any difference between a tsr2 3 wood 15* lofted to 16.5 vs a tsr2 16.5?

[cavemeister]

I assume they should play similar since tsr has option to keep the lie flat...?

[boggyman]

15* to would close the face a bit when adjusted to 16.5*. 

[black bnr32]

Curious how this truly plays out as I see minimal left/right changes when adjusting loft on a driver.  Anyone done more extensive testing with a fairway wood?

[cavemeister]

3 hours ago, boggyman said:

15* to would close the face a bit when adjusted to 16.5*. 

Usually, but Titleist fairway has a flat setting?

[jvincent]

11 minutes ago, cavemeister said:

Usually, but Titleist fairway has a flat setting?

 

It's still going to change the face angle. 

 

FWIW I play the 16.5* and it's fantastic.

[boggyman]

58 minutes ago, cavemeister said:

Usually, but Titleist fairway has a flat setting?

Gotcha. I’ve never played Titleist but the Pings  I’ve played appeared closed when loft was added, even in flat position. 

Edited June 9 by boggyman

[bnperrone]

I’d hit them both. There’s the objective change, how you perceive it, and how you deliver the clubhead. What happens on paper and in real life isn’t always the same. 
 

I’ve gotta imagine there is some difference in CG that won’t be identical in the 15 at 16.5 and the 16.5 at 16.5. One might suit you more and be the difference. 

[hammergolf]

1 hour ago, cavemeister said:

Usually, but Titleist fairway has a flat setting?

It’s only .75* flatter at that setting, so not much of an effect.

[Albatross Dreamer]

5 hours ago, boggyman said:

15* to would close the face a bit when adjusted to 16.5*. 

The way I understand it though is you have to square the face back up in order for it to actually be lofted up. Otherwise if you leave the face closed it's still 15*. I could be wrong though

[uglande]

6 hours ago, boggyman said:

15* to would close the face a bit when adjusted to 16.5*. 

True, and I would even say more than "a bit." In the +.75 settings, Titleist club faces are slightly shut. In the +1.50 setting they are, IMO, uncomfortably shut. They look weird, like anti-slice clubs. Not my jam, but might work for others. 

[ARL67]

I agree with previous comments that you just can't go my the math.  They will look different at address and the CoG will be slightly different.  I am sensitive to swing-weight and can perceive a difference when adjusting the Surefit adapter, that do affect my delivery of the club.  I have TSi2 11, 10, 9* drivers here and adjusting all 3 to a common 10* doesn't make them the same.  And then you have manufacturing weight tolerances of possibly +/- 2g , along with the "welded" face angle tolerances. You have to get them on the course to see what really works for you.  Hence we buy, we try, we keep/sell, rinse & repeat. 👍

[Stuart_G]

12 hours ago, Albatross Dreamer said:

The way I understand it though is you have to square the face back up in order for it to actually be lofted up. Otherwise if you leave the face closed it's still 15*. I could be wrong though

 

The bigger problem when not squaring up a closed face is the resulting hook you'll end up with.

 

Face angle fitting is all about shot shape control, not the resulting loft.  But ONLY for those that are sensitive to it.    So it's easy to test by just playing around with different "loft" settings on the range and see what happens to the shot shape or the left/right miss tendencies.

 

Edited June 9 by Stuart_G

[Albatross Dreamer]

Just now, Stuart_G said:

 

The bigger problem when not squaring up a closed face is the resulting hook you'll end up with.

 

Face angle fitting is all about shot shape control, not the resulting loft.  But ONLY for those that are sensitive to it.    So it's easy to test by just playing around with different "loft" settings on the range and see what happens to the shot shape or the left/right miss tendencies.

 

This isn't my area of expertise, so could you help clarify how the loft/face angle relationship works? I'll try to best describe my understanding of how it was explained to me. If you have a 15* and loft it up it closes the face. However, in order to actually play the higher loft you have to square the face back up, as that's what rotates the shaft and make the lofting up "go into effect" if that makes sense. Then you obviously want to grip it with a squared face, otherwise it'd most likely just rotate back to the closed face during the swing.

 

Or are you separating what happens when you do square the face back up after making any adjustments vs playing with an open/closed face? Hope that all makes sense, let me know if not!

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, Albatross Dreamer said:

This isn't my area of expertise, so could you help clarify how the loft/face angle relationship works? I'll try to best describe my understanding of how it was explained to me. If you have a 15* and loft it up it closes the face. However, in order to actually play the higher loft you have to square the face back up, as that's what rotates the shaft and make the lofting up "go into effect" if that makes sense. Then you obviously want to grip it with a squared face, otherwise it'd most likely just rotate back to the closed face during the swing.

 

Personally I think while not completely incorrect, that's a potentially confusing way to look at it.

 

What actually happens to the club is pretty simple.   Static loft, effective loft and face angle are all head specs that can be measured - so there is really no lack of clarity there as long as you understand how those individual specs are defined.   When you adjust loft at the hosel (or even bend the loft at the hosel).   The static loft does not change, the effective loft does change, and the face angle does change.   All that has nothing to do with what the player does at setup or during the swing.

 

What gets complicated is when you add the player.  It's the dynamic loft - not either of the above loft specs that dictate how the ball will leave the club.   It's the actual path and face to path that will dictate where the ball goes - not the face angle.   Lots of things could potentially happen (or change) either at setup or during the swing in ways that can effect the result.  But it's only a bunch of potential possibilities.   Some people try to create simple criteria to explain those differences - but it's really a waste of time.   One really just needs to accept the fact that it is complicated and VERY subjective.

 

e.g talking about a player "squaring up the face" as a criteria is really pointless and too much of an oversimplification of the issue.  It's extremely rare for a player to have a perfectly square face orientation and path at impact - that's completely independent of anything that might be done to the hosel adjustments (same before and after adjusting).   So it's best to through that (and similar) idea out the window.  Even the idea of squaring up the face at address during the set-up before the swing starts is an oversimplification.

 

The best simplification is to realize that some people are sensitive to face angle changes and some are not (although it's more a spectrum than a binary or true/false situation).   And the ONLY way to know if that's the case is for each individual to go and test what happens when you change the face angle.   The possibilities of why specifically they might be sensitive - or how that sensitivity might effect the ball flight results - or whether the differences happens at setup or in the swing are not things that can be easily answered or simplified.  Nor are they things that in truth is are really that important.  The only thing that really matters is what happens to the ball flight - and only at the individual level.

 

One could speculate on what one might do to remove that sensitivity - but there are too many different ways that people can be sensitive that it's frequently an exerciser in futility.  It's generally better to accept it than change it - like most other aspects of equipment sensitivity (weight and stiffness and grip size).