Perplexed by Driver

[Baller2525]

Hello all,

 

I have recently been perplexed by the numbers on my driver. From a club delivery standpoint, everything looks to be in good order. Not perfect, but not horrible. But for some reason the spin on the driver and launch numbers are extremely low. I hit up on the driver a fair amount, but the spin still seems ridiculously low for the delivery. See the attached picture. Am I missing something here, or is there possibly an issue with the driver head, i.e. a crack i'm not seeing?

 

[pingplayer]

Try setting the driver on the maximum loft possible and work from there, you should notice an increase on the spin and launch angle.

[phizzy30]

Looks like you probably need a higher loft head from the get go.  Adjusting the hosel to increase loft will only do so much with your current set up and can bring the lefts into play due to the closed face. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by phizzy30

[Colej]

Where are you striking it on the face? 

[grochol17]

If I'm reading this correctly your angle of attack is 4.9* up and your launch angle is  9.7*, which means your effective loft at impact is only 4.8*... something is definitely amiss here.

[phizzy30]

6 hours ago, grochol17 said:

If I'm reading this correctly your angle of attack is 4.9* up and your launch angle is  9.7*, which means your effective loft at impact is only 4.8*... something is definitely amiss here.

Yeah and spin is 1400.  I'm thinking he's hitting the upper part of the face and really swinging up on it.  Even then I don't get how his launch angle is only 9.7.  OP, what's the loft on your driver?  My other thought is that the GCQuad needs to be recalibrated/fixed?

Edited August 16, 2022 by phizzy30

[WristySwing]

The Quad is telling you exactly what the issue is.  On that particular shot you are striking it 7mm on the toe, which is decently enough away from the middle to have a substantial drop in spin.  Further, it is higher on the head, which is also a drop in spin.  There is something like 1800 RPMs difference from the high toe to the low heel in terms of spin rate on a head.  This is also evident by the efficiency ratio.  On a Quad, the maximum efficiency is supposed to be 1.45 for a perfectly struck shot (i.e., for a swing speed of 100mph, the max ball speed is 145).  You efficiency is 1.46, which typically happens when the BS outpaces that ratio due to toe strikes.

 

Put some masking tape, the quad dots, or foot powder spray and see for yourself.  As you start to bring the strike more towards the middle I wouldn't be surprised to see spin come back around the 1800 mark.  Still too low to have any sort of stable flight, but much better than 1400.

[Valtiel]

19 hours ago, Baller2525 said:

Hello all,

 

I have recently been perplexed by the numbers on my driver. From a club delivery standpoint, everything looks to be in good order. Not perfect, but not horrible. But for some reason the spin on the driver and launch numbers are extremely low. I hit up on the driver a fair amount, but the spin still seems ridiculously low for the delivery. See the attached picture. Am I missing something here, or is there possibly an issue with the driver head, i.e. a crack i'm not seeing?

 

 

31 minutes ago, WristySwing said:

The Quad is telling you exactly what the issue is.  On that particular shot you are striking it 7mm on the toe, which is decently enough away from the middle to have a substantial drop in spin.  Further, it is higher on the head, which is also a drop in spin.  There is something like 1800 RPMs difference from the high toe to the low heel in terms of spin rate on a head.  This is also evident by the efficiency ratio.  On a Quad, the maximum efficiency is supposed to be 1.45 for a perfectly struck shot (i.e., for a swing speed of 100mph, the max ball speed is 145).  You efficiency is 1.46, which typically happens when the BS outpaces that ratio due to toe strikes.

 

Put some masking tape, the quad dots, or foot powder spray and see for yourself.  As you start to bring the strike more towards the middle I wouldn't be surprised to see spin come back around the 1800 mark.  Still too low to have any sort of stable flight, but much better than 1400.

Yup, that.^^

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the spin is also displaying a total of 1,988rpm spin since it's splitting it between back and "side". That is a pretty standard "low spin" number for a high toe strike. 

[WristySwing]

13 minutes ago, Valtiel said:

 

Yup, that.^^

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the spin is also displaying a total of 1,988rpm spin since it's splitting it between back and "side". That is a pretty standard "low spin" number for a high toe strike. 

