TaylorMade M1 (vs) Taylormade R7 SuperQuad

Post image for TaylorMade M1 (vs) Taylormade R7 SuperQuad

Is newer really better?

Is a new $500 driver really that much better than a $50 bargain barrel classic? It's one of our most frequently asked questions.

If you believe what we're told, golf club technology sure has come a heck of a long way in the last 10 years. Seriously, we've got weight tracks, gravity cores, speed slots, turbulators, geo-acoustics and plenty more.

Does any of it make a difference? Are we really hitting the ball any farther, and if so, how much?

m1vssq-final-1

 

A YEAR, OR 10, IN REVIEW

TaylorMade has long been on the forefront of driver innovation, consistently boasting and bolstering its reputation as the #1 Driver in Golf.

In 2004, with the release of the r7 Quad driver, TaylorMade brought movable weight technology to the masses. 3 years later TaylorMade again revolutionized the market with the introduction of the r7 SuperQuad. With its maximum allowable 460cc head clubhead volume and four movable weights, the driver captured the attention, and to no small degree, the hearts of golfers everywhere.

SuperQuad was revolutionary stuff...26 grams of adjustability was a lot of weight to move back then, and still is today.

r Yields to M

Fast forward 10 years and TaylorMade has evolved driver adjustability from plugs to an advanced system containing not one, but a two track movable weights. All titanium construction replaced by a muli-material amalgamation of metal and composite.

And holy hell, did it perform. The 2016 M1 arguably achieved iconic status as one of the best-performing drivers TaylorMade has ever produced. It DoM1nated our 2016 Most Wanted Driver Test.

But how does today's icon stand-up against the last decade's? We wanted to learn how far technology has progressed over the years, and so we put the M1 and the SuperQuad to the test.

 

m1vssq-2-final-2

HOW WE TESTED

  • Two TaylorMade drivers were tested head to head to head (M1 and r7 SuperQuad).
  • Both were tested at 10.5° loft (M1 weights in neutral, SuperQuad 12 gram weights forward).
  • Seven golfers with handicaps ranging from 0-15 and driver swing speeds between 90 and 115 mph participated in this test.
  • Each tester hit 12-14 shots for each club from every set (frequently rotating between clubs).
  • Gross mishits were eliminated and are not included in the shot counts.
  • Remaining outliers were identified using Median Absolute Deviation (both distance and offline), and dropped before calculation of the final averages.
  • All testers hit Bridgestone B330-RX Golf Balls.
  • Ball Data was recorded using a Foresight GC2 Launch Monitor.

 

THE RESULTS

data_table

OBSERVATIONS:

The results are what we'd expect, or at least what the consumer would hope. 10 years of technology improvements should yield a better driver, and our data suggests that, in nearly every respect, it has.

  • While average ball speed is up just over .5 mph, Carry and Total Distance increases are substantial.The M1 produced an average a 14 more yards (total distance).
  • This is attributable to better launch and spin characteristics from the M1. Balls launched higher and spun less. Balls flew higher and farther and produced more roll.
  • Although the SuperQuad did not perform as well as the M1, small differences in standard deviations of both ball speed and carry distance suggest that the SuperQuad is marginally more forgiving.
  • Pairing that with shot area as a measure of consistency, the SuperQuad on average produced a smaller dispersion. This isn't surprising as we generally find that shorter clubs produce tighter dispersion.
  • It is also important to note that not a single tester produced a larger dispersion area with the SuperQuad compared to the M1.

 

m1vssq-1-final-34

 m1-superquad-chart

THE VERDICT

The data suggests that your buddy who insists on still gaming that SuperQuad (or some other antiquated driver) is hurting his golf game. Next time you see him warming up with that thing, bring the following to his attention:

  • In all but one category, the launch monitor data suggests the M1 is far superior to the SuperQuad.
  • 10 years of technology improvements have increased ball speed, launch angle while decreasing spin; contributing to a significant gain in distance.
  • While we would call these numbers significant, it's reasonable to note the number of drivers that TaylorMade has released since the r7 SuperQuad in 2007.
    • By our count it's 27, and that excludes the SuperQuad, the M1 and any Tour or TP models.
  • With allowances for the fact that different drivers occupy different spaces in the market, over the span of 27 drivers, TaylorMade has engineered an average of 14 yards of additional distance while dropping spin by 800 rpm.  That's an average of 2.7 drivers and 1.4 yards per year.

While both the M1 and SuperQuad featured groundbreaking TaylorMade technology, 10 years is enough to validate the notion of "Out with the old, in with the new."

When there's a decade in-between, we might want to rephrase that as "New out-drives the old."

But by all means, keep gaming the old stuff, leave those yards on the table, while continuing to argue that your Cleveland Launcher still out drives anything on the market today.

About Sam Robinson

Sam is the Director of the MyGolfSpy Testing Facility. After receiving his B.S.B.A. in Marketing, Sam joined the MyGolfSpy team where he works day in and day out to bring you the most comprehensive and unbiased golf equipment test results.

#PowerToThePlayer

Visit Website
View All Posts

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Your Subject (required)

Your Message (required)



Comments

{ 138 comments… read them below or add one }

Dunny Budgie January 16, 2017 at 8:44 am

Had a fitting a couple of days ago through Titleist. Put my 905R (old Speeder 757 x-flex) up against the 917 D2 & D3 (new Speeder 757 x-flex) and nothing! If anything, the 905R felt more solid with a better more piercing ball flight. Saved some coin

Reply

Josh Winstanley January 15, 2017 at 4:24 pm

I still use the R7 425 stiff and wouldnt change if for the world, so what i may be 14 yards behind the M1 but sometime you can be too long! Short game far more important!

Reply

Arrvind Prasanna Das January 15, 2017 at 4:20 pm

Yes there is a change ! More than tech its the golfer in me i aged for a 9 years since r 7 superquad to m1 . I understand now its not the equipment but the golfer behind the equipment ! U can live without the extra 20 yards but you will seldom win without it!

Reply

Alex Hardin January 14, 2017 at 3:40 am

I still game a R7 superquad and I absolutely love it.

