Is PING Ready To Revolutionize Driver Face Design?
Drivers

Is PING Ready To Revolutionize Driver Face Design?

Is PING Ready To Revolutionize Driver Face Design?
“With our latest super-awesome technology, we’ve freed up some amount of discretionary weight, which we’ve repositioned low and back in the clubhead to generate some variation of more distance and forgiveness.” – EVERY Golf Company, EVERY Release

The tradenames differ; PWRShell, Exo-Cage, Dragonfly, thick-thin, CEll, R*Moto, and many (many, many) more, but the fundamental goal is the same. Golf companies have designed thousands of technologies for the near singular purpose of saving weight.

And while that might sound a bit repetitive, it’s all quite purposeful. Every little bit matters. In fact, if I were to take all that I’ve learned about golf club design and sum it up in a single sentence, it would be this:

Mastering and manipulating mass is everything in golf club engineering.

Yawn. I bore myself.

ping-face-structure-3

Why does weight matter so much?

Consider the narrow constraints on driver design. A driver head is seldom smaller than 440cc, and it can’t exceed 460cc in volume. Its static weight can’t go much above 205g. Any heavier and the head becomes cumbersome to swing. Go too much lighter and not only does MOI suffer, but you’ve left yourself without any extra weight with which to play.

+/- 10 grams, the total weight of a driver’s head is nearly fixed.

To free-up that highly desirable discretionary mass, golf companies have worked hard to steal weight where they can. The crown is a popular target, as engineers can reduce weight through clever structures (e.g. PING’s Dragonfly, Cobra’s Cell technology) and lighter materials (the Triaxial composite crown on Callaway’s Fusion driver is reportedly sub-11 grams), so they can strategically reallocate those savings elsewhere.

That’s worked reasonably well, but saving weight in the face has proven more difficult. That’s a problem because the face is where the bulk of the weight is located in current driver designs.

To free up mass without exceeding USGA limits or compromising durability is a challenge. Put another way:

“The ability to alter or redistribute mass at or around locations of high stress and /or of limited thickness in a golf club head, however, has to be balanced with respect to structural resilience considerations.”

That’s pulled from a recently updated PING patent filing titled Golf Club Face Plates with Internal Cell Lattices and Related Methods.

I know, the title really sucks you in, doesn’t it? But here’s the thing – if what it describes actually materializes, we really could be looking at the future of club design.

At its core, the patent outlines various embodiments of how one might build a club face using a series of layers, some of which contain lattice or cell structures.

ping-face-structure-1

Holes are 100% Air

Golfers often point out that trees are 90% air. It’s similarly true of lattice, for which the defining characteristic is arguably holes. Holes are 100% empty space and those empty spaces weigh absolutely nothing.

What does that mean for club design?

The patent suggests that a variety of materials could be used independently or intermingled within a layered driver face. Solid layers would be placed on the outside where impact occurs, while lattice layers could be used between the outer layers to save weight and tweak responsiveness.

Visually, it’s a bit like a sandwich with plenty of Lacey Swiss between your slices of bread.

ping-patent-face-layers

3D Printed?

While the patent specifically lists different titanium alloys as potential materials, it also suggests that some or all of the layers could be printed. This too is a really big deal.

There’s a growing consensus that 3D printing represents the future of how golf clubs could be made, and given PING’s brief flirtation with 3D printed putters, it’s not surprising that it’s investigating other ways in which it could leverage the technology.

Also mentioned is that the lattice cells (holes) could be of different shapes and sizes and that different shapes could be used independently or in combination to build the face structure. There are multiple (related) methods that could, theoretically speaking, be used to build a layered face with internal cell lattices.

It’s all coming together… literally.

As for PING’s plans to bind all of the layers together – it’s what you’d expect – adhesives or fasteners or high heat or pressure or some combination thereof. Again, there are multiple methods.

ping-face-layer-explanation

What’s So Great About Internal Cell Lattices?

The most obvious answer is that they offer the tremendous possibility for saving face weight. The patent suggests actual savings of between 8% and 25% percent (presumably over conventional designs). 8% would be significant. 25% is an engineer’s dream… the dirty kind.

For many companies, and PING in particular, optimal driver design often means pushing the center of gravity low and back, while keeping it close to the neutral axis. In plain English, internal cell lattices create a plausible way to create a high launching, low spinning driver with improved forgiveness and no compromise on ball speed. And in theory, they make all of that possible within the confines of a conventional/traditional shape. No triangles or squares required.

It’s all wrapped up in boring patent-speak, but I assure you, this is exciting stuff.

