I know jacked lofts has been done to death...

[clinkinfo]

11 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Look, like i said txg is a great channel, but they get things wrong too. They made a claim about an iron head, were called out, and didnt say anything. Then proceded to show tests that showed exactly the opposite of their claims. Never admitted they were wrong. This isnt about txg. But their are flaws in that test with the I500. Let me ask you this. HOW, in your words, do “jacked” lofts achieve the same launch angle and relatively same spin as irons with traditional lofts?

your question is irrelevant, the video is the video, data is data.  

The TXG video showed 3 different lofts on the same head..  There are other tests that show similar results. Anything you want to  speculate about to try and explain why it doesn’t work, or why it’s wrong, or how bad the test was is silly.  There’s enough people testing and using lower lofted irons to tell you launch is not determined solely by static loft measurements.
 

Just look at the post 2 prior with another member shaolingolfer explaining his experience with lower lofted irons.  Yet, the discussion never ends.  
 

go try some of them and then come back with your Launch data to show us we are all crazy and wrong.  The never-ending academic discussions and armchair engineering gets old.

Edited October 13, 2020 by clinkinfo

[dlygrisse]

I want names.  
 

niblick

mashie niblicks

mashie

sandwedge

lob wedge 

putter

driver 

brassie

spoon

ginty

baffy

rut iron

chipper

superjacked200yardflipwedge

 

etc. 
 

numbers are for Boomers. 

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, clinkinfo said:

your question is irrelevant, the video is the video, data is data.  

The TXG video showed 3 different lofts on the same head..  There are other tests that show similar results. Anything you want to  speculate about to try and explain why it doesn’t work, or why it’s wrong, or how bad the test was is silly.  There’s enough people testing and using lower lofted irons to tell you launch is not determined solely by static loft measurements.
 

Just look at the post 2 prior with another member shaolingolfer explaining his experience with lower lofted irons.  Yet, the discussion never ends.  
 

go try some of them and then come back with your Launch data to show us we are all crazy and wrong.  The never-ending academic discussions and armchair engineering gets old.

Ok whatever man, your minds already made up, have a nice evening.

[clinkinfo]

41 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Ok whatever man, your minds already made up, have a nice evening.

I've used both traditional and stronger lofted irons.  It's not an opinion, I've SEEN the actual outcome of both.  I have skytrak, I see the data.  It seems ridiculous to continue an argument trying to discredit what so many others are also telling you we see, including the txg guys. It doesn't matter what you say, the results are the results. Arguing about static specs and hypothetical impact doesn't change the results. For example, the epic forged irons, despite their crazy low lofts, send the ball higher than anything I've played in years. For example, They hit the highest 9 iron I've seen in years, despite being the lowest 9 iron loft I've seen in years.  No matter how good an argument you present about static measurements explaining why they "can't".....they do.

 

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by clinkinfo

[Red4282]

26 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

I've used both traditional and stronger lofted irons.  It's not an opinion, I've SEEN the actual outcome of both.  I have skytrak, I see the data.  It seems ridiculous to continue an argument trying to discredit what so many others are also telling you we see, including the txg guys. It doesn't matter what you say, the results are the results. Arguing about static specs and hypothetical impact doesn't change the results. For example, the epic forged irons, despite their crazy low lofts, send the ball higher than anything I've played in years. For example, They hit the highest 9 iron I've seen in years, despite being the lowest 9 iron loft I've seen in years.  No matter how good an argument you present about static measurements explaining why they "can't".....they do.

 

 

I still havent heard your explanation on how these jacked lofts provide same launch... 

[Valtiel]

1 hour ago, clinkinfo said:

your question is irrelevant, the video is the video, data is data.  

The TXG video showed 3 different lofts on the same head..  There are other tests that show similar results. Anything you want to  speculate about to try and explain why it doesn’t work, or why it’s wrong, or how bad the test was is silly.  There’s enough people testing and using lower lofted irons to tell you launch is not determined solely by static loft measurements.
 

Just look at the post 2 prior with another member shaolingolfer explaining his experience with lower lofted irons.  Yet, the discussion never ends.  
 

go try some of them and then come back with your Launch data to show us we are all crazy and wrong.  The never-ending academic discussions and armchair engineering gets old.

