Soft-stepping Project x shafts

[shackmangolf]

Wow - thank you. The flight characteristics info is very helpful.

 

I tested a SS 6.0 IO and a straight in 5.5 IO. The SS 6.0 was super high launch and ball flight compared the the 5.5. 

 

The SS 6.0 felt the best but the launch was so high. The straight in has the ball flight that I wanted but felt a bit whipped.  Any advice?

 

Both allowed me to return the club face to the ball with good consistency. 

[Howard_Jones]

1 hour ago, shackmangolf said:

Wow - thank you. The flight characteristics info is very helpful.

 

I tested a SS 6.0 IO and a straight in 5.5 IO. The SS 6.0 was super high launch and ball flight compared the the 5.5. 

 

The SS 6.0 felt the best but the launch was so high. The straight in has the ball flight that I wanted but felt a bit whipped.  Any advice?

 

Both allowed me to return the club face to the ball with good consistency. 

Thats a no brainer - Go 6.0 SS and have lofts set stronger to take ball flight down.

The shaft is "weight, feel and dispersion"
Head, loft and ball is "ball flight"

Edited February 28, 2023 by Howard_Jones

[PNW]

On 2/27/2023 at 5:50 PM, Howard_Jones said:

We used hard and soft stepping whan we want a slightly different ball flight and weight.
A hard stepped 5.5 has a lower launch than 6.0 strait in
A soft stepped 6.5 has a higher launch than 6.0 strait in
 

 

Hi @Howard_Jones I've been going back through this, trying to decide a similar situation for myself between PX 6.0 and 6.5. I curious what about the PX shaft design would make a soft stepped 6.5 launch higher than 6.0 straight it? I would figure that 6.5ss would still launch lower with it being in between 6.5 and 6.0 in terms of weight and flex. I was leaning toward soft stepping my 6.5 set but I do not want higher launch/height so now I'm thinking I need to pursue 6.0 straight or hard stepped. Appreciate your thoughts on this. 

[Howard_Jones]

6 hours ago, PNW said:

 Hi @Howard_Jones I've been going back through this, trying to decide a similar situation for myself between PX 6.0 and 6.5. I curious what about the PX shaft design would make a soft stepped 6.5 launch higher than 6.0 straight it? I would figure that 6.5ss would still launch lower with it being in between 6.5 and 6.0 in terms of weight and flex. I was leaning toward soft stepping my 6.5 set but I do not want higher launch/height so now I'm thinking I need to pursue 6.0 straight or hard stepped. Appreciate your thoughts on this. 

They start with a "step pattern" thats the same (tip length), so 6.5 SS1 gets 0.5" longer tip than 6.0 strait in.
For flex they started 5 CPM apart, after SS1 its only 1 left, and that cant compensate for 0.5 longer tip, so we ended with a higher launching shaft.

[PNW]

Thanks @Howard_Jones. I guess I assumed that with PX being 'stepless' that the lengthened tip from soft stepping would have less effect than doing so with a typical stepped shaft like DG, but that makes sense. Appreciate the info!

[LongShanks42069]

On 4/7/2022 at 10:46 PM, Howard_Jones said:

Its the same idea behind the FLIGHTED models (discontinued), but we can make our own set close to the OG Flighted this way, here with 6.0 Flighted as example.

LONG Irons - Higher ball flight than standard.
We simply soft step (1x) those clubs we want as High launch (often 3 and 4), and use 6.5 shafts as starting point.
Flex will be "PX 6.1" and flight will be higher than standard, and we bring weight down 1.7 grams by soft stepping, so our long irons can be considered as 123.3 grams

MID irons - Standard ball flight
Here we simply use the regular PX 6.0 strait in. its often #5, #6 and #7 we consider to be MID irons.

SHORT irons - Lower ball flight than standard.
To lower ball flight vs standard, we hard step once, so here our starting point is 5.5 shafts.
They will play to "PX 5.9" and be lower launching than PX 6.0 strait in, and weight comes up 1.6 grams from hard stepping, so our short irons becomes 116.6 grams. (the PW cant be hard stepped so we tip trim that shaft to make it as close to a PW HS1 as we can get.)

That makes the set "Semi descending wgt" just like the OG Flighted was, but the weight difference is down at about 6.7 grams, compared to typical descending wgt sets where the weight drop is about 10 grams.

Played flighted 6.0’s for 10 years before making the switch to standard 6.0 last year. Those flighted shafts were sooo much fun to play with. Feel like I launch the standard 6.0 too high, it’s manageable on most days but during a windy day i can’t launch the short irons as low as the old flighted shafts 

[Howard_Jones]

2 hours ago, LongShanks42069 said:

Played flighted 6.0’s for 10 years before making the switch to standard 6.0 last year. Those flighted shafts were sooo much fun to play with. Feel like I launch the standard 6.0 too high, it’s manageable on most days but during a windy day i can’t launch the short irons as low as the old flighted shafts 

PX Flighted was a design of its own, but we can still build sets thats close in both flex and profile.

Long "high launch" shafts - Soft step 1/2" a flex stronger 1 x (use 6.5 if flex target is 6.0)
Mid "standard launch " - Use standard PX strait in (6.0)
Short "low launch" - Hard step 1/2" a flex softer 1 x (use 5.5 shafts if 6.0 is target)
The PW shaft would have to be tip trimmed since we cant hard step that club.

Since we soft step 6.5 to 6.1 in the long end, and hard step 5.5 to 5.9 in the short end, we can say they all pley like 6.0, but since the long end got 0.5" longer tip section than standard, and the short end gets 0.5" shorter tip section than standard, we get 1.0 as tip lenght "offset" from long to short = Flighted.

Soft stepping causes a weight drop of 1.7-1.8 grams, and hard stepping causes a weight additioin of 1.6-1.7 grams so lonmg to short will NOT be 10 grams but in the area of 6-6.5 grams

IF we want less descending wgt, we can soft stepp the long irons 2 x, and tip trim them 3/8" (still tapers). That will make them even higher launching, and now with a weight closer to standard 6.0 since we lost about 3.5 of the 5 grams difference due to soft stepping 2 x

Edited June 10, 2023 by Howard_Jones

[Thayneil]

On 2/28/2023 at 10:56 AM, Howard_Jones said:

Thats a no brainer - Go 6.0 SS and have lofts set stronger to take ball flight down.

The shaft is "weight, feel and dispersion"
Head, loft and ball is "ball flight"

Howard

 

Is it true that PX are basically hard stepped Rifles  ?

 

heard 2 or up to 4 times!

 

or  just an internet rumour  cant remember where i heard  this?

[LongShanks42069]

2 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

PX Flighted was a design of its own, but we can still build sets thats close in both flex and profile.

Long "high launch" shafts - Soft step 1/2" a flex stronger 1 x (use 6.5 if flex target is 6.0)
Mid "standard launch " - Use standard PX strait in (6.0)
Short "low launch" - Hard step 1/2" a flex softer 1 x (use 5.5 shafts if 6.0 is target)
The PW shaft would have to be tip trimmed since we cant hard step that club.

Since we soft step 6.5 to 6.1 in the long end, and hard step 5.5 to 5.9 in the short end, we can say they all pley like 6.0, but since the long end got 0.5" longer tip section than standard, and the short end gets 0.5" shorter tip section than standard, we get 1.0 as tip lenght "offset" from long to short = Flighted.

Soft stepping causes a weight drop of 1.7-1.8 grams, and hard stepping causes a weight additioin of 1.6-1.7 grams so lonmg to short will NOT be 10 grams but in the area of 6-6.5 grams

IF we want less descending wgt, we can soft stepp the long irons 2 x, and tip trim them 3/8" (still tapers). That will make them even higher launching, and now with a weight closer to standard 6.0 since we lost about 3.5 of the 5 grams difference due to soft stepping 2 x

Thank you Howard, glad to know it can be replicated!

[Howard_Jones]

54 minutes ago, Thayneil said:

Howard

 

Is it true that PX are basically hard stepped Rifles  ?

 

heard 2 or up to 4 times!

 

or  just an internet rumour  cant remember where i heard  this?

Yes and No

Kim Braley, the man behind the O.G Project X is now tha man behind the brand KBS.
He is the son of the inventor of the FCM system and shafts like RIFLE FCM

Russ Ryden has made a compare of EI profiles, that makes it looks like PX is a hard stepped RIFLE FCM, and yes, they get close during that compare, but they are still different, and no matter how much we try, we can never make one of them to become the other.

As they are designed, RIFLE FCM is made from the same blank, so they are DESCENDING wgt.(no matter tip size)
Project X is CONSTANT wgt. (no matter tip size)

Next is the Energi inertia profile by itself.
- Rifle FCM looks like a bended fishing hook where we lost that monster fish.
- Projext X js a S shaped profile where the butt side "flats out" insted of going stronger as we go longer butt side.

Here is Russ Rydens compare of them.



As we all can see, the EI profile still sticks out, wher RIFLE FCM goes stronger the longer the butt section becomes, ands since its startet like a bended fishing hook, tip trim dit NOT make the tip section itself softer that PX

We got close, but we can never make a "sex change" here, because they are different by nature in their EI profile and weight system.

RIFLE FCM OG EI PROFILE


Project X OG profile



As a compare,  EVERYONE KNOWS that PROJECT X and DYNAMIC GOLD is both low launch, but NOT the same shaft or feel, so lets look at DG X7 vs PX 7.0


ADDINING FCM vs PX AGAIN for easier compare


I would say, PX 7.0 and DG X7 is just as close to eachother, vs RIFLE FCM 6.0 tip trimmed 2.5" is vs PX 5.5, but anyone who tries both will say, THEY DONT feel or play like the same.

The devil is in those small details...

[Howard_Jones]

What happens to RIFLE FCM when we tip trim 2.5 inches is THIS
Tip side gets SHORTER (but weaker), butt side goes stronger, so we can get TIP and MID section very close, wjile BUTT section will sill feel very different, where RIFLE FCM has a "stiff handle", and PX has a "soft handle" feel when bending. The FCM profile also curves more into the soft area on the upper tip/lower mid, so it goes against PX LZ on that area.

v

Edited June 10, 2023 by Howard_Jones

[Thayneil]

2 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

Yes and No

Kim Braley, the man behind the O.G Project X is now tha man behind the brand KBS.
He is the son of the inventor of the FCM system and shafts like RIFLE FCM

Russ Ryden has made a compare of EI profiles, that makes it looks like PX is a hard stepped RIFLE FCM, and yes, they get close during that compare, but they are still different, and no matter how much we try, we can never make one of them to become the other.

As they are designed, RIFLE FCM is made from the same blank, so they are DESCENDING wgt.(no matter tip size)
Project X is CONSTANT wgt. (no matter tip size)

Next is the Energi inertia profile by itself.
- Rifle FCM looks like a bended fishing hook where we lost that monster fish.
- Projext X js a S shaped profile where the butt side "flats out" insted of going stronger as we go longer butt side.

Here is Russ Rydens compare of them.



As we all can see, the EI profile still sticks out, wher RIFLE FCM goes stronger the longer the butt section becomes, ands since its startet like a bended fishing hook, tip trim dit NOT make the tip section itself softer that PX

We got close, but we can never make a "sex change" here, because they are different by nature in their EI profile and weight system.

RIFLE FCM OG EI PROFILE


Project X OG profile



As a compare,  EVERYONE KNOWS that PROJECT X and DYNAMIC GOLD is both low launch, but NOT the same shaft or feel, so lets look at DG X7 vs PX 7.0


ADDINING FCM vs PX AGAIN for easier compare


I would say, PX 7.0 and DG X7 is just as close to eachother, vs RIFLE FCM 6.0 tip trimmed 2.5" is vs PX 5.5, but anyone who tries both will say, THEY DONT feel or play like the same.

The devil is in those small details...

thanks Howard!

[JarCar14]

@Howard_Jones Curious what the effect on FCM and launch one would expect if playing Project X 5.5 .5" over standard length?

Is this the equivalent of soft stepping from a frequency perspective, but increasing swing weight by ~3 points? Effectively a club that takes a little more effort but launches a touch higher?

Thanks in advance.

[Howard_Jones]

On 8/6/2023 at 8:21 PM, JarCar14 said:

@Howard_Jones Curious what the effect on FCM and launch one would expect if playing Project X 5.5 .5" over standard length?

Is this the equivalent of soft stepping from a frequency perspective, but increasing swing weight by ~3 points? Effectively a club that takes a little more effort but launches a touch higher?

Thanks in advance.

Look at the butt end on the EI profile again.

- If the shaft was a RIFLE FCM, "longer is going stronger" - but only when SW value remains the same (B wgt heads)
- If we use standard heads, and go +0.5", we also raise SW value 3 SWP = 3 CPM DROP.
- BUT, NOT on RIFLE FCM. Ist butt section is so strong, so when we add butt lenght, it fully equalize for the raise of SW value, so when we measure it with a CPM reader, and look at the right row (0.5" longer play lenght, SHALL PLAY 4.3 CPM softer.

Since RIFLE FCM boost its FCM value with 7 CPM per inch longer butt section, we GAIN 7/2 = 3.5 CPM at "todays standard play lenghts", but loose 3 CPM from 3 SWP more = NET GAIN 0.5 CPM stronger...Flex remained the same.

BUT- If the shaft is Project X (Or Dynamic Gold)
- The EI profile of this shafts "flattens out" butt side, where using the same head wgt and let SW value raise, means going softer, almost equal to the raise in SWP, but if SW value is the same as 0.5" longer (B-weight heads), flex remains the same, and on that shaft models natural flex slope for a club thats 0.5" longer (4.3 CPM softer for RIfle and most PX models, but over 5 CPM as natural flex slope (correct chart to judge them with), between clubs for Dynamic Gold).

A well keept "secret"

- A part of RIFLE FCMs standards is PLAY length, who was 0.5" shorter than what we have considered to be Standard a few decades now. That means most players with "standard" lenght RIFLE FCM 6.0 clubs, and SW value D2, actually played FCM 6.45 without knowing. 1 CPM came from SW drop D3 to D2, the other 3.5 CPM came from 0.5" longer butt section than RIFLE FCM "standards". That means they played clubs with flex equal to 6.0 HS1, but with standard lenght tip section.

Thats probably the reason for why the old saying was, PX played about 5 CPM stronger that RIFLE, while sets built to their FCM value by a club maker, had more like 10 CPM from Rifle FCM to PX standards models, often more.

 

Edited Thursday at 01:02 PM by Howard_Jones