Reply

Rye Bread January 14, 2017 at 1:19 am

I can take my Cleveland Launcher 440 TI and hit it past both of these Taylormade products. It’s all about the shaft and head combo that work best for an individual

Reply

Seamus Crawford January 13, 2017 at 1:25 pm

I love that MGS did this study with the SQ. I fell in LUST with the SQ after hitting it in the cage at golf galaxy. At the time, my I was struggling mightily with my swing, and that was a 20 handicap swing when it was working. I could not hit any club close to pure. I was window shopping and decided to try SQ because I loved the all black look 😊. I was crushing it. 290+ (compared to constant 200 yard mis-hits I was getting at the time), time after time, perfect launch angle, great carry distance…loved it. I couldn’t afford it then, and never got one, but still consider picking one up all the time.
On to the test, I see the value of using each driver totally stock and in mostly “neutral” positions. However, I think I if we really want to see how far technology has taken us, testing each club in the ideal set up for each swinger is very valuable information. A great deal of the technological advancement is the adjustability. Theoretically, I can gain yards and/or accuracy by optimizing the set up of the weight. I can optimize the spin rate, launch angle, etc., of the club for my swing. So, testing them while optimized for an individual’s swing is truly comparing how far technology has taken us.

Reply

Mark Fragiao January 13, 2017 at 10:51 am

Well…It looks like my wife will be gaming her pink SuperQuad for awhile and the spend the 500 bucks on more fricken shoes. hehe

Reply

Robert Bicknell January 13, 2017 at 4:38 am

OK, time to chime in. I’m a pro and sponsored by TaylorMade. With that disclaimer out of the way, let me just say from personal experience, the M1 and M2 give much more distance. I use slightly shorter shafts because accuracy is more important than distance to me (distance I’ve got anyway). The technology is vastly different than the days of the Cleveland Launcher (which was awesome in its day). This is due to lower spin off the club face and increased roll. To me, the first RBZ driver was easiest to control. SLDR was more accurate than the M1. But the new M2 is the best so far. Huge distance and can thread a needle (when I’m not swinging like a flying assclown). That’s my two cents.

Reply

Mike Eovino January 12, 2017 at 11:22 pm

Thanks for providing this test, but it’s hardly earth shattering. 14 yards in a decade is not that surprising. What *would* be an interesting test would be to see how something like your 2013 Most Wanted Driver, the Cobra Fly-Z, stacks up against both clubs. Should that guy still gaming the R7 SQ really jump all the way up to the M1, or at nearly $400 less, is the Fly-Z a solid alternative at a much lower cost?

Reply

Mike Eovino January 12, 2017 at 11:24 pm

Sorry, I meant 2015 Most Wanted…

Reply

MyGolfSpy January 13, 2017 at 2:23 pm

We did not state it was earth shattering. We simply test product and the data and results are what they are. We are just here to learn and provide valuable info to consumers.

Reply

Mike Eovino January 13, 2017 at 8:35 pm

Understood, but would you guys consider a test against a two or three year old driver against the current Most Wanted?

Reply

Jonathan Zajicek January 12, 2017 at 9:39 pm

I really think you need to get the same shafts in each head. Of something that has changed more over the years than the head (COR limited by USGA), shafts (materials, profiles and consistently) have changed significantly. I think you’d see much closer performance of the 2 heads for those that the shaft fits well.

Reply

Patick Geraghty January 12, 2017 at 9:01 pm

Dispersion has to be the most important element unless your not playing a tight course! I don’t want to hit it 14 yards further into o.b.!
Personal preference perhaps?

Reply

Ken Walters January 12, 2017 at 9:00 pm

Every TM I’ve hit after the r7 has felt terrible. I keep an r7 quad in the bag, and would probably be broken for life if something happened to it. I like the feel of the Ping G series drivers and want to try the Mizuno JPX900. But I’ll never get rid of the r7

Reply

Erko Hansar January 12, 2017 at 8:35 pm

Hilarious – “while continuing to argue that your Cleveland Launcher still out drives anything on the market today.” – I just happened to order the M2 last week to replace a Cleveland Launcher …

Reply

Darren Morgan January 12, 2017 at 6:33 pm

10 years of technology for 12 yards more carry… it’s the player not the club!! James Drew

Reply

Matthew Underwood January 12, 2017 at 9:33 am

As with others, I think the shaft issue here is telling. It’s worth noting that the author attributed the tighter dispersion to the shorter shaft, but neglected to give the longer shaft any credit for distance. I get that they are both stock, but it is a point worth making.

Reply

Robert Bicknell January 13, 2017 at 4:43 am

Dispersion differences through shaft length can be minimized by flex. Two standard s-flex shafts, one cut to 44″ and the other cut to 45″, the 44″ is more accurate. However, if you cut the 45″ more from the bottom instead of the hilt, you make it slightly stiffer and reduce the dispersion but still get the benefits of an increased radius.

Reply

Mike French January 13, 2017 at 9:39 pm

Removing an inch from the tip of a graphite driver shaft will not make it slightly more stiff, it will make it considerably more stiff. Let’s say the stiff shaft is playing at 260cpm, each quarter of an inch removed will increase the CPM between 4 and 5 CPM. 10 CPM equals one flex step (270 CPM is x-stiff). Minus 1″ would raise the CPM between 16 & 20 CPM. That would give us a XX stiff driver or, a stiff 5-wood (the 5-wood head weighs about 15 to 17 grams more than the Driver head). As a general guideline, each half inch of tip removal makes the shaft play one flex stiffer. Hope this helps.

Reply

Shawn Goodman January 11, 2017 at 4:15 pm

I own 3 282 heads 8.5 and 10.5 they are much lower spin and the numbers areas good as m1 or m2 with it. Best taylormade offering to date still demand a premium dollar but the feel is much better than m1. Amazing club. They wouldn’t want to post actual numbers of a 282 head against the m series.

Reply

Matt Meis January 11, 2017 at 3:47 pm

I still game my Superquad & crush it. Won a brand new R15 & sold it bc it wasn’t any longer & was less accurate.

Reply

Scotty January 11, 2017 at 7:38 am

I wish that I had seen this before the weekend as I just dumped my r7 superquad for a G30, 15 yards ain’t really worth £250! Dammmm

Reply

Amen Corner January 11, 2017 at 9:55 am

good improvement

Reply

Collin Campbell January 11, 2017 at 4:36 am

Wait 6-12 months for the next TM offering and get yourself “last years model” for 1/2 the cost. You’re welcome.

Reply

Matt Heister January 12, 2017 at 7:47 pm

6 months? That’s callaway my man

Reply

Christopher Holman January 11, 2017 at 3:24 am

Made me laugh when I read about the Cleveland Launcher comment! Lol, in the back of my mind still today! And of course, I still own it, never giving that thing up! Haha ⛳️

I do think they should have used the same shaft and length though…. only fair

Reply

Steve Almo January 12, 2017 at 8:58 pm

100% correct.

Reply

Arrvind Prasanna Das January 15, 2017 at 4:23 pm

Launcer 460 with the fujikura gold shaft was awesome so was taylormade 580 xd so was 983k just wonder why do they keep changing what works and make it worse but not better! Then suddenly after years they launch something that works. Finding a good teacher , mentor in golf is the toughest thing thats what i have learnt and then nothing is free and nothing is to be given free golf teaches you that too!

