At 09:13 PM 3/20/03 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems like quite the difference of opinion but it is starting to make a
little sense (I think). Dave, I have been out of engineering school for
quite some time but your math looks right to me. From that and some of these
posts we can generalize a bit.

OK, let's assume that my calculations were in the right order of magnitude, and examine your generalizations:


1. Stronger swingers and maybe faster tempos need lower torques?

That has been a principle accepted by many "authorities" in fitting. It does agree with my calculations.


2. Bigger (wider) heads need lower torque?

Absolutely! Bigger heads put more than proportionally higher twist on the shaft.


3. The next thing then is could we maybe move a customer into a softer flex
with lower torque to improve distance without a loss of accuracy or is that
too much of a streach?

You are assuming that a softer shaft means more distance. I don't believe this in general. But I suspect this would be a worthwhile strategy for fitting some golfers. In the meantime...


Charlie B just said he was going to try just the opposite. He has a strong player (Canadian Tour) that hits an X-flex best but says it feels boardy. He is going to try an X-flex with a higher torque rating, to see if that gives him the distance with a softer feel. It will be an interesting experiment. If I had to guess, I suppose that Pat's comment about dispersion will spoil things a little. But you never really know until you try it.

Cheers!
DaveT




Reply via email to