .830 much off of that sweet spot. We’re talking about a small percentage of the face where MAX CT is actually achieved. The rest of the face…where the overwhelming majority of impact takes place (particularly for golfers who don’t get TV time on Sunday), does not come close to the .830 limit.

      So yeah, while we’re technically at the limit, functionally, we’re nowhere near it.

      Point is, until such time that manufacturers have optimized launch conditions for every golfer’s swing (they haven’t), and designs reach the MOI limit (no mainstream driver does), and the combination of MOI and face technology is such that off-center (heel, toe, high, low and everywhere in-between) strikes produce max-ct-equivalent ball speed (it doesn’t), there will still be room to improve driver performance.

      Reply

      ANDRE

      8 years ago

      The only thing more tired than this reply is how unbelievably it shows how his author knows nothing about physics and ballistics, or how much he thinks golfers who read his stuff are stupid :
      1/ Indeed, if, and only if, the golfer has a late release CG has an influence on shaft bending forward and, therefore on dynamic loft and spin loft. However this also depends on the shaft profile and, in any case, one can achieve the same spin loft with different CG locations, different shafts, and different lofts. So how can you say, Tony, that a head is better than another simply because its CG is more rearward. Nonsense !

      2/ I would be very interested in any meaurment of swing speed increase due to aerodynamics of a driver head. I would bet, very, very close to nil. Maximal swing speed for any golfer has way more to do with the shaft, its weight ( and lighter doesn’t always means faster), it’s overall flex, its profile and the club swingweight. Those are fitting factors and have nothing to do with the head design.

      3/ « The USGA’s test is designed for titanium faces ».
      Unbelievable !!!
      The CT is the CT and has absolutely nothing to do with the material with which the face is made of. Please, Tony, go back to school !

      4/ Indeed mainstream companies drivers COR are very often far below.83. The reason for that is that, because of industrial tolerances, and because those companies produce so many thousands heads, they have to state targets below .83 to the foundries. Indeed if their target were .83, many drivers faces of one model would be above this limit and the wholle production would be banned by the USGA. They cannot take this risk. Smaller companies with smaller production can have tighter tolerances and the COR of their driver is very often spot on .83.
      Now, it is true that , on most drivers, the COR drops substantially when one moves away from the sweet spot which is as small as a needle thin end, hence the ball speed. Here again smaller companies produce drivers faces with amazing quality and COR decreasing far less steeply on off center hits. Strangely anough, main stream companies never show statistics about this paramount factor, but one just need to compare drivers smash factors on launch monitors to see how differnt it can be.
      Another interesting issue, there, is that, obviously, the closer to the sweet spot you hit the ball , the higher the ball speed will be. And hitting consistently a driver close to the sweet spot depends on a good fitting, i.e., length of the shaft, shaft weight, shaft flex, shaft profile, swingweight, and not on the design of the head.

      Now , as far as the MOI is concerned, Tony, again, clearly doesn’t know anything about physics and particularly that the main factor for a higher MOI is a higher head weight. And the reason why no driver head MOI, nowadays, is at the 6000 gm-cm²maximum, is simply because it would then be too heavy and therefore unplayable. Nike tried it a few years ago and dropped it very quickly for that reason.

      To conclude, and just for the fun, here is a new value in the physics world that Tony just created for the poor ignorant golfers : the « CT-equivalent » !!! This remembers me the « MOI equivalent » that TaylorMade, the marketing ultimate champion, invented 10 years or so ago…
      Again, please Tony, go back to you books : CT is CT , there is no such a thing as CT equivalent and there will never be, in spite of all the marketing gurus efforts !

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      Amazing…short of CT is CT, respectfully nearly everything you’ve written is incorrect. And worse, you cherry picked a two-word phrase out of something I wrote and used it completely out of context to make it sound like I said something I didn’t. That alone tells me your arguments have little weight, but here we go again:

      Regarding aerodynamics – we’ve covered this several times over on this site. The benefits disproportionally favor faster swingers. This is true of any weight-related speed increases as well. In the real world, and always prefaced with where we are today, it translates to several yards for Bubba Watson, and likely feet for the average golfer. Nevertheless, it’s a differentiator, and one that’s in its infancy. While the sky is not the limit in this cases, it’s an area where gains can be made. Gains are not tremendous for the average golfer and likely never will be, but to say that it has nothing to do with head design is patently false.

