Fade and draw bias by weighting

Deuce78Deuce78 Members Posts: 1,251 ✭✭
I have always heard that weighting a toe or heel "slows down" the weighted area, creating a closed or open face and a draw or fade. Is this actually true?



I think about this and wonder of the weighting, especially in the toe, actually has influence on dynamic lie angle creating more of a town down or toe up effect in the heel and causing a draw or fade that way? Any comments?
TM M5 [email protected] HZRDUS T1100 65g 6.5
PING G410 [email protected] HZRDUS T1100 75g 6.5 
PING G410 17.5 HZRDUS T1100 85g 6.5
Nike vapor fly pro 2 iron black tie 105x
MP32/712mb/MP69/714mb/MP4/s55/900 Tour/iblade/5-7-965 combo/MP63/iblade 3-PW
Vokey sm6/Tour Gorge/TVD/black Glides
NIPPON 1150gh X flex/kbs tour V 120x/Steelfiber 125x
Kuchar #1/Lamont Mann Custom ARM LOCK/custom Arm Locks-Scotty, Odyssey, TM

Comments

  • TomWishonTomWishon Sponsors Posts: 3,653 ✭✭
    Deuce78 wrote:


    I have always heard that weighting a toe or heel "slows down" the weighted area, creating a closed or open face and a draw or fade. Is this actually true?



    I think about this and wonder of the weighting, especially in the toe, actually has influence on dynamic lie angle creating more of a town down or toe up effect in the heel and causing a draw or fade that way? Any comments?




    Nope. Doesn't happen that way. Let's take a draw bias as an example to explain. It's the same for fade bias but in the opposite.



    As you add more weight to the heel side of the clubhead and especially far into the heel side of the head so the weight is farther from the CG of the head, you begin to move the CG toward the heel side of the face. Now with the CG on the heel side of the center of the face, if you hit the ball dead on center, the head will now rotate slightly in a clockwise manner (RH clubhead). This creates a slight horizontal gear effect on the shot that tilts the axis of rotation of the backspin slightly in a draw direction, tilted to the left for a RH shot.



    Problem is, it takes a lot of weight far from the middle of the head to move the CG enough so the on center hit causes a more significant change in the spin axis from the horizontal gear effect. 20g is really the minimum for the vast majority of golfers to really be able to see the difference in their shots. Also, you have to make impact dead on center for the draw bias to be maximized in its effect. Also, if you have an off center hit toward the toe, now you accentuate the horizontal gear effect even more to create more of a tilt in the spin axis but you lose ball speed from the off center hit in the process. Also if you come into impact with the face open or on an outside in path, now you introduce a cancelling factor to the draw bias. Bring the clubhead into impact more significantly open or with more of a significant Out/In path and you still slice the ball, while you scratch your head wondering why your draw bias driver doesn't draw the ball.



    Day in and day out if you want the clubhead to help you reduce a slice or enhance a draw, going with a driver head that is more closed for the face angle than what you currently play is BY FAR the most effective, most consistent and most repeatable way to do that.
  • bluedotbluedot Members Posts: 3,423 ✭✭
    TomWishon wrote:

    Deuce78 wrote:


    I have always heard that weighting a toe or heel "slows down" the weighted area, creating a closed or open face and a draw or fade. Is this actually true?



    I think about this and wonder of the weighting, especially in the toe, actually has influence on dynamic lie angle creating more of a town down or toe up effect in the heel and causing a draw or fade that way? Any comments?




    Nope. Doesn't happen that way. Let's take a draw bias as an example to explain. It's the same for fade bias but in the opposite.



    As you add more weight to the heel side of the clubhead and especially far into the heel side of the head so the weight is farther from the CG of the head, you begin to move the CG toward the heel side of the face. Now with the CG on the heel side of the center of the face, if you hit the ball dead on center, the head will now rotate slightly in a clockwise manner (RH clubhead). This creates a slight horizontal gear effect on the shot that tilts the axis of rotation of the backspin slightly in a draw direction, tilted to the left for a RH shot.



    Problem is, it takes a lot of weight far from the middle of the head to move the CG enough so the on center hit causes a more significant change in the spin axis from the horizontal gear effect. 20g is really the minimum for the vast majority of golfers to really be able to see the difference in their shots. Also, you have to make impact dead on center for the draw bias to be maximized in its effect. Also, if you have an off center hit toward the toe, now you accentuate the horizontal gear effect even more to create more of a tilt in the spin axis but you lose ball speed from the off center hit in the process. Also if you come into impact with the face open or on an outside in path, now you introduce a cancelling factor to the draw bias. Bring the clubhead into impact more significantly open or with more of a significant Out/In path and you still slice the ball, while you scratch your head wondering why your draw bias driver doesn't draw the ball.



