Re: ShopTalk: Is it possible to hate a club?
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Patrick Kelley wrote: > Shame Gee - time for a time-out, people? -Dave -- Shoptalk ** Sponsored by the new Aldila Voodoo. Learn more at http://aldilavoodoo.com/
Re: ShopTalk: Need Your Help
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Childers, Tedd A wrote: > Did you send the e-mail from work? They can track every e-mail you send... > even if it is from your personal yahoo account. More simple than that - there's probably other KZG employees on this list... -Dave -- Shoptalk ** Sponsored by the new Aldila Voodoo. Learn more at http://aldilavoodoo.com/
Re: ShopTalk: Not Golf (Cell Phone reception)
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Bob Barrette wrote: > Use cell phones only (no land line), my wife complains that she can't hear > well, or the people calling can't hear her. Looking into antenna's or > boosters, quite a price difference. > Any one out there using either one ?, and do they work? It's probably the cell phone itself. What kind of phone is it? They vary widely in how well they receive/send data as well as how well the speaker/microphone work. The first thing I'd try is a good headset, they often work much better. If that doesn't help, I'd start doing some research to find out what phones have good reviews for call quality. -Dave -- Shoptalk ** Sponsored by the new Aldila Voodoo. Learn more at http://aldilavoodoo.com/
Re: ShopTalk: Not Golf: Water as Fuel?
On 6/5/06, Ed Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps you have seen this video? It has certainly gotten some attention. I'm curious if anyone has an opinion on it? http://www.rratch.com/Misc/WaterFuel/WaterFuel.wmv It is an interesting invention, but how efficient is it? Here are some comments: http://www.rexresearch.com/klein/klein1.htm This is the guy's web site: http://hytechapps.com/ The title "Water-Powered Cars" is totally misleading. There is no way to create a self-powered car running off hydrogen created from water alone, the process of creating hydrogen uses more energy than you can get out of it. What they are talking about is adding hydrogen to the air/fuel mixture for combustion, aka "hydrogen injection" (google for it). Injection hydrogen will improve the efficiency of the engine, but you have to get that hydrogen from somewhere. If you are using electrolysis, that electricity is coming from the engine, so you end up using more power to create hydrogen than you gain from hydrogen injection. There have been some talk of figuring out how to generate hydrogen using heat from the engine's exhaust where it wouldn't subject the engine to any additional load.. If you can figure out how to do that inexpensively, then you might have a winner. Here's more info on Klein's magic HHO fuel (which is not a new idea): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Not Golf: Water as Fuel?
On 6/5/06, Ed Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps you have seen this video? It has certainly gotten some attention. I'm curious if anyone has an opinion on it? http://www.rratch.com/Misc/WaterFuel/WaterFuel.wmv It is an interesting invention, but how efficient is it? Here are some comments: http://www.rexresearch.com/klein/klein1.htm This is the guy's web site: http://hytechapps.com/ Another good link with a huge conversation about the magic HHO gas: http://digg.com/technology/Water_Fuel_-_HHO_Gas And a link to the actual patent: http://tinyurl.com/np2hn -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: USGA articles
On 5/2/06, Ed Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Search the Wishon forum for this. There is a guy, "eweatherby"?, who outlined some exercises to increase his swingspeed. There were some interesting results (swingspeed increased, but his swing mechanics failed at the higher speed, so now he is working on better mechanics). Thanks, I'll have a search. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: USGA articles
On 5/2/06, Ed Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I thought you guys might like to see these: http://www.usga.org/news/2006/April/myths.html http://www.usga.org/news/2006/april/distance.html The first almost plagiarizes Wishon's 12-Myths booklet (no idea why number 8 is on the list, other than to make the list longer) I think they put #8 on the list for good reason, I just heard someone the other day talking about topspin and how the tour players use it to get the ball to roll out further. The second makes some claims that appear to be backed with science, but are counter to what I would have expected. Makes sense to me. I would expect that the harder you hit the ball, the more energy is dissipated as heat and sound. Interesting that carry distance seems to go up linearly with clubhead speed up to about 110mph. Also interesting that the chart matches my clubhead speed and carry distance (~100mph, ~255yards carry). Now if I could consistently get my swingspeed close to 110mph, anyone have some good tips/exercises to increase swingspeed? -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Shaft Quality and Bend Profiles
Hi Alan, I forgot to take into account the fact that you used a tip weight, and not an actual driver head for your test, so my fitchip comment was completely off base. Either way, I should have said something along the lines of "the fitchip theory of trying to get a shaft which is in neutral position at impact is optimal". With a COG rear of center (ie, w/any normal drive) you should see forward bending at impact with any properly fitted shaft. How much forward bending should be determined by how far back the COG of the driver head is. I still think it would be interesting to see some slow-mo plots of shaft flex w/the same swing but different shafts, along with how the results differ. Cheers Dave On 1/17/06, Alan Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I have a driver swing speed in the 92-95-mph range, medium to late > release. I tip trim my shafts to 260-cpm at 43.5-inches without a > grip. Keep in mind that the tests I reported were all done with a tip > weight - no c.g. offset. With a normal driver (420-cc, 11*, Wishon in my > case) all of my recorded swings show forward bending at impact (recall that > with the tip weight the shaft had oscillated back to straight). The > interesting thing from these tests is that with no c.g. offset the shaft is > straight at impact (with the shaft trimmed to match the flexural timing of > my regular driver), with c.g. offset the shaft is bent forward at > impact. This, of course, is what you would expect. The c.g. offset is the > dominant affect. > > If FitChip is not to be believed you pick your shaft flex based on what > feels right, seems to give you the degree of control you want, and does the > best job of giving you the launch angle you are after. I did these tests > to look at the premise (which conventional wisdom seems to support) that > softer shafts give you a higher launch angle, and, with my limited test > results, seems to be supported by the data. If nothing else the tip is > going to be softer and there will be more forward bending due to the offset > c.g. At least with my swing the softer shaft with the tip weight was bent > forward at impact, which will also contribute to a higher launch angle. A > shaft soft enough that it just recovers to straight at impact from the > initial bending would, I think, feel like a noodle, maybe not wet but > certainly soft. My downswing takes about 0.25-seconds. From bent to > straight is one quarter cycle so the period of this shaft would be > 1-second, or about 60-cpm. What was that about FitChip? > > Oh, yeah, Lloyd if you read this, that's another reason I don't believe a > clamped shaft model of a swung club. The shaft oscillation timing is not > consistent with a clamped shaft. Let's say your clamped butt frequency is > 240-cpm. That's 4-cycles per second, or 1 full cycle in the 0.25-seconds > my downswing takes. I have never seen much more than a little over a half > cycle. The timing is much more consistent with an unclamped butt with > masses on both ends. > > Regards, > > Alan Brooks > > At 06:46 PM 1/17/2006 -0800, you wrote: > >Alan, > > > >What's your swing-speed and how do you release the club (early, > >medium, late?)? What flex shaft do you normally play and have found to > >give you the best results? It'd be interesting to take your InPractis > >system, 4 different flex shafts w/the same club head (L, A, R, S) and > >a number of different golfers while recording trajectory, distance, > >swingspeed, ballspeed and golfer feedback. > > > >If the fitchip is to be believed, it sounds like you should be playing > >a shaft softer than your A flex as even it is recovering past neutral > >before the bottom of your downswing to give you maximum clubhead > >speed. > > > >-Dave > > > >On 1/17/06, Alan Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > FWIW. We have a new InPractis system at the course I practice at and it > > > has a 60-fps cameras in it with shutters (electronic, I'm sure) that are > > > fast enough to stop the motion of the club. I made up some 200-g tip > > > weights that I could bond onto the end of shafts and built up two > > > identical > > > clubs except one had an A-flex shaft and the other an S-flex shaft. The > > > effects of the differences in oscillation frequency are obvious in the > > > behavior of the clubs during the downswing. The A-flex shaft bent at the > > > beginning of the downswing, recovered to straight at about the 3-O'clock > > > position (remember I'm left handed and am looking face on with the camera) > > > and was bent forward at the impact position. The S-flex shaft was > > > recovered to straight at about the 2-O'clock position, bent forward at the > > > 4-O'clock position, and back to straight at impact. I used tip weights > > > for > > > this to take the clubhead offset c.g. effects out of the tests. > > > > > > This being the case, I believe that there is some influence on dynamic > > > loft > > > (that due to the bend of the shaft
Re: ShopTalk: Shaft Quality and Bend Profiles
Alan, What's your swing-speed and how do you release the club (early, medium, late?)? What flex shaft do you normally play and have found to give you the best results? It'd be interesting to take your InPractis system, 4 different flex shafts w/the same club head (L, A, R, S) and a number of different golfers while recording trajectory, distance, swingspeed, ballspeed and golfer feedback. If the fitchip is to be believed, it sounds like you should be playing a shaft softer than your A flex as even it is recovering past neutral before the bottom of your downswing to give you maximum clubhead speed. -Dave On 1/17/06, Alan Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FWIW. We have a new InPractis system at the course I practice at and it > has a 60-fps cameras in it with shutters (electronic, I'm sure) that are > fast enough to stop the motion of the club. I made up some 200-g tip > weights that I could bond onto the end of shafts and built up two identical > clubs except one had an A-flex shaft and the other an S-flex shaft. The > effects of the differences in oscillation frequency are obvious in the > behavior of the clubs during the downswing. The A-flex shaft bent at the > beginning of the downswing, recovered to straight at about the 3-O'clock > position (remember I'm left handed and am looking face on with the camera) > and was bent forward at the impact position. The S-flex shaft was > recovered to straight at about the 2-O'clock position, bent forward at the > 4-O'clock position, and back to straight at impact. I used tip weights for > this to take the clubhead offset c.g. effects out of the tests. > > This being the case, I believe that there is some influence on dynamic loft > (that due to the bend of the shaft) from the stiffness of the shaft and the > 'butt frequency', if you will, and undoubtedly some effect from the > stiffness profile on both this and the offset c.g. effects, but I guess I > believe Tom when he says that these effects are small compared to all the > other things that affect ball flight. I think it is likely that the > stiffness profile affects the 'feel' of the club much more that the ball > flight. The hands pretty much only excite a fundamental mode of > oscillation, ball impact is going to excite a bunch of them and I think it > likely that the stiffness profile of the shaft will influence what modes > are excited and how they reach the hands.
Re: ShopTalk: Rangefinders
On 10/10/05, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Even though your courses are not supplied by their subscription, the > SkyCaddie lets you enter front, center and back of green locations > manually and define your own courses. Here's a link to their FAQ which addresses this question: http://www.skygolfgps.com/learn/faqs/default.asp#100599 -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Rangefinders
On 10/10/05, Dave Tutelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another important point to consider: > If you get a rangefinder, it works wherever you are. If you get a > GPS-based "caddy" (whether a dedicated device or software on a GPS-equipped > PDA), you better be sure the software knows about the courses you play. I > just looked at the skygolf web page, and the courses I generally play are > not supported. Useless for me. Even though your courses are not supplied by their subscription, the SkyCaddie lets you enter front, center and back of green locations manually and define your own courses. Necessary for courses which aren't mapped by them, and you have to pay at least $20/year for access to their data anyway. So if you don't want to pay them $20/year, or they haven't mapped your course the SkyCaddie is still useful. Looks like you can get a used Handspring Visor or Palm V for $60-70 on eBay, so for less than $200 you could have a GPS system for golf. A lot cheaper than their standalone model and cheaper than just about all of the laser range finders I've seen. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Rangefinders
On 10/10/05, Burgess Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > FWIW, I recently bought SkyGolf's GPS for Visor (only $99 and very well > hidden on the SkyGolf site) and it's pretty handy. Works well on course > and doubles as a complete standalone GPS that can be used with free nav > software (Cetus, Magellan NavComp, etc.) It will also work with the golf > apps from StarCaddie, Intelligolf, and others. Nice find. Here's a direct link for those who can't find it: http://www.skygolfgps.com/products/pdc.asp Looks like they only have them for the Handspring Visor and Palm V series now. I bet you could find a Handspring Visor or Palm V used for well less than $100 off eBay if you don't already have one. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Grips for practice irons with solid steel shafts
On 6/1/05, L. Hunter Kevil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The club I am using is really kluged - the failing is in the grip > area. There must be some really good ways to build up the butt end so > that a conventional grip will fit well. Someone on the list suggested using heatshrink wrap to build up the grip some time ago. I haven't tried it myself, but should work well with a few layers! -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Posts from before regarding HDTV
I watched the final round yesterday in HDTV and must say that the image quality is very impressive compared to normal TV. There is a lot of detail that is missed in normal broadcasts. You almost feel like you are there in person when watching HDTV content! -Dave On Apr 11, 2005 7:41 AM, Steve Cub Culbreth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now you have me reconsidering HDTV. Agusta National, under normal > springtime conditions, is nothing but beautiful. > > - Original Message - > From: Mark A Patton > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 2:18 PM > Subject: ShopTalk: Posts from before regarding HDTV > > Not sure how the original post started, but I remember talking about > watching the Masters in HDTV. My observations are: > > CBS was not always able to provide a good HD feed. I would estimate at > 85-90% > Hell, Augusta isn't as pretty as I thought. (neither were the actors at the > SAG Awards). > You can see a slight bit more elevation/declination in the greens. > > Overall, a nod up as I feel I got a more realistic view of what was there. > > PS: Nothing against Tiger, but I really wanted Chris to win.
