Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 6356 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted
I've been building clubs for a pretty short period of time and I have a question. I understand that the shafts on a Wal-Mart driver are very low quality and that the shaft makes a huge difference on how a driver performs.

What I'm struggling with a little is trying to justify $160 for a Snake Eyes driver head. I know that they sell really quality components but here is my question:

This isn't a rhetorical question. What's the difference between one of their driver heads and one that comes on a driver at Wal-Mart.

Again, I'm not trying to be ignorant, I just don't understand.

They're the same size (460cc), same technology as far as shape of the head, same material(Titanium).

So technically speaking, what makes golfsmiths heads worth $100 more???

Will you see a $100 difference off the tee if you choose a Snake Eyes head over something store bought with a nice shaft in it?

Posted
Where are you paying $160 for a golfsmith driver head? The most expensive one they have on their website is $134.

As far as quality difference and price, let me use an analogy.

You can master 90% of golf practicing 1 hour a day.
95% practicing 2 hours a day.
98% practicing 4 hours a day.
99% practicing 8 yours a day.
99.5% practicing 16 hours a day.
There are not enough hours in the day to master the last 0.5%.

This is true for just about any endevour in life (including manufacturing a clubhead.)

It doesn't take a lot of effort to build a good clubhead that will meet 90% of your needs on a golf course. The cost and effort to build a clubhead that will meet 95% of your needs isn't an extra 5%. It is 200%.

Whether the big extra cost is worth it for the improvement depends on you. A Wal-Mart club will probably meet 90% of your needs. The Snake-Eyes 98%. Is that extra 8% worth the cost?

Instight XTD A30S Driver 10.5° ($69 new ebay)
Instight XTD A3OS Fairway Wood 15° ($45 new ebay)
Fybrid 19.5° ($35 new ebay)
Ci7 4-GW ($175 new Rock Bottom Golf via ebay)
53° & 58° 8620 DD wedges ($75 each new PGA Superstore) C2-DF ($35 new Rock Bottom Golf) Riley TT stand bag ($7 n...


Posted
Where are you paying $160 for a golfsmith driver head? The most expensive one they have on their website is $134.

Thanks for your response but your answer doesn't really tell me anything. I was looking for a specific difference between the quality of the heads. What is the 8%?

I appreciate your anaolgy but I don't think it really answers my question.

Posted
This isn't a rhetorical question. What's the difference between one of their driver heads and one that comes on a driver at Wal-Mart.

Well, this would also mean whats the difference between something such as a taylormade driver head vs a walmart driver head?

Honestly, if i wasn't absolutely in love with my irons i would trade them for snake eyes irons because they are AMAZING. A friend of mine has all golfsmith components and they are simply amazing. The viper irons have a style similiar to the AP1/AP2. The driver head he has is very similiar to a hibore xl. See if you can try the club head out before you buy it.

In my Extreme Sport Stand Bag
Driver: 4DX D-Spec Driver 10.5* Stiff UST SR3
3W: F-60 15* Regular Fujikura E150 Fit-On
Hybrids: 4DX Ironwoods 20* 23* Regular UST SR3
Irons: 4DX CB 5-PW Stiff True Temper ST-90Wedges: Vokey 50* 56*Putter: SabertoothBall: DT Roll


Posted
It is also the same thing as saying, what is the difference between any driver out there other than shape nowadays. It is all about feel and setup.

Posted
Thanks for your response but your answer doesn't really tell me anything. I was looking for a specific difference between the quality of the heads. What is the 8%?

OK, I'll give it a shot.

1. Consistency of materials. There are different grades (or purity) of material. Just because something is titanium you have no idea the quality of titanium used in it. Beef can be graded from Prime at the top, Standard in the middle, and Canner at the low end. Would you pay the same for Prime Beef and Canner Beef? 2. Different types of materials. There are different types of titanium that each act slightly differently when used to build a clubhead. Goldsmith does a good job (imho) of explaining why they picked a specific type of titanium to build a head out of. What type of titanium are you getting in a Wal-Mart head? 3. Consistency in manufacture. It costs more to ensure each item meets a predetermined standard. Is that 10 degree driver really 10 degrees, or 11 (or 12, 13, 9, 8, 7?) Is the lie really correct? Does it really weight what it says? Lower prices mean more variant heads are allowed to ship. A higher price generally means tighter manufacturing processes. Golfsmith publishes the manufacturing tolerances for all of its heads. You can also pay them an extra fee and they will go though their stock and find a head with the exact specifications you want. 4. Advanced design features. Golfsmith has done some interesting things such as ultra thin tops (to move to MOI lower), changing the COR of the face so it bumps up agains the legal limit, and distributing weight around the head to produce a specific ball flight. The manufacturing tolerances in Wal-Mart heads are simply too low to allow them to attempt to do anything like that. The same is true for most high end manufaturers.

Instight XTD A30S Driver 10.5° ($69 new ebay)
Instight XTD A3OS Fairway Wood 15° ($45 new ebay)
Fybrid 19.5° ($35 new ebay)
Ci7 4-GW ($175 new Rock Bottom Golf via ebay)
53° & 58° 8620 DD wedges ($75 each new PGA Superstore) C2-DF ($35 new Rock Bottom Golf) Riley TT stand bag ($7 n...


Posted
OK, I'll give it a shot.

Very well explained. That makes a lot of sense and I feel better going ahead and purchasing a golfsmith head.


Note: This thread is 6356 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • I have a couple of trips planned, although golf was a secondary component in each.  In February we're going to visit some friends near Naples, so Mary Anne and I have added on a few days to stay and play at Streamsong.  Then In March we're going to Hawaii (again), and will almost certainly get in a few rounds there.
    • My next golf trip will probably be a short one, but I’m really looking forward to it. I’m thinking of staying relatively close, picking a spot with a few solid courses and making a long weekend out of it. For me, the best golf trips are about good courses, relaxed vibes, and time away with friends.
    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.