The problem with the stance you are taking here is that we have a set of data being shown in the TXG video that can VERY easily be explained by the CG differences, but you seem to be dismissing that possibility. Hear me out here because i'm pretty sure I have enough solid data to support this position. 

The Ping i500, as @Red4282 mentioned, is an usually high CG iron (actually the highest on the market by a decent margin), ESPECIALLY since it is a hollow construction, which would give much more room to move CG where they pleased for design purposes. A higher CG is going to launch lower and spin higher on average, there is no debating that. The fact that PING offer these three different "specs" tells me that there has to be something else going on under the hood besides just loft change. In their own words:

"The Power Spec is a custom-designed loft configuration that delivers a power boost in a calculated fashion without sacrificing the integrity of the club’s design"

Either they are "lying" here and it is just a stronger loft, or there is more going on. Fair to say, right? So regarding the TXG data, the ONLY possible way that a 25.5*, 27*, and 29* iron launch the same and are within 300rpm spin of each other is via CG manipulation, either directly via weight placement within the same head design or by a change in the head design, or likely both. And with a hollow body construction, that is much easier to do. My guess is that PING set out to do exactly what those results showed which is roughly maintain launch and spin while increasing ball speed. The data that is missing in this case is dynamic/delivered loft as that would give a better picture of what is happening. I would imagine the design breaks down like this:

- Standard Spec - Very high vertical and moderately rearward CG (this is measured by Maltby so its not speculation).
- Retro Spec - Moderate vertical and forward CG. Lowering the vertical CG would bring down spin, but moving it more forward would keep launch from increasing as much.
- Power Spec - Lower vertical and very rearward CG. This would raise launch while keeping spin from dropping too much.

At Matt's speed, these tweaks to internal weighting would create tangible results, assuming a relatively consistent delivery and strike location. The reason this is important though is that this is far more than just the lofts being stronger, and that design nuance can not just be applied to any other stronger lofted iron. 

[Red4282]

16 minutes ago, Valtiel said:

The problem with the stance you are taking here is that we have a set of data being shown in the TXG video that can VERY easily be explained by the CG differences, but you seem to be dismissing that possibility. Hear me out here because i'm pretty sure I have enough solid data to support this position. 

The Ping i500, as @Red4282 mentioned, is an usually high CG iron (actually the highest on the market by a decent margin), ESPECIALLY since it is a hollow construction, which would give much more room to move CG where they pleased for design purposes. A higher CG is going to launch lower and spin higher on average, there is no debating that. The fact that PING offer these three different "specs" tells me that there has to be something else going on under the hood besides just loft change. In their own words:

"The Power Spec is a custom-designed loft configuration that delivers a power boost in a calculated fashion without sacrificing the integrity of the club’s design"

Either they are "lying" here and it is just a stronger loft, or there is more going on. Fair to say, right? So regarding the TXG data, the ONLY possible way that a 25.5*, 27*, and 29* iron launch the same and are within 300rpm spin of each other is via CG manipulation, either directly via weight placement within the same head design or by a change in the head design, or likely both. And with a hollow body construction, that is much easier to do. My guess is that PING set out to do exactly what those results showed which is roughly maintain launch and spin while increasing ball speed. The data that is missing in this case is dynamic/delivered loft as that would give a better picture of what is happening. I would imagine the design breaks down like this:

- Standard Spec - Very high vertical and moderately rearward CG (this is measured by Maltby so its not speculation).
- Retro Spec - Moderate vertical and forward CG. Lowering the vertical CG would bring down spin, but moving it more forward would keep launch from increasing as much.
- Power Spec - Lower vertical and very rearward CG. This would raise launch while keeping spin from dropping too much.

At Matt's speed, these tweaks to internal weighting would create tangible results, assuming a relatively consistent delivery and strike location. The reason this is important though is that this is far more than just the lofts being stronger, and that design nuance can not just be applied to any other stronger lofted iron. 

