The crown does add support as well as control sound. Even if you can get past the ear-piercing sound of a driver without a crown, many golfers would simply not purchase the club simply because it won’t look traditional at address. There are alternatives such as nano-composites to replace the unwanted weight, yet provide the adequate strength and durability. But at this point it is cost preventative. Right now crowns are getting as thin and light as possible introducing new materials or grades of titanium, chemical etching or milling. But all of these things add more cost.

The composite crowns can’t provide that much support to the face on impact that the body of the club has, and it’s just weight that could be better diostributed lower and rearward, no?

This is one time I wish I had a whiteboard as a series of pictures would help. But here is goes… Let’s say that the CG is toward the face. Upon impact the face is more apt to rotate in the crown-to-sole plane than if CG was moved further back but at the same vertical location.

What is the physics behind the notion that a further-back center of gravity produces less spin? That does not make any sense to me.

DaveT