Bend Profile Question

I have come to realize that my current swing gets along with a certain shaft. Of course, like a lot of us, I like to experiment with different shafts, but lately I have had a hard time finding detailed specs on certain shafts with regards to bend profile, butt, mid, tip info etc. Torque stats seem readily available but I cannot always track down info on the different sections of the staff.

I have gotten along very well with the UST/Proforce PROTO, and the Oban Devotion 6. The specs for the PROTO are on the shaft so I know it's stiffer in the butt and tip, with a softer mid section and lower torque. I wonder if the Devo is similar? Does anyone know the butt, mid, tip specs for the Devotion 6 4flex and the Speeder 661 S? If so I would really appreciate the info.

Also does anyone have a reference where this type of info is available for various shafts? I used to be able to find much more info, but golfshaftreviews has gone to a pay for info site, and google searches I do don't turn up the info I'm looking for. As always thank you all for your help.

Tom Wishon used to sell a shaft profile computer program but the database hasn't been updated for a couple of years and I don't see the program listed on the website anymore. Tom has posted here previously that he wants to update the system and continue with supply but I'm not sure what the status of that project is. Maybe he will see this thread and chime in?

Tom Wishon used to sell a shaft profile computer program but the database hasn't been updated for a couple of years and I don't see the program listed on the website anymore. Tom has posted here previously that he wants to update the system and continue with supply but I'm not sure what the status of that project is. Maybe he will see this thread and chime in?

Thank you for the info. I appreciate it. I was asking because I like to buy/try different shafts but I’d like to buy more with the profile I prefer. I have some great shafts that just don’t fit my swing. Shafts with softer butt sections and stiffer mids and tips don’t work for me consistently. Shafts with softer tips are even worse. So I try to find specs that I know work with my swing, but it seems harder to find lately. Overall stiffness/flex and launch/spin info doesn’t seem to matter as much to me as the bend profile. Thanks again for the info.

Have you checked out Russ Ryden's Golf Shaft Review.info site? It used to be free, but now they rightfully charge a nominal annual fee ($10 for the off season price) and it's totally worth it. Lots of good information and insight and yes, bend profiles.

http://www.golfshaftreviews.info/

Have you checked out Russ Ryden's Golf Shaft Review.info site? It used to be free, but now they rightfully charge a nominal annual fee ($10 for the off season price) and it's totally worth it. Lots of good information and insight and yes, bend profiles.

 

http://www.golfshaftreviews.info/

I went there with the intention of purchasing the membership the other day but it looks like you only get the original content that used to be free right? Looks like if you want access to the spreadsheet data you need to pay the higher price?

That would be awesome

I went there with the intention of purchasing the membership the other day but it looks like you only get the original content that used to be free right? Looks like if you want access to the spreadsheet data you need to pay the higher price?

Yup, the site membership just gets you what used to be provided for free & the data/software itself is $600 with a $300 annual renewal fee. For reference, the TWT Profiling Software was $130 without annual fees. BTW, Tom indicated last month they're working on an update towards spring.

I went there with the intention of purchasing the membership the other day but it looks like you only get the original content that used to be free right? Looks like if you want access to the spreadsheet data you need to pay the higher price?

Yup, the site membership just gets you what used to be provided for free & the data/software itself is $600 with a $300 annual renewal fee. For reference, the TWT Profiling Software was $130 without annual fees. BTW, Tom indicated last month they're working on an update towards spring.

Thanks. I have Tom's. And "wow" on the price tag of Russ's stuff. No thank you! :)

Based on the specs that readily available it would SEEM that the Oban Devotion is in a similar category. They claim "firm butt, mid, and tip sections" but with those torque numbers and the fact that its not a "low/low" shaft in terms of launch and spin means there is a little flex in the somewhere, similar to the UST Proto you mentioned. The standard Speeder 661 would seem to be similar as well with a slightly softer mid section. All of these things fit into the "Blue" profile so i'd be curious if you also liked the Diamana Blueboard/Kai'li/Tensei Pro Blue.

