I have reshafted my three drivers using the NBP-COG alignment (975J/Graphite Design YS-6; 975J-VS/Graphite Design Purple Ice; 983K/Aldila NV) and was very pleased with the results of all three. I reshafted one of my Titleist 962 sets with the new Balistik shaft using the S1-COG alignment and really like these as well. Anecdotal info for what it's worth.
-----Original Message----- From: Letourneau, Henry J AM1(AW) (VAW120) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 8, 2003 2:23 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: ShopTalk: NBP-COG Richard, there seems do be as many different views on spine allignment as there are positions to allign to! In the end I will have to do some testing to see for myself, I will mention however that when i started spine alligning about a year ago i was doing all of the clubs spined to the 1200 position because it felt better. My question to you is have you tried the nbp-cog allignment and what were your results. Would S1-COG make more sense than simply alligning a set of irons to 1200? My experience is limited to building 10 to 12 sets a year over the past three years and am always looking for the best possible method af set matching available for my customers as well as myself. Thanks - Jim Letourneau -----Original Message----- From: Richard Kennedy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ShopTalk: NBP-COG Scott, to put it very simply , ALIEN THE HARD SPINE AT 12:00. 12:00 keeps the clubhead toe from drooping. Forget what ever anybody else says, especially Mr. David T.whom is not a clubmaker per se & who knows very little about making/fitting of golfclubs. By his own admission he only makes , at the very most, one set of clubs per year and those are strictly for his own personal use, Mr. David T. made that statement not I. In fact Mr. David T. fought us "SPINER'S" tooth and nail that the position off the spine had no effect on the playability or the flex of the golfclub. It was not until several People outside of ShopTalk or SpineTalk got into the fray, with lots of money backing them,that he got into the discussion. I'm not to sure but I think that Ed J., the host of SplineTalk, asked, I feel is a better word to use then lets say kicked off of SpileTalk, because of his disruptive and know it all air that he tried to use in his posts. I do not subscribe to SpineTalk not because I do not believe in their views, which by the way I helped to put into use, but because I'm am presently engaged in other web sites that will have some, I hope, effecting with my health. I am not the clubmaker that has been spining the longest but i have been "SPINEING" golfclubs since 1984 long before it became popular. RK KENNEDY golf equipment manufacturer's of world class golfclub repair equipment -------Original Message------- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 1:02:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: ShopTalk: NBP-COG Let me preface this by saying my introduction to this subject is at most a week old, and if my statements seem out to lunch, they very well may be. I'm trying to think this through with my own limited understanding. I'm certainly not trying to pass this off as if I know something that the rest of you don't. If I remember my physics correctly (and I probably don't), I expect any system like this to have some natural vibration; the twang you induce for FLO would cause this particular system to vibrate at its natural frequency. If the system is FLO aligned correctly this vibration is along the target line at impact, i.e 3-9 o'clock. Otherwise this vibration has a 12-6 o'clock component to it, which would help take the clubface out of the line with the ball. Please note that I have no idea how large this component would be. Are we talking fractions of millimeters here? If the NBP is aligned to COG, the local minima for shaft rigidity, then the vibration should be at a minimum because this is the most inherently stable shaft orientation for the force applied (I used the term damping to describe this ... I shouldn't have, it isn't the correct term). If the spine were aligned at COG, then when force is applied from the downsing, the shaft wants to rotate away (as in a spine finder), because this is the most inherently unstable shaft orientation and you would get the most vibration. Again, I have no idea if the deflection due to this oscillation could cause a toe or heel hit. When I started reading up on this, I was suprised aligning the spine would have any noticable affect on your shot at all. Thank you for your patience. Scott Dave Tutelman wrote: > At 08:40 PM 10/7/03 -0600, Scott Stephens wrote: > >> It makes sense to me to align a NBP to the COG, since this should >> contribute the least amount of oscillation of the club head/shaft. I >> was originally thinking that the spine should be here so that the >> least amount of bending of the shaft would happen at the bottom of >> the downswing, but that would result in the most amount of oscillation. > > > Scott, > I'm sorry, but you lost me. Why would there be more oscillation with > the spine aligned with the CG than NBP-CG? Here's my take on it; > please tell me where I'm wrong: > > If you align either the NBP or the spine with the CG, then any force > arising from bending at the bottom of the swing will be in the plane > of the shaft and the CG. Any other alignment will have forces outside > that plane, which could cause bending (and perhaps oscillation) in > other planes as well. > >> Then I read about FLO alignment where it is stated that alignment >> should be along the target line (see "SPINE FINDING AND WHAT TO DO >> WITH THEM AFTER YOU FIND THEM"). Am I correct that these orientations >> would be close to 90° out of phase in a 3 iron (but not nearly that >> much for a driver or sand wedge)? It seems to me that aligning the >> NBP(s) along the target line would not maximally dampen the >> oscillations, but would keep whatever oscillations are present going >> parallel to the target line (so you should hit closest to the sweet >> spot). Is that the essence of FLO alignment? > > > Again, I'm confused by your statement. In particular, I don't have a > clue what would cause damping of oscillations to be different in the > different planes. I can see a difference in the creation of > oscillations and their size, but I see no difference in how the > oscillations would be damped. > > Thanks in advance, > DaveT > > > >
