Jump to content
2024 Houston Open WITB Photos ×

How adjustable drivers actually work. Everyone should be required to watch this to be allowed to pos


Albatross85

Recommended Posts

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1411666437' post='10182627']
[quote name='Cwebb' timestamp='1411665451' post='10182551']
[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1411664821' post='10182449']
I can't answer that because I would have to have both driver heads in my shop to check, measure and see. I'm not familiar with your terms FCT and ASP. Are those terms you and others use to describe the sleeve and the sole device on the R1? If so, I do have that R1 in my shop that I measured specs from for the report I did and could set the sleeve and sole disk on those settings you describe to see and let you know.
[/quote]

[color=#282828]FCT: is Face Control Tech, from the adjustable hosel[/color]

[color=#282828]ASP: is the Adjustable Sole Plate[/color]
[/quote]

OK, so that proves I don't read the marketing information !
[/quote]

It also proves you are normal, Tom. ;)

Titleist Tsi3 9/Tensei White 65x

Titleist Tsi2 16.5/Tensei White 75x

Titleist 818 h2 21/Tensei White 95x

Mizuno Mp-20 mb 4-Pw/Dynamic Gold 120x

Mizuno T22 50, 54, 58/Dynamic Gold s400

Bettinardi Studio Stock #8

Titleist ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

R-7 for me. MWT is all I need. That, and fine tuning in choice of after market weights, shaft trim, and appropriate grip weight. Although not inclined to do so, there is benefit to having sleeve adapter to enable swapping of shafts.

"Non rinunciare mai quello
che desideri...."
Go with what you know!

 

Driver: Titleist 913D

Fairway: Tour Edge XCG 7

Hybrids: Bobby Jones(Jesse Ortiz) Blackbird 3,4,5,6

Irons: 3-PW Titleist 710 MB (Rifle Project X 6.0 Flighted)

Wedges: Tour Edge 52, 56 deg, Cleveland RTX 50 deg 

Putter: Odyssey Custom Metal X 7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1411594839' post='10177433']
Tom,

Does this make sense?

A TM 10* FCT setting + a 3O ASP setting = a Wishon 12* loft + 4* open face angle

Both heads will have:

4* open face angles
10* loft when square
12* loft when soled

And for the sake of the discussion lets say both heads have perfect specs.
[/quote]

OK, I did the measurement on the R1 I have and for the 10 FCT and 3o ASP. I get 59* lie, 12.75 loft and 4.75 open. So that would be like one of our 919-13 heads with a hand select for the 12.75 loft and then the hosel bent to achieve the 59* lie and 4.75 open face. And because we keep the amount of bending of the hosel on the 919 to +/-4* from the head's spec, since the spec for the face angle of the 919-13 head is 1 closed, we would not want to bend that head to have a 4.75 open face because that would be just shy of a 6* bend to get it to 4.75 open.

Give me a little time to read Ralph's stuff that you posted because it is fairly long. I'll try to do that before too long and offer any comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1411666723' post='10182649']
Tom,

Lets leave TaylorMade out of the question, if you hand select a 919 driver head to have a 12* loft and a 0* face angle and then bend this head to 4* open, what will the loft be when the face is measured in a square face angle position?
[/quote]

Having done the work to determine the relationship between face angle and loft when heads are rotated, I can tell you that a 12 loft and 0 face angle bent to 4 open will be 12* loft at the 4 open face angle when specs are measured in the soled position in the green machine. But then if it is rotated back to be square from the 4 open face angle, the loft will be 9.6*. This rotated face angle to loft relationship when rotated is not a 1:1 relationship because of the influence of the lie angle. So at the typical lies of drivers today, that relationship is for each 1* you rotate the face angle, the loft changes by 0.6*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1411668012' post='10182805']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1411594839' post='10177433']
Tom,

Does this make sense?

A TM 10* FCT setting + a 3O ASP setting = a Wishon 12* loft + 4* open face angle

Both heads will have:

4* open face angles
10* loft when square
12* loft when soled

And for the sake of the discussion lets say both heads have perfect specs.
[/quote]

OK, I did the measurement on the R1 I have and for the 10 FCT and 3o ASP. I get 59* lie, 12.75 loft and 4.75 open. So that would be like one of our 919-13 heads with a hand select for the 12.75 loft and then the hosel bent to achieve the 59* lie and 4.75 open face. And because we keep the amount of bending of the hosel on the 919 to +/-4* from the head's spec, since the spec for the face angle of the 919-13 head is 1 closed, we would not want to bend that head to have a 4.75 open face because that would be just shy of a 6* bend to get it to 4.75 open.

Give me a little time to read Ralph's stuff that you posted because it is fairly long. I'll try to do that before too long and offer any comments.
[/quote]

Interesting same head as used in the report and while the face angle came out the same, the loft is now .5* less and the lie angle is .25* less? Set up is proving to be extremely important facet of this discussion.

59* lie, 12.75* loft, 4.75* open
58.75 lie, 13.25 loft, 4.75* open

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1411669157' post='10182921']

Interesting same head as used in the report and while the face angle came out the same, the loft is now .5* less and the lie angle is .25* less? Set up is proving to be extremely important facet of this discussion.

59* lie, 12.75* loft, 4.75* open
58.75 lie, 13.25 loft, 4.75* open
[/quote]

Sorry but you missed with your attempt to keep trying to shoot holes in what I am saying. Look real close at the report and you will see that I did not include an FCT 10 in the original measurements. Why? Because as I just realized when I did this 10 and 3o measurement, when I did the report measurements I did not see that the white line in between the 9.5 and 10.5 on the hosel sleeve was meant to be the 10 setting. All of the other FCT settings are numbers, so I just missed this fact that the white line is the 10 on the hosel sleeve.

So if you look at the measurements on the report under the ASP 3o column, you see measurements for the FCT at 10.5 and 9.5 but not for the 10. Hence if you look at my recent measurements for the FCT 10 and ASP3o today, you will see that they synch right in between the FCT 9.5/ASP 3o and the FCT 10.5/3o.

You really do need to try to either stop trying to constantly beat me up on this or you need to travel to Durango so I can show you exactly all about this stuff. Because I can tell that there is no way you'll understand what I am saying until you stand side by side with me while I go through all of this to show you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1411669588' post='10182981']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1411669157' post='10182921']
Interesting same head as used in the report and while the face angle came out the same, the loft is now .5* less and the lie angle is .25* less? Set up is proving to be extremely important facet of this discussion.

59* lie, 12.75* loft, 4.75* open
58.75 lie, 13.25 loft, 4.75* open
[/quote]

Sorry but you missed with your attempt to keep trying to shoot holes in what I am saying. Look real close at the report and you will see that I did not include an FCT 10 in the original measurements. Why? Because as I just realized when I did this 10 and 3o measurement, when I did the report measurements I did not see that the white line in between the 9.5 and 10.5 on the hosel sleeve was meant to be the 10 setting. All of the other FCT settings are numbers, so I just missed this fact that the white line is the 10 on the hosel sleeve.

So if you look at the measurements on the report under the ASP 3o column, you see measurements for the FCT at 10.5 and 9.5 but not for the 10. Hence if you look at my recent measurements for the FCT 10 and ASP3o today, you will see that they synch right in between the FCT 9.5/ASP 3o and the FCT 10.5/3o.

You really do need to try to either stop trying to constantly beat me up on this or you need to travel to Durango so I can show you exactly all about this stuff. Because I can tell that there is no way you'll understand what I am saying until you stand side by side with me while I go through all of this to show you.
[/quote]

You are grasping at straws! The 10* setting in the report is listed under 10.5/9.5 for every Edit ASP group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1411668297' post='10182839']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1411666723' post='10182649']
Tom,

Lets leave TaylorMade out of the question, if you hand select a 919 driver head to have a 12* loft and a 0* face angle and then bend this head to 4* open, what will the loft be when the face is measured in a square face angle position?
[/quote]

Having done the work to determine the relationship between face angle and loft when heads are rotated, I can tell you that a 12 loft and 0 face angle bent to 4 open will be 12* loft at the 4 open face angle when specs are measured in the soled position in the green machine. But then if it is rotated back to be square from the 4 open face angle, the loft will be 9.6*. This rotated face angle to loft relationship when rotated is not a 1:1 relationship because of the influence of the lie angle. So at the typical lies of drivers today, that relationship is for each 1* you rotate the face angle, the loft changes by 0.6*.
[/quote]

So that R1 you just measured at 12.75* loft and 4.75*open is 9.9* and TM states it is 10*. Can we all live a .1* difference?

4.75*.6 = 2.85 Edit for clarity: 4.75 X .6 = 2.85
12.75 - 2.85 = 9.9*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great thread. I'm recovering from dental stuff, so sorry if the cylinders seem not all to be working. I recently moved to a Ping G25 after a couple of years with the R11s.

The setting that appears to work best for me for launch and path on the G25 is the "+" setting, supposed (the hype) to make my 10.5 play at 11*, about half a degree closed face when soled. The STD + ("11.25*") on the R11s and (edit) ASP at N, so closed 1.5*, was my best consistent setting too.

My understanding now is (assuming for discussion sake that the 10.5 on the bottom of the G25 is correct at the neutral setting):

-it only plays at 11* static loft if I hold the face square at address (and I hit the ball squarely).
- if I sole the club at address, I'm actually getting a 10.5 loft with a slightly closed face

If I kept the club at the neutral 10.5 setting and [u]manually[/u] rotated it closed -not from soled- the same .5*, and hit that way at impact I'd effectively be playing a 10* driver slightly closed. (Though I believe it's not exactly a 1:1 ratio for face angle /loft correlation.)

At the + (11*) and square it [u]manually[/u], deliver it square, it's 11 degrees [u]static [/u]loft at impact (or more, if I leave it a touch open at impact).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1411669157' post='10182921']

Interesting same head as used in the report and while the face angle came out the same, the loft is now .5* less and the lie angle is .25* less? Set up is proving to be extremely important facet of this discussion.

59* lie, 12.75* loft, 4.75* open
58.75 lie, 13.25 loft, 4.75* open
[/quote]

Boy, for once I am glad that you hit me on this. You just saved me some angst. Just got back to my desk from continuing my training of a new tech asst here at the company to help do hand picks down the road. Long story short, when I set up his green machine, he didn't like the protractor I had for that machine because the numbers and lines were too small, so he had brought in a protractor from his home clubmaking shop. Which in training with him today I just discovered was a half degree low after I would do a head and give it to him to have him do the specs. I had used that protractor on those measurements. Ugh, scared me to think we could have been doing hand picks here with that. So I do thank you for calling me on that. And as well for making me realize that the line on the FCT meant 10. When you said I had a 9.5/10.5 on the report, I couldn't relate to that because I haven't looked at that report for months.

So I do thank you for calling me on that so I could find what was up with that half degree. Sorry, I won't bash back again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some years back in another life (and to keep it short) we were having trouble aligning an expensive, light beam based machine. Every time we would align it and others would measure the final result, we were off. We beat our heads against the wall for days. Tweaking, measuring, tweaking, etc.

Someone realized we were all grabbing any "ruler" in the shop to make the measurements and maybe the rulers did not agree. We gathered several rulers and compared them. Surer then he!!, they did not all agree at every point along their length. We decided to designate one ruler as the official ruler. Once this was done, we had the machine aligned to the "official" ruler and we were out of there within a few hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='JCAG' timestamp='1411699296' post='10185651']
Some years back in another life (and to keep it short) we were having trouble aligning an expensive, light beam based machine. Every time we would align it and others would measure the final result, we were off. We beat our heads against the wall for days. Tweaking, measuring, tweaking, etc.

Someone realized we were all grabbing any "ruler" in the shop to make the measurements and maybe the rulers did not agree. We gathered several rulers and compared them. Surer then he!!, they did not all agree at every point along their length. We decided to designate one ruler as the official ruler. Once this was done, we had the machine aligned to the "official" ruler and we were out of there within a few hours.
[/quote]

The quality control spec used to control quality used to be MIL-I-45208, that was retired and became milQ-9858, then ISO9000 came into play. There is an ISO spec that covers quality, ISO17xxx (don't remember the number). Regardless of the spec number, in the bowels of those documents there are sections that state all tools have to be calibrated and traceable to the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

Please help me understand the 939AHT driver settings.

Setting #5 is the neutral setting, meaning the loft is the stated loft on the head, face angle is 0* and the lie angle is the flatest of the 8 settings.

