Should have been .370 across the board

[rbpwrx]

The more I learn about shafts and carbon layups and the balance between torque and flex and profile the more convinced I become that .335 was the WRONG standard for woods.

 

We put this spindly little neck on the end of a stick some guys are swinging over 150mph and try to prevent it from bending and twisting right before a heavy 200g+ end weight.

 

We trashed the one thing that would have made that easy: DIAMETER.

Look at the specs for any hybrid shaft. They are almost uniformly 1.0* tighter in torque than their wood shaft brethren. Same for flex. Most guys report more confidence and better results with their hybrid than their driver. Is that partially due to length? Sure. But I'll bet you anything it also has to do with reduced torque and flex near the tip. Which is almost entire due to tip diameter.

WHY couldn't all clubs be .370 parallel standard? You could put any shaft in any head, tip any shaft any amount for all kinds of creative gapping, you'd SAVE material and weight just by increasing diameter - i.e. free stability, cheaper shafts. Plus, our woods, particularly driver, would LOOK more meaty and substantial, less whippy, which might give some players more confidence.

There are all kinds of other advantages I can think of. At one point we had a .350 standard. Which at least made a little more sense. But why not keep it simple? ONE standard? One reamer to buy. One size ferrule. Is there ANY reason we made the longest shafts inherently the weakest?!?

 

Edited November 20 by rbpwrx

[HeadCovered]

100% agree with you. 
350 should’ve been the standard. 
I think 370 would’ve been too thick, probably would have robbed a little bit of “feel” there. And I think that’s the thing. It’s the feel and a bit more whip at the bottom that a lot of people need. 
For sure fast swingers always break it. 
 

It’s such a weird world we live in, huh. So many “standards” in the world from electric plugs and voltages and, we still have to deal with the fight between English and Metric. 😝 

[Nessism]

It's widely accepted that torque doesn't affect shot accuracy.

 

Before this became clear, for a period of time there was a fair bit of experimentation with wood shafts at .350, and some even larger (Wilson Fat Shaft, for example), all with the end game of reducing torque.   

 

By varying layup methods and materials, though, a low torque .335 tip shaft is easily achievable, so the large tip experiment died away.   

[rbpwrx]

1 hour ago, Nessism said:

It's widely accepted that torque doesn't affect shot accuracy.

 

I know that's the party line, but two things:

1/ I have found a *very* few shafts for which that is actually true: RIP Alpha X, Rogue Silver 125 TX, a heavily tipped OG Blue, ProtoPype... But these are the exception, and the amount of material required to reduce both torque and flex at such a narrow diameter makes the shaft unplayable for many. (The Blue, notably, had a VERY fat diameter down through the low midsection, and is a good example of using simple geometry to achieve characteristics, rather than layup - still a beloved shaft in some circles.)

 

2/ Also, I respectfully disagree that torque does not affect accuracy, and believe that better science will eventually confirm this. Iron Byron doesn't have elbows or wrists. SOME swings, sure, don't stress the shaft torsionally enough for torque to be a huge factor (although check the mishits, even on those guys). But some swings do, including many on tour and on this board, and we will continue poking around in the dark until laboratory measurements catch up to what we've all been feeling. (Note: some of the 'latest and greatest' are notably low Tq - HZRDUS, Ventus. Co-inky-dink? I think not.)

 

But the point is: sure, you *can* theoretically reduce torque and flex using layup, even within such a thin profile as .335 - but WHY? Why choose THAT standard?? 0.370 would allow us MUCH greater flexibility in *how* we arrive at the flex and twist characteristics we want, using less material, allowing lighter shafts, especially down low. I just literally can not imagine any downside to a uniform .370 standard. ESPECIALLY in the big dogs.
 

Edited November 20 by rbpwrx

[taki27]

I don’t necessarily disagree that .370 would be better for woods, but unfortunately it won’t change from .335.  The reason the .350-.410 woods failed was that they were using cheap OEM shafts because there was almost no aftermarket shafts in those diameters.  It is very safe to say that there is 0 interest in changing from the .335 to bigger by major manufacturers.

[rsballer10]

I think at some point, going to a .370 wood shaft makes sense. As players get faster and faster at some point the only lever left to pull for a stiffer tip section will be a larger diameter. I used to love 0.350 hosel driver builds back in the day because aftermarket shafts in that size were so darn cheap. Super easy to find closeout deals.

