Alan, The only problem I see with a single length complete set is that the length of the clubs would have to be closer to 38-40" to accommodate a 240g head weight (as you suggest below), IF you want to obtain a somewhat traditional swingweight (C8-D2 range). At that length, you are starting to get into the range where most people seem to struggle with their traditional sets. The question is, do they struggle with traditional long irons because of the length, the lower loft, the smaller head size, or a combination of these. The success of hybrids seems to indicate that the length factor can be at least partially offset by larger, more forgiving hybrid head designs. In reality, I believe that it is the combination of these three factors that make long irons hard to hit well. A single length concept can address two of these factors easily (length and head size/forgiveness) as long as the heads are designed properly. If this concept takes off, I can foresee that future sets could include hybrid type heads for the lower lofted irons, cavity back designs for the mid-irons, and blades for the highest lofted clubs, all built to the same weight and lie angle to allow single length clubs. Whether or not the complete set, including "woods" could be included at a single length remains to be seen. At worst, I think it is easily achievable to only have 2 lengths of clubs, 1 for irons and 1 for woods.
Tedd -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Brooks Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 11:19 AM To: ShopTalk@mail.msen.com Subject: RE: ShopTalk: Re: [SpinetalkersForum] Single length irons Hi Tedd, Dave's right about Max's program, the input variables are head speed, head mass, and loft (along with some global parameters such as coefficient of restitution, spin coefficient, etc.). Club length is not an input. After my last post I played around with lower loft values and got the same sort of numbers and distances that Dave did for the constant length clubs. Why is it that you think we need to apply the concept separately for woods and irons? I have had this same conversation on Wishon's forum over MOI matching. If we are trying to make a 'set' of clubs easier to get repeatable results from, shouldn't they all be matched? I suspect if we play around with the numbers a bit we can design a constant length set of clubs that will get 200-yards on one end and 100-yards on the other. A lot of the guys I play with would be thrilled if they could get 200-yards down the middle consistently. I would design the set with hybrids for the low lofted irons (to take advantage of the forgiveness properties of hollow heads) progressing to a cavity back for the high lofted irons. They would be comparable to a progressive length set from PW to 5-wood, which is what most high handicappers should be playing with anyway. Of course, then they might become mid-handicappers and want more Pro-like clubs. This could be a godsend for the occasional golfer. I just went back into Max's program and ran 240-g head weight at 85-mph and got 202-yards for an 18* loft and 98-yards for 50* loft. I believe there is a lot of room for tweaking here. Regards, Alan Brooks At 08:21 AM 1/5/2005 -0500, you wrote: >Alan, > >I think that the concept for single length would apply separately for irons >and woods. Can you re-run the numbers using say a 42" club length for woods >with a 100 MPH swingspeed (I guess head weight would be around 220 grams). >I think the target weight is closer to 266 grams for these heads, with the >length at 36.6-37.5", depending on the golfer and the shaft used. Can Max's >program predict how much difference in swingspeed and/or distance one would >get between a 38" club with a 253g head and a 37" club with a 266g head, >assuming the same loft? > >Tedd > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Brooks >Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 7:46 PM >To: ShopTalk@mail.msen.com >Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Re: [SpinetalkersForum] Single length irons > > >Since it was easy to do I just ran Max Dupilka's Trajectory program for an >80-mph, 250-g club head at various lofts. The distances I got are as >follows: > >Loft Distance (yards) >12 175 >24 178 >36 138 >48 100 > >Reasonable numbers for lofts above 24*. It looks like it would take >lighter heads (hence higher club head velocities) to get the distance back >up with woods. The trajectory for the the 24*, 36*, and 48* lofts were >comparably high. The 12* trajectory was about half the height. I did not >play with the other parameters in Max's software (such as spin) that will >influence true results. > >Interesting, though. > >Alan Brooks > > > > >At 04:37 PM 1/4/2005 -0500, you wrote: > >>Dave T. has done the math > >>comparing single length iron distances vs. traditional irons, and there > >>really is a minimal affect on distance by going to single length (at say > >>37"). > > > >Sometime, I'll have to re-do it with a different set of assumptions. The > >graph in the Club Design Notes assumes you couldn't get a set with > >constant head weight. I assumed a skilled golfer that could still hit the > >ball with wildly different swingweights, and who in fact got some clubhead > >speed advantage with the lighter clubs. (I used data from Cochran & Stobbs > >to estimate the speed advantage.) > > > >To evaluate the concept that Tim (or David Lake of 1IronGolf) is pushing, > >I'd re-do the simulations for constant head weight and constant speed. I > >don't know if it would make single-length look better or worse. Longer > >irons would have lower clubhead speed but higher mass; don't know if the > >resulting momentum and energy transferred comes out higher or lower. Just > >gotta go ahead and crank through the numbers. > > > >Very interesting, though! > >DaveT > > > > > >-- > >No virus found in this outgoing message. > >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/05 > >