Reply

Zachary Andrew January 16, 2017 at 3:43 am

The launcher 460 was the best driver I’ve ever owned. Had a high 80s gram Penley X stiff and I couldn’t miss a fairway. Cracked the face and was never able to find something that kept up to this day

Reply

Christian Pederson January 11, 2017 at 1:33 am

510TP Speeder 757 Fujikura X shaft. Still “the best”. I’ve sheared off 6 shafts. I’m on the last known… The head will cost you 10 bucks, it’s all about confidence commitment and timing.

Reply

John Templet January 11, 2017 at 1:17 am

That being said, upgrade every 3 years or so.

Reply

John Templet January 11, 2017 at 1:16 am

Drive for show……

Reply

Jeremy Raulinaitis January 11, 2017 at 12:10 am

Nathan Hays I was really hoping the r7 walloped it

Reply

Vincejr61 January 10, 2017 at 6:43 pm

I also hit the SQ- with the stock shaft. I’m 56, play maybe once a quarter, but love the game. I live on a course, so get to hit driver frequently. I carry the ball 250 to 260 ( there’s a bunker in that landing area, so I know where ball lands). My issue is that the ball seems to go too high, and I lose roll out.. I have a speeder 757 stiff shaft in a quad ( I get better roll with the quad and speeder, but a LOT less forgiving ). Would I see better results in reshafting the SQ with the speeder, or buying a used M1????

Reply

Grant Walker January 10, 2017 at 11:26 pm

Driver I hit the best of all TM drivers was the R580!

Reply

Josh Winstanley January 15, 2017 at 4:25 pm

Loved my 580 shame that its now illegal

Reply

Greggytees January 10, 2017 at 6:18 pm

Been shooting since 8th grade, be 68 next wk. Certified club builder, fitter, USGTF teaching pro, 20 years–do the math. On a super cold day in the Midwest last week flipped on Shell’s World of Golf. Palmer was playing against someone I can’t remember. Had to be around 1964-65-66. Steel shafts, persimmon heads, down the middle of the fairway 264 yrds. both of them. Now I know there was only one Arnie. So I asked my son who is an avid golfer, single digit handicap, has his Ph.D. in Astro Physics, works for NASA, to help me out on where we should be today after over 50 yrs of golf technology. Crunched all numbers and stuff that I had no idea what the hell he was talking about. Tony, Adam, you got to talk to my kid.

All new head technology, carbon fiber shafts, etc., pretty good golfers should be hitting drivers 437 yrds down the slot. Actually I’ve known this for years. But would anybody take me seriously? I believe not. I’m not as smart as a NASA physicist. My kids always been one swing ahead of me.

Reply

Seamus Crawford January 13, 2017 at 1:02 pm

This brings up a few questions in my mind. Maybe he should write an article, I would definitely read it! I wonder how much closer the real numbers would be to these numbers without the COR limits since some of the technological advances would be truncated by the rule restrictions? Or, assuming he considered the COR limits in his calculations, how far “should” pretty good golfers be hitting it down the slot these days if COR could be maximized? That would be AWESOME!!!

Reply

Liam Poulter January 10, 2017 at 6:10 pm

Only today I discovered your website when investigating the Kirkland signiture ball (any tips on how to get my hands on them massively appreciated)… on both articles why not test the balls / clubs on the Iron Byron? Surely a 15 handicapper / even a scratch is throwing a few dodgy swings in the mix? I’d feel way more confident on results from a machine that can’t make a bad swing?

Reply

Simon Toplis January 10, 2017 at 10:05 pm

Good review but I can make a driver in my shed 10 years old be as good today’s made up of a few old bits.

Reply

Mark January 11, 2017 at 1:04 am

I’m calling BS on this – you think your test is more accurate than GolfSpy? haha….
Only exception is if you hit your drive 150 yards, then you’re right – with that level of talent – it doesn’t matter what club you swing.

Reply

Simon Toplis January 11, 2017 at 9:09 pm

Ok found an Callaway ft3 head. I think it’s 2004/05. Just need to put a shaft in knocking about and will see how it fairs up against my Ping G30. I didn’t say it would be a 10 year old shaft though. I don’t have luxury of trackman data so will go off distance and dispersion. Weather not great in U.K. This weekend but will post the results with a video when it fairs up.

Reply

craig shelton January 10, 2017 at 9:56 pm

I loved my r7 super quad until after hitting a drive I cracked the sole of the driver from one end to the other. Thanks Taylor made for telling me their was nothing you could do about it.

Reply

Gregi CR Johnson January 13, 2017 at 2:12 am

What would you expect them to do? Replace it with a brand new driver? Club companies don’t stock 10 year old clubs and warranties on drivers are good for a year. A club with that much damage is unfixable. Taylormade has amazing warranty service, within reason. None of the major brands would warranty a 10 year old club that had seen thousands of swings. It’s unfortunate that your club cracked but don’t blame the company for not replacing said club.

Reply

Timbo January 10, 2017 at 4:45 pm

Test is basically faulty. Unless you test like for like then theirs no point. The ball at the time matters a lot to the test as its a true comparison not a manufactured one for commercial purposes…..If you test a 10 year old club with a modern ball you will get results that are not true. The results for the 10 year old will be different and impossible to do in the time the 10 year old club was “Current”. To say 15 yards is worth 500 dollars is madness just hit it harder…!!!

Reply

Mark January 11, 2017 at 1:09 am

Wow, you completely missed the point. The question was if your 10 year old driver can compare to today’s driver.
In other words, is it time for you to upgrade?!?

Try to keep up and not be so cynical about disproving MGS’s scientific math against your opinion.
If I wanted YOUR opinion, I’d give it to you. I’ll take the facts any day and every day.

My Golf Spy, you guys rock! Thank you for the free, factual and unbiased information!
You’re asking questions we all want to know!

Reply

FTWPhil January 12, 2017 at 8:35 pm

Mygolfspy is the most critical critic who most likely created the notion you are beckoning.

Reply

Steve Pearcy January 10, 2017 at 4:33 pm

How about a longer shaft in the Superquad? Distance would be longer at the price of greater dispersion. Overall results might be loser.

Reply

Zach January 11, 2017 at 1:19 pm

Longer shaft doesn’t always mean longer distance. You’ll forsure gain more swing speed, but you’ll also get more spin, because the shaft will become more flexible. How do I know this? I’m a certified club fitter from Ping and Titleist

Reply

Steve Pearcy January 12, 2017 at 9:21 am

Thanks. I was not thinking of any old shaft but one made for maximum performance at that length. My. Point was to determine if it’s the head that’s “longer”.

Reply

FTWPhil January 12, 2017 at 8:37 pm

High launch+low spin+more ball speed= DISTANCE!

Everything else is speculation, and happenstance.

Reply

Robert Geoffrey Fay Fouts January 10, 2017 at 9:20 pm

Longest drive I’ve ever hit was south an r7 quad HT with a 43 inch motore

Reply

William Tyler January 10, 2017 at 9:12 pm

Exactly. Thats why im not upgrading my irons until theres significant change in technology

Reply

Bryn White January 10, 2017 at 9:08 pm

But to go back to your first statement, stock shafts should have been used to bit not the same one. The shaft is also going to give you some extra yards. I personally wouldn’t use an r7 due to the spin the head has so I prefer newer technology in that regard.

Reply

Harold W January 10, 2017 at 4:03 pm

Gimmicks, Gimmicks,Gimmicks and that looks like a plain sole plate like the USGA is looking for from Wilson. What to do with all their inventory

Reply

Lance Warheit January 10, 2017 at 8:50 pm

Cost is a factor in what you carry in your bag too. The article closes in a condescending tone towards folks that ride on an old driver they liked.
Yet the article opens with an obvious factor in what club you choose: this is a comparison between a $500 new age driver and a $50 bargain bin find. That’s an extra $450. *And it would have been a $300+ club 10 years ago, so expensive at the time. Not like comparing it to carrying a $50 generic/knockoff brand cheapo driver.
I Paid $35 last summer for my r7 draw, polished it, regripped it for another $11, and enjoy having a club that performs that close to a $500 club.
And keeping that extra $450 in my pocket (theoretically, as if I had that extra $450 in the first place)
To each his own. Can’t wait for winter to end to go tee it up again!

Reply

Jon Brittan January 10, 2017 at 8:41 pm

But they weren’t testing the heads, the opening blurb says it’s a new driver against a bargain bin one, so what would be the outcome if you walked into a shop and bought both…
It’s unlikely you’d go out, buy an old head and then shove a couple of hundreds-worth of shaft into it.

It would be interesting to see the differences in both heads on the same shafts, but that’s not what they were testing here…

Reply

FTWPhil January 12, 2017 at 8:43 pm

Driver heads aren’t all equal. That “shaft is the motor” spiel is rubbage. There is no magical golf product. Just physics.

Reply

DL January 10, 2017 at 3:07 pm

Thanks again to MGS for a great article, I’ve always been wondering (and asking!) for these exact same results. I think it would be great to add an old driver to all of the Most Wanted driver tests to put it in perspective.

One poster had an interesting comment earlier about testing old ball + old driver vs. new ball + new driver. A true test of 10 years ago vs now, guessing 20 yards difference? What about ProV1 from 2006 vs 2016?

Reply

FTWPhil January 12, 2017 at 8:45 pm

Ball technology passed driver tech. Driver tech is now catching up. Maybe a wound ball for argument sake, but that is just arguing.

Reply

James Hsiao January 10, 2017 at 8:05 pm

Bam!

Reply

JDharma January 10, 2017 at 2:38 pm

Very cool test. Thanks MGS

Reply

Connor T. Lewis January 10, 2017 at 7:21 pm

Very cool article

Reply

Bobby Jordan January 10, 2017 at 7:10 pm

Looks like a setup issue. With less than 1mph difference in ball speed I’d imagine setup correctly r7 would be within 5 yards.

Reply

Ryan January 10, 2017 at 3:31 pm

…and what if M1 was setup correctly as well?

Reply

FTWPhil January 12, 2017 at 8:46 pm

IT’S SPIN RATE!

Reply

dcorun January 10, 2017 at 1:54 pm

I think I’ll go another year with my R15 shafted with a Accra F150. I haven’t hit it against any of the new drivers yet but, it’s still long enough for me. With the Accra shaft, it is also more forgiving and accurate. Maybe a new driver for Christmas or in 2018.

Reply

tiger168 January 10, 2017 at 1:40 pm

Hi Sam, the article mentioned that the R7 is “shorter”. Can you please indicate the shaft characteristics of each club? total weight? length? swing weight? what kind of shaft (model)??

Reply

Jericho January 10, 2017 at 1:29 pm

You need to use the same shaft right down to the CPM better yet use the exact same shaft for both heads the technology in carbon fiber and graphite literally improve every few months .. You can’t take some old 10-year-old shaft and expect decent results. Case in point I had the black SuperQuad with a nice aftermarket shaft and was putting them out there nicely! .. I put a pretty good move on the golf ball I’ve had some shots with the SuperQuad that went further and some that were shorter.. Overall they all came out in the wash about even .. At that point it’s all about what looks good to your eye and address and which one carries the best sound and feel for the individual

Reply

Count Tyrone Rugan January 10, 2017 at 12:53 pm

I think what gets lost here is the advancement in manufacturing technology. 10 years ago titanium casting and carbon “forging” could not produce the consistent thickness and strengths that today’s manufacturing process provide. Welding has got more accurate and precise due to laser and robotic welding. Carbon technology has got lighter and stronger due to weaves and different resins. So, innovation may not have made leaps and bounds, but manufacturing technology has got much better over the last 10 years.

Reply

Carolina Golfer 2 January 10, 2017 at 12:52 pm

yes, but it wasn’t robot testing…ha…sorry couldn’t resist :)

Good stuff, it is good to see that new technology is providing more yardage. I know I bought a new–model year 2017–driver this year and the fitting and demo showed me 14 more yards over my 2015 driver. The gain was worth the cost for me.

Reply

Sage January 10, 2017 at 12:49 pm

Wait a second, SQ lost because it launched lower? You put both 12g weights forward so of course it launched lower. Move the weights back and do it over!

Reply

Tony Covey January 10, 2017 at 1:02 pm

Would make for an interesting addendum to the test, but see my previous post. When you increase launch you introduce changes to both spin and ball speed that could work against the total distance.

Reply

Steve S January 10, 2017 at 2:11 pm

Tony, isn’t ball speed primarily a function of COR and swing speed, assuming you hit the “sweet spot”? I can see launch angle affecting spin but not sure that the physics explain launch affecting ball speed.

Reply

Tony Covey January 10, 2017 at 2:41 pm

Basically, the physics are that as spin loft increases, compression – effectively smash factor – decreases, so you’re getting less efficient energy transfer (lower ball speed) at otherwise equivalent swing speed/impact conditions.

So for example, take 2 swings at identical speeds and absolutely identical impact location. Assume identical attack angles, but different dynamic lofts. With attack angles consistent (and assume path and face angle consistencies as well), the one with more dynamic loft will produce greater spin loft resulting in a lower smash factor. Given the equation for smash factor (ball speed divided by head speed), the only way that happens is if ball speed decreases.