Thank you, i just didnt have the energy to go that into detail lol, this subject wears me out. @clinkinfo, iron heads in the last 5-10 years cog placement are actually pretty high, usually in the .800-.900 range. 
 

here is your epic forged vertical cog:

 

.812

 

heres some irons from 2002

 

 

.607 and .525

 

unless there is some black magic going on, safe to say jacked lofts isn’t necessary.

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by Red4282

[GolfTurkey]

I understand how a different iron can launch and/or peak height higher than a DIFFERENT iron with the same or even more loft (cg, face flex and ball speed differences). 
 

I don’t understand how the SAME iron can launch lower or the same with a higher loft unless delivery / strike has changed. If you put the i500 power spec and normal lofts in a robot and it replicated Matt’s results then I would suggest that Valtiel is on the money and Ping is doing something under the hood.
 

Incidentally Mike Newton (as did I in a fitting) compared retro spec to normal lofts in the i500 and got the intuitive result i.e. it launched higher , spun more and didn’t go as far (same as me). My guess is that the retro loft is a straight loft bend and any “secret sauce” (if it exists) is in the power spec. 
 

Another minor point is that bending lofts strong or weak changes the bounce which may have some impact depending on your delivery and hitting surface.

Edited October 13, 2020 by GolfTurkey

[clinkinfo]

9 hours ago, Valtiel said:

The problem with the stance you are taking here is that we have a set of data being shown in the TXG video that can VERY easily be explained by the CG differences, but you seem to be dismissing that possibility. Hear me out here because i'm pretty sure I have enough solid data to support this position. 

The Ping i500, as @Red4282 mentioned, is an usually high CG iron (actually the highest on the market by a decent margin), ESPECIALLY since it is a hollow construction, which would give much more room to move CG where they pleased for design purposes. A higher CG is going to launch lower and spin higher on average, there is no debating that. The fact that PING offer these three different "specs" tells me that there has to be something else going on under the hood besides just loft change. In their own words:

"The Power Spec is a custom-designed loft configuration that delivers a power boost in a calculated fashion without sacrificing the integrity of the club’s design"

Either they are "lying" here and it is just a stronger loft, or there is more going on. Fair to say, right? So regarding the TXG data, the ONLY possible way that a 25.5*, 27*, and 29* iron launch the same and are within 300rpm spin of each other is via CG manipulation, either directly via weight placement within the same head design or by a change in the head design, or likely both. And with a hollow body construction, that is much easier to do. My guess is that PING set out to do exactly what those results showed which is roughly maintain launch and spin while increasing ball speed. The data that is missing in this case is dynamic/delivered loft as that would give a better picture of what is happening. I would imagine the design breaks down like this:

- Standard Spec - Very high vertical and moderately rearward CG (this is measured by Maltby so its not speculation).
- Retro Spec - Moderate vertical and forward CG. Lowering the vertical CG would bring down spin, but moving it more forward would keep launch from increasing as much.
- Power Spec - Lower vertical and very rearward CG. This would raise launch while keeping spin from dropping too much.

At Matt's speed, these tweaks to internal weighting would create tangible results, assuming a relatively consistent delivery and strike location. The reason this is important though is that this is far more than just the lofts being stronger, and that design nuance can not just be applied to any other stronger lofted iron. 

 

You also miss the point. Even if the cg is moved to a completely different place on the power spec, which its not, but say it is....

 

The stronger lofted power spec with the optimized cg produced the BETTER result.  Therefore showing that stronger lofted irons with relocated CGs can produce more optimized iron flights. The exact thing many here are trying to argue can't happen. 

 

So on the one hand guys are saying "loft jacking" simply makes a 7 iron out of a 5 iron.... But on the other hand, now they are saying in the video, they made that stronger lofted club launch higher by moving the CG.  

 

That's what makes this conversation pointless. Go try them for yourself and see what they do for your game, that's the only conclusion I can say.  They may not launch the way you expect which is what many of us who have TRIED them find.

Edited October 13, 2020 by clinkinfo

[Red4282]

27 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

You also miss the point. Even if the cg is moved to a completely different place on the power spec, which its not, but say it is....

 

The stronger lofted power spec with the optimized cg produced the BETTER result.  Therefore showing that stronger lofted irons with relocated CGs can produce more optimized iron flights. The exact thing many here are trying to argue can't happen. 