Re: ShopTalk: C-Thru Grips
On Apr 7, 2005 11:35 AM, Pat-On Target Golf LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just posted this question a couple of weeks ago. Saturate with cheap > hairspray, and work FAST!! When I worked in a bike shop a few years ago, we used similar methods for installing rubber grips on handlebars. Using the air compressor was the preferred method, but hairspray also works well and does provide a bit of extra stick. The cheapest stuff seemed to work well, if you spray both the shaft and the grip you'll have a decent amount of time to get it on right. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Hireko
Hi Team. What are the "hot" Hireko drivers at the moment, are any shoptalkers using their products? Regards Rob Haven't heard much about Hireko's latest offerings. Seems that the most people have been smitten with Wishon's products lately (myself included). -Dave
RE: RE: ShopTalk: long drive
Dave Tutelman wrote: > > Actually, it's more like 0.5 thousandths of a second. Measurements I've > seen are between 0.3 and 0.5 milliseconds. And, as I noted in a previous > post, the effects are very small. Even with numbers loaded to give the > biggest effect, acceleration will add less than 0.4mph to the ball speed. > (More realistic numbers would probably give under 0.1mph.) We are trying > to account for differences of 20mph, so acceleration is not the answer. I think that most of us agree that acceleration isn't the answer here, so lets look a bit further. Most of the assumptions so far have only been using the mass of the clubhead in the physics equations, but the clubhead is attached to the shaft which is attached (more or less securely) to the golfer. The question is how much of the mass in the shaft and/or golfer can we add to the equation? Obviously the shaft will have some transfer losses due to flex at impact, as will the golfer's grip. One could think of 2 extremes where the shaft is very weak and acts if it isn't there, or the other extreme where the shaft is perfectly stiff so that the clubhead and shaft act as one. If we can add any of the golfer's mass to the equation, I could see where the strength of the golfer's grip could effect the momentum transfer between the clubhead and the ball. One could further theorize that a golfer decelerating into the hitting zone might have a weaker grip than one accelerating into the hitting zone or because of the swing mechanical differences between a accelerating vs decelating swing could lead to more of the golfer's mass being added to the equation. Just some thoughts to get the rest of you going. :-) -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: long drive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, On 10/11/2004 10:40 PM: driver 1 234 avg chs 142 148 148 150 avg bs206 198 198 202 club length50" 48" 48" 48" spin rate2100 2100 2200 2400 hd wt 200gr 195gr195gr 200gr launch a 11.512 12.5 12.5 hd vol455cc 444cc450cc 400cc my smash # 1.45 1.33 1.33 1.34 Look at the lower launch angle of club #1, that can certainly contribute to ball speed if the loft of that club is lower than the rest. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: tapeless grips
Jeremy Ingle wrote: > Hi, has anyone tried these? > http://www.stargrip.com/ While I have not tried the tapeless grip installation tool, I have used Star Grips and they are everything they claim they are on their website (consistent in roundness, weight and tacky). You can purchase them from our list sponsor as well: http://gripscience.com/ -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Shoptalk Feedback
Ed Reeder wrote: > John, > It's your forum, do what you like :-) > > One nice thing about the current system is that it is effortless, you > automatically get any posts. Not sure if your bulletin board system can > do that? But that isn't a deal killer. > > I'm not sure which bulletin board software you've been looking at, but > I've enjoyed using Wishon's forum which uses a free system (Snitz Forums > 2000). > > The topics look good. I agree. If looking for free BB software, consider phpBB which I've used in the past with very good luck. http://www.phpbb.com/ -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Flat Faced Driver
Tom Wishon wrote, On 9/1/2004 7:45 AM: > So in my typical long winded manner (!), yes, I am in the process of moving to NO roll on all fairways, no roll on some drivers but a modified no roll on the majority of drivers because as you say, there are still plenty of golfers who won't buy enough loft on their driver so by having a little more loft at the top of the face, you trick them into the right loft when they do tee the ball too high and catch it up there. LOL, don't worry about being long winded, I find it all interesting reading, as I'm sure others do, too. I like your trick of only using more loft at the top of the face of the driver to "trick" golfers who don't feel macho unless they are using a 9* or lower lofted driver, what they don't know is that they are still getting up to 3 more degrees of loft on the bottom half than they normally would! Can't wait to see what your next generation of fairway woods and drivers do! -Dave
RE: ShopTalk: Flat Faced Driver
Hi Tom (and gang), I agree with your statement "But truthfully, there is NO scientific performance related reason for roll to be on any woodhead." The only thing that I can think of is that people who tend to hit down on the ball with the woods also tend to get the ball higher on the face. A bit more loft there may help keep trajectory up. At the same time, I would expect to get the most consistent results from a driver by getting a consistent launch angle all across the face, and simply adjust the loft as the swing dictates! However, people hitting it thin or low on the fact are usually coming out of the shot, but usually these people are simply moving the bottom of the arc a bit higher so aren't changing their angle of attack. They certainly don't want less loft down there, I know when I hit one low I lose a lot of carry and total distance with my current driver (gotta get me a GRT!). The taller the face, the worse this is. A pro who can accurately hit the ball high or low on the clubhead would would benefit from a bit of roll so that they can change their ball flight without changing their angle of attack. But most of us hacks just aim for the middle and hope for the best! Do you eventually see creating drivers with no roll at all? -Dave Tom Wishon wrote: > > There is no real relationship between bulge and roll in terms of design > technology. In fact, because I am somewhat of a history nut on the > equipment, I have never yet found any reference in my old digging into > this that ever was able to explain why the old clubmakers even put > vertical roll on a woodhead. I do know that the bulge came from trial > and error experimentation, and I have found articles in late 1800's > British golf magazines about this which explains that the clubmakers > experimented with different radii until they came up with what they felt > worked the best for controlling off center hits with the woodheads. My > belief after talking to a big time golf history friend years back is that > the roll was added on by clubmakers who played billiards a lot and had the > unjustified philosophy that in billiards a ball hits a ball, so why not > make it the same in golf? But truthfully, there is NO scientific > performance related reason for roll to be on any woodhead. Hence one of > the reasons I moved in that direction to reduce roll starting some 6-7 yrs > ago and this year to start reducing it almost to 0.
Re: ShopTalk: Bang-o-matic review (long)
Childers, Tedd A wrote: > With the slighly closed face and additional 13 grams of weght in the > heel, this thing should have draw bias written all over it (which is > good since my mis-hits are all push fades). I'll let you know how it > works out. Tom Wishon has been saying that it takes at least 25 grams of weight moved around in the head before start seeing a difference in ball flight, so don't expect the head to have a huge draw bias on it! I've got one of the 460cc BOMs in use now which has proven to be pretty good, but I am tempted by the Wishon 515GRT as I often misshit the ball low on the face... Let us know how this BOM turns out. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: LYNX FLARE SHAFTS
tflan wrote: > > Can't help with a replacement other than to tell your guy to rent a scuba > outfit. I'd think about trying to sell him a 3 and 4 iron hybrid replacement. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Britt Lindsey at PCS
Kevil, L H. wrote: > > The diagram shows 22-foot putts starting out on a straight line and then > veering right or left as the ball comes to a stop. This is counter to my > understanding of how balls actually roll. If a ball has stopped skidding > and is rolling, is it not true that it cannot have any sidespin and > simply follows gravity? Can anyone explain this? TIA, I think the diagram is misleading, and should be taken with a grain of salt. However, the amount that the mishit balls with a low MOI putter misses the hole is very real! It would be nice if there were a standard way of measuring the MOI of clubheads and all manufactures published the test results. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Conversion factors
Mike Walker wrote, On 4/8/2004 5:42 AM: How do I convert 270cc to equivalent Fluid Ounces? Google. Type in "270cc in ounces" (without the quotes) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&edition=us&q=270cc+in+ounces&btnG=Google+Search -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Hireko Components
Steve "Cub" Culbreth wrote, On 2/13/2004 6:35 AM: I'm stealing some time away today to play. Will it be slice or a hook??? ;-) If you play like me, it will be both. ;-) -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: off topic
Bruce Tunnicliffe wrote: I know we don't use them much, but I see we have some "off-topic" entries in our "files" and "links" sections Yeah, I just noticed that, too. Who has moderator access to the files and links sections? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shoptalk/ -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: NBP-COG and Testing
On Fri, October 10, 2003 at 7:35 pm, Dave Tutelman sent the following > > * Charlie has taken a fair number of shafts that show up as Type 1 in > a spine finder (he has three different bearing-based spine finders) > and found the TRUE spine and NBP using a FlexMaster and a procedure > we designed together. The true spine and NBP were not nearly the same > as what the spine finder said. And, once he had found them by > measuring actual stiffness, he did find FLO in the NBP and spine > planes. But yes, they wobbled all over the place in the fake N-S > plane that the spine finder found. Now I have to pick up a freqency meter and re-align all the shafts in my clubs. All my steel shafted clubs are aligned according to the residual bend detected by my spine finder, it's probably as good as random alignment. Doh! ;-) Thanks for all the info, Dave. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: NBP-COG
On Thu, October 9, 2003 at 6:34 pm, Dave Tutelman sent the following > At 04:41 PM 10/9/03 -0700, David Rees wrote: >> >> Isn't it possible for a material to have different compression and >> tensile strengths? > > Possible, yes. Does it actually happen? Worth discussing. Summary - steel has the same elasticicity in tensile and compressive modulus, graphite is very close to the same Thanks for validating what I assumed was true, but wasn't sure of. > A few comments: > > (1) You don't need 2-d measurements but they would be interesting, > and for EXACTLY the reason you suggest. The spine and NBP planes will > show all the force in the direction of the bending, and no > perpendicular component. Other planes will show a perpendicular > force, which is why FLO works to find spines and NBPs. Yep. I'm getting the hang of it now. > (2) You need to be careful to measure the DEFLECTION of the shaft, > not the POSITION. That is, you need to measure the DIFFERENCE in > position between zero load and full known load. Even more accurate is > to measure the difference between a small load and a bigger load, > where the load difference is known precisely. If you just measure the > POSITION of the shaft under load, you will still be fooled by shaft > bend, because the starting (no-load) position is different for > different orientations. Isn't that what I said? ;-) > The NF2 does not do difference measurement, so it is fooled by bend. > Dan has designed a way to solve this problem -- a reversible front > bearing -- and I think it is on the NF2 web site. But nobody except > Dan has built one of these. It also involves arithmetic (subtracting > two deflection readings for each shaft position), which has turned > off at least one clubmaker to whom I proposed the solution. (That is, > the solution of an NF2 for difference-deflection measurement to find > the true spine.) He is now using the FlexMaster, which can do the > arithmetic internally. I googled FlexMaster and found some information on it. Seemed like their proponents were intent on bashing frequency analyzers as "old technology", but then go on to say that they double check all their work with one. Seems to me now that you would be able to use either tool effectively, though the only benefit of the FlexMaster is being able to measure how bent the shaft is. But it seems that the bend of the shaft doesn't matter unless it's REALLY bent! > BTW, the difference-deflection measurement is essentially what John > Kaufman did in his testing to show that all shafts are really Type 2. I'll have to go read up on that again.The more I read the more I convince myself that the tried and true method of aligning the N-plane along the target line is the way to go. NBP-CG has still piqued my interest, though. There's a good pic showing the stiffness of your typcial shaft around it's cross-section on John K's site here: http://www.csfa.com/tech35.htm Really helps to visuallize the problem at hand. I wonder if NBP-CG seems to work well because the typical angle of attack of a solid swing is a few degrees in-out and aligning the CG of the head tends to align the NBP very close to this angle (at least in the irons). Thinking about it a bit more, has anyone tried aligning the stiff-plane with the CG? Thanks, -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: NBP-COG
