Is this the Next Big Bertha?

This morning I stumbled upon a recent Callaway patent application titled CG HEIGHT ADJUSTABILITY BY CONFORMAL WEIGHTING. It caught my attention for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, the technology described is actually really cool (and fun), and has the potential to overcome some of the issues/limitations of current Callaway technology.

Secondly, and I’ll admit to finding this part amusing, Callaway’s patent authors appear to have gone out of their way to describe the deficiencies with that current technology.

Here’s the absract.

They keywords here are removably affixed. Effectively what Callaway is describing a system in which the crown itself is a movable weight, or a system in which the crown can be removed to access movable weights.

You have my attention.

Here’s the overview.

For those finding themselves asking “To what end?”, Callaway has your answer.

Certainly one interpretation of Callaway’s ultimate intent is that the company wants to push the center of gravity even higher than they’re able to accomplish with current Alpha designs. It’s a bit odd when you consider that TaylorMade, Cobra, and others are dedicating their efforts to pushing center the center of gravity as close to, and in some cases, below the neutral axis as possible, but Callaway has been nothing, if not consistent, with this particular philosophy.

We can save the performance debate for another day, but what’s amusing to me is that Callaway’s patent team explicitly lays out the flaws with current Callaway technology.

We’ve talked about this at length…structure, whether it’s for a gravity core, a track weighting system for anything that slides or flips, or even just the simple port that a fixed weight screws into, has a weight cost. That cost is what prevents designers from optimizing the placement of whatever discretionary weight is left after the bones of the club are laid out.

Structure is not a Callaway-only problem. Companies constantly struggle to balance the adjustability that golfers want with the performance characteristics they need. Adjustability itself is a limitation and ultimately a compromise.

With that said, any straight-talking R&D guy without a chevron on his shirt will tell you that the most inefficient place to dedicate structural mass is in the center of the clubhead. An example might be a centrally located tube that runs from the crown to the sole.

Sound familiar?

While Callaway engineers were as efficient as they could be given the realities of the Alpha design, I believe the central structure problem is exactly why Callaway moved to a dual-tube, perimeter system for the 816 iteration of Alpha.

Structure, however, is only half the problem with current Callaway technology. The gravity core is, itself, an inefficiency. Heavy end, light end, with mass-eating material connecting the two. That connective tissue has a cost, so why not eliminate the ends, and the middle, and just put a single heavy weight where you want your mass concentrated?

That’s where the design laid out in this new patent application comes into play.

If you believe there’s value in a hight CG setting, as Callaway clearly does, the most efficient way to raise mass is to affix your weight directly to the crown. Imagine what that might look like. The Callaway patent application acknowledges what we’re all thinking; “such installations are visibly distracting at address”.

That’s one way of saying that nobody wants to look at a weight port in the top of their driver. Even PXG wouldn’t put screws in the crown…at least I don’t think it would.

So what’s the solution?

This is the really cool part of Callaway’s design. The patent describes “a lightweight crown removably affixed to the skeletal support structure”.

Holy Shit! Removable crowns. I want that. I can’t say exactly why, but I definitely want that.

How Might This Work

Unlock the outer shell to reveal a structure that contains at least one weight port, though as you can see from the drawings, multiple weight ports are likely. Since patents are generally broad in scope and designed to cover as many bases as possible, it should be noted that these ports could be basically any shape (hex weighting) or size, and the weights themselves could be made from nearly any material. They could be fixed or removable. They could be basically anything.

Apart from the cool factor that comes from being able to remove the crown (and potentially the sole) of your driver (did I mention that I want that?), what’s really intriguing about this design is that eliminates much of support structure that limits current movable weight designs. Yes, there is mass tied up in the trusses that support the crown itself, but if the goal is to move mass higher in the clubhead, that structure actually helps achieve the goal.

The applications aren’t limited to high CG either. Weight back, weight low, it could all work. Ultimately it’s an idea that seeks to give golfers the adjustability they want, while removing a significant percentage of the inefficiencies (performance costs) that come with it.

It’s Closer Than You Think

While we can’t yet be certain that Callaway will have the technology ready for late summer 2016, we also know that Callaway isn’t alone in looking at what I guess we should call removable shell drivers. We’ve seen Cobra patents in the past, and we can only assume others are working on it as well.

The big question is whether or not this technology would be consumer serviceable.

Would you be interested in a driver with a removable/interchangeable crown and/or sole?

For more details, see US Patent Application #20150297960.