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

[farmer]

[quote name='Ri_Redneck' timestamp='1411762702' post='10190311']
[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
[/quote]Thank you. By neutral, in this case, I meant square. So, in real world terms, this little sleeve gadget does---nothing. I had the same issue with MWT. I could change the weights around, but never saw any great difference in results. In this case, I fell for marketing, and a fitter pushing the product. My bad.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1411912351' post='10198867']


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.
[/quote]

What I mean is that when the head factory makes the body of the head, they have to make that WITHOUT the sleeve. But the head body has to be made with a specific loft, lie and face angle WITHOUT the sleeve in the hosel opening. So the factory has to have a way to check the loft, lie and face angle of the body of the head without the sleeve in the hosel opening. And my point was that they do this by measuring the specs of the body the same way the standard has been forever with the head soled in the green machine. They can't do these measurements any other way because every adj hosel driver head body has to have a starting loft, lie and face angle that it is manufactured to have. And the only way you can verify a spec loft AND lie AND face angle on the same head body is to measure these three specs when the head is soled. If you try to measure these specs when the head is held in the gauge in a 0 face position, you have no idea if you hit the +/- tolerances for the face angle in the production.

So it just seems a little strange or odd that here you have the body of the adj hosel head measured as it always has been measured sitting on the sole, but then when you slip a sleeve into the hosel opening, then the loft is now changed to only be measured in a 0 face position. Doing it this way means any tolerance in the face angle now becomes a tolerance mistake in the loft. Whereas measuring while soled tells you the tolerance in all three specs so as a factory you then know what you need to improve or not.

Which then leads to a question that I would like to ask you since you are the most interested WRX'er in this topic - why do YOU think that all these companies all of a sudden decided to change the way they define and measure the loft of these adj hosel heads when they have all followed the same exact spec measurement procedures forever before the advent of the adj hosel driver devices? What was their reason to all of a sudden do that?

And then if you don't mind, let me ask you one more question. Once they did decide to change the way they define and measure the loft on these adj hosel drivers, why do you think none of them took the time to make a page on their websites or attach a little notice to each driver saying that to get the loft change from the sleeve, the golfer has to hold the head square and cannot sole the driver?

Again, not bashing here, just asking questions that very much are logical questions to ask about the differences in these adj hosel drivers. I'm simply curious what you think here since you are very much into this topic.

[rybo]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1412028943' post='10208157']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1411912351' post='10198867']
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.
[/quote]

What I mean is that when the head factory makes the body of the head, they have to make that WITHOUT the sleeve. But the head body has to be made with a specific loft, lie and face angle WITHOUT the sleeve in the hosel opening. So the factory has to have a way to check the loft, lie and face angle of the body of the head without the sleeve in the hosel opening. And my point was that they do this by measuring the specs of the body the same way the standard has been forever with the head soled in the green machine. They can't do these measurements any other way because every adj hosel driver head body has to have a starting loft, lie and face angle that it is manufactured to have. And the only way you can verify a spec loft AND lie AND face angle on the same head body is to measure these three specs when the head is soled. If you try to measure these specs when the head is held in the gauge in a 0 face position, you have no idea if you hit the +/- tolerances for the face angle in the production.

[color=#ff0000]Yes they sole the club and use some type of pin with a checking fixture. Very standard practice in the casting industry. The pin for the checking fixture is acting as the sleeve (and also the press fit teeth that the sleeve marries with). This is not an issue. I do not have a problem with the club being soled for the measurements in a foundry setting. The product is in a rough stage and not finished. As the club progresses through the many steps of completion the level of refinement goes up. There is no way a raw cast head is being held to +/-1* of tolerance. The machining of the cast bore will likely be where the +/-1* of tolerance comes into play. Plus include some tolerance stack ups between welding, machining, finishing, paint, etc and a +/-1* tolerance for basically a recreational product is quite good. [/color][color=#ff0000]Very doable, but still takes a bit of thought and precision.[/color]

[color=#ff0000]I do believe you also need to know the 0 face angle loft, especially on these adjustable heads. All dimensions and movements usually occur from some centered position. [/color]

So it just seems a little strange or odd that here you have the body of the adj hosel head measured as it always has been measured sitting on the sole, but then when you slip a sleeve into the hosel opening, then the loft is now changed to only be measured in a 0 face position. Doing it this way means any tolerance in the face angle now becomes a tolerance mistake in the loft. Whereas measuring while soled tells you the tolerance in all three specs so as a factory you then know what you need to improve or not.

[color=#ff0000]I totally understand your perspective. However I believe both the 0 face angle loft and the loft when soled with the shaft perpendicular to the target both have their place. Especially considering the rate of face angle change is engineered into these adjustable hosels. TM uses .5*Loft:1*FA, Titleist uses .75*Loft:1*FA, a non adjustable hosel when bent is around .6*Loft:1*FA. [/color]

Which then leads to a question that I would like to ask you since you are the most interested WRX'er in this topic - why do YOU think that all these companies all of a sudden decided to change the way they define and measure the loft of these adj hosel heads when they have all followed the same exact spec measurement procedures forever before the advent of the adj hosel driver devices? What was their reason to all of a sudden do that?

[color=#ff0000]Well I think they changed the way they defined and measured loft because the adjustable technology never existed before and also when you actually use the club the ball launches higher on a higher setting and lower on a lower setting. I also think it's easier for the consumer to understand. Interestingly, take one of your bendable drivers, lets say the head has a perfect 0* face angle and 10* of loft. If you bend this club so the face angle opens 1*, what will the loft measure in the soled 1* open face angle position?......10*, and if this club is measured in the 0* face angle position after bending it will measure 9.4*. So in some reality the loft did change by the change in hosel setting and did not change when simply bent open and soled. [/color]

[color=#ff0000]Honestly golfers are not the brightest bunch at times. It has always amazed me when playing with some very intelligent and influential people how many misconceptions they have about the golf swing, clubs, course conditions, rules, etc. [/color]

And then if you don't mind, let me ask you one more question. Once they did decide to change the way they define and measure the loft on these adj hosel drivers, why do you think none of them took the time to make a page on their websites or attach a little notice to each driver saying that to get the loft change from the sleeve, the golfer has to hold the head square and cannot sole the driver?