    Day in and day out if you want the clubhead to help you reduce a slice or enhance a draw, going with a driver head that is more closed for the face angle than what you currently play is BY FAR the most effective, most consistent and most repeatable way to do that.




    Tom,

    Thank you for this explanation, and I agree with you 100% about club face angle vs. weight changes.



    Let me ask a question, only out of curiosity, about the 20g figure that you cite. Is there a difference between a moveable or slider weight vs. lead tape? Suppose a driver has a 10g weight that can be placed in either the center or toward the heel or toe. If I (re)move the 10g weight from the center and relocate it to the heel, does that effectively add up to a 20g change?



    Thanks in advance, and if this is a dumb question, forgive me. It's just always seemed to me to be a very different thing to add AND subtract weight vs. just adding weight with lead tape.
  • JayshaftJayshaft Greenville, MIMembers Posts: 385 ✭✭
    I love every thread with a response from Tom - I can never get enough!
  • TomWishonTomWishon Sponsors Posts: 3,653 ✭✭
    bluedot wrote:

    TomWishon wrote:

    Deuce78 wrote:


    I have always heard that weighting a toe or heel "slows down" the weighted area, creating a closed or open face and a draw or fade. Is this actually true?



    I think about this and wonder of the weighting, especially in the toe, actually has influence on dynamic lie angle creating more of a town down or toe up effect in the heel and causing a draw or fade that way? Any comments?




    Nope. Doesn't happen that way. Let's take a draw bias as an example to explain. It's the same for fade bias but in the opposite.



    As you add more weight to the heel side of the clubhead and especially far into the heel side of the head so the weight is farther from the CG of the head, you begin to move the CG toward the heel side of the face. Now with the CG on the heel side of the center of the face, if you hit the ball dead on center, the head will now rotate slightly in a clockwise manner (RH clubhead). This creates a slight horizontal gear effect on the shot that tilts the axis of rotation of the backspin slightly in a draw direction, tilted to the left for a RH shot.



    Problem is, it takes a lot of weight far from the middle of the head to move the CG enough so the on center hit causes a more significant change in the spin axis from the horizontal gear effect. 20g is really the minimum for the vast majority of golfers to really be able to see the difference in their shots. Also, you have to make impact dead on center for the draw bias to be maximized in its effect. Also, if you have an off center hit toward the toe, now you accentuate the horizontal gear effect even more to create more of a tilt in the spin axis but you lose ball speed from the off center hit in the process. Also if you come into impact with the face open or on an outside in path, now you introduce a cancelling factor to the draw bias. Bring the clubhead into impact more significantly open or with more of a significant Out/In path and you still slice the ball, while you scratch your head wondering why your draw bias driver doesn't draw the ball.



    Day in and day out if you want the clubhead to help you reduce a slice or enhance a draw, going with a driver head that is more closed for the face angle than what you currently play is BY FAR the most effective, most consistent and most repeatable way to do that.




    Tom,

    Thank you for this explanation, and I agree with you 100% about club face angle vs. weight changes.



    Let me ask a question, only out of curiosity, about the 20g figure that you cite. Is there a difference between a moveable or slider weight vs. lead tape? Suppose a driver has a 10g weight that can be placed in either the center or toward the heel or toe. If I (re)move the 10g weight from the center and relocate it to the heel, does that effectively add up to a 20g change?



    Thanks in advance, and if this is a dumb question, forgive me. It's just always seemed to me to be a very different thing to add AND subtract weight vs. just adding weight with lead tape.




    Not a dumb question at all. The only dumb question is one the person was too timid to ask.



    It does not matter if the weight is a sliding mass, a permanently embedded weight or lead tape. Although getting up to 20g + with lead tape is probably going to be really ugly and globby on the head for how much tape would have to be stuck on the head, not practical at all in other words.



    And no, 10g is 10g when it comes to moving the CG to allow the bias to be possible. However, 10g is insignificant for all but a much higher speed player who better be really consistent in being able to hit the center of the face with no error to see any type of shape change on the shot.



    You can rely on this because a lot of people are not aware that I had the chance to co-create the first draw bias heel weighted driver that was sold commercially. I worked with the late and great Elmore Just of Louisville Golf to create a laminated maple driver head in 1988 that had a big brass plug embeded in the heel side of the head. Dynacraft and Louisville Golf sold this head named The Cure Driver.



    We found in our development work that for the majority of golfers to visibly see a reduction in their fade or an enhancement to a draw, our brass plug had to be 35g. This much more weight was needed because of course back then heads were pretty small so it was hard to get weight far away from the center of the head to be able to move the CG enough to create the bias effect.



