JP2019154858A - Golf club head - Google Patents

Abstract

To improve swinging property and preventing a shot error.SOLUTION: A golf club head is configured so that: an angle formed of a horizontal plane HP and a straight line L1 connecting an intersection a1 between a contour line 1402 of a face surface 14A close to a sole part 18 and a first standard surface P1, and an intersection a2 between the contour line 1402 and a second standard surface is a heel side face surface contour line angle θh1; an angle formed of the horizontal plane HP and a straight line L3 connecting an intersection b1 between a sole part contour line 1802 and a first standard surface P1 and an intersection b2 between the sole part contour line 1802 and a second standard surface P2 is a heel side center axis sole part angle θh2. The heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 is 15° or greater and 35° or less, the heel side center axis sole part angle θh2 is 15° or greater and 35° or less. On the sole surface 18A, an area of a part of the sole surface 18A where a height of a part close to the face part 14 and close to the heel 24 from a ground surface is secured, and contacts a ground surface or lawn in a first half of impact, is reduced.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 5

Description

  The present invention relates to a golf club head.

Of the wood-type golf club heads, when hitting a golf ball with a fairway wood or utility, the golf ball is often placed on the ground or lawn (rough). Prone to shots.
Further, when a golf ball placed on the ground or lawn (rough) is hit, the golf club head resists because the sole part of the golf club head comes into contact with the ground or lawn (rough) and rubs. In response to this, the omission of the sole portion becomes worse (the swing-out property is lowered), and it becomes easy to make a miss shot.
Therefore, Patent Document 1 provides an inclined portion that gradually displaces upward from the middle portion of the sole portion in the front-rear direction to the face back direction, and the rear end side of the sole surface (close to the face back) is before the impact of the ball. A golf club head is disclosed that is less likely to contact the ground.
Further, Patent Document 2 discloses a golf club head in which a recess (concave portion) opened on the face back side is provided on the sole surface, and the ground contact area near the face back of the sole surface is reduced by the recess.

JP 11-290489 A Japanese Patent No. 2831585

By the way, when the grounding resistance that the golf club head receives from the ground or lawn (rough) in the first half and the second half of the impact of the golf ball by the golf club head is analyzed, the following has been found.
That is, in the first half of the impact of the golf ball, the size of the contact area of the portion of the sole surface close to the face surface that contacts the ground or lawn (rough) affects the grounding resistance.
In the second half of the impact of the golf ball, the contact area of the portion of the sole surface near the face back that contacts the ground or the lawn (rough) affects the grounding resistance.
In particular, it was found that the influence of the ground resistance in the first half of the impact on the slipping out of the sole part (swing performance) was greater than the magnitude of the ground resistance in the second half of the impact.
In Patent Documents 1 and 2, both are limited to reducing the contact area of the sole surface near the face back, and no consideration is given to the contact area of the sole surface near the face surface. This is disadvantageous in reducing ground resistance.
The present invention has been made in view of such circumstances, and an object thereof is to provide a golf club head that is advantageous in improving swing-out performance and preventing miss shots.

  To achieve the above object, the present invention provides a face portion, a crown portion extending rearward from the upper portion of the face portion, a sole portion extending rearward from a lower portion of the face portion, and the crown portion. A head body including a side portion extending through a face back between a toe side edge and a heel side edge of the face portion between the sole portions, the face portion, the crown portion, the sole portion, and the side portion; A wood-type golf club head having a hollow portion inside, a volume of the head body of 90 cc to 210 cc, and a loft angle of 15 ° to 35 °, wherein the golf club head In the reference state where the lie angle and loft angle are set with respect to the horizontal plane, the head body is broken at a vertical plane including a normal passing through the center point of the face surface. When the cross section is taken as the face center reference cross section, the golf club head in the reference state when viewed from the front is parallel to the face center reference section and 12.5 mm away from the face center reference section toward the heel. The first reference surface is a vertical surface parallel to the face center reference cross section and 25.0 mm away from the face center reference cross section toward the heel. The second reference surface is the front surface of the golf club head in the reference state. In an observed state, an angle formed by a straight line connecting an intersection of the outline of the face surface near the sole portion and the intersection of the first reference plane and an intersection of the outline and the second reference plane with the horizontal plane is defined. When the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 is set, the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 is 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less, and the golf in the reference state The golf club head in the standard state when the outer contour line of the cross section of the sole portion when the love head is broken at a vertical plane including the central axis of the hosel portion into which the shaft is inserted is defined as the sole portion contour line The angle between the intersection of the sole contour line and the first reference plane and the intersection of the sole contour line and the second reference plane with the horizontal plane is the heel side. When the center axis sole part angle θh2 is set, the heel side center axis sole part angle θh2 is 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less.

According to the present invention, in a wood type golf club head having a head body volume of 90 cc or more and 210 cc or less and a loft angle of 15 ° or more and 35 °, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1 is 15 ° or more and 35 °. The heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 was set to 15 ° to 35 °.
Accordingly, since the height of the portion near the face portion and the portion near the heel from the ground surface is secured from the ground surface, the area of the portion of the sole surface that contacts the ground or the lawn (rough) in the first half of the impact of the golf ball Decrease.
As a result, the contact resistance between the sole surface near the heel and the ground can be suppressed, the swing-out performance of the golf club head can be improved, and the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff is advantageous.

It is the front view which looked at the golf club head (fairway wood) which concerns on embodiment from the front of the face surface. 1 is a plan view of a golf club head (fairway wood) according to an embodiment. It is A arrow directional view of FIG. It is a top view of the golf club head (utility) which concerns on embodiment. It is explanatory drawing of each angle of the golf club head (fairway wood) which concerns on embodiment, and shows the state which looked at the golf club head from the front. It is explanatory drawing of each angle of the golf club head (fairway wood) which concerns on embodiment, and shows the outline which fractured | ruptured the golf club head in the vertical plane containing the central axis of a hosel. It is explanatory drawing which shows an example of the state at the time of the golf club which has the golf club head of embodiment hitting a golf ball. It is explanatory drawing of the sole width of the golf club head which concerns on embodiment, sole height, and head height. It is a front view showing an example of a golf club head concerning an embodiment. It is a front view which shows the other example of the golf club head which concerns on embodiment. It is explanatory drawing explaining the definition of a curvature radius change part. FIG. 6 is a diagram showing a relationship between a club length, a heel side face surface outline angle θh1, and a heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2. FIG. 6 is a diagram showing a relationship between a club length, a toe side face surface outline angle θt1, and a toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2. It is a first explanatory view showing a method for defining the center point Pc of the face surface. It is the 2nd explanatory view showing the regulation method of center point Pc of a face surface. It is a 3rd explanatory view which shows the prescription | regulation method of the center point Pc of a face surface. It is the 4th explanatory view showing the regulation method of center point Pc of a face surface. FIG. 3 is a cross-sectional view of a golf club head showing a relationship between a gravity center G0 of the golf club head and a gravity center FG on the face surface. It is a front view of the golf club head for explaining the definition of the contour line I of the face surface. It is sectional drawing of the golf club head explaining the definition of the outline I of a face surface. It is a front view of the golf club head explaining the definition of the center point Pc of the face surface. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the evaluation result of the experiment example in embodiment.

Next, an embodiment of the present invention will be described.
As shown in FIGS. 1-4, in this Embodiment, the golf club head 10 is a wood-type golf club head, Comprising: Hollow fairway wood 10A (FIGS. 1-3) and hollow utility 10B ( 4), including the head main body 12. In FIG.
In the following description, a part common to the fairway wood 10A and the utility 10B will be described using the drawing of the fairway wood 10A, and a part of the utility 10B different from the fairway wood 10A will be described using the drawing of the utility 10B. To do.

The head body 12 is mainly composed of a metal material.
As said metal material, 1 type (s) or 2 or more types, such as stainless steel, maraging steel, pure titanium, a titanium alloy, or an aluminum alloy, are used, for example.
The head body 12 includes a face portion 14, a crown portion 16, a sole portion 18, and a side portion 20.
The face portion 14 has a vertical height and extends to the left and right.
The crown portion 16 has a smaller thickness than the face portion 14 and extends rearward from the upper portion of the face portion 14.
The sole portion 18 extends rearward from the lower portion of the face portion 14.
The side part 20 extends between the crown part 16 and the sole part 18 through the face back 26 between the toe 22 side edge and the heel 24 side edge of the face part 14.
The head body 12 has a hollow structure in which the inside surrounded by the face portion 14, the crown portion 16, the sole portion 18, and the side portion 20 is a hollow portion 28.
The surface exposed to the outside of the face portion 14 is a face surface 14A for hitting a ball.
A plurality of score lines 34 are formed on the face surface 14A so as to extend in the toe heel direction at intervals in the sole crown direction.
The surface exposed to the outside of the crown portion 16 is a crown surface 16A.
The crown portion 16 is provided with a hosel portion 30 connected to the shaft 32 on the face surface 14A side and near the heel 24. The golf club 100 is configured by connecting the shaft 32 to the hosel portion 30.
In a state where the shaft 32 is connected to the hosel part 30, the central axis 3002 of the hosel part 30 matches the central axis 3202 of the shaft 32.
A surface exposed to the outside of the sole portion 18 is a sole surface 18A.
In the figure, reference numeral 19 denotes a leading edge.

Next, a method for defining the center point Pc of the face surface 14A will be described.
The center point Pc of the face surface 14A is the geometric center of the face surface 14A, and the center point Pc is defined by various conventionally known methods including the first definition method and the second definition method exemplified below. The method can be adopted.

[A] First defining method of the center point Pc of the face surface 14A:
This is a method of defining the center point Pc when the boundary between the face surface 14A and another golf club head 10 is clear, in other words, when the periphery of the face surface 14A is specified by a ridgeline. In this case, the face surface 14A is clearly defined.
14 to 17 are explanatory views showing a method for defining the center point Pc of the face surface 14A.

(1) First, as shown in FIG. 14, the golf club head 10 is placed on the horizontal plane HP so that the lie angle and the face angle become specified values. The state of the golf club head 10 at this time is set as a reference state. Note that the set values of the lie angle and the face angle are values described in a product catalog, for example.

(2) Next, a temporary center point c0 in the direction connecting the crown portion 16 and the sole portion 18 is obtained.
That is, as shown in FIG. 14, a perpendicular line f0 is drawn that intersects the approximate center point of a line parallel to the horizontal plane HP connecting the toe 22 and the heel 24 (hereinafter referred to as a horizontal line).
The midpoint of the point a0 where the perpendicular f0 and the upper edge of the face surface 14A intersect and the midpoint of the point b0 where the perpendicular f0 and the lower edge of the face surface 14A intersect are defined as a temporary center point c0.

(3) Next, as shown in FIG. 15, a horizontal line g0 passing through the temporary center point c0 is drawn.
(4) Next, as shown in FIG. 16, the point d0 where the horizontal line g0 and the edge on the toe 22 side of the face surface 14A intersect, and the point e0 where the horizontal line g0 and the edge on the heel 24 side of the face surface 14A intersect. The midpoint is defined as a temporary center point c1.

(5) Next, as shown in FIG. 17, a perpendicular line f1 passing through the temporary center point c1 is drawn, and the perpendicular line f1 and the upper edge of the face surface 14A intersect with each other, and the perpendicular line f1 and the lower edge of the face surface 14A. The midpoint of the b1 point where the two intersect is defined as the temporary center point c2.
Here, if the temporary center points c1 and c2 match, that point is defined as the center point Pc of the face surface 14A.
If the temporary center points c1 and c2 do not match, the procedures (2) to (5) are repeated.
Since the face surface 14A has a curved surface, the length of the horizontal line g0 and the lengths of the vertical lines f0 and f1 when obtaining the midpoint of the horizontal line g0 and the midpoints of the vertical lines f0 and f1 are the curved surfaces of the face surface 14A. The length along the line shall be used.
The face center line CL is defined by a straight line passing through the center point Pc and extending in a direction orthogonal to the toe 22-heel 24 direction.

