Independent COR Testing on FW Woods?

[knockdstiff]

With all the claims around yardage gains over the last couple generations of FW woods I'm wondering has anyone actually replicated the USGA COR test on different clubheads and seen what the data actually say? Maybe Mr. Wishon has done something along these lines?

 

I ask because I haven't seen any gains in yardage for myself using, say, an RBZ or Xhot vs. a Titleist 910 or 913F or other modern fairway woods that don't claim tremendous gains in distance due to upping the COR.

 

I don't know if the USGA releases their results? Didn't find it via search.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='knockdstiff' timestamp='1397006163' post='9050683']
With all the claims around yardage gains over the last couple generations of FW woods I'm wondering has anyone actually replicated the USGA COR test on different clubheads and seen what the data actually say? Maybe Mr. Wishon has done something along these lines?

I ask because I haven't seen any gains in yardage for myself using, say, an RBZ or Xhot vs. a Titleist 910 or 913F or other modern fairway woods that don't claim tremendous gains in distance due to upping the COR.

I don't know if the USGA releases their results? Didn't find it via search.
[/quote]

I am sorry but I do not do hit testing or dynamic measurements like a COR/CT on other companies' head models because there is really no reason for me to do so. Also, the USGA does not publish any information of any of their conformity testing on any companies' club models. They don't even tell the companies what their actual measurements are. They only tell you if the club, head or shaft passes or not, nor do they return the head models to the companies that submit them to the USGA for conformity testing.

The ONLY way, and really the very best way, for you to find out the COR of any driver or fairway wood is to hit them on a TrackMan or FlightScope launch monitor and look at the smash factor (ball speed divided by clubhead speed) for an avg of at least 3 on center hit shots. If the smash factor is 1.45 or higher, the head is a high COR design for sure. (1.50 +/-0.01 is the max smash factor from TM and FS when the head is dead on 0.830 COR/257 CT) If it is 1.41 to 1.44 it probably is a higher COR design, but is not that close to the COR limit in the rules. If it is under 1.40, then it is not a high COR face design. Smash factor when recorded by a TM or FS launch monitor is an accurate indication of the COR/CT of a clubhead, at least for lofts on heads under 30*. HIgh COR heads with a loft over 30* don't record higher smash factors because the face plane is then tilted so much that the ball's impact is too oblique and thus cannot flex the face enough to show the high COR design of the head. But for heads with a loft under 30*, TM and FS's smash factor is a very good indicator of the COR/CT of the face.

TOM

[knockdstiff]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1397053662' post='9053769']
[quote name='knockdstiff' timestamp='1397006163' post='9050683']
With all the claims around yardage gains over the last couple generations of FW woods I'm wondering has anyone actually replicated the USGA COR test on different clubheads and seen what the data actually say? Maybe Mr. Wishon has done something along these lines?

I ask because I haven't seen any gains in yardage for myself using, say, an RBZ or Xhot vs. a Titleist 910 or 913F or other modern fairway woods that don't claim tremendous gains in distance due to upping the COR.

I don't know if the USGA releases their results? Didn't find it via search.
[/quote]

I am sorry but I do not do hit testing or dynamic measurements like a COR/CT on other companies' head models because there is really no reason for me to do so. Also, the USGA does not publish any information of any of their conformity testing on any companies' club models. They don't even tell the companies what their actual measurements are. They only tell you if the club, head or shaft passes or not, nor do they return the head models to the companies that submit them to the USGA for conformity testing.

The ONLY way, and really the very best way, for you to find out the COR of any driver or fairway wood is to hit them on a TrackMan or FlightScope launch monitor and look at the smash factor (ball speed divided by clubhead speed) for an avg of at least 3 on center hit shots. If the smash factor is 1.45 or higher, the head is a high COR design for sure. (1.50 +/-0.01 is the max smash factor from TM and FS when the head is dead on 0.830 COR/257 CT) If it is 1.41 to 1.44 it probably is a higher COR design, but is not that close to the COR limit in the rules. If it is under 1.40, then it is not a high COR face design. Smash factor when recorded by a TM or FS launch monitor is an accurate indication of the COR/CT of a clubhead, at least for lofts on heads under 30*. HIgh COR heads with a loft over 30* don't record higher smash factors because the face plane is then tilted so much that the ball's impact is too oblique and thus cannot flex the face enough to show the high COR design of the head. But for heads with a loft under 30*, TM and FS's smash factor is a very good indicator of the COR/CT of the face.