 

So on the one hand guys are saying "loft jacking" simply makes a 7 iron out of a 5 iron.... But on the other hand, now they are saying in the video, they made that stronger lofted club launch higher by moving the CG.  

 

That's what makes this conversation pointless. Go try them for yourself and see what they do for your game, that's the only conclusion I can say.  They may not launch the way you expect which is what many of us who have TRIED them find.

Launch doesnt just happen magically, its a result of dynamic loft, cog, AOA and strike location. In the video we dont know dynamic loft, strike location or AOA, so if we assume its the same for all three heads (actually dynamic loft would need to reflect the changes in static loft, otherwise matt is influencing the launch with his delivery) the ONLY way possible for that result to happen otherwise, is that there is a COG change.

 

The COG on the powerspec MAY be optimized in that example, but what i have been trying to show you, is they did it by raising the cog on the non powerspec (since we know its EXTREMELY HIGH) so in reality the COG on the powerspec is likely right inline with most higher launching heads of the past 10 years-which by the way isnt all that high. The oems need a show in vegas with the tricks they pull on people... 

Edited October 13, 2020 by Red4282

[clinkinfo]

13 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Launch doesnt just happen magically, its a result of loft, cog, AOA and strike location. In the video we dont know dynamic loft, strike location or AOA, so if we assume its the same for all three heads, the ONLY way possible for that result to happen is that there is a COG change.

 

The COG on the powerspec MAY be optimized in that example, but what i have been trying to show you, is they did it by raising the cog on the non powerspec (since we know its EXTREMELY HIGH) so in reality the COG on the powerspec is likely right inline with most higher launching heads of the past 10 years-which by the way isnt all that high. The oems need a show in vegas with the tricks they pull on people... 

 

 

No, that’s the exact point we’ve all been trying to make!  That the launch differs DESPITE the loft changes, so a new 7 iron is not just a relabeled 5 iron.  If you accept that a new 7 iron is not simply a relabeled 5 iron and can launch higher with changes to the head despite the loft decrease, then WE HAVE NO ARGUMENT, I agree!  That’s been the point of many the whole time trying to counter those saying “those new jacked 7 irons are really just my 5 iron with a new number”. They are not, the video SHOWS that, however you want to interpret it.  

 

This all kinda reminds me of the arguments around adjustable loft sleeves in drivers.  Back when they first came out there were tons of threads about how they didn’t work, all based on tons of static measurements and hypothetical internet engineering and physics points.  In fact, even the big cllubmaker guy here (can’t think of his name) wrote post after post about how the sleeves didn’t work (but he was also selling a competing “adjustable” wood line at the time).  But those arguments raged with tons of members here insisting they could not work, and others saying “but I just tried them and they did change the flight”.  

 

now, every manufacturer uses adjustable loft sleeves.  Is that because they don’t work as “proven” by many here on the forum?  No.  It’s because they do work and everyone’s static measurement arguments were irrelevant.  

 

So again, this conversation is pointless.  I’m not stating an opinion, I’ve used stronger and traditional lofts.  I’ve watched what they do on a monitor.  My observation is similar to the TXG video.  Why?  Because the BALL SPEED plays a huge part in the trajectory, and stronger lofts produce higher ball speeds. That’s what makes the analysis difficult because the ball speed change is not intuitive until you see it in the data.  All I can say is everyone should try everything to see what works best for their games.  Not assume any position, just hit anything they hand you and see what it does.  Stop worrying about what the loft says in the specs.   Be obsessed with the ball RESULTS, not the spec sheet.  

 

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by clinkinfo

[clinkinfo]

20 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Launch doesnt just happen magically, its a result of dynamic loft, cog, AOA and strike location. In the video we dont know dynamic loft, strike location or AOA, so if we assume its the same for all three heads (actually dynamic loft would need to reflect the changes in static loft, otherwise matt is influencing the launch with his delivery) the ONLY way possible for that result to happen otherwise, is that there is a COG change.

 

The COG on the powerspec MAY be optimized in that example, but what i have been trying to show you, is they did it by raising the cog on the non powerspec (since we know its EXTREMELY HIGH) so in reality the COG on the powerspec is likely right inline with most higher launching heads of the past 10 years-which by the way isnt all that high. The oems need a show in vegas with the tricks they pull on people... 

