AlpineGolf

He's from Switzerland. It's even highly unlikely that anything would be stolen out of your car even if you left it unlocked. To address OP's question - Porsche Macan - I wouldn't call that a family car but it's a perfect daily. I can fit my entire golf bag (incl. the driver) diagonally in the trunk. There's still enough room on either side to store a foldable trolley.

I was just quoted end of September for the normal versions (50/54) and end of December(!) for a 58 adapt....

Financial journalists rarely get this right. Most of the time, official deal values are enterprise values on a cash-free, debt-free basis, rather than equity values of specif stakes acquired. For startups, that usually ends up being pretty close to the overall equity value, since they typically don’t have much, if any, debt. I’m having a hard time buying the idea that LAB can scale to 390,000 units per year. Reports indicate they produced around 130,000 units last year, and projecting a 3x increase for 2025 seems pretty ambitious given the underlying requirement to scale production (putters aren’t software...). For an equipment manufacturer, I’d typically expect normalized EBITDA margins in the 10–20% range. LAB may be on the lower end, given its earlier stage, but for valuation purposes, let’s assume a normalized margin. If we take the unit volume and average selling price at face value and use an average case, we land somewhere between $4 million and $23 million in stabilized EBITDA—the former being the low end (lower margin x 2024E sales), and latter the high end (higher margin x 2025E sales). Let’s split the difference and use $14 million as a base case. Assuming the reported $200m enterprise value is accurate, that implies an EBITDA multiple north of 14x. Is that high or low compared to comps? It depends—but that’s definitely rich, especially for a niche player. To be clear, I fully recognize this is a growth PE transaction. However, the TAM (total addressable market) is inherently limited, and the business doesn’t offer the kind of scaling potential you’d see e.g. in a typical tech investment. Yes, the growth story helps justify a premium, but having spent the past decade in private equity, I can say institutional investors are typically wary of "one-trick ponies." Revenue concentration, trend/fad risk, and lack of product diversification are real concerns. LAB is heavily reliant on one innovation—zero torque putters. Larger competitors offer a broader lineup and are better insulated from shifts in consumer trends. If the novelty fades or zero torque falls out of fashion, sales could drop off sharply. Competitors moving into the ZT space could put pressure on prices. So, even if we accept the current estimates and assumptions, this valuation doesn’t look cheap—especially given the execution risk and uncertainty.

Private equity is often misunderstood, largely due to its many nuances and diverse approaches. It's difficult to pin down a single stereotype of a PE investor—there are numerous strategies and methods for creating value. While it's true that there are examples of PE deals that have had a negative impact from a consumer standpoint, it's worth remembering that strong PE returns ultimately benefit institutions like pension funds. As for L Catterton, there are certainly far worse investors one could be dealing with. They have a solid track record in consumer investments, and I wouldn't be surprised if this deal includes a meaningful injection of primary equity rather than being dominated by a large secondary cash-out for the existing team. That said, it's fair to assume that the founders and key R&D personnel will be expected to roll a significant portion of their proceeds into the new structure anyways. Scaling a business requires deep pockets.

I think it's really player and swing dependant. I played Ventus Black 6x for a while until the shaft snapped above the adapter - but that's a different Ventus story. The black really makes you go after it but this occasionally resulted in the swing becoming too handsy for me and I didn't rotate properly. The resulting hard left dive was disastrous on the course. Blue forces you to swing smoother and find a more deliberate tempo.

Like for like, my best drives tend to finish slightly shorter, but overall, my average distance is longer thanks to more consistent contact. Playing mostly at an elevation of around 1,200 feet, I'm perfectly happy with on course drives ending up in the 250–260 meter / 275–285 yard range. That’s more than enough distance, especially considering that many of the courses I frequent penalize even small misses—just missing the fariway by 5–10 meters can mean a lost ball due to thick rough or tall grass. Given that, I much prefer a reliable shot shape and a controlled miss over chasing maximum distance. Switching from a 70 TX shaft to a 5S (despite it being close to 60g uncut) initially felt like swinging a noodle. It definitely took some time to adjust, but once I did, the lighter shaft started to feel great. I had previously experimented with a GD VF 5S in an Ai Smoke TD head (which I sold in the meantime), which felt a bit more stable and had less kick, but with my current swing, only the Blue Velocore+ paired with the TSR3 head consistently takes the left side out of play.

During my Titleist fitting last fall, the GT2 paired with the HZRDUS 5G Black 70 TX came out on top. However, since then I’ve made some swing changes, which ultimately led to a pretty dramatic shaft switch. I used to favor “black profile” driver shafts in the >70g range to help manage a left miss, but I’ve recently transitioned to a Ventus Blue Velocore+ 5S. My driver swing speed has consistently been in the 105–110 mph range (slow in WRX terms) but I’ve always preferred the feel and timing the heavier and stiffer shafts offer. With the swing adjustments, the Ventus 5S (still close to 60g uncut) provides just enough tip stability, despite its more noticeable kick. Interestingly, when testing on a Trackman Range setup (without spin data), I found that switching back to my old TSR3 head resulted in more consistent and longer drives. I’m able to aim at the left edge of the fairway and play a controlled fade back to center or the right side. As long as I don't put a terrible swing on it, the left side is effectively out of play—and at worst, the shot stays straight. By contrast, the GT2 head introduces a two-way miss and seems to launch with more spin, which costs me distance (both heads are 10° models turned down). I'll likely keep experimenting with the GT2’s swing weight and SureFit settings, but for now, the TSR3 is staying in the bag.

Wanted to state the same. I have the OG UW as well as the UW '24 and the weights are 100% not identical. The latter have a larger diameter and are flatter. Size wise, the OG UW weights look much closer to the ones in the Ai Smoke driver I used briefly, but I've never tried swapping them. Nonetheless, you'll find plenty of weights for both models online.