Pro Tip: How To Make Your M1 More Forgiving
Drivers

Pro Tip: How To Make Your M1 More Forgiving

Support our Mission. We independently test each product we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.

Pro Tip: How To Make Your M1 More Forgiving

Golfers who bought TaylorMade’s M1 driver before M2 may have experienced a bit of buyers remorse.

Don’t misunderstand our point. M1 is a terrific driver. It’s highly configurable. It offers a robust platform for fitters, and plenty of movable parts for DIYers and those of us who like to tinker. The only real knock on the M1 driver is that it’s not as forgiving as some of its competitors, and its not nearly as forgiving as the TaylorMade M2, which was released several months after the M1.

If you’re one of those guys who loves his M1, but wishes it was more forgiving, we’ve got good news? Your M1 absolutely can be more forgiving. Better news still, it won’t cost you a dime. The driver ships with everything you’ll need to boost MOI and increase forgiveness.

Here’s what you need to do.

TM-M1-Weights-config-4

Step 1

First, remove both the front and and back weights from their respective tracks. For maximum forgiveness, both weights have to come out.

To remove the Rear Track weight:

  • Remove the red weight cap, and slide the weight to the LOW position
  • Hold the head directly in front of you such that LOW and HIGH appear upside down and the hosel is pointing directly away from you
  • Slowly flip the head such that the hosel is moving towards you and the sole towards the ground
  • The weight should fall out on its own (give it a jiggle if necessary)

The process is the same for the front weights. Note the exit position is closest to DRAW and text should be right side up prior to flipping.

Note that the both the weights and weight covers are labeled. FT for Front Track and BT for Back Track. The front weight (15 grams) is 5 grams heavier than the rear weight (which basic math tells us must be 10 grams).

We want that heavier weight all the way back.

TM-M1-Weights-config-2

Step 2

Starting with 15 gram weight from the front track, place both weights into the back channel. Slide them all the way to the rear of the club, and secure by screwing the black and red caps back on.

While we used the more compact and workable M1 430 for our example, for the M1 460 this should bring MOI closer to that of M2.

Bonus Tip – a Lower & More Forward CG M1

Some golfers may elect to trade MOI for the greater efficiency that comes from a lower and more forward Center of Gravity. This can be an especially effective setup for higher swing speed golfers with negative angles of attack (guys who hit down on the driver). Generally speaking, these are the type of players who may benefit from the M1 430.

To configure your M1 for low forward CG simply place both weights into the front track. Order is less important here as you can position the weight to achieve the desired draw or fade bias. Note that if the weights are centered, bias will ever-so-slightly favor the side with the 15 gram weight.

Own an M1?

Keep in mind, these tips apply to both the M1 460 and the M1 430 (on a relative basis) Give the alternative configurations shown above a try and let us know how it goes.

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.

      CalGolfer

      5 years ago

      Thanks Tony! I just happened to come across this tip right after putting money down on a ’16 M1 460 10.5* … played a ’16 M2 10.5* (set closer to 11.5*) with Rogue Silver 110 68 S last season and also have added for this coming season an AD DI-6 S,and Kuro Kage; with the stock Fujikura 60-S it will be an interesting time at the range and I will definitely try your tip with both weights in the H/L channel….

      That said – that Ping G400 10.5 with the Tour 65S shaft is mighty tempting….

      Reply

      Don

      5 years ago

      I recently bought a New 2017 M1 (12). I tried to move the front weight to the back, but the slider will not come out.
      I did change the weight from the front to the back. The front weight shows an “11” and the back shows a “6”.
      Also my M1 does not have a red rear weight

      Reply

      Tom

      5 years ago

      I have a M1-440 driver. 2017. The M-1 440 for 2017 is different from 2016 model which is illustrated. First- the 2017 model has 2 15 gram weights. I am a club builder & here are my best results. The headweight is low to begin with a 45.50 shaft. If you shorten shaft, weight will have to be added. Second- the front weight will have to removed. Third- Weigh head off shaft on scale with weights in place. With a standard shaft length the object is to get headweight 197-198 grams, with adapter adding 7-8 grams. 204-205 is good. You must do the math, 30 grams of standard weight add weight to achieve 197-198 grams. Place 1 -15 gram weight in rear track to front. You will have to order the proper rear weight from on line source. 17,19, prefered. 17 will add 2 grams & 19 will add 4 grams. Add rear weight to rear track & move to rear & adjust as needed. Desired swing weight is D-4.