On Thu, October 9, 2003 at 2:23 pm, Dave Tutelman sent the following > > SPINE is the stiffest plane of a shaft in bending. NBP is the most > flexible plane. The concept of plane is the first area of > disagreement among the protagonists. Some say that it is possible for > the stiff side to be 180* opposite the flexy side. But the engineers > in the group say that is not so; it is an artifact of an imperfect > instrument used to find the spine. In fact, spines will be 180* apart > every time, hence I talk about "plane". Similarly NBPs will be 180* > apart from one another every time. BTW, that is what John Kaufman > proved. He proved nothing about how to align the spine or NBP when > you make a club, just that the order of things as you go around the > shaft is spine-NBP-spine-NBP at about 90* intervals. This also agrees > with: * Theory that every mechanical and structural engineer learns > in school. * Tests that others have done, including one I've > witnessed involving a FlexMaster. Not being a mechanical or structural engine who is familiar with the tensile properties of the materials used in golf shafts, I may be way off base here, but here goes: Isn't it possible for a material to have different compression and tensile strengths? For example, we'll use some poor ascii art below depicting a side view of a shaft where one side of the shaft is significantly thicker than the other: The top side drawn with the - is the thin side, the bottom side drawn with the = is the thick side. Assume (which is probably a bad assumption but will get the point across) that the material does not compress at all, but does stretch linearly depending on the thickness of the material. If you pull down on the shaft the club will deflect some amount. But if you push up on the shaft the club will only deflect 1/2 the amount as it deflected down. Measured in a frequency meter you will only get one reading as a frequency meter can only measure stiffness in planes, but in a deflection meter you will find the shaft bends different amounts in each direction obviously affecting the position you might want to orient the shaft. It also seems that if the shaft started off bent in one direction or the other, it would affect the stiffness of the shaft in each direction. How much? I don't know, you guys who know materials better than can will probably tell me what I've described isn't possible. ;-) Please do if I'm totally off base. So from what I can tell, the main drawback of a frequency meter is that you can only measure stiffness in planes, when a shaft may actually have a different stiffness in each direction. The main drawback of your typical spine finder (don't know if this applies to the NF2 or not) is that you don't take into account any bend of the shaft. It seems to me that a method which could be used to measure the stiffness of a shaft would be done as follows: Clamp one end of the shaft in a bearing device with no load on the other end. Take 2-d deflection measurements at multiple points around the shaft, making sure that each measurement is made using a constant force. An easy way would be to use a weight free hanging to prevent side-forces from affecting measurements. 2-d measurements may not be necessary if shafts always bend in the vertical plane, but I think if they did, you would always get FLO no matter which way you aligned a shaft. Once you've got this data, you will be able to predict what direction the shaft will flex and how much based on the weight used. The tricky part will then to use that data to align the shaft in the position which most consistently returns the clubhead to the spot the golfer expects it to. I think Dan's NF2 can do all these types of measurements but the 2-d measurements, maybe it can be easily adapted to make 2-d deflection measurements as well. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: NBP-COG
On Tue, October 7, 2003 at 1:09 pm, Bernie Baymiller sent the following >> (1) As Alan Brooks and John Kaufman and I have said in the past, every >> shaft will have the stiffest directions (that is, spines) at 180* >> intervals. Similarly with the most flexible directions (that is, NBP). > > That seems to be true on many graphite shafts, but when I rotate some > graphite shafts and watch the dial indicator on my NF2, I can often find > the NBPs and spines well off 180°. Why is that? Could be that the graphite shaft has some residual bend in it? > I would agree that last statement makes sense, but again, my > observations and those of three other players suggest NBP-COG > alignment does make a difference in iron sets, whether the shafts > have an appreciable spine or not. Accuracy with my short irons is so > much improved with spines measuring no more than .006" (three shafts > in 9 measured .013", .015" and .016", about 3 cpm?) that I found it > hard to believe. After more than 10 years cussing my mis-directed > wedge shots, there was a striking difference the first round with the > new set...and after 5 rounds, they continue to be straight (sometimes > chunked, but straight). The heads are nothing unusual and shafts are > same weight and length as my other sets...all made with a 3/8" tip > trim instead of the recommended 1/2". A 90+ player, who said he > generally sprays the ball all over, phoned me after his first round > with an NBP-COG alignment to say he had never hit the ball straighter > in his one year of playing golf...took 10 shots off his normal score. > He was using Precision Superlite steel shafts. I guess time will > tell. I need to get off my butt and pull the shafts on 2/4 of my wedges and try the NBP-COG alignment. Right now I think they are aligned spine towards target. Sounds like we need to do some sort of blind test with wedges to see if there really is a difference or not. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Inexpensive L&L machine?
On Sun, October 5, 2003 at 9:39 pm, Corey Bailey sent the following > And, I'll tag onto Tflan's comments which are spot on. > > What I can add is that I have the Golfsmith bench mounted cheapee and it > works just fine. I mounted it on a Block of Oak that I clamp into my shop > vise which (itself) is mounted free standing on a piece of 4" heavy wall > pipe bolted to the floor. This way I can position the vise and L&L clamp > arrangement for the best bending position. I also purchased the ratchet > bending bar which keeps you off your tip toes while bending. Everything > else is exactly as Tflan recommends. Corey, Thanks for mentioning that GS has an inexpensive head clamping block as well. The nice thing about the GS version is that you can choose the bending bar you like and it still ends up a few bucks cheaper than the GW version. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: NBP-COG
On Tue, October 14, 2003 at 2:31 pm, Jim & Ivette sent the following > This is clearly an area i need to do more research in, I have felt more > than > one spine on graphite and some areas that had more resistance than others, > but with steel it almost always is a single very pronounced spine, in > these > instances the nbp would be 180 opposite, correct? On just about all the steel shafts that I've checked, the NBP has never been exactly 180* opposite of the spine. A few shafts have had one large spine with a smaller spine maybe 45* away and the NBP somewhere on the otherside. But very rarely is the NBP exactly 180* away from the spine. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Expensive vs inexpensive components
On Sun, October 5, 2003 1at 2:36 pm, Doug Clark sent the following > > You sold me, I am going to use this shaft and Acer XDS iron heads for a > 3/5/7/9/W set I have to build for a middle-aged non-athletic beginner. > Swing speed hasn't been checked but is less than 70 for 5 iron. If he's really a beginner, I think that the 3I will be much too hard for him to have any chance of hitting solid, I've been playing for two years now and with an index of about 16 still don't carry it. I think the 5/7/9/W along with a large headed 5W for tee shots and a normal headed 7W for fairway shots might be more appropriate. -Dave
ShopTalk: Inexpensive L&L machine?
Being a hobbiest clubmaker who assembles less than 1 set of clubs a year on average, I have a hard-time spending the money required to buy most L&L machines. However, I just ran across this inexpensive L&L machine from golfworks which is vice mounted: http://www.golfworks.com/item_disp.asp?pn=VAM It looks like the major inconvenience with this tool is that you will have to measure the change in L&L by removing the club and measuring after bending which would be tedious for doing any decent amount of work. Has anyone tried this tool or have comments? Thanks, Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Expensive vs inexpensive components
Bernie, Thanks for the great explanation. Have you tried this alignment on woods, too? Can you give any insight into the physics behind this alignment? Spine alignment is a funny thing, I think. When I first signed up to these lists and was doing my research, it seemed that Spine at 12 o'clock was the way to go. Then not too long ago, NBP at the target was the way to go (and certainly felt better in the clubs I've tried it on. I wonder what's going to follow NBP-COG... ;-) -Dave On Sat, October 4, 2003 at 5:04 pm, Bernie Baymiller sent the following > > Yup, same clubs. Shafts and grips were from Hireko, heads from another > supplier. The clubs seem to play better every week. I ripped something in > my > left shoulder a week and a half ago (probably anti-rejection drug related) > and am having problems swinging the longer irons, but the wedges continue > to > be dead straight where I aim them...very unusual for me. > > NBP-COG is fast and simple. Find and mark the NBP on a piece of masking > tape > around the shaft...don't bother with the spine. Mark the reverse side, > 180° > from the NBP. If you position your masking tape the same on every shaft, > you can make a marking guide to do this accurately with a piece of old > graphite shaft cut exactly in half. Prep shaft tip, install ferrule and > epoxy on the head. Lay the shaft on your bench or a table top with the > head > hanging over one end and actual NBP straight down...use the reverse side > mark as your guide.Tape the shaft so it can't roll, or just do all clubs > and > clamp a light board over the set to hold them all in place. Gravity will > pull the COG straight down and align it with the shaft NBP. Let the epoxy > harden and you've got it. I notice that on a 3-iron, in playing position, > the NBP is about 12:30 and on a PW the NBP is about 2 o'clock. Every iron > has a unique alignment which corresponds to the head's center of > gravity...unlike NBP to target on every club. Maybe that does make the > difference in accuracy...at least, it seems to make a difference. > > I hope everybody will try this alignment and report on their results. > > Bernie > Writeto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ShopTalk: Expensive vs inexpensive components
On Sat, October 4, 2003 1at 2:16 pm, Bernie Baymiller sent the following > > I just finished a set for under $15 a club that plays better for me than > any set I've ever hit at any price. They hit solid, straight and long. > Yes, I knew what flex the shafts had to be to within .025" deflection, or > about 1/2 a flex, I knew the slope that worked the best for me and I knew > the length which gave me a correct lie for my swing. I weighed everything, > adjusted heads ($6.95) for a swingweight of D3 across the set (came within > 0.6 of a point across 9 irons, D2.9-D3.5). Flex of .446" (a mid-low R on > my NF2) was my baseline and all others were matched to it +/- .002" on a > 3/8" slope. I aligned them NBP-COG, though the filament wound shafts > ($6.30 each) were so consistent that they probably didn't need any > particular alignment. (Incidentally, if you haven't tried this alignment > on irons, I highly recommend it. I haven't hit wedges this straight in the > last 10 years...every shot is dead on where I aim it. Now, if I could just > get the distance right) Grips were a buck...kind of like a Players > Softee...comfortable and good grip in any weather (I use a "cloth-type" > glove), and this type grip is the easiest to put on and take off of any > I've tried. Hey Bernie, What's NBP-COG alignment? Are these the same clubs you talked about earlier that was built with components from Hireko? -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Don/Bernie mail failure
