TourIQ
May 22, 2007, 10:35 PM
an article from Tom Wishon Golf Technology ...
The Story Behind the Recent Non-Conformity of Major Brand Drivers by the USGA
If you follow the news of the golf equipment industry, one of the hottest stories of the spring season has been the USGA’s discovery of a number of brand name model drivers being sold at retail that have a CT/COR in violation of the rules of golf, and the ruling body’s subsequent decision to change the status of these models to be non-conforming.
The controversy began in April when the USGA was informed that some of the Nike Sumo2 drivers in retail shops had a COR/CT that was higher than the 0.830 COR/ 257 CT measurement limit allowed in the rules of golf. Upon acquiring a number of Sumo2 drivers from retail shops to test, the USGA discovered some that were over the spring face limit and immediately declared the Sumo2 to be non-conforming.
A week later, the same situation was discovered about the Callaway Big Bertha 460, and two weeks after that, models from Cleveland and Cobra Golf companies were said to also be over the COR/CT limit and destined to be placed on the USGA’s non-conforming list.
In all cases, we have heard that each company is re-submitting new versions of each model to the USGA, each with the required change in marking on the head, to distinguish them from the original models now ruled to be non-conforming. The companies with drivers whose ruling was changed to non-conformity are all accepting inventory back from retailers to re-test the CT of the faces, and replacing drivers that prove to be over the CT limit with ones that are below the rule threshold and which are marked differently to distinguish from the original versions.
How did this happen and what does this mean to the golf industry as well as the USGA’s position as the rulemaking body for the game? A lot of opinions have been flying around since the matter surfaced, some factual, some simply “a spin of the story.” Since TWGT has many informed contacts in the industry and a vast amount of experience in both the politics and production side of the business, we wanted to share what we know and what we believe to be fact and fiction in this matter.
It is no doubt the crux of this matter stems from the incredible pressure on the big golf companies to increase their sales in the face of intense competition and a gradual softening in the commerce of the game. Several of our inside contacts stated that the USGA did not discover these “over the line” drivers on their own; they were “tipped off” by one or more of the big golf companies that had embarked on a program of acquiring samples of their competitors’ drivers to test and look for competing drivers that were over the USGA’s limit for spring face effect.
This itself is a pretty nasty commentary on the state of competition among the big companies. For obvious reasons, the USGA has had a long standing policy of not accepting equipment for conformity testing from any entity other than the company or person who created the model. To do so would open the door to all manner of potentially dishonest practices by companies against each other. However, the USGA was alarmed enough by the reports they received to acquire samples from retail to test and re-visit their original conforming ruling.
As a result, some insiders are predicting a “witch-hunt” may be triggered as companies acquire samples of their competitors’ drivers to test and report their findings to the USGA. Since this matter of previously conforming drivers being made and sold which are over the CT/COR limit is not isolated to one company and one model, many are wondering if this represents a wholesale “thumbing of the nose” by golf companies to the USGA or isolated accidents in production which caused a few drivers to be over the limit. Either way, it has the USGA very worried about how to deal with a situation they have previously not confronted, and for which they do not have a solution.
Clubmakers are all aware that the limit for the CT/COR in the USGA Rules of Golf is a CT measurement of 257 µsecs, which is equivalent to a COR of 0.830. However, the USGA sees the limit at a CT of 239 µsecs, or a COR of 0.822, with the allowance of another 18 µsecs in the CT or 0.008 COR points being the allowed tolerance. Thresholds and tolerances exist in virtually all USGA rules in which there is a measurement involved. For example, for the USGA rule limiting the volume/size of a clubhead, the limit is 460cc with a tolerance of 10cc, thus making the absolute upper limit 470cc. In the case of the more recent rule limiting the MOI Izz of drivers to 5900 g-cm2, there is an additional 100 g-cm2 tolerance which makes the upper limit 6000 g-cm2.
In all these cases, the USGA does not want companies intentionally making their equipment to be within the range that includes the manufacturing tolerance. For example, any company that intentionally markets and marks a driver head with a volume/size higher than 460cc but not above 470cc will find that driver head ruled non-conforming, even though technically it is not above the upper limit of 470cc. The reason is because the USGA wants the tolerance zone for measurable rule limits to allow for manufacturing “pluses or minuses” so that no piece of equipment ruled to be conforming could ever be made, shipped and sold to be over the limit for the rules which use measurable design parameters as their defining limit.
