----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan LaChance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 11:48 AM
> I have the Shinnecock & Baltisrol in my demo clubs and everybody that has
> hit them hits the Shinnecock higher and straighter than the Baltisrol.
The
> Shinnecock has a high draw ball flight and the Baltisrol has a lower fade
> ball flight (both 10° heads) when compared head to head. I don't have and
> have not hit a Carnoustie or Mv2 so I can't tell you about those clubs.
Thanks, Jonathan.
Actually, I think that makes sense from the published specs. Here's why, and
what that might mean for the Mv2 if my interpretation of the specs is right:
(1) Trajectory height. Actually, this isn't a matter of deriving anything
from the specs. SMT publishes a scatter plot (which John has on the site),
which says (I think) that, for its loft, the Baltusrol plays lower than the
Shinnecock, with the Mv2 somewhere in between. But the differences are only
a fraction of a degree.
(2) The Shinnecock and Baltusrol both have a 1* hook face at 10* loft and
0.5* hook at 9* loft. But the Baltusrol goes to square at 8*, while the
Shinnecock keeps its slight hook face. The Mv2 has a 1* hook face at all
three lofts, so I'd expect it to play to a bit more of a draw.
(3) Neither #1 nor #2 is much of an effect. But I think the moment of
inertia of the head around a vertical axis will give some idea of how hard
it is to square the face up. OK, what can we glean about that from the
specs. Well:
- I (moment of inertia) = m r^2
where:
m = clubhead mass.
r = some sort of "radius" measure of the average distance
from vertical axis to the shell of the clubhead.
- All three heads have weights of 198 or 199g.
Too close to call; ignore that difference.
- The volume and clubface height are specified for all three.
When you do the math (somebody check me on this; I believe I'm
right), the r-squared factor is going to be proportional to
the volume divided by the face height. This assumes that the
shapes are all ROUGHLY the same. I suspect they're close enough
that we can consider the proportionality factor pretty much the
same, but I don't know if there are internal weighting differences.
So the moment of inertia will be roughly proportional to the volume divided
by the face height. For the heads in question:
Baltusrol = 7.00 (350cc/50mm)
Shinnecock = 6.86 (360cc/52.5mm)
Mv2 = 6.44 (380cc/59mm)
So, if the specs above actually do explain the flight difference between the
Baltusrol and Shinnecock, then the Mv2 should have a trajectory height
between the two and even more of a draw tendency than the Shinnecock.
This conclusion is a put a bit in doubt by some of the words on SMT's
description of the Shinnecock:
- "Longest heel-to-toe." If true, then the shape factors are not the same,
not even close. But I find this hard to believe looking at the pictures. If
it is longer heel-to-toe than the Baltusrol, I don't see it.
- "Weighting toward the toe." This would not make for a draw-tendency club,
for a couple of reasons: (a) it would make the I higher, making the clubface
harder to square up, and (b) it would bias the gear effect toward a slice.
So I'm not sure I believe that either.
Only one way to find out, I guess.
I think I'm going to try it out.
John, I'll be placing an order, probably tomorrow.
Thanks again, Jonathan!
DaveT
