California Golf Technologies

What's new on the West Coast

Golf Equipment Chronicles 2007 (Part 6)

Dog Days of Summer: Getting Acquainted with Stulz Nano Arrow Shafts

By Leith Anderson

Midsummer is a slow time in the golf equipment business. It’s been six months since the last new product shipments of 2007 and there’s no news from any of the major golf equipment companies (OEM’s) about 2008. The tournament season is in full swing. Tournament bags are set. Players who wanted to buy new clubs, bought. Meantime, I’ve been trolling eBay with everyone else looking for bargains. For golf equipment, these are the "Dog Days of Summer".

In early September, the industry will congregate in Las Vegas for the fall PGA Show. By then, the 2008 buzz will be in full beehive mode.

The golf industry is changing the way it does business. Not by choice, I might add. It used to be that the selling season started when the private Eastern and Midwestern golf courses opened for business the week after the Masters in April. The top club professionals wintered in Florida and stopped by the PGA Merchandise Show and placed their orders in January for delivery when they got back home.

That business model resulted in the nearly complete elimination of golf course pro shops as a sales channel for golf equipment. In 2007, the new golf equipment buying season was over by April. The only merchandise that sells well in pro shops today is embroidered with course logos. Very few golf professionals make a serious effort to sell golf equipment in their shops any more. Today, golf clubs are bought online, in superstores, on eBay, and in custom shops. The product sales cycle is changing.

It might have been an accident but Nike broke the code in 2005. They brought out their original Sasquatch driver in the fall. They beat the drums to promote it when none of the other companies had a new driver in the market. The Sasquatch was in the stores in late October – just about when – coincidentally - the key golf vacation spots and "snow bunny" retreats open for business in Palm Springs, Scottsdale and Palm Beach. Retailers had the new Sasquatch available for Christmas purchases. Nike mopped up. In 2006 Nike became a credible force in the driver market – an accomplishment that they struggled several years to reach. I think that Nike’s success was due to that early release date.

Alas, the reason that I think it was an accident is that in 2007 Nike reverted to the "industry standard" of beating the drums with everyone else right through Christmas. They withheld 2007 product shipments until February. Then, the "hot face SUMO2" problem hit and Nike, with two of the best drivers this season, sold about half what they should have. Nike got lost in the noise and confusion.

I predict that the manufacturers have learned their lesson. Only the laggards will wait until February to ship 2008 models. Today, the selling season starts in September, kicked off by the fall PGA Show. Companies that want to increase their market share will make sure that they ship their new models before the end of the year to take advantage of the early golf season in resort areas and be sure not to miss Christmas. Companies that wait until February to make their initial shipments will have all of March and April to make full price sales before mark down season starts in May.

Why should golf clubs be different than cars? If you want next year’s Buick (Tiger asked me to use that example.) you can buy it and drive the kids around for Trick or Treat.

The good news is that we won’t have to be bored until next February. Just one more month and we’ll be hearing about the dazzling new products coming out of R&D. As cynical as we are about innovation in the golf industry, there are always surprises. I’ll be at the PGA Show in September so there will be a complete report in the October Golf Today. If you don’t want to wait that long, log into www.calgolftech.com and register for my monthly newsletter.

What’s Worth Buying?

One of the perplexing questions that I’ve never been able to answer is why players keep buying new models of irons that are the same as what they’ve already got. If you’re a "true believer" in a quality brand and want to have the new model in your bag, it makes sense to get to the head of the line. I can see buying a new model because you want to support a favored company and see it succeed. Miura is a good example of such a company. If you’re playing the classic cavity 201’s and love them, you might notice that the refined 202’s feel a little more solid. Or, if you’re one of those players who always wanted to play Miuras but didn’t think you were good enough, the redesigned 102 is worth testing. Plus, there’s no incentive to wait for Miuras to flood eBay. They don’t.

You don’t need to buy new irons every year. Companies like Miura, Mizuno and KZG keep good models in the line for five years and more. Classic designs never go out of style. Plus, bright chrome forged irons hold their looks better than a center-fold model. Custom fit your forged blades with the right shaft and you’ll have a set of irons that you’ll play for years.

