Hireko Wants You To Help Design Our Next Driver From The Ground Up! Part 3

Keep Giving Us Your Comments!

We have listened, studied and paid close attention to your comments in the Hireko Wants You To Help Design Our Next Driver From The Ground Up! Campaign. Not surprisingly there are a lot of varied opinions of what you would like to see, but we think we did an excellent job of compiling many of your wishes into one design.  But we still need your valuable input!

Overwhelmingly there was one thing that is always mentioned – “I want more distance”.  Well, the USGA put numerous limits on club design, which on paper make this impossible.  So what is the answer on how to give our customers what they want?

New Driver Mockup Based On Hireko Customer Designs and Input

New Driver Mockup Based On Hireko Customer Designs and Input

After thinking about this long and hard, I came to the conclusion that there is still a possibility of giving people more distance by thinking about what creates more distance.  You may remember a great article that came out in Golf Digest back in August of 2008.  If not, the gist of the article was golfers give up distance when they come over the top and make an outside-in move. If they were able to change to more of an inside-out movement a 95mph golfer could gain as much as 42 yards.  OK, in reality that might not be possible to add that much yardage as it would require a huge change in how the person swings the club.  But with some encouragement to make the person swing with more of an inside path (or lesser amount from outside/in) than they are currently doing certainly should give them more overall distance.

How do we go about that?  One way is visually – along the lines of the drawing we have been showing. Few, if any, commented on the shape of the driver in the post. Maybe that is because it needed some additional explanation to show why the shape was selected.  Remember that this is merely a mock up and we will need more of your input on the cosmetics (and even name).

There is one other common comment so far which is: “I want a more square looking club at address”.

The problem is most golfers slice or push the ball and face angle can help. One thing has to occur and that is to make the club look more open. We figured a way to do that. The other is to create a draw biased head.  This is done by placing weight toward the (rear) heel of the club so that when impact is made, the rearward center of gravity will create draw spin.

Distance can also be achieved by a lighter and/or longer club.  This is fine

Power Play Caiman RawPower 3 Wood Only $59.95

Power Play Caiman RawPower 3 Wood Only $59.95

and dandy if the person can hit in the center of the face and square the face at impact.  But what happens if they can’t?  Well, that is where a shorter club can actually hit the ball further.  Look at the success we have heard from our customers with the Power Play Caiman Raw Power 3-wood.  This is only possible if weight is added to the head, which is why I selected to use a 2g weight in the stock driver. But you could also substitute a 12g screw (sold separately) for a 1″ shorter assembly length and achieve a normal swingweight and balance.

Well, that’s some of my ideas that spawned from your input.  Let us know if we are on the right or wrong design track.



  1. Lee Robson says:


    I absolutely love the look of everything about the mock-up drawings. Beyond looks, you hit my major hot button with swingweight adjustability. I build my drivers to 44″ and won’t buy a head that I can’t adjust the swingweight on. It’s not only a matter of getting to something nominal like D-2, but about being able to tweak and experiment until the best results are achieved.

    With that said, and as much as I think the asymmetrical look of the mock-up is very cool, I would like a second screw as I have on my System Q2 head. I want the ability to change the CG location as my swing improves so I don’t outgrow the head.

    Keep up the excellent work, I am looking forward to seeing more as it moves forward.

    Cheers, Lee

  2. mark says:

    I like the plan for at least one weight port so that swingweight can be adfusted for shorter lengths. What are plans for face height and front to back depth? Will this be a forgiving head (high moi) and face [cup] design to allow for more distance on off center hits? The overhead view looks like there is a small amount of offset. Maybe this is an optical illusion due to non-symetrical shape.

  3. Jeff Summitt says:


    Nothing is set in stone yet. There will be additional questions we will ask from you guys out in the field but the size was drawn to scale with the Acer XK driver in mind, so it will be a high MOI design.

  4. Louis Rieke says:

    Like it. Supports a slightly open set up and love the shorter length option.

    I don’t know about face height but I hope it is not extreme as I believe in Hank Haney’s opinion that the excessive Driver heights (and resulting ball heights) introduce too much variablity in golfer’s swings to maintain any respectable reliablity.

  5. Duncan Fraser says:

    Still haven’t heard anything about face material such as bata-ti or even margening steel. The same old 6-4 ti is getting old

  6. Richard Kreider says:

    What about cup face technology? speaking of that, does the Caiman have a cup face?

