Parallel (.370) vs Taper (.355) any way to trim to fit?

Is there any way to trim a graphite parallel tip (.370) to fit a .355 hosel? I saw somewhere that it was suggested to use a pencil sharpener, but, um, er, uh, really? Any other suggestions?

Have steelfiber shafts for irons that are parallel tip, irons call for taper tip...want to see if there's a way to make it work. Any suggestions appreciated.

.

Only the bottom 1/2 to 3/4 inch of a taper tip shaft (.355) is smaller than the rest of a parallel (.370) so only the bottom half of the tip needs to be done. Best done with a belt sander and 120 grit belt going slow from bottom to top and fitting it as you go. You will get the feel after a few. I have done hundreds, if not more that way.

Reaming to .370 is acceptable and few would know the difference but it does change the originality of the head.

$40 to ream say 8 -10 heads is to cheap for a real shop to make any money at. Some guy in his garage/cellar might do it for that price.

> @scratchskier said:

> the wall thickness on the aerotech are thick enough to just sand it down to a taper. just go slow and be careful. or just go to the nearest clubfitter and give them like $40 to ream your clubheads to a 370 hosel.

Interesting. (even as a black diamond golfer...) I'd rather mess with the shaft size than reaming out the hosel, and I am reluctant to do so on the aerotech's. Good to know it's a possibility.

> @JCAG said:

> Only the bottom 1/2 to 3/4 inch of a taper tip shaft (.355) is smaller than the rest of a parallel (.370) so only the bottom half of the tip needs to be done. Best done with a belt sander and 120 grit belt going slow from bottom to top and fitting it as you go. You will get the feel after a few. I have done hundreds, if not more that way.

>

> Reaming to .370 is acceptable and few would know the difference but it does change the originality of the head.

>

So, if the hosel is 1.5" I'd only have to shave down 1/2 to 3/4" good to know. Thanks.

Not sure about shaving down Steelfibers to pencil point them. The steel outer sheath layer will be removed.

That's my concern given the composition and construction of the shaft...would taking it down .015 (from .370 to .355) be significant enough to make a difference...?

I just built a set with .370 black label steelfiber 110's into .355 Srixon 785 heads. I ended up reaming out the heads which was extremely easy. Golfworks sells reamers for all hosel sizes and I just used that. Literally took like 30 seconds per head. Shafts fit perfect after that and all I did was a light prep of the shaft to help the epoxy adhere. I do think it's all right to do some sanding of the shaft, but I would not get aggressive.

Another reason I decided to ream out the hosel was that I needed to use tip weights and in order to do that, I had to slightly enlarge the inside diameter of the shaft. So I didn't want to drill out the inside diameter and shave off the outside for fear of weakening it too much. I put tip weights in and still had to use some lead tape just to get it to D2. SF 110's swingweight very light.

Again, sanding the tip will remove the gray steel outer sheath. This photo shows some pulls where part of the sheath came off during pulling. Mind you this is not a huge big deal, but as a general rule I don't see the point in shaving it off on purpose. I'd ream the heads or get some different shafts. The .370 SF shafts are unitized and won't play the same as the .355 version anyway.

Had steelfibers once before and company said to sand to fit which I did with no issues!

> @Nessism said:

> Again, sanding the tip will remove the gray steel outer sheath. This photo shows some pulls where part of the sheath came off during pulling. Mind you this is not a huge big deal, but as a general rule I don't see the point in shaving it off on purpose. I'd ream the heads or get some different shafts. The .370 SF shafts are unitized and won't play the same as the .355 version anyway.

>

>

>

Can I assume that the 370 will play stiffer and harsher than the 355 because the tip is a bit more stout?

.

.

> @lanzador49 said:

> > @Nessism said:

> > Again, sanding the tip will remove the gray steel outer sheath. This photo shows some pulls where part of the sheath came off during pulling. Mind you this is not a huge big deal, but as a general rule I don't see the point in shaving it off on purpose. I'd ream the heads or get some different shafts. The .370 SF shafts are unitized and won't play the same as the .355 version anyway.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Can I assume that the 370 will play stiffer and harsher than the 355 because the tip is a bit more stout?

NO...its ONLY whats ABOVE the hosel that can flex at all, so whats down in the hosel is "out of play" its there only to connect the head to the shafts. The only times INSERT makes a difference, is the amount of tip its prevent from flexing, so if we had 2 heads where BBGM was the same, lets say 1.25" and one head has a insert of 1.0" inch, the other 1.5", the heads with deepest insert of THIS TWO will play like if it was tip trimmed 0.5 in the heads with only 1.0" insert, but we hardly ever see varieties like that, so the example is only to show how it works.

Its the shaft we have above the hosel that matters, not whats down in the hosel, so parallel or taper makes no difference here, if the shaft ABOVE the hosel is the same.

> @scratchskier said:

> guys reaming .015" out of a .355" hosel to make it .370" parallel is a 4% increase in ID... sometimes you can ream them with a hand drill and it barely even kicks back. it's such a small amount of material.

> same goes for the aerotech, if you look at the ID of the tip on an aerotech it is very small... it has a large wall thickness. You can sand it off and you will be suprised how little effort it takes. Most of your favorites pros on tour are using .370" tip graphite shafts sanded down to .355" taper to fit into their driving irons.... this is common. Graphite wall thicknesses are thick and strong.

Reaming is easy and kind of "idiot proof" we cant make it wrong, while sanding down a tip is not hard either, but demand "some" handyman skills and always with a certain risk to fail, so the reamer is the safest here, and we dont "destroy" our heads at all. Those who does this for the first time would be surprised when they see ho little metal that comes out of the hosel when done, you need a very good gram scale to measure it, its close to "dust" and only a few fragments of it, and the same goes for the sanding job, its closer to "rubber and polish" than it is to "sanding down" so it sound like something else and way more extreme than it actually is.

Its only 0.38 millimeters from 0.355 to 0.370 and we only takes half from each side, so the hosel walls become 0.19 millimeter thinner when we ream the hosel, while the shaft sanding makes the tip 0.38 mm thinner, still next to nothing, but for the best possible fit, the reamer is the easiest and fastest.

>

> NO...its ONLY whats ABOVE the hosel that can flex at all, so whats down in the hosel is "out of play" its there only to connect the head to the shafts. The only times INSERT makes a difference, is the amount of tip its prevent from flexing, so if we had 2 heads where BBGM was the same, lets say 1.25" and one head has a insert of 1.0" inch, the other 1.5", the heads with deepest insert of THIS TWO will play like if it was tip trimmed 0.5 in the heads with only 1.0" insert, but we hardly ever see varieties like that, so the example is only to show how it works.

> Its the shaft we have above the hosel that matters, not whats down in the hosel, so parallel or taper makes no difference here, if the shaft ABOVE the hosel is the same.

>

>

Makes sense. I appreciate the analysis!! The manufacturer has trimming instructions for the tips, and starting with the 4-iron, they call for a 1" trim and an additional .5" for each successive club. At what point would a club play a little softer than a stock "stiff" (for example a "stiff-minus" or a "regular-plus") using a standard stiff shaft? My swing is a little slower these days, and I might benefit from a soft step, but maybe not a full step (which is a .5"). Would I notice a difference if the trim were 1/4" rather than the 1/2"? Or should I just stop messing with things, and go back to basics, and my mantra of, "just shut up and swing as hard as you can and figure the rest out later"?

> @Nessism said:

> Again, sanding the tip will remove the gray steel outer sheath. This photo shows some pulls where part of the sheath came off during pulling. Mind you this is not a huge big deal, but as a general rule I don't see the point in shaving it off on purpose.

Not only is it not a big deal, it's not even a tiny deal. Absolutely zero negative consequences or ramifications to adding the taper to the parallel steelfibers. Remember any steel mesh that might get removed is actually going to be replaced with solid steel (the hosel).

But of course there is nothing wrong with boring out the hosels either.

> @lanzador49 said:

>

> >

> > NO...its ONLY whats ABOVE the hosel that can flex at all, so whats down in the hosel is "out of play" its there only to connect the head to the shafts. The only times INSERT makes a difference, is the amount of tip its prevent from flexing, so if we had 2 heads where BBGM was the same, lets say 1.25" and one head has a insert of 1.0" inch, the other 1.5", the heads with deepest insert of THIS TWO will play like if it was tip trimmed 0.5 in the heads with only 1.0" insert, but we hardly ever see varieties like that, so the example is only to show how it works.

> > Its the shaft we have above the hosel that matters, not whats down in the hosel, so parallel or taper makes no difference here, if the shaft ABOVE the hosel is the same.

> >

> >

> Makes sense. I appreciate the analysis!! The manufacturer has trimming instructions for the tips, and starting with the 4-iron, they call for a 1" trim and an additional .5" for each successive club. At what point would a club play a little softer than a stock "stiff" (for example a "stiff-minus" or a "regular-plus") using a standard stiff shaft? My swing is a little slower these days, and I might benefit from a soft step, but maybe not a full step (which is a .5"). Would I notice a difference if the trim were 1/4" rather than the 1/2"? Or should I just stop messing with things, and go back to basics, and my mantra of, "just shut up and swing as hard as you can and figure the rest out later"?

>

If we still talk STEELFIBERS, i dont know this shafts good enough, ive made one set only, and those where strait in, so i would have to answer you based on a wider range of shafts.

In general, i advice to go strait in or SS1, and in cases we know the shaft very well, and change HEADS with different hosel specs, we might use tip trim or less tip trim (or tip shimming, reducing insert), to equalize hosel differences, so the shaft ABOVE the hosel becomes the same in the new and the old set, but if we dont have any playing experience with the shaft, there is no reason for this tiny fine adjustments, they would only please the paper if anything.

So if strait in feels a tad to strong, go SS1, 2/8" want make any difference you will notice, its so small a difference that its within the tolerances for most shafts strait in.

Another reason for tip trim or less tip trim is in cases we want to manipulate the flex SLOPE this shaft model has, as example against a FLIGHTED pattern where the long irons launch a bit higher than standard, and the short end a bit lower, but to make that we need to go about SS2 in the longest club, and minimum HS1 in the shortest and draw the slope between them.

The 3. reason for tip trim or less tip trim is change of head weight or SW values and we want to keep flex as it was, but non of this seems to be the case for you, and since you ask the question, i suggest you go SS1 since shafts to the stronger side push us to swing it harder, so i prefer shafts a bit to the softer side vs to the strong side.

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @Nessism said:

> > Again, sanding the tip will remove the gray steel outer sheath. This photo shows some pulls where part of the sheath came off during pulling. Mind you this is not a huge big deal, but as a general rule I don't see the point in shaving it off on purpose.

>

> Not only is it not a big deal, it's not even a tiny deal.

>

Well Stuart, there was a thread here a year or so back where there were some guys in a panic over that outer sheath coming off. I went on the record at that time as saying it's not a big deal but you couldn't convince some of these guys. If nothing else shaving the shafts could affect resale if someone decided to sell the shafts or disclose what was done.

> @Nessism said:

> Well Stuart, there was a thread here a year or so back where there were some guys in a panic over that outer sheath coming off. I went on the record at that time as saying it's not a big deal but you couldn't convince some of these guys. If nothing else shaving the shafts could affect resale if someone decided to sell the shafts or disclose what was done.

>

>

I'm not really surprised at that type of reaction. People see something a little different and think it's some kind magic or the whole shaft will unravel if a few of the metal strands get cut. It's really no different than cutting a few graphite fibers when adding a taper to a standard graphite shaft. The steel mesh isn't any more important to the structural integrity than the graphite fibers. The only difference is that the steel fibers are heavier.

Wouldn't it be easier to ream out the heads to .370

Seem pretty easy, as long you have the right tools..

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=ryLrtt85Nco](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryLrtt85Nco "https://youtube.com/watch?v=ryLrtt85Nco")

> @8602081 said:

> Wouldn't it be easier to ream out the heads to .370

>

> Seem pretty easy, as long you have the right tools..

> [https://youtube.com/watch?v=ryLrtt85Nco](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryLrtt85Nco "https://youtube.com/watch?v=ryLrtt85Nco")

It does seem like the easiest way given the comments and how little material is removed from the club head. Sanding down the shafts might entail a bit more finesse. Now I gotta figure out this soft-step thing...

> @lanzador49 said:

> > @8602081 said:

> > Wouldn't it be easier to ream out the heads to .370

> >

> > Seem pretty easy, as long you have the right tools..

> > [https://youtube.com/watch?v=ryLrtt85Nco](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryLrtt85Nco "https://youtube.com/watch?v=ryLrtt85Nco")

>

> It does seem like the easiest way given the comments and how little material is removed from the club head. Sanding down the shafts might entail a bit more finesse. Now I gotta figure out this soft-step thing...

If you can do the club making yourself, and is insecure about what to choose, there is a way...

When we soft step, we end up with a shaft thats 0.5" longer than out target, but if you butt cut, there is no return... What we can do, is to take a cheap grip, make a hole on the butt cap, and start the grip tape 3/8 down from the butt end.

Now install that grip so the 3/8 of the 4/8" we plan to cut off comes out of the grip end. (its no issue for testing) (the last 1/8 is the grip cap).

Now you can try of that club with the grip in correct position with full return since you did not cut of that last 0.5", so if SS1 is softer than you like it, pull it and go strait in for all clubs. Even gripping down 0.5 could be done, but to get the right feel (grip size) and really "simulate" the club we plan to build, the grip with a whole strait trough is ideal for the picky one.

Just remember that when you dry fit for SW values, we must move the numbers.

Since we build this test club 0.5 longer than we should play it, we should dry fit to a value 3 SWP above our target. Dry fit without the grip, and sub 9 SWP from the return value.

Example, IF your target is D3, then we dry fit to E2 and ADD 3 SWP = E5 without grips

Now that club will play to D3 with the grip 0.5" below the end of the shaft.

> @lanzador49 said:

> > @8602081 said:

> > Wouldn't it be easier to ream out the heads to .370

> >

> > Seem pretty easy, as long you have the right tools..

> > [https://youtube.com/watch?v=ryLrtt85Nco](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryLrtt85Nco "https://youtube.com/watch?v=ryLrtt85Nco")

>

> It does seem like the easiest way given the comments and how little material is removed from the club head. Sanding down the shafts might entail a bit more finesse. Now I gotta figure out this soft-step thing...

They are both actually pretty easy. The first time adding a taper to a shaft is not really difficult - but it will take longer amount of time than reaming for those that take the cautious approach - which is not a bad idea at all (e.g. take some material off, dry fit, repeat until done). But after you've done it a couple times and you get an idea of how much (or really how little) really needs to be removed, it goes by pretty quickly. At which point there really is no advantage or disadvantage of one way over the other - except maybe for the need to buy the hand reaming bit.

> If you can do the club making yourself, and is insecure about what to choose, there is a way...

> When we soft step, we end up with a shaft thats 0.5" longer than out target, but if you butt cut, there is no return... What we can do, is to take a cheap grip, make a hole on the butt cap, and start the grip tape 3/8 down from the butt end.

>

> Now install that grip so the 3/8 of the 4/8" we plan to cut off comes out of the grip end. (its no issue for testing) (the last 1/8 is the grip cap).

>

> Now you can try of that club with the grip in correct position with full return since you did not cut of that last 0.5", so if SS1 is softer than you like it, pull it and go strait in for all clubs. Even gripping down 0.5 could be done, but to get the right feel (grip size) and really "simulate" the club we plan to build, the grip with a whole strait trough is ideal for the picky one.

>

> Just remember that when you dry fit for SW values, we must move the numbers.

> Since we build this test club 0.5 longer than we should play it, we should dry fit to a value 3 SWP above our target. Dry fit without the grip, and sub 9 SWP from the return value.

>

> Example, IF your target is D3, then we dry fit to E2 and ADD 3 SWP = E5 without grips

> Now that club will play to D3 with the grip 0.5" below the end of the shaft.

GREAT info...thank you. I think I'm going to ss 1, and will try the dry-fit thinking about going 1/4 - 1/2" over in length (37 1/4 for 7 iron)...there's a clubmaker here who will work with me and has experience with fitting parallel shafts, and he'll charge me $15 a club for the set-up. Still working on my options.

> @lanzador49 said:

>

> > If you can do the club making yourself, and is insecure about what to choose, there is a way...

> > When we soft step, we end up with a shaft thats 0.5" longer than out target, but if you butt cut, there is no return... What we can do, is to take a cheap grip, make a hole on the butt cap, and start the grip tape 3/8 down from the butt end.

> >

> > Now install that grip so the 3/8 of the 4/8" we plan to cut off comes out of the grip end. (its no issue for testing) (the last 1/8 is the grip cap).

> >

> > Now you can try of that club with the grip in correct position with full return since you did not cut of that last 0.5", so if SS1 is softer than you like it, pull it and go strait in for all clubs. Even gripping down 0.5 could be done, but to get the right feel (grip size) and really "simulate" the club we plan to build, the grip with a whole strait trough is ideal for the picky one.

> >

> > Just remember that when you dry fit for SW values, we must move the numbers.

> > Since we build this test club 0.5 longer than we should play it, we should dry fit to a value 3 SWP above our target. Dry fit without the grip, and sub 9 SWP from the return value.

> >

> > Example, IF your target is D3, then we dry fit to E2 and ADD 3 SWP = E5 without grips

> > Now that club will play to D3 with the grip 0.5" below the end of the shaft.

>

> GREAT info...thank you. I think I'm going to ss 1, and will try the dry-fit thinking about going 1/4 - 1/2" over in length (37 1/4 for 7 iron)...there's a clubmaker here who will work with me and has experience with fitting parallel shafts, and he'll charge me $15 a club for the set-up. Still working on my options.

Thats a good offer, and a good insurance who give you the option to try off one club like this before you take the decision of how that set should be made. if you aint familiar with the shaft weight or BP those shaft has, there is a large chance for that another SW value then you are used to is the right one on that set, but also take a lie angle test with that club with the ball marker method while you are at it, so all specs can be set right at first attempt. The better we do this stage of it, the more happy you will be for the set when its made.