 

 

its not a trick, it’s engineering and design.  
 

You realize you’re now arguing that loft changes do not act alone to determine launch?  So for example, a new 7 iron is NOT simply an old 5 iron with a new label.  That’s now what you’re saying, because you’re claiming they are moving and changing other aspects of the clubhead design, not just simply changing lofts.

that was the only point many of us were trying to make from the start.  New 7 irons are not simply old 5 irons with new labels.  We should all stop saying stuff like that.

 

[Red4282]

12 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

No, that’s the exact point we’ve all been trying to make!  That the launch differs DESPITE the loft changes, so a new 7 iron is not just a relabeled 5 iron.  If you accept that a new 7 iron is not simply a relabeled 5 iron and can launch higher with changes to the head despite the loft decrease, then WE HAVE NO ARGUMENT, I agree!  That’s been the point of many the whole time trying to counter those saying “those new jacked 7 irons are really just my 5 iron with a new number”. They are not, the video SHOWS that, however you want to interpret it.  

 

This all kinda reminds me of the arguments around adjustable loft sleeves in drivers.  Back when they first came out there were tons of threads about how they didn’t work, all based on tons of static measurements and hypothetical internet engineering and physics points.  In fact, even the big cllubmaker guy here (can’t think of his name) wrote post after post about how the sleeves didn’t work (but he was also selling a competing “adjustable” wood line at the time).  But those arguments raged with tons of members here insisting they could not work, and others saying “but I just tried them and they did change the flight”.  

 

now, every manufacturer uses adjustable loft sleeves.  Is that because they don’t work as “proven” by many here on the forum?  No.  It’s because they do work and everyone’s static measurement arguments were irrelevant.  

 

So again, this conversation is pointless.  I’m not stating an opinion, I’ve used stronger and traditional lofts.  I’ve watched what they do on a monitor.  My observation is similar to the TXG video.  Why?  Because the BALL SPEED plays a huge part in the trajectory, and stronger lofts produce higher ball speeds. That’s what makes the analysis difficult because the ball speed change is not intuitive until you see it in the data.  All I can say is everyone should try everything to see what works best for their games.  Not assume any position, just hit anything they hand you and see what it does.  Stop worrying about what the loft says in the specs.   Be obsessed with the ball RESULTS, not the spec sheet.  

 

 

Sigh. Your Argument to physics is someone made a youtube video. 

[Red4282]

5 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

its not a trick, it’s engineering and design.  
 

You realize you’re now arguing that loft changes do not act alone to determine launch?  So for example, a new 7 iron is NOT simply an old 5 iron with a new label.  That’s now what you’re saying, because you’re claiming they are moving and changing other aspects of the clubhead design, not just simply changing lofts.

that was the only point many of us were trying to make from the start.  New 7 irons are not simply old 5 irons with new labels.  We should all stop saying stuff like that.

 

ONLY IF you compare them to some modern irons today, as they have much higher cgs. Compare them to the low cg irons of 20 years ago and yea its a 5 iron with a 7 stamped on it. Engineering and design... please stop.

[clinkinfo]

1 minute ago, Red4282 said:

ONLY IF you compare them to some modern irons today, as they have much higher cgs. Compare them to the low cg irons of 20 years ago and yea its a 5 iron with a 7 stamped on it. Engineering and design... please stop.

do you not understand, you literally just argued “clubhead design and cg changes” in that video explains why 3 different lofts launched the same.  

 

[clinkinfo]

8 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Sigh. Your Argument to physics is someone made a youtube video. 

 

Clearly, you aren’t even reading the responses.  So You win....I give up.  You’re right.  
 

Modern 7 irons are 5 irons with 7 stamped on them......except that video, that’s different, those are 3 different lofts where ping played with the CG and made 3 lofts launch the same with some Vegas magic trick.  And the shorter traditional lofted iron clearly produced the best result being the shortest with the lowest flight.

 

 

[Red4282]

5 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

Clearly, you aren’t even reading the responses.  So You win....I give up.  You’re right.  
 

Modern 7 irons are 5 irons with 7 stamped on them......except that video, that’s different, those are 3 different lofts where ping played with the CG and made 3 lofts launch the same with some Vegas magic trick.  And the shorter traditional lofted iron clearly produced the best result being the shortest with the lowest flight.

 

 

Design, ok ill give you that. But its not anything new, or any crazy new technology that hasnt been around for 2 decades. Thats my point. And if clubs that were similar to this were here 2 decades ago, and didn't have jacked lofts, whats the need for changing the number on the bottom? The answer is launch monitors. It sells to people who think they are picking up distance.

Edited October 13, 2020 by Red4282

[clinkinfo]

17 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Design, ok ill give you that. But its not anything new, or any crazy new technology that hasnt been around for 2 decades. Thats my point. And if clubs that were similar to this were here 2 decades ago, and didn't have jacked lofts, whats the need for changing the number on the bottom? The answer is launch monitors. It sells to people who think they are picking up distance.

 

launch monitors also show us that iron smash factors have gone up a lot in the last 10 years, meaning irons have definitely been designed to be more efficient (like drivers) and transfer more energy into ballspeed. You can see numbers and comparisons in the Clubfitting forum.   That’s the iron design change we are seeing.  They may be more limited in design extremes because no one likely wants a 460cc iron head, but they have been producing more and more ball speed, some still feeling soft and forged as a bonus!
 

no doubt, having launch data has changed golf because we all now know what the ball is doing, we don’t have to guess and observe to make decisions anymore.  
 

again, my advise, go test anything you can get your hands on and stop worrying about the loft numbers on the spec sheet.   be obsessed with ball flight, that’s what matters on the course.   

[Itsjustagame]

Everybody gets 14 clubs.

I don't really care how someone else decides to set up their bag. Want to carry 2 drivers, a "chipper", all hybrids and fairway woods, 4 wedges - have at it if that helps your scores or your enjoyment of the game.

The "jacked loft" problem was invented on golf forums.

No need to save the uneducated golfers from "unscrupulous" manufacturers either.

 

 

[Titleist_PT23]

Pretty sure PINGs PowerSpec and RetroSpec are just bent strong/weak from the normal head.  They have a lot of fancy language but at the end of the day it was "bent strong or weak."  At least for the G Series.  I haven't confirmed on the i500 but highly doubt the clubhead is different.

[clinkinfo]

21 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

Pretty sure PINGs PowerSpec and RetroSpec are just bent strong/weak from the normal head.  They have a lot of fancy language but at the end of the day it was "bent strong or weak."  At least for the G Series.  I haven't confirmed on the i500 but highly doubt the clubhead is different.

 

it might not even be that complicated, the engineer in me says that ping could just make the i500 heads in 2* increments on the casting line, then stamp the appropriate number on the bottom (depending if they will be part of a power, retro, or normal spec).  Then they could adjust weighting with tip weights at build time for whatever iron it’s supposed to be.  Not saying I know that’s what they do, but....they could, it would be an efficient way to do it. You’d Possibly have to manage the bounce manually doing that I guess. I’m not sure which would cost more labor time, grinding for bounce or bending for loft.

Edited October 13, 2020 by clinkinfo

[Cachaulo]

Ping just bends irons to Power/Traditional/Retro Spec, no special casting or CG movement.....I know because I asked them and have sent numerous sets to them to adjust to Retro-Lofts.

[clinkinfo]

5 minutes ago, Cachaulo said:

Ping just bends irons to Power/Traditional/Retro Spec, no special casting or CG movement.....I know because I asked them and have sent numerous sets to them to adjust to Retro-Lofts.

 

the only challenge with that answer is it doesn’t explain the bounce.  

 

So when you bend strong or weak, the bounce changes the exact same amount as the loft.  So for example, if a club has 46* loft and 5* bounce and I bend it one degree strong, in now has 45* loft and 4* of bounce (And a touch more offset).

 

ping lists the bounce as the same number for each spec‘d iron in all 3 lofts.  They can’t just be bending them, the bounce wouldn’t end up the same nor the offset.  So they are doing something clever  on the manufacturing side.

