Takomo is offering customers who purchased its Ignis D1 driver a free replacement after learning it would not receive R&A and USGA conforming status.
MyGolfSpy learned of the issue late last week following posts on Reddit and Facebook. Those posts showed images of an email from Takomo customer service apprising them of the issue.
“We’ve been made aware of a conformance issue with the Ignis D1 that you’ve purchased,” reads the email. “When the heaviest weight in placed in the toe, some drivers exceed the conforming limitations for competitive use. If you compete with this driver and it gets tested, there’s a chance your specific driver won’t be qualify.
“We’re going to get you a new and improved driver ASAP. We’re in the process of designing a new version (this will be conforming) of the driver that we will ship to you free of charge.”
The email states the new driver heads should be ready early this summer.
Meanwhile, the Ignis D1 has been removed from the Takomo website.
Takomo’s official statement:
MyGolfSpy received this statement from Takomo CEO Sebastain Haapahovi this morning:
“Over this whole process of launching a driver, we worked closely with the R&A to ensure the driver’s conformance. The biggest mistake we made was having too much confidence in our internal testing, which all pointed to a green light for conformance based on R&A standards. Once the driver was submitted to the R&A it became pretty clear that our internal testing systems were not calibrated appropriately and after some back and forth, the R&A gave the red light.
“Ultimately, when the heaviest weight included in the Ignis D1 is placed in the toe and the second heaviest weight is placed in the heel, some of the drivers might break the CT limit.
“Once this was made clear, we made the Ignis D1 unavailable for purchase while we began working on a solution for customers. At this point, we’ve contacted all buyers of the driver to let them know the situation and offered to send a new conforming driver, which is slated for July. At this time, we’ve received word from the R&A that the new driver prototypes have passed the initial conformance requirements. Of course, there will be another conformance review in the future. While we rework the driver, we’re taking some liberties to configure the performance for more forgiveness and tweaking the sound profile.
“This situation is ultimately on us, and we’ve let our customers down. That’s why we’re working to provide a solution to our customers that they’ll love and get a conforming replacement for their bags as quickly as possible. If a customer has been affected by this issue, we’ve already reached out a few times, but our customer success team is ready to provide additional support wherever necessary.”
Is this a ban?
Sort of. The R&A and USGA operate under the same set of equipment rules, so non-conformance with one is non-conformance with the other. Being a European company, Takomo worked exclusively with the R&A. So, technically, even though the R&A told Takomo no, the USGA has taken no formal action.
The fact that it wasn’t listed when it first went on sale shouldn’t be a surprise. The R&A and USGA don’t automatically test or list clubs from OEMs. The manufacturer has to formally submit heads for conformity testing. Smaller direct-to-consumer brands don’t always apply right away while some skip it entirely if they’re not targeting competitive play.
That’s clearly what happened here. Taking Haapahovi’s statement at face value, Takomo was confident the Ignis D1 would pass. The problem was a fault in its internal testing procedures.
Again, it’s important to note that “some” Ignis drivers “might” be non-conforming in the configuration Haapahovi mentions. There’s a subtle distinction to be made here, and it’s one that we’ve seen before.
Not the first time, probably won’t be the last
If this narrative sounds familiar, it should.
It’s eerily similar to what happened to Wilson following the first season of Driver vs Driver in 2016. The winning driver, the Triton, was announced just before Thanksgiving and hit retail on Black Friday. There was just one problem: Wilson didn’t submit the Triton to the USGA for testing until mid-November. The USGA, therefore, didn’t have time to fully test the product before the finale was aired. Whether that decision was deliberate to keep the winning driver a secret (the final episode was filmed the previous July) or whether it was just a matter of waiting for the stock to arrive is an open question.
The problem was that the Triton was already on store shelves by the time the USGA ruled that it was non-conforming. As with the Ignis D1, the main issue was a matter of sole weights. The Triton featured three swappable sole weights. When tested with a 12-gram weight in the toe and six-gram weights in the heel and back, the Triton’s characteristic time (CT) was slightly above the allowable limit. That setting promoted a heavy face/slice bias and Wilson admitted it didn’t evaluate the Triton’s CT in that setup.
In a normal world without a TV show, Wilson would have submitted prototypes to the USGA much earlier. Any changes would have been made on the fly long before the product was actually launched. Wilson removed the 12-gram weight from all of its accessory kits to solve the CT issue. It also shaved two millimeters off the Triton’s interchangeable sole plates to fix a relatively minor “Plain in Shape” issue. The company offered an exchange program for anyone who had already purchased a Triton.
So, is the Ignis D1 “illegal?”
Based on Haapahovi’s statement, yes, as it did not receive approval from the R&A.
Again, we have to stress the specifics. According to Takomo, “some” drivers “might” exceed limitations only when the heaviest sole weight is placed in the toe and the second heaviest in the heel. The fact that Takomo uses the words “some” and “might” is concerning and may speak to manufacturing inconsistencies.
As we’ve seen, this has happened before. It’s embarrassing for Takomo, to be sure, and the company will take a considerable financial hit for its mistake. It’s also a lesson that there is a difference between drivers from major OEMs and DTC brands. That gap is closing, to an extent, but it exists in what each is able to manufacture consistently, and how closely they can design to CT limits without exceeding them.