If you want to waste your money, buy a shiny new set of Titleist, Taylor Made, MacGregor, Nike or Hogan forged irons off the rack in March. By mid summer, that same set of irons will be on sale brand new all over eBay for less than wholesale. Before the playing season is over, your $1000 set of irons will be selling for less than $500. Within another year, most models will be available slightly used for a couple of hundred bucks. I apologize for telling you something you already know. Most new models are not very different, no fun and ultimately disposable.

With new "forged" irons, there’s the nagging question about what you’re really getting. Creating a set of true forging dies is an expensive proposition. To curb the expense, the big companies have invented new terminology – "form forging", "coin forging" and other euphemisms that mean "cast, not forged". They skip the expense of forging iron heads from a raw billet. Rather, they cast the head and then whack it a few times with dies that add the detail. Are they really forged? The market knows. That’s why they’re not worth much.

There are exceptions. Occasionally an OEM puts out a really good model. Titleist did that with the "T Stamp" blade, which was made by Miura when Tiger was calling the shots. When they show up on eBay, T-Stamp blades sell for around $1500. Same for the models that Taylor Made contracted with Miura – the forged RAC CB’s – sometimes found in the "Lehman grind" – irons that still sell used for $1000. It’s a little more difficult to find the Taylor Made 300’s forged by Miura. The whole Taylor Made picture is blurred because once the Miura-forged model was accepted and recognized for quality a new contract went to a lower cost producer. It’s hard to tell the difference between Miura and Chinese forgings unless you know what to look for.

If you’re interested in playing forged irons and want to have some fun, the way to go is to pick up a set of classic irons from eBay or a dealer. You can find great irons, 10 to 40 years old, in near-new condition. They’ll cost you $200 or $300, way less than a new set of forged iron heads from Miura, Adams, Mizuno or KZG. Take them to a custom clubmaker and have them fitted with modern shafts. You’ll spend around $600, about half of what new custom OEM irons cost, and you’ll have a great set of irons, made for you, that will remind you of the history of golf every time you play.

I have a few favorites. The Wilson Progressives from the early 90’s were the model Payne Stewart used when he was winning Opens. The Hogan Forged GCD’s from the same period are mid-sized and as easy to hit as any forged iron made today. The Taylor Made TPF’s from the mid 80’s are my all-time favorites. 1962 or 1969 Wilson Staffs, the brand of choice for Snead, Palmer and Casper. Hogan Personals, Precisions or Legends. The Rams played by Watson. The MacGregor’s played by Nicklaus. They’re called classics for a reason.

Out of all of the major OEM offerings this year, the one that stands out to me is the Callaway X-20. I think that Callaway went back to a proven method to create value and obtained their forgings from the respected Endo Japanese foundry. Perhaps, years from now, the X-20 from 2007 will earn a place on the all-time "Classics" list.

Who Needs a New Shaft Line?

In years of helping golfers find the "magic clubs" - including myself - I’ve noticed that we’re all basically lazy. We tend to buy the same clubs, year after year. Golfers eschew experimentation – perhaps with good reason if you want to save time and money. We have a hard time differentiating the performance of golf clubs unless we can play them, head to head, on a familiar golf course, using the balls we normally play. That takes time. It’s not always easy to find a clubmaker who can, or will, supply customized demos to test.

In the last few years, the proliferation of sophisticated electronics that can detect subtle differences in performance, including hard to define concepts like "consistency" has revolutionized the way golfers discover clubs that perform better. Plus, electronics save time for those of us who don’t have the time and money for extensive testing.

Utilizing electronics, we can detect subtle differences in golf shafts – the quality and consistency of the shaft itself. It still takes years of experience custom fitting hundreds of golfers before you can say for sure that you really understand how to fit a line of shafts. There’s still a lot of art in the process. "Fuji Bob" earned his stripes by playing every shaft in the Fujikura line, including most of the PGA Tour-only shafts for five years.

It’s a big challenge to really get to know a new shaft line well enough to be able to recommend it to a certain player with guaranteed results. At the Golf Lab we’ve made it a practice to never recommend any product unless we have hands-on experience with it. That requires a lot of testing, both in the shop and on the course.

