California Golf Technologies

What's new on the West Coast

Golf Equipment Chronicles 2008 (Part 7)

So Many Shafts – So Little Time

by Leith Anderson

I attended the PGA Show in Las Vegas at the end of August. The show was primarily populated by “green grass” PGA Professionals. The focus was on education. As a Show designed to sell products, it was pretty much a bust for most of the exhibitors. The golf industry refuses to do the smart thing and support a Fall Show so they could better match their product development and sales cycle to the true selling season for golf clubs.

The PGA Show was a great compliment to work we’ve been doing with fitting shafts at the Golf Lab. We’ve been conducting “Shaft Test 2008” a project in which players hit different shafts mounted on the same driver head with a launch monitor recording the performance data. After launch monitor testing, the player is free to take the driver with three interchangeable shafts to his course. Out goal is to find the best shafts based on comparing performance. The final decision has to be made by the player hitting his own balls on his own golf course. We’re not finished with that project but we’ve made enough headway to publish a progress report this month.

Selling Seasons

Most of the golf equipment companies (the biggest ones are called “OEM” for “Original Equipment Manufacturers”), schedule their product releases to correspond with the outdated selling cycle form the “good old days” when clubs were sold in golf course pro shops. The whole golf world meets up in Florida in late January – about the time the snowbird PGA professionals from the top clubs along the east coast begin to migrate north for the summer season. The idea was that they should write their orders for summer sales on their way back home. That’s the way it used to be.

That’s not the way it is any more. Today, as soon as the summer tournament season is over, players start thinking about making changes to their bags for the following summer. Fall is the time that golfers think about new clubs – golf magazines are snapped up from newsstands and the Internet gets a lot of action. Players are hungry for “what’s new?” The true selling season starts when the other snowbirds – this time the rich and retired denizens of Chicago, Buffalo and New York City start their winter migration to Palm Springs, Scottsdale and Palm Beach. When they get to their winter retreats, there is nothing that would rather do to amuse themselves than buy a new set of golf clubs.

Then, there’s the Christmas season. Can you think of a more unpopular present than: “Here’s your new set of last season’s golf clubs?”

In the last few years, some companies have stumbled into success by releasing some products early. The biggest beneficiary of changing the product release cycle was Nike a couple of years ago. They brought out their new Sumo driver in October. It was the only significant new product from any of the big companies and Nike mopped up. There were plenty of new Nike Sumos on the shelf for the snowbirds and Santa Clause. The Sumo wasn’t a great product but it was a technical breakthrough and a huge success for Nike.

This year, some of the OEM companies are showing signs of understanding the new reality. I think that one major convert this year will be Adams. As usual, the Adams story started with a disaster. Last year’s Adams drivers didn’t sell well at retail and the company took a huge hit by flushing the channel of unsold inventory – priming the pump with low prices and credits to their retail channel at huge cost to their bottom line. Behind the scenes, they were getting good reviews from the Long Drivers’ Association (LDA) – an organization that Adams sponsors. The LDA commissioned a private label driver head that was performing well in long drive competition. Adams took that driver – known as the 9015 D “prototype” to the PGA Tour and earned some respect. One of the rumors going around was that Charles Howell III had it in his bag – claiming higher ball speeds – in defiance of his equipment contract with another manufacturer.

Adams rushed the 9015 D to market – preserving the “prototype” designation and planned to make it available for an October 1 ship date. If the 9015 D lives up to it’s hype, it might be the driver that you buy this fall. Adams has reworked its entire line and is shipping most of the new models during the fall. Which other companies are doing the same? I’m not exactly a Titleist insider but it seems like they’re getting new drivers ready for an early release. This will be a good month to keep your eyes open and see which companies are planning to jump the gun.

The Shaft as the “Engine” of the Club?

I registered for several seminars at the PGA Show and I was impressed by the quality of the presentations. With majority representation of PGA Professionals, it looks like the Show is returning to its roots as a PGA-oriented event.

The most interesting seminar was by the Callaway marketing team that is in charge of the new Callaway interchangeable shaft system – “I-Mix”. They started the presentation by admitting that interchangeable shaft drivers had failed to make an impression on Callaway customers. Sales have been disappointing. They blamed Callaway’s failure to “market” the new system. Don’t expect Callaway to give up. They made a major investment in their I-Mix system so look for a drumbeat to start up again when the snow starts to melt.

Even if the interchangeable shaft systems haven’t made it to the course, they are fabulous for fitting. When comparing driver shafts, it’s a huge advantage to test different shafts with the same head. When you change two variables at the same time, it’s impossible to know the exact reason you may prefer one shaft over another.

Callaway is in the business of making clubheads. As a result, they de-emphasize the role that shafts play in improving the performance of golf clubs. They are not alone in suggesting that the shaft is not really the “engine” of the golf club. Tom Wishon, another head designer makes the same argument. Although the loft and shape of the head might be the primary factors in driver performance, disregarding the shaft is a mistake.

The Callaway presenters made a cogent argument that “feel” does not come from contact with the ball. Their reasoning is that human nerve systems are slow to transfer information from the environment to the brain. The ball is fifty yards downrange before a player “feels” contact. In their view, “feel” was primarily attributed to the way a player loads shaft load and the sound of contact.

Nor does the shaft contribute to ball speed. Contrary to what most golfers imagine, flexible shafts do not propel the ball like a slingshot. The shaft does not load and store energy that is released at impact. Even a veteran shaft guy, Michael Cheng, the CEO of Harrison Sports, emailed me to confirm that ball speed comes from the head.

The primary goal of fitting for flex and shaft “bend profile” is to help a player square up the club at impact. If you hit the ball on the center of percussion of the head, with the proper swing path and face angle at impact, you will get maximum distance. That’s what happened when you get that occasional “bomb” on the golf course.

The Callaway presenters suggested that there was very little difference in shaft performance based on flex but a lot based on weight and length. I think that the defect in their testing methodology was that their data was produced by a robotic ball striker. What we found in our first round of “Shaft Test 2008” was that the “angle of attack”, “swing path” and “face angle at contact” played a major role in optimizing a player’s results with the driver. All of those factors are measurable, but vary from player to player and even swing to swing. Testing results can be measured and shafts compared side by side. Differences stand out.

Shaft Test 2008 Testing Results

We scheduled almost two weeks during September to work with Golf Lab customers and our array of launch monitors and electronic gizmos to see if we could measure performance differences in shafts – by testing different shafts on the very same head.

It was common to produce 2* to 3* differences in launch angle for some players by exchanging a soft tip shaft such as an Aldila NVS with a stiff tip shaft, such as a Mitsubishi White Board. Shaft changes produced minor, but measurable, changes in spin rates – usually in the neighborhood of 500 RPM. That is enough to “tweak” or “tune” a driver but not enough to make a major difference in distance.

In agreement with Callaway, we found little correlation between flex and ball speed. In fact, some players with relatively low swing speeds produced higher ball speeds with stiffer shafts. Players with slower swing speeds tended to hit softer flexes straighter and more consistently. Faster swing speed players showed more control with stiffer shafts.

We found significant differences in swing path were produced by shorter and heavier driver shafts. That’s a good way to fight a cut swing. Changing an outside-in swing path to inside-out produced significant distance increases. For some players that was possible by simply shortening their driver shafts. Longer drivers exacerbate the tendency for players to swing outside-in or “over the top”.

Distance comes from ball speed. Lightweight shafts increased ball speeds by an average of 2-3 MPH – enough for eight to ten yards of additional carry distance. Worthwhile increases in carry distance were produced by ultra lightweight shafts at significantly longer lengths – up to 47.5”. We saw distance increases up to 20 yards. With ultra lightweight shafts, we achieved better results in flexes stiffer than normal for all players.

We are accumulating valuable data to understand which shafts perform the best for which players under what conditions. We are not done – many more volunteers will “donate their swings to science”. In the future, all Golf Lab customers – and Chronicles readers - will benefit from the knowledge we gain. This project is definitely the confluence of science and art.

All shaft fittings were accompanied by Balance-Certified “Stabilizer” testing. Practically all players showed increases in ball speed of 2-4 MPH and evidence of improved control measured by improvements in consistency of swing speed, swing path and face angle at contact.

The shaft might not matter to a robot, but it certainly matters to an average amateur golfer.

Methodology

The Shaft Test 2008 was conducted in three parts. First, the Achiever launch monitor documents the player’s swing characteristics: swing path, face angle at impact, ball speed and launch angle with his own driver. Then, the Max Out Shaft Max documents shaft load characteristics: tempo, acceleration, shaft butt deflection, shaft tip deflection and overall shaft load rating. Finally, the Max Out Launch Max zeroes in on launch ballistics: ball speed, launch angle and spin rate.

A player’s launch ballistics determine his performance with a driver. Too much or too little spin, too high or too low launch angle and yards are lost. We have found that only the Launch Max, testing performance with the actual ball a player uses on the course, is reliable in measuring launch ballistics. The Launch Max is programmed to report exactly how much distance is lost from sub-optimized launch ballistics. It is useless to try to optimize driver performance with range balls.

When a player tests for a very high spin rate with his own driver, we substitute one of our known low spin combinations in the appropriate loft and re-test. If the player continues to hit the ball with high spin with a known low spin driver, we conclude that a new driver will not change his results and it is time to work on his swing with his teacher or coach.

An unexpected result from Shaft Test 2008 was that we discovered a surprising number of players who hit their drivers with too little spin. This is a characteristic that is rarely covered in the golf press but is going to be more and more common as driver heads, shafts and balls are designed to reduce spin. It may very well be that the reason your drives are not producing the distance you expect is that they’re spinning too little instead of too much. It was also surprising that some very good players tested for lower than optimal spin with their drivers. This is not a problem that is limited to high index players.

Understanding “Angle of Attack”

The most important decision that a player can make with his driver is to choose the correct loft to produce the optimal trajectory with his natural “good” swing. We found several players who were playing with drivers that forced them to change their swing to accommodate an incorrect loft. When a player develops an inappropriate “angle of attack” to overcome an incorrect driver loft it will result in sub-optimal launch ballistics – too much or too little spin.

Problem Swing Characteristics and Cures

High spin players usually demonstrate one of two swing flaws. The classic high spin player has a steep angle of attack, resulting in a downward blow that produces high spin. In Shaft Test 2008, we discovered players with steep angles of attack that were playing high loft drivers to offset the “de-lofting” effect. Those players lost the most distance to high spin.

In testing, we found that some players were talented enough to make immediate changes in their swings. We swapped high loft drivers for lower lofts, suggested a low takeaway with an “up and out” angle of attack. Some players made near-miraculous changes to their results helped by changing the loft of their drivers – reducing spin in some cases by up to 2000 RPM. Distance improvements ranged up to 30 yards – just from getting the launch ballistics right.

The second common swing flaw in players who produce high spin is a failure to “release” through the ball. Holding the release is indicated by a higher than expected launch angle for the loft of the driver. We found players who were hitting low loft drivers too high could sometimes make a change to a higher loft driver – focus on releasing through the ball – and bring their trajectory down. A full release will “level” the angle of attack at impact and reduce spin.

We also found the opposite. Some players had chosen drivers with too little loft and consequently were forced into an extreme upward angle of attack to get the launch angle they wanted. A low loft driver with a steep upward angle of attack is the technique that long drive professionals use to reduce spin.

When an amateur mimics a “long drive” swing with a driver that has too little loft, it frequently results in exactly what the long drive professionals are trying to achieve – a very low spin rate. Unfortunately, for most amateurs, too little spin is just as critical as too much spin. As a rule of thumb, if you’re hitting a driver with 9* of loft or less too high, you need to have a look at your swing with video and perhaps some advice from your coach or teacher.

The benefit of Shaft Test 2008 is that players came away with an in-depth understanding of their swing and the efficiency of their current driver. If a shaft change could help – longer, shorter, lighter, heavier, stiffer, softer or a different flex profile – we were able to demonstrate the improvement with measured data. You can waste a lot of time at a driving range randomly testing clubs that you “borrow” from Golf Mart.

The Nickent “Evolver” Driver System

Shaft Test 2008 was accomplished with the Nickent Evolver exchangeable shaft driver system. We chose to work with the Nickent system because they supply us with the shaft adapters which allow us to fit Evolver heads with any shaft from our inventory. Using the Evolver, we can test super-premium shafts like the Mitsubishi Diamana “Red, White, Blue” series and the ultra long, ultra lightweight shafts like the ACCRA 40 gram “Tour” series at 48 inches. Callaway and Taylor Made have a limited number of shaft models that they offer and you have to buy them from the company. That’s two strikes. . .

The system works very well. Players can, for the first time, actually see the difference in ball flight and shot shape that is caused by the shaft. The only way you can do that is to hit different shafts with exactly the same head. The same goes for feel. Only by hitting different shafts with the same head can you be sure that what you feel is caused by the shaft, not the head. Only then will you know for sure which shaft you like the best – and most important – why?

Luckily, the Nickent Evolver head is a very good classic design – pear shaped – with the sound of persimmon. It appeals to the traditionalist.

The Best Way to Find the “Magic Shaft”

The very best method for testing shafts is to go through the electronic analysis to determine the “best fit” in shafts. Alas, that won’t be just one – there will inevitably be several recommendations. With nearly infinite shaft choices (there are more than 1000 driver shaft models for sale today) winnowed down to a few, take an Evolver driver with three “magic shaft” candidates to the golf course – or the range if you can’t get out on your course alone. Choose one shaft that you’re familiar with, perhaps one that’s in the super-premium class and one that’s good but not too expensive.

Hit several drives per hole. Keep detailed notes. At the end of the day, keep the best performer in your bag and trade the other two back for two new candidates. In a few sessions, you can answer the question you’ve always wondered about. Which shaft feels and performs the best for me?

For the first time, you can see for yourself if an “X” is better than an “S” flex – in side by side testing. The conventional wisdom says that the “X” flex shaft will be straighter, but not as long. In our electronic testing, that theory was challenged. Many players with low swing speeds create just as much ball speed with stiff shafts.

