2004年 r7 Quadドライバーの発売とともに、テーラーメイドは可変式ウェイトの技術を世にもたらした。その3年後、テーラーメイドは再びr7SuperQuadの発売を機に、ゴルフ業界に革命を起こした。460ccという最大許容範囲のクラブヘッド重量と4種の可変式ウェイトを備え、多くのゴルファーの核心であった、ロフトを立てない技術に、一躍注目を集めた。
これらは功を奏した。2016年のM1は、テーラーメイドが開発したドライバーの中でも一番の性能を誇るベストドライバーとして、アイコン的立場に上り詰めた。このドライバーは、MyGolfSpyが行った“2016年 MOST WANTED DRIVER”でもランク入りしている。
Carlos Mosquera Alejo6年 ago
I still play the R7, great driver
Tony Stephens6年 ago
Love this kind of test, because no one else has the stones to do it! Thanks!
Lance Warheit6年 ago
Love my r7 draw
Can’t justify the cost of the M drivers for how well I hit my r7 that I got for $35 at a play it again sports store
Budget is a huge factor in what goes into a weekend hackers bag. Just finding what works for you and you are comfortable with is more important than dropping huge coin on all the newest equipment in the market
Donald Brenda Stage6年 ago
yes the superquad was after all more more accurate so cut off a half inch of the m1 to get better accuracy and it might lose those 10 yards extra
Would prefer to see this kind of test done with a Robot rather than players.
Only care about what the club is capable of, so eliminate the player variable.
Robot can be set to swing at different speeds Right?
Shafts can be swapped out Right?
It’s my job to make my swing repeatable and more consistent.
Would be Nice if the COR of each Driver was measured and published before the test.
Adam Beach6年 ago
Toe knee6年 ago
At what point do we think you don’t need to hit a ball too far? COR keeps distances in check for many reasons and one is for the enjoyment of the game. Distance does not equal improved scores. Unless you are paid to play, 270 with carry is sufficient to “go for it” on most courses. If you can get that, focus on the club you can do that with the most accuracy. Bomb and Gouge works for tour pros because their wedges and putters are money.
Here is a question that I would consider related to this topic and one I have yet to get a definitive answer to. The question I have is do the heads on drivers lose anything as they age? I don’t mean a club that is not used. I mean a club that is used season after season as a primary driver. Say 40-50+ rounds per year plus driving range use. How about shafts? Is there any loss of distance using the same parameters? It seems to me after a couple of seasons of full-time use, something is lost. I suspect this is due to perception rather than reality. The testing done here could help answer my question since I am guessing the 10 year old drivers were all used clubs. How about the shafts. New or used? Finally, how many people buy a driver just so they can show up on the first tee of a new golf season sporting something shiny and new in their hands?
If a used club drives the ball a shorter distance than a new club, then there is even more reason to wonder what the R & D team have been doing in the 10 year period. I for one no longer see any justification in buying new drivers. The odd yard increase from one model to the next is just not worth it.
Joe blogs6年 ago
Something to note from this. None of these drivers were custom fit. So one could argue you could gain even more than 14 yards of distance with the m1 over the Superquad it may be argued there other way around too but from a starting point it would need to first make up the 14 yards before you can think about beating it. On the topic of dispersion. Yes the Superquad wins that hands down. BUT the M1 is designed for fine tuning so dispersion should be easily dialed in. People just simply stating that 14 yards is not much of a difference are forgetting that that over one whole club longer and is a big difference when is comes to a 6 iron or a 7 iron and if properly fitted maybe even an 8 iron! For 2 HC players like myself that is a big difference front hitting to the middle of the green to actually going after the flag.
Hi Joe. I understand the argument that 14 yards is an important improvement and means an iron shorter for the second shot. But do you realise that the 14 yard improvement is over a 10 year period. How many models has TM sold during that term? I realise I am a Doubting Thomas but such a small improvement over such a long period of time makes me wonder why anyone would believe the marketing campaigns. But I guess a lot of you do. Each year the average increase in distance is only just over a yard. I wonder what the total increase the TM marketing claimed over that 10 year period. Mygolfspy must have that info to hand.
they reference both numbers you are looking for, 27 and 1.4, respectively.
just read the whole article next time.
