• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Dirtyzecret

Taylor Made R1, what colour should I choose?

0   4 votes

  1. 1. Smokey black colour (like in the pic) or Piano black colour (shiny black)

    • Smokey black
      3
    • Piano black
      1

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

17 posts in this topic

I just wanted to say that this driver is the best I have used, but I hated the R1 brands and stripes on it, so I painted it pure black. Easy job and worth it :)

Im just wondering what you guys think about the black colour.

Should I have it like it is, sandblasted smokey black or should I do it ''piano black'' shiny?

If I go for the final shiny layer, there is NO RETURN :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Id leave it. What did you paint it with?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Id leave it. What did you paint it with?

I used 3 layers heat resistant black matte paint on spray can. This is the same paint you will use to restore fireplaces and so. Thing with this is that is really scratch resistant and it also gives the ''sandblown'' finish but I am a little unsure about making it shiny black .Now it's almost the same as the Ping i20 2013.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a huge fan of drivers with a high gloss finish, so I'd stick with the matte personally. But the question is: which do you typically prefer?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I'm not a huge fan of drivers with a high gloss finish, so I'd stick with the matte personally. But the question is: which do you typically prefer?

Yes, I did it with high gloss first, using a glossy finishing layer over the black in the first post. Did not like it when it was sunny, so I did it over again and now it is like the one in the picture. Matte is best. I kind of liked the orginal white colour on the R1, but it had to big problems.

- The white paint was not good at all, it got scratches just by looking at it.

- The logos on the top is not good, better if they did it clean like the R11s.

Im also arguing with Taylor Made about a Spider Blade putter, the paint on this putter is really bad quality, it tears way to easy, even if you threat it with care :(

Thinking about doing the putter black to....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to say that this driver is the best I have used, but I hated the R1 brands and stripes on it, so I painted it pure black. Easy job and worth it :)

Im just wondering what you guys think about the black colour.

Should I have it like it is, sandblasted smokey black or should I do it ''piano black'' shiny?

If I go for the final shiny layer, there is NO RETURN :)

I bought the Black one myself.....and that looks badass. Kinda wish I did the same thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just bought the factory black one today and love the look of the combined glossy and matte finish... If I was doing only one though I'd stick with the matte sandblasted look
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling @WUTiger , how did 3 coats of spray paint change the swing weight of this driver.....?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Sorry, no firsthand knowledge on this.

I did find a thread on repaints in GolfWRX.com. Rough estimate: each coat would add about 1/2 swingweight point.

  • One person recommended three coats of color and three coats of clear.
  • Another person suggested taking the driver to an auto body shop and have them do it.

You might contact Ralph Maltby's www.GolfWorks.com crew and see if they know. GW refinishes metal wood heads. You can call them at 1-800-848-8358.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, no firsthand knowledge on this.

I did find a thread on repaints in GolfWRX.com. Rough estimate: each coat would add about 1/2 swingweight point.

One person recommended three coats of color and three coats of clear.

Another person suggested taking the driver to an auto body shop and have them do it.

You might contact Ralph Maltby's www.GolfWorks.com crew and see if they know. GW refinishes metal wood heads. You can call them at 1-800-848-8358.

As an OLD painter, you do NOT need 3 coats of clear. 1 if done properly will do.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I wonder if powder coating could be done on a driver? I don't know much about it but the only drawback I can see is if a driver head can be baked without messing it up.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if powder coating could be done on a driver?

