R&D Tools: PING MAN
Labs

R&D Tools: PING MAN

Support our Mission. We independently test each product we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.

R&D Tools: PING MAN

In an effort to consistently push our understanding of golf physics and develop elite-performing products, PING conducts a wide range of tests utilizing various tools and equipment. One of the most common tests we perform at PING when evaluating the performance of a new prototype or design is a PING Man (robotic) test. A PING Man test allows us to generate very repeatable and specific club head deliveries (rates and orientations) and impact locations. This is fantastic for studying specific elements of a design and understanding their influence on impact dynamics. Robotic testing serves as a great complement to player testing, which gives us insight into how new designs perform in the hands of a player. In many cases, the two tests can produce different results, and analyzing the differences can sometimes lead to the most interesting insights.

PING’s swing robot has an interesting history. The first generation of PING’s swing robot was named Mr. PING and was designed by PING founder Karsten Solheim in the mid-1970’s. He decided to design his own after testing his clubs on other swing robots of the day. He wanted to design a robot that would swing more like a real golfer, which incorporated a free wrist and a shoulder. This design allowed for an upward motion of the lead shoulder at impact and an inertially-controlled swing path that did a great job aligning with the natural swing of a player. Over the years, the PING swing robot was renamed PING Man (around 1980) and has undergone several upgrades. The latest version of the robot — its fifth generation — utilizes a motorized tee that allows for automatic re-teeing of balls and precise positioning of the impact location. We then use launch monitors, high-speed Phantom cameras, and other equipment to measure elements of interest.

1st-generation-mr-ping pingman5Left – Figure 1: PING engineers Bill Leyland and Doug Sanders with the first-generation PING swing robot, Mr. PING. Right – Current fifth-generation PING Man swing robot.

A great example showing the benefits of robotic testing can be seen in comparing three different 7-iron designs that have significantly different mass properties. A standard PING Man iron test generates impacts in nine locations on an iron face. From the data at these nine positions spanning +/- 0.5 inches heel-to-toe and +/- 0.25 inches high-to-low, contours can be created that show how parameters like ball speed vary across the face. In the figure below, the ball speed variation across the face of the three 7-irons is compared. It is clear that Club A generates the fastest center ball speeds and maintains those ball speeds over a larger area.

Another interesting element of PING Man tests are the ways we simulate different conditions. For some tests, we hit shots using balls we’ve misted with water, and other times we tape grass in front of the ball to understand how these conditions influence the performance of different designs. It is a bit of a joke around engineering that the taping of grass for PING Man tests is a rite of passage for engineering interns and new hires. We will take grass straight from the range to tape and set-up on the PING Man tee. In particular, testing in these conditions for both partial and full wedge swings plays a big role in the development of PING wedges, most recently our Glide 2.0 line.

Figure 4: PING Man setup for testing performance when grass is involved during impact.
PING Man setup for testing performance when grass is involved during impact.

Some days we use PING Man to test conditions that are not necessarily realistic, just to satisfy our sense of curiosity. When we were working on validating a friction model, we decided to have some fun and see what it would take to exceed a 15,000 rpm on a full-swing wedge. We found our answer by cranking up PING Man to swing around 108 mph with a standard 56-degree wedge. That ball was sizzling and sucked back over 20 feet on our Bermuda grass range. I included a picture of the Trackman data from that shot to show what that trajectory looks like.

In conclusion, PING Man is a critical piece of our engineering process at PING. Not only is the PING Man swing robot an iconic piece of test equipment at PING, it is also something we use daily to validate our products and ensure we continue to deliver equipment to our customers that will help them play their best.

trackman-chart2
Figure 5: Wedge data when PING Man swings a 56-degree wedge at 108 mph.

For You

For You

Golf Shafts
Apr 14, 2024
Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
News
Apr 14, 2024
A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
Drivers
Apr 13, 2024
Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
Erik Henrikson

Erik Henrikson

Erik Henrikson

Erik currently manages the Innovation and Fitting Science Department at PING Golf. He obtained his Ph.D. in 2010 from Arizona State University, where he studied plasma physics and micro-satellite propulsion. Since starting at PING in 2010 as a research engineer, Erik has played a part in the development of various technologies and projects, including iPing, Turbulators, nFlight fitting software, and the PING Custom Fitting Manual.

Erik Henrikson

Erik Henrikson

Erik Henrikson

R&D Tools: Player Testing
Sep 19, 2017 | 9 Comments
R&D Tools: Eye tracking
Mar 8, 2017 | 14 Comments
Erik Henrikson

Erik Henrikson

Erik Henrikson

Erik Henrikson

Erik Henrikson

Erik Henrikson





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      mizuno29

      7 years ago

      Ping will always be around, they make quality products that really perform.