      Hamish

      6 years ago

      Thanks Mygolfspy. great tip. moved both weights back. Driver now feels more balanced , hit the ball higher and longer. Sound has changed to a higher metallic pitch , thanks again MGS

      Reply

      David

      4 years ago

      Awesome! I have the M1430, and moved the weights so both are in the front slot, I separated them so one is near the draw and one near the fade, It felt way more balanced. Went to the range and wow what ball trajectory just right. Most impressive was how straight it was and my grouping was majority on centre hits with a pure sound of compression not a tinging off centre hit. The loft was set to +2. I – impressive! Then later on you know how it goes, I was over swinging and trying to kill the ball resulting in push fades and pulls, so have to remember great tempo and the ball goes so much farther and straight. Now I really enjoy the M1 and don’t need to go back to my XR. Thanks for the article.

      Reply

      Varut

      6 years ago

      I bought M1 special edition about 6 months ago. I didn’t hit it well then i decided to sell it. Luckily i found this article. I managed to move front weight to the back position. OMG!! my life has been changed. I just noticed that my front weight is in front of the back weight. I will make a move again today and try it on Saturday.

      Thank you for a great article.

      Varut Ruangtrakool
      18 Apr 18
      Thailand

      Reply

      Mike

      6 years ago

      Has anyone added additional weights? Have two in the back track, one in the front track, or any other combination? Or has anyone added additional weights to bring back swingweight up after cutting their driver down to say 44″? Considering doing this. Thanks!

      Reply

      Dana Douglas

      7 years ago

      Moved both back. Normally hit power fade should i leave at standard loft?

      Reply

      jeff saunders

      7 years ago

      Hi i got a 460 m1 recently fitted with the aldila rogue stiff shaft and was struggling with getting height and distance.So much so i was gonna get rid of the club.However i stumbled on the piece about moving both weights back and it transformed the club beyond recognition.Im now hitting high long drives the longest ive ever hit in my life and i absolutely love the driver now i think my shaft is half an inch shorter than standard so makes this a confidence boosting beast thanks for the idea.

      Reply

      LesB3

      7 years ago

      I stumbled upon this thread and decided to move both weights back on my M1 460. I’m 56 years old and hit a couple drives near 300 hundred today (down wind) My long time golf buddies said they have never seen me hit a driver that far. The sound, feel and flight are all different/better. When I hit it solid the ball gets up and stays up with that low spin look to it. Thanks for this post!!

      Reply

      Phil Ballard

      7 years ago

      Tried putting weights together and back toward the high channel, I was hitting a low hook, after messing with it awhile I moved the weights forward toward the low channel with a light separation. I starting hitting a higher draw over and over and over. Played a round of golf this way and never hit one cut. Wow I eliminated one side of the course and played my best round in a long time (78) By the way I’m 57 with a 16 handicap.

      Reply

      Dylan

      4 years ago

      Did you keep the loft at standard? or did you move it to lower or higher?

      Reply

      Keith lane

      7 years ago

      What would happen if you put the heavier weight all the way back only and removing the lighter weight from the club? How would it affect the performance? Seems to me that it would make the club lighter causing you to swing a bit faster, kind of like the Cleveland CG black 2015 was designed. I could be wrong… Just asking.

      Reply

      Woody

      7 years ago

      Hi guys!

      I have the 430cc M1 and was struggling with minimal off centre hits. Wasn’t very forgiving in original settings of one weight front track one weight back which ever configuration.

      Try this…

      For me this is a god setting and now my favourite driver ever. It’s longer than ever and more forgiving than ever… to good to be true?

      Take both weights out and put both in front track.

      Spread the weights to either side of front track. I have the heavier weight on Fade and other weight on draw.

      This moves the CG forward but is VERY stable at impact.

      Now…

      Because your CG is moved forward you need to crank the loft up… a lot.

      Mine was 9.5 deg STD so it’s now in highest setting at 11 deg.

      Let me know what you think but DAM this thing is good now!

      Woody

      Reply

      AJ

      7 years ago

      Why the heavier weight on fade? Do you tend to close your clubhead and hook your drives? I’m having problems with my 430…

      Reply

      Don

      7 years ago

      Pretty simple here.

