Question

1.87K viewsDecember 22, 2017

RossCW 8 December 22, 2017 0 Comments

Is it possible for one head to have a shorter C-dimension and a longer blade length vs another design that has a longer C-d but a shorter blade length….and both have the COG in the center of the face?

An example I’m looking at is the Maltby St-i and KE4 Tour+. The St-i has a listed C-d of 1.553″ and blade length of 3.350. The KE4 Tour+ is listed at 1.594″ and 3.295.

This differences are very small, but was wondering if they both are considered to have the COG in the center of the face, or is the Tour+ actually a fraction on the toe side?

Also, this was posted recently on another forum and was wondering if you have any insights in regards…

“I would never trust Maltby’s rating system for clubheads. It is based on incorrect conclusions which were never verified by empirical scientific hit testing. How do I know this – Golf Digest asked me and two other OEM design engineers to research it and write a report on it several years ago, which we did to support our conclusions of its inaccuracy. How did we get the information from which we wrote the paper – Maltby had sent complete data on it to Golf Digest in the hope the magazine would embrace it and use it in their articles about golf clubs. Since GD had their reputation on the line concerning a decision to use this or not, they wanted a qualified peer review.”

1 Answer

Answer 1 · 2017-12-27T19:25:13+00:00

You can have a shorter C dim and a longer blade length, and visa versa. You can have a long blade length but have a ot of weight in the heel and the c dim would be shorter. You could have a shorter blade length but have more weight int he toe and the c dim could be longer. In the case of the KE4 Tour Plus, the horizontal cg is very slightly on the toe side of center, approx. .025″.

As far as the post you copied, not going to dignify it with a lengthy response. I know who wrote it and what the agenda is. This “report” was never made available to us for review or rebuttal. Would really like to see the “empirical scientific hit testing data” disproving the MPF. All I will say is that they, the design engineers sighted, have never presented any “empirical scientific hit testing data” that we are aware of to disprove the effect that mass and dimensional characteristics have on ball flight. That is because they know, they know, that the cg of a clubhead mass does have a major role in determining the performance of a clubhead. If it did not, how come so much effort is place on cg in design, whether it is in adjustablilty on woods, or location in irons. Why did Ping have so much success with the original Ping Eye and then the Ping Eye II? With those clubs players realized, for the first time, what “forgiveness and stability” actually were. Why did many tour players have Ping long irons. Why do many of todays Tour players have driving irons or hybrids replacing the harder to hit traditionally designed long irons they have played. Why were and are those clubs easier to hit? The answer is CG location and mass and dimensional characteristics, pure and simple. The golf balls cg and the club heads cg and the their relationship when the ball is struck is critical to how the ball flies. I could go on, but we do not have to defend what the MPF is and what it is not. Ralph has explained it’s method, purpose and it’s role and has the support of many, many, MANY in the industry. It is a tool that should be used to better understand how a particular designs mass and dimensional characteristics will effect it’s performance. Wonder what the MPF on clubheads designed by the engineers mentioned are, or would be, if the opportunity was given to measure them?

Britt Lindsey