Spine vs FLOing

[DeeBee30]

Started searching but this new layout is killing me.  I plan to FLO some shafts and started wondering whether there’s any benefit to spinning them first.  My belief is that, if the two processes result in the same shaft orientation, it’s a wash and only one is needed.  If they don’t, I believe the FLO alignment will have a greater benefit than spining.  Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

[Socrates]

Spinning is not credible.  Floing seems to be worthwhile.

 

[Stuart_G]

DeeBee30 said:

Started searching but this new layout is killing me.  I plan to FLO some shafts and started wondering whether there’s any benefit to spinning them first.  My belief is that, if the two processes result in the same shaft orientation, it’s a wash and only one is needed.  If they don’t, I believe the FLO alignment will have a greater benefit than spining.  Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

Yes, you're a bit off on your understanding of the terms.  They are not really separate things at all.

FLO is a method used to find the spine of a shaft - and nothing more.    There is no implied orientation when it comes to the term "FLO".  Determining how to orient that spine is a completely separate and independent issue (or point of contention).

Now if you are really asking about comparing FLO vs another specific way to find the spine - then forget the idea of using a bearing based "spine finder" they have been proven to be very unreliable.   FLO can be very effective if done correctly - but one needs a frequency meter to properly differentiate the spine (strong axis) from the NBP (weakest axis).    Differential deflection is another method that could be used to help find the spine that's not too bad.

[Adam C]

I won't comment on my personal opinions of either process but basically FLO allows you to find the strong and weak plains in a shaft with the most basic of tools (vise and laser pointer). Like others have said if you don't have access to a frequency meter, it's a viable option. Of course if you are playing with shafts with significant spines you should probably just turn those into tomato stakes as there are plenty of high quality shafts out there that are round and don't need it.

[Stuart_G]

Adam C said:

I won't comment on my personal opinions of either process but basically FLO allows you to find the strong and weak plains in a shaft with the most basic of tools (vise and laser pointer). Like others have said if you don't have access to a frequency meter, it's a viable option.

Sorry, but if you don't have access to a freq meter - FLO is almost useless.   W/o the frequencies you don't know which is the strong plane and which is the weak plane.

 

[jmiller2]

Due to manufacturing processes no shaft is perfectly round, you can get close of course but most of the time there will be one or two promote spine locations on a shaft.

The idea with the "spine" method is to find the weakest point of the shaft and install the shaft in a specific orientation in the hosel based on the weakest axis of the shaft.

The "FLO" method stands for "Flat Line Oscillation" where you put a weighted laser tip on the end of shaft and bounce the shaft turning the shaft slightly until you find where the laser makes a perfectly flat line as the shaft oscillates. Some people will actually spine the shaft first and then use the weighted "FLO" technique to get the shaft into the position they want for installation based on the weakest axis of the shaft.

Regardless of the two techniques, the idea is to install the shaft into the head in a way that makes the shaft react more consistently through the set when the shaft is placed under load in the downswing and release.

There is a third process that utilizes a computerized machine that will also mark the shaft for installation orientation called SST Pure which claims to orient the shaft on a 'bending plane' (more then one axis) rather then a single plane like the "Spine" / "FLO" methods would.


Are any of these processes worth it? I would say yes assuming that it is done on all of your clubs in the set.

[Adam C]

Stuart G. said:

Adam C said:

I won't comment on my personal opinions of either process but basically FLO allows you to find the strong and weak plains in a shaft with the most basic of tools (vise and laser pointer). Like others have said if you don't have access to a frequency meter, it's a viable option.

Sorry, but if you don't have access to a freq meter - FLO is almost useless.   W/o the frequencies you don't know which is the strong plane and which is the weak plane.

Wasn't going to get into it, but. I will just go ahead and say that the whole idea is of little to zero worth. Even if you know the dominant spine and therefore the NBP, how are you going to align it during assemble?? Pure says to align the dominant spine down the target line. I know many people however that would argue against this and line it at 90 degrees to the target line (up and down) because the dominant shaft bend occurs in this plane. The fact of the matter is the golf shaft during the swing is bending and releasing in two separate planes while also rotating during the same time frame. Good luck aligning to all these variables. Pick shafts that have better tolerances and under 2% hard to soft side frequency variation. Otherwise you are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

[Stuart_G]

Adam C said:

Wasn't going to get into it, but. I will just go ahead and say that the whole idea is of little to zero worth. Even if you know the dominant spine and therefore the NBP, how are you going to align it during assemble?? Pure says to align the dominant spine down the target line. I know many people however that would argue against this and line it at 90 degrees to the target line (up and down) because the dominant shaft bend occurs in this plane. The fact of the matter is the golf shaft during the swing is bending and releasing in two separate planes while also rotating during the same time frame. Good luck aligning to all these variables. Pick shafts that have better tolerances and under 2% hard to soft side frequency variation. Otherwise you are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

Yes, I didn't want to get into that aspect either.   I was just sticking to what is required to do it properly.

But FYI, you're preaching to the choir.  :wink:

[nsxguy]

If I may recap,,,,,,,

 

So, for the 90%+ of us who swing the same club (e.g. the driver) with different tempos, swing speeds, swing planes and flawed swings,,,,,,,, we really don't need to worry about it.

 

That about right ?

 

 

[Adam C]

nsxguy said:

If I may recap,,,,,,,

 

So, for the 90%+ of us who swing the same club (e.g. the driver) with different tempos, swing speeds, swing planes and flawed swings,,,,,,,, we really don't need to worry about it.

 

That about right ?

 

If you are playing really old graphite shafts or if you buy your shafts out of the back of a windowless van, then maybe be concerned with spine and FLO. You could really only consider justifying it as a way to match up a set of iron shafts to consistently have the stiffest plane in the same place for all the irons (wherever that is). But 99% of steel shafts these days won't have enough discrepancies to notice. With carbon fiber shafts, if you go cheaper, you will see more variation. If you are talking about more quality aftermarket shafts, again the hard to soft side difference will be minimal. This is all regardless of talent or ability.

[cxx]

Stuart G. said:

DeeBee30 said:

Started searching but this new layout is killing me.  I plan to FLO some shafts and started wondering whether there’s any benefit to spinning them first.  My belief is that, if the two processes result in the same shaft orientation, it’s a wash and only one is needed.  If they don’t, I believe the FLO alignment will have a greater benefit than spining.  Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

Yes, you're a bit off on your understanding of the terms.  They are not really separate things at all.

FLO is a method used to find the spine of a shaft - and nothing more.    There is no implied orientation when it comes to the term "FLO".  Determining how to orient that spine is a completely separate and independent issue (or point of contention).

Now if you are really asking about comparing FLO vs another specific way to find the spine - then forget the idea of using a bearing based "spine finder" they have been proven to be very unreliable.   FLO can be very effective if done correctly - but one needs a frequency meter to properly differentiate the spine (strong axis) from the NBP (weakest axis).    Differential deflection is another method that could be used to help find the spine that's not too bad.

Differential deflection is pretty easy to do if you have a clamp. Tutelman.com describes the process.

[Howard_Jones]

Adam C said:

nsxguy said:

If I may recap,,,,,,,

 

So, for the 90%+ of us who swing the same club (e.g. the driver) with different tempos, swing speeds, swing planes and flawed swings,,,,,,,, we really don't need to worry about it.

 

That about right ?

 

If you are playing really old graphite shafts or if you buy your shafts out of the back of a windowless van, then maybe be concerned with spine and FLO. You could really only consider justifying it as a way to match up a set of iron shafts to consistently have the stiffest plane in the same place for all the irons (wherever that is). But 99% of steel shafts these days won't have enough discrepancies to notice. With carbon fiber shafts, if you go cheaper, you will see more variation. If you are talking about more quality aftermarket shafts, again the hard to soft side difference will be minimal. This is all regardless of talent or ability.If you have a set of Taper tip shafts, and you make a FLO test, would you always align the strongest side target line?

if thats so, why would you do that?

Also is flex slope was weird on the strong FLO lines?

[Adam C]

Howard Jones said:

Adam C said:

nsxguy said:

If I may recap,,,,,,,

 

So, for the 90%+ of us who swing the same club (e.g. the driver) with different tempos, swing speeds, swing planes and flawed swings,,,,,,,, we really don't need to worry about it.

 

That about right ?

 

If you are playing really old graphite shafts or if you buy your shafts out of the back of a windowless van, then maybe be concerned with spine and FLO. You could really only consider justifying it as a way to match up a set of iron shafts to consistently have the stiffest plane in the same place for all the irons (wherever that is). But 99% of steel shafts these days won't have enough discrepancies to notice. With carbon fiber shafts, if you go cheaper, you will see more variation. If you are talking about more quality aftermarket shafts, again the hard to soft side difference will be minimal. This is all regardless of talent or ability.

If you have a set of Taper tip shafts, and you make a FLO test, would you always align the strongest side target line?

if thats so, why would you do that?

Also is flex slope was weird on the strong FLO lines?I personally wouldn't do any of it. I think any shaft aligning is completely arbitrary. Spine finding and alignment is fine for fishing rods but golf clubs are flexing and releasing on multiple planes and rotating to boot. But look, if someone wants to spend the time FLOing their own clubs, that's their choice if they think it will help. I don't think it will.