I think that Valtiel is correct. I would have to look at the software again, but I think the last time I looked them up the Oban Devo, 661, AD DI, and blueboard were all pretty close to one another. I know the Proforce V2 was close to the AD DI and so is the blueboard.

Actually, based on the Wishon data I've seen, I would have rated the the devotion as having a soft butt, moderate mid and stiff tip. But then which particular weight and flex can make a difference in the ratings. e.g. the dev5 has a very different profile from the dev 6.

But then, one of the problems with the ratings we get from the shaft manufacturers sight is that there is no universal standard by which they come up with those ratings One companies moderate/medium can be another companies stiff or another's soft. And even the data from Tom's software doesn't make it easy to judge what's "soft" vs "moderate" vs "stiff". It's great for doing direct comparisons (for shafts in the DB) but I haven't seen any statistical averages.

Actually, based on the Wishon data I've seen, I would have rated the the devotion as having a soft butt, moderate mid and stiff tip. But then which particular weight and flex can make a difference in the ratings. e.g. the dev5 has a very different profile from the dev 6.

 

But then, one of the problems with the ratings we get from the shaft manufacturers sight is that there is no universal standard by which they come up with those ratings One companies moderate/medium can be another companies stiff or another's soft. And even the data from Tom's software doesn't make it easy to judge what's "soft" vs "moderate" vs "stiff". It's great for doing direct comparisons (for shafts in the DB) but I haven't seen any statistical averages.

That is an important point, the adjectives should be taken with a grain of salt when comparing between manufacturers. I doubt they all meet around a table once a week to make sure their definitions of "firm" are the same. :derisive:

Hah, last century a meet was set up where they tried, let's just say it went nowhere...

As to the OP's question: I don't know about the Proto, but the Devo 6X & 661X share a similar butt stiffness, with the 661 softening considerably in the late mid-to-tip section. AFAIK there were several Proforces that were stiffer in the butt, similair mid, softer mid-to-tip and quickly stiffening in the tip (compared to the Devo).

Based on the specs that readily available it would SEEM that the Oban Devotion is in a similar category. They claim "firm butt, mid, and tip sections" but with those torque numbers and the fact that its not a "low/low" shaft in terms of launch and spin means there is a little flex in the somewhere, similar to the UST Proto you mentioned. The standard Speeder 661 would seem to be similar as well with a slightly softer mid section. All of these things fit into the "Blue" profile so i'd be curious if you also liked the Diamana Blueboard/Kai'li/Tensei Pro Blue.

I have never played the original Blueboard, but I do have the Blueboard S+. Not a huge fan, I have to deliberately put a smooth swing on the S+ or it gets loose, unlike the Proto or Devo. I know the S+ is not the same as the Blueboard so I may have to check one out. I have not played the Kai'li or Tensei, but I'll keep them in mind.

Others have mentioned that just basic descriptors like "stiff" or "softer" with regards to shaft section won't really mean much between manufacturers and I agree, but I think there will still be trends as far as feel goes. An example for me is the Kiyoshi White vs the Devotion, I have read that the White has a softer butt section and a stiffer mid and tip. While is a great shaft and when I was in synch with it, it was very long, but I was also very inconsistent with it. The Devotion on the other hand I was very consistent with. The White was longer than the Devo on my best shots, but I was in the fairway much, much more frequently with the Devo. I'm sure someone will say- "just play the Devo moron" and I may, but again, I like to experiment. Good is never good enough...

Scratch some of what I said last night. The Oban isn't really all that close to any of the ones I thought it was. I cannot find any Proforce "protos" in the database so perhaps it's either under a different name or it's just not in there. Here are some comparisons to include the 661 and the Evo 661 versions. The Oban Devo 6 S is stiffer than all of them from the center through the tip.

I also ran a search on Tom's software for matches to the Devotion 6 S within 2.5%, here's what came up out of the ones that are in there.

