Hey, Tedd  How about this 2 - 3 & 4 irons mage from Forging stock, the 5 - 6 
& 7 irons made as Investment Castings and the 8 - 9 & PW irons made from Ti. 
The 4140 / 4340  Forging stock weights in at somewheres very close to .29 
Pounds per Cubic Inch    The IC should weight in at around .254 Pounds per 
c/i and the  TI weights in at .17 PPCI. or how about Be for the 8 - 9 7 PW.

RK

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Childers, Tedd A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 12:18 PM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] RE: ShopTalk: Re: [SpinetalkersForum] Single 
length irons


: Alan,
:
: The only problem I see with a single length complete set is that the 
length
: of the clubs would have to be closer to 38-40" to accommodate a 240g head
: weight (as you suggest below), IF you want to obtain a somewhat 
traditional
: swingweight (C8-D2 range).  At that length, you are starting to get into 
the
: range where most people seem to struggle with their traditional sets.  The
: question is, do they struggle with traditional long irons because of the
: length, the lower loft, the smaller head size, or a combination of these.
: The success of hybrids seems to indicate that the length factor can be at
: least partially offset by larger, more forgiving hybrid head designs.  In
: reality, I believe that it is the combination of these three factors that
: make long irons hard to hit well.  A single length concept can address two
: of these factors easily (length and head size/forgiveness) as long as the
: heads are designed properly.  If this concept takes off, I can foresee 
that
: future sets could include hybrid type heads for the lower lofted irons,
: cavity back designs for the mid-irons, and blades for the highest lofted
: clubs, all built to the same weight and lie angle to allow single length
: clubs.  Whether or not the complete set, including "woods" could be 
included
: at a single length remains to be seen.  At worst, I think it is easily
: achievable to only have 2 lengths of clubs, 1 for irons and 1 for woods.
:
: Tedd
:
: -----Original Message-----
: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Brooks
: Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 11:19 AM
: To: [email protected]
: Subject: RE: ShopTalk: Re: [SpinetalkersForum] Single length irons
:
:
: Hi Tedd,
:
: Dave's right about Max's program, the input variables are head speed, head
: mass, and loft (along with some global parameters such as coefficient of
: restitution, spin coefficient, etc.).  Club length is not an input.  After
: my last post I played around with lower loft values and got the same sort
: of numbers and distances that Dave did for the constant length clubs.
:
: Why is it that you think we need to apply the concept separately for woods
: and irons?  I have had this same conversation on Wishon's forum over MOI
: matching.  If we are trying to make a 'set' of clubs easier to get
: repeatable results from, shouldn't they all be matched?  I suspect if we
: play around with the numbers a bit we can design a constant length set of
: clubs that will get 200-yards on one end and 100-yards on the other.  A 
lot
: of the guys I play with would be thrilled if they could get 200-yards down
: the middle consistently.  I would design the set with hybrids for the low
: lofted irons (to take advantage of the forgiveness properties of hollow
: heads) progressing to a cavity back for the high lofted irons.  They would
: be comparable to a progressive length set from PW to 5-wood, which is what
: most high handicappers should be playing with anyway.  Of course, then 
they
: might become mid-handicappers and want more Pro-like clubs.  This could be
: a godsend for the occasional golfer.
:
: I just went back into Max's program and ran 240-g head weight at 85-mph 
and
: got 202-yards for an 18* loft and 98-yards for 50* loft.  I believe there
: is a lot of room for tweaking here.
:
: Regards,
:
: Alan Brooks
:
:
:
: At 08:21 AM 1/5/2005 -0500, you wrote:
: >Alan,
: >
: >I think that the concept for single length would apply separately for 
irons
: >and woods.  Can you re-run the numbers using say a 42" club length for
: woods
: >with a 100 MPH swingspeed (I guess head weight would be around 220 
grams).
: >I think the target weight is closer to 266 grams for these heads, with 
the
: >length at 36.6-37.5", depending on the golfer and the shaft used.  Can
: Max's
: >program predict how much difference in swingspeed and/or distance one 
would
: >get between a 38" club with a 253g head and a 37" club with a 266g head,
: >assuming the same loft?
: >
: >Tedd
: >
: >-----Original Message-----
: >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Brooks
: >Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 7:46 PM
: >To: [email protected]
: >Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Re: [SpinetalkersForum] Single length irons
: >
: >
: >Since it was easy to do I just ran Max Dupilka's Trajectory program for 
an
: >80-mph, 250-g club head at various lofts.  The distances I got are as
: >follows:
: >
: >Loft     Distance (yards)
: >12          175
: >24          178
: >36          138
: >48          100
: >
: >Reasonable numbers for lofts above 24*.  It looks like it would take
: >lighter heads (hence higher club head velocities) to get the distance 
back
: >up with woods.  The trajectory for the the 24*, 36*, and 48* lofts were
: >comparably high.  The 12* trajectory was about half the height.  I did 
not
: >play with the other parameters in Max's software (such as spin) that will
: >influence true results.
: >
: >Interesting, though.
: >
: >Alan Brooks
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >At 04:37 PM 1/4/2005 -0500, you wrote:
: > >>Dave T. has done the math
: > >>comparing single length iron distances vs. traditional irons, and 
there
: > >>really is a minimal affect on distance by going to single length (at 
say
: > >>37").
: > >
: > >Sometime, I'll have to re-do it with a different set of assumptions. 
The
: > >graph in the Club Design Notes assumes you couldn't get a set with
: > >constant head weight. I assumed a skilled golfer that could still hit 
the
: > >ball with wildly different swingweights, and who in fact got some
: clubhead
: > >speed advantage with the lighter clubs. (I used data from Cochran &
: Stobbs
: > >to estimate the speed advantage.)
: > >
: > >To evaluate the concept that Tim (or David Lake of 1IronGolf) is 
pushing,
: > >I'd re-do the simulations for constant head weight and constant speed. 
I
: > >don't know if it would make single-length look better or worse. Longer
: > >irons would have lower clubhead speed but higher mass; don't know if 
the
: > >resulting momentum and energy transferred comes out higher or lower. 
Just
: > >gotta go ahead and crank through the numbers.
: > >
: > >Very interesting, though!
: > >DaveT
: > >
: > >
: > >--
: > >No virus found in this outgoing message.
: > >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
: > >Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/05
: > >
:
: 


Reply via email to