bunkered
Head Pro
Anybody experimented with a shorter shaft in there Driver.
Driver Shaft
- Thread starter bunkered
- Start date
the_coach
Journeyman Pro
For some time now after working on Trackman and experimenting I've had my driver shaft at 44&1/4 inches. No real loss on SS or distance and gained on control of centered hit, dispersion and accuracy, personally I wouldn't go back to even 45" never mind the 46" that's becoming more common now.
Big Jack won the majority of his 18 Majors with a driver that was just 42&3/4 inches and had 11 degrees of loft on it. (although not my favorite manufacturer, TaylorMade may have something after all, in 'loft up' to increase your launch angle & optimum carry, though that's a good bit away from their own recommendations from their engineer/director global sports marketing, George Willett for a 17 degs launch angle and 1700 rpm's spin rate for optimum distance.)
Last edited:
Foxholer
Blackballed
And he forgot to mention what ball-speed that was for.
Maybe that works for 165+mph ball-speed, but I'm afraid my wimpy 135-140mph ones need a bit more help!
As to the shorter shaft question. Yes, I had a 43.25 length Driver when 45 was the norm and Dispersion was certainly better.
Last edited:
the_coach
Journeyman Pro
Interview I saw with him, he was talking about 155mph ball speed, club speed at then around 105, 106 mph (average SS USPGA Tour is 112mph with driver, maybe's not as high as most folks would think it would be.)
He did also say though the nearer the average amateur golfer could get to this figure (17 & 1700) the better their distances with the new lower spin rate balls would be.
Which is probably more in line with the 'norm' that left to their own devices (without a custom fit) nearly all ams pick a driver with a loft thats too low and a shaft thats too stiff.
Oddsocks
Ryder Cup Winner
I'm interested as to where people measure the shaft from, IE but tip to where it meets the club or where it seats in the adaptor
ger147
Tour Winner
When you trim the shaft, do you only cut at the grip end to make it shorter?
the_coach
Journeyman Pro
It's the complete overall length of the shaft, so when say they are quoting driver shaft length is 45", it's the whole 'lever' length from the base of the sole of the head to tip of the grip. If you just measured your driver shaft length from the bit you can see from top of hosel to end of grip it's most likely to be somewhere about 42"
the_coach
Journeyman Pro
If you cut it from the bottom you'd make the shaft tip stiffer and move the kick-point slightly, so unless you particularly wanted to achieve that, you trim it from the handle end.
mab
Challenge Tour Pro
17/1700 is optimum regardless of club head / ball speed. Have a play around with the Flightscope Optimiser and you'll struggle to beat 17/1700 at any ball speed.
the fact very few people can realistically achieve that with their swings is a somewhat relevant point though.
Last edited:
Foxholer
Blackballed
Been there did that - prior to my post. Increasing both Launch and Spin does get an improvement - as I posted.
http://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/
It's certainly not a BAD pair of numbers but, as I posted, not necessarily optimum - for my wimpy speed!
Go check them again! On all types of surface - and at the moment we are actually getting 0 roll, so Carry is everything.
Last edited:
mab
Challenge Tour Pro
Whilst I'm not planning to try all permutations for your 135mph ball speed, I'd be very surprised if you found anything much better than 17 / 1700 even on 'soft surface type'. Yes, you may get marginally more carry if you increase your spin, for example, but it seems strange to optimise your driver for 'plugging' conditions, as opposed to the more favourable conditions you no doubt play in over the course of a calendar year.
Not trying to be argumentative; genuinely interested to hear what you consider to be better launch conditions than 17 / 1700 for your ball speed and on what basis?
I'd take 17 / 1700 in a heartbeat...
Foxholer
Blackballed
mab
Challenge Tour Pro
Oh, I don't dispute you've found a combination which gives you an improvement... but I'm keen to keep this within the realms of possibility. If you were somehow able to defy the laws of physics and launch the ball at 20* with 1500 spin, 25* with 1000 spin, etc. then I have no doubt you could increase both carry and total distance.
There is some marketing here in that 17 and 1700 are 'similar' numbers, making a somewhat neat conclusion. It doesn't take a genius to work out that 18 launch and 1500 spin would give you a further improvement, but we're continually moving away from what is realistically achievable.
Assuming you can't launch higher than 17* with lower spin than 1700, I would expect that you could only marginally increase your carry by tweaking the numbers... but that would result in a more substantial reduction in total distance on firm fairways. For example (and I'm guessing here), you may gain 4 yards more carry which is 4 yards beneficial in plugging weather, but at the cost of 8 yards total distance on hard fairways in summer months.