      If you own an M1 and doesn’t do what you expect, try some different configurations.
      I don’t care about dynamic or moi or any other scientific lingo.
      If it works for you, GREAT!!!
      If not, keep trying. Or get some lessons. You’re not swinging correctly.

      Reply

      wes

      7 years ago

      Has anyone ever removed both weights from the M1 and hit or tested the driver? Swing speed should be much higher however I am wondering if this kills performance. Just got an M1 and don’t really love it yet. Tried the weights in the back and did not see any good results.

      Reply

      Mezz

      7 years ago

      I hv found taking off the 10 gr weight completely and replacing the nack track with the 15 gr weight all the way to the back, to be the most effective and better for feel, speed and control.

      Reply

      roger

      8 years ago

      I have a strong but high swing so tried the two weights at the front on my M1 with both set at max draw bias, with my M1 9.5 driver set at 8 degrees upright.

      It does work; this counteracts my fade and gives a lower ball flight. I can actually feel the 2 weights at the bottom of the heel when i strike the ball, -its a bit heavier, but the ball still goes 270m carry, so no problems with this set up, with my slice just now a slight fade.

      All good!

      I do think i need the 430 with my swing, but this is a good alternative with the two weights at the front as the 460 is a little more forgiving.

      Reply

      Colin

      8 years ago

      Can anyone tell me if the makes the driver illegal/non-conforming?

      Reply

      Jacob allenback

      8 years ago

      Is this usga legal?

      Reply

      Dave

      8 years ago

      My M1 430 does not allow me to put the FT in the back. It does not slide back, how did you do this??

      Reply

      Scott

      8 years ago

      I had this problem but realized I had the bottom in upside down. Make sure the edges with the channels are facing up. The ft letters should face down.

      Reply

      Moo

      7 years ago

      Thanks Dude.

      Shaun

      7 years ago

      If you take your finger off weight and kind of jiggle the club face it slides to the front.

      Reply

      Matt

      8 years ago

      I as well was not able to move the 15g to the back. It fit just would not slide, any tips?

      Reply

      Jay

      8 years ago

      First of all, thanks for the creative take on this. I found this article yesterday and immediately tried this at home… However, I wasn’t able to push the 15g weight all the way back in the back channel (it fits but would not slide down even a little bit – I reckon there must be some differences in the head design depending on where it was manufactured/bought). I didn’t want to force it so I resorted to leaving the 15g at the low position in the back channel and pushed the 10g all the way down to the high position.

      I used to leave the 10g at the low position and it never even occurred to me to push it down to increase the MOI. With this set-up I actually do feel this club is more forgiving than it was previously. I am still curious as to what the flight path would look like if I have two weights in the back.

      Reply

      Jeb

      8 years ago

      Have you tested swapping 15 to back track and 10 to front track? I assume difference in moi is so small it’s not worth the effort. Thx in advance

      Reply

      Jon B

      8 years ago

      @MGS Tony, could you update the center of gravity chart for these altered weight settings (both weights front/neutral, both front/fade, etc. Would be very interested to see results.

      Reply

      David W

      8 years ago

      So none of the people who say to buy an M2 actually read the article but they are still commenting on it. The article was about how to create forgiveness in the M1 that you have already purchased. It never says to go buy an M1 and then make these changes to create something similar to an M2.

      Reply

      Steve S

      8 years ago

      Reading comprehension is at an all time low in the U.S. That and may there weren’t enough emoticons in the article(kidding).

      Every time there is a contest announced here, MYGolfSpy makes it very clear that you have to log in to their website to apply to win but there are always dolts that try to apply in the comments section of the article.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      LIKE

      Femi Oyefule

      8 years ago

      Hi
      I have the M1 460*.
      My problem was i wasnt hitting it high enough so i moved the weights back
      But today at the course, i carried it longer but hit it wayyyyyyyyyyy lower and straighter. it also felt heavier at impact.

      Reply

      Stefano

      8 years ago

      Hi, I moved both weights to the rear max position. I had been fighting a pull hook. I couldn’t fade it at all, just at best a big block right. With both weights back, launch was slightly higher, but most significantly there was almost no side spin. The ball tracked very straight, definitely easier to control, which is more forgiving in my book. Thanks, MGS!