Scratch some of what I said last night. The Oban isn't really all that close to any of the ones I thought it was. I cannot find any Proforce "protos" in the database so perhaps it's either under a different name or it's just not in there. Here are some comparisons to include the 661 and the Evo 661 versions. The Oban Devo 6 S is stiffer than all of them from the center through the tip.

 

 

 

I also ran a search on Tom's software for matches to the Devotion 6 S within 2.5%, here's what came up out of the ones that are in there.

 

 

Thank you very much for that info. That is awesome. Here are a few pics of the PROTO, I’m pretty sure it became the V2.

Scratch some of what I said last night. The Oban isn't really all that close to any of the ones I thought it was. I cannot find any Proforce "protos" in the database so perhaps it's either under a different name or it's just not in there. Here are some comparisons to include the 661 and the Evo 661 versions. The Oban Devo 6 S is stiffer than all of them from the center through the tip.

 

 

 

I also ran a search on Tom's software for matches to the Devotion 6 S within 2.5%, here's what came up out of the ones that are in there.

 

 

 

Thank you very much for that info. That is awesome. Here are a few pics of the PROTO, I’m pretty sure it became the V2.

 

 

Same specs as the v2 76 stiff

Scratch some of what I said last night. The Oban isn't really all that close to any of the ones I thought it was. I cannot find any Proforce "protos" in the database so perhaps it's either under a different name or it's just not in there. Here are some comparisons to include the 661 and the Evo 661 versions. The Oban Devo 6 S is stiffer than all of them from the center through the tip.

 

 

 

I also ran a search on Tom's software for matches to the Devotion 6 S within 2.5%, here's what came up out of the ones that are in there.

 

 

Excellent info Golfnut! It does seem that the Devotion is a good bit more firm through a majority of the profile which also lines up with what Spooky67 said about feeling like the S+ was too loose. I should have been more specific in my recommendation then since, per my signature, I prefer the Blue profile in the heavier weights which obviously changes things a bit. Based on what you said about the Kyoshi White it would seem that its more the stiffer butt section that you prefer overall with the softer ones giving you consistency issues.

I’ll look at the database next time I’m on my laptop. IIRC there are two cersions of the V2 on there so not exactly sure which is which. That was for the 60g shaft though so not aure what’s on there in the 70g range.

Some shaft, like equipment companies, no longer publicize specs. I suspect that decision comes from consumers not having a clue about shaft specs or what bend fits their swing. Some companies like Titleist & Callaway no longer post bounce on irons, which for me is an important spec. Additionally, one shaft company says a shaft flex is mid-bend, another says that same flex / bend is mid-high or even mid-low. The only way to really tell is to test shafts, keep records, and also call the manufacturer to get specs. All of which takes effort.

I am comfortable with a mid-high bend with stiff tip 66g PX6C12, 3.5tq Tour Spec (played for years), but my current high bend with stiff tip 65g Fujikura Fuel Tour Spec 60 "S" 3.1tq fits my tempo as well...both are nearly the same weight. Both have a stiff butt and tip sections that stay with my quick hands. :beach:

Charts like these are interesting, the same chart from different companies seems to rate shafts in different differently. Looking at where the Speeder 661 is on this chart makes me wonder how it will play with my swing. Again butt and tip stiffness matter more to me than spin/launch so I’ll see when I get out to the course.

Here's the V-2 vs the Oban Devo S...along with about 50 matches that are in Tom's database. Plenty to choose from :)

Here's the V-2 vs the Oban Devo S...along with about 50 matches that are in Tom's database. Plenty to choose from :)

 

 

That is awesome! Thank you very much for all your help/info!

Here's the V-2 vs the Oban Devo S...along with about 50 matches that are in Tom's database. Plenty to choose from :)

 

 

Oof, yeah that Oban starts out fairly similar and firms up in a BIG hurry compared to the others. Definitely seems like very stiff butted shafts are the thing to look at given its really the only thing they have in common.

It would be really cool to see some of the heavier weight versions of shafts vs their lighter weight counterparts to see what the numbers look like. The Kai'li 60 seemed to be softer than the Blue 60 and I wonder if that trend continues with the heavier weights as it could explain why I like the heavier 80x in the driver.

