Blade users thread (NO DEBATING CLUBHEADS! NO Buy Sell Trade!)

[NRJyzr]

LOL the fact that now 'mini' drivers are being sold speaks volumes that the 460cc and 46"+ length drivers are not really that "forgiving".

 

I'm caffeinated as I wait for our new refrigerator delivery. Which means, it's time for random access thoughts, all over the map!! LOL

 

460cc clubheads are indeed forgiving, if one is comparing them to 260cc clubheads. Or even 330cc clubheads. :) It's not a free lunch, however. Because of their size, they come with their own issues, such as being more difficult to close due to the CG being farther from the shaft/hosel. And maybe even air resistance, depending on who one chooses to believe. :)

 

Plus, increase the clubhead MOI too much without paying proper attention and you can wind up with other issues, like far too much spin.

 

That's where the King LTD is so ridiculously good, but I don't want this to be a commercial, so I'll just say "I really like the King LTD" and we can keep going.

 

The biggest problem, by far, with the new drivers is, they are far too long and far too light. There are folks here on WRX who think a 45" club is kind of short, and the reality is, that's a bit too long. Marketing has drummed this into everyone's head so much they take those silly lengths as gospel. That's where most trouble comes in hitting driver. Don't be afraid to go to 44", or maybe 44½" if you really can't stand the thought of a 44" driver. Average driver length on the PGA Tour is about 44½". There are a number of big names using 45" or even 45¼", but with the average being what it is, that means for every one of those longer drivers, there's a couple guys in the 44¼" realm.

 

And don't be afraid of 70g+ or even 80g+ graphite shafts. If not more. (as I'm typing, I see Nard is saying much the same on shaft weight... preach, brother!) There's no reason we can't use an 80g driver shaft when we're using 110g or 120g iron shafts.

 

On to the mini's.... one issue with the recent mini's is they don't appear to be particularly good in the spin arena. Many tests I've seen show them to spin the ball a bit on the high side. Some of this is likely due to the tests being conducted with 12° and 14° clubheads; I'd love to see something with a 10° or so mini. Obviously, if you don't fight spin issues, it's not a problem, forge ahead! ;)

 

I should probably stop before this gets even more stupid long than it already is. See what caffeine can do for you? LOL

[NRJyzr]

Piggybacking on my just made/edited post...

 

You can get some of the Tour Edge fairway woods, such as the XCG7 Beta, in 11.5° lofts. It could be an interesting experiment, eh?

[Fellaheen51]

Being that your caffeinated.....

 

How are today's mini's different than an older, smaller cc driver? Other than loft as you stated. The 905T is lofted at 10.5* and 400cc. Mini or not? Have not bothered to research this question because....wasn't that important. But I have been curious. I smell marketing boolah.

 

I find extra spin to be beneficial. Don't have the SS any longer like you bombers. FWIW, I demoed the LTD this year, hard time getting the ball airborne. I peeked into the "Spaceport" but couldn't discern what the problem was.

[DeNinny]

LOL the fact that now 'mini' drivers are being sold speaks volumes that the 460cc and 46"+ length drivers are not really that "forgiving".

 

I'm sure there must be mathematical formulas that explain this phenomena. But beyond my deductive reasoning to understand. Operate in the realm of observable experimentation. See ball, hit ball, find ball, in short grass. All I need to know.

 

Longer club & flexing face = higher variability = less time hitting off the short grass. That's what all the math ends up explaining. Easy peasy!

[NRJyzr]

Being that your caffeinated.....

 

How are today's mini's different than an older, smaller cc driver? Other than loft as you stated. The 905T is lofted at 10.5* and 400cc. Mini or not? Have not bothered to research this question because....wasn't that important. But I have been curious. I smell marketing boolah.

 

I find extra spin to be beneficial. Don't have the SS any longer like you bombers. FWIW, I demoed the LTD this year, hard time getting the ball airborne. I peeked into the "Spaceport" but couldn't discern what the problem was.

 

 

The mini's are in the 230cc to 260cc range. Essentially oversized fairway woods.

 

There's nothing wrong with a 400cc driver, or even something under 400cc. Unless there's something else going on with the CG placement and/or MOI, you don't need to go all the way to 460cc for forgiveness. But, the general public perceives anything less than 460cc as unforgiving, so they keep making drivers at the max.

[mahonie]

Agree with the high spin with the mini drivers. My mate did balloon a couple late in the round.

 

I still miss my original King Cobra driver with steel shaft combo. Nothing I have played in the last 8 years after giving it to a teaching pro has been any better. It was plenty long enough and I can't remember my misses being any worse than my current misses...perhaps that is just me looking back with rose tinted glasses. The biggest thing I miss is the feeling of mass concentrated behind the ball.

[NRJyzr]

LOL the fact that now 'mini' drivers are being sold speaks volumes that the 460cc and 46"+ length drivers are not really that "forgiving".

 

I'm sure there must be mathematical formulas that explain this phenomena. But beyond my deductive reasoning to understand. Operate in the realm of observable experimentation. See ball, hit ball, find ball, in short grass. All I need to know.

 

Longer club & flexing face = higher variability = less time hitting off the short grass. That's what all the math ends up explaining. Easy peasy!

 

 

It's not the face flex causing the problem. All metal woods have that, even the early stainless steel woods (unless they're foamed solid, and then it may still be in play). It's the other clubhead aspects in play, like CG distance from hosel, CG properties with respect to launch conditions, etc, etc.

 

The SLDR was seen as directionally squirrelly, the old square drivers were generally regarded as fairly straight, etc. Same as Ping Rapture, said to be fairly accurate, yet it's as big as the figurative house, just as the rest are. ;)

 

FWIW, the King LTD is quite accurate. (had to toss that in there)

 

You could always go with an old Goldwin driver. Solid milled aluminum head with a nickel face. Not going to be a lot of flex in those. :)

[DeNinny]

LOL the fact that now 'mini' drivers are being sold speaks volumes that the 460cc and 46"+ length drivers are not really that "forgiving".

 

I'm caffeinated as I wait for our new refrigerator delivery. Which means, it's time for random access thoughts, all over the map!! LOL

 

460cc clubheads are indeed forgiving, if one is comparing them to 260cc clubheads. Or even 330cc clubheads. :) It's not a free lunch, however. Because of their size, they come with their own issues, such as being more difficult to close due to the CG being farther from the shaft/hosel. And maybe even air resistance, depending on who one chooses to believe. :)

 

Plus, increase the clubhead MOI too much without paying proper attention and you can wind up with other issues, like far too much spin.

 

That's where the King LTD is so ridiculously good, but I don't want this to be a commercial, so I'll just say "I really like the King LTD" and we can keep going.

 

The biggest problem, by far, with the new drivers is, they are far too long and far too light. There are folks here on WRX who think a 45" club is kind of short, and the reality is, that's a bit too long. Marketing has drummed this into everyone's head so much they take those silly lengths as gospel. That's where most trouble comes in hitting driver. Don't be afraid to go to 44", or maybe 44½" if you really can't stand the thought of a 44" driver. Average driver length on the PGA Tour is about 44½". There are a number of big names using 45" or even 45¼", but with the average being what it is, that means for every one of those longer drivers, there's a couple guys in the 44¼" realm.

 

And don't be afraid of 70g+ or even 80g+ graphite shafts. If not more. (as I'm typing, I see Nard is saying much the same on shaft weight... preach, brother!) There's no reason we can't use an 80g driver shaft when we're using 110g or 120g iron shafts.

 

On to the mini's.... one issue with the recent mini's is they don't appear to be particularly good in the spin arena. Many tests I've seen show them to spin the ball a bit on the high side. Some of this is likely due to the tests being conducted with 12° and 14° clubheads; I'd love to see something with a 10° or so mini. Obviously, if you don't fight spin issues, it's not a problem, forge ahead! ;)

 

I should probably stop before this gets even more stupid long than it already is. See what caffeine can do for you? LOL

 

So you are saying if a club has "some" forgiving features, then it is forgiving. What I am saying is that if there are unforgiving features (as per your own examples provided - which are aligned with my other posts), even with other forgiving features included, then that is NOT forgiving.

 

So we are making the same technical points and issues, but the way we define a "forgiving" club is what is different. I call that 'violent' agreement!

[NRJyzr]

DeNinny, if one wished to boil down my various comments, it would be that there's little that's absolute. It's not a binary situation, there are a lot of possible points on the graph between A and B. :)

[DeNinny]

LOL the fact that now 'mini' drivers are being sold speaks volumes that the 460cc and 46"+ length drivers are not really that "forgiving".

 

I'm sure there must be mathematical formulas that explain this phenomena. But beyond my deductive reasoning to understand. Operate in the realm of observable experimentation. See ball, hit ball, find ball, in short grass. All I need to know.

 

Longer club & flexing face = higher variability = less time hitting off the short grass. That's what all the math ends up explaining. Easy peasy!

 

 

It's not the face flex causing the problem. All metal woods have that, even the early stainless steel woods (unless they're foamed solid, and then it may still be in play). It's the other clubhead aspects in play, like CG distance from hosel, CG properties with respect to launch conditions, etc, etc.

 

The SLDR was seen as directionally squirrelly, the old square drivers were generally regarded as fairly straight, etc. Same as Ping Rapture, said to be fairly accurate, yet it's as big as the figurative house, just as the rest are. ;)

 

FWIW, the King LTD is quite accurate. (had to toss that in there)

 

You could always go with an old Goldwin driver. Solid milled aluminum head with a nickel face. Not going to be a lot of flex in those. :)

 

Face flex is definitely a PART of the issue. It is exactly why a toe hit hooks and a heel hit fades...nothing to do with "gear effect" which is based on false premises.

[NRJyzr]

LOL the fact that now 'mini' drivers are being sold speaks volumes that the 460cc and 46"+ length drivers are not really that "forgiving".

 

I'm sure there must be mathematical formulas that explain this phenomena. But beyond my deductive reasoning to understand. Operate in the realm of observable experimentation. See ball, hit ball, find ball, in short grass. All I need to know.

 

Longer club & flexing face = higher variability = less time hitting off the short grass. That's what all the math ends up explaining. Easy peasy!

 

 

It's not the face flex causing the problem. All metal woods have that, even the early stainless steel woods (unless they're foamed solid, and then it may still be in play). It's the other clubhead aspects in play, like CG distance from hosel, CG properties with respect to launch conditions, etc, etc.

 

The SLDR was seen as directionally squirrelly, the old square drivers were generally regarded as fairly straight, etc. Same as Ping Rapture, said to be fairly accurate, yet it's as big as the figurative house, just as the rest are. ;)

 

FWIW, the King LTD is quite accurate. (had to toss that in there)

 

You could always go with an old Goldwin driver. Solid milled aluminum head with a nickel face. Not going to be a lot of flex in those. :)

 

Face flex is definitely a PART of the issue. It is exactly why a toe hit hooks and a heel hit fades...nothing to do with "gear effect" which is based on false premises.

 

LOL, sorry amiho, gear effect is real. :)

 

Get an old school 8° or 10 torque graphite shaft, the early ones that made everyone think torque was so important in graphite shaft fitting, install it in a club. Hit it out on the toe. You'll feel the clubhead twisting open.

[bladehunter]

Piggybacking on my just made/edited post...

 

You can get some of the Tour Edge fairway woods, such as the XCG7 Beta, in 11.5° lofts. It could be an interesting experiment, eh?

 

 

ive owned a xcg7 beta in 11.5... and it was really long... no kidding i sold it becuase it went as long as my driver... hindsight i really wish id kept it

[bladehunter]

i hear its like MOI.... but ive yet to catch one of those little buggers in the wild either...

[NRJyzr]

Piggybacking on my just made/edited post...

 

You can get some of the Tour Edge fairway woods, such as the XCG7 Beta, in 11.5° lofts. It could be an interesting experiment, eh?

 

 

ive owned a xcg7 beta in 11.5... and it was really long... no kidding i sold it becuase it went as long as my driver... hindsight i really wish id kept it

 

 

I still wonder if I'd have gotten slightly better results in my "strong lofted fairway wood as driver" experiment if I'd used an 11.5° XCG7 Beta, instead of the E8 Beta 12° I'd used. I get the impression the XCG7 Beta is a slightly larger clubhead, though it's based on no reality based observations on my part.

 

Tour Edge's website shows the 11.5° is 185cc, but they don't have the displacement of the E8 Beta on there. I don't have a beaker, or I'd test it myself. ;)

[DeNinny]

Longer club & flexing face = higher variability = less time hitting off the short grass. That's what all the math ends up explaining. Easy peasy!

 

 

It's not the face flex causing the problem. All metal woods have that, even the early stainless steel woods (unless they're foamed solid, and then it may still be in play). It's the other clubhead aspects in play, like CG distance from hosel, CG properties with respect to launch conditions, etc, etc.

 

The SLDR was seen as directionally squirrelly, the old square drivers were generally regarded as fairly straight, etc. Same as Ping Rapture, said to be fairly accurate, yet it's as big as the figurative house, just as the rest are. ;)

 

FWIW, the King LTD is quite accurate. (had to toss that in there)

 

You could always go with an old Goldwin driver. Solid milled aluminum head with a nickel face. Not going to be a lot of flex in those. :)

 

Face flex is definitely a PART of the issue. It is exactly why a toe hit hooks and a heel hit fades...nothing to do with "gear effect" which is based on false premises.

 

LOL, sorry amiho, gear effect is real. :)

 

Get an old school 8° or 10 torque graphite shaft, the early ones that made everyone think torque was so important in graphite shaft fitting, install it in a club. Hit it out on the toe. You'll feel the clubhead twisting open.

 

Sorry, but it is not real because of previously stated points. The theory violates the physics of how the shaft supports the clubhead. The phenomenon observed is explained by face flex already. You will NEVER (EVER) observe the clubhead and ball at impact "rolling" together like gears in order to make the ball spin. Slow motion cameras have already proved this. It's NOT observed. And yes I have seen the "gear effect" youtube videos...LMAO all they do is prove my point.

 

Seriously, my friend, it is a physical impossibility to create ball spin by a "gear effect" when you consider the shaft attachment to the clubhead. The shaft is integral in supporting the clubhead. All the theories ever proposed about the "gear effect" start with the false premise that the clubhead can somehow rotate around its own CG. That is physically impossible...which is why it will NEVER (EVER) be observed in the known universe. Count on it, but by all means keep looking for actual video proof...it will prove it doesn't exist.

 

Your example only proves that you feel more twist force open on your hands when you hit it on the toe. The fact that a shot like that causes a draw or hook is still explainable by face flex (because all faces flex with hook bias at the toe and slice bias at the heel). If we wanted to "prove" that example, a slow motion camera would be much better than using what we feel to make a conclusion.

[NRJyzr]

Funny observation about high speed video...

 

Watched one a couple months ago where someone was using a software tool, measuring the face angle to show the dynamics of the swing. He showed a centered impact, showed the angles of the face every few moments in the swing, and how it was closing. Then showed a heel impact, very quickly stated how this showed no gear effect, though he didn't bother to compare the two rates of face closing to see if there was or was not any difference.

 

Then the fun part... he showed a toe impact. Continued to measure the face angle using his software tool. Made note that, with the toe impact, the face actually opened slightly. Expressed uncertainty as to why that was, and kind of glossed over it. (gear effect! lol)

 

I found that funny. :)

 

For my take, the face flex line of thought doesn't explain gear effect in persimmon woods.

 

For what little it's worth, I was a skeptic. I've seen high speed video in the past, that was used to demonstrate gear effect. It convinced me, through my skepticism. I've yet to see anything convincing that contradicts that.

[DeNinny]

As mentioned, all faces flex and the middle flexes the most, making the ends flex less. This phenomenon is in persimmon woods as well as hollow titanium heads. The best leverage point to bend an object is at the middle.

 

On that data you analyzed, ALL toe impacts are going to bend the face more open and the bend is going to happen AT THE SHAFT. This result has NOTHING to do with the unequivocally false "gear effect". This will always happen based on the simple and unequivocally true equation for torque. The longer the lever arm, the greater the torque and the greater the face angle opens.

 

LOL and furthermore, ***IF*** the gear effect were unequivocally true, then the heel side hit MUST show the face closing. The "gear effect" cannot be 100% true if a test only proves it on the toe side and it is proven FALSE (per your own observation) on the heel side.

 

And furthermore, while you saw that face angle open, did you really look to see that the ball and face "rolled" together like gears? As mentioned, seeing the face open on a toe hit is a given based on torque alone and this is regardless of any "gear effect".

 

I'm really trying to help you here, NRJ. The "gear effect" is 100% a false theory because it is impossible for the head to rotate around its own CG. This is not the only reason it is false but it is the major FALSE premise. Even what you observed yourself supports this.

 

Here is another test to help...imagine one of your own driver heads with no shaft attached. That driver head is easily twisted around any point of rotation. You could easily rotate it around the CG just as easily as you could around the shaft. It is a free floating object. Now have someone hold that same driver at the grip as hard as they would have it at impact. Then try to twist that head around the CG of the head, around the toe, and around the shaft. What you will find is that it is easiest to twist that head at the shaft based on using pressure at the toe to do it. You will have a much more difficult time twisting the head around the CG and the toe because the shaft will resist it. All twist of the head is controlled by the shaft and can ONLY occur around the shaft. This is basic structural engineering. The head cannot be treated like a free floating body...EVER...when discussing the physics of clubs and ball flight and spin. The shaft is so key to the position of the head. And any "theorist" that neglects this is lacking in complete understanding of how structures resist forces.

 

All of what I just explained is in support of all the examples you just shared with me. And the "gear effect" was not part of any of it.

 

If you still doubt what I'm saying, please justify why the "gear effect" is true when you saw yourself that it wasn't supported by a heel side hit. If it is so true, like you *think*, then that heel side hit would close the face as much as the toe side hit opened it. (FYI a heel side hit will also open the face by a lesser degree because it is a shorter lever arm...all face hits will put a force on the clubhead that twist it open around the shaft. Again it goes back to a basic torque analysis. The shaft is the fulcrum since it is the only point of support on the head.)

[Bigmean]

What the hell is "Tee" and "Xcg"? who makes them?

 

I lead tape my woods to feel nice coming from my irons. My driver got temporarily better at one point bringing it to a d6.

 

I have a 3 wood that makes my bb 4 iron look like a big bertha. I have shared pics here before..

 

I think I can do a fairly cheap small driver test. If I hit my R7 well it goes as good as my other drivers, but it doesn't feel as hot for sure.

[DeNinny]

TEE = Tour Edge Exotics.

 

XCG was one of their more "forgiving" lines...I much prefer their CB line, CB2s being the best woods ever.

[NRJyzr]

Then showed a heel impact, very quickly stated how this showed no gear effect, though he didn't bother to compare the two rates of face closing to see if there was or was not any difference.

If you still doubt what I'm saying, please justify why the "gear effect" is true when you saw yourself that it wasn't supported by a heel side hit.

 

 

Leaving shortly, but wanted to address the above.

 

I didn't say I saw myself "gear effect" wasn't supported by a heel side hit. I said the man using the software tool with the high speed video showed the heel hit said there was no gear effect (he didn't believe it exists), but didn't do any measuring of the rate of change of the face angle in order to compare it to the rate of change of the perfect clubhead hit. Sounded very much like confirmation bias to me. :)

 

That said, I don't accept the club cannot turn about the CG. High speed video analysis over the last decade or two shows the clubhead does exactly that, rotating about the CG on impact where the center of percussion is not the point of impact. It's been described as the clubhead behaving much like it is on a string at impact, and not firmly attached to the shaft as had previously been supposed.

 

I can't say if this is where I heard of this first, but the engineers at Matrix were talking about this quite a bit, when they happened on it.

 

Alas, time to trot....

[DeNinny]

Then showed a heel impact, very quickly stated how this showed no gear effect, though he didn't bother to compare the two rates of face closing to see if there was or was not any difference.

If you still doubt what I'm saying, please justify why the "gear effect" is true when you saw yourself that it wasn't supported by a heel side hit.

 

 

Leaving shortly, but wanted to address the above.

 

I didn't say I saw myself "gear effect" wasn't supported by a heel side hit. I said the man using the software tool with the high speed video showed the heel hit said there was no gear effect (he didn't believe it exists), but didn't do any measuring of the rate of change of the face angle in order to compare it to the rate of change of the perfect clubhead hit. Sounded very much like confirmation bias to me. :)

 

That said, I don't accept the club cannot turn about the CG. High speed video analysis over the last decade or two shows the clubhead does exactly that, rotating about the CG on impact where the center of percussion is not the point of impact. It's been described as the clubhead behaving much like it is on a string at impact, and not firmly attached to the shaft as had previously been supposed.

 

I can't say if this is where I heard of this first, but the engineers at Matrix were talking about this quite a bit, when they happened on it.

 

Alas, time to trot....

 

Sorry for misunderstanding what you said, but still you are stating you saw yourself that the face opened (he did too) on a toe hit and you are using that to conclude the "proof" of the gear effect. And I just gave you a plausible alternate explanation of what you may have really observed that is fully supported by the laws of physics. So all I'm saying is that your observations still have some holes in concluding that you actually "saw" the "gear effect".

 

You can not accept it all you want, but you cannot use the laws of physics to justify that the clubhead will rotate around its CG during impact. In order to prove it with the laws of physics, you have to provide a theory that the clubhead has an equal amount of structural support (or equal amount of LACKING support) at the heel and the toe. And clearly because of the shaft, there is a DIFFERENT amount of support at the heel than the toe. The laws of physics say that if the toe and the heel are going to literally move and rotate equally around the head CG, then there MUST be equal force (or resistance to force) on both sides. If there is an imbalanced resistance, then the object will only rotate with the point of most resistance as the center. So if you cannot accept this, then for sure our conversation on this topic is over because this is the (primary) physics that proves that it is impossible for the head to rotate around its CG. To not accept what I just stated is to not accept the basic structural physics of what the shaft does.

 

Again, if you do that experiment I mentioned, you will see that the shaft influences how much you can twist the clubhead at various rotation points, and most definitely the easiest point of rotation, because of the basic structural physics of the entire club, is around the shaft. The shaft is what prevents or resists all the other rotation points. It is always doing this no matter what the force. And you don't even need high speed cameras for this!

 

And LOL I would love to see that video "proof" (and ALL the test conditions). I've analyzed many "gear effect" high speed videos myself (based on guys with confirmation bias trying to "prove" it) and LOL the head NEVER rotates around its CG during the time of impact. I don't care how many frames you take to try to "prove" this, the laws of physics don't support it. Therefore it doesn't happen (EVER). The shaft is ALWAYS providing structural support to the head at ANY amount of force applied to at ANY location on the face. And since it is literally on one side of the clubhead, then that side gets the resistance and the other side doesn't, and the face will always have a bias to open if there is force applied to it. Again, basic structural engineering here.

 

That said, I can see how it could be misinterpreted as such, though, especially if the camera doesn't cover all the right angles. And folks that have confirmation bias could convince themselves that they are seeing it. I could totally see this. Confirmation bias is an issue with anyone observing anything. That includes both of us and those Matrix engineers and whoever made a video that shows the clubhead behaves as if it is on a string DURING impact.

[bladehunter]

Piggybacking on my just made/edited post...

 

You can get some of the Tour Edge fairway woods, such as the XCG7 Beta, in 11.5° lofts. It could be an interesting experiment, eh?

 

 

ive owned a xcg7 beta in 11.5... and it was really long... no kidding i sold it becuase it went as long as my driver... hindsight i really wish id kept it

 

 

I still wonder if I'd have gotten slightly better results in my "strong lofted fairway wood as driver" experiment if I'd used an 11.5° XCG7 Beta, instead of the E8 Beta 12° I'd used. I get the impression the XCG7 Beta is a slightly larger clubhead, though it's based on no reality based observations on my part.

 

Tour Edge's website shows the 11.5° is 185cc, but they don't have the displacement of the E8 Beta on there. I don't have a beaker, or I'd test it myself. ;)

 

Yep xcg7 is a bit bigger. It's s shallow flat head.

[bladehunter]

Piggybacking on my just made/edited post...

 

You can get some of the Tour Edge fairway woods, such as the XCG7 Beta, in 11.5° lofts. It could be an interesting experiment, eh?

 

 

ive owned a xcg7 beta in 11.5... and it was really long... no kidding i sold it becuase it went as long as my driver... hindsight i really wish id kept it

 

 

I still wonder if I'd have gotten slightly better results in my "strong lofted fairway wood as driver" experiment if I'd used an 11.5° XCG7 Beta, instead of the E8 Beta 12° I'd used. I get the impression the XCG7 Beta is a slightly larger clubhead, though it's based on no reality based observations on my part.

 

Tour Edge's website shows the 11.5° is 185cc, but they don't have the displacement of the E8 Beta on there. I don't have a beaker, or I'd test it myself. ;)

 

Yep xcg7 is a bit bigger. It's s shallow flat head.

[NRJyzr]

Sorry for misunderstanding what you said, but still you are stating you saw yourself that the face opened (he did too) on a toe hit and you are using that to conclude the "proof" of the gear effect. And I just gave you a plausible alternate explanation of what you may have really observed that is fully supported by the laws of physics. So all I'm saying is that your observations still have some holes in concluding that you actually "saw" the "gear effect".

 

No worries amiho :)

 

I wasn't saying I saw gear effect, I was trying to make a joke that the guy running the commentary in the video, right after saying there's no such thing as gear effect, was apparently bewildered at the face opening. Which some would say was exactly what he said didn't exist.

 

It's just a hint of irony, and I found it amusing. I'm not using it as necessarily proof of anything. :)

[DeNinny]

Sorry for misunderstanding what you said, but still you are stating you saw yourself that the face opened (he did too) on a toe hit and you are using that to conclude the "proof" of the gear effect. And I just gave you a plausible alternate explanation of what you may have really observed that is fully supported by the laws of physics. So all I'm saying is that your observations still have some holes in concluding that you actually "saw" the "gear effect".

 

No worries amiho :)

 

I wasn't saying I saw gear effect, I was trying to make a joke that the guy running the commentary in the video, right after saying there's no such thing as gear effect, was apparently bewildered at the face opening. Which some would say was exactly what he said didn't exist.

 

It's just a hint of irony, and I found it amusing. I'm not using it as necessarily proof of anything. :)

 

In the context of our conversation and you posting "(gear effect! lol)" right after you explained the observation of the face opening, I took that as you laughing at the guy for not seeing the "gear effect" which (I thought) meant that that is what you thought he saw. Hence your point about the irony of it all.

[NRJyzr]

Sorry for misunderstanding what you said, but still you are stating you saw yourself that the face opened (he did too) on a toe hit and you are using that to conclude the "proof" of the gear effect. And I just gave you a plausible alternate explanation of what you may have really observed that is fully supported by the laws of physics. So all I'm saying is that your observations still have some holes in concluding that you actually "saw" the "gear effect".

 

No worries amiho :)

 

I wasn't saying I saw gear effect, I was trying to make a joke that the guy running the commentary in the video, right after saying there's no such thing as gear effect, was apparently bewildered at the face opening. Which some would say was exactly what he said didn't exist.

 

It's just a hint of irony, and I found it amusing. I'm not using it as necessarily proof of anything. :)

 

In the context of our conversation and you posting "(gear effect! lol)" right after you explained the observation of the face opening, I took that as you laughing at the guy for not seeing the "gear effect" which (I thought) meant that that is what you thought he saw. Hence your point about the irony of it all.

 

 

Yeah, I can see where someone would get that from my post. Was trying to be quick and concise and apparently failed. LOL

[Mitchell]

Tried xcg7 11.5* myself, although got very good distance out of it, was too shallow for my visual preference and not as versatile in varying trajectory in windy conditions commonly faced when was living on rock in the Pacific as my game required.

[NRJyzr]

Piggybacking on my just made/edited post...

 

You can get some of the Tour Edge fairway woods, such as the XCG7 Beta, in 11.5° lofts. It could be an interesting experiment, eh?

 

 

ive owned a xcg7 beta in 11.5... and it was really long... no kidding i sold it becuase it went as long as my driver... hindsight i really wish id kept it

 

 

I still wonder if I'd have gotten slightly better results in my "strong lofted fairway wood as driver" experiment if I'd used an 11.5° XCG7 Beta, instead of the E8 Beta 12° I'd used. I get the impression the XCG7 Beta is a slightly larger clubhead, though it's based on no reality based observations on my part.

 

Tour Edge's website shows the 11.5° is 185cc, but they don't have the displacement of the E8 Beta on there. I don't have a beaker, or I'd test it myself. ;)

 

Yep xcg7 is a bit bigger. It's s shallow flat head.

 

 

Guess I made the wrong choice. Having bought the King LTD, that ship has sailed, not likely to return to that line of thought. Would be more likely I'd wallow in persimmons, which would only happen if the LTD totally didn't work for me.

 

Still a possibility, if I'm being honest with myself, but it's not the first option past the LTD.

 

Thanks for confirming a suspicion, BH. :)

 

Side note: a healthy part of what had me selecting the E8 Beta was the shaft option. A real deal Rogue Silver 70 was extremely tempting, to the point I couldn't pass.

[DeNinny]

Tried xcg7 11.5* myself, although got very good distance out of it, was too shallow for my visual preference and not as versatile in varying trajectory in windy conditions commonly faced when was living on rock in the Pacific as my game required. That being stated, can definitely see the club being very useful for a certain segment to which I do not belong.

 

I felt the same way about my XCG-V 7w: too shallow (and too wide and long). To me the best TEEs were the earlier CBs, CB1 to CB4. Their faces are not as shallow as the XCGs.

[Mitchell]

The XCG-V tour spec,CB2, and CB3 tour are my personal favorites among TEE fairway products.