Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

From idea to reality: Golf club design at major OEMs

Published

on

Like nearly every modern project of sophisticated design, the club creation process begins with computer-aided design (CAD) software. Ping, an Arizona-based equipment company, primarily drafts using a product design suite called Creo, according to VP of Engineering Paul Wood, although there are several software options that do essentially the same thing.

The ultimate objective in the early design stages, according to Wood? “Essentially using the tools as a sketchbook.”

Everyone on the Ping team is adept using Creo, so moving to another platform would “be like starting over again.” Cleveland golf, for its part, uses Altair’s suite of design applications.

So that G30 in you hand? It began as a digital sketch on Wood’s team’s computer screens.

Wood, who holds a PhD in Applied Mathematics from the University of St. Andrews, said Ping uses different software for different aspects of the design process. Alternatively, specialists have particular preferences, which may not speak to the inherent merits of one software over another, but rather to what a particular person doing a particular job is comfortable with.

[quote_box_center]”We use some Altair stuff to do our finite element analysis: taking a model … a driver head or whatever, simulating impact, looking at where the stress and strains are … predictions of performance … We have a guy that’s full time,” Wood said. “He’ll work with the design team and pull the design from CREO. We also have aerodynamics packages that will simulate airflow, which is another specialist role.”[/quote_box_center]

I asked Dustin Brekke, Engineering Manager, Research and Development for Cleveland, how the company uses the same Altair software. He said the ultimate objective with the software use is “to evaluate, eliminate, and improve designs prior to spending the time and money to make samples.” The process of evaluating design concepts is different for each club. For woods, the company is assessing the strength of materials and face thickness and simulating impact conditions.  

So, regardless of the particular software and its specific applications, the objective is the same: model initial concepts in CAD software and test them prior to production.

How CAD software was a game changer

Todd Beach, VP Product Development, TaylorMade Golf Company, laid out the differences between the pre-1990s method of club design and CAD-based design.

Before the 1990s, Beach said, clubmakers hand-shaped master designs “based on external cosmetics.” Companies would then use the masters to make the tools for the casting process. Adjustments and improvements would then be made.

[quote_box_center]

“Now clubs are designed with high powered CAD systems, which model all of the complex internal features and adjustability features,” Beach said. “The mass properties can be optimized on the computer before ever launching a prototype.

“The sound/feel, durability, aerodynamics and launch performance can also be simulated using sophisticated finite element methods [virtual prototyping]. Using these tools, it is possible to iterate multiple times to optimize performance before launching the first test prototype.”

[/quote_box_center]

Cleveland’s Brekke highlighted the speed of the CAD-based design process. In the case of creating a “master” design prior to CAD software, not only was the process significantly more time consuming, a company was left with just one design to test, rather than multiple variations.

[quote_box_center]”That is how the industry has changed so much in the last few decades,” Brekke said. “With all the advances in modeling, simulation, and rapid prototyping exponentially more design concepts can be evaluated and therefore new discoveries are constantly within reach.”[/quote_box_center]

So from process, innovation, and speed-to-market standpoints, CAD suites like Creo and Altair have changed the game.

Working outside the product cycle

There are two modes of operation in the engineering world of major OEMs: inside and outside the product cycle. The companies try to do as much as they can outside of the product cycle, which isn’t surprising, given the innovation imperative in golf equipment and the need to produce game-improving, marketable products.

Rather than thinking about next year’s driver or specific clubs, outside the product cycle, the engineers are more concerned with concepts and technologies. As Wood says, outside the product cycle, “we try to do things generally,” saying, “this would apply to any driver,” rather than worrying about specific constraints or what was on the shelf last year.

However, at Ping at least, there’s a team that is perpetually working outside of specific product cycles whose only imperative is innovation.

[quote_box_center]”We have a dedicated innovation team that is much more outside of the specific product cycle, aiming at technology development, knowledge development, things that the design team can kind of plug into the next club they have.”[/quote_box_center]

The end goal, of course, is a market-beating offering. However, to deliver, say, the next great driver, said driver needs to be loaded with innovative components. It’s to this end that Wood says, “we want to know as much as we can about technology and materials and the specifics of what’s going on and what the customer needs.”