      You’re right in so much as CT is CT, but different materials react differently, we know that. With Titanium, to achieve .830 requires a face thicker than manufacturers would like. The result is two-fold: The whole of the face is thicker than desirable and more mass than is technically necessary is allocated to the face. New materials can (and eventually) will change that. Some have told me they believe that could allow for more ball speed. Again…as I said, that piece is conceptual at best, but if new materials free up mass, it will absolutely translate to performance improvements.

      Your 4th point is, respectfully, essentially nonsense. Yes, tolerances do exist, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the majority of the face that does not produce .83. The driver Adams released before Blue was CT tested several times over to ensure each was at the limit. It was expensive for them to say the least. It boils down to bang for the buck…and that’s true for everyone.

      I’d love to see your evidence of smaller companies having tighter tolerances. Look anybody can say anything, but its an absolute fact that tighter tolerance cost more money (more rejects, more inspections testing, etc.). I’ve seen the videos of small guys making claims…often more outrageous than the big guys. Having no measurable market share doesn’t get you a pass on BSing the consumer.

      The reality is little guys are often already relegated to B-Tier foundries (A-Tier stays busy with Tier 1 OEMs). Lower volume means higher prices, and tighter tolerances would only compound that. You think Callaway is expensive, imagine the sticker price on a lower volume driver with tighter tolerances. This is the way of it in any industry. Frankly, it sounds like BS to me, but if you have actual evidence and not some story peddled by a small manufacturer, offer it up. Otherwise…nah, I’m not buying it for a second. That’s not to say smaller companies have lower quality standards, but certainly no better. I do find it interesting you would offer up “smaller companies” without citing a single verifiable example. You believe all drivers are the same, do you believe all small companies are the same as well?

      Sweet Spot…yes, obviously fitting matters, but my larger point was that nobody at any level (regardless of how well they’ve been fit) works the sweet spot consistently, most miss my centimeters not millimeters. Rory…Rickie, DJ…take your pick, even the best in the world miss the true sweeet spot more than hit it. As you said…it’s the size of a pin. Try hitting that consistently at 120+ MPH.

      Now is probably a good time to mention that whole of PGA shot link data suggests tour players are getting longer. Sure, some of that is ball, some is fitness, and some is the club. Face technology matters significantly, and along with CG placement, it arguably the greatest differentiator between brands. Since you brought the little guy into the mix, I’d point out that few if any have any sort of real face technologies designed to help maintain ball speed on off-sweet spot strikes.

      This alone disproves your initial argument that no driver will go farther than another, and there’s nothing manufacturers can do to make them longer. Even if you could convince me aerodynamics don’t matter, and CG location doesn’t matter, and new materials don’t matter, you’d still have the fact that different drivers are hotter (and produce different launch conditions) across more (and different) parts of the face. This is absolute indisputable reality. That stuff about the shaft…the shaft is, at best, a fine tuning knob for launch condition. Shaft changes effect different golfers differently (some not at all), driver heads…CG, it’s much more pronounced. Frankly, it sounds like you misinterpreted a Tom Wishon article (you wouldn’t be the first), but none of that refutes my point that until manufacturers can optimize launch conditions for every golfers (directly related to CG placement), there’s plenty of room for distance gains. Do you really dispute this?

      You should be able to verify this on your own. Compare an M1 430 to a Mizuno JPX, or a Callaway Sub-Zero to a Nike Vapor, or KING LTD to a Bombtech Grenade. A comprehensive test will show not only substantial differences in peak distance (balls struck on or near the sweet spot), as well as average distance, as well as the radius between the longest and shortest non-outliers.