It’s really interesting stuff, though not something most consider. There’s even a school of thought that says the best fitting head/shaft combo is the one that minimizes deflection and with it dynamic loft, principally due to the spin loft equation.

Of course, we should also account for the fact that we may want to hit the ball straight, so it’s also worth mentioning again; as spin loft increases the spin axis tilts less (it’s why we don’t hook wedges like we do 5-irons). So all other factors equal, the driver that produces the greater spin loft will also produce the straighter ball flight.

Reply

Steve S January 11, 2017 at 11:28 am

Tony,

Ok…not sure I totally buy into the dynamic loft story but since shaft flex may cause the ball to not get a perfect strike(absolutely perpendicular to the club face) I’ll accept it for now.

What’s weird is that the Ping study (which you quote elsewhere) shows that for 140 mph ball speed the maximum distance(250 carry) is at a launch angle of close to 19 degrees with spin differences of 1800 to 3000rpm accounting for only 2 yards difference (248-250). Even 3500 rpm results in only 2 more yards loss(246)

That would say that we should be launching the ball higher and not worry about spin about 3000 rpm (with 140 mph ball speed) since no launch angles lower than 19, at any spin result, in more carry.

Reply

Tony Covey January 11, 2017 at 12:55 pm

I’d have to go back and look more closely at the study, but with nearly every launch chart you get into a red zone where it’s hard to maintain consistent launch characteristics (high face produces too little spin) , so most will recommend a safer spot on the chart.

Generally speaking, as swing speeds go down, higher launch is preferable, but you also have to look at angle of attack when trying to reach optimal. The reality is that for many golfers, to get to 19° you’re going to push well beyond the 3000 RPM range. If I’m throwing out numbers for guys in the 100 MPH range (the average for a good bit of the tests we do), I like 14° and 2100 RPM. If I can get guys there, nobody is ever disappointed. As head speeds drop, we start trying increase launch (and with that, you get an increase in spin).

Regarding the Spin Loft stuff, if you’re curious, obviously google is the quick answer, but might be worth signing up for a Trackman University account (free) and digging into some of the lessons contained within. It’s really cool stuff.

Reply

Steve S. January 11, 2017 at 4:20 pm

Thanks, Tony, I’ll check it out.

Reply

Andrew Bourne January 11, 2017 at 3:46 pm

Remember carry doesn’t equal total distance.
All this extra spin you’re losing massive rollout distances.

Reply

Steve S January 11, 2017 at 4:19 pm

“Roll out” is a wild card totally dependent of course conditions. Around here most of the spring will get you soft fairways and almost no roll out no matter what the spin is. When the courses dry out in the summer and the air is lighter the ball will travel further due to aerodynamics and will still hit a hard fair way and rollout. There is a reason why the longest drivers hit the ball very high…carry is important to overall distance. You also have to remember that by the time the ball hits the ground a lot of the spin is gone.

Reply

FTWPhil January 12, 2017 at 8:49 pm

Dude you saying “carry”. Launch a ball at 19* with 3000 rpm and get 2 yds roll. 1700 rpm is 20 most likely.

Reply

Bob Pegram January 13, 2017 at 12:41 am

At 1700 RPM the ball will hit the ground sooner for most golfers. That means less carry and higher ball speed at the point of impact resulting in longer roll out. Obviously the initial launch angle is a major factor in carry when spin is low. With typical driver launch angles, low spin means less carry.

Reply

Sage January 10, 2017 at 2:59 pm

Sure it’s a possibility. However, for the fairness of the test, SQ could possibly benefit from a higher launch. Or better yet, both drivers should have results in both high and low settings and compare the optimal numbers.

Reply

Alfriday January 10, 2017 at 12:41 pm

A couple of questions for MGS regarding the statement in the article: “Pairing that with shot area as a measure of consistency, the SuperQuad on average produced a smaller dispersion. This isn’t surprising as we generally find that shorter clubs produce tighter dispersion.”

According to Taylormade, the R7 Superquad came standard with a 45 inch shaft.

https://taylormadegolf.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-TMaG-Library/default/v1459859109590/docs/productspecs/r7_Superquad_SS.pdf

The M1, comes standard with a 45.5 inch shaft. So we are talking a difference of ½ inch in shaft length. Were the tests done with standard length shafts?

Assuming that the shafts were standard lengths, how much difference would the ½ inch make in distance and consistency? I assume some difference, but not enough to account for the differences shown in the test.

MGS recently tested the Calaway BB Fusion with both 44.5 and 45.5 shaft lengths, a difference of one inch.

https://www.mygolfspy.com/2017-callaway-big-bertha-fusion-driver-review/

The results:

“While still below the 45.5″ Ball speed and Total Yards deficits are again only marginally smaller with the 44.5″ shaft; with the 44.5″ shaft producing 2.5 yards more carry and 3 yards more total distance on average.”

“The shorter shaft produced shots that were, on average, roughly 2.57 yards closer to the center line than the 45.5″ model.”

Do you think the results would be similar for the M1 using a shorter shaft? If so, the M1 would lose 3 yards because with a 1 inch shorter shaft and 1.5 yards with a ½ inch shorter shaft. There would also be a slight gain in consistency.

Does that sound about right? The newer M1 would still be longer and a bit less accurate.

How much less accurate is the M1? The shot area in m2 is given. That is a gross measure, albeit, a very helpful one. If I hit a ball one degree off line, it will get farther from the center line the farther it travels. How much of the bigger shot area is attributable to extra distance?

There have been a lot of questions regarding the shafts used. I guess I would be interested in a test where you use the modern shaft in the old head and the old shaft in the modern head. It would be interesting to see how much change is attributed to the head and how much to the shaft.

Reply

Tony Covey January 10, 2017 at 1:08 pm

The general numbers we use when extrapolating differences related to shaft length come from the PING Driver Fitting Study (https://www.mygolfspy.com/mygolfspy-labs-the-driver-fitting-study/). So to answer your question without you having to click through, it’s 4 yards of carry per 1″ of difference in shaft length. That same 1″ would be expected to produce a 10% greater dispersion area.

We’ll kick around some ideas…and perhaps use different clubs in the test case, but I think it would definitely be interesting to compare across a decade using the same shaft.

As we’ve said, there are always plenty of different ways to approach these kind of tests. Few of them are right or wrong in any absolute sense…just different. In most cases we default to stock vs. stock because that’s how the overwhelming majority of clubs are sold.

Reply

Alfriday January 10, 2017 at 2:23 pm

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the reply. This is another great article on MGS. For testing, stock shaft v. stock shaft is probably the only way to go. That is how most clubs are sold and I hazard to guess the way most clubs are played. It is possible that stock shafts really haven’t changed all that much in the last 10 years. But I doubt it.

