Ed, Having been involved in racing (WERA and AMA 750), I've seen the protest/inspection as well. But, based on the realities of the current method for COR testing and the inability to disassemble then reassemble a clubhead, field testing is basically impossible.
As Tom W. has related, it's difficult to get repeatable data now between manufacturers and the USGA. When the line between good and illegal is this fine, the quality and calibration of the measuring equipment must be impeccable. If the folks tearing down the Honda you raced were measuring the piston diameter with a old ruler to see if your motor was legal or not, you'd have a bit of a problem with the system since the illegal piston is probably ~1/16" bigger than the legal one - hardly a difference that could be accurately measured with that tool. The issue is not whether the face was milled or not (it's not specifically illegal to mill a driver's face therefore actual measurement of the face thickness is not relevant), it's simply COR conformance. Personally, I can't wait to see a field based COR testing station - it should be a laugh for everyone. Everything will need to be standardized - the removal of any prevailing wind, the difference in ball temp. compared to the lab, the effect of having a shaft in the head (they will not pull shafts to test IMO), etc., etc. I'd bet that a 95 deg. outdoor temp and therefore 95 deg. golf ball behaves a lot different than the 70 deg. ball in the lab. I really doubt that any field test will ever materialize, and I agree with Tom - a very unwise interpretation/enforcement protocol of an existing rule has only forced the USGA down and expensive and unpopular dead-end street. Pat K. > > From: "Ed Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/01/29 Wed AM 09:07:16 EST > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Face Milling > > Dave and All: See comments below }---------> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Tutelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:40 AM > Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Face Milling > > > > My problem with all this is Charlie's last point about being legal. Face > > grinding attacks the whole structure of golf club conformance enforcement. > }---------> As it does in most competitions! > > > > If people start modifying the COR of the clubheads with milling machines or > > grinders, then the whole notion of type testing goes out the window. Clubs > > will have to be measured at every significant tournament. And, as Charlie > > notes, it is expensive to measure face thickness. Moreover, there isn't a > > simple mathematical relationship between face thickness and COR. So the > > USGA and the PGA tour may have to carry around an air cannon to their > > events and measure COR directly every time. > }---------> Not everytime! See Below }---------> > This is not an idea I'm inventing on the fly. When I raced sailboats, I was > > also a fleet measurer in the Albacore class (15-foot planing sloop), was on > > the specifications committee, and was on the national championship > > measuring staff a few times. At the national championships, all boats were > > measured before the regatta, in any dimension that was: > > (Well, the technical term is DSQ, but SOL is so much more colorful.) > }---------> Total Agreement with SOL! (;-) > > I'd hate to see this happen to golf. But I see two trends pushing in that > > direction: > > (2) The USGA is about to bring one on itself: the overall length rule. This > > is something that EVERYBODY changes. If you put a rule on it, you will HAVE > > TO measure every club at every tournament for conformance. > }---------> I also come from a racing background as one of first factory riders for >Honda Motocycles! I rode a 250cc Honda in professional racing for several years. I >won't bore you with details but at that time (1963) was third in the US AMA >standings. The relative issue here is that Honda also had a 305cc engine that >required disassembly to tell the difference between the two. Of course the 305cc was >illegal for professional racing in the 250cc class! In those days a formal PROTEST >cost $10! This required my mechanics to disassemble the engine for measurement! >Approximately 80% of the races I won ( I won a lot as I still hold every track record >in the Pacific Northwest except one!) were followed by a formal protest! The engine >was legal in all instances yet I continued to be protested after almost every win. > My point being; If the USGA used their heads ( Yeah, like that is likely to >happen! (;-) Only the winner of the tournament would have to have his club tested. If >it included disassembly to accomplish the test, so be it! No consideration was given >to us for the labor involved in disassembling a very hot motorcycle engine at the >completion of the race. The motorcycle was not even allowed to leave the race track! >It was impounded at the finish line for disassembly so that there was no chance for >anything to be switched or altered back to stock. Had it ever been illegal, I would >have been awarded the SOL trophy that Dave previously mentioned. Enforcement is >indeed possible and very viable in the future. > Ed J. > > > Yecchh! > > DaveT > > > > >
Dave and All: See comments
below }--------->
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Tutelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:40
AM
Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Face
Milling
> My problem with all this is Charlie's
last point about being legal. Face
> grinding attacks the whole structure of golf club conformance enforcement.
