Doug, > The more I mess with spines and scratch my head > about how to orient the shafts, the more I appreciate shafts that don't have > spines.
Me, too. > I suppose a strong spine properly aligned, whatever that means, > might be better than anything. According to those who hit the ball harder and farther than I, aligning a shaft's large spine (over 5 cpm?) at 12 o'clock makes a big difference in reducing the size of the impact area on the face. The more center hits, the more longer, accurate drives. Thus, it's called a "supershaft alignment." Actually, though the USGA has made small deviations in stiffness around the circumference of a shaft acceptable, large spines essentially make a shaft non-conforming to the rules of golf...at least, that's my opinion on the subject. > But it's hard to get bad results with no > spine. I just wish I could find more shafts like that. That's true. The SK Fiber shafts which I've been using almost always have less than .006" deflection (about 1 cpm) and play very well. Though I haven't used any Accuflex shafts because of their high price, those who have used them report they are as good as the SK Fiber shafts. And, most filament wound shafts have very little spine. If these manufacturers can do it, so could Penley, UST, Grafalloy, etc. IMO, the USGA should put a limit on spine magnitude of 2 cpm. Bernie Writeto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
