Indoor Golf: Updated: 2016 Driver Center of Gravity Locations

By: Tony Covey

When we published our 2016 Driver CG chart in late March, there were some omissions. Several of you commented (and emailed) to ask about some of the clubs we left off of the initial chart.

What about, this, that, and the others?

No worries, guys, we’ve got you covered. Today we’re publishing a revision to our 2016 Center of Gravity Charts. We’ve updated the data to include the following drivers:

For those of you who are stumbling across our CG charts for the first time, and may be wondering what they are, and why they matter, I would encourage you to check out any and all of our previous posts on the topic.

For the rest of you, let’s get to the new info:

CG Relative to Face Center

The chart below shows the YZ (top to bottom and front to back) CG location relative to the center of the face for the 23 drivers measured. Effectively, the area shown represents that 14mm x 12mm box we mentioned in the fine print section. These measurements depict CG locations without consideration for their relationship to the neutral axis. As such they are not loft dependent. Basically, the chart shows the actual CG location for each driver measured. In addition to the Manufacturer and Model filters:

You can click on any model name at the top of the chart to isolate that club
Hold down Ctrl while clicking to isolate multiple clubs
Hovering over any dot will reveal additional information including the relevant movable weight setting and the actual measurements in millimeters

For even more information, including comparative data from 2015 drivers, check out the Advanced Data Page.

Observations

As expected based on the continuation of the cavity design, Nike’s offerings remain among the highest CG drivers on the market. Of the new for 2016 additions, only Bombtech’s Grenade has a higher CG placement. This would suggest a set of drivers best suited for golfers who contact the ball with the upper third of the driver face.
Without regard for proximity to the neutral axis, we would classify Nike’s offerings as mid-forward.
Wilson’s FG Tour F5 is also a mid-forward design (relative to face center), and plus or minus a few 10ths of a millimeter could easy be mistaken for one of the settings within the M1’s range.
Callaway’s XR16 Sub Zero is rewriting the definition of forward CG (again, relative to face center). With the heavier of the two weights in the forward position, I believe it offers the most forward CG of any driver we’ve ever put on our charts. While the absolute CG is not as low as some others, it unquestionably qualifies as a low CG head.

CG Relative to the NEUTRAL AXIS

Here's our 2016 CGNA & MOI Chart. Same filter rules apply. (Note that because both the data and the scale is fundamentally different, this chart cannot be directly compared to the Front to Back chart above.)

For an explanation of the Neutral Axis and why it matters, check out our primer on Center of Gravity.

For even more information, including comparative data from 2015 drivers, check out the Advanced Data Page.

Observations

While Nike has shifted its driver CGs closer to the neutral axis, MOI is slightly lower across all three models for 2016 (compared to 2015).
Surprisingly, while all 3 models offer similar MOI, the Vapor Flex 440 (weight back) is slightly more forgiving (based on MOI measurement) than the other two.
With regard for the neutral axis, Wilson’s FG Tour F5 again sits squarely in the middle of the M1’s range – though the F5’s CG is slightly higher than M1 in all but the rear-most weight configurations.
Callaway’s XR16 Sub Zero fits exactly where we expected it would (and admittedly where I hoped it would). Positioned in the middle ground of sorts between the M1 430 and Cobra’s F6+, the CG is, in fact, Sub Zero (relative to the neutral axis). From a truth in marketing standpoint, Sub Zero is exactly what the company had suggested it is.

As you might expect, we have also updated our Advanced Data Page. There you will find