      Reply

      P.J. Evans

      8 years ago

      I have the M1 430 and based upon your article, I set it up with both weights in the rear. I’m hoping for a higher launch, added distance and increased forgiveness. I’m playing tomorrow morning….I’ll post my results tomorrow afternoon.

      Reply

      P.J. Evans

      8 years ago

      Well, after the adjustments a couple of thoughts…
      I definitely got a higher trajectory, which I actually want. Misses were less severe, for sure. I was pretty consistent with the driver all day.
      Distance didn’t really change for me much, but I felt like the driver was easier to control.
      All in all, I’m going to keep the M1 430 with the two weights in the back port.
      I won this driver over Christmas, so I don’t feel like I ‘wasted’ any money on M1 vs M2.
      Thanks for the tip…
      — P.J.

      Reply

      Stefano

      8 years ago

      I currently have my 9.5* M1 set up +2* static loft (which closes the face 4* at address). I have the back weight max to the rear, the front weight max to the fade side. My problem is a hook or extreme draw tendency. All my old drivers tended to slice. With this set up, I average 230 yds, long for me with 95 SS. But i fight the hook all day. Will moving both weights to the rear make the M1 more square at impact? I feel I presently swing extreme in-to-out to make the ball go straight. Thanks for your insights.

      Reply

      Anonymous

      8 years ago

      If you fight a hook I wouldn’t set the face to 4 degrees closed at address. I would actually put both the weights in the front track and set them both to fade.

      Reply

      Stefano

      8 years ago

      According to TM M1 Tuning Manual, increasing the loft from the standard closes the face; decreasing the loft from standard opens the face. Both changes occur automatically and can’t be separate. Increasing the loft, like hitting up on the ball, increases distance tremendously, about 30 yds. It also makes the club more forgiving. Increasing the loft 2* automatically closes the face 4* for all M1s, regardless of standard loft. Therefore I chose to add 30 yds and fight the hook. However, Toney’s recommended move of both weights to the rear increased loft, distance, and forgiveness. Win, Win, Win!

      Thomas Aulik

      8 years ago

      This maneuver actually does work and it makes a difference. I have an M1 driver and I have tried this. Thanks for the tip.

      Reply

      Steve S

      8 years ago

      Michael Manavian,

      Are you a club fitter? I love your approach. I have been saying for years that shaft flex is irrelevant from a physics standpoint. For accuracy and minimal “side spin” you want the least amount of shaft flex you can get. Launch angles can be adjusted by the driver loft and location of ball placement in your swing arc.

      Reply

      Dan Mackey

      8 years ago

      I did that with my M1 for a while but the contact felt like it lost some of its poop. With the weight centered it feels much more solid. I would add lead tape to the back and low if you need more forgiveness.

      Reply

      Allen Morrison

      8 years ago

      I like and hit my RBZ Tour better than my M1.

      Reply

      Dan Mackey

      8 years ago

      Tee it lower with the M1

      Reply

      Allen Morrison

      8 years ago

      Dan, I have tried everything and the one thing I feel different is the clunk sound the M1 gives off. It just doesn’t hit as pure at my RBZ.

      Reply

      Dan Mackey

      8 years ago

      I still love mine

      Reply

      Ted Ebert

      4 years ago

      I cut my 2017 460 M1 down to 44..5 removed rear stock weight added 19 gm to rear all the way back. Installed 15 gm in front. Adjusted loft to 11.5, trackman showed spin reduced and gained 21 yards.. Ball flight high and long.

      Jody Tatham

      8 years ago

      M1 460 10.5 driver- how about 2 weights in front , and extra weight in rear? What would this do for the driver? Thanks Jody

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      It would drive the static weight significantly above spec, while raising the swing weight significantly as well. With an additional 10G weight you’re looking at an increase of 5 swing weight points.

      I don’t want to say the driver would be unplayable, but it wouldn’t swing easy.

      Reply

      David W

      8 years ago

      Would going with an extra light shaft help or would that change the weight distribution too much?

      Mike

      6 years ago

      I just asked a similar question, but I think this would help counteract cutting your driver down to maintain a similar swing weight. I think that setup would have the launch be slightly higher, but I’m not sure about how much more forgiving. Depends on the weights of each weight and where you put them.