TOM
[/quote]

It's interesting that this stuff is so shrouded in secrecy - you'd think the OEMs would be scrambling to use it to their advantage in marketing if there was actually anything impressive to be found. Instead they basically all say "Max COR" and call it a day. Similar to side by side ball testing - I've seen a little bit of data here and there but none of it put to use by an OEM as evidence they actually have a better product.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='knockdstiff' timestamp='1397097710' post='9058801']

It's interesting that this stuff is so shrouded in secrecy - you'd think the OEMs would be scrambling to use it to their advantage in marketing if there was actually anything impressive to be found. Instead they basically all say "Max COR" and call it a day. Similar to side by side ball testing - I've seen a little bit of data here and there but none of it put to use by an OEM as evidence they actually have a better product.
[/quote]

I can understand it sounds like it is shrouded in secrecy. In reality there are several things at play in this that combine or stand separately to give that impression.

First off, the USGA does not want to be in a position where any of the test results they come up with in the course of ruling a club to be conforming would be used by the golf companies to enhance the marketing and sales of their clubs. Let's say you are a ball maker and you submit a ball for conformity testing to the USGA. Let's say they send back all the actual test results, and it shows your ball is right up at the very edge of the limit on ball performance. You could then use that test data in your marketing to make golfers think that based on what the USGA says in their testing, your ball is the best.

The USGA does not want that. Hence they operate their conformity testing similar to how a school may do away with A, B, C, D, F grading to only handle testing in classes only on a "pass/fail" basis. If you get an A, B, C, d, you pass. If you get an F, you fail. And no one knows if you passed with an A or a D. You just passed, and that's it. That's how the USGA wants their conformity rulings to be.

With COR it's the same thing, but with a couple of little added oddities. No company on the planet can make all their woodheads to actually come out of production with a 0.830 COR/257 CT measurement for the face. Numerous +/- tolerances are always a part of any head's production, including in the COR/CT of the heads. So if you go out and market your wood heads to say "our heads have an 0.830 COR", well that would be true for a certain percentage of the heads but not for the majority based on how +/- tolerances happen for the elements of the design that dictate what the final COR/CT will be. Heck, the USGA even tells companies to design their high COR woods so if every spec is hit dead on, the actual COR would be 0.822/239 CT. They do this because they know the +/- tolerances can kick in and cause some heads to be higher in COR/CT. So if you set your design spec for the face to be 0.830/257 when everything is hit dead on, the USGA knows with the tolerances at play, there would be some heads coming out of your production that would be over the limit. The do not want that, hence the reason they advise companies to set their design specs to result in a 0.822 COR/239 CT.

Another side of this is the fact that if the companies all chose to use an actual COR/CT measurement as a part of their marketing, very soon every company would say "our head is right at the 0.830 limit" - which in turn would soon make golfers all "yawn" and either not believe the companies or not be impressed enough to go look at the head as a result of that claim.

But in reality, the main reason you do not see companies marketing on the basis of an actual COR too much is because the USGA controls the CT testing apparatus and software. If you want your own CT machine to test your heads, you have to purchase a software license from the USGA to operate the equipment and buy the machine from the vendor the USGA has authorized to make and sell the machine. In that licensing agreement, the USGA says if you use the CT machine as a marketing vehicle for your clubs, they will revoke the license. And there you'd be without a CT machine to test your heads in development and production.

I think there are a few companies that are dancing on the edge of this policy - I have heard of a company here or there that has put a CT measurement sticker on their heads. If so, then we'll just have to see what the USGA may do should they decide to look into it more.

But that's the deal and while I see how all this can allude to a shroud of secrecy, it really isn't that way.

TOM