[B] Second defining method of the center point Pc of the face surface 14A:
Next, the definition of the center point Pc when the periphery of the face surface 14A and the other golf club head 10 portions are connected by a curved surface and the face surface 14A cannot be clearly defined will be described.

As shown in FIG. 18, the golf club head 10 is hollow, the symbol G0 indicates the center of gravity of the golf club head 10, the symbol Lp is a straight line connecting the center of gravity G0 and the center of gravity FG on the face surface 14A, In other words, the straight line Lp is a perpendicular of the face surface 14A passing through the center of gravity point G0.
That is, a point obtained by projecting the gravity center G0 of the golf club head 10 onto the face surface 14A is the gravity center point FG on the face surface 14A.
Here, as shown in FIG. 19, a large number of planes H1, H2, H3,..., Hn including a straight line Lp connecting the center of gravity G0 and the center of gravity FG on the face surface 14A are considered.

As shown in FIG. 20, the curvature radius r0 of the outer surface of the golf club head 10 is measured in a cross section when the golf club head 10 is broken along the planes H1, H2, H3,.
When measuring the curvature radius r0, it is assumed that there is no face line, punch mark or the like on the face surface 14A.
The curvature radius r0 is continuously measured from the center point Pc of the face surface 14A in the outward direction (upward and downward in FIG. 20).
Then, in the measurement, a portion where the radius of curvature r0 is initially equal to or smaller than a predetermined value is defined as an outline I representing the periphery of the face surface 14A.
The predetermined value is, for example, 200 mm.
A region surrounded by the contour line I determined based on a large number of planes H1, H2, H3,..., Hn is defined as a face surface 14A as shown in FIGS.

Next, as shown in FIG. 21, the golf club head 10 is placed on the horizontal ground (horizontal plane HP) so that the lie angle and the face angle become specified values.
The straight line LT passes through the toe 22 side point PT of the face surface 14A and extends in the vertical direction.
The straight line LH passes through the heel 24 side point PH of the face surface 14A and extends in the vertical direction.
The straight line LC is parallel to the straight line LT and the straight line LH. The distance between the straight line LC and the straight line LT is equal to the distance between the straight line LC and the straight line LH.
Reference symbol Pu indicates an upper point of the face surface 14A, and reference symbol Pd indicates a lower point of the face surface 14A. The upper point Pu and the lower point Pd are both intersections of the straight line LC and the contour line I.
The center point Pc is defined by the midpoint of the line segment connecting the upper point Pu and the lower point Pd.

Next, the definition of each part of the golf club head 10 will be described in detail.
As shown in FIGS. 1 to 3, the golf club head 10 is set to a reference state in which the golf club head 10 is installed at a predetermined lie angle and loft angle with respect to the horizontal plane HP.
As shown in FIG. 1, in the reference state, a cross section in which the head body 12 is broken along the vertical plane X including the normal passing through the center point Pc of the face surface 14A is defined as a face center reference cross section Pfc. In other words, the face center reference cross section Pfc is a cross section including the face center line CL and the head body 12 being broken along the vertical plane X in the reference state.

  As described above, the golf love head 10 is the fairway wood 10A or the utility 10B, the volume of the head body 12 is 90 cc or more and 210 cc or less, and the loft angle is 15 ° or more and 35 °. The ranges of the volume and loft angle are the same values as the volume and loft angle of a general fairway wood 10A or utility 10B.

Next, the heel side face surface outline angle θh1, the heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2, the toe side face surface outline angle θt1, and the toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 will be described.
FIG. 5 is a front view of the golf club head 10 (fairway wood 10A) in the reference state.
FIG. 6 is a front view of the head body 12 when the golf club head 10 (fairway wood 10A) in the reference state is broken along a vertical plane including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 into which the shaft 32 is inserted. 12 shows the outer contour line of 12 cross sections.

As shown in FIG. 5, in a state where the golf club head 10 in the reference state is viewed from the front, a first vertical surface parallel to the face center reference section Pfc and separated from the face center reference section Pfc by 12.5 mm toward the heel 24 is the first. The reference plane P1.
A vertical plane parallel to the face center reference section Pfc and separated from the face center reference section Pfc by 25.0 mm toward the heel 24 is defined as a second reference plane P2.
A vertical plane that is parallel to the face center reference section Pfc and separated from the face center reference section Pfc by 12.5 mm toward the toe is defined as a third reference plane P3.
A vertical plane that is parallel to the face center reference section Pfc and that is 25.0 mm away from the face center reference section Pfc toward the toe is referred to as a fourth reference plane P4.
When the golf club head 10 in the reference state is viewed from the front, the intersection point a1 between the contour line 1402 near the sole portion 18 of the face surface 14A and the first reference plane P1, and the intersection point a2 between the contour line 1402 and the second reference plane. The angle formed by the straight line L1 connecting the horizontal plane HP and the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1.
The heel side face surface contour angle θh1 is set to 15 ° to 35 °.
When the golf club head 10 in the reference state is viewed from the front, the intersection point a3 of the contour line 1402 near the sole portion 18 of the face surface 14A and the third reference plane P3, and the intersection point of the contour line 1402 and the fourth reference plane P4 An angle formed by the straight line L2 connecting a4 and the horizontal plane HP is a toe side face surface 14A contour angle θt1.
The toe side face surface 14A contour line angle θt1 is set to 20 ° to 35 °.

As shown in FIG. 6, a contour 1802 outside the cross section of the sole portion 18 when the golf club head 10 in the reference state is broken at a vertical plane including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 into which the shaft 32 is inserted. A sole portion outline 1802 is assumed.
A straight line connecting the intersection b1 between the sole contour 1802 and the first reference plane P1 and the intersection b2 between the sole contour 1802 and the second reference plane P2 when the golf club head 10 in the reference state is viewed from the front. The angle formed by L3 and the horizontal plane HP is defined as the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2.
The heel side central axis sole angle θh2 is set to 15 ° to 35 °.
A straight line connecting the intersection b3 between the sole contour 1802 and the third reference plane P3 and the intersection b4 between the sole contour 1802 and the fourth reference plane P4 when the golf club head 10 in the reference state is viewed from the front. An angle formed by L4 and the horizontal plane HP is a toe side central axis sole portion angle θt2.
The toe side central axis sole portion angle θt2 was set to 20 ° to 35 °.

  The heel side face surface contour angle θh1 is larger than the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2, and the toe side face surface contour angle θt1 is larger than the toe side central axis sole portion angle θt2.

As described above, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1 is set to 15 ° to 35 ° and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 is set to 15 ° to 35 °, so that the face 18A of the sole surface 18A is closer to the face portion 14. Since the height of the portion near the heel 24 from the ground is secured, the area of the portion of the sole surface 18A that contacts the ground or lawn (rough) decreases in the first half of the impact of the golf ball.
In particular, as shown in FIG. 7, when a golf ball is actually hit with the golf club head 10, the golf club head 10 has a height from the ground on the toe 22 side higher than the height from the ground on the heel 24 side. In many cases, the posture becomes higher.
Since the address of the golf club 100 is set with the toe 22 slightly raised, the golf club head 10 at the time of impact also has the toe 22 slightly raised. This becomes more prominent as the club length increases. For example, if the specified lie angle in the reference state of the golf club head 10 is 60 °, the lie angle at the time of impact is about 52 °.
Therefore, in the portion of the sole surface 18A near the face portion 14, the portion of the sole surface 18A closer to the heel 24 is closer to the ground than the portion of the sole surface 18A closer to the toe 22, and is in a state where it is likely to be rubbed with the ground. There are many.
In this case, by setting the heel side face surface outline angle θh1 and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 to the above angle ranges, the height of the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 from the ground is secured, This is advantageous in suppressing the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground. Therefore, the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 is improved, and the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff is suppressed. Is advantageous.
If the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 are below the specified range, it is disadvantageous in suppressing contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground. Therefore, it is disadvantageous in improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.
Further, when the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 exceed the prescribed range, the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground can be suppressed. When the golfer visually recognizes the golf club head 10, there is a disadvantage that it is easy to feel uncomfortable in the external shape and the ease of setting the golf club is lowered.
In other words, the face area is reduced only on the heel 24 side, and there is a sense of incongruity at the address.
If the face area on the toe 22 side and the heel 24 side is to be balanced, the face area on both the toe 22 side and the heel 24 side will be small. The head speed becomes slower and the force to get out of the turf becomes smaller, making it easier to make miss shots.

Further, the toe side face surface 14A contour line angle θt1 is set to 20 ° to 35 ° and the toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 is set to 20 ° to 35 ° to make the toe side face surface 14A closer to the face portion 14 of the sole surface 18A. Since the height of the part and the part close to the toe 22 from the ground is secured, the area in contact with the ground and lawn (rough) is further reduced in the first half of the impact of the golf ball.
Therefore, the height of the portion of the sole surface 18A near the toe 22 from the ground is secured, which is advantageous in suppressing the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the toe 22 and the ground. This is even more advantageous in improving the swing-out performance of the sheet and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.
If the toe side face surface outline angle θt1 and the toe side central axis sole portion angle θt2 are below the above-mentioned specified range, it is disadvantageous in suppressing contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the toe 22 and the ground. Therefore, the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 is improved, and the effect of suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff is reduced.
Further, when the toe side face surface contour line angle θt1 and the toe side central axis sole portion angle θt2 exceed the prescribed range, the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the toe 22 and the ground can be suppressed. When the golfer visually recognizes the golf club head 10, it is easy to feel uncomfortable in its external shape, and the effect of ensuring ease of setting the golf club is reduced.
That is, the face area is reduced only on the toe 22 side, and there is a sense of incongruity at the time of addressing.
If the face area on the toe 22 side and the heel 24 side is to be balanced, the face area on both the toe 22 side and the heel 24 side will be small. The head speed becomes slower and the force to get out of the turf becomes smaller, making it easier to make miss shots.

Further, since the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 is larger than the heel side central axis sole part angle θh2, and the toe side face surface contour line angle θt1 is larger than the toe side central axis sole part angle θt2, When the golfer visually recognizes the golf club head 10, it is difficult to feel a sense of incongruity in the external shape, which is advantageous in securing ease of holding the golf club.
When the heel side face surface contour angle θh1 is equal to or smaller than the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 and the toe side face surface contour angle θt1 is equal to or smaller than the toe side central axis sole portion angle θt2, the golfer When the golf club head 10 is visually recognized, it is easy to feel a sense of incongruity in its external shape, and the effect of ensuring ease of holding the golf club is reduced.
Further, when the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 becomes larger than the heel side central axis sole part angle θh2, and when the toe side face face contour line angle θt1 becomes larger than the toe side central axis sole part angle θt2, In particular, the sole surface 18A becomes a scoop angle, and the removal of the sole is improved.
Contrary to the above, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1 is smaller than the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2, and the toe side face surface contour angle θt1 is smaller than the toe side central axis sole portion angle θt2. In general, the sole surface 18A becomes a bounce angle, and when the sole comes into contact with the ground, it becomes bounced and tends to be a top or duffy miss shot.

Next, the sole height SH will be described.
FIG. 8 shows an outer contour of the face center reference cross section Pfc of the fairway wood 10A of the embodiment.
As shown in FIG. 8, when the dimension of the vertical line connecting the horizontal plane HP to the highest position of the sole surface 18A near the face back 26 in the face center reference section Pfc is the sole height SH, the sole height SH is It is 10 mm or more and 35 mm or less.