 

Truthfully, I never look at total spin.  Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong spot but I haven't seen a convincing reason to look at that number when backspin, strike point, and tilt axis will tell you everything you need to know without having to get bogged down in trying to decipher which spin is acting on which axis.

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, Valtiel said:

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the spin is also displaying a total of 1,988rpm spin since it's splitting it between back and "side".

 

More like 1524 total spin by my calcs.    Total spin = sqrt(side*side + back*back)   

Just use the Pythagorean theorem for right triangles to convert side and back spin to total spin.

 

Still very low.  

 

Definitely need to see the face impact location.  However...

 

The toe hit isn't helping but it's not really hurting the back spin all that much either. 

 

High impact can lower spin quite a bit - but it also would be increasing loft and launch.   IF there were no other issues,  one would expect to see the launch angle higher than the 9.7* for impact high on the face to drop spin that much.   So there is likely more going on here than just impact high on the face.

 

That brings us back to a dynamic loft that's a bit too low for that AoA.   Unusual with am's but it's either that or something is wrong with the LM readings.  Or maybe the ball?  

 

Also that's assuming nothing was put on the face - like impact tape - that would reduce the friction and spin.

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Stuart_G

[Dollafiddy]

On 8/16/2022 at 4:26 AM, phizzy30 said:

Yeah and spin is 1400.  I'm thinking he's hitting the upper part of the face and really swinging up on it.  Even then I don't get how his launch angle is only 9.7.  OP, what's the loft on your driver?  My other thought is that the GCQuad needs to be recalibrated/fixed?

 

OP here (posted before my account got validated), according to the strike from the quad, the strike was only 3mm high on the face (assuming the measurement is correct). That along with the toe strike could drop the spin into the area i'm at, but with a high strike, I should at least see better launch. That's exactly what's perplexing me. I know the strike was far from perfect, but the numbers still don't make sense to me (assuming the GCQuad is calibrated properly).

 

Loft on the driver is 10 degrees. This was on the default A1 setting for titleist hozel. I am wondering if the TSI3 low spin head's CG placement just isn't great for my swing, assuming no calibration issues with the launch monitor. But it seems strange to loft up above 10 degrees while i'm hitting up with 5 AoA.

 

On 8/16/2022 at 7:06 AM, Stuart_G said:

 

More like 1524 total spin by my calcs.    Total spin = sqrt(side*side + back*back)   

Just use the Pythagorean theorem for right triangles to convert side and back spin to total spin.

 

Still very low.  

 

Definitely need to see the face impact location.  However...

 

The toe hit isn't helping but it's not really hurting the back spin all that much either. 

 

High impact can lower spin quite a bit - but it also would be increasing loft and launch.   IF there were no other issues,  one would expect to see the launch angle higher than the 9.7* for impact high on the face to drop spin that much.   So there is likely more going on here than just impact high on the face.

 

That brings us back to a dynamic loft that's a bit too low for that AoA.   Unusual with am's but it's either that or something is wrong with the LM readings.  Or maybe the ball?  

 

Also that's assuming nothing was put on the face - like impact tape - that would reduce the friction and spin.

 

 

What is a good dynamic loft for an upward AoA of 5 degrees? I thought that dynamic loft accounts for angle of attack. I really don't have a great understanding of dynamic loft, but I thought 14 degrees is pretty average. Nothing was put on the face aside from the GCQuad dots. Looking at this article, I calculated that launch should theoretically be 12.89 degrees if the measurements are correct. That either leads me to believe the gc quad measurements are off, or there's a potential issue with the head. I'm going to test on a different monitor and apply new dots. I'll also swap in a buddies head to see if I get any different results.

Edited August 17, 2022 by Dollafiddy

[phizzy30]

Just now, Dollafiddy said:

 

OP here (posted before my account got validated), according to the strike from the quad, the strike was only 3mm high on the face (assuming the measurement is correct). That along with the toe strike could drop the spin into the area i'm at, but with a high strike, I should at least see better launch. That's exactly what's perplexing me. I know the strike was far from perfect, but the numbers still don't make sense to me (assuming the GCQuad is calibrated properly).

