Golf technologies (sometimes even good ones) usually fail for one of the three reasons.
1. The idea is essentially bad. You can even call it a trick.
2. The resulting product opposes expectations in a bad way. Does not pass the test of the eye (or ear).
3. Is a solution in search of a problem. Even if there can be real benefits, often the market is not ready … or interested.
And, of course, in many cases, failed technologies display two or three of the reasons listed above.
With this he said, let’s take a look at some golf technologies that don’t make the cut at all.
Square driver
Before someone talked about $ 10k drivers, a big couple (or I think, surname) Manufacturers (Callaway and Nike) released square drivers. The goal was to maximize the component of my prayer and push the heel/inertia of the foot up against the 5,900 border.
In a sense, the square models reached the target. They were super durable and super consistent. Unfortunately, given the best available technology, they were also relatively slow and shorter than most of all in the market.
The reality is that while many players’ players love a story of forgiveness, and many of us would benefit from extra help, no one wants to give up remotely to get it. If the performance implications were not so bad, the square drivers were first eyes and the feeling was less than pleasant.
Cavity
If you do not put more than a few seconds of thought on it, the cavity return drivers almost make sense. Like players’ players, we are conditioned to accompany the cuffs of cavity return with the perimeter weighing and, extending, more forgiveness and so, I think, a cavity return driver almost sounds like a good idea.
However, in the category of drivers, cavity return patterns, especially Nike’s secret formation, were a poor design exercise.
Effectively pushing a considerable part of what should be the only one in the crown, Nike raised its centers of gravity to extreme levels, creating lower release, an excessive amount of rotation rotations and sub-optimals .
While it was not the only mistake it could indicate, this flow of cavity return drivers contributed to Nike’s exit from the equipment space.
As a note of this part of our history, Nike was not entirely in deceiving the driver’s design bases. Mac Burrow’s Powersphere offered a similar weak approach.
Drivers with steep crown (OG Cleveland Hibore)
Type anti-converting, the original Cleveland HiBore design worked to reduce the center of gravity while offering MOI relatively high for its time. The exchange was a form that was not quite square and nothing but traditional.
At that time, I would argue that the Hibore series was a largely good idea that did not pass the test (or ear test, on that issue).
By today’s standards, it would only fail in aerodynamics, which is likely why when Cleveland brought Hibore again this year, they bowed into a triangular form than the crown of the original.
Adjustable wedge
I will offer two different approaches to adjustable wedges, none of which came out applicable.
If you find yourself intrigued, more seismore wedges are still available.
More wedges are completely modular, which undoubtedly sound a fresh kind. With special hosel (adjustable attic), pieces of face and flange, you can not only change a worn face without buying a new wedge, but also use the flange to change the swelling.
Why buy multiple wedges when you just have to tear down?
In addition to the $ 350 price, the basic problem was that more wedges are not particularly strong interpreters. They produced lower rotation than most competitors, had a lost right tendency and delivered the subpar feeling.
In pursuing more features than market demands, they fail on the bases.
From the two examples, it can be argued that the replaceable XFT wedges of Tayormade made more sense. This is especially true at the tournament level where single custom grinding is ubiquitous. If you can replace a worn face without having to recreate what is often a single one-one grinding, is a real advantage.
While the XFT Wedges had a small cult in the following, beyond the tour where it is difficult to make players change gloves and wedges seem to have an endless life expectancy, the demand did not justify the model.
Also also almost true universal that with the increase in the complexity of the construction and you begin to add different screws and points of the interrupted bond, you feel invariably suffers. In a category that all require something approximating to fake feeling, the simplest is often better.
Harrison Shot Producer
The shot manufacturer was a 12 -inch shaft insert. Specifically designed to stabilize the top of the Golf shaft, the company claimed it could improve the distribution of up to 40 percent.
Reviews (including ours) were generally positive, but the OEM had been rejected by the alleged benefits. Even for the assemblies, match the golf player with fair The Shot -Companer insert looked like an educated assumption at good and ultimately never got widespread consciousness, let alone adoption.
There may have been something about technology and, over the years, some have flirted with the idea of ​​resetting it, but, for now, it seems like we have heard the end of the story.
Magnesium
Magnesium has been used for a while or a little as a driver material due to its light properties. A low -density material, magnesium would theoretically allow designers to reposition the measure for better forgiveness and starting conditions.
In practice, compared to titanium and carbon compositions, magnesium failed to provide significant performance benefits, while presenting new design challenges.
Despite his weight advantage, magnesium lacks the durability needed to withstand high speed repeated influences, making it prone to scarring and cracking.
It is also lightly oxidized and the silent sound and the feeling are not particularly attractive to many players.
With the Titan that offers superior strength and proven performance and carbon compositions excel in weight savings, magnesium never gained extensive adoption and has been abandoned mainly in the design of the Golf Club.
Aynim real stickers
Basically, they were glue that you put on your driver crown to improve accuracy and distribution. At that time, we believed that they would catch and, if the memory serves, there was at least one OEM by kicking the tires for integrating the decades or at least a version of them with their leaders.
They came to some models and had a documented process to find out who was right for you. Although approved by the USA, they were never caught. The idea came up and the company moved to the ball markers, but I am not convinced that they could not have helped players to run the ball better.
Cobra Carbontrac
The biggest challenge when joining a ton of adjustment into a golf club is counting, or compensation, the weight lost in the structures needed to support the movable weight.
With his F6+driver, Cobra tried to solve the problem using carbon fiber to create structures that enabled her to slide the weight from the extreme front to the extreme back of its leaders.
In a different version of this story, Carbontrac can be considered along with a long list of other COBRA innovations but the reality is that Carbontrac had important sounds and feel implications (and none of them was good).
Despite her best efforts, Cobra was unable to resolve the acoustic issue, and so, despite being sound technology, Carbontrac was removed before the F7 hit the market.
What else?
For which other failed golf technologies can you think about? Were they good ideas without an audience or disadvantage essentially from the beginning?
office 8 failed golf technologies: some of the most interesting golf losses first appeared in MygolfSSS.