Next, the sole width SW will be described.
As shown in FIG. 8, the distance obtained by projecting a straight line connecting the front end of the sole surface 18A near the face surface 14A and the rear end of the sole surface 18A near the face back 26 in the face center reference section Pfc onto the horizontal plane HP is the sole width. When SW is used, the sole width SW is 70 mm or more and 100 mm or less.

Next, the head height HH will be described.
As shown in FIG. 8, when the dimension of the vertical line connecting from the horizontal plane HP to the highest position of the crown surface 16A in the face center reference section Pfc is the head height HH, the head height HH is 35 mm or more and 45 mm or less. is there.
Note that the sole height SH, the sole width SW, and the head height HH of the utility 10B are defined in the same manner as described above.

As shown in FIG. 9, when the golf club head 10 is viewed from the front in the reference state, the contour line 1402 near the sole portion 18 of the face surface 14A has a downwardly convex V-shape, and the face surface 14A A contour line 1404 near the crown portion 16 has an upwardly convex V shape.
Alternatively, as shown in FIG. 10, when the golf club head 10 is viewed from the front in the reference state, the contour line 1402 near the sole portion 18 of the face surface 14A has a downwardly convex V-shape, and the face surface An outline 1404 near the crown portion 16 of 14A is substantially linear.
Thus, when the contour line 1402 of the face surface 14A near the sole portion 18 has a downwardly convex V-shape, the inclination angle of the sole surface 18A that is displaced upward from the center in the toe heel direction toward both sides is increased. Since it becomes large, the resistance that the sole surface 18A receives from the rough (lawn) at the time of swing can be reduced, which is advantageous in swinging out the golf lab head 10 with a light force.

1-4, the crown surface 16A is connected to the upper edge of the face surface 14A, extends in the toe heel direction, and inclines extending rearward while being displaced upward from the upper edge of the face surface 14A. It has a surface portion 1602 and a crown surface main body portion 1606 connected to the rear end of the inclined surface portion 1602 via a ridge line 1604 extending in the toe heel direction.
As shown in FIG. 2, when the golf club head 10 is viewed in plan in the reference state, the width of the inclined surface portion 1602 in the front-rear direction connecting the face portion 14 and the face back 26 is the face center reference cross section Pfc. It is maximized and is formed so as to gradually become smaller as it is separated in the toe heel direction.
In this way, the inclined surface portion 1602 of the crown surface 16 is visually recognized as a part of the face surface 14A, and the face surface 14A looks large, which is advantageous for improving ease of holding.

Further, as shown in FIG. 3, in the reference state, a plane that is parallel to the vertical plane P0 including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 and is located at a distance of 5 mm from the vertical plane P0 toward the face portion 14 is a first plane. When a plane parallel to the vertical plane P0 and located at a distance of 5 mm from the vertical plane P0 toward the face back 26 is defined as a second plane P11, the golf club head 10 is connected to the vertical plane P0 and the horizontal plane HP. A position 1610 of the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A when viewed from the parallel direction is located between the first plane P10 and the second plane P11.
With this configuration, the position 1610 at the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is close to the central axis 3202 of the shaft 32, which is advantageous in improving ease of holding.

Further, when the mass of the golf club head 10 is Y (g) and the club length of the golf club provided with the golf club head 10 is X (inch), the following formula (1) is satisfied.
-10.8X + 670 <Y <-10.8X + 680 (1)
By satisfying the formula (1), the mass of the golf lab head 10 is set to be heavier than the shaft 32. Therefore, when a golf ball located on the rough (lawn) is launched with the golf club head 10, It becomes easy to swing using the weight of the golf club head 10, and it is advantageous in swinging out the golf love head 10 with a light force by suppressing the influence of the resistance that the sole surface 18A receives from the rough (lawn) during the swing.

As shown in FIG. 1, when the face surface 14A is viewed from the front in the reference state, the area A0 in the lower portion of the face surface 14A in the height direction has a surface finish different from that of the remaining area A1.
Specifically, in the region A0 in the lower portion of the face surface 14A in the height direction (for example, 1/3 of the height of the face surface 14A), the bare metal of the face portion 14 is exposed as it is, and the remaining region A1 is an ion. Some kind of film is formed on the surface like plating.
In this way, the area A0 below the face surface 14A that is easily damaged by rough or dirt during swinging is advantageous in maintaining the aesthetic appearance of the face surface 14A for a long period of time without the film being peeled off. Become.
If the boundary line 42 between the lower area A0 and the remaining area A1 is formed so as to be parallel to the score line 34 of the face surface 14A, the golf club head 10 can be positioned while visually checking the boundary line 42. This is advantageous in improving the ease of holding.
Of course, it is needless to say that the surface finish of the face surface 14A may be one type (for example, bare metal exposure = satin finish, ion plating finish, paint, etc.).

As shown in FIGS. 2 and 4, a curvature radius changing portion 36 that extends while the radius of curvature changes rapidly is provided on the crown surface 16.
The crown surface 16 is divided into a plurality of surface portions 38A, 38B, and 38C with the curvature radius changing portion 36 as a boundary, and a plurality of curvature radius changing portions 36 are provided.
In the present embodiment, the crown surface 16 is divided into three surface portions 38A, 38B, and 38C by two curvature radius changing portions 36.
In the present invention, the radius-of-curvature changing portion 36 includes a ridge line formed at the boundary between adjacent surface portions 38A, 38B, and 38C.
Moreover, as shown in FIG. 11, the curvature radius changing part 36 is defined as follows.
That is, in a cross section in which the crown surface 16A is broken along a plane orthogonal to the boundaries between the divided surface portions 38A, 38B, and 38C, the radius of curvature R of the crown surface 16A is measured at a pitch of 1 mm, and the curvature of a plurality of measurement points is measured. Get the radius.
The curvature radii R of three consecutive measurement points are R1, R2, and R3, and values obtained by dividing the curvature radii R1 and R3 of adjacent measurement points by the curvature radius R2 of the central measurement point among the three measurement points, respectively. That is, it is examined whether R1 / R2 and R3 / R2 are each 10 times or more while shifting the measurement point by 1 mm.
When R1 / R2 and R3 / R2 are each 10 times or more, the center measurement point among the three measurement points is set as the curvature radius changing portion 36.
As described above, when the second region 42 is divided into the plurality of surface portions 38A, 38B, and 38C with the curvature radius changing portion 36 as a boundary, the rigidity of the crown portion 16 can be secured and the frequency band of the hitting sound is lowered. This is advantageous for improving the hitting sound.
It should be noted that the curvature radius changing portion 36 may not be provided, and therefore, the crown surface 16A may be formed of a single surface portion. However, according to the present embodiment, the hitting sound is improved. This is advantageous in achieving this.

In the present embodiment, the two curvature radius changing portions 36 extend in directions away from each other in the face back direction from the center portion in the toe heel direction at a location near the face portion 14 of the crown surface 16.
By doing so, it is advantageous in securing the design when the crown surface 16A is viewed.
Of course, three or more curvature radius changing portions 36 may be provided.

A recess 40 is provided at the center of the crown surface 16 near the face portion 14 in the toe heel direction.
The portions near the face portion 14 of the two curvature radius changing portions 36 are connected to the recess 40.
For example, when the head body 12 is manufactured by casting using a mold, the plurality of curvature radius changing portions 36 are in a positional relationship where they intersect each other, and when the plurality of curvature radius changing portions 36 directly intersect, Due to manufacturing errors, there is a concern that the positions of the intersections of the curvature radius changing portions 36 may vary and the appearance may deteriorate.
Therefore, when the recess 40 is provided as in the present embodiment, such a variation in the position of the intersection of the curvature radius changing portion 36 becomes inconspicuous, which is advantageous in improving the appearance of the golf lab head 10.
In addition, when the golf lab head 10 is viewed in plan in the reference state of the golf lab head 10, if the positions of the face center reference cross section Pfc and the concave portion 40 in the toe heel direction coincide with each other, the concave portion 40 becomes the golf lab head 10. There is an advantage that becomes a guide when setting up.
Further, if the concave portion 40 is colored with a different color depending on the loft angle or the count of the golf club head 10, it is advantageous for identifying the golf club at a glance.

In the golf club set including the golf club having the golf club head 10 of the present embodiment, at least the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 and the heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 increase as the club length increases. It is configured as follows.
That is, as the club length increases, the lie angle tends to decrease when the golf club is held, and the golf club head 10 tends to tilt so that the toe side faces upward. Accordingly, the height of the portion of the sole surface 18A near the face portion 14 and the heel 24 is lowered (close to the ground) even at the time of impact.
Therefore, in order to secure the height of the portion of the sole surface 18A closer to the face portion 14 and closer to the heel 24 to reduce the ground resistance of the sole surface 18A, the heel side face surface outline angle θh1 and the heel side center This is because it is necessary to ensure a large shaft sole portion angle θh2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1 and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 are increased as the club length increases, and in addition, the toe side face surface contour angle increases as the club length increases. You may comprise so that (theta) t1 and toe side center axis sole part angle (theta) t2 may become large.
This reduces the uncomfortable feeling when the golf club head 10 is visually recognized, and is more advantageous in ensuring ease of holding the golf club.
As the club length increases, the lie angle tends to decrease when the golf club is held, and the golf club head 10 tends to tilt so that the toe 22 side faces upward. Accordingly, the height of the portion of the sole surface 18A near the face portion 14 and the heel 24 is lowered (close to the ground) even at the time of impact.
Therefore, in order to secure the height of the portion of the sole surface 18A closer to the face portion 14 and closer to the heel 24 to reduce the ground resistance of the sole surface 18A, the heel side face surface outline angle θh1 and the heel side center This is because it is necessary to ensure a large shaft sole portion angle θh2.
Further, the longer the club length, the more difficult it is to control the track of the golf club 100, and the position of the golf club head 10 at the time of impact varies.
Even if the position of the golf club head 10 at the time of impact varies, as described above, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1 is made larger than the heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2, and the toe side face surface contour angle If θt1 is made larger than the toe side central axis sole portion angle θt2, the sole surface 18A becomes a scoop angle, and the removal of the sole is improved.
On the contrary, the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 is made smaller than the heel side central axis sole part angle θh2, and the toe side face face contour line angle θt1 is made smaller than the toe side central axis sole part angle θt2. Then, the sole surface 18A becomes a bounce angle, and when the sole comes into contact with the ground, it bounces, and a miss shot of the top or duff is likely to occur.

With reference to FIG. 12 and FIG. 13, the relationship between the club length and each angle θh1, θh2, θt1, and θt2 will be further described.
FIG. 12 is a diagram in which a club length is plotted on the horizontal axis, and a heel side face surface contour angle θh1 and a heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 are plotted on the vertical axis.
The correspondence between each symbol ◯ and the angle is as follows.
Symbol O: heel side face surface contour angle θh1 of the golf club head 10 (fairway wood 10A) according to the embodiment
Symbol □: The heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 of the golf club head 10 (fairway wood 10A) according to the embodiment
Reference sign ●: heel side face surface contour angle θh1 of a general golf club head 10 (fairway wood 10A)
Reference sign ■: heel side central axis sole angle θh2 of a general golf club head 10 (fairway wood 10A)

  As apparent from FIG. 12, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1 and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 of the golf club head 10 according to the embodiment are within the range of 15 ° to 35 °. Thus, it can be seen that the heel side face surface contour angle θh1 and the heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 of the general golf club head 10 are less than 15 °.

