Is floing and spine aligning the same thing?

[Jul89]

Is a shaft that is floed also spine aligned? Is Spine alignment necessary if clubs are floed?

I dont get this, i just hear its good.

[Nessism]

Similar but not identical. Two different tools are used to perform the work. I've got the tools but never use them since I've never experienced any benefit in either process.

[Stuart_G]

FLO (along with Freq measurement) is one way to find the spine of a shaft - actually one of the more accurate methods. There are others - some reliable, some not. There are different opinions on how the spine should be aligned once you find it as well as the amount of actual benefit of doing any alignment - but very little actual data on either.

 

There are about 6 pages here on spine alignment and finding the spines - if you want to read up on it. Use the right/left arrows near the top of the page to navigate through them.

https://www.tutelman.com/golf/shafts/allAboutSpines.php

 

 

[Howard_Jones]

 

 

FLO or Flat oscillation line is about shaft behavior and should be used combined with a CPM reader so we know whats the weak and whats the strong side and how large the difference between them is, while Spine is "something else", so the shaft dont have to behave good if its spin aligned, its 2 different things.

 

The strong FLO side is about 90* from the weak FLO line, but that dont mean its the strongest side of the shaft (Spine), so FLO and spine is NOT the same, and if those shafts is FLOed, forget Spine, it has no interest.

[Jul89]

Alrighty. Thanks for that.

[Socrates]

> @"Howard Jones" said:

>

>

> FLO or Flat oscillation line is about shaft behavior and should be used combined with a CPM reader so we know whats the weak and whats the strong side and how large the difference between them is, while Spine is "something else", so the shaft dont have to behave good if its spin aligned, its 2 different things.

>

> The strong FLO side is about 90* from the weak FLO line, but that dont mean its the strongest side of the shaft (Spine), so FLO and spine is NOT the same, and if those shafts is FLOed, forget Spine, it has no interest.

 

I find it interesting that in a lot of the videos that I've seen, guys spine the shaft and then flo it. Why go through the process of spine checking when it is mostly irrelevant to the flo axis?

[Howard_Jones]

> @Socrates said:

> > @"Howard Jones" said:

> >

> >

> > FLO or Flat oscillation line is about shaft behavior and should be used combined with a CPM reader so we know whats the weak and whats the strong side and how large the difference between them is, while Spine is "something else", so the shaft dont have to behave good if its spin aligned, its 2 different things.

> >

> > The strong FLO side is about 90* from the weak FLO line, but that dont mean its the strongest side of the shaft (Spine), so FLO and spine is NOT the same, and if those shafts is FLOed, forget Spine, it has no interest.

>

> I find it interesting that in a lot of the videos that I've seen, guys spine the shaft and then flo it. Why go through the process of spine checking when it is mostly irrelevant to the flo axis?

 

Good question, i made my own spine finder back in 2010 (ball bearing), but it ended in the trash after a few days, since we dont really know what we find when we use it, so there is no fixed connection between "spine" and the shafts FLO lines , they might be far apart. If you have both a a CPM reader and a Spine finder, try it off yourself. The strongest side of the shaft is often where it wobbles the most, while the strongest FLO line goes FLAT and is about 90 off from the weak FLO line.

[Adam C]

There are about 1,000 other things to be concerned about in golf before you get to FLO or spine. I put it right up there with lining up your golf ball in a certain direction so that the weight of the printing on it doesn't throw off your spin axis (and yes I just made that up). Some people love to FLO shafts, I guess because it's so simple to do and is so visual with the pretty pictures it makes, however it is of zero relevance to a golf swing.

If you know how to swing a golf club in one plane with zero shaft rotation then maybe you'd have something of value. Of course most golf swings don't stay in one plane to begin with and all swings involve shaft rotation of around 90 degrees. Further more, the only value that should be gleaned from FLO if any, is on the initial flex and release (aka the very first cycle). If you could measure the initial cycle release and see how far off line it pulls using a light sensor or high speed camera along with a protractor, you could at least have some measure of how the shaft returns to equilibrium and from that some idea of how consistent the shaft is. Sitting and watching the shaft flex and release 100 times in order to get those pretty lines or ovals is 99 more than are relevant since that shaft is only flexing and releasing 1 time before it hits the ball.

The only measure I do on any shaft is a radial consistency check, taking cpm measurements at 20 or 30 degree intervals and seeing how consistent the numbers are. That at least tells you how good the manufacturing quality was. If you find your shaft has 10 cycles difference hard to soft side, you can spine, FLO, and PURE all day long and it won't matter. A crap shaft is a crap shaft regardless of how it's installed.

[Socrates]

> @"Howard Jones" said:

> > @Socrates said:

> > > @"Howard Jones" said:

> > >

> > >

> > > FLO or Flat oscillation line is about shaft behavior and should be used combined with a CPM reader so we know whats the weak and whats the strong side and how large the difference between them is, while Spine is "something else", so the shaft dont have to behave good if its spin aligned, its 2 different things.

> > >

> > > The strong FLO side is about 90* from the weak FLO line, but that dont mean its the strongest side of the shaft (Spine), so FLO and spine is NOT the same, and if those shafts is FLOed, forget Spine, it has no interest.

> >

> > I find it interesting that in a lot of the videos that I've seen, guys spine the shaft and then flo it. Why go through the process of spine checking when it is mostly irrelevant to the flo axis?

>

> Good question, i made my own spine finder back in 2010 (ball bearing), but it ended in the trash after a few days, since we dont really know what we find when we use it, so there is no fixed connection between "spine" and the shafts FLO lines , they might be far apart. If you have both a a CPM reader and a Spine finder, try it off yourself. The strongest side of the shaft is often where it wobbles the most, while the strongest FLO line goes FLAT and is about 90 off from the weak FLO line.

 

No CPM reader. I just do a little stuff these days and can't justify the cost. I'll have to live vicariously through you. :)

[platgof]

Some use a digital spring scale as a CPM reader. I use to flo, but shafts now a days are very consistent.

[denkea]

I find it interesting that those who decry Flo-ing and Spining as hogwash without scientific evidence are the same who declare there is no benefit without scientific evidence to back their assertion.

[platgof]

When I flo(flat line orientation) shafts it is obvious something just happened. But with adjustable shafts? It is easy to find the spine, just cork both ends and let it float, top side is the spine. There is no way I want to spend the time and pull all my shafts to do this, lots of work.

[gunmetal]

The scientific evidence is the bio-mechanics of the golf swing. When you begin the downswing, the face of the club is open and in theory it returns to square at impact which means that between that time the shaft is spinning/twisting on multiple planes that make up at least 25% of the shaft. Where would you align the dominant spine to gleam any sort of performance benefit from it? In terms of tangible benefits, I'm just not seeing how it could be scientifically demonstrated and repeatable. I'm happy to be proven wrong. And more importantly, if you THINK it has an affect, that's all you need for it to actually translate into reality. I think Wishon said it best when he said it should be treated like insurance but nothing more. Just because I have car insurance doesn't make me a better driver. Or does it? Tough to prove.

[Stuart_G]

Not disagreeing with you but what you're talking about is really scientific theory, not evidence. And in fact actual bending occurs over much more than 25%. It's actually more like 75% since there is both loading and unloading of the shaft prior to impact.

But the truth is that there are lots of theories in both sides of the argument but little evidence to support any of them. And it's not a problem that is easy to scientifically test and validate any of those theories since there are so many other factors that could play a part and invalidate the results if they could not be isolated out of the test. Which is one of the reasons why there is so much controversy.

 

[gunmetal]

100% agree. It is fun from time to time to check and see how many or how prominent spines are in shafts. It would be easy to assume that more expensive "exotic" shafts would have better QC and production quality but that is not always the case.