 

 

[Sean2]

To me it doesn't really matter. I don't care what lofts my irons are, as long as they perform to my satisfaction. 

[Titleist_PT23]

1 hour ago, clinkinfo said:

 

the only challenge with that answer is it doesn’t explain the bounce.  

 

So when you bend strong or weak, the bounce changes the exact same amount as the loft.  So for example, if a club has 46* loft and 5* bounce and I bend it one degree strong, in now has 45* loft and 4* of bounce (And a touch more offset).

 

ping lists the bounce as the same number for each spec‘d iron in all 3 lofts.  They can’t just be bending them, the bounce wouldn’t end up the same nor the offset.  So they are doing something clever  on the manufacturing side.

 

 

 

The footnote says the bounce will change.  More evidence that the heads are just bent weak/strong...

• Club bounce angles will vary slightly if ordered with non-standard loft specs.

[clinkinfo]

12 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

 

The footnote says the bounce will change.  More evidence that the heads are just bent weak/strong...

• Club bounce angles will vary slightly if ordered with non-standard loft specs.

 

 

That's interesting but I take "non-standard" to mean custom lofts.  Not the offered retro/normal/power options they offer as "standard".

 

Their spec sheet for the i500s clearly shows a bounce number on each club in all 3 "standard" specs (retro/normal/power).  I think that footnote is when I order a custom loft mix or loft setup that isn't one of their offerings. Like if I want a 47* pitching wedge for example and ask them to bend it.

 

I don't know that for sure, but thats what it sounds and looks like based on the i500 spec sheet.  Because for a 9 iron as an example, the spec sheet has the bounce angle listed as the same for each version (retro/normal/power). If they were bending that 9 iron to make it match the loft, they couldn't list the same bounce angle in the specs, they know it would be 2* different on each.

 

But maybe you're right and they don't care because they are covering their butt with the footnote. I don't really know

Edited October 13, 2020 by clinkinfo

[8thehardway]

Just wanted to throw my experience into the mix. I'm 74 and I've always had a very low s/s but I play frequently and, pre surgery/chemo, averaged 3 over from the senior tees and 7 over from the whites; in recovery I've lost about a club's worth of distance in my irons and now hit a 7 iron 130 (120 carry, 10 roll) with low trajectory. Then, and now I've tried, demo'ed or bought numerous sets in graphite and steel but nothing outperformed my Adams CB2 irons - 7 iron is 33* loft, 37.00 length, regular flex steel shaft. I've recently been demo'ing (3 times so far, I'm hard to convince) a 2019 Big Bertha 7 iron - 29* loft, 37.25 length, 70g graphite shaft and I've averaged 148 yards (143 carry, 5 roll) with much higher trajectory; even had some in the 150s and a balls out outlier at 168.  The difference in carry (120 vs 143) is more significant considering the effect of significantly increased trajectory

 

This is more than sticking a 5 iron head on a 7 iron shaft and doing a little tweaking; fact is, I don't have the s/s for a 29* iron, regardless of shaft... at least, I didn't. 

 

 

 

[Cachaulo]

2 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

That's interesting but I take "non-standard" to mean custom lofts.  Not the offered retro/normal/power options they offer as "standard".

 

Their spec sheet for the i500s clearly shows a bounce number on each club in all 3 "standard" specs (retro/normal/power).  I think that footnote is when I order a custom loft mix or loft setup that isn't one of their offerings. Like if I want a 47* pitching wedge for example and ask them to bend it.

 

I don't know that for sure, but thats what it sounds and looks like based on the i500 spec sheet.  Because for a 9 iron as an example, the spec sheet has the bounce angle listed as the same for each version (retro/normal/power). If they were bending that 9 iron to make it match the loft, they couldn't list the same bounce angle in the specs, they know it would be 2* different on each.

 

But maybe you're right and they don't care because they are covering their butt with the footnote. I don't really know

Non-Standard is custom chosen by you or Power/Retro lofts. I agree the chart may be misleading but I am confident the bounce/offset is changed in these other loft configurations. That being said I have played both and the minor bounce change is not noticeable to me at all.

[Valtiel]

6 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

You also miss the point. Even if the cg is moved to a completely different place on the power spec, which its not, but say it is....

