If you were to install a flat line set in the NF4 at a constant distance from let's say the butt end of the club would the Nf4 record the same load or a different load for each club? Thanks. André.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Tutelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <ShopTalk@mail.msen.com> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:43 PM Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Flatline vs frequency chart > In the early 1970s, Joseph Braly was the chief > scientist for Brunswick Shafts, which eventually > became Royal Precision. He came up with the idea > of frequency matching at that time, and ran a > bunch of human-golfer tests to see what frequency > really meant. The outcome of these tests was that > different golfers perceived flex differently but, > when the data was statistically processed, the > best fit to a CONSTANT PERCEIVED FLEX was when > the frequency was sloped. The slope Braly came up > with was 8.6cpm per inch, with longer clubs > wanting a lower frequency to be perceived as the same stiffness by the golfer. > > Since that time, Precisions and Rifles have been > built to 8.6cpm per inch (or 4.3 cpm per club at > a half-inch length spacing across the irons). The > other major shaft manufacturers had trim > schedules that supported similar slopes. I don't > know what the PCS "system" is, and would be > interested to know if it endorses some particular > slope, either explicitly or implicitly. > > There have been quite a few golfer tests since > Braly's original experiments, and they almost > always seem to come up with a similar result. The > slopes are between 7 and 11cpm per inch for all > tests that I've seen save one. That one was done > by Eric Cook, founder of the Canadian company > Swing-Sync. What they sell is constant-frequency > matching, and that is what Cook's reported tests > showed. I tend to discount his results because: > * Every other test I've seen comes up > with a definitive, non-zero slope. > * I've read a bit of the test protocols > for Cook's experiment, and feel it was biased to show a constant frequency. > * Over a 40-year career, I've been close > enough to instances of "sponsored research" to be > suspicious of any study funded by Company XYZ > whose outcome supports the product of Company XYZ. > > Anyway, that's how we got to where we are today. > > DaveT > > At 08:04 AM 8/25/2006, André Cantin wrote: > >I was in the Canadian GW store yesterday and had a good conversation with > >one of the managers who took the Rifle training before they went belly up. > >According to him a flat line(single frequency) set does not produce the same > >flex across the set. In his opinion the short irons are softer in flex than > >the long irons. Of course his statement is based on a frequency chart where > >the same frequency at a shorter length yields a softer flex. He also > >believes that a shortened club(leaving the tip as is) yields a softer flex > >as you are cutting away in the stiffest part of the shaft(butt section) and > >obviously just the opposite if you lengthen the club. I would like to know > >your opinion as I have read in many books that by shortening a club you make > >it stiffer. Swingweight is not part of the equation in this discussion. I > >also have always thought a single frequency set yields the same flex across > >the set Thanks. > >André. > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.0.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date: 8/23/2006 > > > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 11/08/06 > >
