SIM Drivers: Can only hit cuts and can't close the face!

[Shinogolf]

7 hours ago, getitdaily said:

Or it could be....center of gravity....you know, a key element that dictates shaft deflection, which significantly alters face angle delivery.

I moved the CG down to closer to the face with lead tape. Still going right. Sorry bud.

[Shinogolf]

7 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

That's exactly what you were using to justify your "knowledge" on the longitudinal stiffness of the two shafts. 

No I wasn't or I would of said that. But I didn't. I'm well aware of the profiles of those two shafts. Sorry Ace.

[getitdaily]

@Valtiel 

@Stuart_G

 

This guy is clearly a troll...

[Valtiel]

3 hours ago, getitdaily said:

@Valtiel 

@Stuart_G

 

This guy is clearly a troll...

 

I dunno ace, my super low torque driver started going left on me. It was fine before but I think all this torque talk activated some new physics in my 460cc SIM which is definitely bigger than the 460cc SIM2. Gonna put a steel shaft in it because it's definitely the torque. 

[noodle3872]

@Shinogolf, you may not realize it, @Stuart_G and @Valtiel are wealths of club fitting knowledge. True experts IMHO. Other members have offered help too and you dismiss it all. I don’t understand your resistance to the advice and information being offered. 

[Valtiel]

1 hour ago, noodle3872 said:

@Shinogolf, you may not realize it, @Stuart_G and @Valtiel are wealths of club fitting knowledge. True experts IMHO. Other members have offered help too and you dismiss it all. I don’t understand your resistance to the advice and information being offered. 

@Howard_Jones and @Stuart_G are the main dudes, I just pay attention and crack jokes sometimes. 😅

[Howard_Jones]

On 9/9/2021 at 1:31 AM, Shinogolf said:

Switched to SIM2 after SIM cracked face. All it wants to do is go right. I think it has something to do with the deeper face, head being slightly bigger. Also because of bigger head it changed the torque dynamics enough towards the higher side that the head doesn't want to snap back fast enough. Also getting high spin numbers. Tipped my shaft 1/2 inch to 44.75 which I wanted to do anyways because I felt like I consistently was hitting it toe side. Hoping that would help with torque. Started hitting it in the center center but still right sidish fade. Turned to upright setting. Started to hit it straight but still a touch fadey. I think it's a torque issue. Got to find a shaft with torque rating 2.5 or less I think. Ball doesn't go left at all. Guess that's a good thing unless playing a left miss golf course like I do :).

Its an old myth that a player can load and release a shaft fast enough for TQ to be involved, that simply dont happen.

TQ is mostly a feel matter when we make impact outside of COG, but there MIGHT be some influence from TQ to Horizontal gear effects if impact is very high and far out toe side, but that will induce a tilt on the balls spin axis to the left, NOT the right side.

Spin values for drivers is dictated by Vertical gear effects. (impact position vs VCOG), so if spin is too high, impact position is too low vs VCOG. As a rule of thumb 1/8" higher = 240 rpm lower spin and 0.35* higher launch, so it does not take much before spin and launch values becomes better or worse, and thats why impact position on the face is the most important here.

Start by finding VCOG (its described in my "DIY driver tune up" how you find it), then use a whiteboard pen and a DOT in the ball, or foot spray on the face to to keep track of impact position.

If you still insist this is a TQ issue, then locate a Grafalloy Bi-Matrix Tour Prototype where TQ is only 2.0

Edited September 19, 2021 by Howard_Jones

[Shinogolf]

On 9/19/2021 at 2:24 AM, Howard_Jones said:

Its an old myth that a player can load and release a shaft fast enough for TQ to be involved, that simply dont happen.

TQ is mostly a feel matter when we make impact outside of COG, but there MIGHT be some influence from TQ to Horizontal gear effects if impact is very high and far out toe side, but that will induce a tilt on the balls spin axis to the left, NOT the right side.

Spin values for drivers is dictated by Vertical gear effects. (impact position vs VCOG), so if spin is too high, impact position is too low vs VCOG. As a rule of thumb 1/8" higher = 240 rpm lower spin and 0.35* higher launch, so it does not take much before spin and launch values becomes better or worse, and thats why impact position on the face is the most important here.