      Trevor Gay

      8 years ago

      OK now tell me how to make all of my clubs more forgiving

      Reply

      Bradley Scalia

      8 years ago

      How to make your M1 more forgoving: Return it back to the store you bought it from.

      Reply

      Mark

      8 years ago

      Thanks for the idea. I was fit for my M1 a few months ago and have since made some swing changes that have lowered my flight a bit. I was thinking about testing a 9.5 head (have 8.5 now) but this might do the trick.

      Reply

      Matty

      8 years ago

      Few things from this article:
      1) If you decide to remove both weights of the M1 driver (or one of them) before buying, would it be cheaper to buy than if you had both weights?

      2) I wonder how heavy the rear weight of the M2 driver is, since the head weight is lighter than the M1 driver.

      3) Putting the 2 weights on the front track of an M1 driver would pretty much be the closest thing to an R15 driver.

      4) Great article, Tony!

      Reply

      Bob Gomavitz

      8 years ago

      Pro Tip should be, How to make a $500 driver into a $400 driver!

      Reply

      Nick Thompson

      8 years ago

      No prob! Let me know how it goes!

      Reply

      Ben Smith

      8 years ago

      I will test that out this week – thanks

      Reply

      Ben Smith

      8 years ago

      Indeed :)

      Reply

      Nigel Beck

      8 years ago

      I KNOW what you’re doing…you’re trying to DRIVE a WEDGE (a cleveland wedge perhaps) between me and my new lady driver…Well it worked! I’ll give it a try at the range this week and play with the new setup this Sunday!

      Reply

      majik

      8 years ago

      Let us know how it goes!

      Reply

      Chatchawin Tangjaitrong

      8 years ago

      Interesting

      Reply

      James Charpentier

      8 years ago

      Just did a fit by moving both weights back today. Worked perfect ??

      Reply

      Eric Kelso

      8 years ago

      Pro Tip: don’t buy TM.

      Reply

      bjb

      8 years ago

      he gets it

      Reply

      Alan Lin

      8 years ago

      How? Buy another driver.

      Reply

      Brett

      8 years ago

      Couldn’t get the front 15g weight into the back channel. I have a 460 head, any advice?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      Check that everything is aligned right. Weight will go in directly under the word “LOW”. Slide the weight in at an angle (again…load on the side with the wording) Check the orientation of the weight to be sure that the slightly relieved areas are on the weight are facing out and are parallel to the channel itself.

      Reply

      Scott Campbell

      8 years ago

      This is brilliant!!!

      Reply

      Eric Harrington

      8 years ago

      The article is titled ‘how to make the M1 more forgiving’ … and they did. They did NOT say ‘without changing dynamic loft!’ Or ‘make it an M2!’ Geez people. Thanks MGS as always. Great tip.

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      8 years ago

      We love all the M2 comments…mostly because they’re incorrect.

      1) They’re not really applicable to those who already own an M1.

      2) Functionally (CG Location and the resulting performance implications), the M1 with both weights in the rear is not the same as an M2. In the config shown, the CG won’t be as far back, and will be higher relative to the M2.

      Reply

      Chris Pepito Devl

      8 years ago

      No need to be so much technical… I selled my M1 and bought a M2 instead because it is way more forgiving and much longer by the way… Even some tour pro changed their M1 for an M2 …

      Reply

      Juliana Payne Wootten

      8 years ago

      I’ve been in the business for 30 years, try explaining that to a customer,they won’t believe you

      Reply

      Bob Gomavitz

      8 years ago

      It’s true…the back weight in the M2 is a 1/2 gram…where is the weight one has to ask?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      The rest of the weight is internal, I’m sure.

      Michael Manavian

      8 years ago

      Stupidest thing you could do @Mygolfspy . You’re effectively wasting energy + adding 3* of dynamic loft from the shaft!!!

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      8 years ago

      How many times did you repeat your test? Is this an average over several swings, or just one wack on your gears system? How many different testers…different swing types? Based on what we know about the impact CG has on dynamic loft, 3° as an average seems like a tremendous stretch. What’s stupid is to lump all golfers into a single bucket. Some golfers will benefit from more dynamic loft (and higher MOI). Some will not. Some benefit…some don’t. This is true of any change in configuration.

      Also worth mentioning, moving the CG back will allow some golfers to reduce their static loft (to achieve similar dynamic loft) while still reaping the benefits of higher MOI.