Dave Tutelman said: > At 03:22 PM 9/25/03 -0500, Burgess Howell wrote: >>Using just the tools in Eudora (not very complicated or sophisticated) I >>catch virtually all the spam I receive. On any given day, I receive >>something between 300 and 500 e-mails. Probably half that is spam. It >>takes no more than 5 minutes to check and delete. > > But there is another approach: a special-purpose spam filter that lives on > your PC. All the spam would still be downloaded, but it would wind up > quarantined (either in your trash folder or a spam-only folder). I use a > very good one called "Spam Assassin" (scproxy is the software), which is a > free download from the web. (Don't remember the site, but look it up.) It > catches about 90% of the spam that hits my computer; that's MUCH better > than my own Eudora filters. SpamAssassin is a spam filter designed for Unix servers, this will typically be used by your ISP. See http://www.spamassassin.org/ For those if you using POP3 to download your mail (using Eudora, Outlook, Outlook Express or another POP3 mail client) you can use POPFile http://popfile.sourceforge.net/ to classify your incoming mail. After a bit of training, it will learn what types of messages are what, and you can setup filters in your mail client to move messages accordingly. The nice thing about POPFile is that it lets you classify messages into any category, not just real email and SPAM. That means you can teach it about messages from your family, messages from ShopTalk, SPAM, etc. The more categories you want, the longer it takes to learn, but it will eventually figure it out. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Again
Bernie Baymiller said: > > The Bang SF fairways at $18 are pretty good, particularly the 5W and 7W. > The 3W seems to hit a bit lower than it should, IMO, and is more difficult > to hit solidly, for some reason (maybe me). I like these heads because > they are available all the way up to a 21W (SW loft)...so if some senior > woman really wants to eliminate the irons from her bag completely, she > can. :-) I've got one of the 3wds, but I don't have any trajectory problems unless I'm hitting it off the deck. Weighing in at 220ccs, it's almost driver size! I'd like to try out the 5W and 7W myself, just haven't gotten around to it. Right now I'm using a Jackaroo II 5W which works pretty well. I think I would like it more if it managed to keep the low COG without the rails, though. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Again
Bernie Baymiller said: > > Are the GS shafts sheet-wrapped? I've noticed that the inexpensive > sheet-wrapped iron shafts which I have tried have larger spines, are not > as consistent, nor play as well as the inexpensive filament wound iron > shafts. > The Carbon Stick torque is a full point higher trhan the FW-501s, too. On > the other hand, I haven't yet found a filament wound wood shaft that I > like on a long driver (46" and up)...just doesn't seem to be much "kick" in > any of them at that length. I'm pretty sure the GS shafts are sheet-wrapped, the spines were definately all over the place as I recall. What's interesting is that in the online catalog they say that the L-flex Carbon Stick has a high bending point, the rest have a mid bending point. They definately felt a bit harsh for L-flex shafts when I tested them, but I wonder how much of that was also because of the GS Killer Bee Singer Plus aren't as forgiving as I expected. -Dave
RE: ShopTalk: Again
Kevil, L H. said: > Don't forget that Golfsmith has their Carbon Stick iron shafts on sale for > $5.88 each. They have been recommended on this list in the past and seem > OK to me. I wasn't that impressed by the L-flex Carbon Sticks I tried. Seemed to be a bit stiff and harsh feeling compared to other inexpensive graphite I've tried. Could be the combination of shaft/head I used, though... On a related note, haven't heard much about GS at all since Wishon left. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Shims
Jeremy Ingle wrote: To my horror he proudly told me he had bought one for his son and would like me to fit it with an extra stiff graphite!!! Jeremy LOL, the club probably cost more than the labor put into reshafting it! There's plenty of decent components out there for reasonable prices which you could sell him, don't bother messing with this crap! -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Parallel Tip Section - TT DGR300 vs DGS300
Yeah, I know about the BOM heel issue and the USGA, supposedly there will be a new batch of BOMs getting here in 4-6 weeks. I'm really curious to hear the real story and actualy differences between the original BOM, the M-series what what will become the third series of BOM. Apparently the heads are non-conforming because of an over-extending heel. Has anyone measured them to confirm that they are non-conforming? How much of a difference in heel area is there between the original series and M-series? Sounds like a big fiasco, I sure wouldn't want to be in Steve Almo's shoes! I get plenty of length with steel shafts already, with the 450 I used to have I was getting about 250-280 yards on solid shots. When trying longer and lighter graphite shafts I occasionally hit it farther but don't catch it on the screws as often. Thanks for the input on the shaft flex, I will order a full flex softer if I decide to get one of these non-conforming BOMs. -Dave Ron Kellison said: > I've built several of the clubs, and I heartily recommend that a > graphite shaft be used if you really want to realize the potential of > this head. I have discovered that you should assume a full flex > difference (10 cpm) between a normal insertion depth and the BOM. My > favourite shaft for this head is an Apache MFS65N (in dark blue), which > means that I order an A-2 flex if I want an R-2 in the finished club. > I've also discovered that most Canadian golfers aren't big fans of the > "gaudy without being tasteful" Orange Crush colour, but love theblue > version and the results they get with the shaft. > > FWIW, I now understand that the USGA has deemed the BOM non-conforming, > even if it carries the "M" serial number. I make certain that each of > my customers know this before I order the head. That said, it's still a > beautiful, well performing head.
Re: ShopTalk: Parallel Tip Section - TT DGR300 vs DGS300
Chris, Thanks for the info. Given that the BOM has about 1 5/8" more insertion depth than normal drivers, and assuming that the R300 and S300 only differ in stiffness because of the differences in parallel tip section, I would guess that the R300 in a BOM would be pretty close to the S300 in a normal bore depth head. I don't have a deflection board or frequency meter (I'm just an amateur club builder!), can anyone confirm that the difference in flex of a R300 and S300 is mainly because of the difference in parallel tip section? Thanks, Dave Chris Stricker said: > I got this from the Dynacraft website. R300 12.5" of Tip length. S300 > 10.5". Let us know how the BOM comes out. > > Chris S. > > - Original Message - > From: "David Rees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 1:42 AM > Subject: ShopTalk: Parallel Tip Section - TT DGR300 vs DGS300 > > >> Anyone know the parallel tip length diff between the True Temper DGR300 >> vs DGS300? >> >> I'm thinking of building up a Bang BOM using a TT Dynamic Gold shaft, >> but the extra deep bore (Bang calls it 80mm vs the 40mm or so on their >> other heads) looks like it will stiffen up your typical shaft by 1/2-1 >> full flex. >> >> -Dave
ShopTalk: Parallel Tip Section - TT DGR300 vs DGS300
Anyone know the parallel tip length diff between the True Temper DGR300 vs DGS300? I'm thinking of building up a Bang BOM using a TT Dynamic Gold shaft, but the extra deep bore (Bang calls it 80mm vs the 40mm or so on their other heads) looks like it will stiffen up your typical shaft by 1/2-1 full flex. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Batteries for Power Devices
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > Do any of you guys have a reliable source for reasonably priced batteries > for power drills etc. I have mostly Sears stuff -- who knows who made it. > The batteries are done for and I am trying to find if replacements are in > order or if the equipment goes in the trash. > I guess in the same light then what do you all use for these devices. I > love the portable stuff because it is so convenient. But if every battery > is like $40 then maybe cords are not so bad. If you can't find anyone that sells built battery packs for your drills anymore, you can disassemble the packs, recycle the old batteries and buy single cell replacements after soldering them together depending on the construction of the original packs. You'll need a good soldering iron and some thin braid to solder the cells together. Might want to practice on the old cells first. Usually what kills the cells is the cheap charger included with the drill which tend to overcharge the batteries if left on charge. Once the pack starts to get warm, the batteries are charged, take them off! Store them in the freezer, otherwise the NiCADs will drain after a month or two on their own at room temp. The only drawback, is that even buying generic individual cells will probably cost you $20-$40 when you're done. Damn, I just wrote this whole thing for nothing. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Batteries for Power Devices
John Kaufman said: > > I bought a cheap drill from Harbor Freight that wouldn't hold a charge > worth a damn. I took the battery pack apart and it a a bundle of the > slightly smaller size "C" cells. A couple of the cells were dead zero. I > bought a few of the NiCad small "C's" from Digi Key. They were less that > $3 each as I recall. 1 800 DIGI-KEY. Great source for low cost electronic > stuff. A recent problem I had with a battery powered fan used to inflate an air mattress was that some cells were significantly weaker than another which caused 3 of 4 of the cells to drain to 0. Unfortunately, the weak, dumb trickle charger included with the blower was not enough to get the cells to hold a charge. I wired it up to my smart electric RC-car charger which supplies enough juice to force the cells to start taking a charge without overcharging. The fan works great, now. Make sure you recycle those dead NiCads. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Batteries for Power Devices
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > Good info Dave, > You can also buy the batteries with tabs, which makes the soldering job > easier. If you can get the old ones out you will usually find that only > one or two > cells in the pack have died and the others are OK. Yep, good point, the tabbed cells make soldering a lot easier. www.partsexpress.com has tabbed cells at a somewhat reasonable price, I think www.digikey.com has them, too. Then you just need to figure out what type of cell you need. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Higher torque improve distance???????????
Ben Cameron said: > FWIW - I built a couple of XDS 2+ 3 Woods up for me and couldn't hit the > side of a bus with them - low, ugly and super inconsistent. Tried a few > different shafts (DGS300, Rifle 75, ProLite and even Rifle Steel) to no > avail even tried offloading on a few mates but they had the same results > (club was reshafted and matched to their specs). > > I find this strange as I love the XDS2 Pro irons (on my second set of > these !!) and have been very impressed with all the other XDS kit I've > tried - go figure ! Here's my experience with the 2 XDS 2+ heads I've tried. I've tried the steel driver and found it quite unforgiving, but delivered somewhat reliable results , but not very long. Only felt good when the sweet spot was hit. Then I tried the XDS 2+ 5wd. Worked very well off the tee for me with good distance, around 220 yards typically. High COG and tall face prevented good results off the grass unless hit perfectly. I've switched to a Dynacraft Jackaroo II 5wd and now get good results off both the tee and grass. Will have to try those XDS2 Pro irons sometime as they seem to be universally liked, but with all the other clubs on the market it's hard to make a decision! -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Integra head
Jen Kuntz said: > With all the responses to this, I would think that is the best way - to > put the burden on the manufacturer to get proof that is conforms. > Everything is non-conforming until is passes the test as conforming. Keep in mind that the current list only lists clubs which are non-conforming according to their COR factor. Clubs that are illegal for other reasons will not show up on that list. I do not know where to get that list. You can verify this by looking at the Bang-O-Matic which has been deemed non-conforming because of dimensional restrictions which were exceeded. However, only the 7.5* driver shows up on the list. Also note the header of the document "Non-Conforming Driving Clubs Spring-like Effect". If anyone questions your club and thinks it's "HOT", show them a printout of this page. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Star Grip Tapeless Installation
Brian Lyall said: > This is a very timely topic. I have to replace the grips on my sons > bike. What's the best procedure for doing this. I was thinking of using > grip tape but if there is a way that doesn't require it all the better. As I mentioned earlier, hairspray works great for installing bike grips. Haven't tried it on golf grips yet. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Star Grip Tapeless Installation
tflan said: > You can also install grips without a compressor. Use a little liquid > soap - hand or dishwasher or whatever. Its the same method I used to > install bicycle grips when I was a kid. Works just fine. The problem with liquid soap is that the grips might slip a bit if you get them wet or play in the rain. I haven't actually tried it, but I used to use hairspray when sliding on bike grips, has anyone tried this with golf grips? -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Courtesy
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 04:41:35AM -0800, Carl McKinley wrote: > TFlan, > > With that attitude Dave is certainly someone I'd > go to for clubmaking advice. Thats Dave M, sorry > all other Dave's. :-) THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION! ;-) I was beginning to think you were talking about me! -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Rescue to the rescue?
