That's a good point. Since I have no experience building clubs yet I didn't realize this will change the bounce angle. To steepen the loft should reduce the bounce then, right? Now I'm starting to think this idea might not be so hot. Without hitting it I won't know if I will like the new bounce or not. Thanks mark
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Parkinson Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ShopTalk: Bending Ping BeCu's Do you like the current bounce or what the bounce will be after you've bent it? Brian -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Linder Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 9:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ShopTalk: Bending Ping BeCu's Has anyone here had any experience changing the lofts of Beryllium Ping Eye 2 irons. I have an original set of square grooves and was thinking of buying another sand wedge on ebay and bending it to the loft of a gap wedge since I like the bounce on this club. The guys at ProGolf in Nashville have said it's no problem to bend copper all over the place but I've head several people tell me otherwise when it comes to Ping clubs. I wasn't sure if this was refering to stainless,copper or both. I f this isn't possible I will probably try to find a 54* copper Cleveland to match my 60*. thanks for any feedback. Mark Linder -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bernie Baymiller Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Harrison Spineless Technology Pat, Why do you need someone else's data? You can do this testing easily in a day or two...see and feel the difference yourself. Just take a shaft with a medium or large spine, put it in a club misaligned and hit it about 50 times with a few changes of impact tape on the face, recording the information. I'd suggest ball flight pattern (draw hook, fade, slice, high, normal, low), impact spread measurements, distance and any pertinent notes (like poor swing and good swing). If your swing isn't consistent enough, ask your pro or another consistent swinger to hit while you record the info. Then, align the shaft to a stable position and do the test again. This is "real world" testing. If alignment makes a difference, it will show up in the results. Stable alignment does reduce the size of the impact area on the face. This means more consistent center hits and more balls hit where you aim them. TT testing was reported to show that the worst golfer improved his accuracy by 20% and some up to 50%, if I remember correctly without looking it up. There are several published reports on this benefit (GS published some data in 1999, TT later and Dick Weiss even has some complete independent testing data on his web site)..but, as Mike suggested, how can you trust the testers? I proved stable alignment helps for myself very quickly a couple of years ago...in about 25-30 balls with same club and two different alignments I could see and feel the difference. Even found that I could hit a few more draws than fades with the S1 at 3 with my slightly outside-in swing...and later, that my customers with an inside-out swing seemed to do better with S1 at 12 and N to target...and even later, with a very large spine (over .030" deflection on my NF2) that I did also better with the S1 at 12 and N at 9. My experience tells me that a shaft needs no alignment with the .006" deflection (2 cpm?) difference I get all the time in the new SK Fiber shafts. If Mike can make his shafts that well, he'll certainly get a thumbs up from me (assuming he also fixes his advertising claims). Bernie Writeto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat & Laura Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:53 PM Subject: RE: ShopTalk: Harrison Spineless Technology > Dave, > I agree with everything you've posted - but there is an 'issue' that's > unresolved here. > Personally, I found it very insulting for someone to ask for emperical data > showing the advantages of a minimally spined shaft when THERE IS NO DATA > SHOWING THE BENEFIT OF A SPINED SHAFT no matter what the alignment. Why > can't that data be presented ala SST-pure info, so it can be rightfully shot > full of holes, exactly like the SST-data deserves to be. The manner in > which the shaft is loaded and unloaded (if you're not playing natural golf > it's done in 2 different planes) makes the idea of alignment a crap shoot. > What's better, to load the shaft into a spine plane, or a neutral plane??? > Where's the data???? > > Pat Kelley > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave Tutelman > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: ShopTalk: Harrison Spineless Technology > > > Hi, Harry. > > At 02:29 AM 3/2/03 -0500, Harry F. Schiestel wrote: > >Yes Dave you got the main point of my message (alignment of a predominant > >spine shaft could results in better performance than a very-low-spine > >shaft). > > > >Not sure how using non-symmetrical shafts would be against the rules of > >golf. > > My comment (see complete text below) was... > "That would encourage going out of your way to find the shafts with extreme > spines, and using them. Which is EXACTLY what the USGA doesn't want, and > shouldn't want. We're out of the realm of using aligning to 'assure > consistency', and going to deliberately non-symmetrical shafts to enhance > performance." > > I think Tim Hewitt's