      Reply

      mcavoy

      8 years ago

      Well MGS sure doesn’t mind lumping everyone into a single bucket when it suits their purpose. And I’m not referring to this post.

      Michael Manavian

      8 years ago

      So of all the gears owners, I have the most extensive shaft fitting options, and the most data. I also have iron Byron data with cg moved.

      My question to you is, do you think how the dynamic loft is achieved matters? dynamic loft being the total of head plus shaft deflection. How much do you want from the head and how much from the shaft?

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      8 years ago

      I’m glad you have a lot of shafts, but you didn’t really answer any questions about repeatability of your data…only that you have lots. How much of it is directly applicable to a stock configuration of an M1 with standard vs. rear weight placements?

      We both know dynamic loft is related to other parameters, so the relative differences can and will vary tremendously between golfers.

      As for how much do I want from shaft vs. head? Not sure what you’re driving at. Static weight is unchanged. With the change in CG, we’ll add dynamic loft due to both the rear placement of the weight and the effect that has on the shaft (causing it to play a bit softer). We’re not talking about a tremendous movement here, but frankly, I’m not sure why you think a M1 with rear CG placement is a horrible idea, while M2, PING G, Cobra F6 or others that offer equivalent head weights and a more rearward CG are fine. If we assume the same static lofts (give or take manufacturer tolerances), then it stands to reason the impact on Dynamic Loft due to CG placement will also be similar.

      Basically, if we start at 9.5 degrees and move the weight on M1 back, dynamic loft will still be less than those drivers I listed above. Let’s not get worked up over a change in dynamic loft as again, it will benefit some, some will see little effective change, and some will suffer for it. This is true of any change.

      Reply

      Regis

      8 years ago

      I really enjoy the physics in all of this and I understand most of it. I bought an M1 with an Matrix White Tie at the end of last season. I also have about 6 shafts (some of which go back over 10 years) that have TMAG tips. Anyway I really liked the SLDR although on paper it should not have been a fit for me. On paper I need a more forgiving driver. Yesterday I put a high end lightweight shaft on the M1 fooled around with the loft adjustment and moved the CG weight all the way forward to its least forgiving position. I had a few “Holy Sht ” tee shots on the back nine that were easily 25 yards past my previous longest (notice the emphasis on a few). I think I understand why this may have worked but at days end I don’t care. I just love tinkering.

      Michael Manavian

      8 years ago

      Have Tony call or message me

      Reply

      Michael Manavian

      8 years ago

      Now that I’ve gotten to a place I can type let me fully answer some of your points.

      My image above is not regarding the m1, it is merely showing that a lot of shaft deflection is no good. More on that in a min.

      Secondly, iron Byron data shows that there about a 2* change in dynamic loft on a driver from the most rear setting to the most forward. (I’ll assume 3* when you add both weights but I can test this )

      Of all the golfers I’ve tested and fit, from tour players to beginners I have yet to see a golfer benefit from a back cg driver.

      My preference, that has been validated in the field, is that having the least amount of shaft deflection delivers the maximum amount of energy while not distorting the d plane. The more the deflection the more the club is going up, closing, and forward

      This way your shaft provides energy minimal loft, and the head delivers the majority of the loft.

      For ex. When attempting to achieve a dynamic loft of 15*, one could achieve this by putting a high deflection tip shaft with a 6* head. Or a minimal tip deflection shaft with a 12* head. My preference is the latter. When cg goes back, the amount of shaft deflection increases.

      Therefore, I have yet to understand why someone would as you stated in the article want to bend the tip of the shaft more for dynamic loft purposes, versus just adding static loft.

      All that said, one person’s high deflection tip shaft may play as a low deflection tip for another. In both cases a rear cg ALWAYS adds dynamic loft by increasing tip deflection . Hope that’s more thorough.

      Reply

      Ryan

      8 years ago

      PWNED! nicely done

      majik

      8 years ago

      ppl still use “PWNED”?? lol

      MyGolf Spy

      8 years ago

      Mike this is Tony… I understand the physics…deflection and even the impact the dynamic loft has on spinloft, and ultimately ball speed, but here’s my question:

      I have two drivers, both with a static loft of 9.5 degrees, both with identical head weights. For this example, one is the M1 (which in its standard configuration we can accurately describe as mid-CG). The other we’ll call driver X is a mid-backish CG club.