      We see it year after year in testing. Nearly every golfer, regardless of swing speed, tempo, release, angle of attack, path, impact location (it’s a long list) finds at least 10 yards difference between the club he hits well and the one he doesn’t. It’s a different club for different testers, but it’s almost always there. Why is that if there’s all the same, and there’s nothing anybody can do? It’s CG placement. Again, .830 or not, it’s not all the same. Not even close.

      Now it’s true, this is where marketing some times gets in the way. There is no single optimal CG location since you can’t make the golfer align impact with the CG projection, but certainly companies have improved CG placement to the benefit of the ‘average’ (impact conditions, not handicap) golfer over where we were when the .830 limit was implemented…and that’s without regard for face technology.

      Worth considering (and speaking in mass averages again), several years ago manufacturers suggested fitting to 12 degrees and 2400 RPM. With improved understanding of CG and things like spin loft, those numbers have shifted to 14 degrees and 2100 RPM? Why because if you can get there, it’s longer, and getting there starts with CG placement.

      Regarding MOI, weight was not the issue, and certainly wouldn’t be an issue today (composites mean anybody can make weight). The issue was basically a matter of shape. Firstly, to get the MOI, shapes needed to be radical (squares, triangles, wildly elongated), while some embraced the fad, the average golfer never got on-board with the silly shapes. Secondly, because of those shape, CG placement ended up being back and relatively high. The end result was lower ball speeds (ultimately less peak distance) even at max CT. This is a great example of why CG matters. High/Back generally is not an efficient placement with respect to the dynamic forces and aligned impact. The end result is higher spin loft, and lesser ball speed. This was true for nearly all golfers. It just doesn’t work because the CG is so far from the impulse line. Put any shaft you’d like in any golfers hands, and that fact doesn’t change. It’s an inefficient use of the physics and it always will be. At the CT limit and still shorter than most anything else…hmm.

      If materials advance to a degree that the MOI can be achieved in a more-conventional shape and the CG can be brought closer to the impulse line, then max MOI may be viable, but I believe it’s going to require new materials and new construction techniques to achieve. I think we may see guys creep slowly closer (again, making actually quantifiable improvements that refute your premise) to the limit in the coming years. But again…not an issue with weight.

      Finally, look…it’s fine we disagree, but there’s no need to misrepresent what I said. You cherry-picked “CT-equivalent” and then accused me of creating a bogus measurement. Shame on you. For those who may be reading this, the full phrase I used was “max-ct-equivalent ball speed“, which I think basically anyone would understand to mean the ball speed generated from the sweet spot, since .83 is not an actual ball speed measurement. To bridge that gap I simply described an impact condition that would produce speeds equivalent to a max CT strike (what happens when the ball is hit on the true sweet spot). That’s miles away from creating a measurement for marketing purposes, and I suspect you know that. #WeakSauce.

      BTW…the TaylorMade measurement you’re looking for is eMOI or effective MOI which incorporates bulge and roll, face technology, and MOI into a single ‘measurement’. It’s dubious from a pure physics standpoint, but from a less quantifiable ‘playability’ standpoint, it’s not the worst thing they’ve ever come up with (damning them with faint praise).

      mark

      8 years ago

      Love the back and forth here. haha a quick note, Taylormade sent out a memo to retailers like myself with a dream of a 17/17 on it. Meaning they said that in a perfect world a launch of 17 degrees with a1700 Rpms would create optimal ball flight. Of course not for everyone but it was an interesting internal memo from their R&D department.

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      The TaylorMade numbers are interesting for sure. I’ve run the launch and spin numbers through several simulations (different ball speeds) on both the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer and ForeSight’s shot simulation tool. At nearly every speed I tried, TaylorMade’s numbers are in the ballpark of optimal. There’s a range, of course, but theoretically speaking, those numbers work for damn near everybody.

      We’ve all been warned about too low spin, but based on what I’ve run anything above 1500 RPM is safe. Of course the risk is that a driver that produces 1700 RPM on center strikes could potentially drop below that safe line in high face contact. That’s generally why most manufacturer’s optimal numbers are higher…spin protection.

      Of course these numbers are only what if numbers, that speak to what I mentioned in one of my above replies. Driver design isn’t to a point where it’s possible to truly optimize EVERY golfer (almost nobody has the swing characteristics that put 17/1700 into play with today’s tech). By the time you’re done accounting for individual characteristics…Angle of Attack, Dynamic Loft, etc., and the resulting impact they have on launch and spin, very few guys can get anywhere close to the magic number. A bit more can get to 14/2100, but most are still above 2500 RPM spin on average.

      So yeah…my research suggests TaylorMade’s optimal numbers are in the ballpark, unfortunately they’re not actually achievable for most of us.

      ANDRE

      8 years ago

      This man obviously has no education whatsoever in physics, ballistics, club designing , clubmaking and clubftitting technology. And his arrogance is equal to his ignorance.

      It really is a shame that Golfspy that once used to be a reliable source of information now employs such guys that use scientifical wording of which they have no idea of the meaning in order to mislead golfers and lure them towards buying new clubs every year.

      I leave

      No doubt this Titleist driver is good, but, as for any other driver, there is no magic in it and its efficiencey will solely depend on a good fitting : length, weight , loft, face angle, balance, shaft flex, shaft profile, grip.

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      Yeah…my ignorance and arrogance is why you’ve resorted to ad hominems instead of making any sort of counterarguments to refute those things I apparently know nothing about.

      You’re mistaken on nearly every point and rather than come to terms with that and walk away more knowledgeable for your trouble, you’ve resorted to name calling.

      As is the popular refrain these days, delete your account

      Tess

      8 years ago

      Good for you Tony.
      Imagine him being added to a group waiting on the first tee…..what a brutal round that would be!
      Now back to the 917.

      Geoff C

      8 years ago

      Wow, you are a tool. You didn’t prove a single point in your posts, I want my 5 mins back.

      Nathan

      8 years ago

      You shouldnt be allowed to post these long ramblings, they are not comments they are all jibba jabba

      Crike C Rombie

      8 years ago

      Yummmmm

      Reply

      DLinzy

      8 years ago

      Krank 6.5 Adjustable is still the most un-mentioned and un-loved (By the Media) Driver on the Market. Hit it, you’ll see +20 yards is possible.

      Reply

      Ashley Dutton

      8 years ago

      its not exactly cutting edge is it? little bit behind all the other drivers

      Reply

      Sean

      8 years ago

      Didn’t the 915 just have the highest truaccuracy score at 93?

      Reply

      Adam Hubbard

      8 years ago

      So Nike compression Chanel meets r7 weights ….cutting edge?

      Reply

      Chaz Pico Austin

      8 years ago

      Tony , Have you seen the crown ?
      Will be interesting if they designed the crown to have composite like
      the TM M1. If not they will not get the yards to catch up.
      Biggest break through has been the channel and now the addition of
      composite on back have of the crown. It may have been done before, but
      between Titleist and TM it has become perfected with a great purpose.

      Reply

      Danny Brinegar

      8 years ago

      Boooo there late the R7 already did this yearssss ago

      Reply

      Jason Falin

      8 years ago

      Ordered mine = Excited!

      Reply

      Joe Gendron

      8 years ago

      So it just went out to Tour players for prototype testing and you already ordered yours? Right…

      Reply

      Austin Getz

      8 years ago

      Hahaha

      Reply

      Phillip Kushman

      8 years ago

      Shit driver

      Reply

      Chris Embardino

      8 years ago

      Think it will perform better than that $1000 driver?

      Reply

      The Club Nut

      8 years ago

      So, i wonder if this will perform better or worse than the $1000 club.

      Reply

      Gary E Stover Jr.

      8 years ago

      Yea!

      Reply

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    News
    Apr 22, 2024
    Strength Training for Golfers: Building a Strong and Stable Core
    Golf Balls
    Apr 22, 2024
    Callaway Supersoft Mother’s Day Bouquet
    Golf Technology
    Apr 21, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Shot Scope V5
    ENTER to WIN 3 DOZEN

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls
    By signing up you agree to receive communications from MyGolfSpy and select partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy You may opt out of email messages/withdraw consent at any time.