Hi Corey Yes they are typical of filament wound shafts. Very consistent, very little spine etc. I agree with you that if there's any spine it's usually type 1 and it's more to do with bend than any other spine characteristic. There is of course the usual discussion about the pros and cons of filament wound shafts. Good recovery?
Cheers Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: Corey Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 2:13 PM Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Questions about graphite shafts for irons > Sometime back, I thought I remembered reading a post of yours commenting on > Precision Composites shafts, saying that they showed a definitive lack of > spines. I remember thinking at the time "gee, they are probably the most > consistent shaft I've ever dealt with but they do exhibit spine > characteristics" (typically, I've found them to be consistent type 1 shafts > to borrow a phrase from the "Spinetalk" forum's terminology). > > Having looked back two months into the archives, (painful with a dial-up > connection) I can't find the post in question so I'll retract what I said > in my reply to Dave T. and crawl back under my rock. > > Sorry Al, if I misquoted you. > > CB > > At 11:25 AM 2/6/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >What did Al T say? > > > >Al > > > >At 12:15 AM 2/6/2003, you wrote: > >>Wow! My chance to give advice to Dave T. > >> > >>My initial advice is: Don't do it! > >>Why not carry fewer clubs or fewer balls? > >>Since you are not a composite shaft user to begin with, you're not going > >>to like the feel of less torque and wider shot dispersion, all for the > >>sake of a pound of weight. > >>With that said: > >>I've had good results with Penley's G2-85 iron shafts. Uncut, they are in > >>the high 80's and when built, feel close to steel except you feel the > >>head more. I'm also a fan of Precision Composites. Very consistent shafts > >>but much lighter. They do haves spines in spite of what Al T. says. > >>Typically type 1's though so assembly (if you care about alignment) will > >>be much like steel shafts. > >> > >>Have fun, > >> > >>CB > >> > >> > >>At 06:08 PM 2/5/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >>>In the past, I have used or recommended graphite shafts only if they > >>>were needed to keep the swingweight down. I'm now considering another > >>>use, and would like to tap the vast experience out there on ShopTalk for > >>>advice. > >>> > >>>I'm considering making myself a new set of irons, with graphite shafts. > >>>The objective is to lighten my bag a little, since I'm carrying more now > >>>that my bag has a double strap. (Until the last few months, I pulled a > >>>trolley almost all the time.) The thing is, I'm happy with the way I hit > >>>my irons now, and I don't want to screw it up. If graphite shafts don't > >>>work just as well, I'm better off lugging (or pulling) my current irons. > >>> > >>>Here are the issues/questions: > >>> > >>>(1) Swingweight: The graphite shafted clubs will be lighter. I'm going > >>>from Balistiks (probably 110-115g cut to length) to about 80-83g > >>>graphites. If I have to go much heavier than that, I wouldn't bother; > >>>the objective is lighter overall weight. But without any other design > >>>change that means a significant loss of swingweight, probably more than > >>>a half-inch worth. I'm willing to live with clubs that are 1/4" longer > >>>than now, but not more than that. How do y'all deal with that? I can > >>>think of several approaches, but I'm not sure of their feasibility: > >>> - Tip-weighted graphite shafts. I know these were available 3-5 > >>> years ago. Are they still around? Are they any good? > >>> - Separate lead tip weights. I have seen these for graphites, > >>> but nothing more than 4 grams. It'll help, but not a lot. > >>> - Lead tape. I know how to apply it. But I don't like to start > >>> a project KNOWING that I'll have to use tape; that should be a last > >>> resort. It should be for tuning specific clubs, not for a blanket > >>> treatment for the set, IMHO. > >>> > >>>(2) Trajectory: I hit my irons plenty high as it is. Perhaps a shade too > >>>high, but it's not a priority to lower the trajectory. (It would be > >>>nice, but I'm getting plenty of distance now.) But I certainly don't > >>>want to hit them any higher. > >>> I have seen the Dynacraft Jeffs (Summitt & Jackson) say that > >>> lowering a club's balance point with the same swingweight (i.e.- > >>> lighter shaft) will lead to a higher trajectory. Wishon's book does not > >>> suggest this effect, and I certainly can't see what would cause it. So > >>> I don't know. > >>> What have y'all seen by way of trajectory changes when a golfer > >>> goes from steel to graphite. Are some graphite shafts lower-trajectory > >>> than others? > >>> > >>>BTW, my current choice of components for this experiment are: > >>> * Raven Near-Net cavity backs (my current irons are Golfsmith Jetstreams). > >>> * MCC shafts (I'm thinking the MFS-30, or the -40 if the 30 will hit > >>> it too high; I'm not sure I hit hard enough for the -40). The SK shafts > >>> that I usually like have a high balance point, and will only make the > >>> swingweight problem worse. > >>> > >>>I've made up a Near-Net 5-iron with the same Balistik shaft (same > >>>swingweight, length, and frequency) as my current irons; the performance > >>>is fairly similar to my current 5-iron. I like the feel of the Near-Net > >>>a little better (probably the sound -- less treble and more bass), and > >>>didn't suffer a noticeable loss of forgiveness. > >>> > >>>Any comments? > >>> > >>>advTHANKSance! > >>>DaveT > > >