 

You'll NEVER have universal 0.370 shafts in my opinion because the parallel tip section would be too long for the shaft to be useful. You would also have a descending weight set of shafts throughout the bag, which is also not ideal.

[WristySwing]

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

 

I know that's the party line, but two things:

1/ I have found a *very* few shafts for which that is actually true: RIP Alpha X, Rogue Silver 125 TX, a heavily tipped OG Blue, ProtoPype... But these are the exception, and the amount of material required to reduce both torque and flex at such a narrow diameter makes the shaft unplayable for many. (The Blue, notably, had a VERY fat diameter down through the low midsection, and is a good example of using simple geometry to achieve characteristics, rather than layup - still a beloved shaft in some circles.)

 

2/ Also, I respectfully disagree that torque does not affect accuracy, and believe that better science will eventually confirm this. Iron Byron doesn't have elbows or wrists. SOME swings, sure, don't stress the shaft torsionally enough for torque to be a huge factor (although check the mishits, even on those guys). But some swings do, including many on tour and on this board, and we will continue poking around in the dark until laboratory measurements catch up to what we've all been feeling. (Note: some of the 'latest and greatest' are notably low Tq - HZRDUS, Ventus. Co-inky-dink? I think not.)

 

But the point is: sure, you *can* theoretically reduce torque and flex using layup, even within such a thin profile as .335 - but WHY? Why choose THAT standard?? 0.370 would allow us MUCH greater flexibility in *how* we arrive at the flex and twist characteristics we want, using less material, allowing lighter shafts, especially down low. I just literally can not imagine any downside to a uniform .370 standard. ESPECIALLY in the big dogs.
 

 

The other poster is correct, there have been quite a few studies on torque and the take away results are always the same: "it depends on the player".  MGS did a study here (if it won't show the link Google MGS shaft torque tested) [https://mygolfspy.com/labs/mygolfspy-labs-shaft-torque/] that showed "mid" torque was a great balance between accuracy and power, but what does that exactly mean?  Shafts vary in torque between about 3* and 8* of torque, depending on the model, weight and manufacturer.  A peer-reviewed article here says higher torque resulted worse accuracy (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2018.1479133?casa_token=o_o0GS9XsVsAAAAA%3ASc6uQJlh1V__peDjgHGn07DX1t4IIA-Pbwm4BQRy7CPeeFdH87E4T9blMv19uRNZtYiup0Xdvp-W).  Ping also did an independent test, of which the data is internal to them and only shown on their fitter training modules that also found torque meant little and that "mid" torque was again best.  UST also corroborated the results from the MGS study.  So who's correct here?  My advice, stop worrying yourself over it and find the shaft that fits you.  There's like 45 different shafts from each manufacturer surely one has to work.

[rbpwrx]

15 minutes ago, rsballer10 said:

I think at some point, going to a .370 wood shaft makes sense. As players get faster and faster at some point the only lever left to pull for a stiffer tip section will be a larger diameter. I used to love 0.350 hosel driver builds back in the day because aftermarket shafts in that size were so darn cheap. Super easy to find closeout deals.

 

You'll NEVER have universal 0.370 shafts in my opinion because the parallel tip section would be too long for the shaft to be useful. You would also have a descending weight set of shafts throughout the bag, which is also not ideal.

Why would the parallel section have to be any longer? Grafalloy Blue is fatter than that right down almost to the hosel.

[rbpwrx]

1 hour ago, taki27 said:

I don’t necessarily disagree that .370 would be better for woods, but unfortunately it won’t change from .335.  The reason the .350-.410 woods failed was that they were using cheap OEM shafts because there was almost no aftermarket shafts in those diameters.  It is very safe to say that there is 0 interest in changing from the .335 to bigger by major manufacturers.

I know it'll probably never happen, but still worthwhile talking about, IMO. Better world and all that. Besides, some enterprising shaft maker could use to do a batch  of their .370 iron shafts at 46 inches long, and commission a batch of heads from Taiwan with 370 hosels. Not that big an investment. Start a revolution!

[Nessism]

23 minutes ago, rsballer10 said:

You'll NEVER have universal 0.370 shafts in my opinion because the parallel tip section would be too long for the shaft to be useful. You would also have a descending weight set of shafts throughout the bag, which is also not ideal.

