TaylorMade M3 vs 2017 M1 vs 2016 M1 | Driver Test | Golf Monthly

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!


► Watch Golf Monthly Digital Editor Neil Tappin hit the 2018 TaylorMade M3 head-to-head against the 2017 TaylorMade M1 and the 2016 TaylorMade M1

► Become a FREE SUBSCRIBER to Golf Monthly's YouTube page now – https://www.youtube.com/golfmonthly

► For the latest reviews, new gear launches and tour news, visit our website here – http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/

► Like us on Facebook here – https://www.facebook.com/GolfMonthlyMagazine

►Follow us on Twitter here – https://twitter.com/GolfMonthly

►Feel free to comment below!

►Remember to hit that LIKE button if you enjoyed it 🙂



TalkyMcTalkFace says:

Paid article by chance, people would see a vast performance I provment by learning to play and manage their game better, a you tube “300” Drive is one shot, a duffed chip is one shot and missed putt is one shot.

Christopher Pompilio says:

Hi Neil…It looks like you have different shafts in each. I'm curious why not use the same shaft to isolate the differences in just the head?

Daniel Stoodley says:

How much are TM paying for the review?

Paul Allen says:

Why have you not shown swing speed on the data? I can't believe the ball speed has increased that much without the swing speed also increasing? Is this an independent test or an advert? If an advert you are obliged to state that.

Golf Monthly says:

Hi all, thank you for all the comments on this video – it has been interesting for us to see the feedback, in particular the amount of scepticism there was about this test. Firstly, we did not receive any money to create this video from TaylorMade. It is true that TaylorMade, along with all of the other major golf manufacturers, do advertise with Golf Monthly – they buy space to promote their products in the form of advertising in the magazine, pre-roll on the videos on the Golf Monthly website and inventory on our site.
One other thing to clarify is that all three drivers were tested in their neutral set up. We moved the weights around after we finished the indoor, launch monitor testing to see what the effects were out on the course. Perhaps we should have moved them back for the talk through to avoid any confusion.
The methodology we use for this sort of product testing is that we hit a series of shots on a launch monitor with each club. We will delete only the really bad ones (so in this instance it would be shots that would be well wide of the fairway!), leaving in off-centre strikes and then we look at the data, trying to pick out a few noticeable trends. We don’t include strike locations for each shot because there are a host of other factors that also contribute to the result – path through impact, angle of attack, swing speed – all of which can change fractionally and make a difference to the numbers. Form our experience, the deeper you delve into the different elements of the data, the harder it can be to make a meaningful judgement about a product. And as we always try to underline, we are only ever trying to produce a guide to help inform your own testing.
Finally, it is worth reiterating that we do work closely with ALL the manufacturers. We get products presented to us before the embargo lifts so we can understand the technology and in the past we have even gone as far as to visit the R&D and testing facilities of the brands we are producing content about. Having seen at first hand the amount of work that goes into the production of new equipment – consumer testing, 3D printing, R&D testing, new material research, industrial design etc – we are perhaps more inclined to believe what the manufacturers are telling us in terms of how they expect a new product to perform. However, we genuinely believe that none of the big golf club manufacturers will bring a product to market that does not out-perform what preceded it. From generation to generation, the gains are often marginal but sometimes they are bigger and more noticeable, and when that happens during our testing, it is our job to share that with you.
In this test, we finished the hitting, compared the results and they were more noticeable. This is not to say that every golfer will see such a big gain in distance and we are not saying that the old M1s do not perform well. It may well be the case that the swings with the M3 were better but this was not a robot test. We also tried to conduct a test on TwistFace but were unable to reach any meaningful conclusion, a point we made in the video.
Anyway, we do appreciate the feedback and will continue to try to make our reviewing methodology as robust as possible, whilst appreciating that human testing is never going to be 100% full-proof. However, these videos are only ever the opinion of one tester, we would NEVER recommend anyone buys a golf club without testing it first and getting a thorough custom-fitting. Ultimately, we think the M3 is a good driver and worth testing if you are in the market for something new.

Spencer Rowe says:

156mph ball speed 13.8 launch for 2016 version. 162mph and 14 launch. Distance difference you're seeing is from getting proper spin, but that has nothing to do with the M3 being better. That has to do with the club being fitted properly. The club is built so you can move the weights around to manipulate MOI and spin. Clearly in the scenes where he holds all three, he has the T tracks weights all the way forward, and the M3 is set up in a neutral setting with one weight forward, one weight nearly all the way back. That causes more spin. He also hit them in order 2016, 2017, 2018 (note the shot counter on the left side of the ball data) without showing us the swing speed numbers (which obviously has a direct impact on ball speed). So the ball speed could just be you loosening up throughout the testing, swinging a bit harder. Even if it isn't, and the ball speed has been upped by a few mph, that can't possibly add up to 10 yards of distance. People please don't buy into this BS.

James Morrow says:

Clearly some shots have been deleted. Was this because they were bad strikes? Or didn’t fit the narrative? Also the weights are set differently between the 3 drivers giving you a couple of really low spin (1300~) knuckle balls that are falling out of the air. Get the weights back and lofts adjusted and then give us a proper review of the 3 drivers

Daniel Noar says:

Wow! Simply 6 minutes to massage taylormade's R&D. But the facts are if the M1 2016 and 2017 were adjusted in loft, weighting and shaft (FITTED!!!!!) they could easily have bridged the 10yard gap or if not surpassed the M3 results. All I can advise is to get fitted for your driver and all your clubs if you can. As every club has varying CG and attributes. Therefore will require a different set up to get the best performance.

tigergor says:

Good one. Now give us some real numbers like club head speed, angle of attack and smash factor. This is BS. Embarrassing really.

Martin Clark says:

Strike is king, but not shown in the test. Club head speed has also likely increased during the test as you warm up giving the M3 an unfair advantage.

Malcolm Evans says:

I'm not sure this is really a like for like test as the M1s have the sliding bar forward but the M3 has the Y bar at the back. A better fit would be to increase M1 loft by a degree to raise spin and launch. I suspect the results would be more even then.

Robert Salazar says:

Great review thank you!

Mit Mit says:

Bull crap….show strike for all clubs….no way this is happening. Consumers are more educated this is a marketing video for Taylormade. COR’s are maxed out.

Joshua Martin says:

Use the same shaft in all three heads and then do a comparison video

for the love of tech too says:

feck I've never had a 3 way before 😉

Jean Ferret says:

Like Golf Digest's Hot List just look at how many pages adverts a company has in Golf Monthly and hey presto…the dog's proverbials….

Brian Moore says:

Shock horror, GM promotes a new Taylormade driver. ??

Tony Broad head says:

Marketing crap he's paid by taylormade wait for crossfield guarantee #262

D says:

These numbers are completely bullshit

Rob White says:

I ll wait for Mark Crossfield s review to come out. At least then we ll get some strike locations and numbers. Not just some paid for marketing garbage!

Jordan Bell says:

You have the m1 weight in the front and that's not the setup if you're not getting enough spin… you can move the weight on the m1 back and get 300rpm more spin… maybe then it could test again and see if you get different numbers…

Ken Phillips says:

You are just a Taylormade stooge!….grow up my friend and do an unbiased test!

Andy Barton says:

No clubhead speed given hmm – did you just swing faster with the Adrenalin –

Paul Bown says:

How about dispersion?

Mark Anthony Drew says:

Marketing crap again. Unsubscribe. zzzzz

andy evans says:

10 yards… lol gone are the days that consumers fall for such crap

Write a comment