Why does more driver loft mean more forgiveness?

[Barfolomew]

So why is more driver loft more forgiving?  Is it cause it spins more?  If so why does more spin make it more forgiving?  Thanks 🐫

[Howard_Jones]

30 minutes ago, Barfolomew said:

So why is more driver loft more forgiving?  Is it cause it spins more?  If so why does more spin make it more forgiving?  Thanks 🐫

The energy we transfer to the ball is only 100%, so its a question of how that energy is split up. If a certain amount goes to back spin, less will be available for tilt on the spin axis. The theory is weak since spin from drivers is to the lower end. Another idea is that spin keeps the ball in the air, but thats not really true, so if launch is high enough, we dont need or want high back spin, and its very limited how much back spin can "stretch" carry with a low launch, just try some random numbers on flightscope and you will see that.

Optimize impact and PTR, and all of this becomes non issues, its a variable impact and face angle thats the issue when distance and dispersion is bad.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Howard_Jones

[Barfolomew]

15 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

The energy we transfer to the ball is only 100%, so its a question of how that energy is split up. If a certain amount goes to back spin, less will be available for tilt on the spin axis. The theory is weak since spin from drivers is to the lower end. Another idea is that spin keeps the ball in the air, but thats not really true, so if launch is high enough, we dont need or want high back spin, and its very limited how much back spin can "stretch" carry with a low launch, just try some random numbers on flightscope and you will see that.

Optimize impact and PTR, and all of this becomes non issues, its a variable impact and face angle thats the issue when distance and dispersion is bad.

 

Sorry didn't understand your response.... the variable impact I get but how does a loftier face angle help? 

 

Can you put in in lame man terms please? I dont use a launch monitor so can't experiment for myself.... Thanks!!

 

[LCP]

Think of a driver with zero loft.  If you hit it with the face open or closed to the path, the ball, in theory, would want to roll off of (or at least spin completely toward) the side of the club face.  As you add loft to the club face, the ball wants to roll off of (or spin toward) the top of the club face instead of roll off of (or spin toward) the side. Hence why it's so hard to get side spin on a lob wedge.

[jvincent]

31 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Another idea is that spin keeps the ball in the air, but thats not really true, so if launch is high enough, we dont need or want high back spin, and its very limited how much back spin can "stretch" carry with a low launch, just try some random numbers on flightscope and you will see that.
 

 

I agree about not wanting high backspin, but spin definitely keeps the ball in the air. Not enough spin and the ball will fall out of the air early.

 

As you point out, it's a question of optimizing all the variables (launch, spin, speed) for maximum results but in general more loft is more forgiving from a lateral miss perspective.

[Valtiel]

The more a ball spins, the greater the force necessary to tilt its axis, which is what creates curvature. The possible gear effects imposed by a driver are also significant, so spin has to be tuned to account for this and for what your miss might be. What I mean by that is if your driver spins at 2,000rpm when you strike it in the center, then a high strike will dip well down into the 1k range. Mix in a little bit of a toe strike and now the horizontal gear effects are tilting the axis left without enough total spin to stabilize the ball, resulting in the dreaded duck hook. Now let's say you increase your driver loft so that center strike is now 2,700rpm. Those high toe strikes aren't diving down into the 1k range anymore, so those same horizontal gear effects aren't going to impact the curvature as much and what was previously a duck hook is now just a draw. This is what would be considered "forgiveness" in this context, and is really something specifically for someone whos misses are in places that reduce spin (higher and towards the toe). For someone that rarely/never misses there, and instead maybe misses lower and/or heel side, you can "tune" your center strikes to be much lower spin, because your misses are only going to increase it. Higher loft then wouldn't be considered "more forgiving", just shorter/spinnier. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Valtiel

[DaveGoodrich]

25 minutes ago, Valtiel said:

For someone that rarely/never misses there, and instead maybe misses lower and/or heel side, you can "tune" your center strikes to be much lower spin, because your misses are only going to increase it. Higher loft then wouldn't be considered "more forgiving", just shorter/spinnier. 