I don't know much about it but the only drawback I can see is if a driver head can be baked without messing it up.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to chance sending a driver through a powder coating process.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Would either make a really nice finish or a glob of warped up metal. ;-) Volunteers to be the Guinea pig? Ha ha! Edit: Well after a Google search it appears it can be done, but I'm not sure how much expertise it takes, and it's expensive to have someone else do it.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this looks awesome. I am going to try this on my white burner super fast 2.0 this week.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always go with black unless you prefer how a white driver looks at address.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Im making this for my girlfriend :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Where they let Rickie take that drop from is some BS. He should've been further back.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      He said something like "even your typical PGA Tour player these days would have been a superstar in my day." His point was that there are a TON more talented players who are far better than the guys he played against. I don't think it's quite as exaggerated as you might, but I also really don't care to get into it too deeply. The strength of field is multiple times stronger today than in 1968. There weren't that many overseas players. Or players in the U.S., for that matter. That alone accounts for strength of field differences. Very few foreign players came over to play on the PGA Tour. The money wasn't that good, unless you were one of the top players. It wasn't like it is today, and travel was still expensive. There's a reason players back then had to carpool, share hotel rooms, etc. Just look at the basic numbers. Once you get past the top one, two, maybe three players… it's folly to suggest it was likely that the top 15 players out of 1.5 million players is at all on the same level as the top 15 players from 100 million golfers. It's possible but highly, highly, highly unlikely. Furthermore, golf has attracted more and better athletes recently, too, which wasn't anywhere near as true in the 1960s. I get it. People like to romanticize the past. But the games and athletes move on and get better. That's irrelevant. He could only beat who he played against, and the truth is, he didn't beat weaker competition more often than Tiger Woods except in majors, he didn't win more money titles, more scoring titles, more individual awards, have higher margins of victory, etc. than Tiger Woods, all against weaker (Nicklaus's) competition. Jack might have chosen football if he grew up today. He might have been a career Web.com Tour player. Or he might have won 23 majors because he was that good and the modern advancements would have helped him that much. We don't know. It's pointless to speculate, IMO. I think the depth of field still matters and mattered in the majors. Even in the Opens. Even in events including only the top 50 players, there's still a big gap in depth from the 60s to the 00s.
    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Come on guys, I'm missing the 1st quarter of the Super Bowl. That being said, I think Fowler just sent his chances to a watery grave.
    • The Films and Movies Thread
      A little late finding this - X-Men, Days of Future Past Quicksilver scene in realtime.   
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      I'd be curious to see just what Jack said. I think "10 or 15" having a chance to win for typical PGA Tour events in any era is an exaggeration of the relative weakness of the fields. Even before there was a depth of talent in the U.S. and the 'golf craze' here took off, the money drew top level golfers from overseas who were following the better money available here in tournaments and pro positions. I accept there's been a general strengthening of fields as the expansion in prize money and the total population of competitive golfers (see chart below) have forced top golfers to have more preparation and polish, but I don't think there's really ever been a lack of generally elite level competition on the PGA tour or at the Majors since about the 20's or 30's. I think if the effect of a tiny number of truly top level competitors taking on a bunch of club pro relative 'dubs' was as strong as you seem to think that most of the top multiple Major winners would be golfers from the early days of the tour. But to me it looks pretty balanced across eras. I'll see if I can work up some actual numbers. By the 1920s there were likely about 1.5 million golfers (in the U.S. alone), which is a pretty healthy base from which to draw potential 'top talent'. Total participation in golf from when Jack started to when Tiger started roughly tripled. As far as rating 'achievement' you play in the era you play with the existing disadvantages and advantages. IMO, if Jack had grown up as a contemporary of Tiger with the same advantages of technology and swing instruction / coaching and the same disadvantages of a greater number of potential competitors that they would both have risen to elite levels and would have regularly been battling for Amateur and Major Championships. I don't think the potential ranges of human abilities / talent really change much in a few generations. Would I consider Tiger more competitively vetted, yes. Do I think that means his talent level and achievements were automatically greater than Jack's? No. I could see valuing Tiger's win total more than Jack's (and certainly Snead's with some 'iffy' events in the total) because of the relative talent base depth, but not sure that transfers as readily to the performance in Majors, particularly the Opens. I think it would have been amazing and exciting to be able to see them compete at their peaks rather than a boring foregone conclusion.  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries