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

[Phabs]

1 hour ago, Jtgavigan said:

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....

 

Just learn how to aim your club bro.  Stop sucking at golf… 🤣🤣

 

That’s sarcasm… just in case some can’t see the forest through the trees. 

[Jtgavigan]

5 minutes ago, Phabs said:

Just learn how to aim your club bro.  Stop sucking at golf… 🤣🤣

 

That’s sarcasm… just in case some can’t see the forest through the trees. 

 

I am seriously trying to stop sucking at golf man, seriously I am. LOL.

[Valtiel]

2 hours ago, Jtgavigan said:

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....

 

I actually have a TSi3 for this exact reason, toying with the idea of having a draw and a fade driver ala 2006 Phil Mickelson. It probably won't stick, but the TSi3 looks so great behind the ball and much more neutral in a draw/fade sort of way. 

Out of curiosity though, when messing with the original SIM did you do much with the front weight?

[Phabs]

I went as far as buying a 2 gram and 4 gram heavier slider weight for the sim head I had.   The 2 gram even in the full draw position the head still returned a fade ball flight.  The 4 gram threw the balance all out of wack for me and I couldn’t even find the middle of the club face so the ball flight was a moot point. 
 

Went back to my M3 and my 5 yard draw immediately returned.  Haven’t touched another woman since 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Phabs

[Jtgavigan]

8 minutes ago, Valtiel said:

I actually have a TSi3 for this exact reason, toying with the idea of having a draw and a fade driver ala 2006 Phil Mickelson. It probably won't stick, but the TSi3 looks so great behind the ball and much more neutral in a draw/fade sort of way. 

Out of curiosity though, when messing with the original SIM did you do much with the front weight?

 

I had a 14g front weight and 17g backweight as options. I had been playing with the weight in the heel. My last iteration had the 14g up front slid to the heel, and clicked up to standard or just 1 click higher (versus, the 1 click up from lower). I was trying to shut the face some without me manipulating it as much. 

I have the TSI3 (8 degree) set at D3 (upright and 0.75 deg up) and the weight all the way in the heel at H2. Pretty freaking amazing difference. Can turn it over gently, which I struggled to do with the SIM. It either was straight/slide face, or violently curving left.

Now, one thing you need to know, I have generally played a hold off fade for most of my 39 years playing this game. I am trying to work it one way and prefer a draw with everything but the driver, until now. my go to shot with short irons is a flighted trap draw. For whatever reason, I just hit it way more solid when drawing it.

[Valtiel]

4 hours ago, Jtgavigan said:

 

I had a 14g front weight and 17g backweight as options. I had been playing with the weight in the heel. My last iteration had the 14g up front slid to the heel, and clicked up to standard or just 1 click higher (versus, the 1 click up from lower). I was trying to shut the face some without me manipulating it as much. 

I have the TSI3 (8 degree) set at D3 (upright and 0.75 deg up) and the weight all the way in the heel at H2. Pretty freaking amazing difference. Can turn it over gently, which I struggled to do with the SIM. It either was straight/slide face, or violently curving left.

Now, one thing you need to know, I have generally played a hold off fade for most of my 39 years playing this game. I am trying to work it one way and prefer a draw with everything but the driver, until now. my go to shot with short irons is a flighted trap draw. For whatever reason, I just hit it way more solid when drawing it.

Interesting, thanks for that. Basically how I intend to try to use my TSi3 as well, just from the 9* starting point lofted up, probably start somewhere on the "4" side of the cog and work from there. The big visual difference for me is the face and how it is shaped/setup. Having the nice visual roll from heel to toe helps me a lot because the face can be more square or even slightly closed without looking like it as much because the open toe offsets that. That keeps me from feeling or doing anything weird to compensate for what i'm seeing and actually make a good "draw" swing as opposed to the feeling I have with the SIM which involves more feelings of manipulation. It's interesting because that is really all psychological, they're both just engineered pieces of dumb metal that don't care about any of that stuff, and the inherent fade bias of the SIM can be neutralized by putting the weight in the heel. 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Valtiel

[dvq9654]

This is a dumb question, but doesn't a cut mean you have a closed club face relative to the target line? Not to path, but if you are hitting a cut, I don't think you'd want the club to be square to path - you would hit it left all day, right? 

 

If that's the case, why couldn't you hit a draw by moving path to the right? 

 

[Stuart_G]

6 hours ago, dvq9654 said:

This is a dumb question, but doesn't a cut mean you have a closed club face relative to the target line? Not to path,

 

No.  Face to path determines the left/right curvature of the ball flight (as well as lie angle a little and face impact location thanks to gear effect for toe/heel hits).  

 

Face to target has a small influence on starting direction but path to target is the more dominant factor for that start line.

 

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Stuart_G

[Valtiel]

18 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

No.  Face to path determines the left/right curvature of the ball flight (as well as lie angle a little and face impact location thanks to gear effect for toe/heel hits).  

 

Face to target has a small influence on starting direction but path to target is the more dominant factor for that start line.

 

 

I started replying and stopped because I thought he might have a point I didn't realize. The idea that in order to produce a fade to target, the face must to be closed to the target but open to the path, and with the inverse being true for a draw to target, I think he is thinking that you need only change your path to change shape. That would be true if you were always curving the ball AWAY from where you're aiming the face, but in reality the shot with a -4*  path and a -2* face angle to produce your fade to target and your +4* path and +2* face angle to produce your draw to target require 4* of difference in delivered face angle. This @dvq9654 is what people were lamenting in the thread. The difficulty in getting the face slightly closed to hit draws. 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Valtiel

[Jtgavigan]

7 hours ago, dvq9654 said:

This is a dumb question, but doesn't a cut mean you have a closed club face relative to the target line? Not to path, but if you are hitting a cut, I don't think you'd want the club to be square to path - you would hit it left all day, right? 

 

If that's the case, why couldn't you hit a draw by moving path to the right? 

 

 

I know @Stuart_G and @Valtiel have answered, but think about it this way, with my path 4° in to out, and face 2° open to target, but 2° closed to path, the ball should start approximately 2° right of my target. If I hit it dead center, the ball should have a nice draw since the club is moving in to out since the path to target and face to path are essentially opposing. 

 

If I was 4° in to out at club was 0° face to path and 4° open to target, then it would be a straight push. 4° in to out and 6° open to target and 2° open to path, it would be an off the plant push fade. 

 

Against what I was taught in the 80s and 90s, we have figured out that the face angle at impact determines start line and club path determines curvature. If I were more in to out, say 6°, with face still 2° open to target, but 4° closed to path, I would hit a ball that starts slightly right and hooks well left. If my swing was 6° in to out, and 4° open to target, but 2° closed to path, then I would hit a ball that starts well right, but draws. However,  likely still finishing right of target. 

 

The challenge today is that the rules above with modern drivers dont always apply like you would think. These designs are heavily influenced by the tour folks, who mostly dont want to see a hook, and tend to like a fade bias. Some designs promote this fade bias more than others. Most of it is by center of gravity placement. For someone like me, who is trying to go to one shape - right to left, I need a design more neutral or a design that allows the cg to be moved enough to be neutral. If I hit a hook, it is because my body stopped rotating. I rarely hit one unless I just stall. My theory is because i have played a hold off fade for so long, i am probably still holding off my release a bit at impact. My miss tends to be right, not left more times than not. So, having a club accentuate that is not good for me. Hope this helps.

[Jtgavigan]

8 hours ago, Valtiel said:

Interesting, thanks for that. Basically how I intend to try to use my TSi3 as well, just from the 9* starting point lofted up, probably start somewhere on the "4" side of the cog and work from there. The big visual difference for me is the face and how it is shaped/setup. Having the nice visual roll from heel to toe helps me a lot because the face can be more square or even slightly closed without looking like it as much because the open toe offsets that. That keeps me from feeling or doing anything weird to compensate for what i'm seeing and actually make a good "draw" swing as opposed to the feeling I have with the SIM which involves more feelings of manipulation. It's interesting because that is really all psychological, they're both just engineered pieces of dumb metal that don't care about any of that stuff, and the inherent fade bias of the SIM can be neutralized by putting the weight in the heel. 

Gotcha, let me know how it works out. 

[Stuart_G]

3 hours ago, Valtiel said:

The idea that in order to produce a fade to target, the face must to be closed to the target but open to the path, and with the inverse being true for a draw to target, I think he is thinking that you need only change your path to change shape.

 

The other problem is that the way most am's change their path, the face changes with it.   Face control tends to be a much bigger problem than path control.

2 hours ago, Jtgavigan said:

The challenge today is that the rules above with modern drivers dont always apply like you would think. These designs are heavily influenced by the tour folks, who mostly dont want to see a hook, and tend to like a fade bias. Some designs promote this fade bias more than others. Most of it is by center of gravity placement.

 

Actually most of it comes from the longer playing lengths which makes it harder to close the face or control the timing of the release and also make consistent face contact .  

 

C.g. plays a role but it's really not that big for most ams.  It's more a factor for the better players with more consistent swings and impacts.

 

Mid and high cappers, face angle tends to play a bigger part in the head bias.

 

But those are just gross generalizations.  There will always be exceptions.

 

 

 

[Ri_Redneck]

On 10/22/2021 at 2:31 PM, Stuart_G said:

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

Perhaps so. I have drivers with FAs anywhere from 2.5 closed to 3.5 open. They all play the same for me. However, I have issues aiming any offset iron.

 

BT

[smedley]

I have gone back to my old TM Burner. I cannot get a consistent drive with the SIM Driver and it has through my whole game.