Face angle vs CoG bias

[getitdaily]

Hoping guys like 

@Howard_Jones

@QuigleyDU

@Stuart_G

@Valtiel

 

And any others into the technical stuff on club fitting.

 

If you were fitting a low single digit cap who plays a fade...do you fit to always keep left out of play; ie not even the slightest draw or do you fit to keep the hard right miss out of play? 

 

If path is really consistent and you see that misses are usually due to face more open to path than desirable, how does that impact how you'd setup driver?

 

Close the face and move CoG to fade or leave face square and move CoG to draw?

 

I'm playing with SIM backweights and seeing interesting stuff...

[QuigleyDU]

42 minutes ago, getitdaily said:

Hoping guys like 

@Howard_Jones

@QuigleyDU

@Stuart_G

@Valtiel

 

And any others into the technical stuff on club fitting.

 

If you were fitting a low single digit cap who plays a fade...do you fit to always keep left out of play; ie not even the slightest draw or do you fit to keep the hard right miss out of play? 

 

If path is really consistent and you see that misses are usually due to face more open to path than desirable, how does that impact how you'd setup driver?

 

Close the face and move CoG to fade or leave face square and move CoG to draw?

 

I'm playing with SIM backweights and seeing interesting stuff...

A lot depends on what the player wants. For example, one player may look down and think a closed face messes with their alignment or confidence. Others may prefer a shut face look know the ball will start left and move back to center. Moving COG with a sliding weight works for some and not for others. I have actually seen a few times, a player with a fade ball flight. We set the weight all the weight out in the toe. Which should promote a fade but for some reason the feel worked for them and they hit it straighter than if it was in the heel. Must be a feel thing that helped them feel the head torque more and close it better. I don't know, but it works for some. Some may also need to change driver shaft set up. Something heavier or lighter, more or less active. A different grip size. 

 

All of these things may or may not affect ball flight tendencies. The player may also want to hit a more a of right to left draw ball. I feel there is not a ton I can do there, but there is a little. 

 

So lots of variables. No one answer will work for everyone.. 

 

So my first question, if the golfer is skilled and has a tendency, is to ask what do they want? Then go from there. 

Edited September 28, 2020 by QuigleyDU

[Howard_Jones]

The better the player is, the stronger is often his own personal preferences for what he likes and dislikes, so a issue like face angle can hardly ever be used to fix anything, unless the face angle "needed" is a FA the player likes when he looks down on the club in address position. Both face angle, grip size and shape and the players placement of his hands on the grip is interlocked with each other here, and all 3 of them is often "set and cant be moved" before the club fitter get a chance to talk to the player. That means the parameters we could use to adjust is already "out of the question" to do anything with, so we often have a limited numbers of options to use to make it right for this types of players.

, so we have to start by pleasing the players preferences here, and move on to stuff like shaft profiles who either closes up more or less....again, the feel factor or player preference is really what counts, but sure we have to "see that it works", or find a way to make it work.

Its hardly ever like that a club fitter has "free hands" to pick whatever he think is right, the players own feedback is the most important to base it all on, and we would have to look into what the players normal mishit tendencies is, they are not the same for all "fade players", so its not like that we just make sure the ball goes right no matter what, some fade players has issues in that direction too.

This players is also of the kind that they normally demand shot shaping ability both ways, even if a fade is their preferred ball flight, so we have to look at the general playability too, not only eliminate errors as far as we can....they also demand directional dispersion to the level where they can choose the side of the fairway they want their next lay up, "De Chambeu style " (just make it long) is easy enough, if the rough, bunkers and lakes is OK with you as your next lay up.
(so yes, we will see him with a 48" long driver soon....the longest i ever made for Golf is 45.00" measured on a Mitchell ruler, the volume was 44 - 44.50".)
 

[getitdaily]

45 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

A lot depends on what the player wants. For example, one player may look down and think a closed face messes with their alignment or confidence. Others may prefer a shut face look know the ball will start left and move back to center. Moving COG with a sliding weight works for some and not for others. I have actually seen a few times, a player with a fade ball flight. We set the weight all the weight out in the toe. Which should promote a fade but for some reason the feel worked for them and they hit it straighter than if it was in the heel. Must be a feel thing that helped them feel the head torque more and close it better. I don't know, but it works for some. Some may also need to change driver shaft set up. Something heavier or lighter, more or less active. A different grip size. 

 

All of these things may or may not affect ball flight tendencies. The player may also want to hit a more a of right to left draw ball. I feel there is not a ton I can do there, but there is a little. 

 

So lots of variables. No one answer will work for everyone.. 

 

So my first question, if the golfer is skilled and has a tendency, is to ask what do they want? Then go from there. 

Yeah, lots of variables.

 

As I noted, I'm testing 15g and 17g back weights in my sim. For most of the year, my sim setup was phenomenal. Std back weight, 10g heel, 4g centered. It produces a tight baby fade that I love. But, when I get quick in transition I can still lose it a bit right, not huge right...

 

The last 6 weeks or so, I've gotten a case of the pulls. So I started testing heavier backweight to see if bad swings are less punishing. 

 

I hit about 75 balls yesterday with various setups with the 17g and 15g back weights. It was a good day to test because I was working on a couple of swing issues so my range swing was fast and not so great. What I saw was the 15g weight helped reduce misses. The 17g did too, but I need to retest with two 4g weights in the front track to get sw down. 

 

I plan to do more testing but I notice a bit more face closure bias the heavier I go on the backweight...as all the literature says should happen. That observation got me wondering which had the greater impact on spin...face angle or CoG bias. Let's assume that face to path is rarely more than about 3 degrees open. 

 

To answer your question...I'm not sure what I want just yet...lol. I saw more balls fall left rather than fall right with the heavier back weight. Very likely was me. I need a round of testing where my swing is good to see what happens and if left is out of play. Most of my heavier backweight testing was done with the 10g front weight halfway between center and toe. 

Edited September 28, 2020 by getitdaily

[QuigleyDU]

I am not a club builder or designer but adding mass away from the head should (as I understand it) increase the MOI. While at the same time increasing swing weight. Both things could be a positive for you.

[getitdaily]

2 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

I am not a club builder or designer but adding mass away from the head should (as I understand it) increase the MOI. While at the same time increasing swing weight. Both things could be a positive for you.

Yeah, I definitely saw tighter dispersion. I knew gear effect would be reduced. More playing around to come...

[getitdaily]

31 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

The better the player is, the stronger is often his own personal preferences for what he likes and dislikes, so a issue like face angle can hardly ever be used to fix anything, unless the face angle "needed" is a FA the player likes when he looks down on the club in address position. Both face angle, grip size and shape and the players placement of his hands on the grip is interlocked with each other here, and all 3 of them is often "set and cant be moved" before the club fitter get a chance to talk to the player. That means the parameters we could use to adjust is already "out of the question" to do anything with, so we often have a limited numbers of options to use to make it right for this types of players.

, so we have to start by pleasing the players preferences here, and move on to stuff like shaft profiles who either closes up more or less....again, the feel factor or player preference is really what counts, but sure we have to "see that it works", or find a way to make it work.

Its hardly ever like that a club fitter has "free hands" to pick whatever he think is right, the players own feedback is the most important to base it all on, and we would have to look into what the players normal mishit tendencies is, they are not the same for all "fade players", so its not like that we just make sure the ball goes right no matter what, some fade players has issues in that direction too.

This players is also of the kind that they normally demand shot shaping ability both ways, even if a fade is their preferred ball flight, so we have to look at the general playability too, not only eliminate errors as far as we can....they also demand directional dispersion to the level where they can choose the side of the fairway they want their next lay up, "De Chambeu style " (just make it long) is easy enough, if the rough, bunkers and lakes is OK with you as your next lay up.
(so yes, we will see him with a 48" long driver soon....the longest i ever made for Golf is 45.00" measured on a Mitchell ruler, the volume was 44 - 44.50".)
 

I was really hoping you would have a formula that outlined the x/y axis intersection of spin influenced by face angle and CoG position...for example, at 2 degrees open, cog needs to be 2 mm draw to generate zero sidespin...lol

 

 

[Howard_Jones]

59 minutes ago, getitdaily said:

I was really hoping you would have a formula that outlined the x/y axis intersection of spin influenced by face angle and CoG position...for example, at 2 degrees open, cog needs to be 2 mm draw to generate zero sidespin...lol

 

 

Sorry that i cant help with a chart for that, but look at it this way.
The further behind the face we can move COG, the more COG will move sideways with face angle, and if we could stretch it all the way to 57 mm behind the face, 1* closed moves COG 1 mm toe side if i recall right (a bit less but rounded up its like 1:1), so on a driver like that, 3* OPEN would have COG 3 mm heelside of the center of the face at impact (COG in the center with neutral FA). But, the BULGE on the face has a way higher radius than only 57 mm, so 3 mm toe side will not be "square" but closed, but not as much as the center of the face is....

I guess you have seen this illustration before who shows how COG moves on the heel to toe axis depending on face angle at impact.

Now, Side spin or tilt on the balls spin axis is a product of "face to path", loft, and horizontal gear effects due to impact position vs COG.
That means we can have a strait line from COG directly behind and trough the ball against target line, and no horizontal gear effects will be made from "COG vs COG travel direction", but we can still tilt the balls spin axis with a face angle thats open or closed to path. The other way, we can have a square face to path, but a impact that do make a horizontal gear effect since COG in the head vs COG in the ball is not aligned on the same travel direction. In most cases, we have a mix of forces present that can work both ways and partly or fully equalize each other. Example we can have a impact to far out against the toe side who will cause a tilt against hook, but if face to path is open enough, that hook becomes a baby draw or a strait shot, yes even a fade if the players wrist action is very fast (*see foot note) 

So to make a chart like the one you though i might have already, we would need to know the measurement of RCOG and Face bulge ratio so we can start by finding how much COG moves, and then how face angle looks like when we move impact equally on the heel to toe axis on the face, then we cant start doing some numbers.





END NOTE
Fast face closure speed during impact can make a horizontal gear effect / tilt on the spin axis against right, even with a strait COG to COG and a face angle square to path, so its more to it all than just Bias weighting and face angles...



 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Howard_Jones

[getitdaily]

22 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Sorry that i cant help with a chart for that, but look at it this way.
The further behind the face we can move COG, the more COG will move sideways with face angle, and if we could stretch it all the way to 57 mm behind the face, 1* closed moves COG 1 mm toe side if i recall right (a bit less but rounded up its like 1:1), so on a driver like that, 3* OPEN would have COG 3 mm heelside of the center of the face at impact (COG in the center with neutral FA). But, the BULGE on the face has a way higher radius than only 57 mm, so 3 mm toe side will not be "square" but closed, but not as much as the center of the face is....

I guess you have seen this illustration before who shows how COG moves on the heel to toe axis depending on face angle at impact.

Now, Side spin or tilt on the balls spin axis is a product of "face to path", loft, and horizontal gear effects due to impact position vs COG.
That means we can have a strait line from COG directly behind and trough the ball against target line, and no horizontal gear effects will be made from "COG vs COG travel direction", but we can still tilt the balls spin axis with a face angle thats open or closed to path. The other way, we can have a square face to path, but a impact that do make a horizontal gear effect since COG in the head vs COG in the ball is not aligned on the same travel direction. In most cases, we have a mix of forces present that can work both ways and partly or fully equalize each other. Example we can have a impact to far out against the toe side who will cause a tilt against hook, but if face to path is open enough, that hook becomes a baby draw or a strait shot, yes even a fade if the players wrist action is very fast (*see foot note) 

So to make a chart like the one you though i might have already, we would need to know the measurement of RCOG and Face bulge ratio so we can start by finding how much COG moves, and then how face angle looks like when we move impact equally on the heel to toe axis on the face, then we cant start doing some numbers.





END NOTE
Fast face closure speed during impact can make a horizontal gear effect / tilt on the spin axis against right, even with a strait COG to COG and a face angle square to path, so its more to it all than just Bias weighting and face angles...



 

I think you backed me into what I was looking for...

 

1. Put the 10g front track in neutral and see what happens to ball flight at std loft and then loft up 1 click (tm adapter). Find out what the face does in that setup first. Then adjust CoG accordingly to dial in the miss...

 

Or, more simply stated, find face to path consistency first, then alter CoG...

[Stuart_G]

3 hours ago, getitdaily said:

Hoping guys like 

@Howard_Jones

@QuigleyDU

@Stuart_G

@Valtiel

 

And any others into the technical stuff on club fitting.

 

If you were fitting a low single digit cap who plays a fade...do you fit to always keep left out of play; ie not even the slightest draw or do you fit to keep the hard right miss out of play? 

 

If path is really consistent and you see that misses are usually due to face more open to path than desirable, how does that impact how you'd setup driver?

 

Close the face and move CoG to fade or leave face square and move CoG to draw?

 

I'm playing with SIM backweights and seeing interesting stuff...

 

Completely depends on what the player wants and how sensitive they are to those changes (face angle and weight position).

[getitdaily]

Looked at data from a driver fitting on trackman late last year and found that of the 42 shots with TM drivers (my normal shafts) 12 shots had face to path less than 1.5 open. 7 of those 12 were between 1.0 and 1.4 open to path. 

 

Based on this, i set out with 15g and 17g back weight testing. 

 

15g with 4g front heel and 10g front center showed promise set to upright and closed one click. But i was still seeing a bit too much curve. One reason i set out to test heavier back weights was to reduce gearing effect by having 14g in the front track.

 

So i popped in the 17g back weight and took the 4g out of the front, 10g centered. Started off in upright and std loft. Showed promising results but a few too many with a bit of right curve that i figured i could reduce. Start line was good so it had to be face to path...was my thought. Set to upright with face closed one click. Things got even better.  Dispersion window was really good. But a couple drives fell left just a touch. Moved the 10g a bit more toe side and i may have found a nearly error proof driver. I'm not naive enough to think really bad swings would turn out good. But mediocre swings still produced tight dispersion. Even hit a few where i could tell i got a bit in to out and shut face (my swing flaw) and i looked up expecting to see a ball going left and low....nope. Dead straight, no movement at all. 

 

Now for course time and launch monitor testing. Gotta check spin and this setup MAY allow me to move to the tour bx...driver was the only thing keeping me in the b xs ball.

 

Thanks for the replies, gents.