That’s the background for my project this month. I’ve been watching the evolution of Stulz Golf since they came on the scene three years ago. If you’ve missed that story, it’s a lot like other stories I’ve covered about very rich guys who for reasons only they know for sure, decide to get into the golf business and name the company after themselves. In the case of Stulz, it proves that the desire crosses nationalities. Andreas Stulz, the rich guy behind Stulz Golf, is German. His fortune was made manufacturing car parts.

Graphite Shaft Manufacturing Methods

A few years ago I had a chance to visit the Apache (now Matrix) factory in Los Angeles to see how graphite shafts are manufactured by "sheet wrapping". I was shocked. Graphite shafts are handmade. An operator stands at a machine and feeds small pieces of resin coated graphite fabric ("prepreg") – called "flags"- into a spinning mandrel. The mandrel wraps the prepreg material in the blink of an eye. Sticky resin glues the flag in place. A single shaft might require a stack of flags, each one carefully cut to a specific shape and requiring precise placement according to the formula determined by the shaft designer.

The stack of flags might include different materials and weaves, requiring complex placement. Shaft design is all about what material, in what orientation, in what position will produce the desired playing characteristics. Woe to the operator who forgets the exact placement or orientation of the flags. When the raw shaft comes off of the machine, it looks like a dripped wax candle. From there, it goes to the oven to bake the shaft hard. Out of the oven, the raw shaft still looks like a dripped wax candle.

Then a miracle happens. The raw shaft goes through a sanding and painting sequence and comes out looking perfectly smooth, round and colorful. From that day, I knew for sure that the perfect finish hid internal imperfections. Given that manufacturing method, it is absolutely impossible for two graphite shafts to be exactly alike. That’s why we invested in the SST PURE ™ process to try to discover and overcome manufacturing inconsistencies. Especially for graphite, correct shaft orientation is an important feature of custom golf clubs. The benefit is improved performance and feel.

There is another graphite shaft manufacturing method that is automated and computer controlled. "Filament winding" involves weaving a shaft in a machine process. In the early days, filament wound shafts were less consistent than sheet wrapped. They earned a bad reputation. Today, strides have been made in the multi material filament winding process that has eliminated the early quality and consistency problems. Aerotech Steel Fiber shafts layer fine steel fibers around a graphite core. Chronicles readers know that we have found Aerotech shafts to be extremely consistent. However, even they are not perfect.

The Stulz "Nano Arrow" shafts catch your eye because they are not round like we’ve come to expect. Rather, the shaft is triangular in the tip area. It is a unique design. The obvious intent of the triangular tip is to stiffen that area of the shaft, reduce torque and presumably increase accuracy. As for the underlying technology, the Stulz folks are tight-lipped about exactly how they ended up with the "tri-tip" shaft. You would expect that the "fins" would require a specific orientation and affect ball flight. That’s not the case. As a condition of USGA approval, shafts must be designed to play the same, regardless of orientation.

Getting Acquainted with Stulz Nano Arrow Shafts

Stulz Golf sent me a small bundle of 90 gram graphite iron shafts to evaluate. (They also offer a 70 gram version.) I planned on installing them in one of my regular test sets – the Bridgestone Combo forged irons – a head shape I’ve come to appreciate for its original sole grind. When you compare shafts, it’s good practice to use the same heads - limiting the number of variables. The acid test would be a head to head comparison at the Palo Alto Muni against my current gamers shafted with Aerotech 110’s.

Building a set of clubs with graphite shafts, according to state-of-the-art methods of clubmaking today involves several steps. The first step is to weigh the shafts and note the consistency. The standard practice is to mount lighter shafts in longer irons and heavier shafts in shorter irons. In the case of the Stulz shafts, they were relatively consistent, varying from 90 to 95 grams at full length.

While I’m at the gram scale, I also weigh the heads. Despite so-called standards, there is a lot of inconsistency in head weights. All clubmakers have a target swingweight in mind when they build a set of clubs. Software and charts are available to predict final swingweight. But after hundreds of sets, an experienced clubmaker can just look at head weights, shaft weights and grip weights and know if he’s going to be able to hit his target – sometimes with added hosel weight or lead tape.