The more I think about this article, the more interested I become in finding out how much performance gain is attributable to the head and how much to the shaft.

If I could get most of the improved performance by buying a new shaft for my current head, I would do that instead of buying a completely new club with the stock shaft. I can’t really afford a new driver and upgraded shaft at the present time. It would be nice to have an idea of what to expect before starting individual testing. It would certainly point me in the right direction for my person testing.

Reply

Tony Covey January 10, 2017 at 2:56 pm

It’s very much a symbiotic relationship between the head and the shaft. The biggest advancements in the last decade are driven by material changes and being able to move weight around with more freedom. That has allowed manufacturers to challenge previous boundaries of what is possible from a center of gravity standpoint.

If you’re a guy who should be playing a back CG head, and I put you in a forward CG head, there’s not much chance you can shaft your way to optimal numbers. By the same token, if I give you that back CG head, but give you a shaft that doesn’t work well for you, it’s also unlikely that you’ll get near perfect numbers.

That said, I do believe the head yields greater influence, but the shaft definitely matters.

Manufacturers understand all of this, which is why the majority of stock shaft options are either safe middle of the road options (play to the middle of the bell curve and you’re likely to have something functional for the majority), or have 3 options (light weight/high launch, mid weight/mid launch, heavy/low launch) to effectively segment the bell curve.

As it usually does, only way to truly sort it out is to spend a lot of time experimenting (and relying on data not feelings), or spending some time with a good fitter.

Reply

Bob Pegram January 13, 2017 at 12:50 am

It is surprising to me how few fittings with manufacturer’s demo equipment have longer than standard shafts available for testing (In woods). Overlength shafts usually require lighter heads so the swingweight doesn’t go off the charts. That would require a lot of extra inventory unless the heads have removable weights of various sizes – something that isn’t seen as much in newer heads, but was available in heads of the vintage of the R7 you tested and somewhat newer heads that followed.

Reply

mike January 10, 2017 at 12:32 pm

Sorry the story isn’t quite accurate.

You compared the clubs sure but if you look the biggest difference is a higher launch angle in the M1 so if you lofted up the Tri by 1.5 degrees you would get a very similar launch angle and carry with a tighter dispersion and save 450$
Or compromise and use a R11s or R15 also for about 50$ second hand and get damn near identical performance!

Reply

Tony Covey January 10, 2017 at 12:50 pm

If we upped the loft by 1.5 degrees, we would also increase spin by approximately 450 RPM. Due to the resulting change in dynamic loft, spin loft would also increase, thereby decreasing compression and ultimately lowering ball speed. We certainly wouldn’t come close to making up 14 yards, and the decrease in roll, might actually result in a greater discrepancy in total yards.

The three key variables are ball speed, launch angle, and spin rate. Similar to a camera (aperture, shutter speed, and ISO), you can’t tweak one without altering the other two.

The one benefit from additional loft, we’d likely see a reduction in axis tilt (the greater the spin loft the less the axis tilts), which would likely manifest in the form of straighter ball flight.

Reply

Randall Fisher January 13, 2017 at 3:16 pm

All this is interesting, but ignores one important fact. The higher spin of the Quad wouldn’t be a negative for everybody. In fact, for lower swing speed players, the higher spin is advantageous because they lack the power required to maximize the distance from the M1 or M2.

Also, higher backspin usually equals lower sidespin, which may also account for the tighter dispersion of the Quad.

All told, if you are a senior or a beginner with a swing speed below 90 mph, the Quad will likely lead to lower scores for you, and at a much lower cost!

Reply

Ryan morris January 10, 2017 at 12:24 pm

This looks like a rehash of mark crossfield comparing the 2017 m1 to the sldr s…however, in that instance, the sldr s not 9nky held its own, but bettered the m1 in real world scenarios. It wasnt a straight win, but the 400 price difference sure dodnt seem validated
Ps i own both and see better results with my m1, however, both are beaten by my jdm sldr if the same shaft is used. With the sldr s, its a different shaft since its a non adjustable tip

Reply

Charlie January 10, 2017 at 12:22 pm

It’s all about the shafts these days. So not a good comparison.

Reply

DL January 10, 2017 at 2:58 pm

Since when is stock shaft vs stock shaft not a good comparison? Probably 90% of the drivers out there are stock. I wonder how MGS staffers can look at these idiotic posts all day.

Reply

FTWPhil January 12, 2017 at 9:07 pm

Reminds me of Dale Gribble. Super paranoid with a child of an affair. LOL

Reply

Jimbo January 10, 2017 at 12:17 pm

Nicely done MGS! How about comparing a 5 year old driver next?

Reply

Bob Pegram January 13, 2017 at 1:00 am

I use a 2005 Adams Redline 430Q (for Quad) that gets the ball out there pretty far. Of course the total club length is 47 inches which helps.

Reply

jm January 10, 2017 at 12:17 pm

So basically for someone like me who needs lower launch with more spin the superquad should be perfect in theory. Basically a wash as far as ball speed and spin is up with launch down. Plus more accurate

I consistently do not get enough spin with the new drivers.

Reply

John Schwerdt January 10, 2017 at 12:05 pm

And as always, MyGolfSpy, thank you for providing unbiased, un-lobby’d for information and taking it straight to the consumer!

Reply

Andrew Allan January 10, 2017 at 12:04 pm

I’d be interested to know if the bigger advancement has come from driver tech or the golf ball tech. Would be interesting to see the difference with 2007 ball vs 2017 ball with Superquad, vs 2007 ball vs 2017 ball vs M1

Reply

Chris Bourquin January 10, 2017 at 5:01 pm

Good work

Reply

John Schwerdt January 10, 2017 at 11:57 am

Hey now don’t bash my Cleveland Launcher 😉

There are 4 drivers I own that see use ranging in age from 11 to 5 years old. Still impossible to justify spending $400-$500 on a single golf club. Saying a current model driver does not outperform an older one is like denying climate change, the numbers just don’t lie. BUT here is my argument, and possible justification, as to why the 11 year old driver still sneaks its way into my bag.

Let’s talk distances for a moment; Driver A (current) on average goes 12 yards further than driver B (older). On a 430 yard par 4, on average, driver A leaves you 140 yds out, driver B leaves you 152 yds out. I have a club in my bag that I am comfortable hitting that I can take in 140 yds, I also have one that I can take in 152 yds. I’ll take either GIR, take a putt or 2, and on to the next one.