TaylorMade’s Todd Beach echoed Wood’s sentiments about the market and customer needs as well as the ongoing pursuit of innovation.

[quote_box_center]“We have several teams working on … concepts, which are more breakthrough, next-generation stuff. Stuff where you don’t know if it’s going to work, so you don’t have a specific time frame on it. And our product marketing group is constantly looking at the marketplace and seeing what products are resonating in the marketplace.”[/quote_box_center]

Interestingly, Beach added, R&D may continue to work on a concept for a long time, even in excess of 10 years if the marketing team feels a technology is truly groundbreaking.

Within the product cycle

Inside the product cycle, as you’d expect, things are more systematized, coordinated and deadline driven.

How long is the product cycle? Anywhere from one year to three years.

And rather than seeking to reinvent the wheel, companies often begin with the most recent design for, say a driver, and seek to improve upon it/implement technologies they’ve been working on.

[quote_box_center]You’re taking ideas you might want to incorporate into the next model,” Wood said. “So for some of that, you can take an existing prototype … For example, we can take the G30 iron and mess around with it.”[/quote_box_center]

After the club in question has been sufficiently “messed around with” to create something worth investigating further, the company will produce a few prototypes for initial testing.

Alternatively, as Wood indicated, designers may want to build a few prototypes merely to test a new technology to arrive at a point called “concept validation,” which determines the viability of a technology for inclusion in a future club offering.

Beach said TaylorMade often begins a product cycle with the question: “What’s the best fit given the technologies the Phase I group has been working on?”

Beyond messing around to see what works and prototype creation, the rubber meets the road once a company enters into product development and firmer decisions must be made.

[quote_box_center]“Once you start to get into product development … we’ll start to make decisions like ‘this is going to be a cast iron,’” Wood says. “You start worrying about every little detail and that’s when maybe you’d start working with a supplier.”[/quote_box_center]

And an interesting note about product development, particularly iron development. Ping will often start with a 7-iron then build backward (6, 5, 4) and forward (8, 9) until they have a whole set, tweaking the initial 7-iron design. Likewise, driver design often begins with the 9-degree, right-handed model.

A component of club production, of course, is tool creation. For example, producing the metal blocks used in the iron casting process. And a big part of scaling up production is getting overseas manufacturers the appropriate tools with the appropriate tolerances to create quality products.

During this time, TaylorMade moves between durability, player and consumer testing as a lead-up to mass production.

Following these preliminaries, a company will usually initiate a pilot run to work out the details of production, costs (including scrap rates) and tolerances. At this point, a U.S.-based club company can authorize its overseas production facility to manufacture a run of five of 10,000 units.

Assuming the above goes off without a hitch, “ownership” of the project transfers from the design team to what Wood referred to as the “quality group.”

“Once you’ve gone through the pilot and have done all the tweaking and adjusting specs, it’s now a quality function … On our supplier’s end, it’s gone from product development to factory floor production … What they’re doing is developing these very detailed work instructions, which we help with … But it’s now a factory procedure … it’s the same thing if you’re Intel making chips.”

Likewise, Beach said that at this point in production, “It’s probably not that much different than other technical products.”

So that, in a nutshell, is how a team of designers in Carlsbad or Phoenix created the M1 or G30 that’s in your bag.

Ben Alberstadt is the Editor-in-Chief at GolfWRX, where he’s led editorial direction and gear coverage since 2018. He first joined the site as a freelance writer in 2012 after years spent working in pro shops and bag rooms at both public and private golf courses, experiences that laid the foundation for his deep knowledge of equipment and all facets of this maddening game. Based in Philadelphia, Ben’s byline has also appeared on PGATour.com, Bleacher Report...and across numerous PGA DFS and fantasy golf platforms. Off the course, Ben is a committed cat rescuer and, of course, a passionate Philadelphia sports fan. Follow him on Instagram @benalberstadt.