As I said earlier, I don't intend to run through a whole combination of launch and spin parameters for your ballspeed. I thought it would be easier for you to post the combination that, for you and your ballspeed, you believe is an improvement over 17 / 1700. I shall leave you with your comforting knowledge of your new found optimum that you are unwilling to share.
Ps. I genuinely believe 17 / 1700 is a pipe dream for most people and that it's a case of working out the best inferior but achieveable launch and spin combination for a given swing.
Foxholer
Blackballed
No. It was slightly more realistic from memory. Didn't take an enormous time to find from memory, but it was a few days ago and I can't be arsed doing it again.
It was simply to demonstrate that the highlighted statement in your post.
was wrong! As well as being virtually contradicted by the next sentence. Do you agree?
No probs with with saying it gives 'pretty much' optimal (or will struggle to beat), but don't 'correct' my post with a wrong statement!
Oh. And can you explain how those figures defy the Laws of Physics? Probability perhaps, but Physics? No!
Last edited:
mab
Challenge Tour Pro
Wonderful, the internet pedant.
You are correct that my second statement contradicts my first. My error was failing to type the bold words... 'Taylormade marketing states that 17 / 1700 is optimal regardless of club head / ball speed'. My second statement, re: 'struggling to beat', demonstrated my broad agreement with that position inferring the 'pretty much' reference you make above.
I didn't realise my opinions would be scrutinsed so closely and taken so literally. The purpose of my statement was to educate that Taylormade’s marketing suggests 17 / 1700 is optimal for combined carry and total distance for you at 135mph, me at 150mph and tour pros at 165mph. Your initial statement was (to me at least) misleading and inferred that 17 / 1700 was aimed at particular swing and ball speeds… which it is not.
In answer to your question though, I was wrong and you were right. 17 / 1700 absolutely does NOT represent the exact perfect combination of launch and spin to optimise carry and total distance for all ball speeds... or for that matter, any ball speeds.
You are correct that my second statement contradicts my first. My error was failing to type the bold words... 'Taylormade marketing states that 17 / 1700 is optimal regardless of club head / ball speed'. My second statement, re: 'struggling to beat', demonstrated my broad agreement with that position inferring the 'pretty much' reference you make above.
I didn't realise my opinions would be scrutinsed so closely and taken so literally. The purpose of my statement was to educate that Taylormade’s marketing suggests 17 / 1700 is optimal for combined carry and total distance for you at 135mph, me at 150mph and tour pros at 165mph. Your initial statement was (to me at least) misleading and inferred that 17 / 1700 was aimed at particular swing and ball speeds… which it is not.
Foxholer said:
In answer to your question though, I was wrong and you were right. 17 / 1700 absolutely does NOT represent the exact perfect combination of launch and spin to optimise carry and total distance for all ball speeds... or for that matter, any ball speeds.
mab
Challenge Tour Pro
You are perhaps being a tad pedantic. However, this stuff intrigues me so I’ll explain just how difficult 25 / 1000 would be.
If we assume Bubba is optimised (!), then I think we can agree his 16* launch angle / 1800rpm spin / +9* angle of attack using his 7* driver is fairly decent. Those numbers are from memory so apologies if they are not exact. Also, for reference, the average PGA Tour angle of attack with the driver is around -1* (yes, that’s minus 1*, versus Bubba’s plus 9*).
To get Bubba’s spin down to 1000rpm, he’d have to reduce his driver loft to less than 4*. For him to launch the ball at 25*, he would require a +21* angle of attack with his driver…and some pretty long tees.
Again, though, I was wrong and you were right. 25 / 1000 absolutely is NOT beyond the laws of physics.
Foxholer
Blackballed
It has been mentioned before!
Thanks for the admission.
I probably was slightly misleading, by omission, in that I didn't mention the equally 'misleading by omission' fact that it is rare for an Am to get their spin down below about 2500! So 17/1700 is pretty meaningless anyway. We agree there! Can't find any Pro stats more recent than 2008, but those ones don't have more than a couple below 2000rpm.
That's why Long Drivers use 4-6* Drivers and Long Tees - and give it a mighty smack!
I think that's enough trolling in this thread!
Long Drivers use longer shafts too - which is the opposite of what the thread started out as!
Last edited:
mab
Challenge Tour Pro
It has been mentioned before!
Thanks for the admission.
I probably was slightly misleading, by omission, in that I didn't mention the equally 'misleading by omission' fact that it is rare for an Am to get their spin down below about 2500! So 17/1700 is pretty meaningless anyway. We agree there! Can't find any Pro stats more recent than 2008, but those ones don't have more than a couple below 2000rpm.