*takes celebratory pull from flask for first hole par

Let’s move on to the next hole, a 585 yd par 5. Driver A leaves you 295 yds out, driver B leaves you 307 yds out. I don’t have the capability to hit that in 2 shots in either scenario, let’s lay up. I’ve got a club I can take in 220 yds I am comfortable with, I also have one that I am comfortable with that I can take in 232 yds, both leaving me 75 yds out for a straight forward approach, leaving me an opportunity to catch the GIR simply, grab a 2 putt and get out with a par.

I could go on all day with examples, I’ll save us both the time and effort.

The underlying theme Is that as long as you’ve got a comfortable way to get from point B (fairway) to point C (green) 12 yards isn’t going to be an epiphany for anyone’s handicap unless there is a lack of comfort with your entire bag. The only instances that really come to mind that would really make a difference are a short par 5 where an extra 10 yds could allow you to get to the green in 2, or a short par 4 where an extra 10 yds could get you to the green in 1. Those types of holes construct a very small precentage of any given golf full length, or championship golf course set up.

We all love smashing drives as far as we can, who doesn’t?! It’s not the distance of your tee shot that goes on the scorecard though, it’s the number of strokes it took to find the cup. 12 yds just isn’t, and likely never will be, worth my mortgage payment.

Would love to hear thoughts or feelings on this outlook.

Excuse me while I take my Cleveland Launcher to the range…

Reply

Tony Covey January 10, 2017 at 12:05 pm

Appreciate that you can laugh at the Launcher reference. I tossed it in because I’d wager more than any other driver, it’s one its owners insist can still hold up against anything else on the market.

Reply

Don Gau January 10, 2017 at 12:32 pm

I also still use my old Cleveland Launcher 460. 2016 was the first year almost everything at the demo day was noticeably longer. Especially all the drivers with slots behind the head. I do agree that it has finally gotten to a point that I need to look at a new driver.

Reply

John Schwerdt January 10, 2017 at 12:45 pm

I appreciate your appreciation of them! I’ve got a small fleet of Launchers; Ti460, Comp, and the Ultralite TL310, all of which perform.

As you can imagine by that statement I am a bit of a Cleveland loyalist but I truly believe in their product. I think, prior to its “downfall”, Cleveland made some of the best performing sticks on the market. I’m not saying their clubs are like the second coming of titanium or graphite, but to a player preferring simple, timeless designs with modern tech applied to them they’re tough to beat. This may be a long shot, particularly because there is no way to test this theory, but if MGS or even some equivalent was around in the early to mid 00’s to do unbiased head to head testing, and allow the public to view the outcome I don’t believe the brand name would have suffered like it did. A “no frills” business model is just an extremely tough one to maintain.

I digress; seeing the M1 vs R7 SQ data was very cool, both great clubs. Thanks for getting the research to the people!!

Reply

Andrew Bourne January 11, 2017 at 1:58 am

Interesting thought process and I’ll explain where I feel it breaks down in just a minute.

Firstly, you all need to think about, as has been mentioned, the effects of fitting your clubs correctly and how negatively that can impact the results. Recently a comparison was made between the M2 and M1 with practically no difference, except when the M2 was adjusted, and could apparently be done so to a greater fine tuning, the results were statistically significant.

The ability to customize the club to your swing tempo alone can have decent results, and the modern club gives you more to play with.

Now back to why your logic is interesting. If you’re just a recreational golfer, $450 is not worth the spend. But if you’re a serious golfer, let’s just take your first example.
140 yrds for me is a 9i/PW depending.
152 yrds is an 8i/9i. So let’s say it’s a club difference, and let’s say there are 14 holes you would use the driver. Each club you go up, it means that your dispersion should be slightly higher, meaning that 12 yards is saving you a ft or 2 every hole.
Now if you correlate that to your putting average, you are in fact probably costing yourself 2 possibly 3 shots a round by leaving 12-15 yrds in the bag.

For golfers who play every weekend, $10 a week is not bad to shave 2 shots.

Reply

R.Taylor January 10, 2017 at 11:42 am

If you had given me an over/under of 15 yards difference between the SuperQuad and the M1, I would have taken the over. A gain of 14 yards is nice too though.
Spin, launch angle, and ball speed are daerivative values of distance and accuracy, which are the only categories that really matter. It’s 1 to 1 in those categories. The M1 represents a distance gain of 5.8% over the SuperQuad, but comes with a 17.7% accuracy penalty. (I calculated the diameter of the shot areas and compared that so it’s a length to length comparison.)
Just a small critique to be taken with a grain of salt for an otherwise enjoyable and thought-provoking article.

Reply

Shortside January 10, 2017 at 11:42 am

I’ve been gaming the Callaway FT-iz tour (2010 model) for some years now. It was right there with the latest and greatest until last year. Tech has passed it by. One less club on approach shots more GIR’s. But like anything else I’m not coughing up introductory retail price for anything if I don’t have to.

Reply

Travis January 10, 2017 at 11:39 am

Ping i20 vs TM M1…Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla!

Reply

Leith Anderson January 10, 2017 at 11:38 am

It looks like all we have to do to make the SuperQuad equal to the M1 is to raise the loft a bit with the adjustable hosel and move the weights forward to cut down on spin. (One amazing feature of the M1 is the way you can cut spin by moving the weight forward). Then, if there is a difference in shaft length, even that up. I was surprised that the ball speed was as close after all those years. Request for more detailed information on testers is warranted. What do we really learn from 90 to 115 MPH swing speeds all hitting the same driver?

Reply

dick the bruiser January 10, 2017 at 11:27 am

change is the forefront of innovation , creativity stands the test of time , improvement is the name of the game , and……..most of all the incentive too win towers above all !!!!!!!!!!!! the science of testing is the ability too rule-out trial&error , so in that context , would you please invest in the robot for testing purposes only , reducing the margin of human error , and…..just the facts , please ?????????????????????????????????

Reply

cgasucks January 10, 2017 at 11:27 am

Dang…I just bought a Superquad TP (All Black Edition)…I wish this article was posted a few weeks earlier…

Reply

Bob January 10, 2017 at 11:25 am

One thing that was not mentioned is that newer drivers are much lighter in weight. This may account for some of the accuracy issue. I personally like a heavier club and like to feel the club head during my swing. I’m an ex-weight lifter and some clubs are so light in my hands that I cant feel the club head very well. I tried one of the Cleveland light weight drivers and my accuracy was……FORE!!

Reply

Dace January 10, 2017 at 11:24 am

I have bought and tried an M1 460 driver and can say in all honesty that for me … it is not as good as a Taylormade Burner 2.0.
It is way shorter and I really cannot see any improvement.
Have the same shafts in both to compare.
Horses for courses I suppose .

Reply

Perry January 10, 2017 at 11:07 am

Were the shafts the same length? Long shaft = more distance but also less accuracy.