 

Loft on the driver is 10 degrees. This was on the default A1 setting for titleist hozel. I am wondering if the TSI3 low spin head's CG placement just isn't great for my swing, assuming no calibration issues with the launch monitor. But it seems strange to loft up above 10 degrees while i'm hitting up with 5 AoA.

 

 

What is a good dynamic loft for an upward AoA of 5 degrees? I thought that dynamic loft accounts for angle of attack. I really don't have a great understanding of dynamic loft, but I thought 14 degrees is pretty average. Nothing was put on the face aside from the GCQuad dots.

I'm perplexed too as your launch angle should be higher with the 10* head.  Spin definitely drops a bit hitting it higher on the face.  Are you seeing the same ball flight out on the course? 

[Stuart_G]

4 minutes ago, Dollafiddy said:

What is a good dynamic loft for an upward AoA of 5 degrees? I thought that dynamic loft accounts for angle of attack. I really don't have a great understanding of dynamic loft, but I thought 14 degrees is pretty average. Nothing was put on the face aside from the GCQuad dots.

 

14* for dynamic loft is a little bit low but not a lot.  Maybe 16-17* is more in line with optimal launch angle for this situation.  I could be wrong but first impression is that the spin still seems a bit low for that dynamic loft.

 

One thing to consider is that foresight depends on the placement of the face stickers/dots on the face in order to get accurate club data and impact location data.  And different driver face geometry (bulge and roll - the curvature of the face) and complicate the calculation of much of that face data.  So part of me wonders how accurate that dynamic loft really might be.  It might actually be lower.

 

So I'd personally want to see foot powder spray or impact tape used to validate the foresight data.

 

[Dollafiddy]

1 minute ago, Stuart_G said:

 

14* for dynamic loft is a little bit low but not a lot.  Maybe 16-17* is more in line with optimal launch angle for this situation.  I could be wrong but first impression is that the spin still seems a bit low for that dynamic loft.

 

One thing to consider is that foresight depends on the placement of the face stickers/dots on the face in order to get accurate club data and impact location data.  And different driver face geometry (bulge and roll - the curvature of the face) and complicate the calculation of much of that face data.  So part of me wonders how accurate that dynamic loft really might be.  It might actually be lower.

 

So I'd personally want to see foot powder spray or impact tape used to validate the foresight data.

 

Looking at the driver head, it does look like the middle sticker is placed too low (maybe half a dot below the geometric center of the face on the left side). I wonder if this affected the face impact reading, and gave a reading that's higher on the face than it really was, which would explain lower launch, but it would not explain the spin. But I suspect you may be right that the dynamic loft reading is reading higher than it actually is. That has to be the only answer assuming there is no issue with the head, such as a crack i'm not seeing. I'll use some powder spray and report back.

[WristySwing]

3 hours ago, Dollafiddy said:

Looking at the driver head, it does look like the middle sticker is placed too low (maybe half a dot below the geometric center of the face on the left side). I wonder if this affected the face impact reading, and gave a reading that's higher on the face than it really was, which would explain lower launch, but it would not explain the spin. But I suspect you may be right that the dynamic loft reading is reading higher than it actually is. That has to be the only answer assuming there is no issue with the head, such as a crack i'm not seeing. I'll use some powder spray and report back.

 

The Quad doesn't take into account launch based on the stickers on the face.  The launch is captured by the cameras.  The only data from the face is path, AoA, swing speed, face rotation, dynamic loft, lie angle, and strike point.  Anything ball related, such as spin, ball speed, launch, etc. is captured in real time by the cameras.

[Stuart_G]

32 minutes ago, WristySwing said:

 

The Quad doesn't take into account launch based on the stickers on the face. 

 

He wasn't saying or even implying that it was.   He just said impact lower on the face than reported might explain the lower launch.

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Stuart_G

[Stuart_G]

4 hours ago, Dollafiddy said:

That has to be the only answer assuming there is no issue with the head, such as a crack i'm not seeing.

 

Unlikely a crack or weld seem or other face failure - that would generally result in a big drop in ball speed and the efficiency.

[WristySwing]

32 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

He wasn't saying or even implying that it was.   He just said impact lower on the face than reported might explain the lower launch.

 

 

 

 

"Looking at the driver head, it does look like the middle sticker is placed too low (maybe half a dot below the geometric center of the face on the left side). I wonder if this affected the face impact reading, and gave a reading that's higher on the face than it really was, which would explain lower launch, but it would not explain the spin."

[Stuart_G]

3 minutes ago, WristySwing said:

 

"Looking at the driver head, it does look like the middle sticker is placed too low (maybe half a dot below the geometric center of the face on the left side). I wonder if this affected the face impact reading, and gave a reading that's higher on the face than it really was, which would explain lower launch, but it would not explain the spin."

Exactly.

Edited August 17, 2022 by Stuart_G

[WristySwing]

33 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

Exactly.

Come on, Stuart, read the rest of the sentence.  I don't want this thread to degrade into a post war between the two of us.  They are saying, in less words, "The dot placement was low and might have affected the face impact reading, giving a reading that's higher on the face than it really was and would explain the lower launch." 

 

Or at least that was my interpretation of what they said, hence, my comment about dots being meaningless for ball readings such as launch and spin.

Edited August 17, 2022 by WristySwing

[Stuart_G]

13 hours ago, WristySwing said:

They are saying, in less words, "The dot placement was low and might have affected the face impact reading, giving a reading that's higher on the face than it really was and would explain the lower launch." 

 

I agree.   But that's not saying anything about how accurate the launch numbers were or were not.  Which, unless I missed the point of your post is what you thought he was saying.   He's given a reason why (the accurate) numbers were low.  He's not saying the launch numbers were not accurate.

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Stuart_G

[WristySwing]

11 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

I agree.   But that's not saying anything about how accurate the launch numbers were or were not.  Which, unless I missed the point of your post is what you thought he was saying.   He's given a reason why (the accurate) numbers were low.  He's not saying the launch numbers were not accurate.

 

 

From what I'm reading anyways, it seems like they are talking about dot placements.  Higher on the head = higher launch, not lower.  So unless I am really misreading what they typed, which is possible, it seems like they are trying to say the dots = the confusing readings when in truth the reading is quite clear as I showcased above initially.

[Stuart_G]

47 minutes ago, WristySwing said:

 

From what I'm reading anyways, it seems like they are talking about dot placements.

 

Yes.  We're on the same page so far.

 

47 minutes ago, WristySwing said:

  Higher on the head = higher launch, not lower. 

 

Maybe this is where the confusion comes from.    If the dot placement was low - then the actual impact position would be lower than the reported position, not higher.  

 

Lower impact position would support the lower launch - but not the lower spin (which he also said).

 

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Stuart_G

[Dollafiddy]

1 hour ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Yes.  We're on the same page so far.

 

 

Maybe this is where the confusion comes from.    If the dot placement was low - then the actual impact position would be lower than the reported position, not higher.  

 

Lower impact position would support the lower launch - but not the lower spin (which he also said).

 

 

 

Yes that’s exactly what I mean. The launch and spin numbers don’t lie, but based on face measurements such as dynamic loft and strike location, the measured spin and launch don’t make sense. It’s a mismatch between the measurements. Which is why I think the face measurements are off. That’s the only explanation I can see, as I don’t see any cracks or issues. And like you said, ball speed and efficiency don’t seem to be the issue.

[Dollafiddy]

So here’s the follow up. Used some foot spray and face contact was pretty good. Slightly toe, but slightly. Cleaned the head off and got some numbers.

Launch was around 11-12, improved, but spin still extremely low. Only around 1500. Delivery was similar as previously, about 5 degree up AoA and 14.5 dynamic loft. I swapped the head out with a buddy’s TS2 (same loft) and spin instantly increased to 2,000 with same launch. It does appear that there is an issue with my tsi3 head, or the cg location for low spin just does not work well for me.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Dollafiddy

[Colej]

14 hours ago, Dollafiddy said:

So here’s the follow up. Used some foot spray and face contact was pretty good. Slightly toe, but slightly. Cleaned the head off and got some numbers.