FIG. 13 is a diagram in which a club length is plotted on the horizontal axis, and a toe side face surface contour angle θt1 and a toe side central axis sole portion angle θt2 are plotted on the vertical axis.
The correspondence between each symbol ◯ and the angle is as follows.
Symbol O: Toe-side face surface contour angle θt1 of the golf club head 10 (fairway wood 10A) according to the embodiment
Symbol □: Toe side central axis sole portion angle θt2 of the golf club head 10 (fairway wood 10A) according to the embodiment
Reference symbol ●: Toe-side face surface contour angle θt1 of a general golf club head 10 (fairway wood 10A)
Reference sign ■: Toe side central axis sole angle θt2 of a general golf club head 10 (fairway wood 10A)

  As apparent from FIG. 13, the toe side face surface contour angle θt1 and the toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 of the golf club head 10 according to the embodiment are within the range of 20 ° to 35 °. Thus, it can be seen that the toe side face surface contour angle θt1 and the toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 of the general golf club head 10 are less than 20 °.

As described above, in the present embodiment, in the wood-type golf club head 10 in which the volume of the head body 12 is 90 cc or more and 210 cc or less and the loft angle is 15 ° or more and 35 °, the heel side face surface contour line. The angle θh1 was set to 15 ° to 35 °, and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 was set to 15 ° to 35 °.
Therefore, since the height of the portion near the face portion 14 and the portion near the heel 24 in the sole surface 18A from the ground is secured, the sole surface 18A that contacts the ground or lawn (rough) in the first half of the impact of the golf ball. The area of the part decreases.
This is advantageous in suppressing the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground in the first half of the impact of the golf ball. Therefore, the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 is improved, and the top and duffing are improved. This is advantageous in suppressing the occurrence of such miss shots.

Hereinafter, experimental examples of the present invention will be described.
22 to 37 are diagrams showing experimental results of the golf club head 10 according to the present invention.
A golf club head 10 as a sample was prepared for each experimental example, and the following four evaluation items were measured to obtain indices (evaluation points), and the total score of the four indices was obtained.
In the following experimental examples, the fairway wood 10A and the utility 10B were used as the golf club heads 10, respectively.

(1) Swing-out property The swing-out property (ease of swing-out) when a golf ball placed on the lawn (rough) was actually hit with the golf club head 10 was evaluated by an index.
Here, the swing-out property is obtained as follows.
That is, a target point is set in the hitting field and the golfer hits the target point.
Ten golf balls were tested on one golf club, and the swing-out performance was evaluated so that the score was higher as the swing-out performance was better than 5 points, and the evaluated score was obtained as evaluation data.
Here, for each of the 20 test subjects, the evaluation data of the swingability was obtained using the golf clubs of the respective experimental examples, and the average value of the evaluation data for the swingability of 20 people was determined for each of the golf clubs. And the average value of the evaluation data of the experimental example corresponding to a comparative example was set to 100, and experimental examples other than the comparative example were evaluated by the index. That is, the higher the index, the better the swing-out property.

(2) Variation in flight distance Variation in flight distance when a golf ball was actually hit with the golf club head 10 was evaluated by an index.
Here, the variation in the flight distance is obtained as follows.
That is, a target point is set in the hitting field and the golfer hits the target point. Ten balls are performed for one golf club, and the difference between the maximum value and the minimum value of the flight distance is measured as evaluation data of the flight distance variation.
Here, the evaluation data of the variation in flight distance is obtained for each of the 20 subjects using the golf clubs of the respective experimental examples, and the average value of the evaluation data of the variation in flight distance of 20 people is obtained for each of the golf clubs. . Then, the average value of the evaluation data of the experimental example corresponding to the comparative example is set to 100, and the experimental example other than the comparative example is an index ((average value of the evaluation data of the experimental example corresponding to the comparative example / the experimental example other than the comparative example Evaluation was made by the average value of the evaluation data) × 100). That is, the higher the index, the smaller the variation in flight distance, and the better.

(3) Left and right variation The left and right variation when the golf ball was actually hit with the golf club head 10 was evaluated by an index.
Here, the left-right variation is obtained as follows.
That is, a target point is set in the hitting field and the golfer hits the target point. The distance from the hit point to the target point and the distance to the point where the hit ball stops are recorded as the direction blur width (yard).
The amount of deviation in the right direction with respect to the target flying ball line Lg is displayed as a positive (+) value, and the amount of deviation in the left direction is displayed as a negative (−) value. A value obtained by arithmetically averaging was calculated as evaluation data of left-right variation.
Here, for each of the 20 test subjects, the evaluation data of the left-right variation was obtained using the golf clubs of each experimental example, and the average value of the evaluation data of the 20 left-right variations was obtained for each golf club. Then, the average value of the evaluation data of the experimental example corresponding to the comparative example is set to 100, and the experimental example other than the comparative example is an index ((average value of the evaluation data of the experimental example corresponding to the comparative example / the experimental example other than the comparative example Evaluation was made by the average value of the evaluation data) × 100). That is, the higher the index, the better the less left-right variation.

(4) Ease of holding 50 right-handed golfers (handicap 3 to 25) actually hold the target flying line, and comprehensively understand the ease of taking the target at that time and the uncomfortable feeling at the time of setting. Evaluated and scored out of 100.
The ease of holding is evaluated by an index. The index of the experimental example as a comparative example is set to 100, and the larger the index is, the easier the holding is.

(5) Total score The total score is the sum of the above four indices of swingability, flight distance variation, left and right variation, and ease of holding.
The total score of the experimental example corresponding to the comparative example is set to 400, and the larger the total score, the better the evaluation.

The experiment was conducted on Fairway Wood 10A and Utility 10B.
First, the experiment of the fairway wood 10A will be described.
(Condition 1)
As shown in FIG. 22, the conditions defined in claim 1 are changed so that the other regulations are almost constant.
In the experimental examples 2 to 29 shown in FIGS. 22 to 29, the crown surface 16A of the golf club head 10 is formed with two curvature radius changing portions 36 as shown in FIG. Two surface portions 38A, 38B, and 38C are formed.
22 to 29, the column of the position of the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16 is the distance (shortest) of the position of the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16 to the vertical plane P0 passing through the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30. The distance when the position of the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16 is located on the face side is a positive (+) value, and the distance when the crown surface 16 is located on the face back side is a negative (-) value. Show.
In other words, the fact that the position 1610 of the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16 defined in claim 9 is located between the first plane P10 and the second plane P11 means that the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16 is The distance of the position 1610 from the vertical plane P0 is in the range of −5 mm to +5 mm.
Further, in Experimental Examples 2 to 29, as shown in FIG. 10, when the golf club head 10 is viewed from the front in the reference state, the lower outline 1402 of the face surface 14 </ b> A has a downwardly convex V shape. The contour line 1404 on the upper side of the face surface 14A is substantially linear.

  As shown in FIG. 22, Experimental Example 1 is a general fairway wood 10 </ b> A and corresponds to a comparative example.

In Experimental Example 2, although the provisions of claims 1 and 2 other than the loft angle φL are satisfied, the loft angle φL is 14 °, which is less than the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1.
Accordingly, the swing-out property 101, the flight distance variation 102, the left-right variation 100, the ease of holding 100, and the total point 403 are the same as those in Experimental Example 1.
This is because the loft angle φL is less than 15 °, and when the golfer visually recognizes the golf club head 10, it is easy to receive an image that the golf ball does not rise. This is because a miss shot is likely to occur, and the swing-out performance is also deteriorated.

In Experimental Example 3, although the provisions of claims 1 and 2 other than the loft angle φL are satisfied, the loft angle φL is 37 °, which exceeds the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1.
Therefore, the swing-out property 101, the flight distance variation 102, the left-right variation 100, the ease of holding 101, and the total point 404 are the same as those in Experimental Example 1.
This is because the loft angle φL exceeds 35 °, so that when the golfer visually recognizes the golf club head 10, the face portion 14 is small (the face surface is too upward) and it is easy to receive an image that is difficult to swing, This is because a miss shot is likely to occur, and the swing-out performance is also deteriorated.

Experimental Example 4 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 16.0 °, in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 16.0 ° and 25.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 23.0 ° and 30.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swingability 114, the flight distance variation 113, the left-right variation 112, the ease of holding 112, and the total score 451 are compared with the experimental examples 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 1. And all evaluations have been improved.
This is because the loft angle φL is within the range, and it is easy to swing. Further, since the angles θh1 and θh2 are within the range of claim 1, the contact between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground surface. This is because it is advantageous for suppressing resistance, and therefore, it is advantageous for improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

Experimental Example 5 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 34.0 °, in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swingability 115, the flight distance variation 114, the left and right variation 112, the ease of holding 112, and the total point 453 are compared with the experimental examples 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 that do not satisfy the definition of claim 1. And all evaluations have been improved.
This is because the loft angle φL is within the range, and it is easy to swing. Further, since the angles θh1 and θh2 are within the range of claim 1, the contact between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground surface. This is because it is advantageous for suppressing resistance, and therefore, it is advantageous for improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

Experimental Example 6 has a volume of 165 cc, within the range of 90 cc to 210 cc of claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and within a range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1; Each angle θh1, θh2 is 14.0 °, 13.0 °, which is below the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1, θt2 are 30.0 °, 27.0 °, It is within the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swing-out property 98, the flight distance variation 102, the left-right variation 100, the ease of holding 102, and the total point 402 are the same as those in Experimental Example 1.
This is because the heel side face surface contour angle θh1 and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 are below the range of claim 1, so that the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground is high, Therefore, it is disadvantageous in improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

Experimental Example 7 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, Each angle θh1, θh2 is 37.0 °, 36.0 °, which exceeds the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1, θt2 are 30.0 °, 27.0 °, It is within the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swing-out property 99, the flight distance variation 102, the left-right variation 100, the ease of holding 102, and the total point 403 are the same as those in Experimental Example 1.
This is because the heel side face surface contour angle θh1 and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 exceed the range of claim 1, and therefore the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground is suppressed. However, it is easy for the golfer to feel uncomfortable with the appearance when the golf club visually recognizes the golf club head 10. That is, it is easy to feel the face surface 14A small, and the balance of the face shapes on the toe 22 side and the heel 24 side is poor, and it is easy to feel uncomfortable.
This is because the ease of setting the golf club is reduced and the number of miss shots is increased.

Experimental Example 8 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 17.0 ° and 16.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swingability 114, the flight distance variation 114, the left and right variation 112, the ease of holding 112, and the total point 452 are compared with the experimental examples 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 that do not satisfy the definition of claim 1. And all evaluations have been improved.
This is because the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 are within the scope of claim 1, thereby suppressing the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground. Therefore, it is advantageous for improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

Experimental Example 9 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 34.0 ° and 33.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swingability 116, the flight distance variation 113, the left-right variation 112, the ease of holding 112, and the total score 453 are compared with the experimental examples 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 1. And all evaluations have been improved.
This is because the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 are within the scope of claim 1, thereby suppressing the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground. Therefore, it is advantageous for improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

  Therefore, the experimental examples 4, 5, 8, and 9 satisfying the definition of claim 1 are different from the experimental examples 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 that do not satisfy the definition of claim 1 in variation in swing-out property and flight distance. The effects of improving the left and right variations, ease of handling, and total points are excellent.

(Condition 2)
As shown in FIG. 23, the conditions defined in claims 1, 3, 4 to 10 are satisfied, the conditions defined in claim 2 are changed, and other conditions are set to be substantially constant conditions.

Experimental Example 10 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc of claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, respectively, within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 19.0 ° and 18.0 °. Further, it is below the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swingability 99, the flight distance variation 103, the left-right variation 103, the ease of holding 102, and the total score 407 are evaluated, and although the evaluation is generally improved as compared with Experimental Example 1, the degree of improvement is small.
This is because the toe-side face surface contour angle θt1 and the toe-side central axis sole portion angle θt2 are below the range of claim 1, so that the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the toe 22 and the ground is suppressed. This is because the effect is small, and therefore, the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 is improved, and the effect of suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff is reduced.

