David, > Thanks, re-reading this and thinking about it, it now clicks and makes > perfect sense. This also means that it's time for me to go and reshaft > all my clubs, as I could be hitten them solid a lot more often now! > After all, it can't be my swing, right? ;-)
Of course not. > > "One had a weak axis of 250 cpm (other axis at 258) and > > the other a strong axis of 250 cpm (other axis at 242). I built two > > identical drivers with both 250cpm axes pointed at 9:00. In one case the > > strong axis was at 9:00 the other the weak axis at 9:00. I tried a blind > > test and the weak axis at 9:00 was definitely the preferred alignment. " > > Do you (or hopefully John can pitch in...) know why that aligning the > NBP towards the target was preferred? To me, it's because that's the way the shaft wants to load during the swing. In a spinefinder, you can see the shaft immediately turns so the weakest side is on the outside of the bend...and I know it's the weakest side because I can read the deflection in thousandths and compare with other points on the shaft. If you set up the shaft aligned with the S axis to target, I feel the shaft may try to rotate to the weak axis, at least until release...which might cause some ovalling. Don't know. Was just talking with another clubmaker who had three shafts Pured by GS. He said all three were aligned with the FLO plane near the S axis...so I guess you pick your medicine and see if it does the job. I know that when I align on the S-axis, I get a few more yards distance and, of course, the shaft reacts a little differently. But, you need a pretty consistent swing to feel the difference. I like a high A-flex shaft, and if I'm building me a 48" driver with a middle A, it sometimes feels a little too flexible at that clublength...so if there is any appreciable spine, I might go with FLO alignment on the S-axis to stiffen the shaft up slightly. Seems to work fine, but doesn't feel quite as good to me. > Has anyone tried impact tape on a club with the shaft aligned in > different positions? Would be interesting to not if there were any > patterns besides how tight the marks are, but I would think that the > golfer would soon attempt to compensate after a few shots... I read a report on spine alignment impact testing by GS in the September/October 1999 issue of GS Clubmaker, authored by John Meng and with a lot of reference to Tom Wishon's comments on spining. Interesting conclusion in italics, though the following paragraph said there was not enough of a sample for empirical proof. Here's the conclusion: "The test golfers experienced between 20% and 60% improvement in their percentage of on-center hits after spine orientation." Also said, "...players can actually hit a ball off-center by as much as 1/4", 1/2" or more. At 1/2" off-center, a golfer could lose up to five to seven percent of their potential distance, plus the ball will have more sidespin." The article also comments on Weiss's reason for placing the S1 at 3 or 9 o'clock...which he thinks is the "neutral" position, and which I and others disagree with. Bernie Writeto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
