Jump to content

Valtiel

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    6,775
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Valtiel last won the day on October 20

Valtiel had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

4,888 profile views

Valtiel's Achievements

3.8k

Reputation

  1. I question the accuracy of some of these numbers as that is a very high swing speed with a very low relative smash factor/ball speed. These things will go hand in hand when club speed is incorrectly measured (in this case high). Do you know your normal speeds as measured by any other device? Aside from that, if the spin numbers are accurate then they suggest a few possible issues. Assuming the 5096 shot was the bad one that went left then that suggests poor face control (expected for a 27hdc) as you've delivered much less loft, likely due to a shut face. Hard to say anything else without more data though, and seeing video of your swing is infinitely more useful when it comes to commenting on it than making guesses based on a couple data points. Without video we'd need data for angle of attack, club path, and dynamic loft to even begin to speculate about your swing.
  2. I was just looking for this thread to post basically the same thing. Mark's tests consistently reveal results as they are relevant to HIM, but he is so unscientific in his methods (while dressing them up to be the opposite) that he draws very little meaningful conclusions for anyone else. He kinda says as much towards the end of the video, but it is clearly presented in a pretty biased way with that feeling more like something to cover his a** a bit. Every one of his tests also have an almost comical smoking gun that invalidates just about anything after it. In previous shaft tests there were complete screw ups in categorization (low/low and mid/mid shafts reversed), and in this video there is obviously a vast difference in the head lofts. 7.5* for the GBB would go a long way towards closing the distance gap between what is likely a 10*+ PING head since PING are often higher lofted than stated. The fact that a 2*+ stronger driver was still measurably shorter and more erratic (I agree they either misinterpreted or misrepresented the data) combined with no effort to actually leverage the other tech to further distance the modern driver from the vintage (Mark is likely consistent enough for the PING's weight to impact his flight) means we have yet another unscientific clickbait-y video made more offensive by it pretending to be thorough.
  3. If you're specifically looking at bigger face area because you think that means bigger sweet spot then you should actually be looking at MOI first. A big face without a higher MOI design will just create more surface area hit to bad feeling shots from. And... ...some of these criteria are a bit contradictory in a "you can have it cheap, fast, or good, but you can only pick two" kind of way. Like @Socrates said, you're nearly always going to be seeing some of that back bulge on a modern driving iron, and the ones you won't are smaller headed, smaller faced designs. Same deal with face height and CG since a bigger face is a taller face, and a taller face is a higher CG design. Shorter heads = lower CG. You're going to have to find which criteria you're willing to compromise on a bit since you won't find it all in one club. - Thinner topline with lower offset, lower CG, and higher MOI - Titleist U500, Taylormade P790, Callway X-forged UT - Highest MOI and longer blade length, but chunkier and more offset - PING G410 Crossover, Mizuno JPX Hotmetal, Srixon ZX Utility For the tallest possible faces you're going to want to look at various GI and SGI irons, but they will almost all have chunkier top lines and lots of offset. A PING i210 or JPX 919 long iron with some of the offset bent out might be worth looking at as well.
  4. A push fade and the subsequent distance loss that comes from this is a product of too much dynamic loft. Attempting to shut the clubface down more is one way to address this, but is subject to more timing if you're consciously trying to do it with your hands/forearms. Addressing the club slightly shut and swinging normally or switching to a driver with a more shut face angle is the quickest solution. The second would be to review video of your swing and see if you're introducing too much face rotation in your takeaway/backswing and addressing that directly. Whatever you decide to do, just know that your distance gains are coming from delivering less loft and you don't necessarily need to be manipulating the club to accomplish this.
  5. The only possible ways to get faster ball speed without increasing swing speed are: 1) Better/more efficient strikes. Every head is going to have a spot where it is "fastest" (often a little up and toe side of the visual center of the face). Finding this spot more often produces higher average ball speeds. 2) Variable face thickness tech increasing the speed on mishits. This combined with #1 will make a noticeable difference. 3) Lower static loft. The lower the head loft, the more closely aligned the vertical CG and neutral axis are, which increases efficiency. 4) Ball change. 5) Some as yet proven new face tech that may or may not exploit a loophole in the current USGA face testing methods. This has been a moving target for years. Selectively thinning/thickening certain parts of the face to increase efficiency has existed in one form or another for a long time under lots of different names/technologies. The limiting factors being the strength/flexibility of steel/titanium, which seems like something that a stronger and lighter face material could overcome and produce noticeably higher ballspeeds on mishits. I can almost guarantee that this where most all future ball speed increases will come from.
  6. Thanks very much for that! That is actually maybe a tiny bit more than I was expecting. Those are pretty sharp looking. Looks like they had their own "cut muscle" sort of design going there.
  7. I basically ignore any and all paint colors since becoming aware of outfits like Continental Golf. I've already pictured refinishing one of these to look like a SIM, hah.
  8. Yeah same here. I occasionally struggle with this because the J40 DPCs are a bit stretchy when it comes to blade length. I feel like I have to hit a few dozen balls before my brain sort of calibrates itself to the longer blade length and I stop noticing it. It's really the only thing that has me considering moving on from them as I can get both a more preferred compact look AND higher MOI in some of these Titleist 718/Mizuno JPX forged offerings. @joostin In the various little mockups you have done, particularly the CG location ones, are you able to estimate impacts on MOI as well? I swingweight my DPCs by filling the little toe side pocket cavity with tungsten putty and covering it with lead tape. It is adding weight low and toe side, but I didn't think it would be enough to make a meaningful difference in anything (usually 6-8g). Just curious, thanks!
  9. Exactly. The goal isn't just weight savings, its weight saving + redistribution of that weight to an area that is advantageous for performance.
  10. Unless you're referring to something really specific, how do you know the lines are wrong on a face we've never seen before? It's clearly an in-hand cell phone photo with lighting such that attempting to fake anything would be *pretty* noticeable. I say this as someone with a decade of professional photoshop experience so I highly doubt anything significant in this photo has been faked/doctored.
  11. Agreed with Snowman, someone just crudely drew around head to obscure the background. Nothing nefarious or conspiratorial.
  12. I've actually grabbed a few eBay deals on misspelled Aldila "Rouge" shafts since they obviously won't come up with a "Rogue" search term, hah.
×
×
  • Create New...