      Reply

      Christopher

      7 years ago

      While I’ll assume that the 108mph 56° wedge’s distance is due to the fact that it went straight up? But does the spin also contribute to the nearly 1:1 smash factor, or is 1:1 about right for a wedge?

      Nice article, I’d love to play with Ping Man for an afternoon or two!

      Reply

      Harry Elias

      7 years ago

      I had a chance to visit the Ping factory years ago and am still very impressed with the engineering aspect of the company. This goes all the way back to the founder Karsten Solheim. Just purchased the book on the history of the company, And the putter went … PING. Worth reading.

      Reply

      Rodney Winken

      7 years ago

      Interesting to see a lot of Ping related articles pop up over the internet over the past week. Obviously gearing up for a new launch and trying to show people they are still relevant.

      Ping made such amazing product but are going backwards and are surely down to single figure market shares in all products. Can’t seem to push the boundaries with anything new like Callaway and Taylormade do. Hopefully the new release is incredible, but I highly doubt it. Ping to not exists in 10 years.

      Reply

      MyGolfSpy

      7 years ago

      We have been doing these for 2 years.

      Reply

      barney loose

      7 years ago

      Ping will always be around. The new G irons are more forgiving than my yoga instructor. I would like to see there test results for the G irons and i blades?????

      Paul

      7 years ago

      I got to 95MPH with a sand wedge once on a flightscope. wrists hurt for two weeks. we were having a long wedge contest. delofted the heck out of it and got about 180. wrists hurt even thinking about 108MPH.

      Reply

      G

      7 years ago

      Oh I see, it’s okay for OEM’s to use swing robots for testing but not for mygolfspy.com to “help” it’s readers – this site espouses so many reasons why they can’t use robots to find the “best” driver.

      Reply

      MyGolfSpy

      7 years ago

      If you get a chance read back through the article and see how they use the robot. By the way a article is coming soon to explain how human testing is used for testing how a product actually performs for golfers.

      There is a purpose for robots however it is not best for defining the performance of a product for golfers in the real world. Therefore we stick by our statements and those by the experts and creators of the robots.

      THEY ARE NOT BEST FOR TESTING PERFORMANCE OF A PRODUCT.

      Reply

      GD

      7 years ago

      As I said, so many reasons why robots are not valid. Why not post robot numbers and along side your other numbers and let your Readers decide? (If you’re truly independent, it wouldn’t matter.)

      Erik

      7 years ago

      Hey G, I wanted to maybe clarify and elaborate on our use of PING Man when it comes to performance of a club. From our point of view (PING), we leverage both robotic and player testing equally to gain insights during our research and development phases. But …

      … final performance validation of a product will always center on player testing. Not to hurt PING Man’s feelings … but golfers are the ones we are ultimately engineering better clubs for.

      Reply

      GD

      7 years ago

      I had high hopes for my G30 driver but I cannot hit a fairway if my life depended on it. Now have a Cobra Max driver and this thing destroys my G30 (+all others) for accuracy. May it’s time to get new testers and re-calibrate your robot? Note: this driver wasn’t even tested here…

      Art

      7 years ago

      Erik,

      Out of curiosity, what percentage of clubs are robot tested and generate “poor” data, and then go on to perform exceptionally for a live tester?

      Erik

      7 years ago

      This is a good question. As I mentioned above, most clubs are both robot tested and player tested during R&D phases … and usually it is against a baseline club. Fairly often we will see differences in the results. This can be caused by a variety of things. One example of this is that sometimes the average impact location for a given club during player testing can be different than the center hit on PingMan due to the way players react to the design or variations in turf interaction (which PingMan gives no feedback on). This can cause a prototype to perform better/worse for one test type, but not the other.

      Art

      7 years ago

      Eric, thanks for responding to my curiosity, I know you have more compelling things on your plate!

      Regarding the club face heat maps in the article…all Ping? SGI, GI, and blades?

      Markus Viljanen

      7 years ago

      Average Joes 108mph ss for a wedge :D

      Reply

      Darren Tan

      7 years ago

      Interesting read and validates Ping’s reputation as a company that produces well engineered products.

      Reply

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Golf Shafts
    Apr 14, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
    News
    Apr 14, 2024
    A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
    Drivers
    Apr 13, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
    ENTER to WIN 3 DOZEN

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls
    By signing up you agree to receive communications from MyGolfSpy and select partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy You may opt out of email messages/withdraw consent at any time.