Reply

gary pell January 10, 2017 at 11:04 am

With the ball speeds almost identical I think the real difference is the shaft. Too much spin on the R7. Change out the shaft and you’ll be alright.
Some of the OEM shafts are poor, and I would always seek an upgrade when ordering.

Reply

Audio Video January 10, 2017 at 11:03 am

2 questions:
1) were driver shafts same length?
2) were both clubs brand new?

How either of these topics aren’t mentioned in the study is beyond me.

Reply

Minipro January 10, 2017 at 12:26 pm

Exactly. They never even mentioned shafts between the two. Plus, shafts from ten years ago are not even comparable to aftermarket ones used today. Golfspy just released an article within the past week saying that the difference between a high end shaft and low end shaft could skew results up to 15 yards… not to mention shafts from a decade ago.

This alone discredits this test.

Reply

Tony Covey January 10, 2017 at 12:43 pm

I honest have know idea where we’ve said that the difference between a high end shaft and a low end is 15 yards, or make any difference to shafts from 15 years ago? I do recall publishing a test that shows shaft performance will vary based on the individual.

Here’s a reality check on shafts. While to a degree tolerances have improved and companies are definitely using more exotic materials, there aren’t but some many bend profiles (what actually impacts shaft performance), and those haven’t changed. There’s a reason why MRC keeps releasing updates to the blue board, and why Aldila has an annual variant of the NV. Marketing and new paint over largely unchanged bend profiles.

Reply

James T January 10, 2017 at 1:28 pm

The shaft lengths don’t matter as long as it’s the standard length shaft for that model. Tony/Sam were comparing the retail versions of one against the other. Otherwise you could start asking things like “Did both have movable track weights?”… “Same head composition?”… “Same face depth?”… “Same hosel?”.

Reply

Cheetah Woods January 11, 2017 at 4:35 am

Um….Hello!! It was a test of stock drivers with stock shafts!! Unbelievable to me that there are so many clowns trying to discredit MGS when they are doing tests for US, the consumer. Giving us information to help us make better decisions about our equipment. If you guys don’t want that….don’t read the articles.

Reply

Duncan Castles January 10, 2017 at 11:01 am

Hmmm, is he or she really hurting his game though? I may be mistaken, but over 800 square metres looks like a significant difference in dispersion between the drivers. The Superquad player is going to be hitting his second shot from more fairways – albeit they’ll need an extra club into the green. Someone like Rich Hunt will tell you that playing your second shot from the fairway is more important for amateurs than professionals – particularly if you play on course with penal rough.
Is there a difference in shaft length between the two clubs? That could explain some of the difference in ball speed and dispersion.

Reply

Tony Covey January 10, 2017 at 11:49 am

I’d have to build a dispersion plot to see exactly where the differences lie. A larger dispersion plot doesn’t necessarily mean fewer fairways. I can also look at our Strokes Gained numbers and see how significant those difference play out. Certainly interesting to dig a little big deeper.

One of things we’ve observed is that shorter driver are almost always more accurate. Even if we adjust for distance along the vector (our truAccuracy measurement) we find that shorter drivers are generally more online. I have some decent theories as to why, but I need to dig through a larger data set to see if I can find any supporting evidence.

Reply

Robert January 10, 2017 at 10:56 am

The interesting thing here is the ball speed was less than 1mph. So if you were able to be fitted properly to the SuperQuad, you would hit it just as far. And that’s pretty much what the other side of the argument says. I have an old 983k that fit just right and gave 13 degree 2100rpms. I can hit it just as far as current drivers, but that’s only because it happens to fit me perfectly.

They key really is mishits don’t go nearly as far with the 983k. If I don’t hit is square, it will spin 3k+. It may still be in the fairway, but it’ll be much shorter. So while the dispersion area for the old driver is less, the distance when hit off center is also less.

So I do agree that newer is better, but I don’t think it’s as drastic if you COULD fit into the older driver.

Reply

Steve S January 10, 2017 at 10:56 am

Testers had driver swing speed of 90-115mph. Break it down better. So us the data for all the testers. Like to see what the difference is for sub-95mph swingers looks like, where a large portion of golfers swing. My testing shows very little difference in drivers (M1, Rocketbalz, and 2007 Burner) at my (95mph) swing speed. Also Ping’s testing showed spin and loft help slower swingers.

Reply

Kenny B January 10, 2017 at 2:06 pm

Agree! It would be interesting to see that data. I would expect higher yardage gains from higher swing speeds. At my swing speed the yardages for most any driver really don’t change much.

Reply

EgdewRich January 10, 2017 at 10:51 am

Jimmy Walker used a shorter shaft over the weekend! His putting was spotty but his performance overall pretty solid. Did the two drivers have shafts of identical length?
Would also like to break out dispersion data by handicap…bet the 10 to 15 guys are better off with the Quad! Also what happens to the M with the ten year old shaft! Tempted to get an M shaft and drop it into the Quad! I hit the Cally V Series driver the longest so forgiving light weight and forgiving might be best for the 235 carry crowd?

Reply

Mel Creighton January 10, 2017 at 10:46 am

Were the shafts and shaft lengths comparable? What would be the results when a new shaft is put into the older head?

Reply

David January 10, 2017 at 10:45 am

It would be more interesting to compare a modern 3 wood, say m1 or m2, to the R7 Superquad driver in terms of distance and accuracy.

Reply

Marteenie January 10, 2017 at 10:43 am

This past Sunday I just bought a Cobra King F6+ to replace my r7 SuperQuad (seriously good sale on the King F6+). I found the same thing during testing; getting about 10-15 yards more with better spin numbers but also tighter dispersion and less yards off-line.

Reply

DSK January 10, 2017 at 10:36 am

This is great. I play a Superquad R7, exactly what is shown here. I’ve always liked TaylorMade drivers. Looks like I’ll be looking to upgrade, once I find the M1 in the bargin bin. Still hard to justify at $500.

Reply

Steve Almo January 12, 2017 at 9:00 pm

Again, 100% correct.

Reply

Robert Whitworth January 13, 2017 at 11:33 pm

for 15 yds is it worth the risk ?

Reply

Bruce Knox January 14, 2017 at 10:01 pm

3hybid goes 235 all day

Reply

Andy Aull January 14, 2017 at 10:06 pm

I got the TM Aeroburner 3+4 hybrids, love em!

Reply

James Rush January 15, 2017 at 8:24 pm

Genuinely good read – superquad still delivering for me though

Reply

Shawn Goodman January 15, 2017 at 8:40 pm

There still around I bought one in the wrapper 6months ago. 8.5 CT of 248 it’s very hot. They show up on ebay once and a while. Still one of the Kings of ballspeed.

Reply

Leave a Comment