While we're on the topic of rescue clubs, I just put together the 23* Dynacraft Jackaroo II we were talking about a little while back. Note that the J II doesn't look like the old Jackaroo, this is a traditional looking club. I used a DGS300 trimmed the tip 2.25" and then butt-trimmed to get the swingweight to about D3, total length ended up being a bit over 40". I spent a bit of time at the range and on the course a bit and found it very easy to hit straight shots with, both off the grass and off the tee. Trajectory and distance are about what you'd expect, nice and high and I was getting about 215yards out of it off the tee, about 10 yards less off the grass. This club is exactly what I was looking for, a log COG fairway wood with a semi-deep face, something that would be great for both the tee and off the deck. I will probably pick up the 18* and see if it works as well as the 23*. -Dave On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:42:01PM -0500, Dave Tutelman wrote: > Tom > Very similar to my story. The differences, which are less significant than > the similarities: > > * I have an 18* club, not 23*. > * I got it with a Rifle shaft, not a Bubble. The Rifle turned out to be > WAY too stiff. (I wasn't sure I believed my own frequency meter when I saw > the super-XX frequency, so I took it over to Charlie B who confirmed it.) > * I replaced it with my favorite Balistik, not a Rifle. > * I cut it to swingweight and let the length fall where it may. I knew in > advance the head was heavy for the length I wanted, so I didn't use any tip > weight. So I saved a couple of steps from your process -- removing the tip > weight and shortening the club -- but wound up with pretty much the same > thing you did. > > Glad you were finally able to make something worth hitting with that head. > It's a real nice piece of engineering; it seemed a shame to let it remain > in the grab bag. > > Cheers! > DaveT
Re: ShopTalk: swingweight help
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 03:28:04PM -0500, Jen Kuntz wrote: > Trust is the simple answer on some stuff - I don't have an accurate > scale at home. Details as follows... > > Weights - bought 9g port weights and 6g tip weights - don't have a > scale accurate enough to verify that they are actually 6g. The > "snipped" one I am purely guessing, it's less than 6g but that's as > accurate as I know > Shafts - weighed by Patrick when he FLO'd on a digital gram scale > Heads - can't remember 100% but I am pretty sure I weighed them on a > postal digital scale a few years ago... I had written down 3 at 252g, 1 > at 251g and 1 at 253g... at the time. > Grips - never weighed, going by catalog estimates. In the past I didn't > find a huge variance in grip weights in a batch -- possible but not likely? > > The final swingweight scale readings are my own swingweight scale - > Golfsmith scale. Since you don't have a scale to weigh things at home, I'd suggest picking up one of the digital gram-scales from Golfworks or Golfsmith. Cost is about $30-40 and accurate to within 1/2 gram or so. I think they will weigh things up to 500grams or so, so they are perfect for golf club assembly. Another reason why your swingweights were off is most likely because some graphite shafts have more mass towards the tip than others. This will give you more swingweight that a shaft with it's mass more evenly distributed. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Re: Utility heads
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:57:25PM -0500, Dave Tutelman wrote: > > >On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:32:01PM -0600, Mark Linder wrote: > > > Now I'm talking to myself. Anyone here have any experience with the > > > Dynacraft Jackaroo II? > > The two big differences I have found among utility heads are: > * Offset > * Shaft (.335 "wood" or .370 "iron") > > The Jackaroo has offset and takes a .370 shaft. That makes it hit like an > iron. If you don't like long irons and prefer something wood-like, this > only goes a fraction of the way there. A better choice for something more > wood-like: Yes, the Jackaroo has offset, but the Jackaroo II is nothing like the original Jackaroo. The J II is shaped very similarly to conventional fairway woods. http://stores.yahoo.com/dynacraftgolf/jaciiutwood.html -Dave
ShopTalk: Re: Utility heads
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:32:01PM -0600, Mark Linder wrote: > Now I'm talking to myself. Anyone here have any experience with the > Dynacraft Jackaroo II? I've got a 23* J II due to arrive here tomorrow. I expect to give it some range/course time next week. I picked it up looking for a log COG, medium face height fairway wood good for a bit more than 200 yards. If I really like it I'll probably pick up the 18* too. I've used a Bang SF 3wd 15*, face too deep for fairway use except off fluffy lies. Pretty forgiving and good distance and likes to go straight. I'm currently using a Hireko XDS2+ 5wd 18*. Has a deep face and feels great off the tee for about 225 for me. Wants to go straight. Hit this more consistently than the Bang SF, probably because of shorter shaft but maybe 5-10 yards shorter which is ok with me. But again, no good off the fairway except with fluffy lies unless I catch it perfect. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Bang SF Fairway
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 08:48:03PM -0500, Bernie Baymiller wrote: > > I have the 3W head right in front of me and it is definitely more than 32mm > on center, unless they are measuring it differently than I am. From the sole > to the edge of the crown, measuring straight up the 3 vertical dots at the > center of the face, is exactly 40mm. The crown is curved down toward the toe > and the heel. If you draw a straight line from the height at the heel and > the height at the toe, then it would be about 32mm...but probably 3/4 of the > face is over 35mm high. Bernie, You're confused. ;-) They're talking about the #13 and #15 woods, not the #3 wood. While I can't verify the height of the #13/15 SF fairwaiys, 32mm sounds about right. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: PGA Tour/Equipment
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:28:39PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Interesting article on the Tour looking at setting it's own equipment > standards here: > http://sports.yahoo.golfserv.com/gdc/news/article.asp?Source=YAHOO&id=10423 What I find interesting is that not all players are getting extra length. In the same article, they say that both Scott Hoch and Bernhard Langer look for the shorter or more technical courses. Obviously those two aren't hitting it as long and straight as the top guys on tour. The equipment is there for those two to hit is just as long as the rest of the guys, they just don't hit it straight enough at those distances. Bernie probably knows this best! I still think that this whole equipment shinanigan is just that a shinanigan. Who cares if guys are hitting it longer, isn't that why we watch them play? It seems that there are better ways of keeping guys from hitting it too far, hole #10 over at Riviera looked like a great way to do it to me. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: 15 Deg Driver Interest
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 08:34:47AM -0800, jgk wrote: > > Recognizing that I had no natural ability for the game, and had to work > hard for every stroke, I compromised and felt very comfortable with > (persimmon) 2 woods for about 20 years - loved 'em, and still do. Funny > thing is, you can't find "2" woods anymore, because people just won't > buy them. However, manufacturers still make them - if you take the > 12-13* loft, and call it a "strong 3", instead of a 2, people will buy > them like hotcakes... perhaps it's because the word "strong" sounds > manly to us?? You're right on target. That's why Jon isn't going to put the loft of the FF (Fairway Finder) on the club! Call it a 3 wood and laugh at all your buddies as you fly past them right down the fairway! -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: 15 Deg Driver Interest
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 10:39:57PM -0500, Dave Tutelman wrote: > > I don't think we're talking here about a club for you or for me. But > seniors, and especially senior women, just plain need more loft off the > tee. (Bernie has his solution. I'm prepared to believe it works for the > people he knows. Most of the seniors I know either will not practice enough > to master a long club, or never had and never will have the clubhead speed > with any length to get away with a 12* loft.) > > If you look at the curves in my Club Design Notes > (http://www.clubmaker-online.com/physics3.html), you'll see that, for lower > clubhead speeds, you just plain NEED more loft. My wife, her aunts, and any > number of other senior women I know will get more distance from EVEN MORE > LOFT than 15*. I have a lot of success making them tee clubs of a > big-headed 5-wood at 21*. I would say that even for the average golfer (15+ handicap) a 3-wd that's the size of a driver would significantly benefit their game. I currently have 2 woods in my bag. 1 is a 12* Bang SF360 at 44" on DGS steel. I'm thinking of adding some lead tape and cutting off another 1/2" to get it down to 43.5". The other is a 18* Hireko XDS2+ 5wd at 42.25" or so on a TT Lite XL shaft. On my good hits with no wind, I carry around 260 with the 12* SF360. Normally carry around 240-250. With the 5wd, I carry around 230 on solid shots. That's plenty long for the majority of courses. I only find myself wanting a longer driver for the long (430yards+) par 4s, and that's only because I'm not very accurate hitting anything longer than a 7 iron. My buddy who plays about the same as I do doesn't even use his driver anymore, it gets him into too much trouble. He'll hit 3wd and usually be within 10-15 yards of my ball, and a good amount of the time even or even ahead of my shots with driver. I'd bet that with a 15* 210gm 350cc+ driver we'd be in the fairway a lot more often, hitting closer to the sweetspot and give up maybe 20yards max on our best drives with the driver. On average we'd probably be at the same distance, but in the fairway a lot more often leading to less scrambling. Think of the club as an oversized 3 wood, not a driver. I think it's a great idea. Golfworks just came out with a heavier driver (the Hero) but it's still at 10* loft. Too low for the average guy. A number of guys on the GEA have built up the 14* Bang Mellow Yellow on shorter shafts, but have to add lead tape to be able to use a shorter shaft that's easier to control. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: CLUB LIE ANGLE
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 11:34:06AM -0800, tflan wrote: > > I've done more L&L adjustments than I can count over the years and its a > pretty rare individual who requires a precise 1° angle change from club to > club. Some guys will go from say, a 60° 5 iron to an 63° 6 iron to a 62° 7 > iron. As far as I know, there's no golfer in existence who matches any > preconceived measuring "standard." I realize you must start with something, > but once you start, changes are hardly ever linear. How many of those un-even lie adjustements do you think may have been caused by mis-matched shafts? -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: impact tape
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 06:07:57PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Now how about a guy that hits it off the heel with a Driver? What's up with > > that? > > Each day you should give thanks for this type of golfer. He/she brings you > reshafting business! Honestly, in this case the golfer is trying for a > distance record - swinging hard and thus extending the club and trying to do > it with arms and shoulders only - look for lack of lower body turn. Also look > for a baseball swing. I have club scrapes on the wall behind the golfers. > Where is the clubhead when hands reach waist level on backswing? Answer: > behind the body! Upon completion of swing - does the golfer lose balance or > spin like a little kid learning to hit a baseball? For these golfers a 40" > driver is "too long". > > My advice: Golf spelled backwards is "flog". Take it easy and feel the > clubhead swing THROUGH the ball. Sweep through a spot 4-6 inches ahead of > the tee. All this can be learned while on hold when calling Golfsmith. Harvey > Penick speaks from the grave! I speak from the experience of watching people > destroy my clubs and store walls! Ain't life grand? Damn, you just described my major swing problem and solution with my driver. Except for the clubhead-inside thing, I've pretty much got that under control with the help of my local club pro. Back to the driving range. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Great Big Bertha reshaft question
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:28:41PM -0800, tflan wrote: > Reshafting GBB's, 975D's, 975J's, et al, is (are?) a piece of cake. Many of > the guys here have done hundreds of them. For sure I've done a few hundred. > If you can't grab the shaft in a head pusher, as it appears is your problem, > then drill it out all the way. Ferrules are readily available from virtually > every supplier in the biz. Or, if your customer isn't especially picky, you > can use a plumber's "O" ring of the appropriate size. OK, I'll drill the shaft out and reshaft it normally, then. BTW, it seems that most places (GolfWorks and GolfSmith) only have one Callaway ferrule, do they use the same one on all drivers? -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Sweet Spot Finder
According the the review on golfclubreview.com, it made a significant difference in all types of shots. On their 150 yard tee shot, balanced and aligned balls ended up about 4 feet closer to the pin on average. Can't complain about that. They were also seeing slightly more distance and straighter drives, but due to their test range were unable to calculate the affect. http://www.golfclubreview.com/spin_balanced_balls.htm I don't know about you, but 4 ft closer to the pin on a tee shot could easily be the difference between par and birdie or on a bad shot bogey and par. At the very least, the line helps to line up your tee shots and putts. -Dave On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 09:43:57AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > $25 plus $5.95 shipping. I like it for putting, not sure what it does > (if anything) for drives. > Info here: http://clubmaker-online.com/ball.spinner.html > > > > >Just read the review on the Check & Go Sweet Spot Finder in > >golfclubreview.com. They seemed pretty high on it. How much are you > >selling that little gem for John? > > > >Anyway, one of the things that interested me was that they said was to > >position the ball differently for slicers vs. hookers vs. strait ball > >hitters. For a slicer the line pointed to the left, hooker right. > >Since I really don't understand the mechanics of it all, I thought I > >would ask the experts if this makes sense. I think their orientation > >was just a trial & error looking for the best results.