Launch was around 11-12, improved, but spin still extremely low. Only around 1500. Delivery was similar as previously, about 5 degree up AoA and 14.5 dynamic loft. I swapped the head out with a buddy’s TS2 (same loft) and spin instantly increased to 2,000 with same launch. It does appear that there is an issue with my tsi3 head, or the cg location for low spin just does not work well for me.

Could the face be slightly caved in or flattened? usually if this happens you’ll see some crazy ball flights. 
 

Hold a credit card across the face horizontally and vertically. It should touch on the middle but not the ends. 

[Howard_Jones]

On 8/16/2022 at 1:21 PM, WristySwing said:

 

Truthfully, I never look at total spin.  Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong spot but I haven't seen a convincing reason to look at that number when backspin, strike point, and tilt axis will tell you everything you need to know without having to get bogged down in trying to decipher which spin is acting on which axis.

Somethings is way off with this numbers.
- Spin indicate a impact higher than VCOG, and the OP say its only about 3 mm (1/8") above the centerline = 240 rpm cut off on spin vs center.... so far so good, but then we should have seen a even higher ratio for dynamic loft to launch vs a center strike, so lets do those numbers.

His AOA is 4.9, so we use 5 for the sake of ease, and his loft is 10*. The summary of them is 14.9 or 15* as dynamic loft, WITHOUT any contribution from the shaft...

With a positive AOA of 5.0* the ratio from dynamic loft to launch is 0.910 so those 15 of Dynamic loft, should deliver 15* x 0.910* = 13.65* as launch angle....still without any forward shaft bending...so this numbers is not right, the numbers dont match up at all. 



The only way this numbers could be right, would be if the player actually de-loftet the club during the swing, and lift the handle of the club trough impact so that COC had a positive angle of 5*. That would reduce actual loft at impact, and that can also explain spin values that low, nothing else can.

In that scenario his dynamic loft is "Launch A 9.7 / 0.910" = 10.65*, so the player is "de-lofting/equalizing" what ever contribution the shaft gave, ending up with the clubs actual loft on the impact position as contribution to launch

Here is how thats scenario looks like, its possible, but not normal

Edited August 21, 2022 by Howard_Jones

[Dollafiddy]

39 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Somethings is way off with this numbers.
- Spin indicate a impact higher than VCOG, and the OP say its only about 3 mm (1/8") above the centerline = 240 rpm cut off on spin vs center.... so far so good, but then we should have seen a even higher ratio for dynamic loft to launch vs a center strike, so lets do those numbers.

His AOA is 4.9, so we use 5 for the sake of ease, and his loft is 10*. The summary of them is 14.9 or 15* as dynamic loft, WITHOUT any contribution from the shaft...

With a positive AOA of 5.0* the ratio from dynamic loft to launch is 0.910 so those 15 of Dynamic loft, should deliver 15* x 0.910* = 13.65* as launch angle....still without any forward shaft bending...so this numbers is not right, the numbers dont match up at all. 



The only way this numbers could be right, would be if the player actually de-loftet the club during the swing, and lift the handle of the club trough impact so that COC had a positive angle of 5*. That would reduce actual loft at impact, and that can also explain spin values that low, nothing else can.

In that scenario his dynamic loft is "Launch A 9.7 / 0.910" = 10.65*, so the player is "de-lofting/equalizing" what ever contribution the shaft gave, ending up with the clubs actual loft on the impact position as contribution to launch

Here is how thats scenario looks like, its possible, but not normal

I could see this being a possibility. But wouldn’t this be taken into account for dynamic loft at impact? Or is that misleading due to some sort of gear effect on the ball given this type of delivery?

[Howard_Jones]

1 hour ago, Dollafiddy said:

I could see this being a possibility. But wouldn’t this be taken into account for dynamic loft at impact? Or is that misleading due to some sort of gear effect on the ball given this type of delivery?

Dynamic loft is the summary of static loft, + AOA + shaft bending. In the scenario above, the player is de-lofting the club, and thats the same as a reduction to static loft, and dynamic loft. When we reverse the numbers "Launch angle /0.91" we get to see that Dynamic loft was only 10.65*, MAYBE because this scenario is what went down. This is the only way this numbers goes up, unless there was some set up issues with the LM or ball used.