    But Elmore and I did not come up with the bias concept on our own. We just were astute enough to realize this was worth testing when we read the 1968 classic book, The Search for the Perfect Swing by Cochran and Stobbs of the UK. There on page 209 was the graphic of C&S's experiment back in 67 when they theorized by putting weight in the heel you moved the CG toward the weight. They never made a head to test it, just wrote about it along with a bunch of other good stuff for golf club gear head types. That book really was the industry's very first scientific look at both the swing and equipment and is the publication that launched the modern technology era in golf equipment development.



    Then in 1995 I had the chance to design an aluminum driver head with a 42 gram brass plug in the heel to push the draw bias even more than what Elmore and I had dome some years before that. That driver head was called the AccuCore 50 (ok, I fudged the amount of heel weight in the name!!) and worked better for more golfer types than did The Cure because there was more weight in the heel and with the head from aluminum it could be bigger by far than the wooden head we'd made in 88 so the weight had more effect on moving the CG.



    It's pretty much impossible to make a modern titanium driver of 450-460cc size with a sliding weight heavier than 20g because of head weight limitations. By the time you make a titanium head that big with all the surface area required to make the intricate channels in which the weight slides, you use up a lot of the head weight. Since the OEMs persist in making their driver length 45-46", even with very light shafts that means the total weight of the head with sliding weight can't be much over 190-something grams.



    If they would ever get off this 45-46" length thing and make a driver 44", then they could have a heavier sliding weight which could allow a wider range of golfers to see benefit from the draw or fade bias technology. But it's doubtful they will go shorter as their standard because they are so paranoid about golfers believing some other company's driver hits it longer.



    Anyway. More info than you asked for but head, I'm semi retired so I have the time to share all this stuff banging around in the brain from so many years doing this stuff.
  • Deuce78Deuce78 Members Posts: 1,251 ✭✭
    TomWishon wrote:
    Deuce78 wrote:


    I have always heard that weighting a toe or heel "slows down" the weighted area, creating a closed or open face and a draw or fade. Is this actually true?



    I think about this and wonder of the weighting, especially in the toe, actually has influence on dynamic lie angle creating more of a town down or toe up effect in the heel and causing a draw or fade that way? Any comments?




    Nope. Doesn't happen that way. Let's take a draw bias as an example to explain. It's the same for fade bias but in the opposite.



    As you add more weight to the heel side of the clubhead and especially far into the heel side of the head so the weight is farther from the CG of the head, you begin to move the CG toward the heel side of the face. Now with the CG on the heel side of the center of the face, if you hit the ball dead on center, the head will now rotate slightly in a clockwise manner (RH clubhead). This creates a slight horizontal gear effect on the shot that tilts the axis of rotation of the backspin slightly in a draw direction, tilted to the left for a RH shot.



    Problem is, it takes a lot of weight far from the middle of the head to move the CG enough so the on center hit causes a more significant change in the spin axis from the horizontal gear effect. 20g is really the minimum for the vast majority of golfers to really be able to see the difference in their shots. Also, you have to make impact dead on center for the draw bias to be maximized in its effect. Also, if you have an off center hit toward the toe, now you accentuate the horizontal gear effect even more to create more of a tilt in the spin axis but you lose ball speed from the off center hit in the process. Also if you come into impact with the face open or on an outside in path, now you introduce a cancelling factor to the draw bias. Bring the clubhead into impact more significantly open or with more of a significant Out/In path and you still slice the ball, while you scratch your head wondering why your draw bias driver doesn't draw the ball.



    Day in and day out if you want the clubhead to help you reduce a slice or enhance a draw, going with a driver head that is more closed for the face angle than what you currently play is BY FAR the most effective, most consistent and most repeatable way to do that.


    Thanks Tom. So is there zero impact on draw or fade with lie angle? I mean I know lie angle makes a difference in irons is that simply because if the club is too flat then the toe digs first, opening the face? Not sure that is actually correct if a club impacts a ball before turf, but I know it makes a difference just not sure how I guess. But was thinking that this may apply to drivers or metals with movable weights to create dynamic lie angle to draw/fade. I get the gear effect you said, but is that and face angle the only factor to draw/fade?
    TM M5 [email protected] HZRDUS T1100 65g 6.5
    PING G410 [email protected] HZRDUS T1100 75g 6.5 
    PING G410 17.5 HZRDUS T1100 85g 6.5
    Nike vapor fly pro 2 iron black tie 105x
    MP32/712mb/MP69/714mb/MP4/s55/900 Tour/iblade/5-7-965 combo/MP63/iblade 3-PW
    Vokey sm6/Tour Gorge/TVD/black Glides
    NIPPON 1150gh X flex/kbs tour V 120x/Steelfiber 125x
    Kuchar #1/Lamont Mann Custom ARM LOCK/custom Arm Locks-Scotty, Odyssey, TM
  • agolf1agolf1 Members Posts: 993 ✭✭
    TomWishon wrote:


    As you add more weight to the heel side of the clubhead and especially far into the heel side of the head so the weight is farther from the CG of the head, you begin to move the CG toward the heel side of the face. Now with the CG on the heel side of the center of the face, if you hit the ball dead on center, the head will now rotate slightly in a clockwise manner (RH clubhead). This creates a slight horizontal gear effect on the shot that tilts the axis of rotation of the backspin slightly in a draw direction, tilted to the left for a RH shot.


    If you hit the ball dead on center, are you now losing (at least some) ball speed because the actual CG has moved towards the heel side of the face?



    I've read some comments claiming that the sweet spot on draw biased drivers (Ping SFT or TaylorMade D-Type) was a bit towards the heel, which seems to match with what you are saying. But it also seems like if you adjusted your setup/swing so that you are making contact a bit towards the heel or on the "new sweet spot," then you would not get any change in how the ball is spinning (i.e. no draw spin or change in flight vs. a standard driver head / ball hit dead on center)?



    I've been somewhat interested in one of the draw biased drivers, as it is much easier for me to hit the ball straight or with a slight fade vs. a draw, but I'm now wondering if these draw biased clubheads are in some ways making things "worse" (i.e. not just less effective than a closed face angle but actually worse by giving up some distance to create the draw spin).
    Titleist 915 D4 10.5*, Diamana S+ Blue 60 S-Flex
    Callaway X Hot Pro 19* Fairway, Project X Velocity 6.0
    TaylorMade Raylor 22*, Raylor RE*AX S-Flex
    Ping G25 5-PW (25*-44*), UW (49*), SW (54*), CFS R-Flex
    Ping Zing 2 L/S (57*)
    Ping Cadence TR Ketsch Putter
  • TomWishonTomWishon Sponsors Posts: 3,653 ✭✭
    agolf1 wrote:

    TomWishon wrote:


    As you add more weight to the heel side of the clubhead and especially far into the heel side of the head so the weight is farther from the CG of the head, you begin to move the CG toward the heel side of the face. Now with the CG on the heel side of the center of the face, if you hit the ball dead on center, the head will now rotate slightly in a clockwise manner (RH clubhead). This creates a slight horizontal gear effect on the shot that tilts the axis of rotation of the backspin slightly in a draw direction, tilted to the left for a RH shot.


    If you hit the ball dead on center, are you now losing (at least some) ball speed because the actual CG has moved towards the heel side of the face?



    I've read some comments claiming that the sweet spot on draw biased drivers (Ping SFT or TaylorMade D-Type) was a bit towards the heel, which seems to match with what you are saying. But it also seems like if you adjusted your setup/swing so that you are making contact a bit towards the heel or on the "new sweet spot," then you would not get any change in how the ball is spinning (i.e. no draw spin or change in flight vs. a standard driver head / ball hit dead on center)?



    I've been somewhat interested in one of the draw biased drivers, as it is much easier for me to hit the ball straight or with a slight fade vs. a draw, but I'm now wondering if these draw biased clubheads are in some ways making things "worse" (i.e. not just less effective than a closed face angle but actually worse by giving up some distance to create the draw spin).




    The reason that draw bias (or fade bias) weighting does not work that well for less skilled players is because the CG movement from the heel weight is very small. Based on the average dimensions of the average 450-460cc volume head, a 20g weight slid to the outer heel edge of the sole will only move the CG 1/8" to 3/16" away from where it was before. That's pretty small. So yes, from a pure gnat's rear measurement, impact on the center of the face after the CG is moved over toward the heel will cause a tiny, tiny, VERY tiny loss in ball speed which is typically not able to be detected by the majority of players. Only when the on center impact is over 1/4" away from the new CG location would the energy loss from the head twisting possibly begin to start to be detected.



    Keep in mind too that the center of the face is still going to always be the highest COR point on the face. so even if the CG is moved over a little bit such that the on center hit now causes a little bit of head twisting, the fact that you are still hitting the highest COR point on the face is going to prevent any detectable loss in ball speed, smash factor or distance.
  • TomWishonTomWishon Sponsors Posts: 3,653 ✭✭
    Deuce78 wrote:




    Thanks Tom. So is there zero impact on draw or fade with lie angle? I mean I know lie angle makes a difference in irons is that simply because if the club is too flat then the toe digs first, opening the face? Not sure that is actually correct if a club impacts a ball before turf, but I know it makes a difference just not sure how I guess. But was thinking that this may apply to drivers or metals with movable weights to create dynamic lie angle to draw/fade. I get the gear effect you said, but is that and face angle the only factor to draw/fade?