ShopTalk: Great Big Bertha reshaft question
I posted this on the GEA but haven't gotten any answers, so I thought I'd ask you guys. http://forums.prospero.com/golfequip/messages?msg=113665.1 Here's a copy of my question: I haven't reshafted a GBB before, the one I've got here has its graphite shaft snapped off about 1/4" above the hosel/insert. My question: Is it possible in this case to simply drill out the graphite shaft 1 1/4" and then reshaft as if it was a normal blind bore? Or do I have to drill out the whole shaft and do a standard GBB shaft install? Also, if I do have to do a whole reshaft, who sells the appropriate ferrule for the GBB? Anyone happen to have an extra on-hand they'd like to sell me? Thanks, Dave
Re: ShopTalk: shaft flex v.s. frequency
On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 05:54:24PM -0500, Bernie Baymiller wrote: Thanks for all your input Bernie. Merry Christmas to you and everyone else on ShopTalk! -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: shaft flex v.s. frequency
Heya Bernie, On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 01:30:47PM -0500, Bernie Baymiller wrote: > > > > "One had a weak axis of 250 cpm (other axis at 258) and > > > the other a strong axis of 250 cpm (other axis at 242). I built two > > > identical drivers with both 250cpm axes pointed at 9:00. In one case the > > > strong axis was at 9:00 the other the weak axis at 9:00. I tried a blind > > > test and the weak axis at 9:00 was definitely the preferred alignment. " > > > > Do you (or hopefully John can pitch in...) know why that aligning the > > NBP towards the target was preferred? > > To me, it's because that's the way the shaft wants to load during the swing. > In a spinefinder, you can see the shaft immediately turns so the weakest > side is on the outside of the bend...and I know it's the weakest side > because I can read the deflection in thousandths and compare with other > points on the shaft. If you set up the shaft aligned with the S axis to > target, I feel the shaft may try to rotate to the weak axis, at least until > release...which might cause some ovalling. Don't know. Was just talking with > another clubmaker who had three shafts Pured by GS. He said all three were > aligned with the FLO plane near the S axis...so I guess you pick your > medicine and see if it does the job. I know that when I align on the S-axis, > I get a few more yards distance and, of course, the shaft reacts a little > differently. But, you need a pretty consistent swing to feel the difference. > I like a high A-flex shaft, and if I'm building me a 48" driver with a > middle A, it sometimes feels a little too flexible at that clublength...so > if there is any appreciable spine, I might go with FLO alignment on the > S-axis to stiffen the shaft up slightly. Seems to work fine, but doesn't > feel quite as good to me. Thanks for the input. Any idea on what type of shot shape aligning the spine at 12oclock on a Type 1 shafts generally produces? Just trying to get an idea of whether my general shot shape is being influenced by the way my clubs are aligned, but I think it has more to do with swing than anything else, but if I can get it 1 yard closer to where I'm aiming in general it will be worth it to pull the heads on all my clubs and reshaft. > I read a report on spine alignment impact testing by GS in the > September/October 1999 issue of GS Clubmaker, authored by John Meng and with > a lot of reference to Tom Wishon's comments on spining. Interesting > conclusion in italics, though the following paragraph said there was not > enough of a sample for empirical proof. Here's the conclusion: "The test > golfers experienced between 20% and 60% improvement in their percentage of > on-center hits after spine orientation." Also said, "...players can actually > hit a ball off-center by as much as 1/4", 1/2" or more. At 1/2" off-center, > a golfer could lose up to five to seven percent of their potential distance, > plus the ball will have more sidespin." The article also comments on Weiss's > reason for placing the S1 at 3 or 9 o'clock...which he thinks is the > "neutral" position, and which I and others disagree with. Well, placing S1 at 3 or 9 might be agreeable to you depening on whether the shaft is a Type 1 or 2, right? Since if it's a Type 1 placing S1 at 3 would generally put N1 at 9 which is what you recommend. A Type 2 shaft would end up with N1 at 12 or 6... -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: shaft flex v.s. frequency
Bernie, On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 06:23:20AM -0500, Bernie Baymiller wrote: > > "In a spine tester when the shaft is bent it will attempt to rotate such > that it is being bent in its weakest direction. During the swing, the club > for the most part bends in the direction of the swing plane. If the weak > axis is lying in this plane there will be little tendency for the shaft to > rotate during your swing as it does in a spine finder. I don't know how > strong this rotational tendency is but why not minimize it?" Thanks, re-reading this and thinking about it, it now clicks and makes perfect sense. This also means that it's time for me to go and reshaft all my clubs, as I could be hitten them solid a lot more often now! After all, it can't be my swing, right? ;-) > "One had a weak axis of 250 cpm (other axis at 258) and > the other a strong axis of 250 cpm (other axis at 242). I built two > identical drivers with both 250cpm axes pointed at 9:00. In one case the > strong axis was at 9:00 the other the weak axis at 9:00. I tried a blind > test and the weak axis at 9:00 was definitely the preferred alignment. " Do you (or hopefully John can pitch in...) know why that aligning the NBP towards the target was preferred? > > Also, what do you and Dan think about the alignment of Type 1 shafts? > > > > I've also noticed that in the majority of Type 1 shafts, the NBP isn't > > always exactly 180* away from the spine, I have seen them anywhere from > > 140-180*. What do you do with these shafts? > > I like NBP to target for above reasons. If the S1 is opposite, I don't check > any further...and the club always seems to perform well. If the S1 is 40° > off, I'll probably locate FLO to see how far off it is. If significant, I'll > go with the FLO. Usually, though, l find FLO isn't far off of the > NBP-to-Target alignment. If that's the case, it probably doesn't matter. Thanks for the input, Bernie. Has anyone tried impact tape on a club with the shaft aligned in different positions? Would be interesting to not if there were any patterns besides how tight the marks are, but I would think that the golfer would soon attempt to compensate after a few shots... -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: shaft flex v.s. frequency
Bernie, If I read you right, you're saying to align Type 2 shafts with the NBP facing target. Why wouldn't you align the NBP away from the target? Also, what do you and Dan think about the alignment of Type 1 shafts? Just curious because the last couple dozen clubs I've built (mostly steel Type 1 shafts, but some graphite Type 2 shafts) I've been aligning the spine facing up, regardless of where the NBP points. I've also noticed that in the majority of Type 1 shafts, the NBP isn't always exactly 180* away from the spine, I have seen them anywhere from 140-180*. What do you do with these shafts? -Dave On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 07:10:13PM -0500, Bernie Baymiller wrote: > > Did you try these shafts aligned with NBP to target? That's the way > the shaft wants to bend when loaded. Certainly long, light graphite > Type 2 shafts would have a decided ovalling if not aligned the way the > shaft wants to bend...which according to GS testing increased the > impact area on the face. And, as John Kaufman said in his web site > notes on spining, why not minimize the ovalling? Move the impact off > center toward the toe and you'll get a drawand the opposite with a > hit toward the heel. I don't know what amount of ovalling would be > necessary to create those problems, but it doesn't take much for me.
Re: ShopTalk: Long Drive swing...was Selling it
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 04:04:19PM -0500, Bernie Baymiller wrote: > > "When the hands are about waist high in backswing, butt of club should still > be aiming > in the general direction of your belt buckle. That's a key point with the > long driver. At that point, wrist cock is almost straight up, so club sets > on top just in front of your right shoulder and club is pointing toward the > target." I don't know, but this sounds like a good swing to put on any club to me. Not just the long drivers. At least, this is the type of swing I've been working on the last month or so and I've gained a lot more accuracy when I do it right. I've even picked up a few yards with the irons. My old swing took it back inside too much and the club could end up going anywhere depending on my timing. With the new swing all I have to do is remember to keep smooth and keep the right hand out of it and away it goes. Result is straight to a slight fade with the driver, and straight to a slight draw with the irons. Now if only I could make that move more consistently! Taking it back inside is more natural for me, but the overall swing feels effortless when I do it the right way. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Outlook Express problem plus Messenger ads
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 07:05:34PM -0800, tflan wrote: > > Out of about the usual 20 - 30 messages I get each day, nearly half > are "spam." Its a real pain in the neck to have to cull them out. I've > tried a few spam killers but they aren't perfect. The junk mail is > distributed via sold mail lists as well as the same way those junk > phone calls are sent. Random dialing. As soon as you open a spam mail > someone, somewhere, knows you exist. Then you're really screwed. If you use Outlook 2000 or XP, go grab Cloudmark SpamNet. Support for Outlook Express is coming soon. How it works is it calculates a signature for each email and compares it to a database of known spam. If the signatures match, it is marked as spam for easy deletion. If it doesn't catch a piece of spam, you can report it to the servers. If it calls an email spam that really isn't (a newsletter you signed up for), then you report it back to the servers as not spam. Works pretty well, and will catch the majority of spam falling in your mailbox. Best part is that it's free! http://www.cloudmark.com/products/spamnet/ -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Tee Extender?
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 11:44:53AM -0800, Ed Reeder wrote: > Can anyone tell me where to get a "tee extender" or how > to better describe it so I might find one locally. > > A friend had what looked to be a flexible plastic standard tee, > except it had a hole drilled down into it and you stuck a > standard wooden tee into the hole. Effectively creating a > longer tee. > > I'd like to get one of these so I can stop buying long tees. > > I asked him where he got it, but it was given to him and he > had no idea where to find one. I'd never seen one before. Not quite what you're looking for, but I've heard that the long drivers are using "The Perfect Tee" with good success. A search on Google should turn it up. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Kidney transplant
Happy day! Glad to hear you are recovering well, Bernie. Even though I've never met you personally, you've have all my best wishes for a speedy recovery so you can get back out on the course ASAP! Cheers, Dave On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:04:05PM -0500, Bernie Baymiller wrote: > ST'ers all, > > Thanks for all for your thoughts, prayers and good wishes. This has been > hard to believe, but I'll tell you about it for the sake of others who might > have the same problems. Kidney transplant technology is simply amazing to me > now. I'm home after receiving a kidney 4 days ago. > > God bless you all and please sign your donor cards just in case. It's a > miracle waiting to happen. > > Bernie > Writeto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: ShopTalk: Aldila
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:33:52AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Love the idea of filament wound but have feedback from my customers of > the shafts feeling dead. I have talked to a couple mfg.(sheet wrap) and the > say it is due to the process and the epoxy needed to bond the rein strands. > What is your feeling on the matter? I've used the cheap filament wound from Diamond Tour with good success in fairway woods. The FGS Plus shafts I used had plenty of feel in them, I could really feel the shaft load up during the swing and kick at impact. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Dynamic Gold
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:39:24PM -0400, Dave Tutelman wrote: > - Original Message - > From: Brian Parkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 6:06 PM > > > Due to the several favorable reports, just got the SRVII and a TT80. > > Dave T (I think that's the combo you use), how long will the combo be in > > to achieve D-1 swingweight. Just curious if I need a tip weight. > > I use the SRV-II with the Pure Energy, the lightweight brother to the TT80. > My driver is 35" long, and is D0. For the heavier TT80 and D1, I suspect > you'd need between 44 and 44.5 inches. I hope you meant that your driver is 45" long, not 35". ;-) Otherwise you'd have one strong lofted wedge there! -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Frequency or Springrate ??