post, citing the text of the USGA's ruling, shows why > this is not within the spirit of the ruling. > > >I will believe a spineless shaft can be made when or if I ever find one!! > >As we all know by definition a "perfect shaft" can never exist! The USGA > >rule said shafts will have the same bending in all directions! I don't > >remember ever seeing one, and John Kaufman's cpm study would help to prove > >this. > > Let's not drag in a ridiculous red herring. Nobody... NOBODY is talking > about a truly spineless shaft. The question is how big a spine has to be > before it makes a performance difference. This is the single biggest > deficiency in the testing (or at least the reported testing) so far. Weiss > certainly has no motive to publish this, if he knows it; that would give > everybody a figure to aim for that would cut him out of the deal. And the > OEMs don't publish what they know. > > I want to know at what level we can consider a shaft to be spineless for > practical purposes. > > >If one manufacturer figures out how to provide this (near spineless) > >and I continue to buy non-symmetrical (lets say 1 of several factors is > >economic, they might be cheaper), is this still in compliance with the > rules > >of golf? Personally, I don't want the USGA to place an upper limit on > shaft > >asymmetry. If they used a 3 - 5 cpm range then a lot of filament wound > >shafts would already pass the test. > > THAT IS THE KEY QUESTION!!! Consider: > > * The rule against asymmetry remains on the record. > * The ruling allowing alignment talks explicitly about manufacturing > tolerances. > * A few graphite manufacturers have started producing shafts that, if not > perfectly spineless, have such small spines that you have to work to find > non-FLO. (SK Fiber leads the pack so far, IMHO.) And those shafts are > certainly affordable. > > I very much want the USGA to put a limit on the tolerances. They put limits > on tolerances for lots of other things. Personally, I find it repugnant > that a manufacturing defect -- and one in contradiction to the spirit of > the rules -- should become a desirable characteristic to shoot for. > > >I also find the golf industry a little foreign, in that very little data is > >ever presented and the sales guys say Trust Me. When the data is presented > >(and this is a rare event) then it doesn't hold up to statistical > >challenges. DaveT, you already alluded to uncorrected omissions on SST > >published data from 4 years ago. > > This has become true in a lot of industries besides golf. I worked for Bell > Labs from 1962 to 2002. In the '60s and '70s, people in the telecom > industry published a lot of detailed technical papers. By the '90s, if you > had a new research result, you built it into a product and kept as quiet as > possible -- for as long as possible -- about how it worked. You just > advertised the feature. In the '60's, every good engineer at Bell Labs was > publishing papers. In the '90s, only a couple of people I knew published. > And those papers were timed to coincide with the release of a product, > instead of time-of-discovery. Moreover, most technical papers today appear > as company monographs, not in refereed journals. Today's journal papers > tend to be from academia or from small companies wanting to make a splash. > > I see the same trends in the golf industry. > > Cheers! > DaveT > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave Tutelman > >Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 9:24 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: ShopTalk: Harrison Spineless Technology > > > > > >Alan, > >Outstanding post!!! > >Thanks. > > > >I think your comments about the SST "data" are well-founded. At the time > >they were posted (about the end of 1998, from my notes), I did an analysis > >of their data and noticed that: > > > > * The clubs in the data were labeled #3, #4, and #6. Sorta' makes you > >wonder what happened to #1, #2, and #5, and perhaps others. > > * There was no indication of the magnitude of the spine. > > > >I emailed them to ask about these omissions, and they declined to answer. > > > >BTW, my analysis showed that, for the (statistically insignificant -- > >perhaps intentionally) data that they did show: > > - The 0-hcp golfers got 0.3-0.7% more ball speed on average from the > >aligned club compared to the misaligned club, depending on the club. > > - The higher handicap golfers got 1-2% more ball speed on average from > >the aligned club compared to the misaligned club, depending on the club. > > > >If that's truly typical, it's a moderate selling point for aligning. If it > >is based on "selected data", the selling point is pretty weak. > > > >Now, consider this: > >Suppose it IS true (as Harry implied) that the proper alignment of a really > >bad spine results in better performance than a very-low-spine shaft > >("spineless" for practical purposes). > > > >That would encourage going out of your way to find the shafts with extreme > >spines, and using them. Which is EXACTLY what the USGA doesn't want, and > >shouldn't want. We're out of the realm of using aligning to "assure > >consistency", and going to deliberately non-symmetrical shafts to enhance > >performance. That's against the rules; it is completely against the USGA > >ruling that allowed spine alignment. And if/when enough shaft manufacturers > >get their act in order -- as Harrison is doing, and as SK Fiber (and > >MCC/Apache?) have done -- I'd hope the USGA would would put an upper limit > >on shaft asymmetry, just as it has on COR. It would certainly be easier to > >test than COR. And if the limit is small enough (I'd guess around 3-5cpm > >would be sufficient), then they could allow alignment to your heart's > >content, because it wouldn't make a difference worth worrying about. > > > >Cheers! > >DaveT > > > >At 08:41 PM 2/27/03 -0800, Alan Brooks wrote: > > >Hi again Harry, > > > > > >Let me take another shot at answering your question. What sort of > > >statistical data are you looking for? Statistically significant data > on > > >a process that is as complex and unrepeatable as a golf swing is going to > > >be very, very hard to produce. There are enough variables in a golf > club, > > >the impact process and the ball flight that even Iron Byron data isn't > > >that repeatable. This is true whether you are trying to show that spine > > >alignment/puring/peaking makes a difference or whether you are trying to > > >show that it doesn't. If you can't show that it matters, how can you > > >possible show that one process/product is better than another? I do > > >experimental research for a living and have read through SST and ASD > > >literature and I haven't seen anything that I would stand up in front of > > >colleagues and try and defend without a Teflon coated Kevlar and maraging > > >steel suit of armor. SST shows the results from three golfers. You > can't > > >get good statistics on data from three samples in a well controlled > > >process. Any conclusions you would draw from the results of three > golfers > > >are ludicrous (Why only 3 golfers? I certainly wouldn't try and draw > > >conclusions from a process this complex with only three samples. Or is > > >this the only three from a group of 30 that showed what they wanted to > > >show?). And then lets talk about the lack of scales on many of both > SST's > > >and ASD's data plots. Sorry, but the information they present wouldn't > > >even pass the ho-ho test in a technical peer review. Does better data > > >exist? Probably. I am sure that Harrison and the other shaft > > >manufacturers have a great deal of data, and in a market as competitive > as > > >the Graphite Shaft market you had better believe that they are going to > > >hold that data very, very close to their chests. And even that data may > > >show that it is a factor that is 'in the noise'. > > > > > >But the performance of a shaft in a club is not what the composite > > >designers in a shaft company are all about anyway. They are given a set > > >of design goals like tip and butt diameters, length, taper length, > overall > > >longitudinal stiffness, stiffness gradient, overall torsional stiffness, > > >torsional stiffness gradient, weight, c.g., moment of inertia, etc., and > > >axial symmetry, and, oh yeah, cost. They are also given guidance on the > > >relative importance of each of the design goals (especially cost). The > > >designers then go off into their cubicles and determine what materials to > > >use, what cloth (or plies) they want to use, is it unidirectional or > > >bidirectional, what resin system(s) are they going to use, how big does > > >the mandrel have to be, what is the lay angle for each ply, how many > wraps > > >with each ply and how long are they, where do they put them, what are > they > > >going to use for a cure cycle, how will they finish the outside, > > >etc. Then some artist in a corner that nobody but the marketing types > > >likes because the engineers don't think they add anything to the design > > >process (solid black is a great color for a shaft) decides what the shaft > > >is going to look like. > > > > > >What Mike and Harrison (and most of the other shaft manufacturers, I > > >suspect) have done is raise the relative importance of axial symmetry, > > >consistent with the other design goals and, of course, cost. Their goal > > >is to make the shaft sufficiently symmetric that there can be no question > > >that asymmetries in the shaft will have a minimal influence on > > >performance. Why are they doing this if you can't prove that it makes a > > >difference? So they don't have to contribute to Dick Weiss's retirement > > >plan, of course. But the important thing is that WE WIN! We get better > > >shafts at lower cost. Yes! > > > > > >So what sort of data does Mike have that he could share with us? Lots > and > > >lots of data on layer thicknesses, diameters, straightness, fiber > wetting, > > >composite density, cure cycles, stiffness test data, moment of inertia > and > > >c.g. data. Really cool stuff like that. But data that would mean > > >essentially nothing to someone without an engineering degree and 20-years > > >of experience in composite design. If he were willing to show us this > > >data (and I doubt that he is because that would tell his competitors what > > >his design goals are) we would still be forced to accept his word that > > >"This is good enough!" > > > > > >The problem is that without a clear test to determine what is good and > > >what isn't, it is impossible to provide data that, a priori, will > > >substantiate the marketing claims. So we're back to what do you tell > your > > >customers? Tell them that you only buy components from quality suppliers > > >with whom you have a very positive