We test 17 new drivers : Using robots and real golfers, we analyze clubs for shot shape and trajectory tendencies - Evaluation - Statistical Data Included

Golf Digest, Oct, 1999 by Peter Farricker, Art Chou

Chances are you have stood on the tee, watched your playing partner rip one down the fairway and then borrowed that same club to give it a try. Sometimes the result is another center- cut bomb; other times the ball flies so far out-of-bounds all you can do is laugh. The culprit is often the club, not the swing. Not all drivers work identically. They may look similar and cost approximately the same, but like computers, cars and most other high-priced toys, the differences between drivers can be both subtle and immense.

If you're like most golfers, you don't have access to the high-tech gadgetry used by tour pros to measure the critical elements for successful driving: spin rate, ball speed and launch angle. In light of that, Golf Digest has, for the third time, put 17 drivers through extensive testing--both robotic and player testing--to help determine the relative performance tendencies of each driver. The chart on the following pages is not a ranking system of drivers, but rather a breakdown of the relative performance tendencies of the clubs. The chart should be used as a starting point in your search for a new driver.

Other magazines use strictly player testing, in which a small player pool comments on feel, looks and performance. We believe this methodology is overly subjective and omits the scientific analysis necessary for a fully informed buying decision.

The tests we performed are more objective and quantitative. In addition to the robotic testing, in which we compared every driver to a pair of GOLF DIGEST baseline clubs, we had more than 100 golfers of various handicap abilities (1 through 21) hit the drivers. The shot shape and trajectory for every single shot was noted. After analyzing all the data, we categorized a "relative performance tendency" for each driver based on these player and robotic tests.

We also measured each shaft for flex and torque to come up with an overall-stiffness ranking (softer, soft, medium, stiff and very stiff). It is not uncommon for one company's stiff shaft to be more flexible than another company's regular shaft. The overall stiffness ranking used here is a unique feature of this test and cannot be found anywhere else.

Case study

Many drivers performed the same in the robotic and player testing. Others, however, had dissimilar performances. One driver, for instance, hit a slight draw on the robot, but clearly produced a more left-to-right flight with the live testing. Players obviously had more trouble closing the face with this driver than did the robot. Three reasons: shaft stiffness (flex plays a larger role for a person than for a robot), clubhead size (the robot's strong downswing can close the face easier on a driver with a larger clubhead), and alignment (the unique design of this particular driver made inconsistent face alignment at address more common for the player).

"Those differences [between robot and players] don't surprise me," says Callaway's Dick Helmstetter. "A robot operator completely controls the face angle, and the robot has, essentially, unlimited strength. Players have other problems, like insufficient strength to overcome a club's tendencies."

Now take a close look at the accompanying chart to see which drivers might improve your game.