Tedd It relates to a 5" clamp length with a grip. Your numbers below look good. You might try a little stiffer wood but long irons look very close considering the + or - 4 Cycle range that they should be within. Short Irons might be just a little stiff.
llhack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Childers, Tedd A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:03 AM Subject: RE: ShopTalk: History of Frequency > 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.