This is me. This helps explain why I have always done well with low loft/spin drivers, despite low 90's driver speed.  My miss is low/heel.  

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by DaveGoodrich

[Howard_Jones]

1 hour ago, jvincent said:

 

I agree about not wanting high backspin, but spin definitely keeps the ball in the air. Not enough spin and the ball will fall out of the air early.

 

As you point out, it's a question of optimizing all the variables (launch, spin, speed) for maximum results but in general more loft is more forgiving from a lateral miss perspective.

Like i wrote, go to flightscopes optimizer and see how far you can stretch ball flight with higher spin....you will not be impressed, and its simply not true that the ball falls out of the sky due to lack of spin, its lack of launch angle, PLUS a tilt on the spin axis combined.

Even 1750 rpms at only 135 mph ball speed is enough to keep it in the air IF launch angle is good and the tilt is small. If spin was needed, explain this numbers. (distance is meters, and the numbers is from my Trackman)


 

[Howard_Jones]

here is a few examples to show the effect of spin.
Ball speed 150 - launch angle 10, and spin in intervals of 500 from 1500 to 3500.
3.6 yards is all we can get out of it from spin, so its NOT spin that keeps the ball in the air.



Even 1000 rpms is enough to get it out to 226 yards with launch as low as 10


If the same player can get launch angle up to 15* with only 1000 rpm of spin, it still dont fall out of the sky, but improves carry from 233.3 as the best above to 248, so its s myth that lack of spin makes the ball drop out of the sky. We can stretch carry a little if launch is way to low, but thats it.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Howard_Jones

[jvincent]

27 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Like i wrote, go to flightscopes optimizer and see how far you can stretch ball flight with higher spin....you will not be impressed, and its simply not true that the ball falls out of the sky due to lack of spin, its lack of launch angle, PLUS a tilt on the spin axis combined.

Even 1750 rpms at only 135 mph ball speed is enough to keep it in the air IF launch angle is good and the tilt is small. If spin was needed, explain this numbers. (distance is meters, and the numbers is from my Trackman)


 

 

Spin absolutely keeps the ball in  the air.

 

It's fine to say that X amount of spin is fine IF launch angle is good but the reality is that different people launch at different angles not to mention that we mere mortals aren't always consistent.

 

Also, don't forget that the Flightscope model uses a generic ball model. Individual balls behave very differently aerodynamically in flight.

 

Going back in time a bit, the TM LDP Red was a terrible ball for me because it didn't stay in the air long enough due to reduced spin. The LDP Black was consistently 10-15 yards longer in the air entirely due to its extra spin off the driver.

 

For the data you posted, those ball speed numbers are actually relatively low. It's a fairly complex 3D space, but the tradeoffs between ballspeed, spin, and launch are pretty complex. At certain speeds/launch the carry distance doesn't benefit from the lift generated by spin and will get better results with purely ballistic flight. At higher speeds the lift created by spin and the associated aerodynamic flight will create more carry distance for given launch/speed combinations.

 

As an example, crumple a sheet of paper into a ball and see how far you can throw it. Make it into an airplane and throw it the same way and see which one goes further.

Edited December 1, 2021 by jvincent
Forgot a comment.

[rwhitlock]

I wouldn't say that a higher lofted driver is more 'forgiving'.  A higher lofted driver may have a tighter dispersion pattern as described above with the spin characteristics, but not necessarily more forgiving.

 

just my .02 cents

[Stuart_G]

11 hours ago, Barfolomew said:

So why is more driver loft more forgiving?  Is it cause it spins more?  If so why does more spin make it more forgiving?  Thanks 🐫

 

It's not - at least not any significant amount.

 

You need a LOT more loft - e.g moving into 3wd territory - before the offline tendencies would be reduced to the point of being significant.

 

And all the comments about the effect on spin axis are really wrong.  It has nothing to do with that. 