 

But then, one of the problems with the ratings we get from the shaft manufacturers sight is that there is no universal standard by which they come up with those ratings One companies moderate/medium can be another companies stiff or another's soft. And even the data from Tom's software doesn't make it easy to judge what's "soft" vs "moderate" vs "stiff". It's great for doing direct comparisons (for shafts in the DB) but I haven't seen any statistical averages.

Probably at least 27 times I have sat down at my computer and tried to continue a detailed statistical analysis of data on the old Shaft Bend Profile software so that I could end up with more of an empirical classification and comparison of all sorts of elements of shaft profile data such what is the definition of tip soft/medium/firm and so forth with each section of shafts. I did this enough to continue to create my own empirical methodology for awarding a swing speed rating to shafts and that almost killed me with utter boredom. I swore those days I went to bed with thousands of numbers dancing around in my brain rather than a simple counting of sheep !!

When I released the software I really thought that some club tech afficiandos out there like you might embark on such a study themselves, since the data to do that is all there. It's just mind-numbing work to manually grab data from the front end of that program. You can only stare at the numbers so long before it all becomes fuzzy.

And yes, it would have been nice to have done that all behind the software using data base management tools but, well, let's just say that over the years the relationship with the programmer I had do the initial work to create this software from my dictates just became impossible to work with. Much too long of a story to go into and not worth it at this point anyway but that personal problem was one of the reasons I let this project go into the sand - of course the main one was the change in attitude by many of the shaft companies to decide not to support this project for their own image and commercial reasons.

So anyway, Diamond Golf who are the stewards of my product line now have had some conversations with programmers over in the UK, enough that we feel we have identified a path to completely re doing this and trying to re-constitute it. And perhaps it will be set up in a manner that will allow much easier management of the data to be able to go those extra miles to creating worthwhile statistical comparative data to take this thing to a higher level of understanding for much more definitive comparisons between shafts and groups of shafts.

We'll see.

Tom-

Thanks again for all your work on fitting.

When I released the software I really thought that some club tech afficiandos out there like you might embark on such a study themselves, since the data to do that is all there. It's just mind-numbing work to manually grab data from the front end of that program. You can only stare at the numbers so long before it all becomes fuzzy.

I can imagine. I must admit it's not something I had thought about doing with the lack of any standardization as a starting base. And the only way I might take on such a project would be with my own software tools. Is the file format for the DB standardized or proprietary?

And yes, it would have been nice to have done that all behind the software using data base management tools but, well, let's just say that over the years the relationship with the programmer I had do the initial work to create this software from my dictates just became impossible to work with.

Wish I had known. Considering how much you've donated your time to help everyone around here, I would have happily reciprocated on software matters (that's how I make my paycheck). But fortunately it sounds like Diamond and you have things back on track.

When I released the software I really thought that some club tech afficiandos out there like you might embark on such a study themselves, since the data to do that is all there. It's just mind-numbing work to manually grab data from the front end of that program. You can only stare at the numbers so long before it all becomes fuzzy.

 

I can imagine. I must admit it's not something I had thought about doing with the lack of any standardization as a starting base. And the only way I might take on such a project would be with my own software tools. Is the file format for the DB standardized or proprietary?

 

Proprietary. Wish it were otherwise. But hey, that's water under the bridge and now I hope we can do this better the 2nd time around.

Proprietary. Wish it were otherwise. But hey, that's water under the bridge and now I hope we can do this better the 2nd time around.

It's not ideal but not really too hard to overcome that limitation IF you are willing to publish/share the file format specs. That could still allow 3rd party tools to interact with the DB w/o too much trouble (assuming there is an interest to allow it). A little more work and you could provide a dynamic library and API for 3rd party access to the data.

Just as an update, I finally got to the course yesterday and it was the first round with the M1. Awesome head. I tried the 661 on the range and was ALL over the place. Pulled it and put the Devotion in and I was dead straight or a slight fade. The M1/Devo combo produced one of my best days off the tee box in a long time.