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 09:24:55PM -0700, Dean wrote: > Also tried the dual hump putter, definitely not for me! Putter will hang > on the mistakes wall display. Hope some one comes along and likes it!! I'd like to try it out and if you don't want it and take it off your hands (for a price of course!). Send me email privately at [EMAIL PROTECTED] if interested. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Soft stepping
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 01:39:46PM -0400, Dave Tutelman wrote: > > > What is soft stepping? I think I have an idea. > > It is moving the shafts to a shorter club with no additional tip trimming. > The result is a more flexible set of clubs than before. For most shafts, > soft-stepping by one club is worth a quarter flex (maybe 3cpm). > > > Why not go with a softer > >(more flexible shaft?) to begin with? Rifle 4.5etc. > > Good question. I can think of two reasons: > > (1) You can get a fractional flex -- e.g.- between R & S -- even with taper > tips. > > (2) If you're working with a set that is already built with shafts, it is > economical. You only have to buy one or two shafts for the longest clubs. > > Maybe there are other good reasons as well. To elaborate a bit: For a lot of steel shafts you will notice that there is a 2" tip trimming difference between an R flex and a S flex. You will also usually trim 1/2" more tip between each iron. Soft-stepping once will get you a bit more flexy than an S in that shaft. Twice will get what some people call a "Firm" shaft (half-way between R/S). -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: UPS pt.2
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 10:04:49AM -0700, tflan wrote: > > Maybe this latest fiasco with UPS is an anomaly, maybe not. But it sure as > hell is frustrating. I've asked most of my vendors to ship either USPS > (first choice,) or if really in a hurry, FedEx. I have little confidence > in UPS here. I would expect that someone at UPS would want to know about your troubles. The problem is finding someone with enough authority to make a change. Problems like this in a company can quickly lead to it's own demise and recovery will be difficult. Personally I've never had any problems with UPS, USPS or FedEx, but maybe I'm just lucky. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Thread Name Change
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 09:30:02PM -0400, Greg Zachmann wrote: > > A good, reasoned response, but. > > These people are all over the internet. They can only find enjoyment in > believing they are displaying their intellectual superiority. They delude > themselves by believing that the more people they irritate the more power > they have. Were this individual to perform in this manner in a public > setting, he would soon find his only companion to be his own supposed > "intellect". This forum should be devoted to clubmaking concerns and the > occasional interplay between the "personalities" on the forum. John runs a > good forum and I'm sure is loath to "kick anyone off". Since this is the > second time around with this off topic subject he may reconsider. > > People like this are emotionally or mentally ill and will not respond to a > reasoned response. The best way to deal with these sad individuals is to > ignore them. On this forum, considering the personalities of some of the > regular posters, that is not going to happen. Too bad. Thanks for your insight on this common internet problem as well as changing the subject. I hate it when a good thread turns into a flame fest while the subject remains the same making it near impossible to sort out the good content from the bad. Cheers, Dave
ShopTalk: Here's what to do about "connie mack rea"
Gang, Having stood on the sidelines of many mailing list flame fests, the best thing to do when someone starts a flaming is often counterintuitive. All attempts to be rational and sane with the involved persons will get you nowhere as flame fests occur between people with irreconciable opinions. Responding to posts will only make it worse which is what the offending posters want. Once it has been make clear that someone is trolling for flames, ignore them. Feeding the trolls by responding will not work! If you want, setup a kill filter for those who offend you but keep in mind that this measure is not 100% effective as people will respond to their posts anyway. Restricting the user from posting to the list will not help, they will simply sign up for one of the freely available email accounts at yahoo, hotmail or netscape. If you want the problem to stop, hit the delete key and ignore it. It only takes a second and will eventually go away. If something ticks you off personally, respond personally and not to the list. Hope this helps, Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Sandbagger's Open, DuPont
Sounds like the type of golf I play with one of my regular playing partners as well as whoever else joins up with us. Don't play any fancy games yet, but we always play eagles are $5, birdies are $1 and on straight driving holes longest drive (using a driver!) in the fairway for $1. On par 3s we'll play closest to the pin if on the green $1. Not enough money to worry about (we're both bogey golfers) but incentive to really try to hit your best shot a give you a bit of pressure. Yesterday we played as many holes as we could fit in before the sun went down and played really close. Out of the first 9 holes, we only had a different score on one hole when he topped one into the water. Both only had one real birdie opportunity on a tight par 5, he had a 6ft putt, I had a 8ft putt almost on the same line. Sank my putt, but so did he! After 14 holes I was ahead by 1 stroke and both of us had a great time. -Dave On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 05:59:38PM -0400, Bernie Baymiller wrote: > Then there's the old guys golf, where it really isn't gambling and isn't all > sport, either. It's mostly social golf. Mondays and Wednesdays I play with a > group of 20+ seniors. Two a month are responsible for "the game of the day," > and every month two new guys get the job. They usually put an A, B, C and D > player in each foursome, though on some occasions the game is the A players > against the Bs, etc.There are 4-6 foursomes on any given day and everybody > kicks in $5. Generally the payout is for first, second and third for 5-6 > foursomes, and first and second for 4 foursomes or less. But everybody knows > everybody and who is hot and who is not. The guys making the games usually > get the teams pretty close. Now, with that limited amount of cash, it can > hardly be a gambling incentive...yet, it's certainly not all recreation, > either. I believe the most important reason we all have for showing up is > the comradery...the social aspects of doing something with someone different > each time out...of finding out who's having what operation, who's going on a > trip and where, laughing at the strange events in eveyone's lives. Old guys > know and appreciate friendships. > > Fridays I play recreational golf. I play with two or three guys with whom > I've been playing since 1970 and with whom I car pool to the course. All of > us were pretty good players at one time...we were all very even in 1975, now > I'm the best of them (and several years younger as well). The other two love > to take a shot at me...one has a fair chance, the other has almost no > chance...yet, they all want to play scratch. They play to try and beat me > and I play hard to keep from being beaten. The loser buys $0.25 orange > drinks on the way home (though sometimes I feel guilty and offer to buy). > It's kind of like playing my sons. Now, that's a real battle for the family > honor... and they haven't beaten me often, either (I only lost once). I > tried for years to beat my dad and finally did. (He was a 2-4 handicap until > he was 70). That kind of golf is the most enjoyable to me, whether you're > trying to beat someone, or trying to keep from being beaten.
Re: Re: ShopTalk: RE: ShopTalk: 2 ball putter heads
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:38:07AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Most players who do this thing for their dinner run far away from Pelz' > putting school as far as mechanics go. The 'typical' pro actually has > their eyes slightly inside the target line and their stroke is slightly > inside/square/inside. While a face balanced putter obviously works fine > with this stroke too, what you'll find if you take most of the pro's > putters and check the toe hang (balance the putter with the shaft on your > finger) they almost all have some toe flow - even the 2-ball putters on > tour are mostly not exactly face balanced, unlike the ones in the store. I agree, I feel that a straight line putting stroke any longer than an inch or two feels too manipulated. It's much easier to get a consistent stroke by following the natural arc of the swing. With this type of swing a putter slightly toe heavy will flow better. > The newest 'tool' to check posture and eye position is a compact disc with > the mirrored surface. Guys put one on the green with the mirror facing up > and a ball in the center hole. They want to see their eyes in the > reflection below the ball. You'll see guys on the practice greens > stroking putts off of a CD at about every PGA tour event. Great tip! I'll have to try this with one my those AOL cds which pop in the mail every other day. -Dave
ShopTalk: Belly Putter heads?
It looks like good belly putter head needs to have about a 74* lie angle and weigh close to 400 grams. Only ones I've seen so far are the one from Golfsmith and the the DT40 from Dynacraft. Are there any others out there? -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Messages
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 10:35:18PM -0400, Al Taylor wrote: > Am I the only one who is having difficulty getting messages through because > some guy "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" has exceeded his mailbox storage > limit? Just started yesterday. Your messages are getting through just fine, just ignore those bounces. Happens all the time on mailing list when someone has an auto-responder. Thank goodness it doesn't reply back to the list. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Sandbagger's Open, DuPont
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 08:48:43PM -0400, Mark A. Patton wrote: > I was reading this thread and remembered TFlan had some methods to address. Then > I started thinking of other sports that have "handicaps" and how they deal with > this. After a while, I remembers my teens and drag racing. For those not > familiar with non-bracket drag racing: > > You list your perceived best possible time, say 12.3 seconds. Lets say your > competitor lists 13.3 seconds. In this game, your competitor gets a 1 second > head start. If you go faster than you figured and get a lower time than your > 12.3, you are DQed. YOU LOSE! > > Hmmm, maybe it might work for golf? Lord knows you will NEED to know what you > will REALLY play to. Someone running an amateur tourney soon that could present > it as an idea? Not a bad idea, but I see that it'd be too easy to shank a couple balls or 3-putt on the 17th-18th holes if you see yourself getting to close to the edge. It would also could penalize someone who is improving very quickly and shoots the round of their life. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Sandbagger's Open, DuPont
What some clubs are doing is only counting tournament rounds towards their handicaps. Makes it a lot harder for sandbaggers to cheat that way. Too many people out there only counting their crappy rounds towards their handicap then turn it on for the tourneys. Either you can try what I've heard works pretty well above, or you can pretty much give up any expectation of doing well in the tourneys. Sucks but such is life. -Dave On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:07:15PM -1000, Steve Cub Culbreth wrote: > RK, > > That's why I changed our rules in Japan. Instead of moving them up a > flight, we left them where they were and eliminated them from the Net > Competition. Still, did they care?! NO! 9 times out of 10 they would win > the gross in their flight!!! Can't beat the damn sandbaggers. > > In my regular Sunday group, last Sunday, I had to give up a total of 29 > strokes just within my foursome (7/9/13). That's friggin ridiculous. Of > course they all walloped the heck out of me. The only satisfaction I had > was when one of them pressed me on 18, because he got a stroke, and I > thrashed him!! One of the guys has moved between a 23 and 24 handicap for > more than twenty years. What's the odds that he hasn't improved? > > Cub > - Original Message - > From: Richard Kennedy > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 5:38 AM > Subject: ShopTalk: Sandbagger's Open, DuPont > > > Well the Sandbagger's Open, other wise known as the "DuPont World > Amateur Handicap Tournament" is in town with the "Best" of the > sandbagger's in the world. The low net round in the last men's > flight, #47 is a "59" that's 13 under on a course that supposed to > be set up for tournament play. Low net in flight #27 is a nice > "53", no I never stuttered "53", That's FIVE THREE. What gets me > is the handicap rule,"if you are more than 5 strokes under your > HCP then you must go to the next higher flight". Well the worst > golfer, sandbagger, in flight 327 shot a clean 65. Does that mean > that they have to move the 'WHOLE FLIGHT"? But the guy's who > shot better than 10 strokes under their HCP., which was 7 out of > the 10 in that flight, do they move them up to the next 2 / 3 > flight? And when you shoot a net "53", NINETEEN UNDER PAR, do > you really care just where they move you??? I Mean the higher > that they move you the better off you are. Like the net low score > in the first 6 flights was a "71". I think, but what does it > matter just what I think, they should move you up 3 flights and > give you a nice par round of '72' to start your next round with, i > mean 19 under par!!! > > Well I've got go and climb back under the covers and dream of nice > good honest golfer, ah hell I might as well stay up they don't > call it the 'SANDBAGGER's OPEN" for no reason. > > RK
Re: ShopTalk: was SRVII Experiment, now Ball Spinner