Start by finding VCOG (its described in my "DIY driver tune up" how you find it), then use a whiteboard pen and a DOT in the ball, or foot spray on the face to to keep track of impact position.

If you still insist this is a TQ issue, then locate a Grafalloy Bi-Matrix Tour Prototype where TQ is only 2.0

Already been there with impact tape as a teaching pro questioned my theory as well. All 8 swings while playing on course where on top of each other just slightly high vertical and toe vertical inside the sweet spot. All dispersed right side. 

 

It's not a question of impact and don't know why this is even coming up. If it was impact being off center - I wouldn't have even posted on this thread to begin with. That would be ludicrous. 

 

My theory has to do with TQ dynamics with the current shaft I'm using in a SIM2. Though both the SIM and SIM2 are 460cc heads the SIM has a smaller face. And I understand that COG is different on the SIM2 which could cause the ball to go right. So what's the solution for me, who has a very fast tempo, hard and fast tempo with a very late release? A lower TQ shaft. And lower TQ shafts have been found to be the answer through my testing of different profiling shafts that have a lower TQ value. For me. 

 

Question solved. 

 

✌

 

 

 

 

[Valtiel]

6 hours ago, Shinogolf said:

It's not a question of impact and don't know why this is even coming up. If it was impact being off center - I wouldn't have even posted on this thread to begin with. That would be ludicrous. 

But it is a question of impact but perhaps not in the way you realize. The problem with your theory is that if torque does what you claim it does, strike location WOULD change. If torque causes the clubface to arrive at the ball at different angles enough to cause a consistent miss in one direction or the other, then it would also move strike point unless you also shifted your club path. A clubface "held open" by a shaft with higher torque would, with the same swing, move the strike point heel side. Vice versa for a shaft with lower torque. The fact that you are claiming your strikes were all on top of each other unfortunately contradicts your theory, because that wouldn't happen if the shaft was causing the head to arrive at different angles without an additional layer of compensation that renders your conclusion mostly moot.  

You haven't controlled any of the far more significant variables when testing a shaft with lower torque either, because you spoke previously of testing a completely different shaft with higher torque (HZRDUS Smoke Black) against your Matrix HD7 (which only has 0.4* lower torque) without accounting for the fact that, assuming you were testing the 70g version of the HZRDUS, the shafts are in two completely different weight classes. The HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5 70 is ~68g uncut, whereas the Matrix HD7 X-flex is ~80g uncut. Not to mention the differences in bend profile, balance point, and overall CPM, all of which and especially altogether have an infinitely greater chance of producing flight changes. If your feel is truly good enough that you were able to compensate for torque-based face angle changes and still strike the same spot, then surely it would also have been sensitive enough to notice these two shafts were in completely different classes, and therefore your observations about their torque would be impossible. 

This whole back and forth would have been far more interesting and educational if you had started with "hey, I have a theory and this is what i've observed. Are there any other explanations for my findings?" instead of starting with your assertion that it must be related to torque (apparently just tip torque as well, no mention of mid or handle torque for some reason), and then stumbling backwards through trying to justify that conclusion. And the irony is, the people that actually know this stuff (people smarter than me) also know that of all the variables you could have decided were important, torque is the weakest and least defensible. You could make a case for total weight, balance point, CPM, or bend profile having a strong right/left bias and you could make a decent case with the data and evidence. But torque? You have the marketing literature from one company and weak anecdotes. 

Edited October 19, 2021 by Valtiel

[noodle3872]

22 hours ago, Valtiel said:

But it is a question of impact but perhaps not in the way you realize. The problem with your theory is that if torque does what you claim it does, strike location WOULD change. If torque causes the clubface to arrive at the ball at different angles enough to cause a consistent miss in one direction or the other, then it would also move strike point unless you also shifted your club path. A clubface "held open" by a shaft with higher torque would, with the same swing, move the strike point heel side. Vice versa for a shaft with lower torque. The fact that you are claiming your strikes were all on top of each other unfortunately contradicts your theory, because that wouldn't happen if the shaft was causing the head to arrive at different angles without an additional layer of compensation that renders your conclusion mostly moot.  