The second step is "frequency matching". That is accomplished by forcing a head on the shaft, clamping the butt at playing length and oscillating the shaft. The oscillations (cycles) are counted by a meter – that’s the "frequency". If the clubmaker wants to make the shaft a little stiffer, he trims the shaft from the tip, which causes faster oscillations, hence creates a stiffer shaft. The frequency and shaft length locates a point on a chart that interprets a value for "butt flex". The frequency matching process is covered in detail in prior articles, archived on www.calgolftech.com.

In recent years, clubmakers have become much less inclined to rely on single frequency readings to fit shafts, just as they are less inclined to use swingspeed alone as the primary indicator in fitting for flex. Today, driver shafts have been tested and mapped for frequency by "zones". Precise fitting involves considering a player’s tempo and the way he loads the shaft in addition to swing speed and then matching that data to an appropriate shaft bend profile. Finally, to prove that the fit is correct, a launch monitor is employed to measure the performance characteristics of the club and compare them against "theoretically perfect". Clubfitting has come a long way since the days when players grabbed a couple of clubs out of the demo bag and went to the range. Alas, iron shafts are much more difficult to measure in zones than driver shafts so the fitting process is more subject to trial and error.

One of the problems with frequency matching relates to the inconsistency of shafts. If you clamp a shaft in one position, you get one reading. Rotate it a few degrees one way or the other and you’re likely to get a much different reading. At the Golf Lab, we use the Professional Clubmakers’ Society "Equalizer" system to interpret flex. In that system, flexes are separated by ten cycles. It is not uncommon to find shafts that are supposed to be the same flex vary as much as a full flex in butt frequency, depending on the orientation. That can be a problem if you’re not very careful about how you orient the shaft when it’s installed in a club. That’s also the reason that OEM products are so inconsistent. It’s not their fault; you can’t build a consistent product when every shaft is different and might be a flex harder or softer, depending on its orientation. Factories can’t spend the time to make sure that every club in a set matches for flex and stability.

Once a shaft is frequency matched and cut to length, most clubmakers turn to shaft orientation. There are two elements to shaft orientation: "spining" and "floing". Spining involves finding the plane of the shaft that tests the stiffest. By hand, the shaft is inserted in a fixture and rotated under tension. At some point, the clubmaker feels a "speed bump" – that’s the spine. The orientation of the spine is subject to debate, even by experienced clubmakers. Some prefer to locate the spine on the leading edge (9 o’clock), some on the trailing edge (3 o’clock). There have been iconoclasts who advocate the spine at 12 o’clock, to fight against "toe droop". As with most aspects of custom clubmaking, there is no consensus.

The second element of shaft orientation is "flo" or flat line oscillation. That operation is accomplished by once again clamping the butt end in a vice, adding a tip weight with a laser pointer installed and oscillating the shaft in a horizontal plane. The goal is to gradually rotate the shaft and "twang" at the same time, looking for the point where the laser tracks a straight line on the wall. That’s the "flo line".

Some clubmakers trust spining. Some trust floing. The trick is to make the two concepts work together.

SST PURE ™ Shaft Alignment System

The SST PURE ™ shaft orientation system takes the guesswork out of shaft alignment. The advantage is that it is instrumented, precise and much quicker than doing similar operations by hand. The SST PURE system consists of two tests. The first locates the "hard side" in SST nomenclature – the same thing as spine for others. To locate the hard side, the shaft is clamped in a lathe chuck and tensioned under a load cell. The shaft is then rotated 360*. The load cell detects the precise location of the hard side by measuring the resistance of the shaft. The system provides for precise marking.

The result of this test is to print a graph which pictures the force exerted around the circumference of the shaft. Each shaft is graded, A through C depending on the percentage of deviation between the hard side and the soft side of the shaft. "A" grade shafts are quite rare – usually less than 20% of any set.

Without removing the shaft from the chuck, a tip mass is attached to the shaft. With the shaft oriented in position with the hard side at 9 o’clock – the most stable position – the shaft is then oscillated. Rather than trying to watch a dancing laser dot on the wall, the SST PURE system detects the movement of the shaft tip and guides the operator to the orientation where the flattest oscillation is achieved while the hard side is still on the leading edge. The SST PURE system finds the best oscillation pattern while the shaft is located in the most stable plane. That is a nuance that is missed by a lot of clubmakers who rely on manual means for performing spining and flo.