By using layers of varying thickness, or altering cell heights and patterns from the center to the periphery regions, it could be possible to tune the flexibility, and ultimately, the responsiveness of different areas of the face.

That’s about finding new and more effective ways to maintain ball speed across as much of the face as possible, without compromising durability or introducing any of what PING calls detrimental bending (flat spots where your bulge and roll used to be).

This is potentially a really big deal, and while I hesitate to call anything a game-changer, it very well could have a significant impact on how clubs are designed in the near future. Of course, it could just as easily prove to be a clever idea that never materializes in any meaningful way.

Is any of this actually coming soon to a driver near you? Stay tuned.

ping-face-lattice

The Full Patent Application

For You

For You

News
Apr 18, 2024
Amazon Finds: The Callaway Swing Easy
Best Drivers for Low Swing Speeds Best Drivers for Low Swing Speeds
Drivers
Apr 17, 2024
Best Drivers For Low Swing Speed Golfers
First Look
Apr 17, 2024
Malbon Is At It Again, This Time With Jimmy Choo
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.

      Charlie

      8 years ago

      Going to be rattle city as each piece of that lattice breaks off inside the clubhead.

      Reply

      Rob Samson

      8 years ago

      I just put a 2001 Cobra 350 SS in the bag that has the old Grafalloy Blue shaft in it. It might be the most forgiving driver ever made; it’s really fun to hit. The feel and sound off of this particular driver cannot be replicated. I love technology and all but this old driver goes just as high/long as anything that has come out the last 16 years.

      Reply

      David W

      8 years ago

      I have a couple of friends who played college golf (one played mini tours for a while) and are both still really good (positive handicaps). They did some testing of their own one day with 15 or so year old golf balls, current golf balls, 15 or so year old drivers, and current drivers. They found little difference in distance between the old and current drivers using any of the balls but found a huge difference in distance in the balls using any of the drivers.

      Reply

      baudi

      8 years ago

      The patent deals more with the integrity of structure than mass.
      The big issue with drivers today is the lack of ball control. For on!- and off center hits.
      The goal could very well be to create a more consistent face.
      Possibly, (crucial) points of deflection can be supported in more predictable way.

      Reply

      Matty

      8 years ago

      Let me get this straight, the club face has holes for air to go inside the club head?

      Reply

      Kris

      8 years ago

      No. outer solid layer, but inner layers are latticed to reduce mass.

      Reply

      Sid Quinlan

      8 years ago

      Interesting

      Reply

      Duane Paehlig

      8 years ago

      COR people doesn’t matter how you move the weight around they still have the COR limits. What I love about all these new innovations they do all this work and then put a crap shaft in it LOL. The shaft is the largest contributor to distance and accuracy.

      Reply

      Ed Hiney

      8 years ago

      BFD, the balls rebound off the face is limited no matter whats its made of or designed with

      Reply

      Art

      8 years ago

      True Mr Hiney, but you only reach that max in a small area of the club. Mishits don’t take advantage of the max potential rebound. If they could substantially increase the size of the area where rebound was maximized, can you understand how that would be helpful? Especially for those of us that don’t hit the “sweet spot” very often?? At least you got the BFD right!!

      Reply

      Shane Flannery

      8 years ago

      With the COR limitations. Regardless of new technology, drivers are almost at the end of their technological limits. I do like the idea of a bigger sweet spot. But this will change little in the way of performance for the average player. Better clubs help the better players more than the average golfer. A new driver doesn’t help you top it 50 yards further.

      Reply

      Golfercraig

      8 years ago

      This entire post encapsulates the absolute best and worst parts of the internet.

      Hey look! Actual information that you may find intriguing or enlightening!

      Also, a bevy of dipshits, all competing with each other for the “largest amount of ass-hattery in the comment section” award.

      Reply

      Carolina Golfer 2

      8 years ago

      Seems really cool, but also seems way above my pay grade to understand..ha If it ever makes it to market I’ll be interested in checking it out.

      Reply

      Marios Sergides

      8 years ago

      interesting read

      Reply

      Gorse Richard

      8 years ago

      will the overall thickness of the face be increased? might induce weakness between the layers; de-lamination under repeated impacts, bonding agents are very different to metallics, may affect the sound of the face / driver.

      adjustable drivers increase the weight in the hosel.

      Reply

      Paul Kielwasser

      8 years ago

      Pretty cool!

      Reply

      Bryan Carroll

      8 years ago

      Gotta have respect for Ping and their brand as a whole, quietly go about their business making good reliable products without shouting about it like one other company I’ll leave unnamed **cough..Taylormade…cough**

      Reply

      JayB

      8 years ago

      Good article. The patent shows some good r&d tech that no doubt all of the major OEMs are exploring.

