Why Different Flexes?

GolfJunkieSr · #1 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008, 08:11 PM

Does anyone know why the different shaft manufacturers can't come to some unified agreement on the different shaft flexes? One manufacturer's "R" flex can be another manufacturer's "S" flex based on an individual's swing speed. I know Tom Wishon and some others tried a few years ago to get all the shaft makers on the same page with regards to unify flex nomenclature. Just courios. GJS

LowPost42 · #2 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008, 11:54 PM

My understanding of this situation is that it's actually a few different things that fuel this 'non-unity' fire.

One is that companies cannot (will not?) agree on a testing procedure. They will not agree on clamp length, tip weight or even what CPM range will define a flex. Of course, every company thinks that their method is tops (otherwise why would they use it?)

Another is a newer concept called shaft profiling. For this, there is a defacto standard (and no, companies are NOT offering or doing profiling). The standard here is a 454g tip weight, 40mm long with a 10mm bore through. There are 7 beam lengths from 41" to 11" to measure at, and from this we can graph a shafts bending profile.

Now, this has produced some interesting information, namely that butt frequency is more or less moot the minute you're no longer comparing the same shaft.

In other words, it used to be said that butt frequency was kind of suspect depending on the clamp length and tip weight being used (and this is correct), but you'd still get guys stating that shafts played 'stiffer than flex' or 'weaker than flex', because they'd base the bending feel against something like a True Temper Dynamic Gold S300 and it's butt cycle. What shaft profiling has taught us is that, for the same butt cycle value, there are a wide variety of tip cycle values, and vice versa. Hence the introduction of the phrases 'tip soft', 'tip stiff', 'butt soft', 'butt stiff', 'mid firm' and so on.

Now we've learned that the reason that a Rifle 5.5 feels better than a TT DGS300, when they both butt cycle close, the Rifle has a softer butt and much softer tip. The softer butt helps feel and the softer tip increases launch.

So it would seem to me why this - shaft profiling - shows why there really cannot be a standard; and bend profiles vary so much from one shaft to another, that there could be no standard.

Yet another reason why a competent clubfitter is a great find!

Neil18 · #3 (**permalink**) 03-06-2008, 10:07 AM

I was thinking of starting a new thread, then I came across this one.

I admit I know absolutely bugger all about the technology of golf clubs. If I'm changing clubs, I first go by how it feels, how it performs and then how it looks. That's as scientific as I get.

I was contemplating asking the community whether there was any information that I could learn to help my knowledge. However, based on the above post, it seems that no matter which company tells you whatever piece of information they're plugging at any given point, it really comes down to trying as many different clubs as you can and being lucky enough to stumble on the optimum set combining all the different elements that go together to make up "your perfect clubs".

In other words, it appears to me that the "scientific research" that the "leading manufacturers" tell us they've done is absolute bollox, a waste of time, effort and money and makes absolutely no difference to us in terms of helping us come to an informed decision about which weapons are best for us.

So, much like the golf swing, if it works, use it!??! If this is true, not only do we have many different combinations of techniques available to us to get the ball moving, we also have an almost infinite number of variables in the equipment we use as well, and have to pay £100's for the pleasure!

Am I way off base here with my cynical musings??!!

bill reed · #4 (**permalink**) 03-06-2008, 11:15 AM

hi
i do believe that the research the top makers do in improving clubs for the pro golfers does filters down to us high handicapers. the advancement in club head and shafts if moving so fast they there is something diffrent each year and i do think it has made some clubs more forgiving and easer to play with, the advancement in the driver in both shaft and club head as moved forward so quickly in the last 10 years. a matched set of clubs with matched shafts was at one time only available to the top pro golfers or had made by people like lowpost but back then the cost was so high. now you can have a set off Ping G10s fitted and made for you for under £500 and the clubs at your door 10 days later.
cheers
bill

LowPost42 · #5 (**permalink**) 03-06-2008, 01:04 PM

Bill, I'm still willing to wager that the shafts are spotty on those G10's that don't fit as good as they could.

That said, even with Callaway's Opti-Fit system and the one Nike has, I still think Ping is more on track for fitting of all the big OEMs.

Neil, you're not way off base. You may have taken a bigger leadoff than your coach may have liked, but you're not too far off. All manufacturers are going to point you to the things about their product that they think are going to sell. It's like the launch monitor tech when you're trying drivers. If you're spraying it, he calls attention to your distance. If you're fairway finding but not really long, he talks about how accurate that combo is.

Now, that said, A PCS guy by the name of Jerry Hoefling Sr. has developed a system where we look at your swing (and swing numbers) and use them in correlation with shaft profiles to determine what driver shaft should work for you. His success rate is a little better than 85%.

There's certainly something to the bend profiles, and they generally do correlate to the 'word of mouth' that you hear - that rifles feel better than dynamic golds, that the NVS is softer than the NV, that the Evolution is a stiff mutha.

The best driver combo I've played to date had an Evolution in it. According to Jerry's system, it's too tip-stiff for me, and I certainly don't send the ball right with it. So I've got a VS Proto By-You standing by for insertion, which is pretty much spot on according to Jerry's system. Look for my review once the snow melts (or once my new laptop gets here and I can get some Vector numbers).

So I'll argue that the R&D done is useful. If it wasn't, all shafts would feel (and bend) the same.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode