Torque ... Important or not?

[JD3]

So I've been trying to find the perfect shaft for my driving iron. Two current candidates MMT 105 and GD DI 95. The former has a torque of 2.9, the latter 2.4. But the MMT feels overall stiffer (albeit with a bit more pop), and also launches a touch higher. So how can a shaft that has 0.5 more torque feel stiffer, launch a touch higher, and have a bit more relative "pop"?🤔

[BlueDragonKorea]

I think that the prevailing opinion nowadays is that torque is a good measurement of feel and not much else. With the materials that companies use today in shafts, you can separate shaft performance and perceived stiffness.

 

You might also consider where each shaft is stiff. I really dislike butt-stiff shafts but I'm happy with a (stiffer in theory) tip-stiff whiteboard profile. Overall, don't look towards torque as a meaningful number with shafts made in the past decade.

[Jc0]

41 minutes ago, JD3 said:

So I've been trying to find the perfect shaft for my driving iron. Two current candidates MMT 105 and GD DI 95. The former has a torque of 2.9, the latter 2.4. But the MMT feels overall stiffer (albeit with a bit more pop), and also launches a touch higher. So how can a shaft that has 0.5 more torque feel stiffer, launch a touch higher, and have a bit more relative "pop"?🤔

 

I don't think you can really compare torque between companies. Reason being as far as I can see there is no standard for the force used to get torque. Since torque is just the amount of twisting in response to a force, if one company use a 30lb force and another uses 50lbs, the first company may have a lower torque number because they used a lighter force.

[JD3]

10 minutes ago, Jc0 said:

 

I don't think you can really compare torque between companies. Reason being as far as I can see there is no standard for the force used to get torque. Since torque is just the amount of twisting in response to a force, if one company use a 30lb force and another uses 50lbs, the first company may have a lower torque number because they used a lighter force.

Thats horrible if true. They should at least disclose the force value too. 

[GoGoErky]

16 minutes ago, JD3 said:

Thats horrible if true. They should at least disclose the force value too. 

It’s true. They measure in different spots, they use different machines. So unless you know what machine and how each company measures you can’t compare between brands. 

[rbpwrx]

I've never bought the conventional wisdom that 'torque = feel.' I've had shafts that were low torque (low 2s) that felt smooth, and higher-torque that felt harsher. Bend point, tip stiffness, materials, weights, and of course your own move influence feel. Not just twisty-ness. That said, I find torque to be an important consideration. I prefer it very low. Others want more. Again, part of a good fit for *your* swing.

Edited May 29, 2023 by rbpwrx

[grm24]

4 hours ago, Jc0 said:

 

I don't think you can really compare torque between companies. Reason being as far as I can see there is no standard for the force used to get torque. 

Can't the same be said for golf ball compression? There are no industry standards for golf ball compression testing so comparing the compression of two different brands of golf balls is folly?

[Stuart_G]

9 hours ago, JD3 said:

So how can a shaft that has 0.5 more torque feel stiffer, launch a touch higher, and have a bit more relative "pop"?🤔

 

Because they have different longitudinal stiffness profiles.

 

9 hours ago, Jc0 said:

 

I don't think you can really compare torque between companies. Reason being as far as I can see there is no standard for the force used to get torque.

 

It's true but for different reasons.  The torsional force used is generally standardized at 1 foot-lb.   But what's not standardized is the length over which they are measuring the torsional deflection (where the shaft is clamped at the butt end).  One company might be using 32" - another might be using 36" etc....   

 

But yes, comparing torque values between different companies is not meaningful.

 

It's also not meaningful in the same way that butt frequency is not a meaningful measure of the shafts longitudinal stiffness feel.   One value measured over the whole shaft (or a big part of it) doesn't tell us the full story.

 

 

6 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

I've never bought the conventional wisdom that 'torque = feel.'

 

That's not exactly what people have been saying - at least not the way you seem to be interpreting it.  

 

What they've been saying is that torque only really contributes to the feel (for some) but it does not contribute directly to the performance. 

 

But it's never been said to be the only contributing factor to feel - or even a dominant one for that matter.   The longitudinal stiffness profile will ALWAYS be the main contributor to how the shaft feels during the swing.  The primary and majority of the loading and unloading will always be from longitudinal bending, not torsional bending.  