      But wow, if you think drivers are expensive now, just hang on and wait until you see composite lattice faces and support structures on the retail market….

      Reply

      Chad Rechlo

      8 years ago

      too much science to read. I’m not Dechambeau

      Reply

      Ian Oates

      8 years ago

      Wow, this could be awesome! Looking forward to seeing this at Garfoth Driving Range Paul Jordan!

      Reply

      Paul Jordan

      8 years ago

      Be nice Ian not sure how they will be able to pull this one off though

      Reply

      Kevin Yukichi Shimada

      8 years ago

      Jpx 900 is THE DRIVER

      Reply

      Christo Cilliers

      8 years ago

      .830 cor limit no drivers will be that amazing.

      Reply

      Joseph

      8 years ago

      Thanks for stating that. So long as cor is fixed, this is all really cool, but just marketing with respect to distance.

      Reply

      Darren Storr

      8 years ago

      TaylorMade has been doing this for years, finally they are trying to catch up :)

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      8 years ago

      This is factually inaccurate. TaylorMade has been using what it calls inverted cone technology in its driver faces for years. This is not remotely the same thing. – TC.

      Reply

      Pj

      8 years ago

      Ping came up with this technology first in there tec woods as far as I know.

      Steve S

      8 years ago

      Read a lot of patents in my day(ex-M.E.). This one seems well thought out. I’m intrigued by the weight savings bent, but more intrigued by the possibilities for consistent COR across more face area. This would really make the “off center hits go further” marketing shtick real.

      Also, I think there is more work to be done with shafts and grips. All the weight in the shaft and grip is wasted weight. You want all the weight to be in the head as an ideal. 20 gram grips and 40 gram shafts are a practical target even for stiff shafts. Both would save up to 60 grams in the shaft-grip combo which could be added with little to no change in swing speed and a great increase in club head momentum(and force on the ball).

      Reply

      Albert Eng

      8 years ago

      Can Ping invent it that I don’t have to swing the driver?

      Reply

      Robert

      8 years ago

      In theory, this seems really interesting and has a lot of potential. But I wonder how they will be able to keep the COR down while taking all of that weight out of the face. It seems to me like they would have to introduce some other chemical or material in order to reduce COR while also reducing the weight.

      Reply

      Robert

      8 years ago

      Actually, never mind. I can think of a bunch of ways to make that work right. For instance the center of the face wouldn’t have the cells and the rest would. Increasing COR everywhere else but the center.

      Reply

      Stevie g

      8 years ago

      Get the correct shaft and the head is just secondary. Hit the new $1000 driver from Titliest with the exact same shaft I have in my 915 driver and the results were plus/minus one yard. Get the best shaft for ur swing and go with it

      Reply

      Paul Muehlemeyer

      8 years ago

      This is very interesting. If they could design a face where you could miss the sweet spot a little and still get the same ball speed that would be great. We’ve all hit that one drive right on the screws that goes farther than normal and if we could get the same result with a slight miss that would help a lot of us.

      Reply

      Brian Phillips

      8 years ago

      Still not as good as the M1 M2

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      8 years ago

      The driver doesn’t exist yet.

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      8 years ago

      #TheInternet

      Reply

      Dakota Jones

      8 years ago

      I’ll take the Ping G25 over the M1 or M2. The G is lightyears better. Low spin is for suckers.

      Reply

      Eric Evans

      8 years ago

      You ^^^ obviously do not understand how to maximize driver distance if you truly think that

      Reply

      Brian Phillips

      8 years ago

      How often does a ping driver when on tour ? 46 events did it win 5 times this year? Prob not I bet a Taylor made driver won 30 of the 46

      Reply

      Alex

      8 years ago

      Dakota, It’s not low spin that creates distance its the correct spin. You need some spin to keep the ball airborne, too low of spin and you will lose distance. Being able to match spin, launch and ball speed properly is what creates distance.

      Brian, if you think one major brand is objectively better than another major brand then you are being fooled by marketing. The number of pros using a specific brand of equipment is heavily influenced by the amount of money that brand spends on sponsorships and the number of players they are sponsoring. Its pretty difficult to draw any conclusion in terms of performance when looking at number used in PGA events.

      MyGolf Spy

      8 years ago

      You do realize that tour players are paid to play equipment. It’s a numbers game…TaylorMade pays significantly more players to play its drivers than fiscally responsible PING does. As a result, TaylorMade drivers win more tournaments, but PING maintains a healthier business. -TC

      Reply

      Dakota Jones

      8 years ago

      Precisely same with Titleist. I think Ping and Mizuno have the best quality control of any mass marketed product. Mizuno quality control on irons is so good they don’t even use tip weights. Where a set of Titleist irons may have 4 or 5 ranging from 2 to 10 grams.