Experimental Example 11 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc of claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, respectively, within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 37.0 ° and 36.0 °. The range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2 is exceeded.
Therefore, the swingability 100, the flight distance variation 103, the left-right variation 103, the ease of holding 102, and the total score 408 are substantially improved compared to the experimental example 1, but the degree of improvement is small.
This is because the toe-side face surface contour angle θt1 and the toe-side central axis sole portion angle θt2 exceed the range of claim 1, thereby suppressing the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the toe 22 and the ground. Although it is possible, it is easy for the golfer to feel uncomfortable in the appearance when the golf club head 10 is viewed. That is, it is easy to feel the face surface 14A small, and the balance of the face shapes on the toe 22 side and the heel 24 side is poor, and it is easy to feel uncomfortable.
For this reason, the effect of ensuring ease of holding the golf club is reduced, and therefore, the effect of suppressing miss shots is reduced.

Experimental Example 12 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, respectively, within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 22.0 ° and 21.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swingability 118, the flight distance variation 115, the left-right variation 115, the ease of holding 115, and the total point 463 are all compared to the experimental examples 1, 10, and 11 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 2. Evaluation has been improved.
This is because the toe-side face surface contour angle θt1 and the toe-side central axis sole portion angle θt2 are within the scope of claim 2, so that the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the toe 22 and the ground is suppressed. Therefore, it is advantageous for improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

Experimental Example 13 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, respectively, within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 34.0 ° and 33.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swingability 119, the flight distance variation 115, the left and right variation 115, the ease of holding 115, and the total point 464 are all compared to the experimental examples 1, 10, and 11 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 2. Evaluation has been improved.
This is because the toe-side face surface contour angle θt1 and the toe-side central axis sole portion angle θt2 are within the scope of claim 2, so that the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the toe 22 and the ground is suppressed. Therefore, it is advantageous for improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

  Therefore, the experimental examples 12 and 13 that satisfy the provisions of claims 1 and 2 are different from the experimental examples 1, 10, and 11 that do not satisfy the provision of claim 2 in swinging performance, flight distance variation, left and right variation, The effect of improving ease and total score is excellent.

(Condition 3)
As shown in FIG. 24, the conditions defined in claims 1 and 2 are satisfied, the conditions defined in claim 3 are changed, and the other regulations are set to be substantially constant conditions.

Experimental Example 14 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc of claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 23.0 ° and 25.0 °, respectively, within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 27.0 ° and 30.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 of claim 3 are not satisfied.
Therefore, the swingability 105, the flight distance variation 105, the right and left variation 104, the ease of holding 110, and the total score 424 are evaluated, and although the evaluation is improved as compared with the experimental example 1, the provisions of claim 3 are satisfied. The degree of improvement is small as compared with Experimental Example 15 that is satisfied.
Since this does not satisfy the provisions of claim 3, it is easy for the golfer to feel the appearance of the golf club head 10 when visually recognizing the golf club head 10, and the effect of ensuring ease of holding the golf club is reduced.
Further, the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 is smaller than the heel side central axis sole part angle θh2, and the toe side face surface contour line angle θt1 is smaller than the toe side central axis sole part angle θt2, as described above. As described above, the sole surface 18A becomes a bounce angle, and when the sole comes into contact with the ground, it bounces.
Therefore, the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 is improved, and the effect of suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff is reduced.

Experimental Example 15 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 24.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 29.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
Therefore, the swingability 119, the flight distance variation 118, the left-right variation 118, the ease of holding 118, and the total score 473 are all evaluated in comparison with the experimental examples 1 and 14 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 3. It has been improved.
Since this satisfies the provisions of claim 3, it is difficult for the golfer to feel uncomfortable in the appearance when the golf club head 10 is visually recognized, which is advantageous in ensuring ease of holding the golf club. This is because it is advantageous in improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

  Therefore, Experimental Example 15 that satisfies the provisions of claims 1, 2, and 3 differs from Experimental Examples 1 and 14 that do not satisfy the provision of Claim 3 in swing-out performance, flight distance variation, left-right variation, and ease of holding. The effect of improving the total score is excellent.

(Condition 4)
As shown in FIG. 25, the conditions defined in claims 1 to 4 are satisfied, the conditions defined in claims 5 and 6 are changed, and the other regulations are set to be substantially constant conditions.

Experimental Example 16 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
Further, the sole width WS is 110.0 mm, which exceeds the range of 70 mm to 100 mm in claim 5.
The head height HH is 32 mm, which is less than the range of 35 mm to 45 mm.
Therefore, the swingability 97, the flight distance variation 112, the left-right variation 111, the ease of holding 110, and the total score 430 are improved compared to the experimental example 1, The degree of improvement is small compared to Experimental Examples 18 and 19 that satisfy the regulations.
This is because the effect of preventing misshots such as tops and duffs is reduced because the head body 12 has a very strange shape due to the sole width WS and the head height HH.

Experimental Example 17 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
The sole width WS is 65.0 mm, which is less than the range of 70 mm to 100 mm in claim 5.
The head height HH is 50 mm, which exceeds the range of 35 mm or more and 45 mm or less.
Therefore, the swingability 114, the flight distance variation 110, the left-right variation 110, the ease of holding 99, and the total score 433 are improved compared to the experimental example 1, but the claims 5 and 6 The degree of improvement is small compared to Experimental Examples 18 and 19 that satisfy the regulations.
This is because the effect of preventing misshots such as tops and duffs is reduced because the head body 12 has a very strange shape due to the sole width WS and the head height HH.

Experimental Example 18 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
The sole width WS is 73.0 mm, which is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 44.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Therefore, the swingability 123, the flight distance variation 120, the left-right variation 119, the ease of holding 123, and the total point 485 are compared with the experimental examples 1, 16, and 17 that do not satisfy the provisions of claims 5 and 6. All evaluations have been improved.
This is because there is no sense of incongruity of the shape of the head main body 12 due to the sole width WS and the head height HH, and the effect of preventing misshots such as top and duffing is ensured.

Experimental Example 19 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc of claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
The sole width WS is 98.0 mm, which is within the range of 70 mm or more and 100 mm or less.
Further, the head height HH is 36.0 mm, and is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Therefore, the swingability 122, the flight distance variation 122, the left-right variation 119, the ease of holding 120, and the total point 483 are compared to the experimental examples 1, 16, and 17 that do not satisfy the provisions of claims 5 and 6. All evaluations have been improved.
This is because there is no sense of incongruity of the shape of the head main body 12 due to the sole width WS and the head height HH, and the effect of preventing misshots such as top and duffing is ensured.

  Therefore, the experimental examples 18 and 19 satisfying the provisions of claims 1 to 6 are different from the experimental examples 1, 16, and 17 not satisfying the definitions of claims 5 and 6 in swingability, flight distance variation, and left and right variation. , Ease of setting, and the effect of improving the total score are excellent.

(Condition 5)
As shown in FIG. 26, the provisions of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are satisfied, the conditions defined in claim 4 are changed, and the other regulations are set to be substantially constant conditions.

Experimental Example 20 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc of claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 8.7 mm, which is less than the range of 10 mm to 35 mm.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Therefore, the swingability 110, the flight distance variation 105, the right and left variation 107, the ease of holding 110, and the total score 432 are evaluated, and although the evaluation is improved as compared with the experimental example 1, the definition of claim 4 is satisfied. Compared with Experimental Examples 22 and 23 to be satisfied, the degree of improvement is small.
This is because the effect of preventing mis-shots such as top and duffing is reduced because the discomfort of the shape of the head main body 12 due to the sole height SH is great.

Experimental Example 21 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 36.0 mm, which exceeds the range of 10 mm to 35 mm.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Therefore, the swingability 111, the flight distance variation 105, the left and right variation 111, the ease of holding 106, and the total point 433 are evaluated, and although the evaluation is improved as compared with Experimental Example 1, the provisions of claim 4 are satisfied. Compared with Experimental Examples 22 and 23 to be satisfied, the degree of improvement is small.
This is because the effect of preventing mis-shots such as top and duffing is reduced because the discomfort of the shape of the head main body 12 due to the sole height SH is great.

Experimental Example 22 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc of claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
Further, the sole height SH is 11.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
The sole width WS is 73.0 mm, which is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 44.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Therefore, the swing-out property 123, the flight distance variation 120, the left-right variation 119, the ease of holding 123, and the total point 485 are all compared to the experimental examples 1, 20, and 21 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 4. Evaluation has been improved.
This is because there is no sense of incongruity in the shape of the head main body 12 due to the sole height SH, and the effect of preventing a miss shot such as a top or duff is reduced.

Experimental Example 23 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
Further, the sole height SH is 34.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
The sole width WS is 98.0 mm, which is within the range of 70 mm or more and 100 mm or less.
Further, the head height HH is 36.0 mm, and is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Accordingly, the swing-out performance 121, the flight distance variation 122, the left-right variation 119, the ease of holding 120, and the total point 482 are all compared to the experimental examples 1, 20, and 21 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 4. Evaluation has been improved.
This is because there is no sense of incongruity in the shape of the head main body 12 due to the sole height SH, and the effect of preventing a miss shot such as a top or duff is reduced.

  Therefore, the experimental examples 22 and 23 satisfying the provisions of claims 1 to 6 are different from the experimental examples 1, 20, and 21 not satisfying the provision of claim 4 in swinging performance, flight distance variation, right and left variation, and attitude. The effect of improving ease and total score is excellent.

(Condition 6)
As shown in FIG. 27, the conditions of claims 1 to 6 are satisfied, the conditions defined in claim 9 are changed, and the other regulations are made to be substantially constant conditions.

Experimental Example 24 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Further, the distance from the vertical plane P0 including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 at the position 1610 at the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is −7 mm, which is outside the range of −5 mm to +5 mm of claim 9.
Therefore, the swingability 115, the flight distance variation 110, the left-right variation 110, the ease of holding 110, and the total score 445 are improved as compared with Experimental Example 1, but the provisions of claim 9 are satisfied. Compared with Experimental Examples 26 and 27 to be satisfied, the degree of improvement is small.
This is because the position 1610 at the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is away from the central axis 3202 of the shaft 32 (the central axis 3002 of the hosel part 30), and the effect of improving the ease of holding is reduced. . This is because even in the head body of a general fairway wood, the distance of the central axis 3002 from the vertical plane P0 is too far (greater than the range of −5 mm to +5 mm), so the swing image when held is an upper This is because it tends to be in orbit.

Experimental Example 25 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Further, the distance from the vertical plane P0 including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 at the position 1610 of the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is +7 mm, which is outside the range of −5 mm to +5 mm.
Therefore, the swingability 116, the flight distance variation 110, the left-right variation 111, the ease of holding 106, and the total score 443 are improved, and the evaluation is improved as compared with Experimental Example 1. Compared with Experimental Examples 26 and 27 that satisfy, the degree of improvement is small.
This is because the position 1610 at the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is away from the central axis 3202 of the shaft 32 (the central axis 3002 of the hosel part 30), and the effect of improving the ease of holding is reduced. . That is, when the position 1610 having the maximum height Hmax is shifted to the face surface 14A side, the swing image when held is likely to be an upper track.

Experimental Example 26 has a volume of 165 cc, within the range of 90 cc to 210 cc of claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and within a range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1; The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Further, the distance from the vertical plane P0 including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 at the position 1610 of the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is −4.0 mm, and within the range of −5 mm to +5 mm of claim 9. is there.
Therefore, the swingability 128, the flight distance variation 120, the left-right variation 124, the ease of holding 123, and the total score 495 are all evaluated as compared with the experimental examples 24 and 25 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 9. It has been improved.
This is because the position 1610 at the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is close to the central axis 3202 of the shaft 32 (the central axis 3002 of the hosel part 30), so that the effect of improving the ease of holding is secured. .