 

Nippon makes constant weight .370 tip iron shafts.

[rsballer10]

2 minutes ago, rbpwrx said:

Why would the parallel section have to be any longer? Grafalloy Blue is fatter than that right down almost to the hosel.

 

Parallel shafts usually get tipped 0.5" per club. For iron shafts, it's not uncommon to see PTS of 10+ inches. While this gives the builder a lot of flexibility, all the benefits of a "universal" golf shaft would be negated by the fact that the shaft diameter would have to be 0.370 for the entire bottom section of the shaft. 

 

That is why most wood shafts only have a PTS about 3" long. It gives the builder some flexibility with tipping, but basically the OD gets bigger as soon as possible. Exotic materials can make a tip stiffer, but the simplest way is increase OD.

[rsballer10]

4 minutes ago, Nessism said:

 

Nippon makes constant weight .370 tip iron shafts.

 

So you are still ordering discreet shafts for each club. My point is that to be able to put  "any shaft in any head, tip any shaft any amount for all kinds of creative gapping, you'd SAVE material and weight just by increasing diameter - i.e. free stability, cheaper shafts"  would require a very long parallel tip section.

 

So sure, the shaft has a bigger OD at the hosel...but would have to have a smaller OD in order to be tipped to fit a wide range of applications. Easily over 10" PTS. 

[rbpwrx]

16 minutes ago, rsballer10 said:

 

So you are still ordering discreet shafts for each club. My point is that to be able to put  "any shaft in any head, tip any shaft any amount for all kinds of creative gapping, you'd SAVE material and weight just by increasing diameter - i.e. free stability, cheaper shafts"  would require a very long parallel tip section.

 

So sure, the shaft has a bigger OD at the hosel...but would have to have a smaller OD in order to be tipped to fit a wide range of applications. Easily over 10" PTS. 

Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, I'm not saying one shaft would fit any club! But it might simplify a lineup from 30 different shafts to 10!

Parallel tip iron shafts, of course, have a pretty long tip section. Probably about 10 inches, like you said. That gives you a lot of room for customizing when fitting irons.

I wouldn't expect a wood shaft to have that long a parallel section, but I'm betting 6 inches would be pretty useful.

Sure would be nice to have the option to stick a wood shaft in a hybrid, or an iron, and vice versa. Fewer products but more possibilities! 

 

[AdamMH]

Wood shafts did venture into .370" size in the late 90s/early 2000s. The only reference I can find to them is in LD, and the only shafts like that that I can actually name are the Accuflex Havoc (62in, 4X flex), the Penley Ultron (65in, 3X flex) and Penley Tour Light (50 or 60in, XX/XXX).

I have yet to find any heads that were offered in .370" in all of my web archive crawling though... Horsepower golf used to offer hosel modification to fit .350 and .370 shafts so I imagine there probably weren't any .370 hosel drivers to start with.

Edited November 20 by AdamMH

[rbpwrx]

37 minutes ago, Nessism said:

 

Nippon makes constant weight .370 tip iron shafts.

do you know if anyone still makes 46 inch steel?

[rbpwrx]

19 minutes ago, AdamMH said:

Wood shafts did venture into .370" size in the late 90s/early 2000s. The only reference I can find to them is in LD, and the only shafts like that that I can actually name are the Accuflex Havoc (62in, 4X flex), the Penley Ultron (65in, 3X flex) and Penley Tour Light (50 or 60in, XX/XXX).

I have yet to find any heads that were offered in .370" in all of my web archive crawling though... Horsepower golf used to offer hosel modification to fit .350 and .370 shafts so I imagine there probably weren't any .370 hosel drivers to start with.

Cool, great info. And that speaks to the above point that eventually these kids are going to get strong enough to need 370 in their drivers. Because they're hitting it that far on the fly!

[rbpwrx]

Back in reality, let me just stipulate that I personally have been "getting around" the .335 tip by tipping it, jamming it, and leaving the bare minimum 1/2" of recommended parallel section left, which gets covered by a ferrule anyway.

 

Combine that with a shaft like the OG Blue that is fat all the way down, and at least optically you get rid of the entire tip. Functionally too.