I know the average yearly yardage increase was just over the yard, but what I was looking for was the total yardage increase claimed by TM during that 10 year period. All I am trying to do is sort fact from fiction – fiction being another name for marketing!
It would be interesting to add all the incremental yardages TM claimed for all of the drivers between the R7 Superquad and the M1.
I have the feeling it is more then 14 yards,
Dave Martinez6年 ago
I play a Cleveland HiBore xl. Tried replacing it 5 times in the last 3 years and always went back to it. I have $125.00 in my club with a custom shaft. I am 80% fairways as well.
Thanks Tony for another thought provoking article. 14 yards improvement in 10 years yes 14 yards improvement in 10 years!! If I was the CEO I would be wondering what the R & D team had been squandering all those millions of dollars on. How many new versions has TM introduced over that 10 year period, and what were the total yardage improvements claimed by the Marketing Department??
Your article has merely confirmed that the benefits of buying a new $500 are just not cost effective. It also further emphasises the importance of each driver review not only being compared with the latest offerings of other companies but a comparison with last year’s models.
Dunny Budgie6年 ago
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
Shawn Goodman6年 ago
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.
James Rush6年 ago
Genuinely good read – superquad still delivering for me though
Josh Winstanley6年 ago
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!
Arrvind Prasanna Das6年 ago
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!
Andy Aull6年 ago
I got the TM Aeroburner 3+4 hybrids, love em!
Bruce Knox6年 ago
3hybid goes 235 all day
Alex Hardin6年 ago
I still game a R7 superquad and I absolutely love it.
Robert Whitworth6年 ago
for 15 yds is it worth the risk ?
Seamus Crawford6年 ago
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.
Mark Fragiao6年 ago
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
Mike Eovino6年 ago
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?
Mike Eovino6年 ago
Sorry, I meant 2015 Most Wanted…
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.
Mike Eovino6年 ago
Understood, but would you guys consider a test against a two or three year old driver against the current Most Wanted?
Jonathan Zajicek6年 ago
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.
Patick Geraghty6年 ago
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?
Ken Walters6年 ago
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
Steve Almo6年 ago
Again, 100% correct.
Erko Hansar6年 ago
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 …
Darren Morgan6年 ago
10 years of technology for 12 yards more carry… it’s the player not the club!! James Drew
Matthew Underwood6年 ago
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.
Robert Bicknell6年 ago
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.
Mike French6年 ago
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.
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
Amen Corner6年 ago
Collin Campbell6年 ago
Wait 6-12 months for the next TM offering and get yourself “last years model” for 1/2 the cost. You’re welcome.
Matt Heister6年 ago
6 months? That’s callaway my man
Christopher Holman6年 ago
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
Steve Almo6年 ago
Zachary Andrew6年 ago
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
Christian Pederson6年 ago
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.
John Templet6年 ago
That being said, upgrade every 3 years or so.
John Templet6年 ago
Drive for show……
Jeremy Raulinaitis6年 ago
Nathan Hays I was really hoping the r7 walloped it
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????
Grant Walker6年 ago
Driver I hit the best of all TM drivers was the R580!
Josh Winstanley6年 ago
Loved my 580 shame that its now illegal
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.
Seamus Crawford6年 ago
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!!!
Steve Rawlinson6年 ago
The USGA (and R&A) have changed the rules deliberately to limit the effects of new technology on distance. Even if you could invent a driver that delivered more energy to the ball than it has at the point of impact you wouldn’t be allowed to use it. So I don’t think it’s necessarily the club manufacturers’ fault that they can’t magic up more yards.
Liam Poulter6年 ago
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?
Simon Toplis6年 ago
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.
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.
Simon Toplis6年 ago
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.
craig shelton6年 ago
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.
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…!!!
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!
Mygolfspy is the most critical critic who most likely created the notion you are beckoning.
Steve Pearcy6年 ago
How about a longer shaft in the Superquad? Distance would be longer at the price of greater dispersion. Overall results might be loser.
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
Steve Pearcy6年 ago
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”.
High launch+low spin+more ball speed= DISTANCE!
Everything else is speculation, and happenstance.
