How Many Potential Yards Lost By Cutting Driver Shaft?

[PJE]

Hi Golf WRX Clubbuilding Experts,

I’m wondering if there is a formula or approximation which states potentially  how much distance is lost by (butt) trimming a driver shaft? 
For example, some OEMs have a driver playing length of 45.75 inches which I guess potentially allows for longer drives. If you cut the shaft to 45.25 or 45 inches what would be the potential distance loss on a center strike: 2 yards ? 5 yards? 
I realize there are other, highly individualized, factors which could negate the potential distance loss but I was wondering if there is a formula or rule of thumb about this issue. 
Thank you for any insights which you can provide. 

Edited March 26 by PJE

[Stuart_G]

18 minutes ago, PJE said:

Hi Golf WRX Clubbuilding Experts,

I’m wondering if there is a formula or approximation which states potentially  how much distance is lost by (butt) trimming a driver shaft? 
For example, some OEMs have a driver playing length of 45.75 inches which I guess potentially allows for longer drives. If you cut the shaft to 45.25 or 45 inches what would be the potential distance loss on a center strike: 2 yards ? 5 yards? 
I realize there are other, highly individualized, factors which could negate the potential distance loss but I was wondering if there is a formula or rule of thumb about this issue. 
Thank you for any insights which you can provide. 

 

No there is no useful formula - largely because most people who cut down don't loose any distance if they do it right or for the right reason - and do it in the right way.   And it's not uncommon to actually increase distance.    Yes, some people might loose distance at the cost of getting better dispersion and consistency - but it's not as frequent as you might think.

 

First of all, not everyone who cuts down the playing length loose swing speed.  Longer playing lengths can amplify the effects of swing flaws - which can decrease the efficiency of the swing.

 

Second, shorter playing lengths generally improve the face impact location - resulting in a better effective COR or smash factor.  Other aspects of the delivery such as face and path control or dynamic loft delivered could be improved resulting in better launch numbers.

Edited March 25 by Stuart_G

[Pepperturbo]

2 hours ago, PJE said:

Hi Golf WRX Clubbuilding Experts,

I’m wondering if there is a formula or approximation which states potentially  how much distance is lost by (butt) trimming a driver shaft? 
For example, some OEMs have a driver playing length of 45.75 inches which I guess potentially allows for longer drives. If you cut the shaft to 45.25 or 45 inches what would be the potential distance loss on a center strike: 2 yards ? 5 yards? 
I realize there are other, highly individualized, factors which could negate the potential distance loss but I was wondering if there is a formula or rule of thumb about this issue. 
Thank you for any insights which you can provide. 

Yep, that's how OEM's sell distance, lengthen shafts.  Most people can't consistently benefit from those lengths, least that I've seen.  IMO, shorter length is better.

 

No rule of thumb, that I am aware of.  Years back I started testing various lengths from 46" down to 43" (typical steel length.)  It took a while, but finally settled on 44.5" and lost nothing.  I have a few shafts at 44.75" but no yardage gain, except both playing lengths increased FIR while dispersion decreased.

Edited March 25 by Pepperturbo

[ShortGolfer]

Golf is a game of consistency.  Not potential.  There is little advantage to being able to occasionally hit the ball farther if you can't do it on demand.

[gdb99]

0

[clinkinfo]

Stolen from another thread discussion:

 

 

Club Length vs Club speed
but in a robot, 0.25 inch = 1 mph
1 Mph is optimum 2.5 yards carry

[Valtiel]

20 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

Stolen from another thread discussion:

 

 

Club Length vs Club speed
but in a robot, 0.25 inch = 1 mph
1 Mph is optimum 2.5 yards carry

Yeah, this is about the only "rule" you can apply, the fairly direct correlation between playing length and speed potential. It's just so highly individualized as you put it @PJE to really only be worth considering for academic purposes. In practice, the variables you alluded to in the OP are too numerous and intertwined as to be separated, therefore there really isn't any purpose in attempting to create a formula or rule of thumb.  

[Frank Newport]

2 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

No there is no useful formula - largely because most people who cut down don't loose any distance if they do it right or for the right reason - and do it in the right way.   And it's not uncommon to actually increase distance.    Yes, some people might loose distance at the cost of getting better dispersion and consistency - but it's not as frequent as you might think.

 

First of all, not everyone who cuts down the playing length loose swing speed.  Longer playing lengths can amplify the effects of swing flaws - which can decrease the efficiency of the swing.

 

Second, shorter playing lengths generally improve the face impact location - resulting in a better effective COR or smash factor.  Other aspects of the delivery such as face and path control or dynamic loft delivered could be improved resulting in better launch numbers.

How does one find the optimal playing length for their driver and fairway woods?

[dgoulet]

i am playing my driver at 46.5 this year(unless it starts to go bad) on on average im about 3-4 mph faster according to trackman and seeing around an extra ten yards again according to trackman. they are completely different shafts though

[miami1023]

2 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

Yep, that's how OEM's sell distance, lengthen shafts.  Most people can't consistently benefit from those lengths, least that I've seen.  IMO, shorter length is better.

