Opinions; Best Putter Tech….

[MachineHack]

5 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I suspect they put in the proper number of mass adjustment locations appropriate for the design and achieving the desired torque balancing precision. I also suspect they would do away with the screws if there was an equally cost effective way of achieving the same end result because most folks, such as yourself, don't appreciate such an industrial aesthetic.

why couldn’t you use 2 larger sole weights on the toe and heel? Because I could shift a ton of weight heel to toe just with just a single weight. 
 

I though maybe they wanted extra weight on the top line for some reason I don’t understand 

 

but by the time you allow for the chamfer for the counter sink head you sitting quite a few mm down anyways before you start adding any extra weight with tungsten (or potentially a tungsten alloy if they’re not shifting a ton of weight) 

 

like I can pretty easily get an old anser to 340 (about 40g heavier than stock) with two tungsten weights and that requires over 80g of tungsten to achieve so I’ve got around 80g I could position wherever I want 

 

also I could be a complete idiot and totally wrong and their solution is best, I just feel gut wise you could accomplish it in a ton of ways and they like the screw way the best for looks.

[ThinkingPlus]

9 hours ago, MachineHack said:

why couldn’t you use 2 larger sole weights on the toe and heel? Because I could shift a ton of weight heel to toe just with just a single weight. 
 

I though maybe they wanted extra weight on the top line for some reason I don’t understand 

 

but by the time you allow for the chamfer for the counter sink head you sitting quite a few mm down anyways before you start adding any extra weight with tungsten (or potentially a tungsten alloy if they’re not shifting a ton of weight) 

 

like I can pretty easily get an old anser to 340 (about 40g heavier than stock) with two tungsten weights and that requires over 80g of tungsten to achieve so I’ve got around 80g I could position wherever I want 

 

also I could be a complete idiot and totally wrong and their solution is best, I just feel gut wise you could accomplish it in a ton of ways and they like the screw way the best for looks.

They need many locations on the putter because they are balancing the putter front to back and side to side about the shaft location. Ideally you want this balancing to occur at every location on the putter head.

 

The simplest shape for a torque balanced putter is a brick (rectangular solid) with the shaft perfectly in the center and vertical (illegal of course). A putter of this design made of a single material (stainless steel for example) would require no mass distribution fine tuning at all.

 

However, once the shaft is angled, we no longer have mass distributed about the lie axis angle appropriately to produce zero torque hence the need to add adjustment points (maybe as few as 2) to fine tune the mass distribution.  It gets much more complicated for irregular shapes like a Mezz or Link so it becomes necessary to add many adjustment locations.

[MachineHack]

12 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

They need many locations on the putter because they are balancing the putter front to back and side to side about the shaft location. Ideally you want this balancing to occur at every location on the putter head.

 

The simplest shape for a torque balanced putter is a brick (rectangular solid) with the shaft perfectly in the center and vertical (illegal of course). A putter of this design made of a single material (stainless steel for example) would require no mass distribution fine tuning at all.

 

However, once the shaft is angled, we no longer have mass distributed about the lie axis angle appropriately to produce zero torque hence the need to add adjustment points (maybe as few as 2) to fine tune the mass distribution.  It gets much more complicated for irregular shapes like a Mezz or Link so it becomes necessary to add many adjustment locations.

that’s based off the assumption you can’t balance a single weight front to rear 

 

which genuinely would not be hard to do   Even with a circular weight like I make

 

but if I was going to do it (and since they’re cnc’d anyways) I’d pocket a square weight hole that could hold 4 circular movable weights. You could have the exact same adjustability front to rear and side to side because the front two weights on the toe side could be pocketed deeper if you needed additional weight for the front toe balance. And this is all assuming you need to move that much weight around. 
 

I think ultimately agree to disagree lol

[Even Further]

White hot, and SIK for me. Bonus for adjustable head weights.

[roundersmitty]

I think I am finally down to two putters.   Both seem to roll the ball better than I ever have.  I was a big fan of the Superstroke pistol gt tour but now think this Garsen Quad Tour non tapered is even better.