We always perform the SST PURE operation after frequency matching and cutting the shafts to length. Herein lies a problem. On occasion, due to the natural inconsistency of shafts, we will change the orientation of a PUREd shaft from the position that we performed frequency analysis. In final assembly, we always double check frequency. When the flex of a shaft changes more than a couple of cycles – a variation that we think is acceptable – we pull a new shaft and start over.

Adding a New Testing Step

Since I was in the mood for extra work, for this set I added another step. I SST PUREd the shafts before frequency matching and cutting to length. I wanted an additional way to check the consistency of the Stulz shafts. I found the SST PURE orientation and performed frequency matching from that position. That let me check the consistency of the flex of the shafts in the most stable plane as measured by frequency testing. The frequency of the shafts at 38.5* varied from 299 cycles to 305 cycles, roughly half a flex. That’s a pretty common result even for very high quality shafts.

In PUREing prior to frequency matching, each shaft was graded on the SST system. Our license agreement with SST prohibits reporting specific testing results. Suffice it to say that the Stulz shafts I tested were graded abnormally high. .

What is Perfect?

The extreme detail that I’ve put into the description of preparing the Stulz shafts will be interesting to clubmakers who are continually tweaking their assembly methods, trying to build the "perfect" set of clubs. We all imagine building a set of clubs with every shaft perfectly matched to a single cycle. Here’s the bottom line: The Stulz shafts are high quality and the tolerances around weight and flex were quite normal for premium priced shafts. But, there are no miracles. Perfect frequency matching is impossible to achieve along with perfect shaft alignment unless you’re incredibly lucky. That doesn’t mean that a set of clubs is no good if the frequency varies a couple of cycles. We haven’t found a player yet who could detect the difference between two shafts that varied five up to five cycles in frequency. I define "perfection" as a couple of cycles each way from the target.

Stulz Shafts on the Course

It took me the better part of two weeks to build out this set with serious part-time effort. I had time for a couple of range sessions and a couple of rounds at the Muni. It doesn’t sound like much, but a lot of sets I’ve built haven’t lasted that long.

The Stulz shafts are like nothing that you’re used to seeing. The graphic decoration is colorful, glow in the daylight holographs on the wood shafts – not quite as spectacular for the irons. Combined with the unusual shape, you get the feeling that you’re playing with something really different; space age clubs.

The Stulz shafts matched up well with the head weights on my Bridgestone combos. One of the serious problems for players like me who use over length clubs is that each extra inch of length adds six swingweight points. When clubs get longer, they get heavier – frequently too heavy. Lightweight graphite shafts keep the swingweight down. You get a very different feel because the shaft is much lighter than steel. The result is that the overall club weight is less, but the head appears to feel heavier. The Stulz shafts are quite light at 90 grams.

If you’re planning to build a set of irons with Stulz shafts at standard length with "standard" weight heads, you’re going to need tip weights or lead tape. Many players make the mistake of reshafting their irons with lightweight shafts and forgetting about swingweight. 90 gram shafts will take 5 swingweight points off of a set of irons shafted with standard Dynamic Gold shafts. It would ten grams of extra weight in or on the head to bring the clubs back up to the beginning swingweight. After years of reshafting irons with graphite shafts, I no longer believe in restoring the swingweight to the original specification. If the original set started at D-2, I would be very happy with the reshafted set at D-0. The new set will have the same head feel at a lighter swingweight – the benefit of lightweight graphite shafts. The ultimate goal of reshafting with graphite is to reduce the overall weight of the clubs.

The First Shot

I’m superstitious. When I take a new set of clubs to the course, the first shot is extremely important. If I hit it well, I’ve got a good feeling about the clubs. If I miss it, it kills my confidence. My first on-course shot with the Stulz shafts was a pitching wedge. It went high, higher than normal but it landed five feet from the pin. On the second hole, I striped a six iron that flew right over the pin. On three, a seven iron went long from the 150 pole. There was no distance problem. The irons were very straight. They had a nice little kick in the 5.5 "stiff" flex. The shafts felt great and were a lot of fun.

