Trying to make sense of the Slot Craze

[Nessism]

Tom Wishon makes high COR irons and fairway woods. Somewhere in the archives, or maybe it's one of his blog posts, he references yards to be gained from spring faced irons and as I recall, it's real yardage. I don't know how much this slot business assists COR but it's perfectly reasonable to think it does have some effect.

[mac94]

Even Wishon irons aren't anywhere near maxed out on COR. Drivers are and FWs are getting close. Irons? Not close.

[Nessism]

[quote name='mac94' timestamp='1382997526' post='8070503']
Even Wishon irons aren't anywhere near maxed out on COR. Drivers are and FWs are getting close. Irons? Not close.
[/quote]

Geez man, I'm not going to argue with you. According to Tom he has made a number of iron models over the years that are at the limit. His drivers are at the limit and have been for years, and some of his fairway wood models too. I think the small faced fairway woods are not, but close, and same thing for his hybrids (I think).

[braincramp52]

My understanding is that max COR is 1000. And it impossible to get max COR out of anything in the golf world because the only way to achieve max COR is to have two equal materials and mass. A example given was 2 cue balls.

[Socrates]

[quote name='lawsonman' timestamp='1383001690' post='8070797']
My understanding is that max COR is 1000. And it impossible to get max COR out of anything in the golf world because the only way to achieve max COR is to have two equal materials and mass. A example given was 2 cue balls.
[/quote]
That is theoretical. The max C.O.R. in golf is a limit set at .822 and if you include margin of error, it is .830. For our purposes, that is what we consider as "max". Any OEM that submits a club for testing will have it rejected if it is above .822 (well that's not quite true, but you will be notified that your club is too close to the limit and they will test more samples and you run a serious risk of failing the COR).

[rafal]

This thread had potential but then the anti-TM trolls had to take over.

[MtlJeff]

I think we go crazy trying to prove or disprove claims that OEMs make. They have legal teams that will tell them what they can get away with and what they can't. Maybe there is some infinitesimal difference that exists in a vacuum. I don't know. I've used clubs with slots and clubs without, i've never noticed a different that isn't 99% caused by a longer shaft or stronger loft.

When square drivers came out OEMs said that this was the new science of straight balls. Weight placement yada yada yada. No one makes square drivers anymore. No major OEM offers one. I guess science changed.

Slots will be gone in 5 years. Replaced by some other little thing that changes everything. Except that maybe only makes a .002% difference in the real world when all other variables are constant and that in no meaningful way affects your scores.

That's not anti TM or anti Callaway or anti whatever. Just experience from playing dozens of clubs over the years and being a member here for long enough to remember countless gimmicks that came and went pretty fast

[Nessism]

[quote name='MtlJeff' timestamp='1383010663' post='8071585']
I think we go crazy trying to prove or disprove claims that OEMs make. They have legal teams that will tell them what they can get away with and what they can't. Maybe there is some infinitesimal difference that exists in a vacuum. I don't know. I've used clubs with slots and clubs without, i've never noticed a different that isn't 99% caused by a longer shaft or stronger loft.

When square drivers came out OEMs said that this was the new science of straight balls. Weight placement yada yada yada. No one makes square drivers anymore. No major OEM offers one. I guess science changed.

Slots will be gone in 5 years. Replaced by some other little thing that changes everything. Except that maybe only makes a .002% difference in the real world when all other variables are constant and that in no meaningful way affects your scores.

That's not anti TM or anti Callaway or anti whatever. Just experience from playing dozens of clubs over the years and being a member here for long enough to remember countless gimmicks that came and went pretty fast
[/quote]

I'm going to dig up this post in 5 years Jeff and feed you a crow sandwich. I believe the future will show us various methods to promote face flexure, including slots or similar type flex zones on the crown and sole. Seems like too logical of a solution to ditch in the woods.

[MtlJeff]

mmmmm, crow sandwich. Please include chipotle sauce and i'll eat it.

[I_HATE_SNOW]

Too me it seems an added manufactoring expense and will go the way of the square head, just as the white head starts to fade away.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MtlJeff' timestamp='1383010663' post='8071585']
That's not anti TM or anti Callaway or anti whatever.
[/quote]
Antti Niemi?


It won't even take 5 years. These guys would be tough to eat anyway.
[attachment=1930079:crows.jpeg]

[Lacey Underall]

Let me say first that I am NOT a TM fan and I work in a golf shop. I can tell you that Rocketballz (Stage 1) was a monumental improvement in fairway wood and hybrid performance. There was just no doubting the evidence during fitting sessions. Clients were in fact gaining between 12-20 yards of distance. I'm no engineer, but I'm not sure how you can explain that other than the "slot" technology. Now I am amazed that Callaway was able to catch them the very next year with "non-slot" technology. Bottom line is we were no where close to max COR in fairways until the last 2 years. And YES the COR limit does apply to fairways also. Not sure why so many people believe that it doesn't apply. A limit is a limit.....doesn't matter what club.