      All other factors being equal (same shaft, etc.) Driver X will produce more dynamic loft than the M1. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Back CG, for example is PING’s prevailing driver design philosophy.

      Now I swap my M1 weights around as described in the article (both rear) with the result being a CG placement that is identical to that of driver X (which on our chart would still be forward of G, High Heat, F6 and others.

      How is this inherently bad…or perhaps, more accurately, how is this inherently worse than an alternative mid-back CG design? The CG movement is an absolute factor. There’s no exponential effect (as it relates to the impact on dynamic loft, closure, toe droop, etc.) that results from a CG achieved by moving weights vs. static internal weighting.

      The resulting dynamic loft after the weight change would still be less some of the most popular drivers on the market.

      Now if you’re arguing that all back CG designs are inherently bad, that’s a whole other thing – and I suspect the guys at PING would disagree – but there’s nothing in our suggestion that would increase dynamic loft above what we already get from clubs with more rearward CGs.

      I suppose I should also point out that even in this config, the CG of the M1 still wouldn’t qualify as back. There’s at least a half dozen drivers on the market that would offer a more rearward CG.

      What I like about pushing the weight back is that it increases MOI, and depending on the initial loft setting, it may be possible to reduce static loft to offset the increase in dynamic loft while still benefiting from the higher MOI.

      All of that said, if I understand your fundamental argument, I don’t totally disagree. The more we dig and find more robust ways to consider the data, I’m starting to come around to thinking that like extreme forward CG, extreme rear CG drivers may fit the tail of the fitting bell curve. To put a number on it…38mm give or take from face center is where I’d ballpark the drop-off.

      Reply

      Michael Manavian

      8 years ago

      T, thanks for your response, I don’t think we’re saying the same thing.

      Increasing moi by moving the cg back, results in added shaft deflection. This is my issue. If you have a rear cg driver that has a shaft that deflects minimally then great, but you’re fighting city hall.

      Shaft deflection is something to be minimized. Moving weight back on the same shaft increases deflection.

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      8 years ago

      I get that, but my point is that deflection on an adjusted M1 would be no greater than you’d see if that same shaft was installed in another rear CG driver. So if you’re saying that rear CG is bad because of the shaft deflection, that’s fine. I’m saying be that as it may, it’s certainly no worse with an M1 (weight back) than it is with an equivalent back CG offering.

      So if I understand, you’re saying your not a big fan of back CG drivers, to which I’d add, “personally, me neither”. -TC

      Reply

      Michael Manavian

      8 years ago

      Yes, yes and yes ?

      Reply

      Michael Manavian

      8 years ago

      The ideal fit is with minimal deflection and minimal droop with the most loft, vs lots of deflection, lots of droop, and having to crank down the loft to offset it.

      Like you said if we took two drivers m1 (fwd weight) +m2 given the same shaft you would need two different lofts. And they would not play the same due to the deflection

      Reply

      Michael Manavian

      8 years ago

      Here are two shots that were very similar impact locations, note the difference in the shaft deflection and corresponding center of the face loft.

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      8 years ago

      Michael Manavian curious what the end result of these 2 shots was. If my math is correct (and that’s not a given), the difference in dynamic loft between these two swings is just a bit under half a degree, which is in the ballpark of what I’d expect with this particular CG change (even with both weights back, the mass tied to the structures necessary to create the track system limits how far the CG will move even between the extreme positions).

      Philosophical question…if the goal is always to eliminate deflection, why shouldn’t most everyone play a forward CG driver with the stiffest shaft possible?

      Drop me an email…let’s talk more about GEARS and your data ([email protected]).
      -TC

      Reply

      Michael Manavian

      8 years ago

      Philosophically, yes, all of my data points to forward cg with the least deflection as possible. Note: this is different than the stiffest shaft possible. I’ve seen golfers take the stiffest tips and deflect the heck out of it, as well as other’s take the softest tips and not deflect it. I’ll email you, but also check your fbook messages

      Reply

      George F Blackshaw IV

      8 years ago

      MyGolf Spy amen, I’m a mini tour player and have tried this, the ball absolutely goes forever off the 460 head, the 430 let’s say was not as generous, I’m still play a hot melted SLDR because I just trust it so much, great potential for anyone else looking for that added forgiveness in the M1 though?

