An awful lot has been written and will continue to be written, about the technological advances in golf clubs. Why even last week, the Sunday Telegraph (27th January 2002) produced a near full page editorial article about a new driver head being marketed by John Letters. Well that's not quite true, they have actually formed a new company, John Letters Diamond Golf Ltd specifically to market this new marvel. I wonder why they did that!!
The driver in question using industrial diamonds ground into a tungsten carbide metal base to produce this harder hitting area, which is set into the face of the club.
If we start at the beginning, according to the article, a gentleman in the US discovered that by using a harder surface on the face of his driver, less energy was absorbed during the collision with the ball and clubface, that the ball actually flew further. WOW, isn't science a wonderful thing !!
At this point I would draw your attention to the last News article that appeared on our website, www.designergolf.co.uk , posted on 7th January 2002 explaining exactly how this occurs. The posting in question was extracted from an article written by Brett Lindsey - Golfsmith Director of Technical Services.
Unfortunately the Sunday Telegraph editorial, which for the new John Letters subsidiary, must have been like all their birthdays came on the same day, was totally misleading and this was further compounded the following day in a live interview on Radio FiveLive. It was however correct on one point, in stating that a diamond is the hardest mineral known to man.
If we look at the article, the gentleman in question attached a piece of an abrasive disc, manufactured in part with industrial diamonds (as many cutting tools are) to the face of his driver and discovered that he hit the ball further. Well that should be of no surprise, as the harder the surface of the driver face is, the less energy is lost during impact and the further the ball will fly. But how much further ?
The Sunday Telegraph in their infinite wisdom, employed the services of a PGA club professional to test the theory and reported that he hit the ball 20 yards further than with his own driver. Well I can hear you saying, that must be conclusive proof that this driver has to be worth every penny of its £700.00 price tag. Double the price we are assured by The Sunday Telegraph, of its competitors.
Unfortunately what they fail to report, was how the driver used in the tests, compared to the driver normally used by the PGA club professional in question. Was for example, the length the same ? Was the shaft identical in every way to the one he normally uses ? Was the weight of the combined components the same ? Was the ball used in the tests the same ball that he normally uses ? All of these factors are very relevant.
The manufacturers themselves claimed only a ten yard increase in distance. But then they were only using a mechanical hitting device, delivering identical impact speeds, a test that must be far more accurate, but at an estimated £350.00 increase in price over their competitors, it would seem to be an expensive luxury.
Two other claims were made in the article. The first concerned the "sweet spot" which it was claimed was one and a half inches across. From looking at the picture of the face of the driver it would appear that an area of that size is present in the centre of the face and is obviously the area where the face is the hardest. You can enlarge a hitting area, but you cannot enlarge a "sweet spot". The sweet spot is the point on the clubface which vertically and horizontally is the spot at which the head would balance if placed on a pointed object held vertically.
The second concerned the extra roll that this club produced, like an extra 20 yards. I am not sure how you could measure this as many factors would be brought into play. Perhaps someone would let us know.
Finally and what is very significant, is that their assumed nearest competitor has a driver that is not approved by the USGA, because it does not fall within their requirements that a COR of 0.830 is the maximum allowable. (see the January News at www.designergolf.co.uk ) This new innovation must surely produce a COR higher than this. Will it suffer the same non - approval fate with the USGA.
I have sent this complete News item to both The Editor of The Sunday Telegraph and to Radio FiveLive by email and will post any replied that we receive.
|
