Bob, The Chicago 966SD and Bang SRV II are two different kinds of drivers...normal faced steel and tall faced Ti. I have many customers who are still playing the 966SD after 4 years and prefer it to the new Ti monsters because it's easy to hit straight at any length, gets the ball up and carries a long way. If it has a shortcoming, it doesn't roll a long way...especially on wet Bermuda fairways. And, it looks kind of dated. My senior lady customers still prefer a light 966 (195 grams) over anything else because of its consistent play...and most get better carry with it. Some of the senior guys have switched to 47" and 48" S450s for distance, and I have a couple who have gone to the SRV II. But, when they can't hit the S450 for some reason, they go back to their 48" 966s.
The SRV II is recent and most of my senior customers are quite satisfied with either the 966SD or the S450 for the moment. Given a demo of the S450 and SRV II to try at the range, the preference is beginning to swing to the SRV II. It looks like it's better made and has a more solid feel. Distance is comparable, though the louder S450 makes some guys feel they are hitting it farther...others don't like the noise. These flex-face heads are not the easiest clubs to hit consistently, but with practice the distance gain seems worth the "risk." I can hit an SRV II at 47" just about as far as the S450 at 48" and the SRV is a lot easier to swing. Since I've had kidney failure and have lost some strength (am on peritoneal dialysis at home now, and getting some strength back gradually, I think), the lighter swingweight of my SRV II makes it a little easier to use (S450 is E0 with a PE-A 59 gram shaft, SRV II is D7 with a 53 gram FL-50 R shaft)...so I've been playing it for the last couple of months. I'm not as consistent with it as I was with my 48" 966SD, but the SRV gets a lot more roll with a higher cg...in fact, it's hard for me to get the 9° up where I like it to be, while the 8° 966SD hits the ball quite high. When I hit the SRV just right, it's a good ten yards longer (260-270 yards) than the 966SD, though I don't hit quite as many just right with it as I did with the 966. On a good day, I'm a pretty consistent 240-250 yards with both clubs using a smooth swing, though the SRV II may be better against the wind because it hits the ball lower and rolls it farther. So, I can't say I have a preference for either head from any rational standpoint...but being a clubmaker with an addiction for trying new drivers and new technology, like the higher COR heads, the SRV II is my choice at the moment. I've had one 69 with it this year and several even par 72 rounds. It's certainly the best of the four Bang heads I've tried. (Dark Matter was terrible, SF 360 and Mellow Yellow OK, but felt harsh to me and faded more.) For a beginner, woman or mid handicapper, my recommendation would be the 966SD at the maximum length the player can handle, because it's so much easier to hit consistently. Bernie Writeto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grampa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 10:29 AM Subject: ShopTalk: Chicago 966sd vs SRV II > Bernie... > > I know you like the Chicago 966sd a lot. How does it compare to the > SRV II? Does it outperform the Chicago? > > Is the SRV II, your new favorite? > > Thanks > Bob Sielski > > On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:39:25 -0400, Bernie Baymiller wrote: > >Mark, > > > >I tried an SF 360 at 47" club length and it was OK, but not as good > >as the SRV II at 47" club length for me. Sold it to a senior friend > >who hits it longer than I did, but not as consistently as I hit the > >SRV II. The SF is not as solid feeling or as straight, but does get > >the ball a bit higher than the SRV II with the same loft. I've also > >been playing the SF Fairway woods for a couple of months, hoping > >they might be good replacements for the Mars Cydonia LCGs that have > >been discontinued. The SFs are reasonably close in size and > >available all the way to a 15W, as well as a bit nicer looking. > >But, they don't hit the ball as solidly as the Cydonias, nor quite > >as far. > >The SF 3W (15°) seems a little weak for distance, the 5W is OK and I > >like the 7W a lot...they seem to get better for me as the lofts go > >up. > >There's really a nice deep blue finish on both the SF driver and the > >fairways, with an almost chrome-like face and sole. > > > >Bernie Writeto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Mark A. Patton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ShopTalk" > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 2:50 PM > >Subject: ShopTalk: Bang SF 360 > > > > > >>Have seen many posts regarding other models, but has anyone tried > >>the Bang SF360? If so how did it compare to others? > >> > >>Mark > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