 

When they say torque is only important to feel (for some) it means that Torque can play a minor part in that that feel (again only for some small percentage of people) during the swing.   But it rarely has any direct influence on the performance of the shaft or a direct influence on the ball flight results.   But for most it doesn't even influence the feel during the swing - just how harsh or forgiving the feel might be right at impact for off center impact.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Stuart_G

[rbpwrx]

1 hour ago, Stuart_G said:

When they say torque is only important to feel (for some) it means that Torque can play a minor part in that that feel (again only for some small percentage of people) during the swing.   But it rarely has any direct influence on the performance of the shaft or a direct influence on the ball flight results.   But for most it doesn't even influence the feel during the swing - just how harsh or forgiving the feel might be right at impact for off center impact.

Gotcha, thanks.
 

Even then, for me anyway, torque is a functional factor. The tighter it is, the straighter I hit it. Or, to be more accurate, the less my errors are attributable to the shaft. if I have a stiff shaft that is nonetheless higher in torque, I will tend to spray it right, as the head lags behind the hands *torsionally.*

 

Again, only one man's experience. FWIW.

[JD3]

2 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Because they have different longitudinal stiffness profiles.

 

 

It's true but for different reasons.  The torsional force used is generally standardized at 1 foot-lb.   But what's not standardized is the length over which they are measuring the torsional deflection (where the shaft is clamped at the butt end).  One company might be using 32" - another might be using 36" etc....   

 

But yes, comparing torque values between different companies is not meaningful.

 

It's also not meaningful in the same way that butt frequency is not a meaningful measure of the shafts longitudinal stiffness feel.   One value measured over the whole shaft (or a big part of it) doesn't tell us the full story.

 

 

 

That's not exactly what people have been saying - at least not the way you seem to be interpreting it.  

 

What they've been saying is that torque only really contributes to the feel (for some) but it does not contribute directly to the performance. 

 

But it's never been said to be the only contributing factor to feel - or even a dominant one for that matter.   The longitudinal stiffness profile will ALWAYS be the main contributor to how the shaft feels during the swing.  The primary and majority of the loading and unloading will always be from longitudinal bending, not torsional bending.  

 

When they say torque is only important to feel (for some) it means that Torque can play a minor part in that that feel (again only for some small percentage of people) during the swing.   But it rarely has any direct influence on the performance of the shaft or a direct influence on the ball flight results.   But for most it doesn't even influence the feel during the swing - just how harsh or forgiving the feel might be right at impact for off center impact.

Why is it that torque readings for graphite tend to feel miles stiffer than same reading for steel? For example i think my steel shafts are 1.9 or less. I wouldn't even bother trying a graphite shaft at those low readings, way too stiff. 

[Jc0]

7 hours ago, grm24 said:

Can't the same be said for golf ball compression? There are no industry standards for golf ball compression testing so comparing the compression of two different brands of golf balls is folly?

 

Yes. Luckily a website that cannot be named here does independent testing so their data is good. Quick Google search should bring it up. 

[Stuart_G]

18 minutes ago, JD3 said:

Why is it that torque readings for graphite tend to feel miles stiffer than same reading for steel?

 

First of all, what makes you think that it's the torque that you're feeling?

 

As I already said, by far the most dominant characteristic of the shaft that contributes to the stiffness feel is the longitudinal stiffness (or EI profile), not the torsional stiffness.  

 

And No, you can not make any assumptions about the difference in longitudinal stiffness just based on the torque values.   The two are really mostly independent design characteristics of the shaft, particularly when it comes to graphite shafts.

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Stuart_G

[JD3]

11 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

First of all, what makes you think that it's the torque that you're feeling?

 

As I already said, by far the most dominant characteristic of the shaft that contributes to the stiffness feel is the longitudinal stiffness (or EI profile), not the torsional stiffness.  

 

And No, you can not make any assumptions about the difference in longitudinal stiffness just based on the torque values.   The two are really mostly independent design characteristics of the shaft, particularly when it comes to graphite shafts.

 

 

 

I don't know if it's the torque directly, just out of trial and error realizing the super low quoted graphite shafts are not playable for me, however the values of the steel irons i play are even lower. 

[rbpwrx]

2 hours ago, JD3 said:

I don't know if it's the torque directly, just out of trial and error realizing the super low quoted graphite shafts are not playable for me, however the values of the steel irons i play are even lower. 

 

It may be that super low-torque shafts are ALSO, because they tend to be mega-stout, very stiff longitudinally.

I'd be curious whether you'd like logitudinally-flexy but low-torque graphite. ACCRA makes a few that way. Ever tried one?

As to irons, I love low-torque steel. Us old guys grew up on it. In the woods too. I feel like I've been on a quest to find graphite wood shafts that feel and play like steel (without going back to X100s).

The key number, again just for me, is torque. The closer I can get to 2.0* in graphite, the more I tend to like the shaft. My Tour Green 105TX hybrid is 2.0*. Accra SCs are 2.0*.  OG Graf Blue X tipped 3.5" must be down around 1.5*. The new Rogue Silver 125msi Tour X I just built (tipped) is 2.6*. Etc.

Edited May 29, 2023 by rbpwrx

[phizzy30]

3 hours ago, JD3 said:

I don't know if it's the torque directly, just out of trial and error realizing the super low quoted graphite shafts are not playable for me, however the values of the steel irons i play are even lower. 

The different materials used in graphite shafts also affect feel as well compared to steel.  For example, MCA uses boron in the tip for some of their shafts which make those shafts feel different from steel.  Same thing for the 1K weave they use that affects feedback/feel. 

[Stuart_G]

20 hours ago, JD3 said:

I don't know if it's the torque directly, just out of trial and error realizing the super low quoted graphite shafts are not playable for me, however the values of the steel irons i play are even lower. 

 

Sorry - I really don't mean to sound like a smart a**  but it seems to me that the lesson you should really be taking away from your experiences is that - if the feel doesn't match up with the numbers - then there is something off about how you're interpreting the numbers.    Or put another way - if you want to figure out what shafts work for you and what shafts do not,  you need to test them out and stop judging them based on the torque numbers.    

 

But FYI - you're not alone - it's not uncommon at all for people to try to use the torque numbers to judge stiffness feel.   Largely because it's frequently the only actual number the OEM's publish about stiffness - so many gravitate toward it even though it's not accurate.   And maybe 20-25+ years ago - there was a very rough correlation between the torque and tip stiffness before the technology advanced to the point where the designers learned how to control them better.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Stuart_G

[JD3]

3 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Sorry - I really don't mean to sound like a smart a**  but it seems to me that the lesson you should really be taking away from your experiences is that - if the feel doesn't match up with the numbers - then there is something off about how you're interpreting the numbers.    Or put another way - if you want to figure out what shafts work for you and what shafts do not,  you need to test them out and stop judging them based on the torque numbers.    

 

But FYI - you're not alone - it's not uncommon at all for people to try to use the torque numbers to judge stiffness feel.   Largely because it's frequently the only actual number the OEM's publish about stiffness - so many gravitate toward it even though it's not accurate.   And maybe 20-25+ years ago - there was a very rough correlation between the torque and tip stiffness before the technology advanced to the point where the designers learned how to control them better.

 

 

No offense taken at all. Myself and I'm sure many others appreciate your comments. I never thought to exclusively rely on torque as an indicator, I was simply trying to understand why it shed so little light on anything. EI profile is a better indicator, but even then there's actual trial and error involved (a picky club ho like me certainly understands the latter.) I think at the end of the day, a few decades ago when graphite first came out, nearly all shafts had a similar EI profile, so torque was about all one had to go by pre-trial and error. And given the similarity in profile, torque actually had more comparative relevance. Still though it hurts  my head a little that shafts measuring a 0.7 torque difference can feel so different with the higher torque one feeling a lot stouter. 🤕

Edited May 30, 2023 by JD3

[Stuart_G]

1 minute ago, JD3 said:

I think at the end of the day, a few decades ago when graphite first came out, nearly all shafts had a similar EI profile, so torque was about all one had to go by pre-trial and error.

 

I don't have any data to support it - but I doubt that the profiles were really all that similar.   More likely the relationship between longitudinal stiffness (EI profile) and the torsional stiffness was just much more coupled.  

 

1 minute ago, JD3 said:

And given the similarity in profile, torque actually had more comparative relevance.

 

In the early day's of graphite shafts, (when torque values were commonly greater than ~5-6)  it certainly had relevance in showing how the technology was progressing.

 

[JD3]

53 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

I don't have any data to support it - but I doubt that the profiles were really all that similar.   More likely the relationship between longitudinal stiffness (EI profile) and the torsional stiffness was just much more coupled.  

 

 

In the early day's of graphite shafts, (when torque values were commonly greater than ~5-6)  it certainly had relevance in showing how the technology was progressing.

 

How is it possible a shaft can be less resistant to twisting but more so to bending?

[Stuart_G]

35 minutes ago, JD3 said:

How is it possible a shaft can be less resistant to twisting but more so to bending?

 

That's hard to explain without getting pretty deep into engineering beam theory - and in some respects outside my level of expertise.   But keep in mind that graphite is only strong (and only in tension) in the direction that the fibers are oriented.  Longitudinal and torsional stress on the shaft are stressing the shaft walls in different axis or directions.  So simply put, it comes down to the orientation of the different layers of the graphite fibers or weaves.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Stuart_G

[rlb4]

7 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

That's hard to explain without getting pretty deep into engineering beam theory - and in some respects outside my level of expertise.   But keep in mind that graphite is only strong (and only in tension) in the direction that the fibers are oriented.  Longitudinal and torsional stress on the shaft are stressing the shaft walls in different axis or directions.  So simply put, it comes down to the orientation of the different layers of the graphite fibers or weaves.

So you can have a very flexible shaft longitudinally but with low torque that is resistant to twisting, and vice versa?

[NRJyzr]

On 5/29/2023 at 10:10 AM, rbpwrx said:

The key number, again just for me, is torque. The closer I can get to 2.0* in graphite, the more I tend to like the shaft. My Tour Green 105TX hybrid is 2.0*. Accra SCs are 2.0*.  OG Graf Blue X tipped 3.5" must be down around 1.5*. The new Rogue Silver 125msi Tour X I just built (tipped) is 2.6*. Etc.

 

The issue with your approach is that you're taking those published numbers as though they're based similarly.  And they aren't.  Just as there is no standard for flex, there is no standard for torque.  Company A's shaft at a published 2.5* torque may actually have more torque than Company B's 3.7* torque, all because of how they measure it.

 

There was a famous example some 20 years ago...  I cannot remember whether it was Mitsubishi or Fujikura, but they always had higher published torque than other company's shafts, but in practice, their shafts were tightest.  It was entirely because they used a heavier weight to measure the torque value.

 

And, as Stuart mentioned, you have no idea where on the shaft it's being measured.  Some do it at the very tip, some do it 1" up from the tip, others go farther yet up the shaft.  It's the most meaningless number in golf shafts, even less meaningful than butt frequency.

 

The closest we came to having real data was in the old Dynacraft DSFI, now published by Hireko.  They would use the same method on all shafts they measured.  Penley Stealth 70 was 4.25* in X.  Dynamic Gold steel wood shafts ranged from 3* in regular to 2.7* with X100 (post tipping).  The famous ProForce 65 and 75 were in the 3.6* to 3.9* range.  Harrison shafts, like the Pro 2.5 Ti, said to be around 2.5*, came in at 3.7*.  Aldila NV65 was 3.9*, the NV75 around 3.4*.  Grafalloy Blue, 3.3*.  Ad nauseum.  🙂

 

It just doesn't have the meaning ascribed to it...

 

[NRJyzr]

Adding one more, because I find it interesting.  The Mitsubishi Rayon portion of one of their chapters, which has some old faves in there:

 

[rbpwrx]

4 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

The issue with your approach is that you're taking those published numbers as though they're based similarly.  And they aren't.  Just as there is no standard for flex, there is no standard for torque.  Company A's shaft at a published 2.5* torque may actually have more torque than Company B's 3.7* torque, all because of how they measure it.

 

There was a famous example some 20 years ago...  I cannot remember whether it was Mitsubishi or Fujikura, but they always had higher published torque than other company's shafts, but in practice, their shafts were tightest.  It was entirely because they used a heavier weight to measure the torque value.

 

And, as Stuart mentioned, you have no idea where on the shaft it's being measured.  Some do it at the very tip, some do it 1" up from the tip, others go farther yet up the shaft.  It's the most meaningless number in golf shafts, even less meaningful than butt frequency.

 

The closest we came to having real data was in the old Dynacraft DSFI, now published by Hireko.  They would use the same method on all shafts they measured.  Penley Stealth 70 was 4.25* in X.  Dynamic Gold steel wood shafts ranged from 3* in regular to 2.7* with X100 (post tipping).  The famous ProForce 65 and 75 were in the 3.6* to 3.9* range.  Harrison shafts, like the Pro 2.5 Ti, said to be around 2.5*, came in at 3.7*.  Aldila NV65 was 3.9*, the NV75 around 3.4*.  Grafalloy Blue, 3.3*.  Ad nauseum.  🙂

 

It just doesn't have the meaning ascribed to it...

I understand that, and take ALL numbers with a grain of salt. But I trust my hands. And I do, in practice, find SOME correlation between the numbers and what I feel.

Case in point: I built up two 3 woods recently, a Tour Green 85TX, tipped 1.5" (Cally 3Deep head) and an old Penley G2 85X, tipped 2" (Titey 915Fd head).

On paper, the TG is 2.6* and the G2 is 3.2*. But the Penley feels *way* more sluggish and heavy than the Aldila. The TG feels super tight and snappy.

Now obviously most of that is materials used. They are shafts from different eras. And of course the flex profiles are different (although both high-kick lo-lo shafts).

But I will bet you anything that the Penley has at LEAST a degree more torque than the TG, measured exactly the same way.

One thing you neglected: shafts built by the same company are presumably measured the same way. So I can trust that a TT X100 with 1.9* is measured the same way as a TT Evenflow with 3.2*. And I'll bet you anything I can feel that difference in a heartbeat.

YMMV, but it's the first number I look at. Because it tells me more about how that shaft is built, and how it's going to feel and perform *relative to other shafts by that same manufacturer*. I know the Graphite Design family is going to feel different from the Diamana family from the Oban family. But *within that family of shafts*, I'm gonna try the low-torque puppies first.

[rbpwrx]

12 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

Adding one more, because I find it interesting.  The Mitsubishi Rayon portion of one of their chapters, which has some old faves in there:

 

 

Perfect! All about relative numbers. That sheet tells me I need to test a KK 70X TiNi STAT!

[NRJyzr]

9 minutes ago, rbpwrx said:

On paper, the TG is 2.6* and the G2 is 3.2*. But the Penley feels *way* more sluggish and heavy than the Aldila. The TG feels super tight and snappy.

 

FWIW, using the Dynacraft/Hireko methodology, the G2-85 was 4.4* cut, 4.9* raw; as far as I've seen, they've not measured the Tour Green or Tour Blue.

 

You're assuming you're feeling the torque, but there's no way to know if you are or are not.  I'm sorry for how this might sound, but it's really confirmation bias, at least at this point.  The only way to *know* is to eliminate every variable; bend profile, material construction, the non-material-specific aspects of each shaft's construction, differences in the clubheads used, overall builds....  

 

There are a lot of variables.  🙂

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by NRJyzr

[NRJyzr]

3 minutes ago, rbpwrx said:

 

Perfect! All about relative numbers. That sheet tells me I need to test a KK 70X TiNi STAT!

 

You'd probably love these, then

 

[rbpwrx]

3 hours ago, rlb4 said:

So you can have a very flexible shaft longitudinally but with low torque that is resistant to twisting, and vice versa?

Definitely. I worked in composites for years (sailboards and aircraft) and you ABSOLUTELY design for how you want a wing or a prop blade to twist (or not), and you choose fibers and orientations based on that. Some materials are very brittle and don't stretch (most carbon), some are more elastic (aramid). But mainly it's about orientation. Fibers on a 45° angle will generally resist twisting. Fibers parallel to the shaft will resist bending. So if you used a lot of 'bias' prepreg, and not too much lengthwise, you'll get a shaft that bends but doesn't twist. Which was the trick over at ACCRA for a long time.

[rbpwrx]

6 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

FWIW, using the Dynacraft/Hireko methodology, the G2-85 was 4.4* cut, 4.9* raw; as far as I've seen, they've not measured the Tour Green or Tour Blue.

 

You're assuming you're feeling the torque, but there's no way to know if you are or are not.  I'm sorry for how this might sound, but it's really confirmation bias, at least at this point.  The only way to *know* is to eliminate every variable; bend profile, material construction, the non-material-specific aspects of each shaft's construction, differences in the clubheads used, overall builds...

 

Agreed. But it's not just bias I'm confirming.

I've been experimenting with heavy tipping lately - on steel as well as graphite - essentially eliminating the bendiest and twistiest part of the shaft.

I tipped an old Rifle 7.0 wood shaft over 6" the other day! My favorite club lately is an OG Graf Blue X tipped 3.5", at 3W length with an old TM 300cc Ti head.

So I am definitely reducing bend, but certainly also torque. Pretty sure I can feel the difference. Even on bendier shafts, I've always preferred low torque. My 20yo Accras are  a case in point. Growing up on steel, I guess! 

[Stuart_G]

11 hours ago, rlb4 said:

So you can have a very flexible shaft longitudinally but with low torque that is resistant to twisting, and vice versa?

 

It's possible - but you're not going to see anything like that being sold since there is no place (need/demand) for that in the market.    The designers are (typically) going to ensure that the torsional stiffness is sufficient for the swing characteristics of the intended customer for a particular model and flex.    How much past that minimum they might potentially go is an optional parameter for the designer to decide.   There was a time when they thought lower was better (maybe 15-20 years ago) - but now they no longer believe that and torque values are rising a little bit since that period.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Stuart_G