    An ill fit lie does NOT cause misdirection on the shot because of the heel or toe digging into the ground to cause the face to turn open or closed. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN THAT WAY because the ball is hit by the face BEFORE the head digs into the ground. Only if you hit the ball fat would the toe or heel of the sole digging into the ground cause face rotation that would cause the shot to fly more off line. Here is a proper explanation for how an ill fit lie hits the ball off line -



    As to the factors of draw and fade, I assume you are asking for factors from the CLUBHEAD that affect draw or fade and not anything from the swing itself that causes the draw or fade. 1) an ill fit lie can cause an off line curving shot, 2) a different face angle can cause a draw or fade, hook or slice, 3) impact on the toe side of the face usually causes some draw, impact on the heel side can cause some fade. However if the golfer hits the ball on the toe but has a distinct outside in path or leaves the face open at impact from a swing error, that very easily cancels the draw effect from the toe to still cause a slice or fade. 4) Substantial weight in the heel or toe sides of the head brings about a draw or fade bias in the manner I explained in a previous post in this thread.



    And that's about it for the clubhead's contribution to draw or fade.
  • jholzjholz Members Posts: 1,379 ✭✭
    Really interesting stuff Tom! Thanks for all of the information in the forums of late. I really enjoy learning about club design and your explanations are always a good read. I really appreciate it!
    Cleveland Launcher HB 10.5* - Stock Miyazaki C. Kua 50 Stiff
    Callaway Diablo Octane Tour 13* - Aldila NV 75 Stiff
    or
    Callaway Diablo Edge Tour 15* - Accra Dymatch M5 75
    Mizuno F-50 18* - Stock Stiff
    or
    Callaway Diablo Edge Tour Hybrid 21* - Aldila NV 85 Stiff
    Callaway RAZR Tour Hybrid 24* - Stock XStiff
    5 - PW Cleveland CG7 Tour Black Pearl - DGSL S300
    Vokey Design 200 Series 52* Stock Wedge (?)
    Cleveland CG15 Oilcan 56* Stock Wedge
    Callaway X-Series JAWS Slate CC 58* Stock Wedge
    Odyssey White Ice #7 - Golf Pride Oversize
  • agolf1agolf1 Members Posts: 993 ✭✭
    TomWishon wrote:

    agolf1 wrote:

    TomWishon wrote:


    As you add more weight to the heel side of the clubhead and especially far into the heel side of the head so the weight is farther from the CG of the head, you begin to move the CG toward the heel side of the face. Now with the CG on the heel side of the center of the face, if you hit the ball dead on center, the head will now rotate slightly in a clockwise manner (RH clubhead). This creates a slight horizontal gear effect on the shot that tilts the axis of rotation of the backspin slightly in a draw direction, tilted to the left for a RH shot.


    If you hit the ball dead on center, are you now losing (at least some) ball speed because the actual CG has moved towards the heel side of the face?



    I've read some comments claiming that the sweet spot on draw biased drivers (Ping SFT or TaylorMade D-Type) was a bit towards the heel, which seems to match with what you are saying. But it also seems like if you adjusted your setup/swing so that you are making contact a bit towards the heel or on the "new sweet spot," then you would not get any change in how the ball is spinning (i.e. no draw spin or change in flight vs. a standard driver head / ball hit dead on center)?



    I've been somewhat interested in one of the draw biased drivers, as it is much easier for me to hit the ball straight or with a slight fade vs. a draw, but I'm now wondering if these draw biased clubheads are in some ways making things "worse" (i.e. not just less effective than a closed face angle but actually worse by giving up some distance to create the draw spin).




    The reason that draw bias (or fade bias) weighting does not work that well for less skilled players is because the CG movement from the heel weight is very small. Based on the average dimensions of the average 450-460cc volume head, a 20g weight slid to the outer heel edge of the sole will only move the CG 1/8" to 3/16" away from where it was before. That's pretty small. So yes, from a pure gnat's rear measurement, impact on the center of the face after the CG is moved over toward the heel will cause a tiny, tiny, VERY tiny loss in ball speed which is typically not able to be detected by the majority of players. Only when the on center impact is over 1/4" away from the new CG location would the energy loss from the head twisting possibly begin to start to be detected.



    Keep in mind too that the center of the face is still going to always be the highest COR point on the face. so even if the CG is moved over a little bit such that the on center hit now causes a little bit of head twisting, the fact that you are still hitting the highest COR point on the face is going to prevent any detectable loss in ball speed, smash factor or distance.