      Reply

      David Price

      8 years ago

      Buy Ping and all is good.

      Reply

      Juliana Payne Wootten

      8 years ago

      So you made a M2

      Reply

      Nigel Turner

      8 years ago

      Buy a M2

      Reply

      Cace Smith

      8 years ago

      Or save money and buy an M2

      Reply

      Rob Head

      8 years ago

      Feels like hell though. You can also get a second black slider assembly which is normally 4-6 grams heavier than the Red and build a shorter heavier even lower spin M1 and turns into a CANNON !!! .. Not that it isn’t already

      Reply

      Chris Pepito Devl

      8 years ago

      If you want a more forgiving M1, buy a M2 !!!

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      How does that help the guy who already has the M1 ???

      Reply

      Kanoito

      8 years ago

      lol this guy…

      Reply

      Teaj

      8 years ago

      you could also move one weight to the most draw setting and the other to the most fade setting with the 15g weight to the draw or fade side depending what you want and the MOI would go up along with a lower CG setting no?

      Reply

      Jordan Negus

      8 years ago

      Jeremy Copeland food for thought.. if you want a higher ball flight, more forgiveness!

      Reply

      John Duval

      8 years ago

      Or even better, buy a Ping G

      Reply

      Kenny B

      8 years ago

      OEMs with drivers like the M1 which can be adjusted for the amount of weight and its distribution must meet the MOI specification of no greater than 5900 g cm2 in all of its possible configurations. The question becomes: Did TaylorMade measure the MOI with the weights moved to these configurations or just those possible by sliding the weights?

      This measurement is not easily performed. If an OEM has submitted a driver head having an MOI which is close to the limit, they should know if moving all the weights around or adding lead tape would likely render the club non-conforming. I’d call TaylorMade before doing this.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      Kenny – If you look at our CG charts you’ll see that nobody in the mainstream is anywhere near 5900 MOI. Moving the weights all the way back isn’t going to get it within 1000 of that number.

      It’s likely not even going to get it to where the M2 is.

      Not since the square driver craze has anyone really been close to the limit. With today’s materials, getting to 5900 requires some unconventional shaping (square or significantly elongated). Golfers still flock to relatively traditional shapes, so I think it will be a while before anyone chases the limit again.

      Reply

      Kenny B

      8 years ago

      Thanks for the clarification. In that case I would say that this would be a very good, inexpensive tip for certain owners of an M1. Nice!

      Pierre

      8 years ago

      More Forgiving, yes, but before, you could use a 460cc head instead of 430cc ! :)

      Reply

      kyle

      8 years ago

      Do you have any idea what the MOI number would be after doing this?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      Ballpark 4500 (give or take 100) would be my guess. Nearly M2, but not quite.

      Reply

      majik

      8 years ago

      How would this affect distance? Not as long, but “straighter”?

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      Distance gains or loss really depends on the player. I believe that, in this config, the CG isn’t so far back as to cause issues. You will have guys for whom distance may improve, others for whom it won’t. We simply wanted to provide an alternative weight placement that wasn’t as obvious.

      As for straighter…that’s a bit of a misconception. Straightness is largely a function of bulge and roll, however, if you have difficulty squaring the face, the additional MOI will increase the dynamic closure rate. So for some, that could result in straighter shots. For others, it may result in a ball that starts left of the intended line.

      The benefit of higher MOI is less gearing…more stability, which means more consistent ball speed and less distance loss of off-center hits.

      Mr.Apex

      7 years ago

      Wow, it did the trick for me. Consistently raised ball height, reduced ball spin. More consistent straight drives. Club also feels more balanced, lighter. I won’t be changing any settings for quite a while. M1 460 Kuro Kage tini 60 S. 282.5 avg.

      Michael

      8 years ago

      I can’t think it would make the club non-conforming.

      1. I’m sure Tony would have mentioned it in the article.

      2. Bryson DeChambeau uses his Cobra F6+ without the weight on the track.

      Reply

      majik

      8 years ago

      didn’t know that about Bryson – did they say why he doesn’t use the weight (other than the obvious he prefers it that way lol).

      Reply

      Rob

      8 years ago

      Great tutorial! Definitely gives even more adjustability to an already highly customizable club. Any idea if moving the weights around like this make the club non-conforming, especially if no weight is in one of the tracks?

      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.