Hi; I'm not knocking your research but I do have a few questions: You reshafted a 7 iron that freq'd at 321 cpm's with another shaft that freq'd at 291 cpm. What shaft did you use for the reshaft, and what's the point you're trying to make in that regard; that you used a softer flex shaft? DCI's are taper tip hosels so unless you bored out the hosel you had to have used some company's taper tip shaft - correct?
I believe there's ample agreement that Rifle shafts play stiffer than one would anticipate. That's something we've discussed here many times. Precision's method for determining freq's is considerably different that what most of us use so a Rifle 5.5, for instance, is pretty stiff compared to a TT Dynamic Gold "R." Even though one would presume the 5.5 is the "R" flex of the Rifle family. I've found the simplest way to make a 5.5 Rifle, for example, play as though it were a 5.0 is to soft step it. Many of my customers have insisted they "need" a 5.5 or 6.0 or 6.5 Rifles. When they get them and find they can't bend them they often blame the clubmaker. Soft stepping, using the same labels, often does the trick for the guy who can't hit the stiffer shaft but insists on having it in the head. TFlan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Pogor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 9:34 PM Subject: RE: ShopTalk: Flatline > Cub, > Your comment about Rifles underlines the point I was making. > FYI, I recently reshafted a set of Titleist DCI's for a customer, they came > originally with Rifle 5.0's or 5.5's (Sorry, going by memory). Before I > reshafted them, I cut off some of the grips and measured the frequencies of > some of the irons. If I recall correctly, I think the 7 iron was in the 321 > cpm range on my machine. When I reshafted the iron, it came out at 291 cpm, > a difference of over 30 cpm, or probably 3 full flexes. The customer loved > them, and, needless to say, there were no complaints about the clubs feeling > like telephone poles!! > I think that "adjustment factor" of shafts is one of the most neglected and > misunderstood facets of frequency matching. Too many clubmakers wrongly > assume that the same frequency will give similar results with different > brands of shafts. WRONG, WRONG!!!!! As I mentioned in my previous post, I am > pretty sure that Rifle shafts play about 8-9 cycles stiffer than Dynamic > shafts (no Sensicore). How do I know that? Because I went out to the range, > and compared the feel of Dynamic and Rifle shafts built to different > frequencies, until I found the correlation. > I remember the evolution of Rifle shaft use by OEM's and clubmakers, and > specifically recall that most clubmakers came to the conclusion that the > Rifle shafts played stiffer than other shafts, and i remember that the > definition of "stiff", etc., changed over the years. Taylor Made, for > example, started using weaker Rifle shafts as their standard "regular" and > "stiff" flex iron shafts. I remember thinking how neat this was, because I > had figured this out on my own a lot earlier. > Don't assume that the manufacturers necessarily know what they are doing. In > many cases, they don't know!! They figure that if they spend enough on > marketing, they can blur the truth with hype. > In order to achieve the same "feel" of shaft, sometimes I will use "S" > shafts from one brand/company, "R" or "A" or "L" shafts from another, and > "X" shafts from a third!! > If you look at the "speed ratings" or similar findings from Dynacraft and > Golfsmith, you will notice the same thing. Not all "S" (or any designation) > shafts are created equal! > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve "Cub" Culbreth > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 12:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Flatline > > > Mike, > > Excellent post! That's the kind of empirical data I am looking for. No need > to worry > about me using Rifles. I used them years ago and felt like I was using a > telephone pole. > > Another interesting question comes to mind... Why not make them all the same > length as > well? > > Cub > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Pogor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 4:08 PM > Subject: RE: ShopTalk: Flatline > > > > Cub, > > I've used flat-line clubs for the past ten years. My hdcp was 4 when I > > changed, and now hovers between 0 and 2. It is not all because of the > clubs, > > but I have been generally very happy with the feel and performance of my > > clubs. > > Some general observations of the differences: > > 1. The long irons are stiffer than a traditional set. I have found this to > > actually be one of the bigger advantages. I feel that I have more control > > with my long irons, I can swing them without worrying about the > directional > > aspect of the shots. I do not feel like I have lost much, if any, > distance. > > I would agree, however, that forged blades certainly offer less > forgiveness > > using this system! Generally, I use forged cavity back iron heads for > > myself. > > 2. The short irons are more flexible than a traditional set. The advantage > > that I have found is that slight misshits are more forgiving. With a > > traditional shaft flex, if I slightly misshit a shot with a wedge, I would > > lose more distance than I now do with my flat-line clubs. The disadvantage > > of flat-lining, however, is the fact that the short irons do tend to go > > higher, and generate more spin. Into the wind, there is more of a problem > of > > ballooning the ball, because of the extra spin. Knockdown shots are a > little > > more difficult to hit. On balance, though, I think that the benefits are > > worth the disadvantages. > > Through experimentation, I have found that the Rifle shafts seem to work > > best for me, because I find them a little easier to knock down, when I nee > d > > to. One thing that I must mention, however, is that the Rifle shaft plays > > about 8-9 cpm stiffer than a corresponding Dynamic shaft. In other words, > if > > you decide that a Dynamic shaft playing at 300 cpm is good for you, then > you > > should build the Rifle shafts at about 291-292 cpm. > > The other main advantage of flat-lining, in my opinion, is that it > > encourages you to swing the same way with all clubs. With a traditional > set, > > I felt that I had to swing my long irons more slowly and smoothly because > of > > their additional flex, and felt that I had to be more aggressive with the > > short irons, in order to get the shafts to flex sufficiently. That is no > > longer the case with flat-line clubs. > > If I were to experiment further, I could see possibly stiffening the short > > irons slightly, just so that it would be easier to keep the ball down. > > Generally, though, I am happy enough with the benefits of flat-lining to > > leave well enough alone. > > Hope this helps, > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve "Cub" Culbreth > > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 8:22 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: ShopTalk: Flatline > > > > > > I've discounted flat-line freq matching in the past but had a little time > to > > ponder it lately. Besides the fact that the short irons may hit longer and > > higher, wouldn't you lose control all the way around? I mean, using a > 4cpm > > slope we try to maintain the feel and playing flex throughout the set. If > > you flat-line a set based on your current 7-Iron freq, because you hit it > > the best, wouldn't you end up with long irons that are way too stiff and > > short irons way to soft? Seems a no-brainer to me, but I have to wonder. > > > > Have any of you played a flat-line set? Have any of you played a set with > > only 2cpm of slope throughout? > > > > I'd like to hear your thoughts before I get too tempted to test the > > principle. > > > > TIA, > > > > Cub > > > > > > > >
