R11 vs Superfast 2.0 Comparisons

[phil75070]

As the title suggests, I am interested in comparisons between the R11 and Superfast 2.0 in the areas of distance, dispersion/forgiveness, sound and feel. Sound and feel are really key for me. I have tried some drivers where the ball seems to "go far" but I just can't get past the less than solid feel or the "tinny" sound. I will obviously go try them both somewhere myself, but until then I am curious as to what others have found.

 

Thanks!

[mhammel73]

I think the main difference is that the R11 is adjustable three different ways (loft, face angle, heel/toe weight.) The Superfast has better flight because it's not adjustable so the weight is placed in more optimal positions.

[tbowles411]

Also the weight. I owned both and preferred the R11 because I could make it lighter or heavier as I saw fit and change the flight with cartidges as well.

[mcharlton]

I had the original Burner Superfast and when upgrading looked hard at both the 2.0 and R11 ... I chose the R11. I simply liked the feel, weight, sound and the obvious adjustablity with the R11 better. But both are great drivers

[SwingMan]

The Superfast 2.0 has a bigger face and is more forgiving - 460cc v. 440cc for the R11. The SF 2.0 is the biggest face TM has made according to their marketing materials. The graphics on the two drivers are different - the R11 is less busy although when playing the SF 2.0, nothing is distracting at address to me. The stock shafts are different. The Superfast in the 10.5 and above lofts, I believe has a slightly closed face - hey, I fight the fade, so it fits - it's easier to close. The R11 is meant for better players who can take advantage of the adjustments -- a consistent swing takes advantage of the technology. An inconsistent swing, meh, not so much.

I play the SF 2.0 and love the driver - great feel to me and very forgiving. I put the ball consistently in the fairway with it. By next month, I'll go on an LM and find out if an aftermarket shaft is a better fit.