[Nessism]

[quote name='Lacey Underall' timestamp='1383057342' post='8073367']
Let me say first that I am NOT a TM fan and I work in a golf shop. I can tell you that Rocketballz (Stage 1) was a monumental improvement in fairway wood and hybrid performance. There was just no doubting the evidence during fitting sessions. Clients were in fact gaining between 12-20 yards of distance. I'm no engineer, but I'm not sure how you can explain that other than the "slot" technology. Now I am amazed that Callaway was able to catch them the very next year with "non-slot" technology. Bottom line is we were no where close to max COR in fairways until the last 2 years. And YES the COR limit does apply to fairways also. Not sure why so many people believe that it doesn't apply. A limit is a limit.....doesn't matter what club.
[/quote]

TaylorMade gets WAY too much credit for the RBZ. Yeah, the COR of the head is higher than their previous fariway woods, but TEE, Wishon, and others have been making high COR fairway woods for YEARS. The slot is just one method to increase COR, but not the only method.

[harold baines]

[quote name='lawsonman' timestamp='1383001690' post='8070797']
My understanding is that max COR is 1000. And it impossible to get max COR out of anything in the golf world because the only way to achieve max COR is to have two equal materials and mass. A example given was 2 cue balls.
[/quote]

just for kicks, the largest a coefficient can be is 1

you are correct that it's impossible to get max/perfect COR out of anything golf related because you'd have to have a perfect collision
no sound generated, no heat generated, all motion from the club into the golf ball (so the club would have to stop at the moment of impact.. no follow through)

[harold baines]

[quote name='Lacey Underall' timestamp='1383057342' post='8073367']
Let me say first that I am NOT a TM fan and I work in a golf shop. I can tell you that Rocketballz (Stage 1) was a monumental improvement in fairway wood and hybrid performance. There was just no doubting the evidence during fitting sessions. Clients were in fact gaining between 12-20 yards of distance. I'm no engineer, but I'm not sure how you can explain that other than the "slot" technology. Now I am amazed that Callaway was able to catch them the very next year with "non-slot" technology. Bottom line is we were no where close to max COR in fairways until the last 2 years. And YES the COR limit does apply to fairways also. Not sure why so many people believe that it doesn't apply. A limit is a limit.....doesn't matter what club.
[/quote]

it's because the TM "slot" and the Cally "wave" are both the same thing... just marketed differently

[Nessism]

[quote name='harold baines' timestamp='1383059274' post='8073527']
[quote name='Lacey Underall' timestamp='1383057342' post='8073367']
Let me say first that I am NOT a TM fan and I work in a golf shop. I can tell you that Rocketballz (Stage 1) was a monumental improvement in fairway wood and hybrid performance. There was just no doubting the evidence during fitting sessions. Clients were in fact gaining between 12-20 yards of distance. I'm no engineer, but I'm not sure how you can explain that other than the "slot" technology. Now I am amazed that Callaway was able to catch them the very next year with "non-slot" technology. Bottom line is we were no where close to max COR in fairways until the last 2 years. And YES the COR limit does apply to fairways also. Not sure why so many people believe that it doesn't apply. A limit is a limit.....doesn't matter what club.
[/quote]

it's because the TM "slot" and the Cally "wave" are both the same thing... just marketed differently
[/quote]

The standing wave is totally different from the slot; very different design features. The wave is a method used to weight the head; Callaway wanted the CG forward, but not touching the face, where it would retard flex. The slot creates a flex zone, to supplement the variable thickness face. The wave affects spin, the slot affects ball speed.

[Rebel420]

[quote name='Nessism' timestamp='1383058877' post='8073489']
[quote name='Lacey Underall' timestamp='1383057342' post='8073367']
Let me say first that I am NOT a TM fan and I work in a golf shop. I can tell you that Rocketballz (Stage 1) was a monumental improvement in fairway wood and hybrid performance. There was just no doubting the evidence during fitting sessions. Clients were in fact gaining between 12-20 yards of distance. I'm no engineer, but I'm not sure how you can explain that other than the "slot" technology. Now I am amazed that Callaway was able to catch them the very next year with "non-slot" technology. Bottom line is we were no where close to max COR in fairways until the last 2 years. And YES the COR limit does apply to fairways also. Not sure why so many people believe that it doesn't apply. A limit is a limit.....doesn't matter what club.
[/quote]

TaylorMade gets WAY too much credit for the RBZ. Yeah, the COR of the head is higher than their previous fariway woods, but TEE, Wishon, and others have been making high COR fairway woods for YEARS. The slot is just one method to increase COR, but not the only method.
[/quote]
Hitting max COR is easy-- for the dead center of the face. How much does the COR drop 1/4" from there in any direction? 1/2"? 1"? Moving toward the sole it drops significantly (especially in an iron, that has weight shifted low). The slots give some relief to the metal here, where the flex is the lowest.