    Thank you for the detailed reply and explanation. I will try closing the face angle (and not squaring the face to change the loft) as you have suggested.
    Titleist 915 D4 10.5*, Diamana S+ Blue 60 S-Flex
    Callaway X Hot Pro 19* Fairway, Project X Velocity 6.0
    TaylorMade Raylor 22*, Raylor RE*AX S-Flex
    Ping G25 5-PW (25*-44*), UW (49*), SW (54*), CFS R-Flex
    Ping Zing 2 L/S (57*)
    Ping Cadence TR Ketsch Putter
  • bluedotbluedot Members Posts: 3,423 ✭✭
    TomWishon wrote:

    bluedot wrote:

    TomWishon wrote:

    Deuce78 wrote:


    I have always heard that weighting a toe or heel "slows down" the weighted area, creating a closed or open face and a draw or fade. Is this actually true?



    I think about this and wonder of the weighting, especially in the toe, actually has influence on dynamic lie angle creating more of a town down or toe up effect in the heel and causing a draw or fade that way? Any comments?




    Nope. Doesn't happen that way. Let's take a draw bias as an example to explain. It's the same for fade bias but in the opposite.



    As you add more weight to the heel side of the clubhead and especially far into the heel side of the head so the weight is farther from the CG of the head, you begin to move the CG toward the heel side of the face. Now with the CG on the heel side of the center of the face, if you hit the ball dead on center, the head will now rotate slightly in a clockwise manner (RH clubhead). This creates a slight horizontal gear effect on the shot that tilts the axis of rotation of the backspin slightly in a draw direction, tilted to the left for a RH shot.



    Problem is, it takes a lot of weight far from the middle of the head to move the CG enough so the on center hit causes a more significant change in the spin axis from the horizontal gear effect. 20g is really the minimum for the vast majority of golfers to really be able to see the difference in their shots. Also, you have to make impact dead on center for the draw bias to be maximized in its effect. Also, if you have an off center hit toward the toe, now you accentuate the horizontal gear effect even more to create more of a tilt in the spin axis but you lose ball speed from the off center hit in the process. Also if you come into impact with the face open or on an outside in path, now you introduce a cancelling factor to the draw bias. Bring the clubhead into impact more significantly open or with more of a significant Out/In path and you still slice the ball, while you scratch your head wondering why your draw bias driver doesn't draw the ball.



    Day in and day out if you want the clubhead to help you reduce a slice or enhance a draw, going with a driver head that is more closed for the face angle than what you currently play is BY FAR the most effective, most consistent and most repeatable way to do that.




    Tom,

    Thank you for this explanation, and I agree with you 100% about club face angle vs. weight changes.



    Let me ask a question, only out of curiosity, about the 20g figure that you cite. Is there a difference between a moveable or slider weight vs. lead tape? Suppose a driver has a 10g weight that can be placed in either the center or toward the heel or toe. If I (re)move the 10g weight from the center and relocate it to the heel, does that effectively add up to a 20g change?



    Thanks in advance, and if this is a dumb question, forgive me. It's just always seemed to me to be a very different thing to add AND subtract weight vs. just adding weight with lead tape.




    Not a dumb question at all. The only dumb question is one the person was too timid to ask.



    It does not matter if the weight is a sliding mass, a permanently embedded weight or lead tape. Although getting up to 20g + with lead tape is probably going to be really ugly and globby on the head for how much tape would have to be stuck on the head, not practical at all in other words.



    And no, 10g is 10g when it comes to moving the CG to allow the bias to be possible. However, 10g is insignificant for all but a much higher speed player who better be really consistent in being able to hit the center of the face with no error to see any type of shape change on the shot.



    You can rely on this because a lot of people are not aware that I had the chance to co-create the first draw bias heel weighted driver that was sold commercially. I worked with the late and great Elmore Just of Louisville Golf to create a laminated maple driver head in 1988 that had a big brass plug embeded in the heel side of the head. Dynacraft and Louisville Golf sold this head named The Cure Driver.



    We found in our development work that for the majority of golfers to visibly see a reduction in their fade or an enhancement to a draw, our brass plug had to be 35g. This much more weight was needed because of course back then heads were pretty small so it was hard to get weight far away from the center of the head to be able to move the CG enough to create the bias effect.



    But Elmore and I did not come up with the bias concept on our own. We just were astute enough to realize this was worth testing when we read the 1968 classic book, The Search for the Perfect Swing by Cochran and Stobbs of the UK. There on page 209 was the graphic of C&S's experiment back in 67 when they theorized by putting weight in the heel you moved the CG toward the weight. They never made a head to test it, just wrote about it along with a bunch of other good stuff for golf club gear head types. That book really was the industry's very first scientific look at both the swing and equipment and is the publication that launched the modern technology era in golf equipment development.