Per the information on the website settings 4 & 3 will open the clubface (and not be considered the upright settings).

5.......4........3
9.5*...7.8*...7.0*
0*......2.5*...3.0*

So using the 'for each 1* you rotate the face angle, the loft changes by 0.6*' loft to face angle factor I can not make sense of the information provided.

0.6* loft change = 1.0* face angle change
1.2* loft change = 2.0* face angle change
1.8* loft change = 3.0* face angle change
2.4* loft change = 4.0* face angle change
3.0* loft change = 5.0* face angle change


So going from the 5 setting to the 4 setting the info states a -1.7* loft change and 2.5* open face angle change.

9.5*-7.8* = 1.7* loft change

So the following should occur, 1.7* / .6 = 2.833* face angle change

The stated 2.5* face angle change should produce the following, 2.5* X .6 = 1.5*

So the calculated 2.833* face angle change does not equal the stated 2.5* face angle & the 1.7* stated loft change does not equal the calculated 1.5* loft change.



Going from the 5 setting to the 3 setting, the info states a -2.5* loft change and 3.0* open face angle change.

9.5*-7.0* = 2.5* loft change

So the following should occur, 2.5* / .6 = 4.167* face angle change

The stated 3.0* face angle change should produce the following, 3.0* X .6 = 1.8*

Again the calculated 4.167* face angle change does not equal the stated 3.0* face angle & the 2.5* stated loft change does not equal the the calculated 1.8* loft change.


Then I decided to see what factor was being used.

1.7* loft change = 2.5* face angle change, 1.7* / 2.5* = .68
2.5* loft change = 3.0* face angle change, 2.5* / 3.0* = .833

Obviously .68 does not equal .833........

At this point I gave up. Help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='tmcbigblue' timestamp='1411417547' post='10164447']
What would the loft of my bio cell+ be in the 8.5 draw setting soling the club showing the face with the closed face? Thanks for the great video Tom! Love reading your stuff and I look forward to trying some of your great designs.
[/quote]

All "Draw" settings in the Cobra line are the stated loft with a more upright lie angle. All "Fade" settings and the stated loft with a flatter lie angle.

BT

 

Dr#1 Cobra Speedzone 10.5 – HZRDUS Yellow HC 65 TX @ 46”
Dr#2 Mizuno STZ 220 9.5 (10.5) - HZRDUS Smoke IM10 65 Low TX @ 46"

Mizuno ST190 15 - HZRDUS Smoke Yellow 70 TS @ 43"
Mizuno STZ 220 18- HZRDUS Smoke Yellow 70 TS @ 42"
Mizuno MP15 4-PW - Aldila RIP Tour 115 R
Cobra MIM Wedges 52, 56 & 60 – stock KBS Hi-Rev @ 35.5”

Odyssey V-Line Stroke Lab 33.5"
Grips - Grip Master Classic Wrap Midsize

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1411505190' post='10170963']
[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1411426667' post='10165389']
[quote name='cxx' timestamp='1411422064' post='10164977']
Even though I think the iron equivalent perspective is a good one, I do think there is a little more to it than just the shaft/face angle, especially when we are talking about drivers that were not designed for the adjustable hosel. Some of the new drivers are shaped to look good at address in a variety of adjustments. I guess they are rounder. I've had some non-adjustable drivers that had a very specific orientation and seemed to work well only in that orientation.

The thing about the adjustable hosel drivers for hookers and slicers is that they don't have to get a draw driver or whatever the open faced equivalent would be. They can play the same clubs as everyone else. There was a bit of stigma associated with offset or draw drivers even though they worked great for some players. Some people who needed them wouldn't get them.
[/quote]

Face angle is and will always be dictated by the angle of the shaft to the plane of the sole when the head is rested flat on its sole. That's all there is to it. Even the old wooden wood makers knew this. That's why wooden wood raw heads were always made with a big fat neck to allow the wood maker to bore the hole for the shaft at different angles to the sole to create different lies and different face angles. Loft was always, always defined with the head resting flat on its sole.

What can get in the way of this with some of today's drivers is the fact that unlike old wood designs in which the sole was dead flat from face to back, some of today's drivers are designed with some amount of face to back radius. But all drivers of today have a sole rest spot position that is not difficult to find for consistent, repeatable loft, lie and face angle measurement for someone with a ton of head design experience.
[/quote]

Since loft is not to be effected by different hosel settings on an adjustable driver, then why in your report does the R1 have loft variations for the same ASP setting (sole setting)?

Per the report the 1st open position on the ASP produced the following lofts:

12*
11.5*
11.75*
11.5*
11.5*
12*
12*
12*
11.5*
12*
11.75*
11.5*

Surely this can not happen since the soled point never moved. A 1/2* of loft variation would be impossible. The loft should be exactly the same for every hosel setting.

After looking at the report again, each of the 7 individual ASP settings (sole setting) have loft variations for their given setting.
[/quote]

I was REALLY hoping that this would not happen to this thread. Rybo, i was sure you were involved in the lengthy discussion on Tom's previous report and what all was resolved in it. If not, I apologize. Your questions are exactly what we ran into in the thread on Tom's Report. regardless, the video in the original post of THIS thread did a great job of summarizing the findings we all had in the thread on Tom's Report. What you have to remember is that there are several different types of loft. Measured Loft, actual loft, applied loft, dynamic loft, etc, etc. Initially, Tom said, in his Report, that hosel adjustments did not change loft...he was referring to Measured Loft as it had always been measured within the industry. During the discussion, we came to the realization that the OEMs were not measuring "loft" like they always had and that they were literally talking about a completely different measurement. The loft settings on adjustable drivers are ALWAYS meant to be loft when the clubhead is square. Not in it's resting position as had always been the case before. As some others have mentioned above, measured like an iron.Once we knew this, it all made sense.

The affect of the hosel adjustment depends on how you setup to hit your shot. If you sole the wood head when you address the ball and then take your grip the adjustment changes the face angle. If you visually square the face when you address the ball, the adjustment changes the loft. As Tom has mentioned, fitting is dependent on the golfer. Do they sole or do they hover. It makes a huge difference.

