Hi Mike Thanks for sharing this story on robotic testing. I guess not all independent testing are created equal. One way to overcome this trickery is to supervise the testing. Another way is to get a statistican to design the test parameters. If robotic testing results will not withstand the test of law then sited OEM's are only interested in selling more product (any way they can). I've designed test protocol for a robotic session we conducted in Singapore. Did this with a close friend from Australia. 6 months later we replicated the identical test again, only this time with an Ausi PGA Tour player as the hitting media. The two independent tests on the same 4 clubs yielded very similar output results. We used blocks and randomization to minimize the effect of time of day, and weather. Different continents, robot vs human, different seasons > similar rates of improvement. Manufacturers can achieve valid statistical results that will withstand the test of time. If you don't mind I would like to use your post when I do statisical / quality training. Its a solid example to share with others on what people will do to fake / manipulate data. This isn't independent testing, its deception. No sense spending a nickel on those shops. I'm not saying the guy in San Diego is good or bad, no first hand knowledge of this (CMA). Just curious Mike, how many independent robotic research centers are there in the USA? Thanks Harry S www.Golf54.com
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 2:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ShopTalk: Iron Byron Testing This is to share with Shoptalk member on how robot testing results are manipulated. Many of you will remember there was a law suit between two big guys in the golf industry regarding adverting false test data. The trick to manipulate data is to test the club on a different day. A warm and dry weather will generally give the ball more lift as compared to a cold and wet weather. Everyone use the same guy in San Diego for any test results intended for advertising purpose. The reason is this particular testing lab is fairly independent and their testing procedure is well established. Nevertheless, there are ways to play with the test results. That is accomplished by testing your own product on a favorable day and competitor's product on an unfavorable day. I believe shoptalk members have recently encountered one as such. Even when you test both product on the same day, you can still trick the system. This lab always conducts its testing from 6:00 am to 10:00 am because at 9:00 am wind will pick up and the dispersion will be wider than tests performed at 6:00 am. All you need to do is to test your own product at 6:00 am and test your competition's product at 9:30 am. You will get exactly what you wanted. In the future, when you see robot tests done at a different days, you should be very suspicious. This is one of the reason why we never publish any robot test results because it will not stand the test of law. Mike Cheng Harrison Sports, Inc. tel: 800-347-4646 x101 fax: 818-834-7601 e mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit our new interactive web site http:\\www.harrison.com -----Original Message----- From: Dave Tutelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday,February 28,2003 6:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ShopTalk: Harrison Spineless Technology Alan, Outstanding post!!! Thanks. I think your comments about the SST "data" are well-founded. At the time they were posted (about the end of 1998, from my notes), I did an analysis of their data and noticed that: * The clubs in the data were labeled #3, #4, and #6. Sorta' makes you wonder what happened to #1, #2, and #5, and perhaps others. * There was no indication of the magnitude of the spine. I emailed them to ask about these omissions, and they declined to answer. BTW, my analysis showed that, for the (statistically insignificant -- perhaps intentionally) data that they did show: - The 0-hcp golfers got 0.3-0.7% more ball speed on average from the aligned club compared to the misaligned club, depending on the club. - The higher handicap golfers got 1-2% more ball speed on average from the aligned club compared to the misaligned club, depending on the club. If that's truly typical, it's a moderate selling point for aligning. If it is based on "selected data", the selling point is pretty weak. Now, consider this: Suppose it IS true (as Harry implied) that the proper alignment of a really bad spine results in better performance than a very-low-spine shaft ("spineless" for practical purposes). That would encourage going out of your way to find the shafts with extreme spines, and using them. Which is EXACTLY what the USGA doesn't want, and shouldn't want. We're out of the realm of using aligning to "assure consistency", and going to deliberately non-symmetrical shafts to enhance performance. That's against the rules; it is completely against the USGA