[color=#ff0000]Probably for the ease of the consumer. You are way more knowledgeable then most everybody in golf[/color][color=#ff0000], a true 1%. You have the knowledge to jump directly to different aspects and have the ability to understand the connections of the different parts where if the consumer was provided this info will just be confused. [/color]

Again, not bashing here, just asking questions that very much are logical questions to ask about the differences in these adj hosel drivers. I'm simply curious what you think here since you are very much into this topic.
[/quote]

[rybo]

A few additional items.

The casting must have some datum pads. These datum pads will be the starting point for all measurements. They will later be ground off and that's when the fun begins!

I'm just a guy who loves golf and the all of the glorious equipment that goes along with it. I'm trying to learn and understand the many facets of equipment just like everybody else. As the technology changes, we must learn the science behind it. I now realize not having a loft and lie measuring device is not a good idea. A purchase will happen soon. Any suggestions? This one looks good. [url="http://www.golfsmith.com/product/30032619/golfsmith-professional-clubhead-measuring-gauge{"]http://www.golfsmith...uring-gauge [/url]

I would have come out to see you but have been and still are doing a ton of travel looking at schools for my son. Literally traveling on and off the next 3 weeks with some more in the future. May have to go to Telluride instead of Vail this winter, just so I get the opportunity to stop in.

[Farrow]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1412028943' post='10208157']
Which then leads to a question that I would like to ask you since you are the most interested WRX'er in this topic - why do YOU think that all these companies all of a sudden decided to change the way they define and measure the loft of these adj hosel heads when they have all followed the same exact spec measurement procedures forever before the advent of the adj hosel driver devices? What was their reason to all of a sudden do that?
[/quote]

I addressed this question way back on page 2. The real question isn't why does a new definition follow a new technology, it's why should new technology be stifled by a definition decades old?

As you showed us in your nifty little video, when drivers and fairways were made out of wood they were measured a certain way. There was a definition that had been used for decades. Yet when they started being made from steel and titanium all of a sudden the definition of how these parameters were measured was altered. New technology = new definition. So how is this any different? The golf club has once again seen a revolutionary technology change the way it is built and played. And in this particular case a redefinition of how certain parameters are measured became necessary. And in reality the adjustable hosel driver has obsoleted the need for fixed hosel drivers with bendable hosels. Why subject your club that cost you a few hundred dollars so something that could potentially ruin the club beyond repair? Especially when you can use an adjustable hosel club and have your desired settings in a few clicks of a wrench.

As to why club companies don't dedicate a whole page to explaining a new way they are measuring loft? Why would they? What club company posted an explanation of how they used the green machine in past years?

[TomWishon]

[quote name='Farrow' timestamp='1412051199' post='10210311']
I addressed this question way back on page 2. The real question isn't why does a new definition follow a new technology, it's why should new technology be stifled by a definition decades old?
[/quote]

I have always been one to welcome new technology in club design as long as it was/is of benefit to the many golfers who play the game. To have a "new technology" that changes the way every company has measured loft forever which at the same time completely eliminates the presence of face angle is not a "new technology" that is of benefit to the majority of golfers. If Golf Digest was right in saying 70% of all golfers slice the ball, then this "new technology" now handcuffs all these golfers to take away a fitting specification that most certainly could help them enjoy this game a little more by allowing them to have a chance to do a better job of keeping the ball in play.

For players who do not need any face angle fitting option with their proper loft because they hit the ball straight, that's fine, I said that clearly in my "nifty" video. But the segment that plays best with a 0 square face angle is definitely a minority of players. For those who have no sympathy for the chronic slicers or hookers who believe they should just go work on their swing to learn to hit it straight, that very much is an uninformed belief because the vast majority of those who struggle with the slice or hook simply cannot make such a change because they are not as golf athletically inclined as those who do learn the swing fundamentals to hit the ball straight.
[quote name='Farrow' timestamp='1412051199' post='10210311']
As you showed us in your nifty little video, when drivers and fairways were made out of wood they were measured a certain way. There was a definition that had been used for decades. Yet when they started being made from steel and titanium all of a sudden the definition of how these parameters were measured was altered. New technology = new definition. So how is this any different? The golf club has once again seen a revolutionary technology change the way it is built and played. And in this particular case a redefinition of how certain parameters are measured became necessary. And in reality the adjustable hosel driver has obsoleted the need for fixed hosel drivers with bendable hosels. Why subject your club that cost you a few hundred dollars so something that could potentially ruin the club beyond repair? Especially when you can use an adjustable hosel club and have your desired settings in a few clicks of a wrench.
[/quote]

You do not understand that the old method of using the protractor across the sole and up the face to measure loft is the same thing as the green machine method of measuring loft when the head is soled in the machine. One has to be a serious student of clubhead design engineering to realize that. You still today could use a protractor across the sole and up the face as long as the point of touch of the protractor arm on the sole was the same touch point that the sole is resting in the green machine. So all that the green machine did was to keep this method of loft measurement perfectly related to what it was previously, but to add the ability to measure lie and face angle which the clubmakers did not have a reliable means to do before.

[quote name='Farrow' timestamp='1412051199' post='10210311']
As to why club companies don't dedicate a whole page to explaining a new way they are measuring loft? Why would they? What club company posted an explanation of how they used the green machine in past years?
[/quote]

They never had to because EVERY golf company and EVERY clubhead production factory were all in 100% agreement for how they would define and measure the loft, lie and face angle of drivers and woods. Every single one. This actually stood as the only spec measurement methodology for golf clubs for which there was a total 100% agreement for not only how they would be measured, but for the machine with which these specs would be measured.

But with this change to now defining loft in a totally different way, and doing it without telling golfers this is a change from how everyone measured loft, that adds confusion where no confusion existed previously. It starts to move us into what the situation has been with shaft flex.

Speaking of that, look at shaft flex. Golfers have been totally in the dark forever about how stiff this R or that S or that X is between the companies' shafts because there has never been any sort of standard in the industry either for how stiff any of the letter flexes are, or for how flex would be measured. What that has done is to always make shaft flex selection a matter of "here, try this and see how it works/feels" or to ask some other golfers what they think of this or that shaft. How many WRX'ers have spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars trying out different shafts only to learn after the purchase that this is not the flex feel/performance that they thought it would be? That approach benefits only the companies that make the shafts, certainly not the golfers.

But finally, just in the past few years some of the shaft companies have now started to publish their own stiffness measurements for each of their own shaft models and flexes. While this is a LONG way from being what we need to end shaft flex selection confusion because these measurements are not standardized from company to company, it is at least a start for some of the companies to say, "here is some information on the stiffness of our shafts to possibly help you make the right decision for your needs."

It is of real benefit to know exactly what the specs of this piece of equipment are compared to what the golfer played before. Anything that confuses that issue is not a good thing.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1412034476' post='10208717']
A few additional items.

The casting must have some datum pads. These datum pads will be the starting point for all measurements. They will later be ground off and that's when the fun begins!

I'm just a guy who loves golf and the all of the glorious equipment that goes along with it. I'm trying to learn and understand the many facets of equipment just like everybody else. As the technology changes, we must learn the science behind it. I now realize not having a loft and lie measuring device is not a good idea. A purchase will happen soon. Any suggestions? This one looks good. [url="http://www.golfsmith.com/product/30032619/golfsmith-professional-clubhead-measuring-gauge{"]http://www.golfsmith...uring-gauge[/url]

I would have come out to see you but have been and still are doing a ton of travel looking at schools for my son. Literally traveling on and off the next 3 weeks with some more in the future. May have to go to Telluride instead of Vail this winter, just so I get the opportunity to stop in.
[/quote]

That particular gauge is well made and will do the job. What you will then need is to learn how to properly fixture the heads in the machine to obtain reliable measurements. I'll offer you the same thing I do for all the clubmakers who decide to buy a head specs machine. Send me any number of clubheads from drivers to woods to hybrids to irons to wedges to putters and I will be glad to measure them all and make marks on the heads to indicate positioning points and return them to you with all the specs listed. Then you would just have to practice putting the heads into the machine to duplicate the measurements I give you and in doing so, carefully look at and note the positions and points of sole contact on the base of the machine. Without being able to learn this side by side from someone with experience, this is the best way to go about learning head specs measurement.

Also it would be good if you did send a box of heads to me to also include the protractor that comes with the machine. I have a special checking device here to verify the accuracy of a machinist's protractor because these things are mass produced and can be off a little.

[Justin_Ellis]

Tom,
I keep reading your posts referring to the new way loft is being measured taking away the ability to fit a player for face angle adjustment needs.
Can we not fit for loft first? (ie. an SLDR in 12*) then adjust the sleeve into a 2* open face angle to provide the proper fit? True the sleeve has a perplexing wording of lower loft when adjusted but all it is doing is opening the face angle.

[rybo]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1412090483' post='10211811']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1412034476' post='10208717']
A few additional items.

The casting must have some datum pads. These datum pads will be the starting point for all measurements. They will later be ground off and that's when the fun begins!

I'm just a guy who loves golf and the all of the glorious equipment that goes along with it. I'm trying to learn and understand the many facets of equipment just like everybody else. As the technology changes, we must learn the science behind it. I now realize not having a loft and lie measuring device is not a good idea. A purchase will happen soon. Any suggestions? This one looks good. [url="http://www.golfsmith.com/product/30032619/golfsmith-professional-clubhead-measuring-gauge{"]http://www.golfsmith...uring-gauge[/url]

I would have come out to see you but have been and still are doing a ton of travel looking at schools for my son. Literally traveling on and off the next 3 weeks with some more in the future. May have to go to Telluride instead of Vail this winter, just so I get the opportunity to stop in.
[/quote]

That particular gauge is well made and will do the job. What you will then need is to learn how to properly fixture the heads in the machine to obtain reliable measurements. I'll offer you the same thing I do for all the clubmakers who decide to buy a head specs machine. Send me any number of clubheads from drivers to woods to hybrids to irons to wedges to putters and I will be glad to measure them all and make marks on the heads to indicate positioning points and return them to you with all the specs listed. [b][size=5]Then you would just have to practice putting the heads into the machine to duplicate the measurements I give you and in doing so, carefully look at and note the positions and points of sole contact on the base of the machine.[/size][/b] Without being able to learn this side by side from someone with experience, this is the best way to go about learning head specs measurement.

Also it would be good if you did send a box of heads to me to also include the protractor that comes with the machine. I have a special checking device here to verify the accuracy of a machinist's protractor because these things are mass produced and can be off a little.
[/quote]

The set up of the head, meaning the soling points and the orientation of the score lines across the face, are what I believe is the cause for most of the recorded measurements in the report to be skewed so far off.

From the report:

[size=5][i]Therefore, the position of each head for proper lie angle position was achieved by tilting each driver head in the Green Machine so the center of the sole from toe to heel touched the base of the machine [u]with the bottom scoreline set parallel [/u]to the base of the machine. Assurance of the parallel position of the scorelines to the base of the machine was assisted by the use of the straight edge slide that comes with the Green Machine.[/i][/size]

[size=5][i]Note: In all cases, great care was taken to position the heads in the machine with the scorelines parallel to the base of the machine. [/i][/size]

[size=5][size=4]In the report there are pictures of each of the drivers in this position. [/size][/size]

[size=5][size=4]I stated in the report thread that I did not believe the scorelines being parallel to the base was the correct position for the heads to be in as I have never seen parallel score lines on a driver when it sits in its naturally soled position.[/size][/size] Two days ago I took 9 different drivers, yes I own them all and it's a sickness , not a single one of them when simply soled or when in a true address position had parallel score lines. Every club had scorelines angled from higher in the toe down to lower in the heel.

Just so no one thinks I making this up here is a pic of the clubs.
[attachment=2439007:IMG_2605.JPG]
Everything from Nike Coverts to Taylormade RBZ, R1 & SLDR, a couple of Cobras, even my Wishon 915, and a tour only 7.5* Cleveland TL310 that came directly from a tour van from when I was on staff with them. 7 with adjustable hosels & 2 with non-adjustable hosels.

So I started searching around to see how other people set up driver heads for measurement. Found a very well written article from Roy McNix that actually uses Wishon photos for the article. Truly a must read article.

[url="http://mcnixgolf.com/go-low/lie-loft/"]http://mcnixgolf.com/go-low/lie-loft/[/url]

As I read through the article a few times, two statements stood out:

[i]if the head is not positioned properly for lie and face angle, the loft measurement will never be correct.[/i]
&
[i]In this position, the score lines will almost never be parallel with the base of the specs machine.[/i]

Two questions. First, how should the score lines be orientated relative to the base of the loft & lie measuring device? And second, how are the true intended soling points determined?

Below is a pic of the R1 soled in what seems to be its natural resting point.
[attachment=2439111:IMG_2610.JPG]
The club does not rock at all and comes to rest right in the center of the ASP. The score lines are on a pronounced angle from high toe to low in the heel.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1412101845' post='10212993']
[/quote]


With the utmost in respect, please understand that until someone has learned how to fixture and measure head specs in a green machine and done that for many years with many models, it is not possible to comment as you do with regard to questioning the manner of specs measurement. You do not know how to tell what heads are made so their scorelines are parallel to the lie tangent position and which are not. Some are, some are not. Several factors in the design of a head go into determining whether the scorelines will end up being engraved parallel to the lie tangent or not. Good head making factories even have a spec they need to know for what degree of scoreline tilt is intended in a driver or woodhead design, or whether the designer intended no scoreline tilt. For example, with my 919THI drivers the spec for the scoreline tilt is 15*. With other drivers it is less. With some fairway woods, it will be 5* and with others, zero. It all depends on the shape of the face relative to the profile of the body of the head from a face on view perspective.

It is also not possible for someone without a depth of training in design and QC to know how to look at any driver or woodhead and know how to determine how it is to be soled for spec measurement in a green machine. These skills take real time and instruction from someone with a real depth of experience in the field to learn how to do consistently and correctly. Back in 02 when I was asked to be a mfg consultant for two of the larger head making factories in between leaving GS and starting my company, the very first thing I was tasked with at both factories was to watch all the workers measure woodhead specs and then identify areas of possible inconsistency and come up with solutions in training to narrow down the possibility of error for all the different models from all the different companies they made heads for.

Please do not take this the wrong way but in any field of engineered products, it is not possible for a layman whose experience is to use the product to know very much about the manner of spec measurements unless they have been trained and then gain the experience to know how to do it.

And yes, with the modern trend to design driver soles with a variety of shape elements or radii, this becomes even more a matter of having to have a vast depth of experience in design and QC to know how to do properly. I wish there were some of the clubmakers here who I have trained in woodhead spec measurement who could verify that this is something that turned into far more of a project for them to learn than they had anticipated when they decided to buy a specs measurement machine.

My new tech asst who I am training right now has 12+ yrs of clubmaking and clubfitting experience and he has more than once shaken his head and made the comment that he had no idea there could be as much to this as there is to be able to do a good job. Since you are so into this, I do hope you can stop in here someday so I can have the time to show as much of this to you as I can in the time you could be here and the time I can share with you showing it to you.

If you look at the measurements in my report and then look at the specs the sleeves said it to have, these differences are NOT small to the point that a slight difference in fixturing position could account for the differences. Yes, with some rounded sole shapes, you really do have to work hard to figure out what is the head's proper touch point for face angle, and then from it, the loft measurement. Due to some of these complex modern sole shapes, yes, it is possible to be off a fraction of a degree in a face angle position and then from it, off a small fraction in the loft measurement. But NOT the full degrees or more that are seen in the measurements vs the specs they are supposed to be.

One other thing interesting about the 4 different adj hosel drivers I measured is the variation in how much each sleeve is made to angle the shaft into the head, and different in different directions of rotation. Hence there were some positions of fixturing in the machine that resulted in 6, 7 degs open face angle when the head was very much soled correctly. BTW, your photo of the R1 showed it only sitting on its dial. Proper soling position for the R1 includes touching on the bottom of the face area at the very front of the sole ALSO with the dial touching the base of the machine. In fact, of the 4 adj drivers in my report, the R1 was by far, BY FAR, the easiest to sole and not have it rock or move once soled.

Anyway, if you do choose Telluride, it's 2 1/2 hrs from Durango by car because there are some huge mountains between us and there that the roads have to go around, so you'll want to devote a day for the time to drive over, have a couple of hours to work with me, and then drive back.

[rybo]

Tom,

Yesterday you asked me this
[i]why do YOU think that all these companies all of a sudden decided to change the way they define and measure the loft of these adj hosel heads [size=5][b]when they have all followed the same exact spec measurement procedures forever before the advent of t[/b][/size]he adj hosel driver devices? [/i]
For which I gave a reply.

Today while playing somebody brought up their Trackman numbers. Instantly realized a Trackman and the information provided from it completely changed the long standing since the beginning of time ball flight laws. A new technology that provided more insight then we ever thought possible forced us to correct the stated laws and to then learn how to use it properly. This is a great parallel to adjustable hosels.




Let me take a stab at putting the R1 in those terms used since the wooden club days.

The R1 has the ability to adjust for 7 distinct lofts, 8.0*, 8.66*, 9.33*, 10.0*, 10.66*, 11.33*, & 12* via an adjustable sole button, ASP, that changes the amount of loft by .66* per each step adjustment.

The FCT hosel adjuster allows for 7 face angle adjustments for each of the 7 lofts for a total of 49 possible face angle positions.

Each of the 7 loft settings stated above when combined with the 7 face angle positions will form effective lofts of 8.0*, 8.25*, 9.5*, 10*, 10.5*, 11.25*, & 12*.

[rybo]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1412105724' post='10213369']
With the utmost in respect, please understand that until someone has learned how to fixture and measure head specs in a green machine and done that for many years with many models, it is not possible to comment as you do with regard to questioning the manner of specs measurement. You do not know how to tell what heads are made so their scorelines are parallel to the lie tangent position and which are not. Some are, some are not. Several factors in the design of a head go into determining whether the scorelines will end up being engraved parallel to the lie tangent or not. Good head making factories even have a spec they need to know for what degree of scoreline tilt is intended in a driver or woodhead design, or whether the designer intended no scoreline tilt. For example, with my 919THI drivers the spec for the scoreline tilt is 15*. With other drivers it is less. With some fairway woods, it will be 5* and with others, zero. It all depends on the shape of the face relative to the profile of the body of the head from a face on view perspective.

It is also not possible for someone without a depth of training in design and QC to know how to look at any driver or woodhead and know how to determine how it is to be soled for spec measurement in a green machine. These skills take real time and instruction from someone with a real depth of experience in the field to learn how to do consistently and correctly. Back in 02 when I was asked to be a mfg consultant for two of the larger head making factories in between leaving GS and starting my company, the very first thing I was tasked with at both factories was to watch all the workers measure woodhead specs and then identify areas of possible inconsistency and come up with solutions in training to narrow down the possibility of error for all the different models from all the different companies they made heads for.

Please do not take this the wrong way but in any field of engineered products, it is not possible for a layman whose experience is to use the product to know very much about the manner of spec measurements unless they have been trained and then gain the experience to know how to do it.

And yes, with the modern trend to design driver soles with a variety of shape elements or radii, this becomes even more a matter of having to have a vast depth of experience in design and QC to know how to do properly. I wish there were some of the clubmakers here who I have trained in woodhead spec measurement who could verify that this is something that turned into far more of a project for them to learn than they had anticipated when they decided to buy a specs measurement machine.

My new tech asst who I am training right now has 12+ yrs of clubmaking and clubfitting experience and he has more than once shaken his head and made the comment that he had no idea there could be as much to this as there is to be able to do a good job. Since you are so into this, I do hope you can stop in here someday so I can have the time to show as much of this to you as I can in the time you could be here and the time I can share with you showing it to you.

If you look at the measurements in my report and then look at the specs the sleeves said it to have, these differences are NOT small to the point that a slight difference in fixturing position could account for the differences. Yes, with some rounded sole shapes, you really do have to work hard to figure out what is the head's proper touch point for face angle, and then from it, the loft measurement. Due to some of these complex modern sole shapes, yes, it is possible to be off a fraction of a degree in a face angle position and then from it, off a small fraction in the loft measurement. But NOT the full degrees or more that are seen in the measurements vs the specs they are supposed to be.

One other thing interesting about the 4 different adj hosel drivers I measured is the variation in how much each sleeve is made to angle the shaft into the head, and different in different directions of rotation. Hence there were some positions of fixturing in the machine that resulted in 6, 7 degs open face angle when the head was very much soled correctly. BTW, your photo of the R1 showed it only sitting on its dial. Proper soling position for the R1 includes touching on the bottom of the face area at the very front of the sole ALSO with the dial touching the base of the machine. In fact, of the 4 adj drivers in my report, the R1 was by far, BY FAR, the easiest to sole and not have it rock or move once soled.

Anyway, if you do choose Telluride, it's 2 1/2 hrs from Durango by car because there are some huge mountains between us and there that the roads have to go around, so you'll want to devote a day for the time to drive over, have a couple of hours to work with me, and then drive back.
[/quote]

Two things occur when any club is positioned for measurement in a too upright manner, it will have a more open face angle and subsequently more loft. The two are tied together. What does every driver in the report show?.... too much loft and a very open face angle. Some of the face angles are so excessive to render the club unusable. All of the measured lie angles in the report are well beyond what each of the OEM's states for the clubs. (btw-my post as to why all of the upright hosel settings have more open face angles directly pertains to this)

Take a 7 iron and stand it on its toe so the sole is on a 45* angle. The face angle is open and the loft goes up.

I'm not your ordinary lay person, I have 20 years in the aerospace field, specifically in Quality Control and eventually as a Manufacturing Manager and my last position was Prototype Manager. I have plenty of training from ASQC, multiple degrees and various other forms of training with many years spent measuring parts on a surface plate and many more years as a manufacturing manager to be capable of understanding the parameters involved here. They are pretty straight forward.


Actually an improper setup can completely account for the numbers in the report. A 1* difference has dramatic effect over distance. 6* or 7* can easily be seen.

Look at the Titleist numbers:

A1 setting should be 10.5* loft 58.5* lie angle, it measured 14.5*, 60* and face angle 6.75*Open

If the club was positioned too upright (hhmmm.....60* vs 58.5*) the loft would go up and the face angle would be more open. Face angle always changes at a rate greater then the loft.

Lets use the .6 factor since this has nothing to do with a change in the hosel, only how it is set up.

6.75* FA X .6 = 4.05* loft

14.5* - 10.5* = 4* loft
Same amount of error.


Maybe it is stuff like this that has caused the industry to measure loft, the surface that actually hits the ball, in the 0* face angle non-soled position. The sole never touches the ground when making contact with the ball and obviously the soled position is extremely difficult to determine without the OEM blueprints for each and every club on the market. At best there is an element of guessing as to the exact location of the intended soled position without a blueprint.

The R1 is begging to be soled so the touch point is directly on the center of the ASP. The ASP had to be positioned so that when it is retracted or extended that only the lofted face angle moves, ie..no face angle change. Taking measurements with the soled point on the extreme toe side chamfered(another error inducing angle) edge of the button, which is what occurs when the score lines are forced to be parallel, only adds to the potential set up errors. If anything when the ASP button was moved the touch point would have the ASP touch in a manner from the face to the rear of the club, never from the toe to the heel.


Any chance these clubs could be measured in the 0* face angle non-soled position? Even this is open to a bit of guessing, is the spot on the face to take a loft measurement the same as the OEM's intended location? Without a blueprint, no one knows.

[Ri_Redneck]

[quote name='farmer' timestamp='1412011519' post='10206425']
[quote name='Ri_Redneck' timestamp='1411762702' post='10190311']
[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
[/quote]Thank you. By neutral, in this case, I meant square. [b]So, in real world terms, this little sleeve gadget does---nothing.[/b] I had the same issue with MWT. I could change the weights around, but never saw any great difference in results. In this case, I fell for marketing, and a fitter pushing the product. My bad.
[/quote]

Wrong. Re-read my last sentence. One of these drivers set at it's lowest setting will give a much lower trajectory than at it's highest setting. IMHO, tweaking any driver (adjustable or glued) loft by 1* and expecting a major change is just silly. Movable Weight Technology is BS because they just can't give you enough weight to make a difference. Adjustable hosels do what they say, it's just that the majority of golfers don't swing consistently enough to notice it.

BT

[TomWishon]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1412111382' post='10213937']

Two things occur when any club is positioned for measurement in a too upright manner, it will have a more open face angle and subsequently more loft. The two are tied together. What does every driver in the report show?.... too much loft and a very open face angle. Some of the face angles are so excessive to render the club unusable. All of the measured lie angles in the report are well beyond what each of the OEM's states for the clubs. (btw-my post as to why all of the upright hosel settings have more open face angles directly pertains to this)

Take a 7 iron and stand it on its toe so the sole is on a 45* angle. The face angle is open and the loft goes up.
[/quote]

Do you really think that I could make as much as a 20, 30* error in the lie angle position of the heads in the green machine to get the head touching well on its toe or deep into the heel side of the sole ??? Seriously??

To associate this with what happens when you drastically tilt an iron is not an appropriate analogy because iron soles are so narrow which allows gravity to exert its influence on the position of the head when you tilt it well up on its toe or rock it way back on its heel. Not even close to what happens when you tilt a driver or fwy wood with their far wider sole area.

Your assessment here is taken to mean that I artificially rocked these heads well up on their toe or heel to manipulate my measurements. That's an outright insult really for you to infer that. What do you think, that I just made these measurements up from thin air? That all of a sudden I forgot everything from my 28 yrs in clubhead design dealing with specs measurements done in the way every company and every factory has performed them since the invention of the green machine?

I can't say it anymore plainly or clearly. Every one of these measurements was made with the head SOLED on the base of the green machine in the manner I and every very experienced design person has done forever, and with the head in as utterly close to its proper lie position as possible.

Rybo, at this point it is a dead end in our discussion that can ONLY be resolved if someone with my depth of experience in head specs measurements actually shows you this in person. I respect you have a technical background in other areas but without a depth of experience in THIS technical area, you cannot and will not be able to see this until you are shown it in person. It's like saying a civil engineer has the knowledge to design an intricate machine or a mechanical engineer to design and build a bridge. To keep trying to go back and forth on this without you being able to be shown this stuff in person is going to continue to go nowhere.

[Anser3]

This is almost embarassing. Tom has designed and built clubs for Payne Stewart, Bruce Lietzke, Golfsmith, et al. However, we have people on here challenging his knowledge. Ridiculous.

[Cwebb]

I'll just say that I've measured some of the same models that Tom did and found the same specs, within the tolerance that is always there for every head design.

I find that even when measuring them for "effective loft" when rotated to a 0* face angle, the loft still averages 1.5* more than what is stamped on the sole. Titleist, Taylormade, Ping,....they're all doing it. They do it to a large extent with the lie angles on drivers as well....more upright than stated

It's literally a forced "loft up campaign" going on with their design and manufacturing

[rybo]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1412177865' post='10217821']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1412111382' post='10213937']
Two things occur when any club is positioned for measurement in a too upright manner, it will have a more open face angle and subsequently more loft. The two are tied together. What does every driver in the report show?.... too much loft and a very open face angle. Some of the face angles are so excessive to render the club unusable. All of the measured lie angles in the report are well beyond what each of the OEM's states for the clubs. (btw-my post as to why all of the upright hosel settings have more open face angles directly pertains to this)

Take a 7 iron and stand it on its toe so the sole is on a 45* angle. The face angle is open and the loft goes up.
[/quote]

Do you really think that I could make as much as a 20, 30* error in the lie angle position of the heads in the green machine to get the head touching well on its toe or deep into the heel side of the sole ??? Seriously??

To associate this with what happens when you drastically tilt an iron is not an appropriate analogy because iron soles are so narrow which allows gravity to exert its influence on the position of the head when you tilt it well up on its toe or rock it way back on its heel. Not even close to what happens when you tilt a driver or fwy wood with their far wider sole area.

Your assessment here is taken to mean that I artificially rocked these heads well up on their toe or heel to manipulate my measurements. That's an outright insult really for you to infer that. What do you think, that I just made these measurements up from thin air? That all of a sudden I forgot everything from my 28 yrs in clubhead design dealing with specs measurements done in the way every company and every factory has performed them since the invention of the green machine?

I can't say it anymore plainly or clearly. Every one of these measurements was made with the head SOLED on the base of the green machine in the manner I and every very experienced design person has done forever, and with the head in as utterly close to its proper lie position as possible.

Rybo, at this point it is a dead end in our discussion that can ONLY be resolved if someone with my depth of experience in head specs measurements actually shows you this in person. I respect you have a technical background in other areas but without a depth of experience in THIS technical area, you cannot and will not be able to see this until you are shown it in person. It's like saying a civil engineer has the knowledge to design an intricate machine or a mechanical engineer to design and build a bridge. To keep trying to go back and forth on this without you being able to be shown this stuff in person is going to continue to go nowhere.
[/quote]

[u]I do not think you artificially rocked the heads towards the toe on [b]purpose[/b]![/u] Do I believe by putting the face lines parallel to the measuring surface that this caused these heads to sit with more loft and more face angle then the OEM's intend?....absolutely! Any measurement, in any setting like golf, aerospace, or bridges, is only as good as the set up. And it appears Roy McNix does not agree with you with regards to using the score lines as a basis for establishing a proper head position. While setting the score lines parallel is quick and easy, it is of no use if that is not a feature used by the OEM for establishing soling points. I do not need to have years of experience to understand basic datum structures.

The 7 iron example was only to show what happens to loft and face angle in an exaggerated toe down position. We are talking about a few degrees here, not feet or inches. 1/2* error over 1" = .040". Just a little bit off, and I mean a very small amount, from the intended sole position and lie angle during a set up would have huge consequences for every measurement taken.

I understand you are standing behind the report and that is fine, quite noble really. The only thing I ask is be open to some other possibilities. There are some simple errors in the report like stating the ASP can be "adjusted for face angle between 3* open and 3* closed using the sole adjustable piece", it's 4* open and 4* closed.

[rybo]

For any amount of face angle change incurred by using an adjustable hosel mechanism, an equal and opposite amount of face angle by some other means would be required to negate any changes induced by the adjustable hosel.

So therefore if an adjustable hosel allows for a +4* face angle change then a total of 8* would be required to negate the change.

Hosel starts in the 0* face angle position.

0*----> 4*

to negate the 4* the following needs to occur.

4* ----> 0* -----> -4*

Merely stopping at 0* from 4* only returns half of the face angle. Again this is negating the original 4* change by some other means then the hosel.

Use the R1 as an example

Start at 10* loft and N ASP.

Changing the hosel setting from 10* to 8* is only a face angle adjustment of 0* -> 4* open. 4* becomes the starting point for negating the face angle. So -4* of face angle would be an equal and opposite amount required to negate the face angle.

The R1 makes use of a secondary face angle adjuster, the ASP button, and it provides 1.33* of face angle adjustment for each of the 7 steps so lets look at the math.

Starting at 4* open on


4* - 1 step 3O
2.66* - 2 step 2O
1.33*- 3 step 1O
0* - 4 step N
-1.33* - 5 step 1C
-2.66* - 6 step 2C
-4* - 7 step 3C

So twice as much face angle is required by some other means then the hosel to negate the amount of hosel induced face angle.

[rybo]

Tom,

There will be a wasted trip on my part if we can not agree on set up. If I come out to you and you go 'look it's set up with the score lines parallel and the touch point hits right on the toe side of the ASP button just like I said it would be' and I then take the club and sit it on the ground and go 'look it's now sitting on the ground in its natural resting position and its on the center of the ASP button and the score lines are on an angle'. What do we do then? We do not agree now and we surely are not going to agree then.

[Cwebb]

What doesn't make sense, is that Tom has always said, for years and years whenever the topic of measuring has come up,.... that you should [b]never look at the scorelines and try to get them parallel to ground line[/b] in order to get a driver/wood/hybrid setup in a spec gauge to find lie and face angle.

It had to have been a misunderstanding or typo, if it was typed that way? Unless I've missed something along the way in discussion

[BillyZ2]

Bottom line is that you have to go test several drivers to see which one works for you. Great concept.
BTW, great video by Tom, he has a good way of presenting his thoughts!

[TomWishon]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1412187924' post='10218801']
Tom,

There will be a wasted trip on my part if we can not agree on set up. If I come out to you and you go 'look it's set up with the score lines parallel and the touch point hits right on the toe side of the ASP button just like I said it would be' and I then take the club and sit it on the ground and go 'look it's now sitting on the ground in its natural resting position and its on the center of the ASP button and the score lines are on an angle'. What do we do then? We do not agree now and we surely are not going to agree then.
[/quote]

Last one for today because it's first of the month and I have to put my company owner hat on for a couple of days to do those "non-technical" duties that have to be done every month.

When I measure ANY head that I have not measured previously, I never ever assume or even think about the scoreline position to the lie tangent. Never. I always do the lie position to find the centerline of the face, extend that line to the leading edge, then position the head so the lie sole touch is directly below the face center line and then position the head to be as sure as possible that the distance from the base of the machine to the ends of the toe and heel points on the sole are the same distance. Even then there are things that can fool you such as when a head does not have a totally consistent toe to heel sole radius. But I am always ignoring scorelines when I first set up a head for measurement because there is no set in stone relationship between scoreline position and lie tangency,.

Once I do get the head into its proper lie position in the machine, I then will look at the scorelines just to see their orientation to the lie tangency position. If they happen to look like they are close to being parallel to the lie tangent, then I use the sliding straightedge that comes with the green machine to slide to the face just to see how close the lines may be to being parallel. If they are parallel to the straightedge, then I know if I have to measure this head or others of the same model that I could use the lines as a PRELIMINARY line up help. But even when I do measure multiples of the same model, I always, always look at the distance from the base of the machine to the ends of the toe and heel sides of the sole to be sure the lie position is right. I have seen times when multiples of the same model are and are not made so the lines are parallel to the lie tangent because the factories can shift the position of the head very slightly here and there when the lines are engraved in the face.

if with a driver I do find that the lines are reliably parallel to the lie tangent, then to me it is just a "huh, how about that." Because sometimes that happens with a model and sometimes it doesn't.

Once again, I assure you that when I went to work to measure all the SOLED specs of these adj drivers in my report in soled position, I was as careful as I can be to try my best to be as accurate as I could be. I even measured each driver twice for every hosel position because I wanted to be as sure of my measurements as I could be. Could there be a mistake in any of these measurements of these drivers? A spec here or there by 1/4*, sure that is possible because the green machine's accuracy relies on the experience of the operator. And I have perhaps better experience with a green machine and different head models than just about anyone in the industry because I have been doing this for so long and with far more different models in my design career than anyone living I believe.

I am open minded in my work. If I wasn't there would be no way I could have designed some of the head design or shaft dedsign technology firsts that I have had the pleasure to do in my career. One has to keep an open mind when one dives into a job that requires creativity and application of scientific principles together.

You're saying that I am missing specs in these soled position measurements by full degrees or more, and I am here to tell you that is simply not possible. No possible way given my experience, the care I take in my work and with the seriousness of the information in the report. Even a person with only 3-4 hours of instruction in head specs measurement won't make multiple errors of a full degree or more.

In all honesty, trying to debate a soled address position with the R1 vs other drivers is a losing proposition to begin with. For the reason that the changes in the amount that the sole dial protrudes when rotated to change the face angle are so greatly affected by the club sitting on GRASS. Even with a tee box mowed like a green, the variation in the ground, grass vs a hard floor makes the effect of the dial very inconsistent. Then you have the fact that for most golfers, that 45" length combined with the head's designed lie ranges from the sleeve makes it so many players who sole this driver have it resting deep on the heel and not resting on the sole dial.

If what you are saying is that when you sole the R1 on GRASS you don't see the wide range in face angle measurements in my report for different hosel and dial positions, I don't doubt that at all because of either the difference between how the dial reacts on grass vs a steel green machine base plate or because the resting point in the address position is really more in the heel and not squarely between the dial and the bottom of the leading edge. Geez, with the lie range of this or any of the adj hosel drivers today, for every golfer to rest the head on its sole in the same manner the specs are measured in a green machine means the golfer probably has to be 8 feet tall or else he has to shorten the driver to 40".

That right there is why I have mostly designed my driver heads and woodheads with boring, plain sole surfaces and not with fancy swoops and ledges. With a plain, consistent toe heel radius sole on a driver or wood, you still get very, very close to the designed and spec measured face angle when the head rests a bit on its heel in the address position. And then if the shaft droops the proper amount from the swing coming into impact so the sole is now traveling level and tangent to the ground, then the designed face angle and loft can react as they are supposed to under the influence of the golfer's path and face delivery.

[rybo]

[quote name='Cwebb' timestamp='1412189297' post='10218937']
What doesn't make sense, is that Tom has always said, for years and years whenever the topic of measuring has come up,.... that you should [b]never look at the scorelines and try to get them parallel to ground line[/b] in order to get a driver/wood/hybrid setup in a spec gauge to find lie and face angle.

It had to have been a misunderstanding or typo, if it was typed that way? Unless I've missed something along the way in discussion
[/quote]
The report has a picture of every club head showing the scorelines parallel. The fact remains this is the position they were measured in. I agree with you, it seemed out of line from the very first time I read the report.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='Cwebb' timestamp='1412189297' post='10218937']
What doesn't make sense, is that Tom has always said, for years and years whenever the topic of measuring has come up,.... that you should [b]never look at the scorelines and try to get them parallel to ground line[/b] in order to get a driver/wood/hybrid setup in a spec gauge to find lie and face angle.

It had to have been a misunderstanding or typo, if it was typed that way? Unless I've missed something along the way in discussion
[/quote]

Read paragraphs 2, 3, 4 in my post #142 and you will have the full clarification on this matter of the scorelines vs the lie tangent position of the head. The bold part of your quote above is still right as it has always been.

[Cwebb]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1412190819' post='10219065']
[quote name='Cwebb' timestamp='1412189297' post='10218937']
What doesn't make sense, is that Tom has always said, for years and years whenever the topic of measuring has come up,.... that you should [b]never look at the scorelines and try to get them parallel to ground line[/b] in order to get a driver/wood/hybrid setup in a spec gauge to find lie and face angle.

It had to have been a misunderstanding or typo, if it was typed that way? Unless I've missed something along the way in discussion
[/quote]
The report has a picture of every club head showing the scorelines parallel. The fact remains this is the position they were measured in. I agree with you, it seemed out of line from the very first time I read the report.
[/quote]

Could someone else have taken the pictures and set them that way? Tom does not ever measure Drivers that way, as he has explained here several times,...and also multiple times over the years in other reports

I think it may be just a picture setup issue,...not the actual way in which measured

[rybo]

[quote name='Cwebb' timestamp='1412191534' post='10219103']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1412190819' post='10219065']
[quote name='Cwebb' timestamp='1412189297' post='10218937']
What doesn't make sense, is that Tom has always said, for years and years whenever the topic of measuring has come up,.... that you should [b]never look at the scorelines and try to get them parallel to ground line[/b] in order to get a driver/wood/hybrid setup in a spec gauge to find lie and face angle.

It had to have been a misunderstanding or typo, if it was typed that way? Unless I've missed something along the way in discussion
[/quote]
The report has a picture of every club head showing the scorelines parallel. The fact remains this is the position they were measured in. I agree with you, it seemed out of line from the very first time I read the report.
[/quote]

Could someone else have taken the pictures and set them that way? [size=5][u][b]Tom does not ever measure Drivers that way, as he has explained here several times,...and also multiple times over the years in other reports[/b][/u][/size]

I think it may be just a picture setup issue,...not the actual way in which measured
[/quote]

From Pg 6 of report
[attachment=2440619:IMG_2613.JPG]

[Albatross85]

plz god make this joker stop posting. You are not going to win a technical argument with Tom Wishon. You sound down right argumentative and disrespectful to one of the most cherished contributors to this site. Tom goes out of his way to answer questions and enlighten us here when he is under no obligation to. Show some respect.

[rybo]

[quote name='Albatross85' timestamp='1412193220' post='10219215']
plz god make this joker stop posting. You are not going to win a technical argument with Tom Wishon. You sound down right argumentative and disrespectful to one of the most cherished contributors to this site. Tom goes out of his way to answer questions and enlighten us here when he is under no obligation to. Show some respect.
[/quote]
How am I being disrespectful? I have posted my opinion, provided compelling supportive information for my opinions and beyond, no rude comments, included pictures, etc.

[pingfool]

[quote name='Albatross85' timestamp='1412193220' post='10219215']
plz god make this joker stop posting. You are not going to win a technical argument with Tom Wishon. You sound down right argumentative and disrespectful to one of the most cherished contributors to this site. Tom goes out of his way to answer questions and enlighten us here when he is under no obligation to. Show some respect.
[/quote]

absolutely agree TW is "one of the most cherished contributors" - however the incessant need to prove something that is:

IRRELEVANT to performance and ultimate results - also needs to stop

please understand it DOESNT MATTER what the loft says on the bottom of the club - or what the face angle is

IF you get properly fit AND get optimum results.

debating cpm - and how oem's choose stiff or regular is equally irrelevant

[Cwebb]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1412192825' post='10219193']
From Pg 6 of report
[attachment=2440619:IMG_2613.JPG]
[/quote]

Well, in just looking at that picture, it does look like that setup is the lie angle in this case. I see equal space on either side of the center touch point. If it was setup too upright, we would see more space on the heel side of the touch point