9 Comments

9 Comments

  1. Sean

    Oct 26, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    Enjoyed the article. Constantly tweaking current model for the next model. That makes sense, however, I would think they need some kind of “out of the box” ideas as well. 🙂

  2. TR1PTIK

    Oct 26, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    Though I have no experience with it (or even a real desire to learn it), I’ve always been fascinated with CAD. It’s amazing how much can be done with a computer these days. Tom, aside from the time spent on the design and production of new clubs you have to also consider all of the costs associated with CAD software, tooling, and R&D among many other things. I’m not thrilled with the current prices for a new set of clubs, but I fully understand the reasoning for those prices as someone who works in manufacturing and technology.

    Really good read Ben.

  3. Tom

    Oct 26, 2015 at 3:30 pm

    “Interestingly, Beach added, R&D may continue to work on a concept for a long time, even in excess of 10 years if the marketing team feels a technology is truly groundbreaking.” Well that blows my criticism of this technology saving time and money for companies and yet cost to consumers remains at an all time high.

    • Tom Wishon

      Oct 29, 2015 at 1:52 pm

      LOL!!! How well you pointed that out. I guess in a sense it is a different type of oxymoron to say that they use CAD to instantly create different iterations for analysis yet they take pride in saying that they spend several years before it goes to market.

      Having started in clubhead design in 1986 when it was only done by machining master models from which the dies and molds were cut by EDM off the master, it’s really been interesting for me to evolve my own head design methods from all “dinosaur” to a combination of dinosaur and modern so I can still be comfortable with it. I still love to hand make my own master models of new designs and couple that with 2D old school drawings – call it a sense of pride in the hand skills and the fact that I have always designed a lot with my eyes for the look of a head in various ways.

      But then of course these days I then have a CAD operator take my models and drawings and create 3d models for me to approve plus the CAD file so the die/mold production can be done more easily. And depending the model, FEA is very nice as a means to predict performance. But in the end nothing passes for me until people hit it and a robot offers what it can offer to help verify performance.

      At the same time, not saying this to blow any horn whatsoever, but in any of the many technology firsts I was privileged to contribute to head design in my career, not one of them took longer than 8 months from start to finish to do and to get right. So when I read this 2-3 yrs in development, I see that as a big company with too many people having some part of the say so over what the company brings to market such that it just slows things down.

  4. other paul

    Oct 26, 2015 at 1:56 pm

    I thought that was interesting.

  5. redneckrooster

    Oct 26, 2015 at 10:13 am

    SOOO THERE IS NOTHING BETTER TO DO WITH OUR TIME ?

    • Michael

      Oct 26, 2015 at 12:29 pm

      Well you clearly have better things to do.
      Easy on the caps lock, bro.

    • MARCUS

      Oct 26, 2015 at 1:43 pm

      Helped pass my time here at work. 10 hr work days seem to draq without something good to read.

      • Trab

        Oct 27, 2015 at 2:39 am

        How about actually doing work? You Eejit, Marcus

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

Brandel Chamblee PGA Championship Q&A: Rose’s huge McLaren risk, distracted LIV pros and why Aronimink suits the bombers

Published

on

PGA Championship week is here, and Brandel Chamblee did not hold back in our latest discussion ahead of the season’s second major.

In our 2026 PGA Championship Q&A, golf’s leading analyst made the case that PIF pulling LIV’s funding has left its players competing in a state of confusion, called Justin Rose’s mid-season equipment switch a huge risk at 45, and explained why Aronimink will be a bombers’ delight this week.

Check out the full Q&A below.

Gianni: With the PIF confirming that they’re pulling funding from LIV at the end of the season, what impact do you expect that to have on the LIV players competing at the PGA Championship?

Brandel: I would imagine that they have all been thrown into a state of confusion, and will be distracted, not knowing where they are going to play next year and not knowing exactly their road back to either the DP World Tour or the PGA Tour. Or in Rahm’s case, being tied to a sinking ship for the next few years, likely playing for pennies on the dollar in events that no one cares about or watches.