My second round with the Stulz-shafted Bridgestones was more fun. I built the set a quarter of an inch longer than my normal 1" over (39.25" five iron). I was thinking of standing back just a touch and giving myself a chance for a slightly flatter swing plane since the one plane swing is all the rage. I hit several iron shots stiff – that’s more than normal. I found that knock-downs were easy to hit, stayed low and didn’t rise, indicating low spin. The irons held their line well in the wind. And they were relatively forgiving for small blades. Toe shots went much longer than I expected. A good test for a graphite shaft is what happens on a toe shot. Weak shafts with too much torque lose a lot of distance.

One surprise was that on normal iron shots, the trajectory was definitely higher than my gamers, the same model shafted with Aerotech 110’s. I wouldn’t say too high, but definitely higher. I expected the opposite with the reinforced tip. I can’t say that the Stulz shafts knocked the Aerotechs out of the bag, but I’m going to play the Nano Arrows for the next week or so. I could detect no significant difference in performance. The feel of the Stulz shafts was just a tad livelier and I liked that.

If you’re thinking about building your own set of irons with the Stulz shafts, here are some things to think about.

At 90 grams, they are pretty light for iron shafts. I tend to like heavier weight graphite shafts in irons – especially for good players. The 5.5 flex value on the PCS Equalizer scale was fine for the long irons. My four and five irons were surprisingly long. That flex was just a touch weak for the short irons. I thought that trajectory was a little too high and there might have been a little too much kick. Normally, the longer and lighter the shaft, the stiffer I like the flex. I will build out my next set with graduated flexes, just the same as I am starting to like graduated swingweights – closer to moment of inertia matching.

A frequent question I hear is: "Do these shafts play true to flex?" No player has a single flex value that is always correct for all shafts. If the shaft is lighter and has a little torque (Stulz iron shafts have 3.3 degrees) you might find that you like it better in a stiffer flex. "Playing true to flex" is not a good question, some shafts just need to be set up a little stiffer – then they will play "true to flex". Knowing the difference requires hands-on testing.

The Stulz 90 gram shafts are stiff. At full length, the 3 iron tested out at 6.5 (X) on the Equalizer scale. The four iron came in at 6.0. That turned out not to be a problem for me, I left the 3 iron out of the bag and the slightly stiffer flex didn’t affect the 4 iron. If you’re looking for regular flex or softer, you’re out of luck with the Stulz Nano Arrows. I think that the 90 gram shafts require a player with a six iron swing speed no less than 85 MPH. 90 gram Stulz iron shafts are definitely for strong players.

The Last Shot

There are some holes in the Stulz line. First, the 90 gram shafts don’t come in softer flexes. That definitely limits the ability to fit the majority of players. Also, the two weights don’t offer a lot of flexibility. Most shaft manufacturers who are serious about iron shafts offer multiple weights and multiple flexes. Aerotech, for example, offers 70, 80, 95, 110 gram shafts, each in three to five flexes. Aerotech also has constant weight and ascending weight sets. It is frequently necessary to be able to mix weights in a set as well as mixing flexes. Stulz will have to go to work on that requirement if they truly intend to become serious players in the graphite iron shaft business.

I’m going to build my next set little stiffer in the short irons and give them a chance in a competitive round or two. One of these mornings at the Muni I’ll have a chance to test the Stulz shafts shot for shot against the Aerotechs. I’m looking forward to that day to see if my perceptions hold true. As of now, I can’t see any performance difference between the Stulz and Aerotech shafts. That’s a pretty good endorsement. Stay tuned, this story is not over.

I’ll be back next month, keeping my five year string unbroken. With all of the emphasis on unusual grips, putters and otherwise, I’m thinking of having a close look at grip options. There will be follow up on the current projects as well as an update on the E21 Scandium, a shaft with a story that might have improved a lot recently. I’m also going to have something to say about components. Don’t forget tell me about what works for you.

Leith Anderson is a Partner in the Golf Lab, Palo Alto, CA.
He will answer any and all questions relating to club fitting and club making. Contact: Leith@calgolftech.com.