BT

 

Dr#1 Cobra Speedzone 10.5 – HZRDUS Yellow HC 65 TX @ 46”
Dr#2 Mizuno STZ 220 9.5 (10.5) - HZRDUS Smoke IM10 65 Low TX @ 46"

Mizuno ST190 15 - HZRDUS Smoke Yellow 70 TS @ 43"
Mizuno STZ 220 18- HZRDUS Smoke Yellow 70 TS @ 42"
Mizuno MP15 4-PW - Aldila RIP Tour 115 R
Cobra MIM Wedges 52, 56 & 60 – stock KBS Hi-Rev @ 35.5”

Odyssey V-Line Stroke Lab 33.5"
Grips - Grip Master Classic Wrap Midsize

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

Have a design question, what effect does driver face progression have on measurements? Most all irons and wedges have some type of offset, including blades. The rare onset iron heads do exist but they are few and far between. While fairway woods do have face progression the lower hosel and smaller head seem to hide the face progression better then on a driver. Personally I much prefer the look of say the Titleist D2 series to the D3, and the Covert Performance to the Covert Tour heads. Taylormade lately seems to be somewhere in between with regards to head shape. It would seem the amount of face progression has to have some measurable difference, they sure look different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='farmer' timestamp='1411612846' post='10179175']
This may be a stupid question, but...I have a driver with an adjustable sleeve. Four settings, 9 1/2 neutral, 10 1/2 closed, 8 1/2 open. Upright, but never used. So, I'm a reasonably square face player. [b]To hit it straight, the 10 1/2 and the 8 1/2 both have to get back to neutral, correct?[/b] So, in effect, I bought a tricked out 9 1/2* driver? Which would explain why I have never seen any effect from twiddling with the settings?
[/quote]

NO! To hit it straight, the face has to get back to square. The loft is DIFFERENT in each setting when the face is square. Your problem is you're twiddling. No decent golfer would be caught twiddling!!!

But seriously, you're only talking about 1*+/- and unless you are an EXTREMELY consistent ball striker, you will not SEE a difference. I see no difference when moving my driver from 8.5* to 9.5*, but if I go from 7.5* to 10.5*, then I see some difference.

BT

 

Dr#1 Cobra Speedzone 10.5 – HZRDUS Yellow HC 65 TX @ 46”
Dr#2 Mizuno STZ 220 9.5 (10.5) - HZRDUS Smoke IM10 65 Low TX @ 46"

Mizuno ST190 15 - HZRDUS Smoke Yellow 70 TS @ 43"
Mizuno STZ 220 18- HZRDUS Smoke Yellow 70 TS @ 42"
Mizuno MP15 4-PW - Aldila RIP Tour 115 R
Cobra MIM Wedges 52, 56 & 60 – stock KBS Hi-Rev @ 35.5”

Odyssey V-Line Stroke Lab 33.5"
Grips - Grip Master Classic Wrap Midsize

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1411666723' post='10182649']
Tom,

Lets leave TaylorMade out of the question, if you hand select a 919 driver head to have a 12* loft and a 0* face angle and then bend this head to 4* open, what will the loft be when the face is measured in a square face angle position?
[/quote]

To figure the exact loft, we need to also know the lie angle. but for the sake of argument, approximately 10*

BT

 

Dr#1 Cobra Speedzone 10.5 – HZRDUS Yellow HC 65 TX @ 46”
Dr#2 Mizuno STZ 220 9.5 (10.5) - HZRDUS Smoke IM10 65 Low TX @ 46"

Mizuno ST190 15 - HZRDUS Smoke Yellow 70 TS @ 43"
Mizuno STZ 220 18- HZRDUS Smoke Yellow 70 TS @ 42"
Mizuno MP15 4-PW - Aldila RIP Tour 115 R
Cobra MIM Wedges 52, 56 & 60 – stock KBS Hi-Rev @ 35.5”

Odyssey V-Line Stroke Lab 33.5"
Grips - Grip Master Classic Wrap Midsize

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1411762030' post='10190239']
Tom,

Have a design question, what effect does driver face progression have on measurements? Most all irons and wedges have some type of offset, including blades. The rare onset iron heads do exist but they are few and far between. While fairway woods do have face progression the lower hosel and smaller head seem to hide the face progression better then on a driver. Personally I much prefer the look of say the Titleist D2 series to the D3, and the Covert Performance to the Covert Tour heads. Taylormade lately seems to be somewhere in between with regards to head shape. It would seem the amount of face progression has to have some measurable difference, they sure look different.
[/quote]

Face progression has no effect on loft, lie or face angle measurements whatsoever. It is a totally separate spec that stands completely alone on a clubhead. Just like offset on an iron.

Most certainly it has a huge effect on the look of the head in the playing position as some guys just can't stand the look of a driver with more than 20mm of FP and others cannot stand when it is much less than 17mm on a driver. But then 17mm on a fwy wood looks just right to most. Performance wise, FP has a definite effect on the face to back CG position relative to the shaft centerline, which is the parameter that determines how much a shaft bends forward coming into impact for a late release player. So with more FP in a woodhead, the CG cannot be as far back from the shaft centerline as it will be when there is less FP. And the farther back the CG is from the shaft centerline, the more the shaft could come to impact bent forward and thus have more effect on launch angle.

Most designers simply use FP as a visual feature on a woodhead design though and forget about its performance contribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please read:

 

RYBO

Not sure the best way for me to comment on all of this other than to use a different color within the specific areas of the article. So I'll give that a shot and hope in the end it all works. We'll see. TOM

 

Understanding and Fitting Driver Face Angle and Loft

 

You will rarely know the real loft of your driver even if you are reading the loft engraved on the driver head or if you are reading the loft and face angle specifications on a company’s internet site. The only way to know the real or “effective loft” of any driver is to put it into a special golf club measuring gauge and measure it accurately with a special protractor. He's right about this. Normal +/- tolerances which easily are +/-1 and could be more with a small %-age of heads is one reason. Then there is the practice of some companies to intentionally make the real loft higher than stated on the head. That one has always bothered me. If you believe strongly enough that too many golfers buy too little loft on their drivers, then educate them to buy the loft that best fits them. With $50 mill a year in marketing money, one could take a small chunk of that to flood the market with loft vs clubhead speed/angle of attack info so they would not have to fool golfers into using more loft by making the loft significantly higher than stated on the head.

 

Golf_Club_Gauge-.jpg

The “Special” Golf Club Gauge in my studio is capable of accurately measuring loft, lie and face angle in 1/10th degree increments. The driver shown has 55 degrees lie angle, 12.5 (12½) degrees of loft and the face angle here is purposely adjusted in the gauge to 0 degrees so the loft can be measured in the square face (hit) position. The vertical bar you see resting against the face is measuring the loft and is touching the face at ½ of the face height. While the digital readout certainly looks cool and can make golfers think it is more accurate, in the end you still have an arm that has to be manipulated by the hands to manually touch the center of the face when the head is in its designated measurement position. That's no different than using a machinist's protractor with the long arm cut off. And while the machinist's protractor can only allow you to read in 1/4 degree increments, that's way more than accurate enough for 99.9999% of all golfers. 1/10 deg increments is overkill and splitting the hair way too thin. The two small protruding bars on either side of the vertical bar measure the face angle and are equidistant on both sides of the horizontal face center. If the driver has a flat sole from front to back you simply press it down flat on the gauges base and measure the face angle. However, many drivers now have curved soles from front to back, so you need to know where the manufacturer intended for the club to touch the ground before you can get an accurate face angle measurement. The lie angle is measured with the sole of the club touching the gauge at the clubs horizontal face center (most, but not all manufacturers use the center of the face scoring lines as the center of the face). Conclusion; if every driver was measured as shown here, it would be a perfect apples to apples comparison from one driver to another as far as the real or “effective loft” is concerned. Maybe I should go up to my local Golf Galaxy store and measure every driver in the store as I have shown here in the photo and provide a list of the real lofts for a reference to go by?

 

The reasons for this are a good starting point for this discussion. The first reason is that manufacturers vary in the method and way they measure driver loft. That's only been since the introduction of the adj hosel sleeve drivers. Prior to that EVERYONE measured driver loft by soling the head in its designed face angle and lie position before measuring loft at the center of the face. I've worked with almost every clubhead factory that has made heads for the big companies and every single one of them always measured driver/wood loft by soling the head. Now I can tell you that in talking to some of the big head making factories that make the big companies adj hosel driver heads, the factories all make the BODY of the adj hosel drivers without the sleeve in the hosel. So they have to have a way to check loft, lie and face angle for the head body that they make for their OEM customers because they don't cast/forge/plate form these heads with the sleeve in the hosel. And I can assure you that on the head BODY of the adj drivers, they are using the soled method of measurement for the loft, lie and FA checking. It's only when the OEM sticks the hosel sleeve in the head that they change the method of loft measurement to fixturing the head at a 0 face angle. The second reason is that some manufacturers simply put a loft number on the driver head because it is a very popular loft with driver buyers; but they want you in a different loft that they feel works better with their driver. The third reason is that manufacturing tolerances for loft, even from the very best head manufacturing companies overseas, will be plus or minus 1 degree from the specification. The fourth reason is the amount of vertical face roll that is specified. Since most modern 460cc drivers are actually hit above face center, a driver with more vertical face curvature will have a greater loft at impact than a driver with less vertical face curvature. I threw in vertical face roll since it is “real world” with modern drivers but it has no effect on the stated or measured loft which is always measured at ½ the vertical face height.

 

The above reasons are why it is so important to get fit in a launch monitor or to actually see the ball flight on a driving range or the golf course. Can't agree more with that statement. However, this does not solve our problem of comparing driver lofts before we actually test them and especially so when comparing more than one manufacturer’s drivers. This is a real grey area and a difficult one for the golfer.

 

Let’s bring face angle into the equation here. The face angle on a driver is basically defined as the clubface angle when the driver is soled on a hard surface with the shaft held perfectly at a 90 degree angle to the line of flight. Superb way to define face angle so you are aware of the shaft's orientation in this measurement. So, the face angle can be perfectly square (0 degrees) to the line of flight, open to the line of flight (called slice face) or closed to the line of flight (called hook face). The face angle is used in a driver to help a less skilled golfer get a better (corrected) ball flight with either a problem they have in their swing or help a more skilled golfer get the desired ball flight (draw, fade or straight hit) from a driver. Absolutely right and I'll go one more to say FA is THE most important fitting factor to address accuracy game improvement in a driver. Length is #2. Keep in mind that hitting a ball straight, curving it to the right or curving it to the left is solely a function of the driver’s face angle and path at impact. Only three conditions can occur; the face angle can be square to the path (straight shot), closed to the path (hook or draw shot) or open to the path (slice or fade shot).

 

At one time, all drivers were measured for loft by using the angle formed from across the sole to the face. Yessir, you saw this in my adj hosel video. The reason we could do that accurately was because the soles on wooden heads were ALWAYS made to be dead flat flat in the direction from face to back AND the raw turnings were made so the big fat neck was at 90* to this face to back sole plane. So there's where you get the fact that even with a protractor on the sole angling up the face, the measurement was the same as for Irons as he is trying to tell you in the next sentence. Irons were never measured this way; they were measured the correct way from the hosel centerline to the face in the square hit position. Today, to find the real or “effective loft” of any driver I always measure it from the hosel centerline to the face in the square position and at ½ the vertical face height. Of course as stated earlier, you need a precision golf club gauge to do it accurately. Notice I said the square position meaning the face is pointed directly at the target and the shaft is perpendicular to the target. This eliminates any built in face angle and makes it a square face. We need to know the real loft here and if we measured it with the face either open or closed; we would get a different loft reading. Manufacturers today are using both methods to state driver loft and you have no way to tell how they are doing it other than to measure the heads in a golf club gauge. POint of contention here. first, if you measure wood loft with the head always at 0 face angle, then when the golfer goes out and soles the head to get whatever face angle is on the head, his loft in no way is what it was when measured at 0. and to assume that even the slicer or hooker is always going to deliver that closed or open face seen when soling the head at address back to the ball in a 0 face position at impact is just not going to happen. That's a noble goal to hope that happens in a face angle fitting, but it rarely ever does. How many slicers do you see who when fit in a closed face head end up hitting the ball straight? Hardly any. So when you measure the loft at 0 face angle and then let the golfer sole the head to allow the face angle to enter into the shot result, when the golfer does not deliver the face back to the ball at a 0 face angle, that loft as measured at 0 is nor relevant.

 

Here’s what this loft and face angle stuff means in regards to fitting. We will use a tour pro for example; to hit the ball straight and apply maximum force to the ball, a tour pro has his face angle and clubhead path perfectly square. To hit a draw, the tour pro will either adjust the face angle or the path so that the face angle at impact is from 1 to 2 degrees closed to the path. Since face angle is more of a determining factor in initial ball direction than clubhead path (80% vs. 20%); the tour pro will almost always keep the face angle square to the target and swing from 1 to 2 degrees inside out. This starts the ball slightly right of the target and the balls slight draw spin curves it back toward the target. Easier said than done. 1 degree produces a very slight draw and 2 degrees a normal draw. Over 3 degrees is a hook and over 4 degrees is a terrible hook. So you see that controlling clubhead and path properly and consistently takes some skill because we are dealing with very small amounts of angle change that affect big amounts of ball flight change.

 

This is why the manufacturers make different face angles. Not the big companies or with any type of options. Some smaller ones do. The face angle in the design will automatically open up the face on an “open or slice face angle” and automatically close the face on a “closed or hook face angle”. Of course you need to set the driver head on the ground or some hard surface for this to occur. BINGO! So if you need to sole the head to get the face angle to help reduce your slice or hook, they why measure loft at 0 when few if any slicers or hookers ever deliver the face back to the ball at 0. (more on this effective loft stuff later here) Regardless of the face angle, you can always position the face at any angle you would like when setting up to the ball. The one thing to keep in mind here is that as you reposition the face angle at setup with your driver, you also change the actual loft angle. Absolutely right In other words for every degree you hold the face closed you also decrease the loft by the same amount. Absolutely NOT right. Thagt relationship between face angle anf loft when you rotate the head is definitely not a 1:1 relationship. Ask anyone proficient in trig functions about this and they will tell you this is not a 1:1 relationship of loft change per each deg of face angle change upon rotating the head. You change 0.6 to 0.7* of loft for each 1 deg of face angle rotation depending on the lie angle of the head. Conversely, if you roll the face open you will increase the loft. If a manufacturer measures their driver loft across the sole and up the face, this will be the stated loft in the specifications and probably engraved on the head. Let’s assume the stated loft is 10 degrees. Also, let’s assume this manufacturer specified a 2 degree closed or hook face angle. If this were your driver and you were a lesser skilled golfer, the 2 degree closed face angle at address would help you get a more closed or hook face angle to clubhead path at impact and this could help out with your slicing problem. However, if the more skilled golfer would play the same club and actually rotated the face to square with the target at address, he would actually be increasing the “effective driver loft” by 2 degrees. Calculation; take the 10 degree stated loft angle and add to it the 2 degrees you rolled the face open to square it with the target, this gives you an actual total of 12 degrees of loft. So, once again you have no chance at knowing what the actual “effective loft” of your driver really is without an accurate measurement gauge. OK, let's finish this commentary that you asked me to do on this report by talking about EFFECTIVE LOFT. yes, it happens for sure because we golfers rarely deliver the face to impact in the same face angle we started with so most of us rotate the head to some degree coming into impact. And yes, it is possible to calculate it if you know the actual face angle and loft starting point for the clubhead and then know the degrees that you rotate the face to the ball from that starting face angle position using the 1:0.6 relationship of face angle rotation to loft change. But to try to FIT loft on a driver by trying to calculate all this is way too complicated and just not necessary. In any fitting with a launch monitor, once the clubfitter sees the golfer's most commonly seen or average launch angle as well as his average misdirection amount with a driver of known loft and known face angle when the shot is started with the head soled in the address position, he then has a pretty darn good idea what to do in terms of knowing what the golfer's final address position loft and face angle should be to get the golfer to a more optimal result for both launch angle and misdirection correction. You certainly can use this approach to try to calculate what the loft should be based on how much you may wish to change the face angle. But most experienced clubfitters will tell you that more times than not, to try to calculate an effective loft in a fitting scenario just doesn't end up giving you both the proper misdirection reduction AND the best launch angle for the golfer.

 

But since most clubfitters work on some type of test club basis in their fitting the practical logic of it is this.

 

If the golfer needs to have a more closed face angle to further reduce a misdirection problem, you can grab a test head with the more closed face and the SAME loft as the first club and see what happens to launch angle when the more closed face kicks in to reduce the slice a little more and then react to that by going with a different loft as per what the launch angle or the visual shape of the shot dictates. or you could try to kill two birds with one stone and when you grab the head with the more closed face to help reduce the slice a little more, you can also use a head with less loft than the first test head to see if you got the misdirection and the launch angle both better in control.

 

Bottom line is that once you get the face angle where you want it to reduce the misdirection to a satisfactory level, if the launch angle then is too low you just go with a head with a little more loft but with that same face angle or if the launch angle then is too high you just go with a head with a little less loft but with that same face angle.

 

Hopefully, this is helping with explaining driver loft and also with how you use driver face angle in fitting. My personal preference for face angle for all golfers who are not trying to correct a problem is to play with a square (0 degree) face angle. This makes the club sit square when you sole it on the ground and then you can adjust the face angle at address as desired. Most tour pro’s drivers I have measured are within ½ degree of square. For average women golfers, say over a 20 handicap, I would recommend 2 or 3 degrees closed face angle and an effective loft at impact of 12 to 15 degrees. The idea here is to keep the ball from starting right of the target (a tendency of women who have a difficult time squaring the clubface coming into impact) and also to help women hit the ball higher which will give them greater distance in almost every case. Of course this is only a general statement and does not replace a good launch monitor or driving range fitting for women or any golfer for that matter. And the last statement here is very right - and I am tired and need to get outta here since it is Friday.

 

One of the difficulties when I get general driver questions on the forum is that I do not know the actual loft on their drivers. I get questions such as,” I play with a 7 degree lofted driver and I still hit the ball too high”. Well, many 7 degree loft drivers are actually 10 degree lofted drivers when they are actually measured. So, it is very difficult for me to look for solutions. If the 7 degree were correct, I would immediately go to the shaft flex, shaft weight and shaft tip stiffness. I would also look at the club length and the head weight and swingweight. You get the point.

 

The launch monitor can really help us through all of this and if no launch monitor or driving range is feasible, then you really need to be fit by someone who at least has an accurate golf club gauge to measure driver loft. As a matter of fact, while I am at it here, I will add in a frequency machine as another needed piece of equipment. This is the fastest way to determine one driver’s flex feel from another when comparing them. This is only one of the factors however in fitting a golfer to the best shaft for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom

Thank you for the reply. A couple comments.

I agree the 1/10* vs 1/4* measurement increment is likely much finer then any golfers swing, however for this discussion a 1/10* might not be fine enough. This conversation is about the engineering and measurement of clubs, not how the golfer may or may not use said clubs.


As for the sleeve not being in the body during the head manufacture, I have no idea what you are getting at here. The sleeve is a machining and the body is a casting. Completely separate pieces. All casting houses have checking fixtures. Of course some type of pin would have to be used in the bore. Not sure if this was stated for clarity or as some type of odd redirect. Regardless It's a non issue for what is being discussed.


[color=#ff0000][b]POint of contention here. first, if you measure wood loft with the head always at 0 face angle, then when the golfer goes out and soles the head to get whatever face angle is on the head, his loft in no way is what it was when measured at 0. and to assume that even the slicer or hooker is always going to deliver that closed or open face seen when soling the head at address back to the ball in a 0 face position at impact is just not going to happen. That's a noble goal to hope that happens in a face angle fitting, but it rarely ever does. How many slicers do you see who when fit in a closed face head end up hitting the ball straight? Hardly any. So when you measure the loft at 0 face angle and then let the golfer sole the head to allow the face angle to enter into the shot result, when the golfer does not deliver the face back to the ball at a 0 face angle, that loft as measured at 0 is nor relevant. [/b][/color]

[size=4]We all understand there are two lofts, the loft [/size]in the 0 face angle position and the loft that occurs when the club is then soled. 99.9% of the time these two lofts will be different.

No idea why you bring up the golfer being able to return the face to a 0 face position. A slicer/hooker is going to have the same level of difficulty in retuning the face to the ball with club that is measured with the loft measured in the 0 face position or the loft measured in the soled position.

What if the slicer/hooker hovers the club? How can face angle be the most important fitting factor if the hover does not see it. Is it better for the hover to know the loft in the soled position or in the 0 face angle position?

A point could be made that for those golfers who sole the club, that any amount of face angle that allows the golfer to position the face perpendicular to the target, this amount of face angle is the golfers 0 point. ie..if a golfer needs 2* of open face angle to square the clubface to the target, then 2* open is this golfers 0 face angle point and the loft measured at 2* open will be this golfers loft.


This .6* Loft = 1* face angle factor may be true for nonadjustable traditional hosel clubs, however with the use of a bit of double offset angles, an adjustable hosel can be engineered to whatever ratio of loft to face angle the designer wishes it to be, within reasonable limits of course. I'll have more on this in another post.


[b]Bottom line is that once you get the face angle where you want it to reduce the misdirection to a satisfactory level, if the launch angle then is too low you just go with a head with a little more loft but with that same face angle or if [/b][b] the launch angle then is too high you just go with a head with a little less loft but with that same face angle. [/b]

[size=4]I totally agree with this statement, but only for those golfers who sole the club and I find it much easier, quicker and cost effective to make an adjustment to one head [/size]then to need and use multiple heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, this is based on measuring a clubs loft in the 0 face angle position unsoled position.

The R1 has two ways to move loft and face angles.

The [u][b]primary way[/b][/u] is via the FCT hosel adjustment. The FCT changes loft up and down at the rate of .5*loft:1*face angle.

The [u][b]secondary way[/b][/u] is via the ASP sole adjuster. The ASP changes face angle left and right at the constant rate of 1.33* of face angle for each adjustment.

Examples:
Starting with the FCT at 10*/ASP N position. If only the FCT is moved to change loft, there is some natural amount of face angle change that occurs. So if the R1 is adjusted from FCT 10*/ASP N to FCT 9.5/ASP N, the face angle only changes by the engineered rate of change amount via the adjustable hosel, TM uses .5*Loft = 1* FA. So a FCT change from 10* to 9.5* will change the FA 1* open.

Starting with the same FCT 10*/ASP N position, if the FCT is left in the 10* position and the ASP moved to the 1st open position, the face angle changes 1.33*.

These two adjustments have different rates of change.

So when the two are combined, the additive effect of the two changes face angle in a non linear rate but maintains loft changes at a constant rate.

Going from FCT 10*/ASP N to FCT 9.5*/ASP 1 open changes the loft in the following manner:

The loft change of .5* causes the face to naturally rotate open 1*. Then the ASP moving from 0 to the 1 open position changes face angle by another 1.33* for a total of 2.33*. This changes the measureable loft in the soled face angle position to 10.67*. Taylormade calls this 10.5* of loft since the loft is measured in the square face angle position and that 10.5* is true per the FCT setting.

EDIT: Added second example

FCT 10*/ASP N to FCT10.5*/ASP 1 O, The FCT change of .5* increase in loft naturally produces a -1 degree (closed) face angle change. The ASP going from N to 1 O changes face angle 1.33* open. The additive effect is -1* + 1.33* = .33* open face angle. Not quite the 0* face angle TM states but well within any tolerance the industry would use and an amount no golfer would be able to discern.

The following is a chart with all of the calculations for each of the various settings.


[attachment=2436085:IMG_2602.JPG]

So for the first time we now have the true face angle and the soled loft for each of the positions. The loft for the 0 face angle position is of course the loft stated via the hosel.

As can be easily seen as the loft stays constant in both the 0 face angle position and in the soled position. While they only match the hosel lofts in three positions, 3C, N & 30, this is what should occur. TM took the liberty, likely in the name of sanity and to ease consumer use, to say the face always changes by 1.33* and matched up the loft for the FCT and ASP . This is true if you view the loft via the FCT and then change the face angle via the ASP. However there is a .33* offset in face angle and a .17* & .13* loft offset for some of the combined FCT/ASP settings.


The bone of contention is .5* loft:1* FA vs the standard .6* loft:1* FA. .6*L:1*FA works fine with a solid non adjustable hosel. When a standard nonadjustable hosel is bent it can only move in a linear movement. An adjustable hosel through the use of two offsets can create a ratio of loft to FA.

Taylormade uses .5*loft to 1* Face angle
Titleist uses .75* Loft to 1* face angle


Lastly is a picture of the underside of the ASP. It has 3 sets of 7 evenly spaced steps. This is what creates the 1.33* linear change in face angle and .667* change in loft in the soled position. So the loft when measured in the soled position has to be constant. Any group of measurements that shows various lofts for a single ASP setting has an issue. It simply can not occur. Interestingly, the .6*L:1*FA had a small amount of loft drift, this simply shows the .6 factor is not correct since there cannot be loft drift in theory or in the real world.
[attachment=2436087:IMG_2598.JPG]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another issue that I have not seen anything stating how it is possible is the corresponding 'Upright' settings for every manufacture in the report have more open face angles. ie..10* vs 10*U, 8.75* vs 8.75*U, etc

Lets say the head is setup in the measuring fixture so when its soled and the face angle happens to be zero. If this head was bolted down so it could not move and only the shaft via the adjustable hosel is rotated from it's standard setting to the upright setting of the same loft, a rotation of 180*, the loft in the 0 face angle position and soled position will be the same, the lie angle will be more upright and the face angle will see no change.

This is not an attempt to shoot holes, this is simply trying to understand facts. If there is a reasonable and logical explanation, I am open to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the purpose of clarity, below is a breakdown of the possible face angle positions by product and/or manufacturer.


The number of possible face angle positions are as follows:

49 - TaylorMade R1 (84 when including upright settings)
15 - Nike Covert Tour
7- TaylorMade SLDR (12 when including upright settings)
4 - Titleist (16 when including the lie settings)
3 - Ping

[attachment=2437415:IMG_2608.JPG]

R1 - by far the most versatile driver ever produced. The addition of the ASP button on the bottom of the sole as a secondary face angle adjuster/loft adjuster produces a multiplier effect to produce an unprecedented number of possible face angle adjustments. Without the ASP it would have the same 7 face angle positions as the SLDR. What is of importance to note here is the face angle/loft angle change via the ASP button does not occur through the hosel adjustment. That statement may seem obvious on the surface, but no other driver has done that before. While I may not agree on the accuracy of the R1's numbers in the report, the fact remains that each and every one of the 84 positions has its own face angle and each was measurable in a loft and lie machine.

Nike Covert Tour - I have not dug into this club at all and I even own one. I have seen parts of Nike's laser presentation where they bounced the laser off the face of their driver, and other OEM drivers, and it seems the driver does as it says.

SLDR - The 7 positions are the closest to bending a hosel as you can get. The only difference is the face angle adjustment via a hosel adjustment occurs in a rotational manner, and a bend is done in a linear fashion. Simply no need to bend a hosel on a radius, just bend straight to the required position. While they get close to the same positions there are slight differences.

Titleist - Only has 4 face angle adjustments. It looks like they have much more but after stripping away all of the possible lie angle adjustments, there are only four face angle changes.

Ping Anser - Only 3 face angle adjustments, and they do not state what amount the face angle changes, they only provide a loft change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, information overload! Fascinating topic, but way over my pay grade. I do well just to have a rudimentary knowledge of the math involved in cutting/trimming/regripping. At least what is presented here is good in that whenever you have any work done on a golf club, you have some idea of what is going on provided the club maker knows what he/she is doing. I would not mind knowing more about shaft technology however. My previous experience dealt with steel shafts, step patterns, etc.

"Non rinunciare mai quello
che desideri...."
Go with what you know!

 

Driver: Titleist 913D

Fairway: Tour Edge XCG 7

Hybrids: Bobby Jones(Jesse Ortiz) Blackbird 3,4,5,6

Irons: 3-PW Titleist 710 MB (Rifle Project X 6.0 Flighted)

Wedges: Tour Edge 52, 56 deg, Cleveland RTX 50 deg 

Putter: Odyssey Custom Metal X 7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Discussion and links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Thorbjorn Olesen - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ben Silverman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jesse Droemer - SoTX PGA Section POY - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      David Lipsky - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Martin Trainer - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Zac Blair - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jacob Bridgeman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Trace Crowe - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jimmy Walker - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Daniel Berger - WITB(very mini) - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Chesson Hadley - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Callum McNeill - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Rhein Gibson - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Patrick Fishburn - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Peter Malnati - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Raul Pereda - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Gary Woodland WITB (New driver, iron shafts) – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Padraig Harrington WITB – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Tom Hoge's custom Cameron - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Piretti putters - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ping putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Kevin Dougherty's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Bettinardi putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Erik Barnes testing an all-black Axis1 putter – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Tony Finau's new driver shaft – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
       
      • 9 replies
    • 2024 Valspar Championship WITB Photos (Thanks to bvmagic)- Discussion & Links to Photos
      This weeks WITB Pics are from member bvmagic (Brian). Brian's first event for WRX was in 2008 at Bayhill while in college. Thanks so much bv.
       
      Please put your comments or question on this thread. Links to all the threads are below...
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 31 replies
    • 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Matt (LFG) Every - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Sahith Theegala - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Cameron putters (and new "LD" grip) - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Bettinardi MB & CB irons - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Bettinardi API putter cover - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Swag API covers - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Golf Pride Reverse Taper grips - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2024 Cognizant Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #2
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #3
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #4
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Brandt Snedeker - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Max Greyserman - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Eric Cole - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Carl Yuan - WITb - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Russell Henley - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Justin Sun - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alex Noren - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Shane Lowry - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Taylor Montgomery - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jake Knapp (KnappTime_ltd) - WITB - - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Super Stoke Pistol Lock 1.0 & 2.0 grips - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      LA Golf new insert putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Garsen Quad Tour 15 grip - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Swag covers - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jacob Bridgeman's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Bud Cauley's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Ryo Hisatsune's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Chris Kirk - new black Callaway Apex CB irons and a few Odyssey putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alejandro Tosti's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 2 replies
    • 2024 Genesis Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #3
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #4
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Rory McIlroy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Sepp Straka - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Patrick Rodgers - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Denny McCarthy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Chase Johnson - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Matt Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Si Woo Kim - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Viktor Hovland - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Wyndham Clark - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Nick Taylor - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Ben Baller WITB update (New putter, driver, hybrid and shafts) – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Vortex Golf rangefinder - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Fujikura Ventus shaft - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods & TaylorMade "Sun Day Red" apparel launch event, product photos – 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods Sun Day Red golf shoes - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Aretera shafts - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Toulon putters - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods' new white "Sun Day Red" golf shoe prototypes – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      • 22 replies

×
×
  • Create New...