Thanks,
Alan Brooks
At 07:55 AM 10/9/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Dave,
Well, that depends on how you define NBP. We've had this discussion before. You choose to define NBP as the softest flex plane in a shaft and the spine as the stiffest plane, excluding shaft geometric anomalies from consideration.
A number of us disagree with that assumption and believe that geometric anomalies might be just as important in shaft alignment as stiffness. We feel a combination of differential stiffness and shaft geometric anomalies in a shaft should be combined to determine the best alignment, which is exactly what a spine finder does.
Dan Neubecker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-----Original Message----- >From: Dave Tutelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 5:35 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: ShopTalk: NBP-COG > > >At 04:49 PM 10/8/03 -0500, Don Flatgard wrote: >>NBP-COG alignment..... >>I posted this the other day and received no response so I'll >do it again. >>I agree with you on the difficulty of aligning the NBP and COG to the >>degree. >>My method is to prepare the shaft, install the ferrule, find >the NBP with >>the NF. Take the DI off, turn the NF up-side down on the >bench and install >>the head and let it seek it own COG, let the epoxy set up >with the club in >>the NF. >>In my small mind I don't see how you could get any closer....df > >Don, >That will indeed get as close as you can measure it. (It's a >variant of an >approach I originally suggested.) Two flies in the ointment, however: > >(1) The NF2 only finds the true NBP if the shaft is straight >and round. >Otherwise, there is an error (frequently a significant error) in the >position you find. > >(2) This approach only works for NBP-COG alignment. That's a >new theory, >and most of the anecdotal data (and all of the organized >published data) >use either NBP-target or spine-target alignment. > >Cheers! >DaveT > >