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 10:11:50PM -0700, Ed Reeder wrote: > I have some questions about the ball balancer (not the use of the line, > which is great). > > Perhaps someone else can provide some input. > > I then balanced them using the ball balancer/spinner. The results > were not the same. The "equator" was up to 1" difference. > > I e-mailed the manufacturer and asked them to explain the difference. > They basically said the the "slight" difference was due to static (Epsom > salts) vs. dynamic (ball spinner) balancing. > > I agreed, but said that I was only interested in putting, as that is > the only time (other than a tee shot) that I can line up the ball. > > I'd read where the spinner goes up to 10,000 rpm. At low rpms (putting) > I had a hard time rectifying the difference (up to 1" difference in "equators") >between > the two methods. This difference didn't seem "slight" to me. > > The manufacturer never responded (I even sent the message twice). > > Using some data from "See It and Sink It" I later determined that a 30 > foot level putt travels at about 800 rpm. > > Has anyone else performed such a test, or have any opinions on the > test results? Here's my thoughts: While the epson salt method will always accurately find the heaviest point of the ball, this may not be the natural axis of the ball as it spins. Why? With a static balance, you do not have to worry about centrifical force. The tricky part about centrifical force is that it changes depending on how fast the ball spins! Now, how this will affect a ball when putting, I'm not sure. But I suspect that dynamic balancing (spinning) would result in straighter putts. To test it I think you'll need one of those ball ramps with a target range and a number of balls balanced with both methods. Someone with a better knowledge of physics may be able to figured it out as well. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Lie fitting question
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:51:59AM -0400, Al Taylor wrote: > Dave, > First of all, your pulls and or fades tell me you are probably over the top > and outside in. The difference between a pull and a fade with an > outside-in swing is only a few degrees of open face angle at impact. It is > possible that you are somehow letting the toe dig at impact, but let's > assume you are not. You seem to understand the principle of using a lie > board so just use a piece of plywood and some masking tape on the bottom of > the sole. You should buy one of the several club making books that will > describe the process nicely. Having said that, go to the PCS web site. > www.proclubmakers.org and use the club maker locator. You should find a > club maker in the San Diego area that can do it all for you. Cub's post > was about right; $4 or $5 per club. Hope this helps. Thanks for the tips. I'll get the lie angle dynamically checked, chances are things are OK and it's my swing that needs fixing, not my clubs. Just trying to blame it on the equipment! ;-) -Dave
ShopTalk: Lie fitting question
Hi all, I've been having directional problems with my shorter irons (pulls and fades) and I think that some of it may be caused by the lie angle of my irons. Right now I'm playing a 37 3/4" 5I with 1/2" increments up and down from there. The shape of my divots is generally longer at the toe pretty much across all my irons. Since I don't have the budget for a loft/lie machine since clubbuilding is only a hobby (the cheapest loft/lie machines seem to run at least $250 for the economy model from golfworks), how much should I expect to have my current clubs analyzed for fit an the irons bent if necessary? I could pick up a lie board and check then fit myself, but that still leaves bending the clubs, how much does that run? Is there an alternative to using a lie board for measuring the lie angle? Can anyone recommend (or is) a club fitter in San Diego? Thanks, Dave
Re: ShopTalk: SRVII Experiment
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 06:03:20PM -0400, Dave Tutelman wrote: > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 5:21 PM > > > Played the 12 deg SRVII with a Rifle 6.0 today and liked it a lot. It > > was weird that I was getting a lower trajectory with the 12 deg head > > vs my 10.5 975 J. > > The SRVII is a good solid head, looks nice, great feel. I'd highly > > recommend it. Didn't lose any distance at the shorter length and did > > notice that I hit the sweet spot (by looking at the ball marks) a LOT > > more with the shorter club. Thanks to all for the recommendation. > > The more I play my 10* SRV (on an SK Pure Energy shaft at 35"), the more I > like it. So far, I can remember 5 golfers who tried it out, and all were > impressed. Two ordered one like it at the end of the round. Three others > tried it after they had hit their own (OEM, expensive) drivers, and hit my > SRV at least as straight and a lot longer. My SRV II 12* on Rifle 5.5 is still treating me very good as well. Played at a 9-hole executive course yesterday, the three times I pulled out the club I landed right in the middle of the fairway. If the yardage markers were right, the first one ended up 250 yards away on a slightly uphill hole. Second one was a small fade 300 yards down the fairway off an elevated teebox slight right hand dogleg. Third one was another slight fade 240 slightly uphill. Missed the sweet spot a bit on the first and third swings, the second one I was real close to the sweet spot. Iron play was mediocre (distance and direction control issues) so the driver was the most reliable club in the bag. > > Banged in about a 60 ft putt for birdie today, too. Owe it all to the > > Golf Ball Sweet Spot finder!!:-) It really does help me putt better, > > assume it's the fact that i take the time to line up the putt using > > the line on the ball. If I trust the line, (my mind does play strange > > tricks when standing over the putt) then I usually knock it close. > > I know what you mean. Last year, I tried marking my ball with a line, and > lining it up for each putt. But I gave it up after a few weeks; the issues > were trust and focus: > * After you get over the aligned ball, it sometimes just "feels wrong". > When that happens, if I don't realign until it feels right, the ball could > go just about anywhere. > * When I first started using this approach, it allowed me not to worry > about line (provided it didn't "feel wrong" and I trusted it) so I could > focus on distance. Worked well. But after a few rounds this way, I seemed to > lose my feel for distance and couldn't get it back without abandoning the > alignment mark. My experience has been the same as John's since I started using the spinner a while back. If I trust the read, it gets close and has a good chance of going in. If I second guess while standing over it, I most more often than not. For me, I think it's real tough to make a good read while standing over the ball on the shorter putts (3-8ft), trusting my initial read from behind the ball is much more reliable. Putting that way I've cut my 3 putts way down unless I totally misjudge the distance. I haven't found that lining putts up affected my distance control, if anything it's gotten better! Of course, I also switched putters from a GS brass putter to a shorter Odyssey DF330 which seems to work much better. The brass putter was way too light (310gms when I weighed it) for me, the DF330 seems to be much heavier. I did add a bunch of lead tape to the GS putter, but I haven't used it much since getting the DF330, I really like the feel of the insert. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: new driver
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 12:09:58PM -0400, Charlie wrote: > > I have to agree with your comments re the SMT and Bang products. > I am somehow surprised that the SRV II does not get much attention on other > forums. > I had mine since January this year and find that the 7.5 with SK Fiber Rev > Lite is the winning combo for me. > Unfortunately The SRV II is pretty popular over at the GEA, seems to be a favorite among those who put either the 10* or 12* into a steel shaft. Lately all you hear about is the Mellow Yellow and the new SMT heads (great design!) as well as the long drive favorite Shinnecock. Hear about the Bang 450 quite often as well. The Bang P3 Plus will be available soon as well, would like to try that one. > Played few holes yesterday and noticed that the SRV started to sound like a > ping driver and the flight was not consistent and definitely loss of > distance. > I suspected the worse and sure enough the face at the crown has a 2 inch > hairline crack!!! > Ken at Golf Direct is replacing under warranty as we speak. I do have aback > up but it is 9 degrees. Anyone else had any SRV II crack? I swing at 92 to > 94 MPH so the speed should not be the cause. I haven't cracked mine yet, but I haven't had it that long, either. Will definately let you guys know if I do. BTW, I tried a Bang 450 yesterday, 10* on 45" Stealth 70 S trimmed 1". The combo is LONG (I'd guess 15-20 yards longer than my SRV II 12* on a 44" steel shaft) but the tendency to fade the ball all the time and the clanky racket the head makes turns me off. The SRV II sounds just about perfect to my ears in comparison, just a nice sounding thwack. The club would be a great combo for someone with a consistent swing, but I already hit the SRV II far enough the majority of the time. Only time extra distance would be welcome is on long par 4s and 5s. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: SRVII Special
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 07:06:42AM -0500, Dan Neubecker wrote: > My experience is that the 12º SRV II is substantially higher than any of the > 9º and 10º heads that I have hit. I wouldn't try to hit it off the deck > with that tall face, however. With my swing the 12* SRV II on a 44" shaft hits on seems to be a perfect mid trajectory. With a longer shaft I would expect it to hit higher. Definately wouldn't attempt to hit it off the deck unless I had a real fluffy lie. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Women's driver?
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 12:00:53AM -0400, Pat McGoldrick wrote: > I'm looking for a good combo for a women to use off the tee with. Her > swing speed is 62mph, smooth tempo, and plays twice a week. I was thinking > of using a "L" SK Fiber PE shaft and possibly a deep face 300cc, 15* head. > Is there such a monster? Not many women come thru my shop. Bernie, is > this your specialty? All suggestions are greatly appreciated. TIA Pat > McGoldrick On Target Golf What about the Bang Mellow Yellow HL 14*? 420cc head, crazy color and high loft. -Dave
ShopTalk: SRV-II Update
Summary: I love my SRV-II! The long story: If you all remember I was inspired to build a high loft SRV-II after hearing Dan Neubecker's results with it hitting high straight consistent bombs with it. I ended up building a 12* SRV-II on a Rifle 5.5 steel shaft, no tip-trim, shaft inserted to the plug, butt-trimmed to 44" and spine at 12 oclock. Swingweight is D2-3. I cut the day short at work yesterday to head out to Encinitas Ranch with a few other guys who work in the building around here in San Diego for as many holes as light would allow. I hit 4/5 fairways when I used driver on the front 9 and a few more on the back (didn't finish the back). I was consistently getting about 255-275 yards carry+roll. On the 18th hole (470 yard par 5) I hit a 300 yard bomb right down the middle with a little help from a small downhill roll about 40 yards past everyone else. Shots which didn't end up in the fairway where two slight pulls which landed one in a fairway bunker (only about 20 yards to squeeze through) and the other ended up about 3-4 yards into the rough. Had one high push/fade which landed about 10 yards into the rough on the right (and under a damn bush!) but that was definately the swing's fault. All afternoon I was either matching or out driving the guys I was with using longer drivers than me (9.5* TM 320, another new R500 series driver, another guy using a Cobra 350). I was worried initially that the high loft would rob me of distance but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case. The best part about the driver is that it doesn't seem to matter where you hit it on the face, it's especially forgiving low and off the heel where my mis-swings tend to go. Whew! I've got a 10* Bang 450 arriving shortly that I'm going to shaft up with either a DGS300 I have or a FGS Ultralite, I haven't decided yet. I don't expect this one to outperform the SRV-II in terms of accuracy, but I'd like to be able to pull out a club that will get me over 300 yards without too much trouble for those wide open par 5s. I keep on telling myself that fairways are the key to scoring, but distance is addicting! -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: X14's
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 08:15:10PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Anyone have a suggestion for something similar to the Callaway X14's > irons? Acer XDS 2 and XDS 2 Pro are great. Get them from hirekogolf.com. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Driver head thoughts
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 06:41:52PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Dave T makes a great point - what do you think ... will the Bang stuff > hang together? The larger the head, the thinner the titanium so strength will be lower. The most popular Bang head on the long drive circuit appears to be the 450 right now. The 450 just went through a small redesign to increase strength to reduce breakage for those with extremely high swing speeds. Last I heard the long drivers haven't been able to break the new 450s. Other than that, any of the smaller heads (350-360cc and less) should be more durable than the larger ones. Both SMT and Bang have great warranties and will exchange broken heads without question. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Grip solvents H2O?
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 07:56:44PM -0700, LaChance Family wrote: > FWW while I was at the Dynacraft school we went on a tour of the > PalJoey plant and they are using the water sol. tape w/ Water & > Windex added for all the work they do. Have you tried the Windex combo? Sounds like this would dry a lot faster than the water/soap combo. -Dave
Re: ShopTalk: Bang SRV II
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 12:16:23AM -0400, Ryan Tedrick wrote: > For those of you out there who have used the SRV II, would you please be > able to comment on some of it's "hitting" characteristics (i.e. sound, > trajectory, feel, distance on mishits, etc,) Also what are some shafts that > you have used? I'm using a SRV II 12* on Rifle 5.5 shaft installed with the plug no tip trim butt trimmed to 44". Oh and spine aligned at 12oclock. Sound is a very pleasant "ting", not loud like some of the larger heads. Forgiveness on mishits is excellent. You know you mishit the ball, but the ball still goes a long way. My mishits tend to be low and towards the heel, I seem to lose very little distance. Distance on all shots is very good, but from what I've heard not as long as the 450. Of course the 450 is a big, loud head worthy of the Bang! name. > > Also has anyone tried the Bang SF 320 or 360 Ti driver head? I looking for a > driver for myself, and would like to try a head by Bang. Just can't decide > which one. I've heard that these are also great heads. > Thanks for all the comments on SF fairway woods. I really appreciate the > information. It will help out a lot. The most popular Bang drivers seem to be these: 450 - Loud, Big and long P2/P3 - P2 is a bore-through, P3 isn't. Long, great sound and feel. SRV II - Just a great all around head. Tall face, forgiving and good distance. Supposedly a bit shorter than the P2/P3 and 450 but I haven't compared them myself. Another Bang head which is new is the Mellow Yellow. Quite an eye catcher and as good as the others. It's a new one, so not much feed back on it, but initial reports have been good. -Dave