history and whom you trust. And you > > >keep trying their products to reassure yourself that you still do. > > > > > >I hope this helps, > > > > > >Alan Brooks > > > > > > > > > > > >At 10:51 PM 2/26/03 -0500, you wrote: > > >>Hi Mike C > > >>Sure I can "do what I want to do", even if I choose to do what is > > >>wrong. That is not my question or concern. > > >>Mr. Cheng, my question to you relates to statistical data (old spine > > >>aligned vs. new spineless), which proves your new technology is indeed > >better? > > >>I use your shafts and carry them in my own golf bag. Do you have any > > >>data that converts this technology from a marketing to an improvement > >strategy? > > >>Sorry Mike if I didn't make myself clear on my first post regarding this > > >>subject. Convince me so that I can convince my paying customers who use > > >>UL Pro's. > > >>Regarding your new spineless technology you said "spine orientation or > > >>purring is really not necessary any more". Prove this by sharing the > > >>data if you will. > > >>Thanks Harry S > > >><http://www.Golf54.com>www.Golf54.com > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike > > >>Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:36 PM > > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>Subject: RE: RE: ShopTalk: Harrison Spineless Technology and free sample > > >> > > >>Dear Harry: > > >> > > >>Alan is on the mark. You can still do what you want to do with spining > or > > >>purring. However, you will find that the difference is so small. Spine > > >>orientation or purring is really not necessary any more. > > >> > > >>Mike C. > > >>Harrison Sports, Inc. > > >>tel: 800-347-4646 x101 > > >>fax: 818-834-7601 > > >>e mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>Visit our new interactive web site > > >><http://www.harrison.com/>http:\\www.harrison.com > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: Harry F. Schiestel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>Sent: Wednesday,February 26,2003 9:45 AM > > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>Subject: RE: RE: ShopTalk: Harrison Spineless Technology and free sample > > >>Thanks to the insight Alan, but I would still appreciate a reply from > Mr. > > >>Cheng to ensure we don't interpret his message / company direction > > >>incorrectly > > > >>Thanks HFS > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:37 AM > > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>Subject: Re: RE: ShopTalk: Harrison Spineless Technology and free sample > > >> > > >>Hi Harry, > > >>As an engineer I can assure you that man has yet to make anything that > > >>was perfect (or in this case, spine-less). What Mike is saying is that > > >>their shafts will not have a 'prominent spine'. What I interpret this > to > > >>mean is that the spines that exist will be of sufficiently low magnitude > > >>that they will be imperceptible to the golfer, regardless of the > > >>orientation of the shaft in the club head. It means that it will not be > > >>necessary to measure and align the spine of the shaft, not that it > cannot > > >>be done. You will still be able to measure the spines and align the > > >>shafts accordingly for those customers that wish it. If you and they > > >>feel it adds value to the club, go for it. For those of us who do not, > > >>it means we can build clubs with even greater assurance that it doesn't. > > >>Regards, > > >>Alan Brooks > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>At 02:24 AM 2/26/03 -0500, you wrote: > > >>>Hi Mr. Cheng > > >>>I applaud your efforts to make the best shaft in the business. I carry > > >>>your shafts on my web site (so I am a paying customer). > > >>>I have used a lot of the Harrison UL Pro 2.5 to 4.5 woods in the past > > >>>(and loved them), and my customers embarrass the UL line. > > >>>To make such a marked shift in theory (from spine to spineless) is > quite > > >>>an aggressive undertaking by any shaft mfg. company. > > >>>Does this spineless technology produce a better golf shaft? If so, > what > > >>>empirical data do you have that can prove this new technology? > > >>>What are the results to both distance and percent error when you > compare > > >>>the old spine shaft (aligned) vs. the new spineless shaft? > > >>>Harrison shafts have a track record for winning Remax World Long Drive > > >>>Championships, and I must assume these where pre spineless days. > > >>>Just trying to understand why I should now embarrass spineless > > >>>technology, when I loved finding Type II Supershafts (long and > straight), > > >>>and your old shafts had N's, S's, normally Type 2, and an abundance of > > >>>Supershafts (delta freq.) >> all built on winning world LD > championships. > > >>>Mike, do you have statistical data (old spine aligned vs. new > spineless) > > >>>you can share, which proves the new technology is indeed better? > > >>>Without data its just an educated guess / marketing. Then my old > > >>>Harrison UL Pro X.5's type 2 supershafts might be worth their weight in > >gold. > > >>>This change in manufacturing practice at Harrison is going to confuse > my > > >>>customers that have aligned shafts with predominant spines. > > >>>Thanks Harry S > > >>><http://www.Golf54.com>www.Golf54.com > > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 2/18/03 > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 2/18/03 > > >