  7. Dave Richards says:

    Jeff –

    Shorter shafts are in. Boo Weekly (longest hitter on tour with an average CARRY of over 300 yds.) has recently switched to a 44″ graphite shaft. He claims he not only has better control, but has lost no distance.

    I have also gone to a 44″ lighter shaft (dropped from 65 grams to 55) and higher loft (10 to 12.5*) based on extensive research done by Wishon Golf which shows that most amateurs use ~2* less loft than they should for maximum distance. People going fro 8.5* to 10.5* or 10.5* to 12.5* all gained 15 more yards on average.

    I have gained distance with these changes and hit the fairway over 75% of the time … all the time.

    As far as the head design goes, I like the triangular shape vs. square. I also like the face height to be in the 53-58 mm range … no higher!

    I make my own drivers (many with Hireko heads) and currently have 18 or so. I’ve tried every combination that I can think of and concluded that the specs. I listed above are best for me (and a number of my friends).

    I also like heads in the 420-460 range. Heads are actually getting too large to control effectively and work the ball.

    While I like the design you have created, I like the Caiman and traditional pear shape better. I also like the feel of SP-700 titanium for the face of the driver head (you and I have discussed this) vs. 6-4 or 15-3-3-3. I swear that I can tell the difference.

    Just so you know, I play to about a 6-7 handicap.

    Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

  8. Zane Foster says:

    The club head looks great. It’s kinda of odd shaped but that’s the appeal to it. I would like to know if the bore diameter is going to be .350 for the shaft tip and I would also like to know if the club will be offered in 9 degrees of loft and deep faced. The club looks awesome and the OEM’s will rpobably want to copy this one. I am interested in the material aspect along with maybe a composite crown on top. I fill that shorter lengths will be of a greater benefit to some players also. thanks for the committment on developing clubheads and hearing the people and what they think.

  9. Jeff Summitt says:


    At this time, the only current drivers with cup-face technology is the Acer XK and XK Draw.

  10. Jeff Summitt says:


    You guys may be the ones deciding upon that. Forget about maraging in a driver, but if we select beta ti, realize the price will increase. But we first have to build it from the ground up so to speak…

  11. Jeff Summitt says:


    Most of the items you asked will need to be addressed next (part 4). But do not count on a .350″ hosel. That would mean that we would have to double up our shaft inventory. I would rather not bring that up to my boss either if you know what I mean. But IMHO, there is absolutely no advantage of a .350″ over the same shaft in a .335″ version.

  12. Frank Mazane says:

    A nice pear shape, weighing in at 190gms. With a 50gm shaft,43gm grip. Sounds good But there again Calloways C-4 didnt have much sucess. If any body can build the optimum driver you guys can.

  13. Tony says:

    I like the mock up and especially like the weighting. I recently purchase a 12 degree driver with lighter shaft. The increase in distance and accuracy was amazing.
    Longer shafts are harder to square up so you end up in BAD places. Useable distance is what it’s all about and a 44” driver would work for most golfers. Semi-shallow face would be good too.
    A group in Australia did a test on fairway woods and guess what they found? Optimal fairway wood length is 42”. Anything longer and the results are too inconsistent. I’ll bet optimal driver length is 43 to 44” and that can be tested. You have a huge pool of club testers available, why not set up a test to see what length and face heigth works for different levels of golfer?


  14. […] adjustable weighted screw that was shown in Part 3 is being nixed for a couple of reasons. One is the added cost as it appears it would cost in the […]

  15. Bob says:

    I tend to agree with Richard on using some of the techniques that Wishon using higher lofted club to get more distance for slower or tempo swings. I prefer that the head would be between 400 and 420, only because of the workability of the club. I finding more people wanting to go smaller.
    I just built the Prophet ICT Driver and I am finding that I can adjust it to get less of a hook or slice, would have been nice to be able to change the weights in the head in order to get the optimum weight distribution for each individual. I also made it with a 44 inch length. I also for fun made another Driver 42″ and found that I didn’t loose but about 5 yard, but gain much more control for narrow courses. By the way I thought that the name of the club could be Velocity to match with the shafts

  16. […] The adjustable weighted screw that was shown in Part 3 is being nixed for a couple of reasons. One is the added cost as it appears it would cost in the […]

Leave a Reply

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