Lloyd, Thanks for the reminder about the revised data, which you had mentioned to me previously via e-mail (estimated driver frequency only I believe). However, I have not built any clubs to test based on the revised numbers. Is the 1.35 CPM/club slope through the entire set (woods and irons) and based on the driver frequency (at what clamp length, and gripped or ungripped)? Also, what length are the numbers based on (1.35 CPM/0.5" length change I assume). If so, the frequency of each club would be the following:
Club Length Fit Chip Frequency Current Freq Driver 45" 263 CPM 245 3-wood 43" 268.4 245 5-wood 42" 273.8 245 3-iron 39" 281.9 284 4-iron 38.5" 283.3 286 5-iron 38" 284.6 288 6-iron 37.5" 286 290 7-iron 37" 287.3 292 8-iron 36.5" 288.65 294 9-iron 36" 290 296 PW 35.75" 290.7 298 As you can see, the irons are pretty close, but the woods are off a bit from your recommendation. The current numbers are Precision/Brunswick equivalent frequencies (i.e. gripped at 4.5", or ungripped at 3.25" on my GS meter). I'm killing the current driver, so I won't mess with it, but I would be willing to try the recommended frequency in a different driver head and in the fairway woods. If I do, I'll report back with the results. Tedd -----Original Message----- From: Lloyd Hackman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 5:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ShopTalk: History of Frequency Tedd I thought I had sent you a revised fitting for you based on what I found concerning the toe up toe down deflection affect on the fit chip readings. I posted that to Dave yesterday but find it must not have gone through, probably because I had put a explanation of the results of comparing the FitChip and Shaft-Lab tests on Dave that resulted in the above findings as an enclosure. I will copy that explanation into a new e-mail to Dave so you can see the reason for the change. The system now recommends your driver at 263 CPM and a slope of 1.35 CPM per club. llhack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Childers, Tedd A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 8:21 AM Subject: RE: ShopTalk: History of Frequency > Dave, > > As you know, I also tried the FitChip and was not satisfied with the fitting > recommendations. To Lloyd's credit, he really went out of his way to try > and make the system work for me, but it simply did not produce results that > were superior to my current clubs in either length or accuracy. I will > admit that according to FitChip, I have a swing with a VERY late to > non-existent release, which resulted in a recommendation of the stiffest > shaft possible. I was able to hit the shafts that FitChip and Lloyd > recommended better than I expected, but they felt very harsh and resulted in > a loss of distance, with no gain in accuracy. Just my experience for what > its worth. > > Tedd > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Tutelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 6:00 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: ShopTalk: History of Frequency > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Lloyd Hackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 11:07 AM > > > Lloyd>>>But the same frequency in either shaft will match the players swing > frequency. > > Bernie>> Are you referring to frequency analysis as a fitting tool with > your timing chip? Only if you believe you can do that satisfactorily. There > are many who don't believe you can. The evidence that I've seen on this > forum suggests to me that it's still a crap shoot. > > Lloyd> *** Those who believe I cann't have not tried it and I have many > more that have tried it and know it can. You ought to try it. > > There is at least one counterexample. Me. > > I tried it. You fitted me yourself. The recommendation was wrong to the > point of ridiculous. > > I have correspondence from a few others with similar experience, but if I > posted that it would be hearsay. Suffice it to say your categorical > statement above is wrong. > > DaveT > > > > LEGAL NOTICE > Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