I doubt this would put him in the best frame of mind to compete at his highest level. Keeping in mind, however, that majors are the only time that LIV disciples get to play in events that matter, so never disregard the motivation they have to prove to the world they are still relevant.

Gianni: Justin Rose switched to McLaren Golf equipment mid-season while playing some of the best golf of his career. What do you make of the change?

Brandel: I don’t really know what to make of Rose switching equipment. It seems a huge risk on his part, even though it is likely, in my opinion, that the clubs he’s playing are similar, if not the exact grinds, to what he was playing previously, with a McLaren stamp on them.

Having said that, at best, it is a distraction when he seemed to be as dialed in with his game as any 45-year-old could be and trending in the majors to perhaps do something that would definitely put him in the Hall of Fame. At worst, given the possibility that these clubs aren’t just duplicates of his old set stamped with McLaren on them, he’s made an equipment change that would take time, and 45-year-old athletes don’t have the time to do such things.

Gianni: Aronimink has only hosted a handful of professional events since it hosted the 1962 PGA Championship. What kind of test does it present, and does a course with less recent major championship history tend to level the playing field?

Brandel: Even though Aronimink has only hosted a handful of meaningful professional events, it has been fairly discerning in who can win there. When Keegan Bradley won the BMW Championship on the Donald Ross masterpiece in 2018, he was the 2nd best iron player on tour coming into that week. When Nick Watney won the AT&T at Aronimink in 2011, he was 2nd in strokes gained total coming into the week.

In 2020, Aronimink hosted the KPMG Championship, and Sei Young Kim won. On the LPGA that year, she was first in greens in regulation, putts per green in regulation, and scoring average on the way to being the LPGA player of the year. And then there is the 1962 PGA Championship won by Gary Player, who eventually became just one of a few players to win the career grand slam on the way to winning 9 majors. It is a formidable test, and if it’s not softened by rain, it will bring out the best in the upper echelons of the game.

Gianni: Is there a specific hole at Aronimink that you think will do the most to decide the winner?

Brandel: The hardest hole at Aronimink in each of the three tour events that have been played there since 2010 has been the long par-3 8th hole, with the par-4 10th being the second hardest, so most of the carnage will happen around the turn, but with the par-5 16th offering opportunities for bold plays and the tough closing holes at 17 and 18, the finish is likely to be frenetic.

Gianni: The PGA Championship has always sat in the shadow of the other majors. What does the ideal PGA Championship look like in your eyes, and what would it take for it to carve out its own identity?

Brandel: The PGA Championship, to whatever degree it suffers from the comparison to the other three majors, is still counted just as much when adding them up at the end of one’s career. Almost 1/3 of Nicklaus’ major wins were the five PGA Championships he won. Walter Hagen won 11 majors, five of which were PGA Championships.

Tiger Woods twice in his career won back-to-back PGA Championships, and those four majors count just as much as the other 11 he won. The PGA may not have the prestige of the other three, but it carries the same weight. Having said that, I preferred the identity that it had as the last major of the year.

Gianni: You nailed your Masters picks. Rory won, Scottie finished solo second, and Morikawa surged to a tie for seventh. Who are your top 3 picks for the PGA Championship and why?

Brandel: I am not a huge fan of majors played on golf courses that have been shorn of most of the trees, although I understand some of the agronomic reasons for doing so and of course the ease with which it allows members to play after errant drives. However, at the highest level, it all but eliminates any strategy off the tee and turns professional golf into an even bigger slugfest. That means that it will likely be a bomber’s delight this week, but fortunately, Scottie Scheffler is long enough to play that game and straight enough to play it better than anyone else.

The major championships give us very few surprises anymore, going back to the beginning of 2012, so the last 57 majors played, the average world rank of the winners has been better than 15th in the world. So look at the highest ranked and longest drivers who are on form coming into the PGA Championship who also have great short games as the surrounds at Aronimink are very challenging. That’s Scottie Scheffler by a mile and then McIlroy and Cameron Young with a far bigger nod towards DeChambeau than I gave him at the Masters.