You haven't controlled any of the far more significant variables when testing a shaft with lower torque either, because you spoke previously of testing a completely different shaft with higher torque (HZRDUS Smoke Black) against your Matrix HD7 (which only has 0.4* lower torque) without accounting for the fact that, assuming you were testing the 70g version of the HZRDUS, the shafts are in two completely different weight classes. The HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5 70 is ~68g uncut, whereas the Matrix HD7 X-flex is ~80g uncut. Not to mention the differences in bend profile, balance point, and overall CPM, all of which and especially altogether have an infinitely greater chance of producing flight changes. If your feel is truly good enough that you were able to compensate for torque-based face angle changes and still strike the same spot, then surely it would also have been sensitive enough to notice these two shafts were in completely different classes, and therefore your observations about their torque would be impossible. 

This whole back and forth would have been far more interesting and educational if you had started with "hey, I have a theory and this is what i've observed. Are there any other explanations for my findings?" instead of starting with your assertion that it must be related to torque (apparently just tip torque as well, no mention of mid or handle torque for some reason), and then stumbling backwards through trying to justify that conclusion. And the irony is, the people that actually know this stuff (people smarter than me) also know that of all the variables you could have decided were important, torque is the weakest and least defensible. You could make a case for total weight, balance point, CPM, or bend profile having a strong right/left bias and you could make a decent case with the data and evidence. But torque? You have the marketing literature from one company and weak anecdotes. 

I hope Shinogolf isn’t too torqued about being wrong! Lol

[Valtiel]

1 hour ago, noodle3872 said:

I hope Shinogolf isn’t too torqued about being wrong! Lol

I try to remind myself when spending energy engaging folks like this that it is not as much about whether he picks this information up or not, but about keeping the bad information from spreading unchallenged to the hundreds or thousands of other guests/members that might be browsing. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Valtiel

[Howard_Jones]

On 10/19/2021 at 4:39 AM, Shinogolf said:

Already been there with impact tape as a teaching pro questioned my theory as well. All 8 swings while playing on course where on top of each other just slightly high vertical and toe vertical inside the sweet spot. All dispersed right side. 

 

It's not a question of impact and don't know why this is even coming up. If it was impact being off center - I wouldn't have even posted on this thread to begin with. That would be ludicrous. 

 

My theory has to do with TQ dynamics with the current shaft I'm using in a SIM2. Though both the SIM and SIM2 are 460cc heads the SIM has a smaller face. And I understand that COG is different on the SIM2 which could cause the ball to go right. So what's the solution for me, who has a very fast tempo, hard and fast tempo with a very late release? A lower TQ shaft. And lower TQ shafts have been found to be the answer through my testing of different profiling shafts that have a lower TQ value. For me. 

 

Question solved. 

 

✌

 

 

 

 

Cant you see your own contradiction here?

If impact is directly on the heads COG, the shaft want and cant twist in any direction, no matter TQ, it can only bend back.

Twisting ONLY occurs when impact is lower, higher or heel and toe side of COG.
Toe side means we activate both the tip and mid section, AND the shafts TQ, and it dont needs a 3D model to explain that, 2D will do it.

Your theory seems to be that the club head OPENS during impact, and send the ball to the right,(due to to high TQ) but both head twist and horizontal gear effects from toe side impact will cause a tilt to the left on the balls spin axis, so you either have a impact or face angle issue, NOT a TQ issue.

Try a Grafalloy Bi-Matrix prototype with a TQ of 2.0 if you think its a TQ issue, but if you had a LM report and uploaded that here, it would be a walk in the park to show you that your thinking is wrong.
 

[Valtiel]

2 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

Cant you see your own contradiction here?

If impact is directly on the heads COG, the shaft want and cant twist in any direction, no matter TQ, it can only bend back.

Twisting ONLY occurs when impact is lower, higher or heel and toe side of COG.
Toe side means we activate both the tip and mid section, AND the shafts TQ, and it dont needs a 3D model to explain that, 2D will do it.

