Club Building Method - Revisited

[Stuart_G]

13 hours ago, JimmyC59 said:

Duh, I should have realized that.

 

 

Not really.   Depends on the epoxy you use.

 

Most epoxy when mixed is way too thick to run down the shaft - especially with a ferrule in the way.  I always dry my clubs in a head up orientation and never had any drips in the 15-20 years I've been building.   Personally, I think the weight of the head does a better job keeping them in place than the weight of the shaft.  

 

But in reality,  for most it usually doesn't matter what position they are in as long as there is no air lock to try and force the head back off the shaft.

 

But it's possible that there are some thinner epoxy formulations in which dripping might be an issue.  I've just never come across them myself.

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by Stuart_G

[denkea]

4 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

never had any drips in the 15-20 years I've been building.  

That's probably because you know how much epoxy to use.  Most not in the business use way too much epoxy.  

I attended a 3 day seminar at Dynacraft back in the day and the first thing they mentioned was that amateurs use way, way too much epoxy.  

[JimmyC59]

4 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Not really.   Depends on the epoxy you use.

 

Most epoxy when mixed is way too thick to run down the shaft - especially with a ferrule in the way.  I always dry my clubs in a head up orientation and never had any drips in the 15-20 years I've been building.   Personally, I think the weight of the head does a better job keeping them in place than the weight of the shaft.  

 

But in reality,  for most it usually doesn't matter what position they are in as long as there is no air lock to try and force the head back off the shaft.

 

But it's possible that there are some thinner epoxy formulations in which dripping might be an issue.  I've just never come across them myself.

 

Thanks Stuart, you and Howard are very generous sharing your knowledge and expertise.

Thank you for that.

[Stuart_G]

50 minutes ago, denkea said:

That's probably because you know how much epoxy to use.  Most not in the business use way too much epoxy.  

I attended a 3 day seminar at Dynacraft back in the day and the first thing they mentioned was that amateurs use way, way too much epoxy.  

 

I don't disagree that many use too much epoxy.   But that's not really the reason.  It's just as much of  a mess when it overflows and drips down the hosel as it does dripping down the shaft.   Plus the vast majority of those that do use too much also know enough to clean it up before it can drip either way. 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by Stuart_G

[R_Swanson]

On 4/13/2021 at 10:37 AM, Howard_Jones said:

This is the basics...

Its the HEAD ALONE, with or without a tip weight and the ferrule.

Shafts is a unit for itself, high end club making always include weight sorting of shaft like this:
Descending wgt shafts - use the lightest shaft for the longest club and opposite.
Constant wgt shafts - Exchange shafts in and out of the set from other sets, to make all shafts as equal on start wgt as possible

Grips is a unit for itself, should be weight sorted and used to even out TOTAL wgt progression by taking advantage of the tolerances grips often has that can be plus minus 3.5 grams

As example a classic DG S300 or X100 cut to play length is no longer 130 grams, but down at 120-122 depending on hosel specs and what play length we use.

Standard grips is plus minus 50-52 grams but its more common that they have another weight than "std", but that dont always mean a different effect of SW like New Decade who is official 46.5 grams as standard, but returns the same SW value as Golf Pride Tour velvet standard at 50 grams due to a slightly different balance point on the grip who normally is plus minus 4.0 inch below the butt end of the grip

Heads dont have a standard head wgt either, but a typical #3 iron head is expected to be plus minus 240 grams like my static fitting chart say, and all clubs shorter, PLUS 7 grams progressive as we go shorter on play length.

1/2" between clubs = 7 grams in a classic SW set, so if we could get ALL shafts, and ALL grips on the fragment of official specs, TOTAL wgt progression from club to club will also be 7.0 grams like the head weight slope is, since the grip and shaft "should have" the same weight no matter club.

 

 

Hey guys, this is pretty self explanatory and I understand it... I am quoting this post to reference the chart.  My thoughts/questions are less about how the math and all that works, but the theory behind the building of the transition into your wedges.

 

I am building a set of T100S's, and the GW is 3 grams less than the PW, vs the rest of the clubs which are approx 7 grams difference (on average). The differences under "Wedge" then fall to ~2.5 grams.  Fairly simple to deduce that the length change is then 1/4", not a 1/2" so we land on the same SW.  Howard's chart also shows this on the right.

 

Where my question comes in sort of also circles back to Howard's spinner thread as well as some other reading I am doing on here around building sets.  I have seen it mentioned that the transition to your clubs that you are no longer hitting full shots with, which for some people is a GW, others a SW, is where you stop reducing shaft length by 1/2", as well as shaft flex.   This would make sense that you want half (or less) difference in head weight.  However in the chart above this head weight and length change comes into effect from the 9 to PW... a PW being a club you are sometimes hitting full shots with... at least often enough I'd still assume you'd measure it out a half inch less than your 9i.  My T100S's have said 7 gram gap between 9i and PW, to account for that half an inch.  In this particular set the GW is also a T100S and is 48 degrees loft, as the PW is 44, so I presume I will be hitting more full shots with it than I would if it was a traditional GW, like my vokey I used to play. 

 

- Is the above correct, and are you supposed to reduce club length by only 1/4" on the wedge that you're going to play much more 70%/50% shots on, or was I misunderstanding other information I read?

- Given todays stronger lofts and increase in distance, etc - in modern club building has the GW effectively become a PW?  That is pretty much how I am seeing it in this set (and therefore I assumed I'd be playing more full shots with it), but maybe I am wrong.

- If I wanted to play my 52, 56, 60, etc (however I build out my wedges in this set) at the same length, is there any downside to adding tip weight to the wedges and playing them at one length?  I am 6'3 and I feel hunched over by the time I get to a PW, even at +1/2". I am playing with the idea of making all my wedges the same length.

[Howard_Jones]

7 hours ago, R_Swanson said:

 

 

Hey guys, this is pretty self explanatory and I understand it... I am quoting this post to reference the chart.  My thoughts/questions are less about how the math and all that works, but the theory behind the building of the transition into your wedges.

 

I am building a set of T100S's, and the GW is 3 grams less than the PW, vs the rest of the clubs which are approx 7 grams difference (on average). The differences under "Wedge" then fall to ~2.5 grams.  Fairly simple to deduce that the length change is then 1/4", not a 1/2" so we land on the same SW.  Howard's chart also shows this on the right.

 

Where my question comes in sort of also circles back to Howard's spinner thread as well as some other reading I am doing on here around building sets.  I have seen it mentioned that the transition to your clubs that you are no longer hitting full shots with, which for some people is a GW, others a SW, is where you stop reducing shaft length by 1/2", as well as shaft flex.   This would make sense that you want half (or less) difference in head weight.  However in the chart above this head weight and length change comes into effect from the 9 to PW... a PW being a club you are sometimes hitting full shots with... at least often enough I'd still assume you'd measure it out a half inch less than your 9i.  My T100S's have said 7 gram gap between 9i and PW, to account for that half an inch.  In this particular set the GW is also a T100S and is 48 degrees loft, as the PW is 44, so I presume I will be hitting more full shots with it than I would if it was a traditional GW, like my vokey I used to play. 

 

- Is the above correct, and are you supposed to reduce club length by only 1/4" on the wedge that you're going to play much more 70%/50% shots on, or was I misunderstanding other information I read?

- Given todays stronger lofts and increase in distance, etc - in modern club building has the GW effectively become a PW?  That is pretty much how I am seeing it in this set (and therefore I assumed I'd be playing more full shots with it), but maybe I am wrong.

- If I wanted to play my 52, 56, 60, etc (however I build out my wedges in this set) at the same length, is there any downside to adding tip weight to the wedges and playing them at one length?  I am 6'3 and I feel hunched over by the time I get to a PW, even at +1/2". I am playing with the idea of making all my wedges the same length.

Play length is ALWAYS #1
The question is NOT how head wgt looks like "from the box", (and by that PL), but how short can we go before its no good for your stance and swing, so we have to forget the idea that 0.5 between clubs for full swing clubs is written in stone, ITS NOT.

We see this every day in wedges where the norm is 0.25" shorter, but many never places their hands on the wedges like we do on irons, but they lower their hands, who indicates that we should use at least 0.5" for wedges too....but we dont.

So dont get hung up in numbers or systems, we have to use play lengths thats good for US, and make the other components like head and head wgt to fit that, not the other way around.

Making all wedges to the same length can be done, but then you will run into head wgt issues where SW and LW becomes silly high as SW value due to their standard head wgt, but if thats good, or maybe even the target, go ahead.

Its no "right or wrong" here, only good or bad fit for each player and thats individual, but sometimes head wgt issues forces us to change PL, but we should avoid that as long as we can since PL is the most important, NOT because its should line up in a system, but due to whats the best fit for you, and the way you play this clubs

Edited March 8, 2023 by Howard_Jones

[R_Swanson]

Thanks Howard, I appreciate you spending the time.