Also a nice way to stiffen torque without going into a crazy XXX flex.

 

One man's opinion, but the feel is so much better than having that spindly little neck exposed for that fat bobble head to loll around on. YMMV.

 

Edited November 20 by rbpwrx

[rbpwrx]

(How do you delete a duplicate post??)

 

Edited November 20 by rbpwrx

[FirstFlight]

Interesting...this dialogue leads one to envision an aftermarket adapter. An adapter that fits normal OEM driver/wood adjustable hosel heads with a .370. Maybe it is already available or has been tried? I haven't looked yet.

[rbpwrx]

OK, what would be the practical implications for fitters, if something like this ever actually happened?
- Obviously we would still all want different weights (and BTW, a legit 40g or less would theoretically be possible, given the increased diameter and the ever-increasing quality and strength of prepregs);

- We would still all want/need different profiles;

- But. An 80TX could go in a driver, a FW, a HY, an iron, even a putter. And so on down the line. And backwards! 135g wedge shaft in a driver? No problem!
Still not seeing any downside.

[rbpwrx]

4 minutes ago, FirstFlight said:

Interesting...this dialogue leads one to envision an aftermarket adapter. An adapter that fits normal OEM driver/wood adjustable hosel heads with a .370. Maybe it is already available or has been tried? I haven't looked yet.

Good point. Most modern driver/fairway heads are physically large enough to accept .370 tips already. The only thing to be reworked would be the adapter. Which, btw, could be steel. Or titanium, if weight is an issue. That alone would probably make the difference. Stronger alloys can have thinner walls, of course.

[rbpwrx]

(Full disclosure: not the first time I've floated this idea. Posted something similar a couple years ago. Giving myself deja vu.)

[FirstFlight]

Yeah, and even if the section of the adapter were above normal...where the faux ferrule is usually,. It would only need to be another 3/4 to 1" above that with the .370 bonding section. It might not look hideous. 🤔

[rbpwrx]

15 minutes ago, FirstFlight said:

Yeah, and even if the section of the adapter were above normal...where the faux ferrule is usually,. It would only need to be another 3/4 to 1" above that with the .370 bonding section. It might not look hideous. 🤔

I think you're on to something with the aftermarket. Shaft would have to seat all the way down to the sole. Then all we'd need are 44"+ hybrid shafts in driver weights!

[todpod]

2 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

do you know if anyone still makes 46 inch steel?

here you go 

https://www.hirekogolf.com/apollo-standard-stepless-steel-golf-shafts.html

[Ger21]

2 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

And that speaks to the above point that eventually these kids are going to get strong enough to need 370 in their drivers

I would think that shaft manufacturers have the technology right now to make a shaft 5x stiffer than anything made today, if there were a need for it.

[Klubster]

No reason to not be .370 across the board, but you will still need to have wood, hybrid and iron shafts.  At least you get by with one size ferrule.

[rsballer10]

15 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, I'm not saying one shaft would fit any club! But it might simplify a lineup from 30 different shafts to 10!

Parallel tip iron shafts, of course, have a pretty long tip section. Probably about 10 inches, like you said. That gives you a lot of room for customizing when fitting irons.

I wouldn't expect a wood shaft to have that long a parallel section, but I'm betting 6 inches would be pretty useful.

Sure would be nice to have the option to stick a wood shaft in a hybrid, or an iron, and vice versa. Fewer products but more possibilities! 

 

For sure. I consider myself fortunate that component clubs were readily available circa 2008 when I started building clubs. I will say for a fact that starting out on 0.370 parallel tip shafts was a great way to learn how shafts work. TBH the whole "spinner shaft" and soft/hard stepping confusion gets demystified if you learn how to tip/butt trim a set of iron shafts to flex. 

[ShortGolfer]

Filed down a Veylix 673 senior flex 0.370 hybrid shaft to take a 0.335 adapter.  Drilled out the plastic ferrule to take the thicker shaft.  I bought two new shafts at just $25 each!

Edited November 21 by ShortGolfer

[rbpwrx]

1 hour ago, ShortGolfer said:

Filed down a Veylix 673 senior flex 0.370 hybrid shaft to take a 0.335 adapter.  Drilled out the plastic ferrule to take the thicker shaft.  I bought two new shafts at just $25 each!

 

There ya go!