> grinding attacks the whole structure of golf club conformance enforcement.
}---------> As it does in most
competitions!
>
> If people start modifying the COR of the clubheads with milling machines or
> grinders, then the whole notion of type testing goes out the window. Clubs
> will have to be measured at every significant tournament. And, as Charlie
> notes, it is expensive to measure face thickness. Moreover, there isn't a
> simple mathematical relationship between face thickness and COR. So the
> USGA and the PGA tour may have to carry around an air cannon to their
> events and measure COR directly every time.
}---------> Not everytime! See Below }--------->
>
> If people start modifying the COR of the clubheads with milling machines or
> grinders, then the whole notion of type testing goes out the window. Clubs
> will have to be measured at every significant tournament. And, as Charlie
> notes, it is expensive to measure face thickness. Moreover, there isn't a
> simple mathematical relationship between face thickness and COR. So the
> USGA and the PGA tour may have to carry around an air cannon to their
> events and measure COR directly every time.
}---------> Not everytime! See Below }--------->
This is not an idea I'm
inventing on the fly. When I raced sailboats, I was
> also a fleet measurer in the Albacore class (15-foot planing sloop), was on
> the specifications committee, and was on the national championship
> measuring staff a few times. At the national championships, all boats were
> measured before the regatta, in any dimension that was:
> (Well, the technical term is DSQ, but SOL is so much more colorful.)
}---------> Total Agreement with SOL! (;-)
> I'd hate to see this happen to golf. But I see two trends pushing in that
> direction:
> (2) The USGA is about to bring one on itself: the overall length rule. This
> is something that EVERYBODY changes. If you put a rule on it, you will HAVE
> TO measure every club at every tournament for conformance.
}---------> I also come from a racing background as one of first factory riders for Honda Motocycles! I rode a 250cc Honda in professional racing for several years. I won't bore you with details but at that time (1963) was third in the US AMA standings. The relative issue here is that Honda also had a 305cc engine that required disassembly to tell the difference between the two. Of course the 305cc was illegal for professional racing in the 250cc class! In those days a formal PROTEST cost $10! This required my mechanics to disassemble the engine for measurement! Approximately 80% of the races I won ( I won a lot as I still hold every track record in the Pacific Northwest except one!) were followed by a formal protest! The engine was legal in all instances yet I continued to be protested after almost every win.
> also a fleet measurer in the Albacore class (15-foot planing sloop), was on
> the specifications committee, and was on the national championship
> measuring staff a few times. At the national championships, all boats were
> measured before the regatta, in any dimension that was:
> (Well, the technical term is DSQ, but SOL is so much more colorful.)
}---------> Total Agreement with SOL! (;-)
> I'd hate to see this happen to golf. But I see two trends pushing in that
> direction:
> (2) The USGA is about to bring one on itself: the overall length rule. This
> is something that EVERYBODY changes. If you put a rule on it, you will HAVE
> TO measure every club at every tournament for conformance.
}---------> I also come from a racing background as one of first factory riders for Honda Motocycles! I rode a 250cc Honda in professional racing for several years. I won't bore you with details but at that time (1963) was third in the US AMA standings. The relative issue here is that Honda also had a 305cc engine that required disassembly to tell the difference between the two. Of course the 305cc was illegal for professional racing in the 250cc class! In those days a formal PROTEST cost $10! This required my mechanics to disassemble the engine for measurement! Approximately 80% of the races I won ( I won a lot as I still hold every track record in the Pacific Northwest except one!) were followed by a formal protest! The engine was legal in all instances yet I continued to be protested after almost every win.
My point
being; If the USGA used their heads ( Yeah, like that is likely to happen! (;-)
Only the winner of the tournament would have to have his club tested. If it
included disassembly to accomplish the test, so be it! No consideration was
given to us for the labor involved in disassembling a very hot motorcycle engine
at the completion of the race. The motorcycle was not even allowed to leave
the race track! It was impounded at the finish line for disassembly so that
there was no chance for anything to be switched or altered back to
stock. Had it ever been illegal, I would have been awarded the SOL trophy that
Dave previously mentioned. Enforcement is indeed possible and very viable
in the future.
Ed J.
> Yecchh!
> DaveT
>
>
> DaveT
>
>
