Golf's Latest Cheating Device for More Driving Distance

I don't know if to laugh or cry when I see products such as this appear - the 'Poly Max Extreme.' Essentially a layer of 'invisible' cling film to stick onto your driver's face. (eBay item 110894488839). It claims to increase the rebound effect, or technically the driver face's C.O.R. (coefficient of restitution).

Will it work? Almost certainly yes, but I very much doubt that it will be invisible!

Let's put such a product into a technical perspective:

The R. & A. and U.S.G.A. (golf's regulatory bodies) limit the amount of energy which a driver face can return to 83% via the 'trampoline effect.' Sounds simple, but such is far from being the case. For example the figure is measured in an engineering lab. where the driver is swung at 110 m.p.h. into a solid steel ball. Know anyone who plays golf that way?

And, what about the trampoline effect of the golf ball? Also, what about striking the ball at an oblique angle and thereby sending C.O.R. through the roof? But, let's not venture there as it all gets very messy.

So how would a bit of cling film increase the trampoline effect?

It does so indirectly by increasing C.T. Whilst I lazily generally explain the concept of 'C.T.' as contact time (i.e. how long the ball stays on the face of the club) the correct terminology is 'characteristic time.' It means the same thing.

Essentially the longer the ball can be persuaded to remain on the face the greater will be the trampoline effect. It makes some difference but not as much as one might imagine. For example, a C.T. of 239 micro seconds equates to a C.O.R. of 0.830, whilst 257 micro seconds only increases C.O.R. to 0.837.

So is it really worth rubbing your driver's face onto vaseline concealed on the back of a trouser leg, spraying it with hair spray or whatever, or buying this cling film product?

A driver's face will normally increase its C.O.R. reading the more it is used as the metal stretches (i.e. 'migrates' as longdrive competitors say), but eventually the process works the other way as the metal gets tired.

The artificial fixing of C.O.R. is arguably a nonsense but should the rule be flouted?

I tend to look at many things at a tangent and my view is that if you know that you are breaking a rule it will likely play on your mind and possibly adversely affect the shot.

So, why go there?

Sanders, surly your in just the position to test this out

Alan,

It's true that I can be surly and well done for being brave enough to say it. I was recently particularly cruel to a golfer who had locked a MacGregor Toney Penna VIP with copper diamond scoring under the stairs for decades. He repented, sold it (I could not afford it) and used the proceeds to completely refurbish his bathroom.

As for testing products - the last one I tested was for (actually I can't remember what it was for - very bad night's sleep) well I was asked to post a review somewhere. I agreed and subsequently received three abusive e-mails from its inventor for not being positive. Junk is junk and it appeared to have very little recycling potential.

I always try to be fair, honest and open and such characterists are very poor endorsements for a reviewer. These days reviews are essentially advertisements, often for customers / sponsors.

Having said that I am due to receive new shafts for testing in 48 hours - FineoneGolf's 5-part 'Atrax.' But my review will initially be inhouse and used for possible later adjustment of the kick point. Honest work.

Interestingly even reviewers are proivided with next to no technical data, save compliments about jazzy paint finishes.

Ignorance is king in the golf industry.

A new batch of snake oil will no doubt be along soon