That's why Long Drivers use 4-6* Drivers and Long Tees - and give it a mighty smack!
I think that's enough trolling in this thread!
:cheers:
FWIW, I have PGA Tour average launch as 11* and 2700rpm; not come across a list for individuals though. I believe the long drivers have a ballpark 1700rpm spin rate, albeit launch quite a bit lower than 17*.
the_coach
Journeyman Pro
Most data relevant to the 'new' thinking on launch angles, AoA, club head speed, ball speed, spin rate etc. Will only have been looked into really in the last couple years with the development of cg locations in the driver heads.
Simplified just a little AoA affects Launch Angle; Dynamic club-head loft + Shaft flex affects affects spin rate when all these things happen at collision with obviously a club head moving at a speed.
If say you look at a relatively steep swing of a handicap amateur, for example, you'd get with a driver swing speed of 90mph and an attack angle of -5 these 2 things would give you a launch angle of 10 degrees and a spin rate of 3100+ rpm.
If you take that speed of 90mph but with an AoA of +5 it would give you a launch angle of 16 degrees with a spin rate of 2200 rpm.
This last set of numbers would give you a drive that would carry the ball some 30+ yards further.
Up to a few years ago Charles Howell 111 had a driver AoA of -7.5 about the most negative attack angle on USPGA Tour, but he was then specifically trying to hit a flat traj. and was content to lose some distance and carry because at the time he was looking to find a way to hit more fairways and with his swing speed he could still shift it out there. Since working with Launch monitors over the last few years, unsurprisingly he's changed his AoA.
In general any Tour Pro with a negative AoA possesses a swing speed that's a good bit higher than the USGA Tour average of 112mph, so distance is not a problem for them, but if they changed to +3AoA and above they would get significantly longer drives, some 30 to 40 yards further.
All these numbers however are only really completely relative to when the ball is impacted on the center of the face a little above the face's 'middle line' (equator).
If you had a driver swing speed and produced that 'centered hit' that gave you a Ball Speed of 148mph and had a Launch Angle of 16 degrees it would give you a spin rate of 1750 rpm, a peak height of 36 yards, a descent angle of 140 degrees to give you a carry distance of 268 yards and a roll out of approximately 20 yards (given a reasonable slight give in the fairway)
Golf balls can only become airborne given 'enough' speed to produce turbulence from interaction with air molecules, speed+spin rate. (There is only ever back spin put on a golf ball by a strike, no such thing as side spin, it goes left or right by the collision of impact changing the center axis tilt of the golf ball that the back spin is revolving around.)
Simplified just a little AoA affects Launch Angle; Dynamic club-head loft + Shaft flex affects affects spin rate when all these things happen at collision with obviously a club head moving at a speed.
If say you look at a relatively steep swing of a handicap amateur, for example, you'd get with a driver swing speed of 90mph and an attack angle of -5 these 2 things would give you a launch angle of 10 degrees and a spin rate of 3100+ rpm.
If you take that speed of 90mph but with an AoA of +5 it would give you a launch angle of 16 degrees with a spin rate of 2200 rpm.
This last set of numbers would give you a drive that would carry the ball some 30+ yards further.
Up to a few years ago Charles Howell 111 had a driver AoA of -7.5 about the most negative attack angle on USPGA Tour, but he was then specifically trying to hit a flat traj. and was content to lose some distance and carry because at the time he was looking to find a way to hit more fairways and with his swing speed he could still shift it out there. Since working with Launch monitors over the last few years, unsurprisingly he's changed his AoA.
In general any Tour Pro with a negative AoA possesses a swing speed that's a good bit higher than the USGA Tour average of 112mph, so distance is not a problem for them, but if they changed to +3AoA and above they would get significantly longer drives, some 30 to 40 yards further.
All these numbers however are only really completely relative to when the ball is impacted on the center of the face a little above the face's 'middle line' (equator).
If you had a driver swing speed and produced that 'centered hit' that gave you a Ball Speed of 148mph and had a Launch Angle of 16 degrees it would give you a spin rate of 1750 rpm, a peak height of 36 yards, a descent angle of 140 degrees to give you a carry distance of 268 yards and a roll out of approximately 20 yards (given a reasonable slight give in the fairway)
Golf balls can only become airborne given 'enough' speed to produce turbulence from interaction with air molecules, speed+spin rate. (There is only ever back spin put on a golf ball by a strike, no such thing as side spin, it goes left or right by the collision of impact changing the center axis tilt of the golf ball that the back spin is revolving around.)
Last edited:
