Best Driver of 2019 | Full Article _HERE_ | Discussion Thread _HERE_

3/8" Club Stepping - Starting Point

LostArkitektLostArkitekt Members Posts: 26 ✭✭

Right now I'm playing clubs that are +1.25" over standard, but the shafts are not right for me (ill fitted at best). I'm building a "serviceable" set until I can change the shafts out in newer set. I'm considering going to the 3/8" increments with both (starting with the backup set), but I wonder which club to start with as a baseline. I hit all the way up to my 5-iron pretty well, but 3, 4, and 2-H (will have a 2-Iron in backup set) are more difficult...like most people. Was thinking of starting at the 6 or 7-iron which means my 9-iron will be even longer. I don't have an issue with this. One person said start with the 9-Iron in another post where I was asking about shaft, tip trimming. Just not sure what the usual is. Any advice?

«1

Comments

  • mogc60mogc60 Members Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 1, 2019 12:22am #2

    I’ve read several posts where Howard Jones recommends the 8 iron or references it as “normal” starting point but he has a program to do the specs starting from any club or virtually any gapping. I use 3/8 gaps where I started from the Pw so my 3 iron is -7/8 from my standard and I have been so happy with my results since the change a few months back. The effort for each club is very consistent now and I feel like my longer clubs are easier to swing now than ever. My pw and 9 iron felt best to me forever so my starting point was easy to decide on. I’ve attached my experience doing the change.
    https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1782086/my-moi-iron-build-thank-you-howard#latest

    CALLAWAY EPIC FLASH SZ 9 EV BLACK 75 6.5 44 1/4”
    CALLAWAY EPIC FLASH SZ 15 MATRIX HD9 STRONG 41.5”
    WILSON FG5 TOUR 17* RIP PHENOM 100 S
    SRIXON Z FORGED 3-PW CATALYST 100 6.5
    CLEVELAND RTX4 50* CATALYST 100 6.0
    CLEVELAND RTX4 54* CATALYST 100 6.0
    CLEVELAND RTX4 58* MODUS 120X
    SEEMORE mFGP20 PLATINUM 38”
    SNELL MTB-X

  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,355 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 1, 2019 2:46am #3

    @LostArkitekt said:78
    Right now I'm playing clubs that are +1.25" over standard, but the shafts are not right for me (ill fitted at best). I'm building a "serviceable" set until I can change the shafts out in newer set. I'm considering going to the 3/8" increments with both (starting with the backup set), but I wonder which club to start with as a baseline. I hit all the way up to my 5-iron pretty well, but 3, 4, and 2-H (will have a 2-Iron in backup set) are more difficult...like most people. Was thinking of starting at the 6 or 7-iron which means my 9-iron will be even longer. I don't have an issue with this. One person said start with the 9-Iron in another post where I was asking about shaft, tip trimming. Just not sure what the usual is. Any advice?

    If we start from the #9, we get the shortest option of all, starting from the PW or #8 is the same, and make all clubs 1/8" longer vs using #9 as starting point. Since your set is plus 1.25" it would be natural to use the #9 as it is now at plus 1.25". This chart show how the different set ups look vs "standard" or vs what you got. Butt cut and weight replacement needed is the same.

  • MarkinTN1MarkinTN1 Members Posts: 224 ✭✭✭
    edited Sep 1, 2019 3:43am #4

    I've made several sets using 3/8" spacing, usually used the 7 iron as a start, made for shorter long irons and longer short irons, best of both worlds, 9 & PW same length. Those charts are impressive. if I only knew how to read them. Just like in carpentry, measure many times and cut once. Try to work out your charts and see what you can get to work, you may have to make adjustments. You'll probably have to add weight to the long irons and you don't want your short irons so long they get too head heavy. Because your using conventional components that can only be customized so much you'll have to work within a range, and match that range to what's comfortable for you. In my humble unqualified opinion clublength is not a major contributing factor to shot length.
    You'll probably end up building 3 sets before you find the holy grail, because after assembly you have to have the lies adjusted, which because you are using overlength you would have to do anyway.
    Use the highest quality components and build them to the very best of your capability and you'll have fun and have a set of clubs you love.
    P.S. How tall are you? just curious, cause if the shafts were fitted incorrectly how do we know the length wasn't also?

  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,355 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    The charts is self explaining, and if you used a standard #7 as stating point, it look like this-

    This chart shows both the needed butt cut (Red numbers) and extension (Blue numbers), vs a standard set.
    Simply look up the line where #7 is the starting point, how hard can that be?

  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,355 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 1, 2019 6:11am #6

    3/8" has become kind of a "Custom standard", but we have other options too, a few more conservative and closer to the classic 4/8", and others that shorter into the long end vs 3/8". It all depend on how short we want the long end to be vs the short. Starting point is #9 and a set thats built to 4/8" between clubs and flat SW value, then this chart can be used directly for butt cut and head weight replacement needed. ALL to "Poor mans MOI match" or 1.33 SWP pr inch.

    The absolute easiest and fastest way to a "MOI matched set", is a progressive butt cut of 2.0 mm, starting cutting from the #8 as the first to cut. This butt cut, DONT need head weight adjustment, a flat SW set, becomes 1.1 SWP pr inch by butt cut only, so if you order a new OEM set where specs fits you for the #9, and order the set with grips loose in the box, then its butt cut and on with the grips, DONE and play ready....

    That set up becomes 10.7 mm between clubs. (12.7 mm or 0.5" is std) The longest club the #3 iron becomes "1 iron shorter" or like a standard #4, so we dont get much advantage on play length, but got "1 club shorter in", when that #3 iron comes to play, AND a "Free MOI Match" by butt cut only.

    Here is 5 DIY options, all possible to make with #9 as starting point, and if the set is plus 0.5" now, thats fine, only play length numbers thats off with 0.5" all the way then. Butt cut and head weight replacement becomes the same for all head #.

    Measure twice, mark correct, cut on "the long side" of the cut mark, (pipe cutters is good on steel shafts), grind butt down to target.

  • Red4282Red4282 Members Posts: 431 ✭✭✭✭

    If your a tall golfer id keep your longest iron around standard and do 3/8 from there. Your pw should come out app 1 inch over. Since your 5 seems to be the cutoff on consistency, at +1.25, thats like 2/3 iron length. I would put 3 iron standard and go from there, if it were me. Dont forget about the swingweighting issues this build can cause as well.

  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,355 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 1, 2019 7:27am #8

    @Red4282 said:
    If your a tall golfer id keep your longest iron around standard and do 3/8 from there. Your pw should come out app 1 inch over. Since your 5 seems to be the cutoff on consistency, at +1.25, thats like 2/3 iron length. I would put 3 iron standard and go from there, if it were me. Dont forget about the swingweighting issues this build can cause as well.

    If we start from a "standard" #3 and go 3/8" shorter pr club, we end up with a #9 iron thats plus 6/8" or 0.75" vs std, and thats to short for someone who play plus 1.25". He should start from his #9 iron as it is now at plus 1.25" - then he got this options:

    If we wanted to make a slope from a STD #3 to a #9 thats plus 1.25" then the 5 mm but cut slope is the closest. It give s #3 iron thats 39 1/16"" and a #9 that plus 1.25" but we got there from the other direction, starting from the #9. (7.70 mm between clubs)

  • Red4282Red4282 Members Posts: 431 ✭✭✭✭

    @Howard Jones said:

    @Red4282 said:
    If your a tall golfer id keep your longest iron around standard and do 3/8 from there. Your pw should come out app 1 inch over. Since your 5 seems to be the cutoff on consistency, at +1.25, thats like 2/3 iron length. I would put 3 iron standard and go from there, if it were me. Dont forget about the swingweighting issues this build can cause as well.

    If we start from a "standard" #3 and go 3/8" shorter pr club, we end up with a #9 iron thats plus 6/8" or 0.75" vs std, and thats to short for someone who play plus 1.25". He should start from his #9 iron as it is now at plus 1.25" - then he got this options:


    If we wanted to make a slope from a STD #3 to a #9 thats plus 1.25" then the 5 mm but cut slope is the closest. It give s #3 iron thats 39 1/16"" and a #9 that plus 1.25" but we got there from the other direction, starting from the #9. (7.70 mm between clubs)

    Sounds about right! I got a vibe he wasnt too crazy about +1.25 inch. I dont know if it was across the board or just in the long irons. My estimates was to keep the longest at or under +1, while his longest iron measured 39.25 (the length he mentioned his threshold for consistency) But that build would be great too if he wants to go that route.

  • NoodlerNoodler Members Posts: 753 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 1, 2019 12:49pm #10

    If this is just about using a 3/8" increment to change club length (primary purpose is NOT MOI matching), then I like to get the wedges at their most comfortably playing length and go up in 3/8" increments from there. Players are more "sensitive" to the club length issue in those shortest clubs. Too long and they're unwieldy and uncomfortable for the "touch" shots; too short and you can't get into a good setup position without bending over too much.

    If we're instead talking about MOI matching, then I like using the #7 iron as the pivot and fitting that club to optimize swing speed and face center hit accuracy. The rest of the set is built off that as the "base".

    BTW - Also be aware of the limitations in lie angle adjustments posed by your heads. The lengths you choose MUST be within the lie angle adjustment range of your heads or you're screwed if you have any hope of getting your lie angles correct.

  • LostArkitektLostArkitekt Members Posts: 26 ✭✭

    @Noodler said:
    If this is just about using a 3/8" increment to change club length (primary purpose is NOT MOI matching), then I like to get the wedges at their most comfortably playing length and go up in 3/8" increments from there. Players are more "sensitive" to the club length issue in those shortest clubs. Too long and they're unwieldy and uncomfortable for the "touch" shots; too short and you can't get into a good setup position without bending over too much.

    If we're instead talking about MOI matching, then I like using the #7 iron as the pivot and fitting that club to optimize swing speed and face center hit accuracy. The rest of the set is built off that as the "base".

    BTW - Also be aware of the limitations in lie angle adjustments posed by your heads. The lengths you choose MUST be within the lie angle adjustment range of your heads or you're screwed if you have any hope of getting your lie angles correct.

    The heads are PING ISI-BeNi heads I got off eBay (mixed bag) with some being Green Dot (2.25 degrees upright) and some White Dot (3 degrees upright, I think). I'm pretty sure that I can have the clubs adjusted to a "determined lie angle" after I go somewhere and hit the ball to determine dynamic lie. I'm getting back into the game after 15+ year hiatus, and the 10 years before then was just 3 to 4 times a year. When I was about 20, I worked at a golf course and hit balls all the time. I was "fitted" by an Adams professional back then and carried my 5-iron 200 yards. Now...it's about 175 or so, but I think part of that reason is because the shafts on my new clubs are too stiff. I literally think that if I was properly fitted and worked out a little more (in good shape for my age, but not a workout guy), I could easily carry 185 with my 5 iron. Right now I carry my 3-iron almost 200, and it would be further if straighter, but it seems too long to hit consistently, but I do get good strikes on it. I think a shorter shaft and a softer flex will help me. I literally have no feeling from the shaft.

    @Howard Jones said:

    @Red4282 said:
    If your a tall golfer id keep your longest iron around standard and do 3/8 from there. Your pw should come out app 1 inch over. Since your 5 seems to be the cutoff on consistency, at +1.25, thats like 2/3 iron length. I would put 3 iron standard and go from there, if it were me. Dont forget about the swingweighting issues this build can cause as well.

    If we start from a "standard" #3 and go 3/8" shorter pr club, we end up with a #9 iron thats plus 6/8" or 0.75" vs std, and thats to short for someone who play plus 1.25". He should start from his #9 iron as it is now at plus 1.25" - then he got this options:

    If we wanted to make a slope from a STD #3 to a #9 thats plus 1.25" then the 5 mm but cut slope is the closest. It give s #3 iron thats 39 1/16"" and a #9 that plus 1.25" but we got there from the other direction, starting from the #9. (7.70 mm between clubs)

    Thanks for all this information. I don't mind a little extra length in the short irons, which starting at the 7-iron as +1.25" and moving up/down 3/8" seems to be the most appealing to me. I'm sure I get some extra distance from the length in the longer irons, so I wouldn't want to totally lose that, and I don't think adding 1/4" to my 9-iron is going to bother me as I hit everything from my 7-iron down really well. This means I'll lose 1/4" on my 5-iron, 3/8" on my 4-iron and a 1/2" on my 3-iron--over what I currently am playing. I think this, plus softer shafts, will help me tremendously. Looking forward to a set that doesn't have astronomically high swing weights, either, as I'm pretty sure that OEM's don't adjust swingweight with club lengths over their standard specs.

  • LostArkitektLostArkitekt Members Posts: 26 ✭✭

    Also...would stepping 3/8" affect the tip trimming suggested by shaft manufacturer or butt trim measurement only?

  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,355 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @LostArkitekt said:
    Also...would stepping 3/8" affect the tip trimming suggested by shaft manufacturer or butt trim measurement only?

    Yes and no. think of it like it was Parallel tips where the classic system is 4/8" tip trim and 4/8" between clubs, and 1/8" tip trim = 1 CPM. Then a 3/8" set up should have a tip trim of 7/16 both ways from out starting point if we did not except any change to flex.

    To understand what happens to flex, just look at this SW values, and think 1 SWP = 1 CPM
    Since most sets is D2 as standard, D1 = 1 CPM stronger and D3 = 1CPM weaker
    Slope is 0.5 SWP, between clubs, so to compensate we need half of 1/8" = 1/16" less tip trim progression
    (4/8" tip trim progression become 7/16" - both ways from start point)

    Example, a "standard" #9 iron as D2 as starting point gives a #3 iron of C9 or 3 CPM stronger than STD
    Example, 2 "standard" #3 with SW D3.5 gives a #9 with D6.5 or 4.5 CPM softer than standard

  • JCAGJCAG John Curry Members Posts: 2,104 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 1, 2019 7:20pm #14

    I tried a set of one length based on 7 iron length of 37.5in. I liked the longer 8-9-W's but I did not like the shorter 5-6 (I use 3-4 hybrids). This meant the 9-W's were one inch longer than I was used to. I then build a set keeping the longer 9-W's and decrease the length the rest of the irons by 3/8th of an inch. Worked out well for me.

  • LostArkitektLostArkitekt Members Posts: 26 ✭✭

    @Howard Jones said:

    @LostArkitekt said:
    Also...would stepping 3/8" affect the tip trimming suggested by shaft manufacturer or butt trim measurement only?

    Yes and no. think of it like it was Parallel tips where the classic system is 4/8" tip trim and 4/8" between clubs, and 1/8" tip trim = 1 CPM. Then a 3/8" set up should have a tip trim of 7/16 both ways from out starting point if we did not except any change to flex.

    To understand what happens to flex, just look at this SW values, and think 1 SWP = 1 CPM
    Since most sets is D2 as standard, D1 = 1 CPM stronger and D3 = 1CPM weaker
    Slope is 0.5 SWP, between clubs, so to compensate we need half of 1/8" = 1/16" less tip trim progression
    (4/8" tip trim progression become 7/16" - both ways from start point)

    Example, a "standard" #9 iron as D2 as starting point gives a #3 iron of C9 or 3 CPM stronger than STD
    Example, 2 "standard" #3 with SW D3.5 gives a #9 with D6.5 or 4.5 CPM softer than standard

    Well, I understand MOST of that, and my current irons are standard at D2 from 4 iron through 7 iron (i think) and D3 in 8 iron, 9 iron and PW. However, the clubs got longer, and I don't think they did any stepping or adding butt weights to offset the length. So, if I'm starting at 7-iron, what you are saying is that I should go in 7/16 increments of tip trim from there? Would I add tip/butt shaft weighting (based on balance point) to get the swingweight to equal D2 in 4-7, D3 in 8-LW? I'm wondering that if this is the standard, maybe making the 2 and 3 irons D1.5. I'm sure I won't know till I hit the clubs, etc., but I think I'll be light years ahead of where I am now.

  • Red4282Red4282 Members Posts: 431 ✭✭✭✭

    @LostArkitekt said:

    @Howard Jones said:

    @LostArkitekt said:
    Also...would stepping 3/8" affect the tip trimming suggested by shaft manufacturer or butt trim measurement only?

    Yes and no. think of it like it was Parallel tips where the classic system is 4/8" tip trim and 4/8" between clubs, and 1/8" tip trim = 1 CPM. Then a 3/8" set up should have a tip trim of 7/16 both ways from out starting point if we did not except any change to flex.

    To understand what happens to flex, just look at this SW values, and think 1 SWP = 1 CPM
    Since most sets is D2 as standard, D1 = 1 CPM stronger and D3 = 1CPM weaker
    Slope is 0.5 SWP, between clubs, so to compensate we need half of 1/8" = 1/16" less tip trim progression
    (4/8" tip trim progression become 7/16" - both ways from start point)

    Example, a "standard" #9 iron as D2 as starting point gives a #3 iron of C9 or 3 CPM stronger than STD
    Example, 2 "standard" #3 with SW D3.5 gives a #9 with D6.5 or 4.5 CPM softer than standard

    Well, I understand MOST of that, and my current irons are standard at D2 from 4 iron through 7 iron (i think) and D3 in 8 iron, 9 iron and PW. However, the clubs got longer, and I don't think they did any stepping or adding butt weights to offset the length. So, if I'm starting at 7-iron, what you are saying is that I should go in 7/16 increments of tip trim from there? Would I add tip/butt shaft weighting (based on balance point) to get the swingweight to equal D2 in 4-7, D3 in 8-LW? I'm wondering that if this is the standard, maybe making the 2 and 3 irons D1.5. I'm sure I won't know till I hit the clubs, etc., but I think I'll be light years ahead of where I am now.

    Be carefull getting caught up in swing-weights. Adding butt weights to get a certain swing-weight can be counter productive. Static weight will play a much larger role. You are adding weight to decrease a weighted feeling but in reality your club just got even heavier. Look into swing weighting by feel. Find which club in your bag feels perfect for you, then attempt to get the rest of your clubs to match.

  • wkuo3wkuo3 RELEASE Members Posts: 4,333 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    Have anyone thought about how the irons will perform after the modification ?
    How will the performance be effected on distance of each iron and distance gap between each of the iroan ?
    I'd learned much from the discussion without having to experiment the process ( really don't have the time nor the resources to but down several sets of shafts to prove a point ).
    Isn't the performance from the end of the modification is, what we're after ? Or are we just trying to make the numbers looking great ?
    Has anyone actually done the process either with a personal set or with a player's set ? Any feedbacks would be appreciated.

  • LostArkitektLostArkitekt Members Posts: 26 ✭✭

    @Red4282 said:

    @LostArkitekt said:

    @Howard Jones said:

    @LostArkitekt said:
    Also...would stepping 3/8" affect the tip trimming suggested by shaft manufacturer or butt trim measurement only?

    Yes and no. think of it like it was Parallel tips where the classic system is 4/8" tip trim and 4/8" between clubs, and 1/8" tip trim = 1 CPM. Then a 3/8" set up should have a tip trim of 7/16 both ways from out starting point if we did not except any change to flex.

    To understand what happens to flex, just look at this SW values, and think 1 SWP = 1 CPM
    Since most sets is D2 as standard, D1 = 1 CPM stronger and D3 = 1CPM weaker
    Slope is 0.5 SWP, between clubs, so to compensate we need half of 1/8" = 1/16" less tip trim progression
    (4/8" tip trim progression become 7/16" - both ways from start point)

    Example, a "standard" #9 iron as D2 as starting point gives a #3 iron of C9 or 3 CPM stronger than STD
    Example, 2 "standard" #3 with SW D3.5 gives a #9 with D6.5 or 4.5 CPM softer than standard

    Well, I understand MOST of that, and my current irons are standard at D2 from 4 iron through 7 iron (i think) and D3 in 8 iron, 9 iron and PW. However, the clubs got longer, and I don't think they did any stepping or adding butt weights to offset the length. So, if I'm starting at 7-iron, what you are saying is that I should go in 7/16 increments of tip trim from there? Would I add tip/butt shaft weighting (based on balance point) to get the swingweight to equal D2 in 4-7, D3 in 8-LW? I'm wondering that if this is the standard, maybe making the 2 and 3 irons D1.5. I'm sure I won't know till I hit the clubs, etc., but I think I'll be light years ahead of where I am now.

    Be carefull getting caught up in swing-weights. Adding butt weights to get a certain swing-weight can be counter productive. Static weight will play a much larger role. You are adding weight to decrease a weighted feeling but in reality your club just got even heavier. Look into swing weighting by feel. Find which club in your bag feels perfect for you, then attempt to get the rest of your clubs to match.

    Well, my clubs aren't getting heavier because I'm putting graphite shafts in them...which means they are going to be WAY lighter than my current set of clubs. If I want a D2 swing weight, I'm actually going to have to add tip weights to the long irons and then butt weights only to a very few irons. The extra length is adding weight to the clubs.

    I went out and hit balls in my net this afternoon, and I had one of these PING irons still shafted (3-iron...although STD length...not any longer), and I realized that it just felt easier to swing than my Mizuno 7-iron (which I was swinging at the same time). Although I was striking the 7-iron in the middle, etc., and they felt like pure strikes, I felt that it was more laborious to swing the 7 than the 3, and I held each one out in front of me, and the 7 iron seemed half again heavier than the 3. I'm guessing the overall weight (and or the swingweight) is slowing me way down, and that is another reason I'm not getting the distance...the heavier club is slowing my swing speed down.

  • Red4282Red4282 Members Posts: 431 ✭✭✭✭

    @LostArkitekt said:

    @Red4282 said:

    @LostArkitekt said:

    @Howard Jones said:

    @LostArkitekt said:
    Also...would stepping 3/8" affect the tip trimming suggested by shaft manufacturer or butt trim measurement only?

    Yes and no. think of it like it was Parallel tips where the classic system is 4/8" tip trim and 4/8" between clubs, and 1/8" tip trim = 1 CPM. Then a 3/8" set up should have a tip trim of 7/16 both ways from out starting point if we did not except any change to flex.

    To understand what happens to flex, just look at this SW values, and think 1 SWP = 1 CPM
    Since most sets is D2 as standard, D1 = 1 CPM stronger and D3 = 1CPM weaker
    Slope is 0.5 SWP, between clubs, so to compensate we need half of 1/8" = 1/16" less tip trim progression
    (4/8" tip trim progression become 7/16" - both ways from start point)

    Example, a "standard" #9 iron as D2 as starting point gives a #3 iron of C9 or 3 CPM stronger than STD
    Example, 2 "standard" #3 with SW D3.5 gives a #9 with D6.5 or 4.5 CPM softer than standard

    Well, I understand MOST of that, and my current irons are standard at D2 from 4 iron through 7 iron (i think) and D3 in 8 iron, 9 iron and PW. However, the clubs got longer, and I don't think they did any stepping or adding butt weights to offset the length. So, if I'm starting at 7-iron, what you are saying is that I should go in 7/16 increments of tip trim from there? Would I add tip/butt shaft weighting (based on balance point) to get the swingweight to equal D2 in 4-7, D3 in 8-LW? I'm wondering that if this is the standard, maybe making the 2 and 3 irons D1.5. I'm sure I won't know till I hit the clubs, etc., but I think I'll be light years ahead of where I am now.

    Be carefull getting caught up in swing-weights. Adding butt weights to get a certain swing-weight can be counter productive. Static weight will play a much larger role. You are adding weight to decrease a weighted feeling but in reality your club just got even heavier. Look into swing weighting by feel. Find which club in your bag feels perfect for you, then attempt to get the rest of your clubs to match.

    Well, my clubs aren't getting heavier because I'm putting graphite shafts in them...which means they are going to be WAY lighter than my current set of clubs. If I want a D2 swing weight, I'm actually going to have to add tip weights to the long irons and then butt weights only to a very few irons. The extra length is adding weight to the clubs.

    I went out and hit balls in my net this afternoon, and I had one of these PING irons still shafted (3-iron...although STD length...not any longer), and I realized that it just felt easier to swing than my Mizuno 7-iron (which I was swinging at the same time). Although I was striking the 7-iron in the middle, etc., and they felt like pure strikes, I felt that it was more laborious to swing the 7 than the 3, and I held each one out in front of me, and the 7 iron seemed half again heavier than the 3. I'm guessing the overall weight (and or the swingweight) is slowing me way down, and that is another reason I'm not getting the distance...the heavier club is slowing my swing speed down.

    Ok good you should be fine then!

  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,355 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 2, 2019 6:26am #20

    @wkuo3 said:
    Have anyone thought about how the irons will perform after the modification ?
    How will the performance be effected on distance of each iron and distance gap between each of the iroan ?
    I'd learned much from the discussion without having to experiment the process ( really don't have the time nor the resources to but down several sets of shafts to prove a point ).
    Isn't the performance from the end of the modification is, what we're after ? Or are we just trying to make the numbers looking great ?
    Has anyone actually done the process either with a personal set or with a player's set ? Any feedbacks would be appreciated.

    I dont know how many who have done it, far from all return with a write up, but some does like in this tread.
    This is what most of us would call "a better player", former PGA swing trainer and -hdcp on the sunny side, but it takes a bit of a man to admit that there has always been room for improvement in the iron play, and this was the improvement always wanted....but nobody has ever showed this up as option to this issues ALL of us has.
    The short end often works pretty good if we have a set that fits us, while MID is OK, while the long end could absolutely be improved, and thats not only for high HDCP players, it goes for all of us, and if it worked out for a man like this, what makes you think you want make the same improvement, maybe even more, depending on how good a fit the short end is now.
    https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1782086/my-moi-iron-build-thank-you-howard/p1

  • wkuo3wkuo3 RELEASE Members Posts: 4,333 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @Howard Jones said:

    @wkuo3 said:
    Have anyone thought about how the irons will perform after the modification ?
    How will the performance be effected on distance of each iron and distance gap between each of the iroan ?
    I'd learned much from the discussion without having to experiment the process ( really don't have the time nor the resources to but down several sets of shafts to prove a point ).
    Isn't the performance from the end of the modification is, what we're after ? Or are we just trying to make the numbers looking great ?
    Has anyone actually done the process either with a personal set or with a player's set ? Any feedbacks would be appreciated.

    I dont know how many who have done it, far from all return with a write up, but some does like in this tread.
    This is what most of us would call "a better player", former PGA swing trainer and -hdcp on the sunny side, but it takes a bit of a man to admit that there has always been room for improvement in the iron play, and this was the improvement always wanted....but nobody has ever showed this up as option to this issues ALL of us has.
    The short end often works pretty good if we have a set that fits us, while MID is OK, while the long end could absolutely be improved, and thats not only for high HDCP players, it goes for all of us, and if it worked out for a man like this, what makes you think you want make the same improvement, maybe even more, depending on how good a fit the short end is now.
    https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1782086/my-moi-iron-build-thank-you-howard/p1

    I missed that thread, thank for the heads up.
    Took me while to go through that but yes, there was change in the distance gap betweeen the OEM 1/2" lenght gap and after the modification of 3/8".
    I know when making each iron in the set to "feel right" that reult is not a consistance gap between each of the irons. There might be gaps difference of more than 10 yards.
    Some of the players will take that variable and love the feeel for their whole set instead of keeping the std, 10-15 yards distance dap throughout their set of irons but only love the feel of only a couple of the irons.
    This going back to the old school of fitting each individual iron to the player. I do agree the chart you have provided give information for a solid base to begin the process. Putting it in numbers and charts vertainly make understanding a lot easier.
    I also agree with the trial method of grip-down / add weight to the head for experimenting, that's what it used to be, before anyone had put it on paper in a way to make sense. You have to understand I grew up in the age before the P.C. and cell pnone. a story I love to tell was , the only mobile phone on my college campus was owned by this student , a Sheikh from Saudi Arabia. Seen him driving his M.B. 600 with a phone in his hand ( the kind with coil of line attached, looks like a hand set from the 60's-70's ).
    So the new technoliogy and the aid from using compiling program really made everything easier.
    Thanks for sharing.

  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,355 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @wkuo3 said:

    @Howard Jones said:

    @wkuo3 said:
    Have anyone thought about how the irons will perform after the modification ?
    How will the performance be effected on distance of each iron and distance gap between each of the iroan ?
    I'd learned much from the discussion without having to experiment the process ( really don't have the time nor the resources to but down several sets of shafts to prove a point ).
    Isn't the performance from the end of the modification is, what we're after ? Or are we just trying to make the numbers looking great ?
    Has anyone actually done the process either with a personal set or with a player's set ? Any feedbacks would be appreciated.

    I dont know how many who have done it, far from all return with a write up, but some does like in this tread.
    This is what most of us would call "a better player", former PGA swing trainer and -hdcp on the sunny side, but it takes a bit of a man to admit that there has always been room for improvement in the iron play, and this was the improvement always wanted....but nobody has ever showed this up as option to this issues ALL of us has.
    The short end often works pretty good if we have a set that fits us, while MID is OK, while the long end could absolutely be improved, and thats not only for high HDCP players, it goes for all of us, and if it worked out for a man like this, what makes you think you want make the same improvement, maybe even more, depending on how good a fit the short end is now.
    https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1782086/my-moi-iron-build-thank-you-howard/p1

    I missed that thread, thank for the heads up.
    Took me while to go through that but yes, there was change in the distance gap betweeen the OEM 1/2" lenght gap and after the modification of 3/8".
    I know when making each iron in the set to "feel right" that reult is not a consistance gap between each of the irons. There might be gaps difference of more than 10 yards.
    Some of the players will take that variable and love the feeel for their whole set instead of keeping the std, 10-15 yards distance dap throughout their set of irons but only love the feel of only a couple of the irons.
    This going back to the old school of fitting each individual iron to the player. I do agree the chart you have provided give information for a solid base to begin the process. Putting it in numbers and charts vertainly make understanding a lot easier.
    I also agree with the trial method of grip-down / add weight to the head for experimenting, that's what it used to be, before anyone had put it on paper in a way to make sense. You have to understand I grew up in the age before the P.C. and cell pnone. a story I love to tell was , the only mobile phone on my college campus was owned by this student , a Sheikh from Saudi Arabia. Seen him driving his M.B. 600 with a phone in his hand ( the kind with coil of line attached, looks like a hand set from the 60's-70's ).
    So the new technoliogy and the aid from using compiling program really made everything easier.
    Thanks for sharing.

    Ask any question, there is no stupid one here...
    The reason or target for using a different play length progression:

    • Get the stance right in the short end.
      (former options in 4/8" sets, often became to short in the short end when the long worked good)

    • Get the long end easier to play.
      (without going shorter in the short end)

    • Freedom to choose Club length progression, Not only 3/8" as option.

    • "1 to 2.5 clubs shorter in", when the long end comes to play.
    • Improves gapping from better impact on each club.
    • MOI match or any progression we like up to flat SW
      (We DONT have to use "poor mans MOI match", but cab choose no matter progression that fits us, by tweaking up the longest and the shortest club, draw the slope between them when tune up is done.

    Excel is nice to play around with, and it helped me to SEE other custom options for DIY if the player already had a set where the short end is good. For set we build from Scratch and new shafts, we can take advantage of the shorter play length between club to "improve" tolerances in a set Descending wgt, or make a Constant WGT set slightly Ascending.

    We also have the freedom to tweak flex slope as we like to get the feel we want. in general i advocate to use a "Flighted slope"" if possible since the long end goes stronger from shorter shafts with less SW to handle, while the short end get more weight to handle. A "Flighted" pattern can either compensate only, or go further into a actual "Flighted" pattern.

    I dont think i will ever make a 4/8" iron set again, i simply see mo good reasons to use that system with all the options we have here, right in front of us.

  • wkuo3wkuo3 RELEASE Members Posts: 4,333 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 2, 2019 4:40pm #23

    Yes, if one has the time and the resources, no one would like the std OEM spec.
    The "standard" OEM spec ( if there is one ), really is not suited for any particular golfer, it's just an attempt to give the mass of golfers a single fit.
    When golfers competing in the highest level, every little bit of edge over the competition is helpful.
    I'm not aware of any OEM is offering the 3/8" gap in Iron length. But then again, I'm not up to the moment on the golf industry these days.

  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,355 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 2, 2019 5:05pm #24

    @wkuo3 said:
    Yes, if one has the time and the resources, no one would like the std OEM spec.
    The "standard" OEM spec ( if there is one ), really is not suited for any particular golfer, it's just an attempt to give the mass of golfers a single fit.
    When golfers competing in the highest level, every little bit of edge over the competition is helpful.
    I'm not aware of any OEM is offering the 3/8" gap in Iron length. But then again, I'm not up to the moment on the golf industry these days.

    Im not aware of any OEM who does, but that does NOT matter. Order what ever you like, just make sure the #9 iron fits you, so if you normally play "plus 0.5", then order that. Make sure the set is delivered with grips loose in the box.

    Now Butt cut to this chart, and add this amount of head weight if you want to duplicate your #9 iron, what ever specs is has, this numbers is all "relative" to "what ever #9 iron specs", so its "valid for all who starts from #9.
    That makes you free to order what ever brand you like, and "fix it yourself"...

    PS! - a 7.70 mm set up (5 mm progressive butt cut) should not be made without using Tip weights, the #3 iron need way to much lead tape. a 10.7 mm (2 mm progressive butt cut) DONT need any weight added at all, so that set is "butt cut, add grips, get out and play", it does not get any easier than that, and the #3 is only 1 club shorter, but still....thats a "free MOI match", and a easier to play both 3, 4 and #5 irons. So, dont let brand name stop you.

    Here is all you need really....Both for the Tape down test, and for cutting.

  • wkuo3wkuo3 RELEASE Members Posts: 4,333 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @Howard Jones said:

    @wkuo3 said:
    Yes, if one has the time and the resources, no one would like the std OEM spec.
    The "standard" OEM spec ( if there is one ), really is not suited for any particular golfer, it's just an attempt to give the mass of golfers a single fit.
    When golfers competing in the highest level, every little bit of edge over the competition is helpful.
    I'm not aware of any OEM is offering the 3/8" gap in Iron length. But then again, I'm not up to the moment on the golf industry these days.

    Im not aware of any OEM who does, but that does NOT matter. Order what ever you like, just make sure the #9 iron fits you, so if you normally play "plus 0.5", then order that. Make sure the set is delivered with grips loose in the box.

    Now Butt cut to this chart, and add this amount of head weight if you want to duplicate your #9 iron, what ever specs is has, this numbers is all "relative" to "what ever #9 iron specs", so its "valid for all who starts from #9.
    That makes you free to order what ever brand you like, and "fix it yourself"...

    PS! - a 7.70 mm set up (5 mm progressive butt cut) should not be made without using Tip weights, the #3 iron need way to much lead tape. a 10.7 mm (2 mm progressive butt cut) DONT need any weight added at all, so that set is "butt cut, add grips, get out and play", it does not get any easier than that, and the #3 is only 1 club shorter, but still....thats a "free MOI match", and a easier to play both 3, 4 and #5 irons. So, dont let brand name stop you.

    Here is all you need really....Both for the Tape down test, and for cutting.

    Thanks.
    I wish the next step in custom fitted iron sets would be....... custom ordered head weight.
    I wonder, because it's way esier for the manufacturer to grind off more or to leave more weight on the raw unfinished heads. Of course fine tuning would be necessary but, without tons of lead tape or tip weights.
    If I hit the lotto ( which will be tough, since I seldom play that game ), I would like to set up a shop to make customized iron heads to order. I'd bet there is some interests in this.

  • Florida GatorFlorida Gator Members Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 6, 2019 10:35am #26

    From a practical experience, when I had my MP-68s rebuilt to 3/8 from 1/2, I asked my fitter to make the 4 iron the length of my current 6 iron. The reasoning was that I can stripe a 6 in my sleep. I also asked to have the set MOI matched to my current 9 iron, which to me felt the best of all irons. We took these constraints and he built the set for me and the difference has been huge, I made the change in 2012 if I remember correctly. My MP-5 were built to the same spec, club for club.

    My next change is possibly going to 1/4” for my MP-20s. Using both A and B weights within the set will reduce the headache of getting the MOI numbers we are looking for. The 1/4” set will open up the “half step” problem of tipping a taper tip shaft to get it to fall between full set flexes designed for 1/2” sets. Not a problem if it’s planned for up front.

  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,355 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 6, 2019 12:23pm #27

    @wkuo3 said:

    @Howard Jones said:

    @wkuo3 said:
    Yes, if one has the time and the resources, no one would like the std OEM spec.
    The "standard" OEM spec ( if there is one ), really is not suited for any particular golfer, it's just an attempt to give the mass of golfers a single fit.
    When golfers competing in the highest level, every little bit of edge over the competition is helpful.
    I'm not aware of any OEM is offering the 3/8" gap in Iron length. But then again, I'm not up to the moment on the golf industry these days.

    Im not aware of any OEM who does, but that does NOT matter. Order what ever you like, just make sure the #9 iron fits you, so if you normally play "plus 0.5", then order that. Make sure the set is delivered with grips loose in the box.

    Now Butt cut to this chart, and add this amount of head weight if you want to duplicate your #9 iron, what ever specs is has, this numbers is all "relative" to "what ever #9 iron specs", so its "valid for all who starts from #9.
    That makes you free to order what ever brand you like, and "fix it yourself"...

    PS! - a 7.70 mm set up (5 mm progressive butt cut) should not be made without using Tip weights, the #3 iron need way to much lead tape. a 10.7 mm (2 mm progressive butt cut) DONT need any weight added at all, so that set is "butt cut, add grips, get out and play", it does not get any easier than that, and the #3 is only 1 club shorter, but still....thats a "free MOI match", and a easier to play both 3, 4 and #5 irons. So, dont let brand name stop you.

    Here is all you need really....Both for the Tape down test, and for cutting.

    Thanks.
    I wish the next step in custom fitted iron sets would be....... custom ordered head weight.
    I wonder, because it's way esier for the manufacturer to grind off more or to leave more weight on the raw unfinished heads. Of course fine tuning would be necessary but, without tons of lead tape or tip weights.
    If I hit the lotto ( which will be tough, since I seldom play that game ), I would like to set up a shop to make customized iron heads to order. I'd bet there is some interests in this.

    Its not that easy as you might think.
    For classic sets made to flat SW value and 4/8" between clubs, the AVERAGE weight is 7 grams apart, and thats why the old school rule is to tip weight heads until they are 7.0 grams apart....BUT, when we put them on the SW scale, we want be "dead on", since ALL tolerances from the rest of the club ends up as a tolerance we adjust by tuning head weight, and its NOT the same mount needed for all types of shafts....i use to think that, but if we want it "100%" right, we CANT use charts like mine or 7.0 grams flat or what ever it might be, it only get us close, never 100%....Knowing that, what weight would you order? (we dont know the needs before they are on the scale....thats the problem)

    Im working on a small APP who takes care off all the small numbers we normally dont care about or pay to much attention to, like how shaft MOI changes when we go 3/8" or any other number vs 4/8", just look at how DG classic looks compared to AMT....AMT is MOI matched SHAFTS, so if we modify the set to 3/8" we make a "good MOI match" on the shaft to become ASCENDING MOI shafts....When we deal with MOI, its simply a sum of all components, so what we loose or gain from the shaft, will have to be compensated on the heads with the same number of MOI points.
    3 grams shaft weight = 1 gram head weight as a rule of thumb for MOI (IRONS), while for woods its closer to 4 grams, and thats why my charts for Shaft weight progression is average 5 grams uncut pr inch....that makes the shaft itself to feel the same, or very close to DG AMT WHITE we see here.

    First the Classic DG constant weight. Here we get to see how MOi value goes up the longer the club is, and thats a issue for many players. Resistance becomes to high in the long end. MOI range from 2526 up to 2574 on the play ready club EX.grip, or plus minus 24.1 MOI points . Heads are plus minus 6.4 points, so its not the heads thats the issue, but where we must solve it to improve total MOI.

    AMT White as classic 4/8" - head weight set to standard with exactly 7 grams just like for DG classics...
    MOI value on the play ready club is within plus minus 6.8 MOI points from average. (range 2526 to 2537 MOI points)
    AMT seems to be a walk in the park to MOI match as 4/8"....not much head weight adjustments needed here.

    If we modify it to 3/8" we make AMT to become ASCENDING MOI shafts, and again, 1 point from the shaft is 1 point on the head, so when we loose MOI from the shaft the longer we go, the more head weight we will need to replace, making head weight progression on AMT MOI matched to look "Weird" (below 6 grams in 3/8" sets), and that gives a picture of a set that want feel right even if MOI is set right, so it seems like we should stay away from AMT if 3/8" set is the target, they seems to be rather good as they are SW matched and 4/8" when we compare them to the Classics...
    Look at what happen to HEAD MOI and TOTAL MOI when we cut to 3/8 (still using standard 7 grams heads before adjusting)...we DID NOT IMPROVE IT, it seems like we messed it up....and i think we just did....not sure but, what looked like a good match on both heads and shafts is now messed up, and its ion the heads we need to compensate, thats why head weight progression becomes weird. (my charts above for fast and dirty DIY DONT match at all for AMT shafts....not even close, i though so, but when ive done the numbers, its clear that they are NOT.)

    PS! the app has input for each shafts balance point, and classic DG has the same for all (49.50% from the tip), while AMT is progressive BP to compensate for lost shaft weight and its set correct in the app. (they are designed with different BP shaft to shaft so they deliver the same SW values as the classics with the same head weight).

    My conclusion is "standard" heads is "good enough", we need to adjust them anyway, but options like plus or minus 5 to 10 grams from standard would be nice for builds outside the standard norm.

    The app im showing of here is part of version 3 of my METRIC composer app, but im still working to get EI profiles into it, they exist but not for free, thats the issue....so while im still waiting for some answers, and in the mean time im working on other parts of the app like this one....still tons of improvements to be made on GUI, but the app will return both MOI and SW values so we can dry fit using the tool we have at hand. 2 of my former students is now running a few tests and compare the APP vs Auditor MOI scale and the classic SW scale, and i hope "tolerances" is tight enough to use this app alone for those who dont have a SW scale or a MOI scale....still waiting for reply on that, i will have them during the weekend. If those tests turn out good, i consider to launch a version 2.1 who includes actual MOI match, still without the shaft database, and that means BP has to be added for each shaft like ive done here (not visible on the photo)

    Post edited by Howard Jones on
  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,355 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @Florida Gator said:
    From a practical experience, when I had my MP-68s rebuilt to 3/8 from 1/2, I asked my fitter to make the 4 iron the length of my current 6 iron. The reasoning was that I can stripe a 6 in my sleep. I also asked to have the set MOI matched to my current 9 iron, which to me felt the best of all irons. We took these constraints and he built the set for me and the difference has been huge, I made the change in 2012 if I remember correctly. My MP-5 were built to the same spec, club for club.

    My next change is possibly going to 1/4” for my MP-20s. Using both A and B weights within the set will reduce the headache of getting the MOI numbers we are looking for. The 1/4” set will open up the “half step” problem of tipping a taper tip shaft to get it to fall between full set flexes designed for 1/2” sets. Not a problem if it’s planned for up front.

    1/4" is very hard to make good, its easier with 5/16"....and not much of a difference, but enough to make head weight adjustments "possible" without going the extra mile and drill out from those to heavy, and add "too much" to the other.....just saying....reconsider the 2/8" idea, i have not heard of anyone who made it, and 2/8" might give to little club speed progression to make standard heads to works good, not that 5/16" is "much better" but still....we are stretching it to the limit, maybe beyond...

  • wkuo3wkuo3 RELEASE Members Posts: 4,333 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @Howard Jones said:

    @wkuo3 said:

    @Howard Jones said:

    @wkuo3 said:
    Yes, if one has the time and the resources, no one would like the std OEM spec.
    The "standard" OEM spec ( if there is one ), really is not suited for any particular golfer, it's just an attempt to give the mass of golfers a single fit.
    When golfers competing in the highest level, every little bit of edge over the competition is helpful.
    I'm not aware of any OEM is offering the 3/8" gap in Iron length. But then again, I'm not up to the moment on the golf industry these days.

    Im not aware of any OEM who does, but that does NOT matter. Order what ever you like, just make sure the #9 iron fits you, so if you normally play "plus 0.5", then order that. Make sure the set is delivered with grips loose in the box.

    Now Butt cut to this chart, and add this amount of head weight if you want to duplicate your #9 iron, what ever specs is has, this numbers is all "relative" to "what ever #9 iron specs", so its "valid for all who starts from #9.
    That makes you free to order what ever brand you like, and "fix it yourself"...

    PS! - a 7.70 mm set up (5 mm progressive butt cut) should not be made without using Tip weights, the #3 iron need way to much lead tape. a 10.7 mm (2 mm progressive butt cut) DONT need any weight added at all, so that set is "butt cut, add grips, get out and play", it does not get any easier than that, and the #3 is only 1 club shorter, but still....thats a "free MOI match", and a easier to play both 3, 4 and #5 irons. So, dont let brand name stop you.

    Here is all you need really....Both for the Tape down test, and for cutting.

    Thanks.
    I wish the next step in custom fitted iron sets would be....... custom ordered head weight.
    I wonder, because it's way esier for the manufacturer to grind off more or to leave more weight on the raw unfinished heads. Of course fine tuning would be necessary but, without tons of lead tape or tip weights.
    If I hit the lotto ( which will be tough, since I seldom play that game ), I would like to set up a shop to make customized iron heads to order. I'd bet there is some interests in this.

    Its not that easy as you might think.
    For classic sets made to flat SW value and 4/8" between clubs, the AVERAGE weight is 7 grams apart, and thats why the old school rule is to tip weight heads until they are 7.0 grams apart....BUT, when we put them on the SW scale, we want be "dead on", since ALL tolerances from the rest of the club ends up as a tolerance we adjust by tuning head weight, and its NOT the same mount needed for all types of shafts....i use to think that, but if we want it "100%" right, we CANT use charts like mine or 7.0 grams flat or what ever it might be, it only get us close, never 100%....Knowing that, what weight would you order? (we dont know the needs before they are on the scale....thats the problem)

    Im working on a small APP who takes care off all the small numbers we normally dont care about or pay to much attention to, like how shaft MOI changes when we go 3/8" or any other number vs 4/8", just look at how DG classic looks compared to AMT....AMT is MOI matched SHAFTS, so if we modify the set to 3/8" we make a "good MOI match" on the shaft to become ASCENDING MOI shafts....When we deal with MOI, its simply a sum of all components, so what we loose or gain from the shaft, will have to be compensated on the heads with the same number of MOI points.
    3 grams shaft weight = 1 gram head weight as a rule of thumb for MOI (IRONS), while for woods its closer to 4 grams, and thats why my charts for Shaft weight progression is average 5 grams uncut pr inch....that makes the shaft itself to feel the same, or very close to DG AMT WHITE we see here.

    First the Classic DG constant weight. Here we get to see how MOi value goes up the longer the club is, and thats a issue for many players. Resistance becomes to high in the long end. MOI range from 2526 up to 2574 on the play ready club EX.grip, or plus minus 24.1 MOI points . Heads are plus minus 6.4 points, so its not the heads thats the issue, but where we must solve it to improve total MOI.

    AMT White as classic 4/8" - head weight set to standard with exactly 7 grams just like for DG classics...
    MOI value on the play ready club is within plus minus 6.8 MOI points from average. (range 2526 to 2537 MOI points)
    AMT seems to be a walk in the park to MOI match as 4/8"....not much head weight adjustments needed here.

    If we modify it to 3/8" we make AMT to become ASCENDING MOI shafts, and again, 1 point from the shaft is 1 point on the head, so when we loose MOI from the shaft the longer we go, the more head weight we will need to replace, making head weight progression on AMT MOI matched to look "Weird" (below 6 grams in 3/8" sets), and that gives a picture of a set that want feel right even if MOI is set right, so it seems like we should stay away from AMT if 3/8" set is the target, they seems to be rather good as they are SW matched and 4/8" when we compare them to the Classics...
    Look at what happen to HEAD MOI and TOTAL MOI when we cut to 3/8 (still using standard 7 grams heads before adjusting)...we DID NOT IMPROVE IT, it seems like we messed it up....and i think we just did....not sure but, what looked like a good match on both heads and shafts is now messed up, and its ion the heads we need to compensate, thats why head weight progression becomes weird. (my charts above for fast and dirty DIY DONT match at all for AMT shafts....not even close, i though so, but when ive done the numbers, its clear that they are NOT.)

    PS! the app has input for each shafts balance point, and classic DG has the same for all (49.50% from the tip), while AMT is progressive BP to compensate for lost shaft weight and its set correct in the app. (they are designed with different BP shaft to shaft so they deliver the same SW values as the classics with the same head weight).

    My conclusion is "standard" heads is "good enough", we need to adjust them anyway, but options like plus or minus 5 to 10 grams from standard would be nice for builds outside the standard norm.

    The app im showing of here is part of version 3 of my METRIC composer app, but im still working to get EI profiles into it, they exist but not for free, thats the issue....so while im still waiting for some answers, and in the mean time im working on other parts of the app like this one....still tons of improvements to be made on GUI, but the app will return both MOI and SW values so we can dry fit using the tool we have at hand. 2 of my former students is now running a few tests and compare the APP vs Auditor MOI scale and the classic SW scale, and i hope "tolerances" is tight enough to use this app alone for those who dont have a SW scale or a MOI scale....still waiting for reply on that, i will have them during the weekend. If those tests turn out good, i consider to launch a version 2.1 who includes actual MOI match, still without the shaft database, and that means BP has to be added for each shaft like ive done here (not visible on the photo)

    EXACTLY ! Great to have you gaive this insight, when no one really care about a complete analysis on the cause and the effects on the equipment side. And those have the ability did not take the time to detailed information. Both my kids are in the graduate program ad one is in the Bio-Engineering side whom had been doing some work at a lab, the worked done to be published was so precise and to the detail of nano level........ well their work needs to be as detailed as possible to the NANO spec, the golf club works deemed not necessary to be in such detail because close enough will be fine to achieve the goal of fitting to the moment, the day, the month, the year....... as physical being a golfer changes with time.
    Hence why most the fitting in the past were only done in apporximaton with the old schools , when close enough is actuallyAcceptable.
    Where if we factor in the human element in the golf swing ( which is the single one largest variable in the composition of golf swing ).
    Old school also like to use lead for tip weight because it is easy to maneuver the shape and the quantity of it. The only bad thing from using the lead for swing weight adjustment is , often times it'll not be re-usable , and the possible toxic efect while working with it.
    I'll make sure to store your data, in case someone wants an explaination of the why and what, with the 3/8" gap instead of the traditional 1/2" of the length in iron length .

  • Florida GatorFlorida Gator Members Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @Howard Jones said:

    @Florida Gator said:
    From a practical experience, when I had my MP-68s rebuilt to 3/8 from 1/2, I asked my fitter to make the 4 iron the length of my current 6 iron. The reasoning was that I can stripe a 6 in my sleep. I also asked to have the set MOI matched to my current 9 iron, which to me felt the best of all irons. We took these constraints and he built the set for me and the difference has been huge, I made the change in 2012 if I remember correctly. My MP-5 were built to the same spec, club for club.

    My next change is possibly going to 1/4” for my MP-20s. Using both A and B weights within the set will reduce the headache of getting the MOI numbers we are looking for. The 1/4” set will open up the “half step” problem of tipping a taper tip shaft to get it to fall between full set flexes designed for 1/2” sets. Not a problem if it’s planned for up front.

    1/4" is very hard to make good, its easier with 5/16"....and not much of a difference, but enough to make head weight adjustments "possible" without going the extra mile and drill out from those to heavy, and add "too much" to the other.....just saying....reconsider the 2/8" idea, i have not heard of anyone who made it, and 2/8" might give to little club speed progression to make standard heads to works good, not that 5/16" is "much better" but still....we are stretching it to the limit, maybe beyond...

    Well, I bought a well used set of MP-5 irons to experiment on when the snow falls, so think I have a good idea how to make it work an get the club heads to the weight needed. If I fail with the experiment, I’m out a few hundred dollars but had fun in the process, and will have learned along the way. I’m a tinkerer at heart, so this gives me something to do!

    As always Howard, thanks for all of your insight, I have several of your posts saved for future technical reference.

  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,355 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @Florida Gator said:

    @Howard Jones said:

    @Florida Gator said:
    From a practical experience, when I had my MP-68s rebuilt to 3/8 from 1/2, I asked my fitter to make the 4 iron the length of my current 6 iron. The reasoning was that I can stripe a 6 in my sleep. I also asked to have the set MOI matched to my current 9 iron, which to me felt the best of all irons. We took these constraints and he built the set for me and the difference has been huge, I made the change in 2012 if I remember correctly. My MP-5 were built to the same spec, club for club.

    My next change is possibly going to 1/4” for my MP-20s. Using both A and B weights within the set will reduce the headache of getting the MOI numbers we are looking for. The 1/4” set will open up the “half step” problem of tipping a taper tip shaft to get it to fall between full set flexes designed for 1/2” sets. Not a problem if it’s planned for up front.

    1/4" is very hard to make good, its easier with 5/16"....and not much of a difference, but enough to make head weight adjustments "possible" without going the extra mile and drill out from those to heavy, and add "too much" to the other.....just saying....reconsider the 2/8" idea, i have not heard of anyone who made it, and 2/8" might give to little club speed progression to make standard heads to works good, not that 5/16" is "much better" but still....we are stretching it to the limit, maybe beyond...

    Well, I bought a well used set of MP-5 irons to experiment on when the snow falls, so think I have a good idea how to make it work an get the club heads to the weight needed. If I fail with the experiment, I’m out a few hundred dollars but had fun in the process, and will have learned along the way. I’m a tinkerer at heart, so this gives me something to do!

    As always Howard, thanks for all of your insight, I have several of your posts saved for future technical reference.

    My best advice for your case is to buy some cheap grips for testing. Make a hole strait trough the butt end, and move the grip tape "down to wanted position", That way you can try off the clubs with the grip in its correct position, still with full return if you went to short. The "grip down", method is good, but when we stretch it this far, we should have the grip and size correct to judge it right. I always use compressed air during fitting, but a modified grip with a whole strait trough is the best, we can play it with more than 1 inch above the cap without issues.

    Tell us about it when you move on with it, you already have experience from playing MOi matched, so you will instantly know if you are going in the right direction, your longest iron is enough for the test, thats where the issues will be if any.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file