      Reply

      es

      8 years ago

      “Holes are 100% empty space and those empty spaces weigh absolutely nothing.”
      this is 100% false, air has weight which is why we feel wind.

      have you never hear this phrase?
      “The air in a cylinder that contained the Eiffel Tower would weigh more than the Eiffel Tower itself.”

      Reply

      petet

      8 years ago

      But we aren’t talking about the Eiffel Tower, we are talking about a tiny area, so for all practical purposes it is zero. Comments like yours make me think people like you are just trolls. You think you are so smart, but just come of sounding about as stupid as can be.

      Reply

      es

      8 years ago

      On a site that takes pride on it’s scientific approach…
      umm… the Eiffel Tower was an example used to show that air weighs a lot in a scale that people can visualize… and also because it is a commonly used example in education…
      you can not say air weighs nothing because it is not true. air weighs a lot more than you think

      Tom Conroy

      8 years ago

      I scoured this article looking for the spot where the author claims that air weighs nothing.

      I found the passage where he states that some golfers say trees are 90% air. Then I found the part where he said holes weigh nothing. He said holes, not air. Is there not, perhaps, a distinction?

      You’re arguing a point that was never made. Putting words in mouths. That sort of thing.

      As someone who appears to be trying to position himself as an intellectual, this, I would think this would be an important distinction.

      At best it appears you’re being a bit too literal. At worst, a bit too a horses ass.

      Steve S

      8 years ago

      Good God, man, he’s trying to make a point that they can save weight by using air spaces. Air weighs about 15 pounds per cubic foot at sea level. Steel weighs about 490 lbs per cubic foot. See the difference? If not, go back to grammar school….

      Reply

      Eric

      8 years ago

      Cool read. Unfortunately history tells us that to time between Patent Application and delivery at the retail level FOR PING has always been 1-2 years.

      Reply

      BlkNGld

      8 years ago

      Ah, but the date is just the date the patent was awarded. First application was in 2014…

      Reply

      David Wozny

      8 years ago

      But where are the flying cars??? I look forward to seeing this come to market

      Reply

      pir2

      8 years ago

      “Golfers often point out that trees are 90% air”

      Actually, that’s 100% incorrect. Trees are 100% tree. The area AROUND the tree is potentially 90% air ;)

      Reply

      PeteT

      8 years ago

      Is there a special place that people like you crawl out from under to make comments like this? So annoying.

      And to argue the point he is making, the statement is not incorrect! He didn’t make the claim that trees are 90% air. He makes the claim that: “Golfer often point out…” that trees are 90% air, and they often do say that on parkland style, tree lined courses. So learn to read and interpret what you read correctly.

      Reply

      bill

      8 years ago

      No. YOU should read and interpret. The poster was being “sarcastic”. There’s no reason for you to call him/her names when the post was obviously meant to be facetious.

      pir2

      8 years ago

      Sucks to keep hitting the 10% tree eh?

      Connor T. Lewis

      8 years ago

      Pretty cool idea. Will be interesting to see how it works in the real world.

      Reply

      Markus Viljanen

      8 years ago

      Interesting! Can’t wait the marketing name for this design.. I assume Ping is in a rush to patent all good innovations now that their head designers are at PXG?

      Reply

      BlkNGld

      8 years ago

      Standard procedure for any company to have its engineers sign an agreement that anything they develop while working for that company is the property of that company.

      And usually it states that includes anything done on personal time. They may make an allowance if the invention isn’t applicable to the company’s businees, but usually it’s the company that gets to make that decision.

      If any ex Ping guys were involved, they’d still be listed on the patent as co inventors.

      Reply

      chemclub

      8 years ago

      Seems like the lattice and holes would offer a different kind of opportunity for face flex and COR. I don’t really know how the rules specify the kind of COR a face can have, but if the lattice holes have there own COR in addition to the overall face COR, it might be a little loophole to boost performance. The “dirty dream” weight savings are likely much more important though. Nice read.

      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 18, 2024
    Amazon Finds: The Callaway Swing Easy
    Best Drivers for Low Swing Speeds Best Drivers for Low Swing Speeds
    Drivers
    Apr 17, 2024
    Best Drivers For Low Swing Speed Golfers
    First Look
    Apr 17, 2024
    Malbon Is At It Again, This Time With Jimmy Choo
    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.