Now think about fairways and hybrids vs driver. Where is the ball struck with a driver? Center. Where hit with fairway or hybrid-- mostly center, but for all but the better better strikers, ths "center" hit is more like a "lower than center" hit (especially the folks that like to try and sweep a hybrid). They can't make the faces any hotter to get the COR at the max low on the face, because it would be over COR in the center.
For the better ball strikers, the slots do almost nothing. Hitting the center of the face is not affected by these. And because of such, these players who are better ball strikers but didn't have super high swing speeds didn't notice any difference with the new clubs. Those who had a tendency to hit thin, now saw the distance gain. And those who are good ball strikers AND had a high swing speed saw a distance gain as well-- not from the slots, but the COR increase to nearly max.

Think of it this way... Why don't we see speed slot in drivers? Little to no benefit. Why don't the higher lofted irons in the RocketBladez/SpeedBlades have the speed slot? Ever "blade" or thin a pitching wedge over the green? You really don't want that thinned PW or 9i going LONGER.

The marketing does say the new clubs are longer. The marketing also says the slots help forgiveness on thin shots.
The typical GolfWRX person who likes to bash marketing and the brands who use slots like to combine the marketing phrases, and misquote saying "those liars! Those slots don't make my shots go any further. I hit dead center of the face, and it goes no longer for me"

Again, the slots are for FORGIVENESS, and only increase distance on shots LOW ON THE FACE

[harold baines]

[quote name='Nessism' timestamp='1383059947' post='8073601']
[quote name='harold baines' timestamp='1383059274' post='8073527']
[quote name='Lacey Underall' timestamp='1383057342' post='8073367']
Let me say first that I am NOT a TM fan and I work in a golf shop. I can tell you that Rocketballz (Stage 1) was a monumental improvement in fairway wood and hybrid performance. There was just no doubting the evidence during fitting sessions. Clients were in fact gaining between 12-20 yards of distance. I'm no engineer, but I'm not sure how you can explain that other than the "slot" technology. Now I am amazed that Callaway was able to catch them the very next year with "non-slot" technology. Bottom line is we were no where close to max COR in fairways until the last 2 years. And YES the COR limit does apply to fairways also. Not sure why so many people believe that it doesn't apply. A limit is a limit.....doesn't matter what club.
[/quote]

it's because the TM "slot" and the Cally "wave" are both the same thing... just marketed differently
[/quote]

The standing wave is totally different from the slot; very different design features. The wave is a method used to weight the head; Callaway wanted the CG forward, but not touching the face, where it would retard flex. The slot creates a flex zone, to supplement the variable thickness face. The wave affects spin, the slot affects ball speed.
[/quote]

those are certainly the manufacturers marketing claims

if you take a side view of a head cut in half you'd see they look more similar than different though. the slot is just an "inflated" wave with an open bottom
if there's any validity to the slot's flexibility it would seem that the slot should produce superior results than the wave as the slot also adds weight low and behind the face just like the wave does.

[Rebel420]

And for those saying the metal can't deflect at the sole of a slotted club, consider that the force at impact of a golf ball can be close to 1 ton for a longer iron, to over 2 tons for a driver-- more than enough force to deflect a thin strip of steel even a fraction of a millimeter.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Rebel420' timestamp='1382946352' post='8067573']
Not arguing that the true COG point or sweet spot on ANY club is by definition of a point, infinitesimally small. With that said, traditional clubs, when a ball is struck within an area the size ranging from the diameter of a pencil eraser to a quarter will suffer negligible loss of distance. Game improvement clubs with the hotter faces, try to maximize this area by not only having max COR at the sweet spot, but over more of the face. This and the high MOI (resistance to twisting) are what we call "forgiveness". The slot technology is designed to make the leading edge of the club respond to the same flex forces that act upon the center of the face, effectively extending the "sweet spot" (or should I say, perceived sweet spot) lower on the face, adding more forgiveness for THIN shots. The improved slot in the SpeedBlade over the RocketBladz extends that thin shot forgiveness further out toward the heel and toe. When applied to fairway woods and hybrids, the slots give the appearance of hotter face, as these clubs are more likely to be picked thin than dug in and hit fat.

For those who don't hit thin, by all means I can understand how you could see the slots as a gimmick....for those who do miss thin, it's great. [i][b]Thin a shot with a blade, then thin a shot with a SpeedBlade or Rocketbladez...better yet, try it with cold, hard range balls in 40* weather... [/b][/i]Tell me you can't tell the difference. Not only will the shot be punished less, but your hands will be punished less also
[/quote]

You haven't really lived until you've either thinned or slapped a blade long iron off the toe under those kind of conditions.....

[i]Oh, the humanity......[/i]