Therefore, when it comes to the CT/COR rule, the USGA wants all companies to make their heads so if every design parameter were dead-on the design specifications, the driver head would have a CT/COR of 239/0.822. This way when the foundry makes heads for each company which would be outside the actual design specs but within the foundry’s stated +/- tolerances, all heads would still be below the upper limit in the rules for the CT/COR of 257/0.830.
The recent discovery of a number of companies’ models being over the CT/COR limit is not an example of companies trying to “cheat” and knowingly violate the rule. It is simply that the companies all want to make their drivers to be as close to the upper limit for the CT/COR rule as possible. TWGT has heard comments from Clubmakers and golfers to the effect of why don’t all the companies test every driver for CT/COR that they produce and sell. While a noble thought, it is simply not humanly possible to do that within each company’s budget and customer service parameters. At best, a reliably accurate CT test cannot be performed in less than 15 minutes. If a company makes and sells 250,000 or more drivers per year, a number that applies to several of the big golf club companies today, performing a CT test on every one would require 32 people working 8 hours a day, Monday to Friday for 52 weeks a year to complete the task! What are already expensive golf clubs would become even more so, with delays in delivery to retailers being an additional result.
What is the USGA going to do about this? One of TWGT’s inside sources revealed that the USGA knows they cannot embark on a program to constantly spot-test all companies’ drivers after a conforming ruling has been issued. There are simply too many companies and too many driver models being made and sold in the industry today to allow the USGA to initiate such a program. At the same time, the USGA does not wish to ignore the problem.
While there may be other options as yet undiscovered, many industry experts are saying this will signal the start of the USGA beginning to seriously consider separate rules for equipment for elite player competition vs. regular golfers. Bifurcation is the fancy word being used to describe the possibility that the USGA may break with tradition and begin to consider setting up separate equipment rules.
While no one yet knows what the outcome of this controversy will be, it is certain that something will be proposed by the USGA in an effort to keep some form of control over the game’s equipment. What this will be, and whether it too may end up being subrogated by the companies remains to be seen. As we have said before in ongoing situations related to clubmaking, stay tuned because we have not heard the end of this by all means.
The Story Behind the Recent Non-Conformity of Major Brand Drivers by the USGA
If you follow the news of the golf equipment industry, one of the hottest stories of the spring season has been the USGA’s discovery of a number of brand name model drivers being sold at retail that have a CT/COR in violation of the rules of golf, and the ruling body’s subsequent decision to change the status of these models to be non-conforming.
The controversy began in April when the USGA was informed that some of the Nike Sumo2 drivers in retail shops had a COR/CT that was higher than the 0.830 COR/ 257 CT measurement limit allowed in the rules of golf. Upon acquiring a number of Sumo2 drivers from retail shops to test, the USGA discovered some that were over the spring face limit and immediately declared the Sumo2 to be non-conforming.
A week later, the same situation was discovered about the Callaway Big Bertha 460, and two weeks after that, models from Cleveland and Cobra Golf companies were said to also be over the COR/CT limit and destined to be placed on the USGA’s non-conforming list.
In all cases, we have heard that each company is re-submitting new versions of each model to the USGA, each with the required change in marking on the head, to distinguish them from the original models now ruled to be non-conforming. The companies with drivers whose ruling was changed to non-conformity are all accepting inventory back from retailers to re-test the CT of the faces, and replacing drivers that prove to be over the CT limit with ones that are below the rule threshold and which are marked differently to distinguish from the original versions.
How did this happen and what does this mean to the golf industry as well as the USGA’s position as the rulemaking body for the game? A lot of opinions have been flying around since the matter surfaced, some factual, some simply “a spin of the story.” Since TWGT has many informed contacts in the industry and a vast amount of experience in both the politics and production side of the business, we wanted to share what we know and what we believe to be fact and fiction in this matter.
It is no doubt the crux of this matter stems from the incredible pressure on the big golf companies to increase their sales in the face of intense competition and a gradual softening in the commerce of the game. Several of our inside contacts stated that the USGA did not discover these “over the line” drivers on their own; they were “tipped off” by one or more of the big golf companies that had embarked on a program of acquiring samples of their competitors’ drivers to test and look for competing drivers that were over the USGA’s limit for spring face effect.