Your theory seems to be that the club head OPENS during impact, and send the ball to the right,(due to to high TQ) but both head twist and horizontal gear effects from toe side impact will cause a tilt to the left on the balls spin axis, so you either have a impact or face angle issue, NOT a TQ issue.

Try a Grafalloy Bi-Matrix prototype with a TQ of 2.0 if you think its a TQ issue, but if you had a LM report and uploaded that here, it would be a walk in the park to show you that your thinking is wrong.
 

I think his theory was more that the face opens when approaching impact due to the forces exerted in the downswing and that the torque of the shaft is what determines how quickly it "snaps shut". Lower torque = more/faster snapping shut. It's wrong, but for different reasons than you're mentioning. 😅

[Stuart_G]

Calling it a "theory" is being generous.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Stuart_G

[Valtiel]

12 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

Calling it a "theory" is being generous.

[Howard_Jones]

1 hour ago, Valtiel said:

I think his theory was more that the face opens when approaching impact due to the forces exerted in the downswing and that the torque of the shaft is what determines how quickly it "snaps shut". Lower torque = more/faster snapping shut. It's wrong, but for different reasons than you're mentioning. 😅

The nerds who wants to deep dive into this should read this article on Researchgate from 2018, where they tested 2 similar shafts

The LOW TQ shaft had a TQ of 2.8, the HIGH TQ shaft was all the way up at 8.8
(never seen a shaft with TQ that high)

During the down swing, non of the players saw a "twist" during downswing of more than 1.0*, and the High TQ shaft moved the ball 4.5 meters to the right compared to the LOW TQ shaft, due to a launch of 0.6 more to the right for the high TQ shaft (0.1* pr 1.0* TQ difference)

IF and only IF there is a linear line of relations here, those 4.5 meters / 6.0* TQ difference = 0.75 meters (0.82 yards) to the right, for each 1.0* TQ is higher....so 2.5* to 4.5* as TQ become 1.5 meters (1.62 yards ) as difference. (thats clearly a problem when the fairway is less than 30 yards wide.)

Conclusion, find a shaft with as close to zero TQ as possible to improve the numbers of hole in one using the driver, but if the target is more fairway hits, go by what feels good and works for your swing, since feel alone can trigger you to do all sorts of things thats no good for the score.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325420491_The_influence_of_golf_shaft_torque_on_clubhead_kinematics_and_ball_flight

Edited October 20, 2021 by Howard_Jones

[Valtiel]

12 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

The nerds who wants to deep dive into this should read this article on Researchgate from 2018, where they tested 2 similar shafts

The LOW TQ shaft had a TQ of 2.8, the HIGH TQ shaft was all the way up at 8.8
(never seen a shaft with TQ that high)

During the down swing, non of the players saw a "twist" during downswing of more than 1.0*, and the High TQ shaft moved the ball 4.5 meters to the right compared to the LOW TQ shaft, due to a launch of 0.6 more to the right for the high TQ shaft (0.1* pr 1.0* TQ difference)

IF and only IF there is a linear line of relations here, those 4.5 meters / 6.0* TQ difference = 0.75 meters (0.82 yards) to the right, for each 1.0* TQ is higher....so 2.5* to 4.5* as TQ become 1.5 meters (1.62 yards ) as difference. (thats clearly a problem when the fairway is less than 30 yards wide.)

Conclusion, find a shaft with as close to zero TQ as possible to improve the numbers of hole in one using the driver, but if the target is more fairway hits, go by what feels good and works for your swing, since feel alone can trigger you to do all sorts of things thats no good for the score.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325420491_The_influence_of_golf_shaft_torque_on_clubhead_kinematics_and_ball_flight

Wow, interesting. I'm wondering how they managed to get an "otherwise similar" shaft with such an insanely high amount of torque?

[Howard_Jones]

4 hours ago, Valtiel said:

Wow, interesting. I'm wondering how they managed to get an "otherwise similar" shaft with such an insanely high amount of torque?

i could not find the answer to that in the article, so it becomes guessing when i say they seems "custom made" for this test. But at least they found them, did the test, and debunked that this happens in the swing, its the FA during impact due to head twist.

The player here on Wrx should upload a LM report. im convinced its his own delivery of the club, not a "high tq" shaft like this who opens face angle too much during impact, since the shafts we play dont come close to the TQ value from this test, and if it did, that cant explain issues with the right side of the fairway with the numbers they came up with

PS! Trackman found that in average (PGA), face angle opens 0.9* during impact, so its not news that this happen, but nobody has ever done this test before where they set a number on it all.
 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Howard_Jones

[PixlPutterman]

18 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

 i could not find the answer to that in the article, so it becomes guessing when i say they seems "custom made" for this test.

Jeeze I think the lag shot trainer has less torque

[Ri_Redneck]

Was playing in a benefit tourney a while back and a guy in my group had a SIM driver. Asked if I could hit a couple with it since it was fitted to me on one of those online deals I don't trust AT ALL! It was too lite for my liking, but after adjusting to the weight, I could hit draw or fade with it no problem. Must be technique that is the answer. 🙄

 

BT

[Phabs]

1 hour ago, Ri_Redneck said:

Was playing in a benefit tourney a while back and a guy in my group had a SIM driver. Asked if I could hit a couple with it since it was fitted to me on one of those online deals I don't trust AT ALL! It was too lite for my liking, but after adjusting to the weight, I could hit draw or fade with it no problem. Must be technique that is the answer. 🙄

 

BT

The 80+ of us in the thread that hate the fade produced by this head must not have nearly the game you do pro.  Our humble apologies… 

[Ri_Redneck]

5 hours ago, Phabs said:

The 80+ of us in the thread that hate the fade produced by this head must not have nearly the game you do pro.  Our humble apologies… 

Don't be a slave to the Face Angle. Aim the club.

 

BT

[Valtiel]

4 hours ago, Ri_Redneck said:

Don't be a slave to the Face Angle. Aim the club.

 

BT

At some point I think it has to be related to something more psychological with the visuals. The SIM head is fade biased, yes, until you put the weight in the heel, then it's pretty much neutral. From there you can manage face angle however you like, so this idea that some drivers just "produce fades" is both silly but common enough that SOMETHING else has to be at play.

I know for damn sure that I am NOT comfortable with fairway woods like the SIM Max line because of how they intentionally use the crown paint lines to make the face look straight i.e. no bulge/roll. After being so used to seeing it, taking it away gives me the optical illusion that the heel and toe are actually curving back inwards and really screws with my head. I don't even need to hit a shot before I go "nope!", which sucks because they are actually great clubs and it's just a visual preference. 

I think something about the SIM driver has a similarly strong effect on some people. The toe heavy pear shape, carbon crown line that is angled slightly open from the chalk crown paint line, and the shaping of the sole and how it makes the driver sit all seem to scream "fade!" to many people. I think I mentioned somewhere earlier in the thread that Tiger himself said the same on that Taylormade podcast, like "i'm only hitting cuts with this" or something similar. 

[Stuart_G]

7 hours ago, Ri_Redneck said:

Don't be a slave to the Face Angle. Aim the club.

 

BT

 

Unfortunately, that's no more effective then telling someone "not be a slave to offset" in irons.

Edited October 22, 2021 by Stuart_G

[markheardjr]

Well, for the big boys reading, just wanted to say there are several 1.4 and 1.8 torque shafts out there you can get if you want. Even lower than the Bimatrix 2.0°. Harrison made a Pro Low Launch 1.4°. Accra XE80 M5 was 1.8. I think UST Axivcore Green was 1.8.

 

Slightly higher but an all time favorite was the Aldila ProtoPYPE which was 2.2°. There was a cool hybrid call the LoBrid shaft that matched it but it was 2.8° which in a hybrid shaft is quite a lot IMO.

[PixlPutterman]

1 hour ago, markheardjr said:

Well, for the big boys reading, just wanted to say there are several 1.4 and 1.8 torque shafts out there you can get if you want. Even lower than the Bimatrix 2.0°. Harrison made a Pro Low Launch 1.4°. Accra XE80 M5 was 1.8. I think UST Axivcore Green was 1.8.

 

Slightly higher but an all time favorite was the Aldila ProtoPYPE which was 2.2°. There was a cool hybrid call the LoBrid shaft that matched it but it was 2.8° which in a hybrid shaft is quite a lot IMO.

The ole Pype, loved that shaft.

 

Back in college when I swung out of my shoes for no good reason I played an 80x Pype tipped to length in an R7 425tp with 10g in all four weight ports. Was an awesome set up but lasted like 2 months till the face caved in lol

[Ri_Redneck]

8 hours ago, Valtiel said:

At some point I think it has to be related to something more psychological with the visuals. The SIM head is fade biased, yes, until you put the weight in the heel, then it's pretty much neutral. From there you can manage face angle however you like, so this idea that some drivers just "produce fades" is both silly but common enough that SOMETHING else has to be at play.

I know for damn sure that I am NOT comfortable with fairway woods like the SIM Max line because of how they intentionally use the crown paint lines to make the face look straight i.e. no bulge/roll. After being so used to seeing it, taking it away gives me the optical illusion that the heel and toe are actually curving back inwards and really screws with my head. I don't even need to hit a shot before I go "nope!", which sucks because they are actually great clubs and it's just a visual preference. 

I think something about the SIM driver has a similarly strong effect on some people. The toe heavy pear shape, carbon crown line that is angled slightly open from the chalk crown paint line, and the shaping of the sole and how it makes the driver sit all seem to scream "fade!" to many people. I think I mentioned somewhere earlier in the thread that Tiger himself said the same on that Taylormade podcast, like "i'm only hitting cuts with this" or something similar. 

I have never liked the paint scheme on the more recent TM woods. I could see it making it difficult to tell where the face is actually aiming. It would all depend on the golfer, eye dominance and how they hold their head.

 

BT

[Ri_Redneck]

8 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Unfortunately, that's no more effective then telling someone "not be a slave to offset" in irons.

 The FA of a wood head can be overcome by visually aiming the club. I've done it my whole life. Iron offset is fixed and cannot be overcome without a hammer.

 

I can't stand the look of more than 2mm offset.

 

BT

[Stuart_G]

19 minutes ago, Ri_Redneck said:

 The FA of a wood head can be overcome by visually aiming the club. I've done it my whole life.

 

That's nice for you but it doesn't mean that it's true for everyone.  It's just not that simple.  Some people can, some people can't.   Face orientation is not the same as face angle.   Just rotating the club in the hand gives a completely different visual than one with a different face angle.

 

19 minutes ago, Ri_Redneck said:

I can't stand the look of more than 2mm offset.

 

Which only validates the concept that the visual of the club at address can be very important to some people.  

 

I can't stand the look of a club with an open face angle no matter which direction I point the face.  But I can hit an iron with any amount of offset.   Different people have different obsessions with the visual.

[Jtgavigan]

I went through a driver fitting yesterday on GC Quad. My SIM cracked in the weight track and TM is sending me a SIM2. I am trying to fly a draw ball flight and have been fighting the hell out of SIM to do it with any kind of consistency (even lofting it back up and moving the weight to the heel). The fitter and I worked on trying to find a way to make SIM2 work for the ball flight I wanted since that was my replacement, but when I swung a perfect draw swing (4 degrees in-out, 2 degrees closed to path), and the ball still faded, I knew then I was fighting a losing battle. The SIM stuff just isn't build to draw. Even Rory talked about this struggle. If he can't turn a SIM over consistently, I have no chance. Seems like they figured out something with his SIM2 as he is playing better. I bet we tried 15 shafts and I couldn't get any of them to get me to turn it over consistently. The fitter felt like the CG bias on the SIM products make it tough to hit a draw. I would agree. Certainly for the right player, they are great sticks. Both are long as hell.

I was able to turn the G425LST and the TSI3 over relatively easily (as easily as you can turn a big head over) and ended up buying a TSI3. The feel and look is fantastic. Ball speeds were really high across the face (low to mid 160s with the TSI3, high 150s to Low 160s with G425LST, which also felt great)

Great first session on the range with the TSI3 this morning and had no trouble hitting a tight draw. I concur with the subject of this thread. Felt like I have been fighting SIM too much.

Guess I need to update my sig now....

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Jtgavigan