Robert Geoffrey Fay Fouts6年 ago
Longest drive I’ve ever hit was south an r7 quad HT with a 43 inch motore
William Tyler6年 ago
Exactly. Thats why im not upgrading my irons until theres significant change in technology
Bryn White6年 ago
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.
Harold W6年 ago
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
Lance Warheit6年 ago
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!
Jon Brittan6年 ago
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…
Driver heads aren’t all equal. That “shaft is the motor” spiel is rubbage. There is no magical golf product. Just physics.
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?
Ball technology passed driver tech. Driver tech is now catching up. Maybe a wound ball for argument sake, but that is just arguing.
James Hsiao6年 ago
Very cool test. Thanks MGS
Connor T. Lewis6年 ago
Very cool article
Bobby Jordan6年 ago
Looks like a setup issue. With less than 1mph difference in ball speed I’d imagine setup correctly r7 would be within 5 yards.
…and what if M1 was setup correctly as well?
IT’S SPIN RATE!
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)??
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
Count Tyrone Rugan6年 ago
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.
Carolina Golfer 26年 ago
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.
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!
Tony Covey6年 ago
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.
Steve S6年 ago
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.
Tony Covey6年 ago
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.
Steve S6年 ago
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.
Tony Covey6年 ago
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.
Steve S.6年 ago
Thanks, Tony, I’ll check it out.
Andrew Bourne6年 ago
Remember carry doesn’t equal total distance.
All this extra spin you’re losing massive rollout distances.
Steve S6年 ago
“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.
Dude you saying “carry”. Launch a ball at 19* with 3000 rpm and get 2 yds roll. 1700 rpm is 20 most likely.
Bob Pegram6年 ago
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.
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.
I was thinking the very same thing as it seemed unfair that the M1 is set in neutral but the R7 is set to bring down ball flight. I have an old R7 425 TP and I fitted a Fuji Rombax 6Z08 in it and I must say my distance has improved dramatically, certainly more than the 14 yards in the test. I here a ot of physics explanations here but certainly if the shaft is shortened, the radius (arc) of the swing decreases which contributes to the shorter distances). But the one significant factor is the shaft. Shafts 10 years ago do not perform as well as shafts of today. We also do not have any information of the shafts used in this test and only have “stock” to go by. I wonder how the SQ TP would have performed with the upgraded TP shaft. Better yet, custom fit the M1 and custom fit the SQ. I believe that using the same shaft may not be necessarily fair as you have to get the correct shaft/head pairing for optimal results. And play these shafts at standard length. A custom fitted 10 year old driver can play +/- 8 yards of a custom fitted M1. Head tech hasn’t advanced that much and both clubs allow for a great measure of adjustability.
Ryan morris6年 ago
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
It’s all about the shafts these days. So not a good comparison.
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.
Reminds me of Dale Gribble. Super paranoid with a child of an affair. LOL
Nicely done MGS! How about comparing a 5 year old driver next?
Bob Pegram6年 ago
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.
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.
John Schwerdt6年 ago
And as always, MyGolfSpy, thank you for providing unbiased, un-lobby’d for information and taking it straight to the consumer!
Andrew Allan6年 ago
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
Chris Bourquin6年 ago
John Schwerdt6年 ago
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…
Tony Covey6年 ago
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.
Don Gau6年 ago
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.
John Schwerdt6年 ago
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!!
Andrew Bourne6年 ago
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.
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.
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.
Ping i20 vs TM M1…Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla!
Leith Anderson6年 ago
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?
dick the bruiser6年 ago
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 ?????????????????????????????????
Dang…I just bought a Superquad TP (All Black Edition)…I wish this article was posted a few weeks earlier…
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!!
Were the shafts the same length? Long shaft = more distance but also less accuracy.
gary pell6年 ago
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.
Audio Video6年 ago
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.
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.
Tony Covey6年 ago
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.
James T6年 ago
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?”.
Cheetah Woods6年 ago
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.
Duncan Castles6年 ago
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.
Tony Covey6年 ago
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.
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.
Steve S6年 ago
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.
Kenny B6年 ago
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.
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?
Mel Creighton6年 ago
Were the shafts and shaft lengths comparable? What would be the results when a new shaft is put into the older head?
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.
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.