Continue Reading

Club Junkie

A putter that I love and hate – Club Junkie Podcast

Published

on

In this episode of the Club Junkie Podcast, we dive into one of the most interesting flatstick releases of the year with a full review of the new TaylorMade SYSTM 2 putters. After spending time on the greens, I break down what makes this design stand out, where it performs, and why it has me completely torn between loving it and fighting it. If you are into feel, alignment, and consistency, this is one you will want to hear about.

We also take a look at some of the putters in play on the PGA Tour last week. From familiar favorites to a few surprising setups, there is always something to learn from what the best players in the world are rolling with under pressure.

To wrap things up, I walk through the process of building a set of JP Golf Prime irons paired with Baddazz Gold Series shafts. From component selection to performance goals, this is a deep dive into what goes into creating a unique custom set and why this combo has been so intriguing.

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

From 14 handicap to pro: 4 things I’d tell golfers at 50

Published

on

This year my 50th birthday. Gosh, where has the time gone?

As a teenager in rural Missouri, some of my junior high and high school years felt interminable. Graduation seemed light years away. But the older I get, the faster life seems to fly by.

I’m also increasingly aware of my mortality. My dad died recently. Earlier this year, a friend and fellow PGA of America professional and I were texting about our next catch-up. The next message I received was news of his unexpected passing at 48. Shortly after, a woman I dated in college succumbed to cancer at 51.

Certainly, one can share perspective at any age. Seniors help freshmen, veterans guide rookies. But reaching this milestone feels like as good a time as any to do one of those “what would I tell my younger self?” articles.

I’ve had a uniquely varied career in golf. I started as a 27-year-old, average-length-hitting, 14-handicap computer engineer and somehow managed to turn pro before running out of money, constantly bootstrapping my way forward. I’ve won qualifiers and set venue records in the World Long Drive Championships, finished fifth at the Speedgolf World Championships, coached all skill levels as a PGA of America professional, built industry-leading swing speed training programs for Swing Man Golf, helped advance the single-length iron market with Sterling Irons®, caddied on the PGA TOUR and PGA TOUR Champions, and played about 300 courses across 32 countries.

It’s been a ride, and I’ve gone both deep and wide.

So while I can consult and advise from a lot of angles, let me keep it to a few things I’d tell the average golfer who wants to improve.

1. Think About What You Want

Everyone has their own reason for picking up a golf club.

Oddly, as a professional athlete, I’m not internally driven by competition. That can be challenging, as the industry currently prioritizes and incentivizes competition over the love of the game.

For me, I love walking and being outdoors. Nature helps balance my energy. I prefer courses that are integrated into the natural beauty of their surroundings. I’m comfortable practicing alone. I’m a deep thinker, and I genuinely enjoy investigating the game, using data and intuition to unearth unique, often innovative insights. I’m fortunate to be strong and athletic, so I appreciate the chance to engage with my abilities. Traveling feels adventurous. I could go on.

You don’t have to overthink it like I do. For you, it might be as simple as hitting balls to escape work, hanging out with friends, and playing loosely with the rules and the score.

The point is to give yourself permission to play for your own reasons, and let that be enough.

But if improvement is your goal, thinking about your destination—and when you want to get there—is important, because it dictates the steps you need to take. When I set out to go from a 14-handicap to the PGA TOUR as quickly as possible, the steps I needed were very different from those of a working golfer trying to break 90 in six months. That’s also different from someone who just wants a few peaceful hours outside each week, away from work or family.

None of these goals are better than the others, but each requires a different plan that you can work backward from.

2. There Are Lots of Things That Can Work

One of the challenges of golf is that, although there are rules for playing, there aren’t clear, industry-wide standards for how to best play the game. There’s a lot of gray area.

You might hear a top coach or trainer insist that a certain move is the best way to swing or train. Then you dig a bit deeper and, much to your confusion and frustration, another respected coach or trainer says something completely different. I don’t think anyone is trying to confuse you—at least I hope not. It’s just where the industry is right now.