This itself is a pretty nasty commentary on the state of competition among the big companies. For obvious reasons, the USGA has had a long standing policy of not accepting equipment for conformity testing from any entity other than the company or person who created the model. To do so would open the door to all manner of potentially dishonest practices by companies against each other. However, the USGA was alarmed enough by the reports they received to acquire samples from retail to test and re-visit their original conforming ruling.
As a result, some insiders are predicting a “witch-hunt” may be triggered as companies acquire samples of their competitors’ drivers to test and report their findings to the USGA. Since this matter of previously conforming drivers being made and sold which are over the CT/COR limit is not isolated to one company and one model, many are wondering if this represents a wholesale “thumbing of the nose” by golf companies to the USGA or isolated accidents in production which caused a few drivers to be over the limit. Either way, it has the USGA very worried about how to deal with a situation they have previously not confronted, and for which they do not have a solution.
Clubmakers are all aware that the limit for the CT/COR in the USGA Rules of Golf is a CT measurement of 257 µsecs, which is equivalent to a COR of 0.830. However, the USGA sees the limit at a CT of 239 µsecs, or a COR of 0.822, with the allowance of another 18 µsecs in the CT or 0.008 COR points being the allowed tolerance. Thresholds and tolerances exist in virtually all USGA rules in which there is a measurement involved. For example, for the USGA rule limiting the volume/size of a clubhead, the limit is 460cc with a tolerance of 10cc, thus making the absolute upper limit 470cc. In the case of the more recent rule limiting the MOI Izz of drivers to 5900 g-cm2, there is an additional 100 g-cm2 tolerance which makes the upper limit 6000 g-cm2.
In all these cases, the USGA does not want companies intentionally making their equipment to be within the range that includes the manufacturing tolerance. For example, any company that intentionally markets and marks a driver head with a volume/size higher than 460cc but not above 470cc will find that driver head ruled non-conforming, even though technically it is not above the upper limit of 470cc. The reason is because the USGA wants the tolerance zone for measurable rule limits to allow for manufacturing “pluses or minuses” so that no piece of equipment ruled to be conforming could ever be made, shipped and sold to be over the limit for the rules which use measurable design parameters as their defining limit.
Therefore, when it comes to the CT/COR rule, the USGA wants all companies to make their heads so if every design parameter were dead-on the design specifications, the driver head would have a CT/COR of 239/0.822. This way when the foundry makes heads for each company which would be outside the actual design specs but within the foundry’s stated +/- tolerances, all heads would still be below the upper limit in the rules for the CT/COR of 257/0.830.
The recent discovery of a number of companies’ models being over the CT/COR limit is not an example of companies trying to “cheat” and knowingly violate the rule. It is simply that the companies all want to make their drivers to be as close to the upper limit for the CT/COR rule as possible. TWGT has heard comments from Clubmakers and golfers to the effect of why don’t all the companies test every driver for CT/COR that they produce and sell. While a noble thought, it is simply not humanly possible to do that within each company’s budget and customer service parameters. At best, a reliably accurate CT test cannot be performed in less than 15 minutes. If a company makes and sells 250,000 or more drivers per year, a number that applies to several of the big golf club companies today, performing a CT test on every one would require 32 people working 8 hours a day, Monday to Friday for 52 weeks a year to complete the task! What are already expensive golf clubs would become even more so, with delays in delivery to retailers being an additional result.
What is the USGA going to do about this? One of TWGT’s inside sources revealed that the USGA knows they cannot embark on a program to constantly spot-test all companies’ drivers after a conforming ruling has been issued. There are simply too many companies and too many driver models being made and sold in the industry today to allow the USGA to initiate such a program. At the same time, the USGA does not wish to ignore the problem.
While there may be other options as yet undiscovered, many industry experts are saying this will signal the start of the USGA beginning to seriously consider separate rules for equipment for elite player competition vs. regular golfers. Bifurcation is the fancy word being used to describe the possibility that the USGA may break with tradition and begin to consider setting up separate equipment rules.
While no one yet knows what the outcome of this controversy will be, it is certain that something will be proposed by the USGA in an effort to keep some form of control over the game’s equipment. What this will be, and whether it too may end up being subrogated by the companies remains to be seen. As we have said before in ongoing situations related to clubmaking, stay tuned because we have not heard the end of this by all means.