    Then in 1995 I had the chance to design an aluminum driver head with a 42 gram brass plug in the heel to push the draw bias even more than what Elmore and I had dome some years before that. That driver head was called the AccuCore 50 (ok, I fudged the amount of heel weight in the name!!) and worked better for more golfer types than did The Cure because there was more weight in the heel and with the head from aluminum it could be bigger by far than the wooden head we'd made in 88 so the weight had more effect on moving the CG.



    It's pretty much impossible to make a modern titanium driver of 450-460cc size with a sliding weight heavier than 20g because of head weight limitations. By the time you make a titanium head that big with all the surface area required to make the intricate channels in which the weight slides, you use up a lot of the head weight. Since the OEMs persist in making their driver length 45-46", even with very light shafts that means the total weight of the head with sliding weight can't be much over 190-something grams.



    If they would ever get off this 45-46" length thing and make a driver 44", then they could have a heavier sliding weight which could allow a wider range of golfers to see benefit from the draw or fade bias technology. But it's doubtful they will go shorter as their standard because they are so paranoid about golfers believing some other company's driver hits it longer.



    Anyway. More info than you asked for but head, I'm semi retired so I have the time to share all this stuff banging around in the brain from so many years doing this stuff.




    Thank you, Tom.



    I don't have a better compliment than to simply say that I feel smarter after I read your stuff.
  • TomWishonTomWishon Sponsors Posts: 3,653 ✭✭
    bluedot wrote:




    Thank you, Tom.



    I don't have a better compliment than to simply say that I feel smarter after I read your stuff.


    Thank you, that means a lot. I appreciate that the information interests you. I really do.
  • Z1ggy16Z1ggy16 Members Posts: 7,431 ✭✭
    Tom,



    Cool to see you on the forums again. Does the effect (or lack thereof due to not enough mass) get enhanced or diminished as that mass moves away from the face? So for example, the old Taylormade T track where the fade/draw bias weight was right near the face, compared to the Y track they use now (or Callaway's) where the fade/draw bias is all the way in the back?



    I've seen some evidence of the Y track working during fittings to correct/enhance shot shapes in very small amounts. I'm talking.... you turned the 10 yard over draw into a 4 or 5 yard over draw. I know a weight track or anything won't fix a face massively open to path. I'm talking for good golfers striking the ball in the center... but maybe the face gets just a few degrees too closed to their path. That way, they don't have to look down and see a face that looks different to them if the weight can help make a small correction.
    WITB
    OG Epic Sub Zero HZRDUS Smoke 60 6.5
    LTD Tour Blue 75X
    818H2 Tour Blue 85X
    P790 4i Modus 120X
    P770 5-PW Modus 120X
    Glide Stealth 2.0 50/10SS AMT Wedge
    Glide Stealth 2.0 54/12SS AMT Wedge
    Glide Stealth 2.0 58/10SS Modus 125 Wedge
    TP Ardmore 2 Red-White or TP Juno
    ProV1x
    Sun Mountain 4.5 Bag

  • ryborybo Members Posts: 2,230 ✭✭
    It’s easy enough to add additional weights to make heavier or remove weights to make lighter on these heads with adjustable channels. **** of lot better then hot melting a head or covering one in lead tape. Plus I can dictate where the weight goes.



    All driver heads still weigh around 200g with the weights. Remove the weights and they are around 175-180g. Pretty sure if the OEM’s wanted to make them even lighter they could.



  • JagpilotohioJagpilotohio 45+ inch drivers are evil. Columbus, OHMembers Posts: 7,243 ✭✭
    TomWishon wrote:

    Deuce78 wrote:




    Thanks Tom. So is there zero impact on draw or fade with lie angle? I mean I know lie angle makes a difference in irons is that simply because if the club is too flat then the toe digs first, opening the face? Not sure that is actually correct if a club impacts a ball before turf, but I know it makes a difference just not sure how I guess. But was thinking that this may apply to drivers or metals with movable weights to create dynamic lie angle to draw/fade. I get the gear effect you said, but is that and face angle the only factor to draw/fade?