 

The stronger lofted power spec with the optimized cg produced the BETTER result.  Therefore showing that stronger lofted irons with relocated CGs can produce more optimized iron flights. The exact thing many here are trying to argue can't happen. 

 

So on the one hand guys are saying "loft jacking" simply makes a 7 iron out of a 5 iron.... But on the other hand, now they are saying in the video, they made that stronger lofted club launch higher by moving the CG.  

 

That's what makes this conversation pointless. Go try them for yourself and see what they do for your game, that's the only conclusion I can say.  They may not launch the way you expect which is what many of us who have TRIED them find.

You say the CG isn't moved but provide no explanation for how a 29* club and a 25.5* club, which is basically a 6-iron and a 5-iron which should be spinning roughly 1,000rpm different from each other, are only spinning 300rpm different and launching the same. If those were simply two clubs in your set then you would have a pretty noticeable problem and would be rightfully concerned in terms of gapping. The only way those numbers are possible is via CG movement, because the general rule of thumb is 2-4* launch and 800-1,000rpm difference between clubs in your standard 4* gapped set. You can't break that pattern without either changing clubhead design, or changing your delivery. 

The argument about better/worse results is a completely separate one though. I would never take launch condition numbers off of a mat because the dynamics of them is virtually always going to raise launch and lower spin, meaning there is a very good chance that the height and descent angle advantage that the Power Spec club has would disappear to some extent on the course. 

Edited October 13, 2020 by Valtiel

[clinkinfo]

40 minutes ago, Valtiel said:

You say the CG isn't moved but provide no explanation for how a 29* club and a 25.5* club, which is basically a 6-iron and a 5-iron which should be spinning roughly 1,000rpm different from each other, are only spinning 300rpm different. If those were simply two clubs in your set then you would have a pretty noticeable problem and would be rightfully concerned in terms of gapping. The only way those numbers are possible is via CG movement, because the general rule of thumb is 2-4* launch and 800-1,000rpm difference between clubs in your standard 4* gapped set. You can't break that pattern without either changing clubhead design, or changing your delivery. 

The argument about better/worse results is a completely separate one though. I would never take launch condition numbers off of a mat because the dynamics of them is virtually always going to raise launch and lower spin, meaning there is a very good chance that the height and descent angle advantage that the Power Spec club has would disappear to some extent on the course. 

This is discussion about stronger lofted irons versus traditional lofted irons.  That was just a video that shows an example with some data.
 

You’re missing the point again.   This isn’t a discussion about the ping i500 irons and I could care less if they did or did not dramatically alter the CG (something neither you nor I can actually answer anyway).  Either answer still supports the stronger lofted iron point.  while It seems highly unlikely to me personally that ping is changing the head designs that much for each spec of the i500, especially given the multiple people in the thread claiming they are doing nothing but bending them....maybe they did.  But, it doesn’t even matter.  

THIS is the original (And never ending) question/issue:

 

1. One side of this argument is saying  “new” iron designs are simply 5 irons with 7 stamped on the bottom.  In other words, nothing has changed with head design, manufacturers are just stamping new numbers on lofts and getting us to buy them again thinking we hit a 7 further than before.

 

2. The other side of the this argument is saying, no, the new 7 irons are not flying like old 5 irons, so it’s not that simple.  Manufacturers must be changing head designs and CGs around to optimize for loft.  That’s why they go further, higher, and still stop.  They are not just old 5 irons with a 7 stamped on the bottom.

 

You’re clearly in the second camp correct?  Since you’re arguing that the video was done with manufacturing CG changes, Saying that manufactures can alter launch with more than just loft?  If so, why continue discussing that video?  We agree in principle.  Whether ping did that with those 3 iron specs, I don’t know and frankly don’t care.  Because again, this isn’t an i500 and ping spec debate.  If they can move CG’s to launch higher, they can couple that with lower lofts and create irons that go further and still stop, right? But, Even If they just changed loft, it still shows the point that stronger lofted irons fly different and can still stop because of ball speed changes which change flight height and decent angle.  The spin difference off mats and grass is for another topic.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by clinkinfo