Our very first actual customer for a Nickent Evolver driver was a PGA Professional who we “fitted” with an Aldila DVS in regular flex based on the electronic testing. Keep in mind, with electronics, very small differences stand out. When he took the club to the course, the shaft “felt loose” – performed well but the feel came up lacking. A quick change to a stiff flex and all was OK. That’s one of the dangers of electronic testing. You may find the “best” shaft is only best by a whisker that’s reversed on the golf course. On the course your hands and eyes make the decision. That same PGA professional took too two heads with him back to Arizona. He was thinking about the difference in summer and winter course conditions – a lower than “optimal” ball flight in the summer season would produce much more roll – and a “correct” trajectory for the winter when the fairways are soft.

A “2009” Demo Program

It mystifies me why golfers continue to take chances when they buy golf clubs. They agonize for months, read all the articles and then make a blind purchase. The result is a bag full of orphans in every golfer’s garage. Why not know exactly what you’re getting because you played the same club on your own course with the golf balls you use every day?

And why be in a hurry? One trip to the range and half a bucket of range rocks isn’t going to reveal the “magic shaft”. Effective testing will take several sessions to develop the correct feel and “eye”.

In response to a query last month and plenty of Golf Today readers who said “please do that” we’re starting a demo program that will take all of the guesswork out of finding the shaft that fits your swing.

It starts with a driver fitting. There’s no good reason to walk over to a rack and pick a random driver without knowing something about your swing and the club that you’re intending to test. In thirty minutes, we can get in the ballpark to understand your swing, what happens to the shaft when you swing and what happens to the ball in flight. Then, we can make a reasonable recommendation for the correct loft and a couple of shafts that will be good bets.

We’ll give you a Nickent Evolver driver head and two or three shafts that we choose to fit your swing to take out for testing. You can test and play them over several days. When you decide on the best one, come back to the shop and pick up a couple more shafts and test again. You have thirty days and unlimited swaps to find the shaft that performs and feels the best. If you want to check ball speed or spin rate on the launch monitor, you can do that.

Your shaft choices are unlimited. Most fitting carts offer a few shafts that the manufacturer happens to stock. The Golf Lab makes available over 100 of the top shaft models – from the expensive, premium shafts to the “unsung heroes” that don’t cost as much as a month’s supply of gas but perform great.

The demo program lasts for 30 days. You get the fitting, unlimited demos and support in making your decision. The cost is only $150. If you want to find the “magic shaft” this is the way to do it.

For players who are not in the San Francisco Bay Area, show this article to your local custom golf shop and suggest that they start a similar program. For best results, you need to be close to the location where you can talk to a good club fitter who will support your quest. If there are no local options, we might be able to work with you remotely. Give us a call at the Golf Lab and we’ll talk it over.

State of the Art – 2009

Here’s a little peek at the future. Today, state of the art clubfitting employs launch monitors and load testing devices. Most of the golf world has accepted the idea that testing results is a good way to fit golf clubs. It’s a great advance from the old trial and error – and error – and error days.

There are two emerging technologies that will be available to club fitters in the next few months. Both are in “beta stage” right now.

High speed photography is becoming affordable and available. This is going to bring the way that golf clubs are fitted to a new level of precision. The new systems can stop the action of the club in motion at the moment of impact. It is now possible to see the exact position of the shaft and head as the player strikes the ball. The PGA Tour has been using high speed photography in tournament broadcasts this year so you have an idea of what the results look like.

A corollary advantage of high speed photography will be realized by teaching professionals. Research and refinement of the best systems is taking place right now among the advanced club fitter community. I expect some decisions to be obvious by the Association of Golf Clubfitting Professionals (AGCP) Roundtable in early November. As usual, expect the first detailed report in the Golf Equipment Chronicles in Golf Today Magazine.

The second key advancement is in the radar-based systems. Radars have the advantage that they can “see” the club as well as the ball. As the software improves to support the technology – new capabilities become available. At the PGA Show, Henri Johnson – the CEO of Electronic Data House (EDH) the developer of the Flightscope – showed me how the new generation Kudu and Cheetah software graphed the movement of the tip of the shaft just prior to impact. A key element of shaft fitting is to stabilize the head when it strikes the ball. Henri showed me graphs of Retief Goosen’s swing compared to a variety of amateur golfers with different shafts. The results were stunning. Goosen’s graph was a smooth progression. The amateurs showed erratic tip movement with shafts that were “too loose” and much better graphs with shafts that matched their swings.

It makes ultimate sense that club fitting should focus on the moment of impact.

The good news for golfers is that the art and science of club fitting will make major strides in 2009

Leith Anderson is a Partner in the Golf Lab, Palo Alto, CA.
He will answer any and all questions about club fitting and club making. Contact: Leith@calgolftech.com. Or by phone (650) 493-1770