You have to be careful with advice from tournament pros, too. They might be great at scoring, but they’re also human and sometimes just as susceptible as amateurs to believing things that don’t really move the needle. Tour players might describe what they feel, but that’s not always what they’re actually doing when assessed with technology.

I recently ran a test on my YouTube channel (which connects to my GolfWRX article “How to use your hands in the golf swing for power and accuracy”), and, interestingly, two of the most commonly taught hand actions produced the worst results in the test.

Coaches can certainly help. If you find someone you connect with to help navigate, that’s great. But there are many ways to get the ball in the hole. In the current landscape, you may need to seek multiple opinions, think critically, and use your own intuition to discern what seems true and whose advice resonates with you.

I’d recommend seeking someone who is open-minded and always learning, because things constantly change. Absolutes like “correct” or “proper” should raise a red flag. AI can be useful, but it tends to confidently repeat popular advice, so proceed with caution.

3. Get Custom Fit

If you’re serious about becoming a better player, getting custom fit is hugely important. There’s no sense fighting your equipment if you don’t have to. Most better players get fit these days and, if they don’t, they’re usually skilled enough to work around clubs that aren’t ideal.

If you plan to play for a long time, it’s worth spending a little more upfront to get something that truly fits you and your game, rather than continually buying and discarding equipment.

Equipment rules haven’t really changed significantly since the early 2000s. To stay in business, manufacturers keep pushing those limits. If you pull a bunch of clubs and balls off the rack and test them, you’ll find differences. I’ve tested two new drivers and seen a 30-yard total distance gap. Usually, the issue isn’t bad equipment; it’s that the combination of components simply isn’t the best fit.

It’s like wearing a new pair of floppy clown shoes. Sure, they’re shoes—but you won’t sprint your best in them compared to track shoes that fit perfectly.

Be wary of what’s called custom fitting, too. Sometimes the term is used as a marketing strategy rather than an actual fitting. In some retail settings, fitters may be incentivized to steer you toward higher-priced components. That doesn’t automatically mean it’s not the best fit, but you should be aware of potential biases.

I learned a version of this lesson outside of golf. Years ago, I bought a tennis racquet at a big box store from a seemingly knowledgeable employee who thought it would suit me best. The racquet gave me tennis elbow, and I spent months recovering with rest and acupuncture. The next season, I invested more time and money to find what actually fit me, and I walked away with something amazing that I still play with years later.

So if you’re going to get fit, be smart about it.

Find someone you believe has deep knowledge—possibly with certifications, but not necessarily. Make sure there’s a wide inventory across many brands. Check recent reviews for the individual fitter if possible. Make sure you trust that the fitter has your best interests at heart. If they’re wearing a hat or shirt with a specific brand’s logo, proceed with caution. Unless you specifically want a certain brand or look, be wary of upsells, especially if two options perform nearly the same.

Also, while golf is called a sport of integrity, there’s a thread of manipulation in the industry. I once drafted an equipment article for an industry magazine, structured just like one of their previous popular stories, with matching word count and great photos. The assistant editor loved it; it was useful to readers and required little work on his part. But the editor-in-chief nixed the story. When I asked why, I was told it was because I wasn’t an advertiser. It turned out the article I’d modeled mine after was a paid ad cleverly disguised as editorial content.

I really dislike games, clickbait, and fear-based manipulation. I hope this changes, but golfers deserve to know it exists.

4. Distance and Strategy Matter

There’s a real relationship between how far you hit the ball and your scoring average, even at the PGA TOUR level.

I experienced this early in my pro career. I started as a power hitter, swinging in the high 120s and breaking 200 mph ball speed with a stock driver.

Back then, some instructors advised swinging at 80%, so I tried slowing down for more accuracy. That worked fine on shorter, tighter courses. But on longer setups, I was coming into greens with too much club, and par 5s stopped being

Continue Reading

Announcement

Our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use have been updated as of January 29th, 2026. Please review the updated policies here Privacy Policy | Terms of Use. By continuing to use our site after January 29th, 2026, you agree to the changes.

WITB

Facebook

Trending