Multi-material Iron Golf Club Head with Composite Chassis

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing golf club iron designs fail to combine advanced material technology for increased forgiveness and ballspeed in a single unitary chassis without sacrificing aesthetic appeal or structural integrity.

Innovation Solution

A multi-material golf club head design featuring a metallic striking face supported by a lightweight composite rear chassis, incorporating tungsten weights and a carbon fiber composite material for structural support and discretionary weight distribution, while maintaining a thin striking face for improved performance.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Speed

If a thin striking face is used to improve ballspeed, then ballspeed is improved, but structural integrity and strength deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveballspeedVSAvoidstructural integrity
Core Design Contradiction:
SpeedVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

The patent employs a composite construction combining a thin metallic striking face with a composite rear chassis. The metallic face (e.g., stainless steel) is optimized for ball contact and ballspeed, while the composite chassis (e.g., carbon fiber reinforced polymer) provides structural support and strength. This allows the striking face to be thin for improved ballspeed while the composite chassis maintains overall structural integrity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #40Composite materials

Solution Approach 2:

The golf club head is divided into distinct functional segments: a thin metallic striking face portion optimized for ball interaction and ballspeed, and a separate composite chassis portion providing structural support. This segmentation allows each portion to be optimized for its specific function without compromising the other.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

2Weight of moving object

If lightweight materials are used in the rear chassis to reduce mass, then weight is reduced, but structural support capability deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveclub head weightVSAvoidstructural support
Core Design Contradiction:
Weight of moving objectVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

The rear chassis is constructed from composite materials such as carbon fiber reinforced polymers, which provide high strength-to-weight ratio. This allows the chassis to be significantly lighter than traditional all-metal constructions while maintaining or even improving structural support capabilities through the inherent strength of the composite material.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #40Composite materials

Solution Approach 2:

The chassis design incorporates varying material densities and structural configurations in different regions. Areas requiring higher structural support have increased material concentration or reinforced geometries, while areas where weight reduction is prioritized have reduced material presence. This local optimization allows the lightweight chassis to provide adequate support where needed while minimizing overall weight.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

3Reliability

If discretionary weight is moved to the perimeter to increase moment of inertia, then forgiveness is improved, but structural complexity deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveforgivenessVSAvoidstructural complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The composite chassis structure inherently provides the framework for perimeter weight distribution. The composite material allows for complex geometries and integrated weight distribution patterns that would be difficult to achieve with traditional metal casting, enabling effective moment of inertia optimization without proportionally increasing structural complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #40Composite materials

4Reliability

If advanced material technology is integrated into a unitary chassis to improve forgiveness and ballspeed, then performance is improved, but manufacturing complexity deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveperformanceVSAvoidmanufacturing complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The club head is manufactured as separate components (metallic striking face portion and composite chassis portion) that are subsequently assembled. This segmentation allows each component to be manufactured using optimized processes for its specific material and function, reducing the manufacturing complexity compared to creating a fully integrated unitary structure with multiple material types.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The separate metallic face portion and composite chassis portion are combined through joining processes (e.g., adhesive bonding, mechanical fastening, or metallurgical bonding) to create the final assembled club head. This merging of separately manufactured components achieves the performance benefits of advanced materials while managing manufacturing complexity through modular construction.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Data Source

PatentUS20190168086A1Multi-material iron golf club head
Publication Date: 2019.06.06 ACUSHNET CO
  • US20190168086A1 patent drawing
  • US20190168086A1 patent drawing
  • US20190168086A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A multi-material iron type golf club head is disclosed. More specifically, the golf club head in accordance with the present invention may have a metallic portion and a lightweight portion, wherein the entirety of the striking face is made out of a metallic material while a majority of the chassis is made out of a lightweight material that serves to reduce the overall weight of the golf club head. The lightweight material, in addition to reducing the overall weight of the golf club head, may be comprised of an interior face support to at least partially support the metallic striking face portion to improve the performance and feel of the golf club head.