![]() ![]() It’s fair to say PING shades toward giving golfers more of what they need (higher MOI drivers) as opposed to what consumers believe they might want (sexy looking limited-edition muscle backs). Blueprint is PING’s working answer to this dichotomy, and in general, PING isn’t an OEM which churns out release after release without being able to speak to quantifiable performance benefits. – or as our editor Tony Covey describes it, “it’s the difference between manipulating the clubface and manipulating it on purpose.”Ĭomparatively, Blueprint has less offset, a narrower sole, and shorter heel-toe length, though if scaled to size, Blueprint’s MOI would be similar to that of the iBlade.Īmateurs are often too enamored with distance, whereas serious players demand precision first in a set of irons. Perhaps it bears repeating, but workability is a function of the force required to manipulate the face of the club. Initially, the machined tungsten toe weight led some to believe the body might be hollow, but its sole purpose is to provide a companion position to the tip where mass can be added for swing weighting purposes, without pulling the center of gravity closer to the heel.Īs stated previously, Blueprint is more workable and less forgiving than iBlade. To maintain precise weighting, without altering the CG location, PING utilizes both tip and toe weights to reach desired specifications. Harder metal tends to be more durable, which means the grooves last longer, and while the inherent metallurgical characteristics define the alloy as harder or softer, it’s the geometry of the design which is as, if not more, important in determining how soft a club feels. It’s not the soft 1025 or 1020 carbon steel you might be accustomed to hearing about, but PING has decades of experience casting clubs using 8620 and feels it provides the ideal blend of performance and feel. DETAILSīlueprint is forged from a single piece of 8620 carbon steel. As such, PING will likely wait until later in 2019 to further assess next steps for Blueprint. That said, PING believes the only way to gather enough evidence to evaluate the Blueprint is to let the best players in world test it under the toughest conditions over the course of a competitive season and see where the cards fall. There’s also the option, which PING has already seen take hold on tour, of a combo set with Blueprint in the scoring irons and a constellation of iBlade, i210, and i500 in the rest of the set. PING expects the full range of results with some players committing to a complete set, while others will find Blueprint to be too demanding and return to something a bit more comfortable. With a full retail release, it’s anyone’s best guess as to how the masses will receive Blueprint. In the fall of 2018, there were only a handful of sets available to touring professionals. They didn’t come right out and say that explicitly, it was more along the lines of “Hey, I don’t know exactly what I want the club to be, but here’s what I want it to be able to do.” What PING staffers articulated was a desire for something more workable than the iBlade. Those bits of information become the foundation for new product ideas – some of which eventually make it to retail. Major OEMs routinely engage with tour staff to gain feedback and meaningful insights. ![]() Historically, G-series irons assumed the role of game-enjoyment clubs with the I-series satisfying the needs of better players looking for more workability at the expense of some forgiveness.īlueprint, which sounds like an internal code name, is in some ways entirely different, yet still, everything we’ve come to expect from a PING iron. “ a bit of an extended R&D experiment,” says Paul Wood, VP of Engineering at PING. PING’s Blueprint iron, beginning with the name, was always destined to be something of a departure from convention.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |