Dave: Your explanation sounds reasonable to me. I will have to have a look at that article. I haven't read the Part III book yet.
My whole purpose of this question is this. If a company can make an at the legal limit COR club that can withstand a 130 mph swing speed, and the COR varies only a small amount with swing speed, then the COR for an 80 mph swing is pretty well the same as at that legal limit for that given club. So you get this club tested out by the USGA and confirm it is legal. Then you make a thinner faced club that deflects even more but is only good for low swing speeds, otherwise it breaks. This would suggest that the COR of that club is higher than the legal limit club. But you don't have to get this low swing speed club tested by the USGA. Make any sense?? Max... Dave Tutelman wrote: > Followup to my previous note... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dave Tutelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 7:44 PM > > > Going to an optimum spring-face (with the assumption of light damping) > from > > a rigid spring face gives: > > * For the 112mph swinger, a COR improvement of 9.2%. > > * For the 67mph swinger, a COR improvement of 9.3%. > > > > Just a tiny bit better for the slow swinger, but not enough to make a > > difference in ANYBODY's golf game. > > Actually, it's arrogant to say there's any difference at all. I really can't > read the graphs precisely enough to make that distinction. Let me just say > the improvement is indistinguishable. > > Also... > > > Tom Wishon wrote: > > > > 5. The keys to higher COR drivers that can maximize the ratio of > swing > > > > speed to ball speed, are, a) larger faces that are more TALL than > wide. > > > > Our studies indicate that face height is 3 times more influential on > the > > > > ability of the face to deflect than face width. B) face materials > with > > > > a high yield strength + low modulus of elasticity AT THE SAME TIME > > > > TOGETHER.... > > I'm in complete agreement. > > > > > 6. It is possible for a slow swinger to get more ball velocity from a > > > > thin face big head than if that same slow swinger was using a much > > > > thicker faced driver. But do not even think they are getting close to > > > > what the faster swinger is getting in terms of face deflection/ball > > > > energy loss reduction. Use common sense - a 50 mph swing is still > going > > > > to deflect a thin face more than it will a thick face. It won't get > the > > > > MOST out of it like the 100mph swing will, but it will still get some > > > > improvement over what happens with the thicker face. > > I'm mostly in complete agreement with this statements. I certainly agree > that the slow swinger will get more ball velocity from a properly flexible > face than a more rigid face. Obviously, I disagree with the implication that > the 100mph swing will get more out of a non-rigid face, and I think I > supported that in my previous note. But, as for the parts I agree with in #5 > and #6, they provide a good rationale for the Elasteel line of drivers. > > Cheers! > DaveT