Experimental Example 27 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
The distance from the vertical plane P0 including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 at the position 1610 at the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is +4.0 mm, and is within the range of −5 mm to +5 mm of claim 9. .
Therefore, the swingability 126, the flight distance variation 123, the right and left variation 124, the ease of holding 120, and the total score 492 are all evaluated as compared with the experimental examples 24 and 25 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 9. It has been improved.
This is because the position 1610 at the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is close to the central axis 3202 of the shaft 32 (the central axis 3002 of the hosel part 30), so that the effect of improving the ease of holding is secured. .

  Therefore, the experimental examples 26 and 27 satisfying the provisions of claims 1 to 6 and 9 are different from the experimental examples 1, 24 and 25 not satisfying the provision of claim 9 in swinging performance, flight distance variation, and left and right variation. , Ease of setting, and the effect of improving the total score are excellent.

(Condition 7)
As shown in FIG. 28, the conditions defined in claims 1 to 6 and 9 are satisfied, the conditions defined in claim 10 are changed, and the other regulations are set to be substantially constant conditions.
Experimental Example 28 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Further, the distance from the vertical plane P0 including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 at the position 1610 of the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is −1.0 mm, and within the range of −5 mm to +5 mm of claim 9. is there.
The mass Y (g) of the golf club head 10 and the club length X (inch) of the golf club do not satisfy the formula (1) and do not satisfy the provisions of claim 10. Specifically, the mass Y of the golf club head 10 is lighter than that defined by the formula (1).
Therefore, the swingability 124, the flight distance variation 115, the left-right variation 115, the ease of holding 116, and the total score 470 are evaluated, and although the evaluation is improved as compared with the experimental example 1, the provisions of claim 10 are satisfied. The evaluation is low as compared with Experimental Example 29, which will be described later.
This is because the weight of the golf club head 10 is not used when the golf club head 10 strikes a rough golf ball because the golf club head 10 does not satisfy the formula (1) and the mass of the golf club head 10 is light with respect to the shaft 32. This is because the effect of facilitating the swing (striking the ball without losing the rough resistance) is reduced.

(Condition 8)
As shown in FIG. 29, all the conditions prescribed in claims 1 to 6, 9, and 10 were satisfied.
Experimental Example 29 has a volume of 165 cc, in the range of 90 cc to 210 cc in claim 1, a loft angle φL of 20.0 °, and in the range of 15 ° to 35 ° in claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Further, the distance from the vertical plane P0 including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 at the position 1610 of the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is −1.0 mm, and within the range of −5 mm to +5 mm of claim 9. is there.
The mass Y (g) of the golf club head 10 and the club length X (inch) of the golf club satisfy the formula (1) and satisfy the provisions of claim 10.
Therefore, the experimental example 29 is the swingability 130, the flight distance variation 123, the left-right variation 130, the ease of holding 123, and the total point 506, and the evaluation is improved as compared with the experimental examples 1-28.

Therefore, Experimental Example 29 that satisfies all the provisions of claims 1 to 6, 9, and 10 has the most excellent effects of improving swing-out performance, flight distance variation, left and right variation, ease of holding, and total score. .
Next, an experiment of the utility 10B will be described.
(Condition 1)
As shown in FIG. 30, the conditions defined in claim 1 are changed so that the other regulations are almost constant.
In the following description, the same description as in FIGS. 22 to 29 is omitted.
In the experimental examples 32-59 shown in FIGS. 30-37, two curvature radius changing portions 36 are formed on the crown surface 16A of the golf club head 10 as shown in FIG. Two surface portions 38A, 38B, and 38C are formed.
Further, in Experimental Examples 32 to 59, as shown in FIG. 10, when the golf club head 10 is viewed from the front in the reference state, the lower outline 1402 of the face surface 14 </ b> A has a downwardly convex V shape. The contour line 1404 on the upper side of the face surface 14A is substantially linear.

  As shown in FIG. 30, Experimental Example 31 is a general utility and corresponds to a comparative example.

In Experimental Example 32, although the provisions of claims 1 and 2 other than the loft angle φL are satisfied, the loft angle φL is 14 °, which is less than the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1.
Therefore, the swing-out property 102, the flight distance variation 102, the left-right variation 100, the ease of holding 100, and the total point 404 are the same as those of the experimental example 31.
This is because the loft angle φL is less than 15 °, and when the golfer visually recognizes the golf club head 10, it is easy to receive an image that the golf ball does not rise. This is because a miss shot is likely to occur, and the swing-out performance is also deteriorated.

Although Experimental Example 33 satisfies the provisions of claims 1 and 2 other than the loft angle φL, the loft angle φL is 37 °, which exceeds the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1.
Therefore, the swing-out property 101, the flight distance variation 101, the left-right variation 100, the ease of holding 101, and the total point 403 are the same as those of the experimental example 31.
This is because the loft angle φL exceeds 35 °, and when the golfer visually recognizes the golf club head 10, the face portion 14 is easy to receive an image that is difficult to swing and easily causes a miss shot. This is because the punchability is also deteriorated.

Experimental example 34 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 16.0 °, and is in the range of 15 to 35 ° of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 16.0 ° and 25.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 23.0 ° and 30.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swingability 114, the flight distance variation 112, the left and right variation 112, the ease of holding 112, and the total score 450 are compared with the experimental examples 31, 32, 33, 36, and 37 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 1. And all evaluations have been improved.
This is because the loft angle φL is within the range, and it is easy to swing. Further, since the angles θh1 and θh2 are within the range of claim 1, the contact between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground surface. This is because it is advantageous for suppressing resistance, and therefore, it is advantageous for improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

Experimental Example 35 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 34.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1; The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swingability 114, the flight distance variation 114, the left and right variation 112, the ease of holding 112, and the total score 452, which are compared with the experimental examples 31, 32, 33, 36, and 37 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 1. And all evaluations have been improved.
This is because the loft angle φL is within the range, and it is easy to swing. Further, since the angles θh1 and θh2 are within the range of claim 1, the contact between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground surface. This is because it is advantageous for suppressing resistance, and therefore, it is advantageous for improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

Experimental Example 36 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, Each angle θh1, θh2 is 14.0 °, 13.0 °, which is below the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1, θt2 are 30.0 °, 27.0 °, It is within the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swing-out property 99, the flight distance variation 102, the left-right variation 100, the ease of holding 102, and the total point 403 are the same as those of the experimental example 31.
This is because the heel side face surface contour angle θh1 and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 are below the range of claim 1, so that the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground is high, Therefore, it is disadvantageous in improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

Experimental Example 37 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, Each angle θh1, θh2 is 37.0 °, 36.0 °, which exceeds the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1, θt2 are 30.0 °, 27.0 °, It is within the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swing-out property 100, the flight distance variation 102, the left-right variation 100, the ease of holding 102, and the total point 404 are the same as those of the experimental example 31.
This is because the heel side face surface contour angle θh1 and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 exceed the range of claim 1, and therefore the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground is suppressed. However, it is easy for the golfer to feel uncomfortable with the appearance when the golf club visually recognizes the golf club head 10. That is, it is easy to feel the face surface 14A small, and the balance of the face shapes on the toe 22 side and the heel 24 side is poor, and it is easy to feel uncomfortable.
This is because the ease of setting the golf club is reduced and the number of miss shots is increased.

Experimental Example 38 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1; The angles θh1 and θh2 are 17.0 ° and 16.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swingability 115, the flight distance variation 114, the left and right variation 112, the ease of holding 112, and the total score 453 are compared with the experimental examples 31, 32, 33, 36, and 37 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 1. And all evaluations have been improved.
This is because the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 are within the scope of claim 1, thereby suppressing the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground. Therefore, it is advantageous for improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

Experimental Example 39 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 34.0 ° and 33.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swingability 115, the flight distance variation 113, the left-right variation 112, the ease of holding 112, and the total score 452, which are compared with the experimental examples 31, 32, 33, 36, and 37 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 1. And all evaluations have been improved.
This is because the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 are within the scope of claim 1, thereby suppressing the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the heel 24 and the ground. Therefore, it is advantageous for improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

  Therefore, the experimental examples 34, 35, 38, and 39 that satisfy the provisions of claim 1 are different from the experimental examples 31, 32, 33, 36, and 37 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 1 in variation in swingability and flight distance. The effects of improving the left and right variations, ease of handling, and total points are excellent.

(Condition 2)
As shown in FIG. 31, the conditions defined in claims 1, 3, 4 to 10 are satisfied, the conditions defined in claim 2 are changed, and other conditions are set to be substantially constant conditions.

Experimental Example 40 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1; The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, respectively, within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 19.0 ° and 18.0 °. Further, it is below the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swingability 100, the flight distance variation 103, the left-right variation 103, the ease of holding 102, and the total score 408 are evaluated, and although the evaluation is generally improved as compared with the experimental example 31, the degree of improvement is small.
This is because the toe-side face surface contour angle θt1 and the toe-side central axis sole portion angle θt2 are below the range of claim 1, so that the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the toe 22 and the ground is suppressed. This is because the effect is small, and therefore, the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 is improved, and the effect of suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff is reduced.

Experimental example 41 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, respectively, within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 37.0 ° and 36.0 °. The range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2 is exceeded.
Therefore, the swingability 99, the flight distance variation 103, the left-right variation 103, the ease of holding 102, and the total score 407 are evaluated, and although the evaluation is generally improved as compared with Experimental Example 1, the degree of improvement is small.
This is because the toe-side face surface contour angle θt1 and the toe-side central axis sole portion angle θt2 exceed the range of claim 1, thereby suppressing the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the toe 22 and the ground. Although it is possible, it is easy for the golfer to feel uncomfortable in the appearance when the golf club head 10 is viewed. That is, it is easy to feel the face surface 14A small, and the balance of the face shapes on the toe 22 side and the heel 24 side is poor, and it is easy to feel uncomfortable.
For this reason, the effect of ensuring ease of holding the golf club is reduced, and therefore, the effect of suppressing miss shots is reduced.

Experimental Example 42 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1; The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, respectively, within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 22.0 ° and 21.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swingability 119, the flight distance variation 115, the left-right variation 115, the ease of holding 115, and the total point 464 are all compared to the experimental examples 31, 40, and 41 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 2. Evaluation has been improved.
This is because the toe-side face surface contour angle θt1 and the toe-side central axis sole portion angle θt2 are within the scope of claim 2, so that the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the toe 22 and the ground is suppressed. Therefore, it is advantageous for improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

Experimental Example 43 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, respectively, within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 34.0 ° and 33.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Therefore, the swingability 119, the flight distance variation 115, the left-right variation 115, the ease of holding 115, and the total point 464 are all compared to the experimental examples 31, 40, and 41 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 2. Evaluation has been improved.
This is because the toe-side face surface contour angle θt1 and the toe-side central axis sole portion angle θt2 are within the scope of claim 2, so that the contact resistance between the portion of the sole surface 18A near the toe 22 and the ground is suppressed. Therefore, it is advantageous for improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

  Therefore, the experimental examples 42 and 43 satisfying the provisions of claims 1 and 2 are different from the experimental examples 31, 40 and 41 not satisfying the definition of claim 2 in swinging performance, flight distance variation, left and right variation, The effect of improving ease and total score is excellent.

(Condition 3)
As shown in FIG. 32, the conditions defined in claims 1 and 2 are satisfied, the conditions defined in claim 3 are changed, and other conditions are set to be substantially constant conditions.