ruling that allowed spine alignment. And if/when enough shaft manufacturers get their act in order -- as Harrison is doing, and as SK Fiber (and MCC/Apache?) have done -- I'd hope the USGA would would put an upper limit on shaft asymmetry, just as it has on COR. It would certainly be easier to test than COR. And if the limit is small enough (I'd guess around 3-5cpm would be sufficient), then they could allow alignment to your heart's content, because it wouldn't make a difference worth worrying about. Cheers! DaveT At 08:41 PM 2/27/03 -0800, Alan Brooks wrote: >Hi again Harry, > >Let me take another shot at answering your question. What sort of >statistical data are you looking for? Statistically significant data on >a process that is as complex and unrepeatable as a golf swing is going to >be very, very hard to produce. There are enough variables in a golf club, >the impact process and the ball flight that even Iron Byron data isn't >that repeatable. This is true whether you are trying to show that spine >alignment/puring/peaking makes a difference or whether you are trying to >show that it doesn't. If you can't show that it matters, how can you >possible show that one process/product is better than another? I do >experimental research for a living and have read through SST and ASD >literature and I haven't seen anything that I would stand up in front of >colleagues and try and defend without a Teflon coated Kevlar and maraging >steel suit of armor. SST shows the results from three golfers. You can't >get good statistics on data from three samples in a well controlled >process. Any conclusions you would draw from the results of three golfers >are ludicrous (Why only 3 golfers? I certainly wouldn't try and draw >conclusions from a process this complex with only three samples. Or is >this the only three from a group of 30 that showed what they wanted to >show?). And then lets talk about the lack of scales on many of both SST's >and ASD's data plots. Sorry, but the information they present wouldn't >even pass the ho-ho test in a technical peer review. Does better data >exist? Probably. I am sure that Harrison and the other shaft >manufacturers have a great deal of data, and in a market as competitive as >the Graphite Shaft market you had better believe that they are going to >hold that data very, very close to their chests. And even that data may >show that it is a factor that is 'in the noise'. > >But the performance of a shaft in a club is not what the composite >designers in a shaft company are all about anyway. They are given a set >of design goals like tip and butt diameters, length, taper length, overall >longitudinal stiffness, stiffness gradient, overall torsional stiffness, >torsional stiffness gradient, weight, c.g., moment of inertia, etc., and >axial symmetry, and, oh yeah, cost. They are also given guidance on the >relative importance of each of the design goals (especially cost). The >designers then go off into their cubicles and determine what materials to >use, what cloth (or plies) they want to use, is it unidirectional or >bidirectional, what resin system(s) are they going to use, how big does >the mandrel have to be, what is the lay angle for each ply, how many wraps >with each ply and how long are they, where do they put them, what are they >going to use for a cure cycle, how will they finish the outside, >etc. Then some artist in a corner that nobody but the marketing types >likes because the engineers don't think they add anything to the design >process (solid black is a great color for a shaft) decides what the shaft >is going to look like. > >What Mike and Harrison (and most of the other shaft manufacturers, I >suspect) have done is raise the relative importance of axial symmetry, >consistent with the other design goals and, of course, cost. Their goal >is to make the shaft sufficiently symmetric that there can be no question >that asymmetries in the shaft will have a minimal influence on >performance. Why are they doing this if you can't prove that it makes a >difference? So they don't have to contribute to Dick Weiss's retirement >plan, of course. But the important thing is that WE WIN! We get better >shafts at lower cost. Yes! > >So what sort of data does Mike have that he could share with us? Lots and >lots of data on layer thicknesses, diameters, straightness, fiber wetting, >composite density, cure cycles, stiffness test data, moment of inertia and >c.g. data. Really cool stuff like that. But data that would mean >essentially nothing to someone without an engineering degree and 20-years >of experience in composite design. If he were willing to show us this >data (and I doubt that he is because that would tell his competitors what >his design goals are) we would still be forced to accept his word that >"This is good enough!" > >The problem is that without a clear test to determine what is good and >what isn't, it is impossible to provide data that, a priori, will >substantiate