    An ill fit lie does NOT cause misdirection on the shot because of the heel or toe digging into the ground to cause the face to turn open or closed. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN THAT WAY because the ball is hit by the face BEFORE the head digs into the ground. Only if you hit the ball fat would the toe or heel of the sole digging into the ground cause face rotation that would cause the shot to fly more off line. Here is a proper explanation for how an ill fit lie hits the ball off line -



    As to the factors of draw and fade, I assume you are asking for factors from the CLUBHEAD that affect draw or fade and not anything from the swing itself that causes the draw or fade. 1) an ill fit lie can cause an off line curving shot, 2) a different face angle can cause a draw or fade, hook or slice, 3) impact on the toe side of the face usually causes some draw, impact on the heel side can cause some fade. However if the golfer hits the ball on the toe but has a distinct outside in path or leaves the face open at impact from a swing error, that very easily cancels the draw effect from the toe to still cause a slice or fade. 4) Substantial weight in the heel or toe sides of the head brings about a draw or fade bias in the manner I explained in a previous post in this thread.



    And that's about it for the clubhead's contribution to draw or fade.




    I haven’t seen Maltbys video on lie angle for years. Thanks for posting it. I bookmarked it for future use.



    It comes up so often on this site that it will be easier to just post the video than try to explain it over and over.



    I love that gizmo he made with the wedge club head and rod to illustrate what happens when the lie is wrong.
    9.5* Cobra LTD, Old school Grafalloy Blue, 43.5"
    14* Cally 815 alpha fuji 665 X 42"
    16* Cally 815 alpha fuji 665 X, 41.5" (set to 17*)
    19* Titleist 816 H2 fuji 8.8X TS 40.0"
    4-7 2016 Hogan PTx, KBS Tour V, 120X.  
    Ping i210 8 & 9 Proto 125 F5 hardstepped 1x.
    Ping glide 2 46-12, 50-12, 54-14 (at 55) stealth, Vokey SM6 60M (61). Wedges Recoil Proto 125 F5
    33.5" Ghost spider slant neck.
    Srixon Z-star XV
    Jones Trouper Bag
  • avguyavguy Replacement Player Sonoran Desert, AZMembers Posts: 1,066 ✭✭
    rybo wrote:


    It’s easy enough to add additional weights to make heavier or remove weights to make lighter on these heads with adjustable channels. **** of lot better then hot melting a head or covering one in lead tape. Plus I can dictate where the weight goes.



    All driver heads still weigh around 200g with the weights. Remove the weights and they are around 175-180g. Pretty sure if the OEM’s wanted to make them even lighter they could.




    And, in the red corner, weighing in @ 211g - The Srixon Z355! image/king.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':king:' />



    This thread really is pretty cool techy stuff for me.....of all the adjustable drivers I've used over the past 11 years whence I began golfing more than several times/year, I enjoy them in neutral settings and still making my draw or fade with grip to club face adjustments, and then ball placement forward/back.
    BAG ONE:                                                                                                                     BAG TWO:
    D-Titleist 917 D2  or 910 D2                                                                                           D-Srixon Z355 
    3-TM RBZ ts                                                                                                                   3-TM R11ti
    H-Titleist 915 H1 17, Titleist 816  H1 21, Bridgestone Precept ECU 25                        H-TM 2.0 SF 18 & 21, Cobra AC 25
    I - Honma TW727M or Callaway R MBs                                                                         I - TM M5 or P790
    W- Mizuno 52, Vokey SM6 58                                                                                       W- Mizuno 53, & 58
    P-Bellum Winmore Midi  787                                                                                         P-Guerin TS Black 370

  • ryborybo Members Posts: 2,230 ✭✭
    avguy wrote:

    rybo wrote:


    It’s easy enough to add additional weights to make heavier or remove weights to make lighter on these heads with adjustable channels. **** of lot better then hot melting a head or covering one in lead tape. Plus I can dictate where the weight goes.



    All driver heads still weigh around 200g with the weights. Remove the weights and they are around 175-180g. Pretty sure if the OEM’s wanted to make them even lighter they could.




    And, in the red corner, weighing in @ 211g - The Srixon Z355! image/king.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':king:' />



    This thread really is pretty cool techy stuff for me.....of all the adjustable drivers I've used over the past 11 years whence I began golfing more than several times/year, I enjoy them in neutral settings and still making my draw or fade with grip to club face adjustments, and then ball placement forward/back.




    There are always a few models that have higher static weight, apparently the Z355 is one of them. Since there are no weight channels and moveable weights on the bottom it doesn't really pertain to this discussion.





    Would be interesting to know what the actual CoG location movement is with heads utilizing weight channels. Auditor makes a CoG machine for this exact purpose that could provide real data.



    20g moving around on a large footprint, hollow 460cc head has a much larger influence then 35g grams on a very small footprint, solid 140cc head. On a 460cc head the 20g is several inches from the CoG while on a 140cc head the 35g weight would barely be moving about the CoG. These clubs are so different to just not be comparable.
Sign In or Register to comment.