Experimental Example 44 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 23.0 ° and 25.0 °, respectively, within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 27.0 ° and 30.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 of claim 3 are not satisfied.
Therefore, the swingability 104, the flight distance variation 105, the left-right variation 104, the ease of holding 110, and the total score 423 are improved, and the evaluation is improved as compared with the experimental example 31. The degree of improvement is small as compared with Experimental Example 45 that is satisfied.
Since this does not satisfy the provisions of claim 3, it is easy for the golfer to feel the appearance of the golf club head 10 when visually recognizing the golf club head 10, and the effect of ensuring ease of holding the golf club is reduced.
Further, the heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 is smaller than the heel side central axis sole part angle θh2, and the toe side face surface contour line angle θt1 is smaller than the toe side central axis sole part angle θt2, as described above. As described above, the sole surface 18A becomes a bounce angle, and when the sole comes into contact with the ground, it bounces.
Therefore, the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 is improved, and the effect of suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff is reduced.

Experimental Example 45 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 to 35 ° of claim 1; The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 24.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 29.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
Therefore, the swingability 119, the flight distance variation 118, the left-right variation 118, the ease of holding 119, and the total point 474 are all evaluated as compared with the experimental examples 31 and 44 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 3. It has been improved.
Since this satisfies the provisions of claim 3, it is difficult for the golfer to feel uncomfortable in the appearance when the golf club head 10 is visually recognized, which is advantageous in ensuring ease of holding the golf club. This is because it is advantageous in improving the swing-out performance of the golf club head 10 and suppressing the occurrence of miss shots such as top and duff.

  Therefore, the experimental example 45 that satisfies the provisions of claims 1, 2, and 3 is more swingable than the experimental examples 31 and 44 that do not satisfy the definition of claim 3, variation in flight distance, left and right variation, and ease of holding. The effect of improving the total score is excellent.

(Condition 4)
As shown in FIG. 33, the conditions of claims 1 to 4 are satisfied, the conditions defined in claims 5 and 6 are changed, and the other regulations are made to be substantially constant conditions.

Experimental example 46 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
Further, the sole width WS is 110.0 mm, which exceeds the range of 70 mm to 100 mm in claim 5.
The head height HH is 32 mm, which is less than the range of 35 mm to 45 mm.
Therefore, the swingability 97, the flight distance variation 112, the left-right variation 111, the ease of holding 109, and the total score 429 are obtained, and although the evaluation is improved as compared with the experimental example 31, The degree of improvement is small compared to Experimental Examples 48 and 49 that satisfy the regulations.
This is because the effect of preventing misshots such as tops and duffs is reduced because the head body 12 has a very strange shape due to the sole width WS and the head height HH.

Experimental example 47 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
The sole width WS is 65.0 mm, which is less than the range of 70 mm to 100 mm in claim 5.
The head height HH is 50 mm, which exceeds the range of 35 mm or more and 45 mm or less.
Accordingly, the swingability 113, the flight distance variation 110, the left and right variation 110, the ease of holding 99, and the total score 432 are obtained, and although the evaluation is improved as compared with the experimental example 31, The degree of improvement is small compared to Experimental Examples 48 and 49 that satisfy the regulations.
This is because the effect of preventing misshots such as tops and duffs is reduced because the head body 12 has a very strange shape due to the sole width WS and the head height HH.

Experimental Example 48 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 to 35 ° of claim 1; The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
The sole width WS is 73.0 mm, which is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 44.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Therefore, the swingability 122, the flight distance variation 120, the left-right variation 119, the ease of holding 123, and the total point 484 are compared to the experimental examples 31, 46, and 47 that do not satisfy the provisions of claims 5 and 6. All evaluations have been improved.
This is because there is no sense of incongruity of the shape of the head main body 12 due to the sole width WS and the head height HH, and the effect of preventing misshots such as top and duffing is ensured.

Experimental Example 49 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
The sole width WS is 98.0 mm, which is within the range of 70 mm or more and 100 mm or less.
Further, the head height HH is 36.0 mm, and is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Therefore, the swingability 123, the flight distance variation 122, the right and left variation 119, the ease of holding 120, and the total point 484 are compared with the experimental examples 31, 46, and 47 that do not satisfy the provisions of claims 5 and 6. All evaluations have been improved.
This is because there is no sense of incongruity of the shape of the head main body 12 due to the sole width WS and the head height HH, and the effect of preventing misshots such as top and duffing is ensured.

  Therefore, the experimental examples 48 and 49 satisfying the provisions of claims 1 to 6 are different from the experimental examples 31, 46 and 47 not satisfying the provisions of claims 5 and 6 in swinging performance, flight distance variation, and left and right variation. , Ease of setting, and the effect of improving the total score are excellent.

(Condition 5)
As shown in FIG. 34, the provisions of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are satisfied, the conditions defined in claim 4 are changed, and the other regulations are set to be substantially constant conditions.

Experimental Example 50 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 8.7 mm, which is less than the range of 10 mm to 35 mm.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Therefore, the swingability 110, the flight distance variation 105, the left and right variation 107, the ease of holding 109, and the total score 431 are evaluated, and although the evaluation is improved as compared with the experimental example 31, the definition of claim 4 is satisfied. The degree of improvement is small compared to the experimental examples 52 and 53 that are satisfied.
This is because the effect of preventing mis-shots such as top and duffing is reduced because the discomfort of the shape of the head main body 12 due to the sole height SH is great.

Experimental example 51 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 36.0 mm, which exceeds the range of 10 mm to 35 mm.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Therefore, the swingability 111, the flight distance variation 105, the left-right variation 111, the ease of holding 107, and the total score 434 are evaluated, and the evaluation is improved as compared with the experimental example 1. The degree of improvement is small compared to the experimental examples 52 and 53 that are satisfied.
This is because the effect of preventing mis-shots such as top and duffing is reduced because the discomfort of the shape of the head main body 12 due to the sole height SH is great.

Experimental example 52 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
Further, the sole height SH is 11.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
The sole width WS is 73.0 mm, which is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 44.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Therefore, the swingability 123, the flight distance variation 120, the left-right variation 119, the ease of holding 124, and the total point 486 are all compared to the experimental examples 31, 50, and 51 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 4. Evaluation has been improved.
This is because there is no sense of incongruity in the shape of the head main body 12 due to the sole height SH, and the effect of preventing a miss shot such as a top or duff is reduced.

Experimental example 53 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 to 35 ° of claim 1; The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
Further, the sole height SH is 34.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
The sole width WS is 98.0 mm, which is within the range of 70 mm or more and 100 mm or less.
Further, the head height HH is 36.0 mm, and is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Therefore, the swingability 122, the flight distance variation 122, the left-right variation 119, the ease of holding 120, and the total point 483 are all compared to the experimental examples 31, 50, and 51 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 4. Evaluation has been improved.
This is because there is no sense of incongruity in the shape of the head main body 12 due to the sole height SH, and the effect of preventing a miss shot such as a top or duff is reduced.

  Therefore, the experimental examples 52 and 53 that satisfy the provisions of claims 1 to 6 are different from the experimental examples 31, 50 and 51 that do not satisfy the provision of claim 4 in swinging performance, flight distance variation, left and right variation, and attitude. The effect of improving ease and total score is excellent.

(Condition 6)
As shown in FIG. 35, the conditions of claims 1 to 6 are satisfied, the conditions defined in claim 9 are changed, and the other regulations are made to be almost constant conditions.

Experimental example 54 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Further, the distance from the vertical plane P0 including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 at the position 1610 at the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is −7 mm, which is outside the range of −5 mm to +5 mm of claim 9.
Therefore, the swingability 115, the flight distance variation 110, the left-right variation 110, the ease of holding 109, and the total score 444 are evaluated, and although the evaluation is improved as compared with the experimental example 31, the provision of claim 9 is satisfied. The degree of improvement is small as compared with Experimental Examples 56 and 57 that are satisfied.
This is because the position 1610 at the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is away from the central axis 3202 of the shaft 32 (the central axis 3002 of the hosel part 30), and the effect of improving the ease of holding is reduced. . This is because, even in a general utility head body, the distance of the central axis 3002 from the vertical plane P0 is too large (greater than the range of −5 mm to +5 mm), so that the swing image when held is an upper trajectory. It is because it becomes easy to become.

Experimental Example 55 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1; The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Further, the distance from the vertical plane P0 including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 at the position 1610 of the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is +7 mm, which is outside the range of −5 mm to +5 mm.
Accordingly, the swingability 116, the flight distance variation 110, the left-right variation 111, the ease of holding 107, and the total score 444 are obtained, and although the evaluation is improved as compared with the experimental example 31, the provision of claim 9 is satisfied. The degree of improvement is small as compared with Experimental Examples 56 and 57 that are satisfied.
This is because the position 1610 at the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is away from the central axis 3202 of the shaft 32 (the central axis 3002 of the hosel part 30), and the effect of improving the ease of holding is reduced. . That is, when the position 1610 having the maximum height Hmax is shifted to the face surface 14A side, the swing image when held is likely to be an upper track.

Experimental Example 56 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Further, the distance from the vertical plane P0 including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 at the position 1610 of the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is −4.0 mm, and within the range of −5 mm to +5 mm of claim 9. is there.
Accordingly, the swingability 129, the flight distance variation 120, the left-right variation 124, the ease of holding 123, and the total score 496 are all evaluated as compared to the experimental examples 54 and 55 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 9. It has been improved.
This is because the position 1610 at the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is close to the central axis 3202 of the shaft 32 (the central axis 3002 of the hosel part 30), so that the effect of improving the ease of holding is secured. .

Experimental Example 57 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1; The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
The distance from the vertical plane P0 including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 at the position 1610 at the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is +4.0 mm, and is within the range of −5 mm to +5 mm of claim 9. .
Therefore, the swingability 126, the flight distance variation 123, the left and right variation 124, the ease of holding 121, and the total score 493 are all evaluated as compared with the experimental examples 54 and 55 that do not satisfy the provisions of claim 9. It has been improved.
This is because the position 1610 at the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is close to the central axis 3202 of the shaft 32 (the central axis 3002 of the hosel part 30), so that the effect of improving the ease of holding is secured. .

  Therefore, the experimental examples 56 and 57 satisfying the provisions of claims 1 to 6 and 9 are different from the experimental examples 31, 54 and 55 that do not satisfy the provision of claim 9 in swinging performance, flight distance variation, and left and right variation. , Ease of setting, and the effect of improving the total score are excellent.

(Condition 7)
As shown in FIG. 36, the conditions defined in claims 1 to 6 and 9 are satisfied, the conditions defined in claim 10 are changed, and the other regulations are set to be substantially constant conditions.
Experimental Example 58 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 20.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1; The angles θh1 and θh2 are 25.0 ° and 23.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 30.0 ° and 27.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
The sole height SH is 15.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm of claim 4.
Further, the sole width WS is 85.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm to 100 mm of claim 5.
The head height HH is 40.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm of claim 6.
Further, the distance from the vertical plane P0 including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 at the position 1610 of the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is −1.0 mm, and within the range of −5 mm to +5 mm of claim 9. is there.
The mass Y (g) of the golf club head 10 and the club length X (inch) of the golf club do not satisfy the formula (1) and do not satisfy the provisions of claim 10. Specifically, the mass Y of the golf club head 10 is lighter than that defined by the formula (1).
Therefore, the swingability 123, the flight distance variation 115, the left-right variation 115, the ease of holding 116, and the total score 469 are improved compared to the experimental example 31. Evaluation is low compared with the experimental example 59 which will be described later.
This is because the weight of the golf club head 10 is not used when the golf club head 10 strikes a rough golf ball because the golf club head 10 does not satisfy the formula (1) and the mass of the golf club head 10 is light with respect to the shaft 32. This is because the effect of facilitating the swing (striking the ball without losing the rough resistance) is reduced.