the marketing claims. So we're back to what do you tell your >customers? Tell them that you only buy components from quality suppliers >with whom you have a very positive history and whom you trust. And you >keep trying their products to reassure yourself that you still do. > >I hope this helps, > >Alan Brooks > > > >At 10:51 PM 2/26/03 -0500, you wrote: >>Hi Mike C >>Sure I can "do what I want to do", even if I choose to do what is >>wrong. That is not my question or concern. >>Mr. Cheng, my question to you relates to statistical data (old spine >>aligned vs. new spineless), which proves your new technology is indeed better? >>I use your shafts and carry them in my own golf bag. Do you have any >>data that converts this technology from a marketing to an improvement strategy? >>Sorry Mike if I didn't make myself clear on my first post regarding this >>subject. Convince me so that I can convince my paying customers who use >>UL Pro's. >>Regarding your new spineless technology you said "spine orientation or >>purring is really not necessary any more". Prove this by sharing the >>data if you will. >>Thanks Harry S >><http://www.Golf54.com>www.Golf54.com >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike >>Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:36 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: RE: ShopTalk: Harrison Spineless Technology and free sample >> >>Dear Harry: >> >>Alan is on the mark. You can still do what you want to do with spining or >>purring. However, you will find that the difference is so small. Spine >>orientation or purring is really not necessary any more. >> >>Mike C. >>Harrison Sports, Inc. >>tel: 800-347-4646 x101 >>fax: 818-834-7601 >>e mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Visit our new interactive web site >><http://www.harrison.com/>http:\\www.harrison.com >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Harry F. Schiestel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Wednesday,February 26,2003 9:45 AM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: RE: ShopTalk: Harrison Spineless Technology and free sample >>Thanks to the insight Alan, but I would still appreciate a reply from Mr. >>Cheng to ensure we don't interpret his message / company direction >>incorrectly > >>Thanks HFS >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:37 AM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: RE: ShopTalk: Harrison Spineless Technology and free sample >> >>Hi Harry, >>As an engineer I can assure you that man has yet to make anything that >>was perfect (or in this case, spine-less). What Mike is saying is that >>their shafts will not have a 'prominent spine'. What I interpret this to >>mean is that the spines that exist will be of sufficiently low magnitude >>that they will be imperceptible to the golfer, regardless of the >>orientation of the shaft in the club head. It means that it will not be >>necessary to measure and align the spine of the shaft, not that it cannot >>be done. You will still be able to measure the spines and align the >>shafts accordingly for those customers that wish it. If you and they >>feel it adds value to the club, go for it. For those of us who do not, >>it means we can build clubs with even greater assurance that it doesn't. >>Regards, >>Alan Brooks >> >> >> >> >>At 02:24 AM 2/26/03 -0500, you wrote: >>>Hi Mr. Cheng >>>I applaud your efforts to make the best shaft in the business. I carry >>>your shafts on my web site (so I am a paying customer). >>>I have used a lot of the Harrison UL Pro 2.5 to 4.5 woods in the past >>>(and loved them), and my customers embarrass the UL line. >>>To make such a marked shift in theory (from spine to spineless) is quite >>>an aggressive undertaking by any shaft mfg. company. >>>Does this spineless technology produce a better golf shaft? If so, what >>>empirical data do you have that can prove this new technology? >>>What are the results to both distance and percent error when you compare >>>the old spine shaft (aligned) vs. the new spineless shaft? >>>Harrison shafts have a track record for winning Remax World Long Drive >>>Championships, and I must assume these where pre spineless days. >>>Just trying to understand why I should now embarrass spineless >>>technology, when I loved finding Type II Supershafts (long and straight), >>>and your old shafts had N's, S's, normally Type 2, and an abundance of >>>Supershafts (delta freq.) >> all built on winning world LD championships. >>>Mike, do you have statistical data (old spine aligned vs. new spineless) >>>you can share, which proves the new technology is indeed better? >>>Without data its just an educated guess / marketing. Then my old >>>Harrison UL Pro X.5's type 2 supershafts might be worth their weight in gold. >>>This change in manufacturing practice at Harrison is going to confuse my >>>customers that have aligned shafts with predominant spines. >>>Thanks Harry S >>><http://www.Golf54.com>www.Golf54.com
