On re-reading my own post (appended below), I realized my wordings
was convoluted. Here's the short form of what I was saying:
Lloyd has said a couple of times today that, basically, if the
FitChip theory of shaft bending is correct, then the performance of
the shaft depends only on butt frequency, not on profile.
I agree with that assessment. And, since I have seen different
performance from different shafts where the only significant
different was profile (same butt frequency), then FitChip theory does not work.
Everything else I said was also correct, IMHO -- just a lot harder to read.
DaveT
At 09:20 PM 1/16/2006, Dave Tutelman wrote:
At 07:50 PM 1/16/2006, Lloyd Hackman wrote:
So your saying a spring does not reach it peak speed when it passes though
its neutral position or when its sine wave load curve is zero?
No, I'm saying all that is irrelevant to the actual time-vs-bend of
a real golf shaft in a real golf swing.
You've heard this from me lots of times before. This is really one
more demonstration that the sine-wave shaft bending theory doesn't work.
I agree with what you have said several times in this thread: IF
your theory is correct, then the shaft profile is of no consequence
to performance -- only butt frequency is important.
How many members of this forum believe different shaft profiles CAN
give different performance, even if the butt frequency of the club
is the same? I bet a lot believe it. I know I do. I've also seen
such statements from people like Tom Wishon. So you have just raised
your own credibility barrier. You have successfully made the case
that you have to convince us profile doesn't matter before we have
to even seriously consider your theory of bending.
Sorry, no sale.
DaveT
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 1/14/2006