(Condition 8)
As shown in FIG. 37, all the conditions specified in claims 1 to 6, 9, and 10 were satisfied.
Experimental Example 59 has a volume of 100 cc and is in the range of 90 cc or more and 210 cc of claim 1, the loft angle φL is 30.0 °, and is in the range of 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less of claim 1, The angles θh1 and θh2 are 30.0 ° and 28.0 °, which are within the range of 15 ° to 35 ° of claim 1, and the angles θt1 and θt2 are 33.0 ° and 31.0 °. In the range of 20 ° to 35 ° of claim 2.
Further, the heel side face surface contour angle θh1> heel side center axis sole portion angle θh2 and toe side face surface contour angle θt1> toe side center axis sole portion angle θt2 are satisfied.
Further, the sole height SH is 16.0 mm, and is within the range of 10 mm to 35 mm.
Further, the sole width WS is 70.0 mm, and is within the range of 70 mm or more and 100 mm or less.
The head height HH is 39.0 mm, which is within the range of 35 mm to 45 mm.
Further, the distance from the vertical plane P0 including the central axis 3002 of the hosel portion 30 at the position 1610 of the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface 16A is −1.0 mm, and within the range of −5 mm to +5 mm of claim 9. is there.
The mass Y (g) of the golf club head 10 and the club length X (inch) of the golf club satisfy the formula (1) and satisfy the provisions of claim 10.
Therefore, the experimental example 59 has the swingability 135, the flight distance variation 121, the left and right variation 126, the ease of holding 123, and the total score 505, and the evaluation is improved as compared with the experimental examples 31 to 58.

  Therefore, Experimental Example 59 that satisfies all the provisions of claims 1 to 6, 9, and 10 has the most excellent effects of improving swing-out performance, flight distance variation, left-right variation, ease of holding, and total score. .

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 10 Golf club head 10A Fairway wood 10B Utility 12 Head main body 14 Face part 14A Face surface 1402 Contour line 1404 Contour line 16 Crown part 16A Crown surface 1602 Inclined surface part 1604 Ridge line 1606 Crown surface main body part 18 Sole part 1802 Sole part outline 18A sole Surface 22 Toe 24 Heel 26 Face back 28 Hollow portion 30 Hosel portion 3002 Center shaft 32 Shaft 3202 Center shaft 36 Curvature radius changing portion 38A, 38B, 38C Surface portion 40 Recess P0 Vertical surface P1 First reference surface P2 Second reference surface P3 Second 3 reference plane P4 4th reference plane P10 1st plane P11 2nd plane θh1 heel side face surface contour angle θh2 heel side center axis sole angle θt1 toe side face surface contour angle θt2 toe side center axis sole portion angle H max Maximum height

To achieve the above object, the present invention provides a face portion, a crown portion extending rearward from an upper portion of the face portion, a sole portion extending rearward from a lower portion of the face portion, and the crown portion. A head body including a side portion extending through a face back between a toe side edge and a heel side edge of the face portion between the sole portions, the face portion, the crown portion, the sole portion, and the side portion; A wood-type golf club head having a hollow portion inside, a volume of the head main body of 90 cc to 210 cc, and a loft angle of 15 ° to 35 °,
In a reference state in which the golf club head is installed at a predetermined lie angle and loft angle with respect to a horizontal plane, a cross-section in which the head body is broken along a vertical plane including a normal passing through the center point of the face surface a reference section, wherein the golf club head in a state viewed from the front, the face center reference plane and the first reference surface 12.5mm spaced vertical plane to the heel toward the parallel vital the face center reference section of the reference state A vertical plane parallel to the face center reference cross section and separated from the face center reference cross section by 25.0 mm toward the heel is a second reference plane, and when the golf club head in the reference state is viewed from the front, A straight line connecting the intersection of the contour of the face surface near the sole and the first reference plane and the intersection of the contour and the second reference plane When There where the angle between the horizontal plane and the heel side face surface contour angle Shitaetchi1, the heel-side face surface contour angle Shitaetchi1 is at 35 ° or less 15 ° or more,
When the golf club head in the reference state is broken at a vertical plane including the central axis of the hosel part into which the shaft is inserted, the outer contour line of the cross section of the sole part is defined as a sole part contour line, and the reference state When the golf club head is viewed from the front, a straight line connecting the intersection of the sole contour line and the first reference plane and the intersection of the sole contour line and the second reference plane is the horizontal plane. angle when was the heel-side center axis sole portion angle θh2 Nasu, the heel-side central axis sole portion angle θh2 is Ri 35 ° der below 15 ° or more, the golf club head of the reference state in a state viewed from the front, A vertical plane parallel to the face center reference section and spaced 12.5 mm away from the face center reference section toward the toe is defined as a third reference plane, parallel to the face center reference section and the face center reference section. A vertical plane 25.0 mm away from the center reference cross section toward the toe is a fourth reference plane, and the golf club head in the reference state is viewed from the front, and the contour line near the sole portion of the face surface and the contour When the angle between the straight line connecting the intersection with the third reference plane and the intersection of the outline and the fourth reference plane with the horizontal plane is the toe side face outline angle θt1, the toe side face outline The line angle θt1 is not less than 20 ° and not more than 35 °, and when the golf club head in the reference state is viewed from the front, the intersection of the sole portion contour line and the third reference surface, and the sole portion contour line When the angle between the straight line connecting the intersection with the fourth reference plane and the horizontal plane is the toe side center axis sole part angle θt2, the toe side center axis sole part angle θt2 is 20 ° or more and 35 ° or less, The Large side face contour angle θh1 than heel side the center axis sole portion angle .theta.h2, and the toe-side face surface contour angle θt1 being greater than the toe-side center axis sole portion angle Shitati2.

Claims (13)

A face portion, a crown portion extending rearward from the upper portion of the face portion, a sole portion extending rearward from the lower portion of the face portion, and a toe side of the face portion between the crown portion and the sole portion A head body including a side part extending through the face back between the edge and the heel side edge, and the inside surrounded by the face part, the crown part, the sole part, and the side part is a hollow part A wood-type golf club head having a volume of the head body of 90 cc or more and 210 cc or less and a loft angle of 15 ° or more and 35 °,
In a reference state in which the golf club head is installed at a predetermined lie angle and loft angle with respect to a horizontal plane, a cross-section in which the head body is broken along a vertical plane including a normal passing through the center point of the face surface When the reference cross section is used,
When the golf club head in the reference state is viewed from the front, a vertical plane parallel to the face center reference section and spaced from the face center reference section by 12.5 mm toward the heel is defined as a first reference plane, and the face center A vertical plane parallel to the reference cross section and spaced 25.0 mm from the face center reference cross section toward the heel is defined as a second reference plane.
In a state where the golf club head in the reference state is viewed from the front, an intersection between the contour of the face surface near the sole portion and the first reference surface, and an intersection of the contour and the second reference surface , The heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 is 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less, where
When the outer contour line of the cross section of the sole part when the golf club head in the reference state is broken on a vertical plane including the central axis of the hosel part into which the shaft is inserted is a sole part outline,
When the golf club head in the reference state is viewed from the front, a straight line connecting the intersection of the sole portion contour line and the first reference surface and the intersection of the sole portion contour line and the second reference surface When the heel side central axis sole part angle θh2 is an angle formed with the horizontal plane, the heel side central axis sole part angle θh2 is 15 ° or more and 35 ° or less.
A golf club head characterized by that. When the golf club head in the reference state is viewed from the front, a vertical plane parallel to the face center reference section and spaced 12.5 mm from the face center reference section toward the toe is defined as a third reference plane, and the face center A vertical plane parallel to the reference cross section and spaced 25.0 mm away from the face center reference cross section toward the toe is defined as a fourth reference plane.
In a state where the golf club head in the reference state is viewed from the front, an intersection between the contour line of the face surface near the sole portion and the third reference surface, and an intersection point of the contour line and the fourth reference surface The toe side face surface contour line angle θt1 is 20 ° or more and 35 ° or less, where the angle between the straight line connecting the horizontal plane and the horizontal plane is the toe side face surface contour line angle θt1.
When the golf club head in the reference state is viewed from the front, a straight line connecting the intersection of the sole portion contour line and the third reference surface and the intersection of the sole portion contour line and the fourth reference surface is When the angle formed with the horizontal plane is a toe side central axis sole part angle θt2, the toe side central axis sole part angle θt2 is 20 ° or more and 35 ° or less.
The golf club head according to claim 1. The heel side face surface contour angle θh1 is larger than the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2, and the toe side face surface contour angle θt1 is larger than the toe side central axis sole portion angle θt2.
The golf club head according to claim 2, wherein: The sole height is 10 mm or more and 35 mm or less when the dimension of the vertical line connecting the horizontal plane to the highest position of the sole surface near the face back in the face center reference cross section is the sole height.
The golf club head according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the golf club head is provided. The sole width is 35 mm when the distance obtained by projecting a straight line connecting the front end of the sole surface near the face surface and the rear end of the sole surface near the face back on the horizontal plane is the sole width. Is 100 mm or less,
The golf club head according to any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein the golf club head is provided. When the height of the vertical line connecting from the horizontal plane to the highest position of the crown surface in the face center reference cross section is the head height, the head height is 35 mm or more and 45 mm or less.
The golf club head according to claim 1, wherein the golf club head is a golf club head. In a state where the golf club head in the reference state is viewed from the front,
The outline of the face surface near the sole portion has a V-shape that is convex downward,
The golf club head according to any one of claims 1 to 6, wherein: The crown surface is connected to the upper edge of the face surface, extends in the toe heel direction, and extends rearward while being displaced upward from the upper edge of the face surface, and a ridge line extending in the toe heel direction. A crown surface main body connected to the rear end of the inclined surface,
In the reference state, when the golf club head is viewed in plan, the width of the inclined surface portion in the front-rear direction connecting the face portion and the face back is maximized in the face center reference cross section, and is separated in the toe heel direction. It is formed to become gradually smaller,
The golf club head according to claim 1, wherein the golf club head is a golf club head. In the reference state, a plane parallel to the vertical plane including the central axis of the hosel part and located at a distance of 5 mm from the vertical plane to the face part side is defined as a first plane, and parallel to the vertical plane and the vertical plane When the plane located at a distance of 5 mm away from the face back side is the second plane,
The position of the maximum height Hmax of the crown surface from the horizontal plane when the golf club head is viewed from a direction parallel to the vertical plane and the horizontal plane is located between the first plane and the second plane. ing,
The golf club head according to any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the golf club head is characterized in that: When the mass of the golf club head is Y (g) and the club length of the golf club provided with the golf club head is X (inch), the formula (1) is satisfied.
The golf club head according to claim 1, wherein the golf club head is a golf club head.
-10.8X + 670 <Y <-10.8X + 680 (1) When the face surface is viewed from the front in the reference state,
The lower surface area in the height direction of the face surface has a different surface finish from the remaining area,
The golf club head according to claim 1, wherein the golf club head is a golf club head. A radius-of-curvature changing portion that extends while the radius of curvature changes rapidly on the crown surface;
The crown surface is divided into a plurality of surface portions with the curvature radius changing portion as a boundary,
A plurality of the curvature radius changing portions are provided,
The plurality of curvature radius changing portions extend away from each other in the face back direction from the center portion in the toe heel direction of the crown surface near the face portion,
A recess is provided in the center of the crown surface near the face portion in the toe heel direction,
Locations near the face portion of the plurality of curvature radius changing portions are connected to the concave portion,
The golf club head according to any one of claims 1 to 11, wherein the golf club head is characterized in that A golf club set comprising a golf club having the golf club head according to any one of claims 1 to 12,
The heel side face surface contour line angle θh1 and the heel side central axis sole portion angle θh2 are configured to increase as the club length increases.
A golf club set characterized by that.

Images