 

It's all about distance.   If you add enough loft, the total distance is reduced.  And if the total distance is reduced enough, then the offline distance is also reduced.  That's really all there is to it.   If you don't want to risk going offline as much - use a shorter club.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Stuart_G

[Howard_Jones]

8 hours ago, jvincent said:

 

Spin absolutely keeps the ball in  the air.

 

It's fine to say that X amount of spin is fine IF launch angle is good but the reality is that different people launch at different angles not to mention that we mere mortals aren't always consistent.

 

Also, don't forget that the Flightscope model uses a generic ball model. Individual balls behave very differently aerodynamically in flight.

 

Going back in time a bit, the TM LDP Red was a terrible ball for me because it didn't stay in the air long enough due to reduced spin. The LDP Black was consistently 10-15 yards longer in the air entirely due to its extra spin off the driver.

 

For the data you posted, those ball speed numbers are actually relatively low. It's a fairly complex 3D space, but the tradeoffs between ballspeed, spin, and launch are pretty complex. At certain speeds/launch the carry distance doesn't benefit from the lift generated by spin and will get better results with purely ballistic flight. At higher speeds the lift created by spin and the associated aerodynamic flight will create more carry distance for given launch/speed combinations.

 

As an example, crumple a sheet of paper into a ball and see how far you can throw it. Make it into an airplane and throw it the same way and see which one goes further.

So, what you are saying is, that Flightscoipe uses a "special ball" in their model, and thats why it dont fall out of the sky at low spin, and since we are humans, we dont have 15 launch and 1000 rpm of spin if the return values from the LM say we have?

[jvincent]

32 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

So, what you are saying is, that Flightscoipe uses a "special ball" in their model, and thats why it dont fall out of the sky at low spin, and since we are humans, we dont have 15 launch and 1000 rpm of spin if the return values from the LM say we have?

No, what I'm saying is that you can't treat the Flightscope numbers as gospel when doing a comparison. It's just a model for a "generic" ball. Like any model it's going to have errors.

 

For example it's well known that the Foresight (GC Quad) model over estimates distance at higher speeds/lower spins.

 

If you are measuring total flight of the ball with a Trackman that's a different scenario since there's no model in play, except for the roll out estimate.

[Barfolomew]

7 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

It's all about distance.   If you add enough loft, the total distance is reduced.  And if the total distance is reduced enough, then the offline distance is also reduced.  That's really all there is to it.   If you don't want to risk going offline as much - use a shorter club.

 

Off topic but it is my thread lol and coming off your point..... 🐕

 

I did build a 42" driver 70tx shaft this year.... and it is more controllable with not that much drop in distance as center strikes are easier, and it performed good in a tourney.  But the reason I did it was to create a very stiff shaft as I feel it makes no sense to have the longest club with a curved club face have the softest shaft in the bag that is also swung the hardest, all those 4 variables don't make any sense together.  So now I'm building a 45" driver with a 10x ventus black shaft to see if its controllable and if the distance gains are worth the extra 3 inches in length.

 

Back on topic...

 

So all the comments we hear through golf media like TXG etc is incorrect that more loft is more forgiving?  More spin is more playable and makes driver more forgiving?

 

Thanks!

Edited December 1, 2021 by Barfolomew

[Stuart_G]

6 minutes ago, Barfolomew said:

But the reason I did it was to create a very stiff shaft as I feel it makes no sense to have the longest club with a curved club face have the softest shaft in the bag that is also swung the hardest, all those 4 variables don't make any sense together. 

 

There is nothing special about the level of stiffness as it relates to length or swing speed.  There is no inherent need for it to be stiffer based just on the physics of how the shaft works.   The only sense that really matters is how the shaft feels to you and how that feel influences your swing.    If stiffer does give you better results - great.  But that can only be validated with actual testing.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Barfolomew said:

 

So all the comments we hear through golf media like TXG etc is incorrect that more loft is more forgiving?  More spin is more playable and makes driver more forgiving?

 

The important question isn't whether it's better in theory or not.  The question is whether it's better in reality. Whether the improvement in offline tendencies from a given back spin change is actually noticeable or even significant.   The changes need to be pretty big before that happens - and the consequence is a significant loss of distance - because it's that loss of distance that drives the decrease in the amount of offline tendency.

 

[Wardonation]

16 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

here is a few examples to show the effect of spin.
Ball speed 150 - launch angle 10, and spin in intervals of 500 from 1500 to 3500.
3.6 yards is all we can get out of it from spin, so its NOT spin that keeps the ball in the air.



Even 1000 rpms is enough to get it out to 226 yards with launch as low as 10


If the same player can get launch angle up to 15* with only 1000 rpm of spin, it still dont fall out of the sky, but improves carry from 233.3 as the best above to 248, so its s myth that lack of spin makes the ball drop out of the sky. We can stretch carry a little if launch is way to low, but thats it.

Thank you for this Howard. This is HUGE IMO. The "eye test" of flight I would have totally disagreed with this, but you proved me worng. I am +6 aoa guy and I hate seeing the 'knuckle ball'. I have switched to a 12 degree driver though and feel I can control the ball better with spin only going up from 1750 to 2100 w/ loft increae.

[Barfolomew]

2 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

The important question isn't whether it's better in theory or not.  The question is whether it's better in reality. Whether the improvement in offline tendencies from a given back spin change is actually noticeable or even significant.   The changes need to be pretty big before that happens - and the consequence is a significant loss of distance - because it's that loss of distance that drives the decrease in the amount of offline tendency.

 

 

Sounds like your saying when Matt of TXG or anyone says 500 more rpm is more forgiving, then they're just admitting they can't handle the extra distance they are hitting lol..... which is completely understandable BUT they should not be making sweeping statements that its more forgiving in general to have more loft cause its completely misleading for those of us that dont even have access to launch monitors and dont hit balls all day long on them to figure out the real data.... that's its just their lack of skill and got nothing to do with more or less forgiving lofts

 

 

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, Barfolomew said:

 

Sounds like your saying when Matt of TXG or anyone says 500 more rpm is more forgiving, then they're just admitting they can't handle the extra distance they are hitting lol..... which is completely understandable BUT they should not be making sweeping statements that its more forgiving in general to have more loft cause its completely misleading for those of us that dont even have access to launch monitors and dont hit balls all day long on them to figure out the real data.... that's its just their lack of skill and got nothing to do with more or less forgiving lofts

 

 

 

I guess that's one way to look at it. But what I'm actually saying is that you should look more closely at details and how complete the data is that brought them to that conclusion.    Most importantly TXG videos have a habit of only looking at extremely limited sample sizes for the data collection - usually to the point of being statistically meaningless.   100's and 1000's of data points among a large population of different players are really what's needed to be able to come to any meaningful conclusions that are useful for their viewers.

 

[dsmil]

https://puredrivegolf.com/blog/2019/5/22/spin-loft-on-ball-flight-curve

[scotty_2987]

I don’t know about all the physics behind it but I took my old SLDR 14* lofted down to 12.5* out last weekend and it was point and shoot. It amazes me how easy to hit it is, I’m guessing because of the loft? It still launches in a good window and the spin seems to be still fairly low as well. Love it. 

[Billfitz]

Changing loft via the shaft adapter also changes the face angle, which factors into the result.

[mizuno player]

I don't believe it's more forgiving just like I don't think a 3 wood is more forgiving.  

 

What I think happens with the more loft is it makes it easier to launch. With less loft we may change our swing to "help" elevate the ball causing mis hits.  More loft we can just swing easy and the ball goes. 

 

Just my amateur opinion. 

[LCP]

6 hours ago, dsmil said:

https://puredrivegolf.com/blog/2019/5/22/spin-loft-on-ball-flight-curve

Yep. That's the long, more scientific version of the ball wants to spin sideways off the face when there's little loft.

[Billfitz]

Another way to look at it is the higher the loft the more the backspin, which dominates the overall result via gyroscopic effect.

[Stuart_G]

7 hours ago, Billfitz said:

Another way to look at it is the higher the loft the more the backspin, which dominates the overall result via gyroscopic effect.

 

Sorry but that's not it at all if I'm reading you correctly.    

 

It's nothing like rifling adding stability to a bullet.   Or rather, one might see a rare knuckle ball but for the most part even the majority of the worst offline shots generally have plenty of that kind of stability.   That type of stability is about the consistency of the results given the same launch conditions.  In that respect, a huge slice or hook might have a lot of curvature - but it is still a very stable flight that happens to have a lot of stable (consistent) curvature.

 

With the golf ball - the amount of backspin (along with the launch angle and ball speed) controls how long the ball will stay in the air and therefore how far it will travel before it hits the ground.   The side spin dictates the rate of curvature and that is mostly independent of how much backspin there might be.   How far offline the ball will end up depends on just those two things.  The curvature of the path, and how far down that path the ball ends up.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Stuart_G

[Red4282]

On 11/30/2021 at 6:50 PM, LCP said:

Think of a driver with zero loft.  If you hit it with the face open or closed to the path, the ball, in theory, would want to roll off of (or at least spin completely toward) the side of the club face.  As you add loft to the club face, the ball wants to roll off of (or spin toward) the top of the club face instead of roll off of (or spin toward) the side. Hence why it's so hard to get side spin on a lob wedge.

This is the best answer on this whole page, and accurate. But a degree or two will hardly be noticeable. I think it would be more important to optimize flight (launch and spin) than to seek extra forgiveness this way.

[Stuart_G]

On 11/30/2021 at 8:42 PM, Valtiel said:

The more a ball spins, the greater the force necessary to tilt its axis, which is what creates curvature.

 

Sorry missed this earlier but this particular part is not true.  The impact geometry (and resulting motion of the head for gear effect) dictates the spin axis.  There is no resistance created by either one for the other - and therefore no additional forces needed to for either side/back spin.

[Billfitz]

2 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Sorry but that's not it at all if I'm reading you correctly.   

It's nothing like rifling adding stability to a bullet.

Gyroscopic effect is imparted on a bullet by rifling, but since the bullet rotation isn't on the same vector as its direction it doesn't work the same way.

A bicycle, where the wheels rotate in the direction of travel, is a good analogy to a golf ball. Gyroscopic effect keeps the bike from falling over and on a straight course unless other forces come into play. To make the bike turn takes a combination of turning the handlebars and leaning into the turn. The leaning is similar to adding side spin on the ball. The slower the rotation of the wheels the less leaning it takes to turn, the faster the rotation of the wheels the more leaning it takes to turn.

[Stuart_G]

14 minutes ago, Billfitz said:

A bicycle, where the wheels rotate in the direction of travel, is a good analogy to a golf ball.

 

A bicycle is an inherently unstable platform.  It can't stand up on it's own since the c.g. is above the contact point of with the ground and the only contact points with the ground are in line with the c.g.   So any motion of the c.g. to go offline with those contact points results in gravity imparting a moment force to it that tries to tip the bicycle over.    That type of gyroscopic stability is a resistance to the rotation axis of the spinning body being rotated and pointed in a different direction.

 

There is nothing similar to that happening with the golf ball in flight.   There are no forces trying to rotate the ball - or really no forces trying to change the axis of rotation once the ball leaves the club head (well other than the insignificant corriolis effect).  So that type of "stability" has no influence on the flight because it's not needed.

 

The curvature of a golf ball in flight is not an instability in the context of the the aerodynamics and motion through the air and people really need to stop thinking of it as one.  It's the consequence impact - nothing more.   The only instability associated with a golf ball in flight would be from really bad wear on the dimple patterns and inconsistent (rapidly varying) lift/drag forces as the ball rotates as the worn/torn/scuffed surface moves around.  Another would be variable and changing wind conditions.   And more rotation wouldn't do anything to fix either of those - it would only make it worse.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Stuart_G