It's a shame they do this and screw the average golfer. I wish they kept the standard length around 44.5

[Pepperturbo]

4 minutes ago, miami1023 said:

It's a shame they do this and screw the average golfer. I wish they kept the standard length around 44.5

True.  The problem is OEM's rely on Iron Byron for yardages, which instills hope in the average buyer.  Only the average buyer hits it solid (guessing) one in twenty times, how much longer is a crap shoot, but more than likely long left or right in the junk.

[Yanki01]

I had my local shop cut my driver to 44.25" about 4yrs ago when 45" was standard. I felt more comfortable with it. IDK about the amount of yardage lost but I'm in the fairway more often now.

[clinkinfo]

Lots and lots of generalized comments in here implying "everyone" should be playing a shorter driver.

 

Definitely not true.  There are many players who benefit from longer shafts, that's why they changed the max length rule from 48 to 46.

 

How do you know what to play? Time on a launch monitor testing different lengths, weights, etc to see what works for you and what you get the best results with.  There's no real general answer.

[EddieEdwards]

There's a study where everone gained a yard or two going shorter except 0-5 caps which lost a yard on average.

[st1800e]

3 hours ago, Frank Newport said:

How does one find the optimal playing length for their driver and fairway woods?

Probably more info than you’re expecting….

 

 

 

[grochol17]

2 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

Lots and lots of generalized comments in here implying "everyone" should be playing a shorter driver.

 

Definitely not true.  There are many players who benefit from longer shafts, that's why they changed the max length rule from 48 to 46.

 

How do you know what to play? Time on a launch monitor testing different lengths, weights, etc to see what works for you and what you get the best results with.  There's no real general answer.

 

USGA rules still allow for drivers as long as 48".  The 46" you mention is a model local rule that can be adopted, but doesn't have to be.  As far as I know, when the tours adopted the MLR, it affected almost no one... Phil, Brooke Henderson, and maybe one of Bryson's experiments are the only ones off the top of my head.  So it is definitely not true that the USGA shortened the max driver length because many players were bombing it down the middle with 48" drivers.

[clinkinfo]

1 minute ago, grochol17 said:

 

USGA rules still allow for drivers as long as 48".  The 46" you mention is a model local rule that can be adopted, but doesn't have to be.  As far as I know, when the tours adopted the MLR, it affected almost no one... Phil, Brooke Henderson, and maybe one of Bryson's experiments are the only ones off the top of my head.  So it is definitely not true that the USGA shortened the max driver length because many players were bombing it down the middle with 48" drivers.

 

Lots of players had started testing longer setups.  Just because they didn't put them in play yet doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

 

The rule changed to combat distance, because longer setups can hit it further.  There's nothing to debate, it's just the physical reality.

 

 

[sanzo]

If a driver off the rack is 45.75 and you get it shortened to 44.5 or even 44.25, would this affect swingweight and feel?

[bellview17]

I play 44.25 inches and longer because I can hit the center of the face more than longer lengths

[Phebus]

1 hour ago, sanzo said:

If a driver off the rack is 45.75 and you get it shortened to 44.5 or even 44.25, would this affect swingweight and feel?

Most definitely. Much lower swingweight. 

[Stuart_G]

13 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

Lots and lots of generalized comments in here implying "everyone" should be playing a shorter driver.

 

Sorry - you might be inferring it, but no comment in this thread is implying that it's true for everyone.    A "majority" or "most" - yes - because it's true.   But not even close to "everyone."

 

And the rule change had nothing to do with - and doesn't effect - the vast majority of armature golfers - the main make up of people who come here to get information and learn.

Edited March 26 by Stuart_G

[grochol17]

11 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

Lots of players had started testing longer setups.  Just because they didn't put them in play yet doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

 

The rule changed to combat distance, because longer setups can hit it further.  There's nothing to debate, it's just the physical reality.

 

 

Physics says that, all other things being equal, a longer shaft will result in faster clubhead speed.  But, humans are definitively not "all things being equal." 

 

If you change the length of a golfer's driver you're likely also affecting all sorts of things like set up, posture, swing plane, timing.  Yes, if you manage to get everything synced up and catch it on the screws you'll hit one further than with a shorter driver.  But, for most golfers, how often are they going to be able to make a good swing with a 46" driver?  Generally, going shorter is going to be better because it will help people make center face contact more often and thus end up with better driving overall even if the absolute max possible distance is a little shorter. 

 

Are there some people that could play a longer driver?  Sure.  Some people are physically talented enough that they can do that effectively.  But, it is going to be a very small minority of people.  I think the fact that so few tour players were playing a driver 46" - 48" when it was legal (and even now 46" is in the minority) should tell you all you need to know about how hard it is to consistently swing a driver that long.

[goalie]

12 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

Lots of players had started testing longer setups.  Just because they didn't put them in play yet doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

 

The rule changed to combat distance, because longer setups can hit it further.  There's nothing to debate, it's just the physical reality.

 

 

Physics are what they are, and physics also say someone like me hitting the center more often with a 44.5" driver won't lose distance, and I didn't

[Long_Left]

18 hours ago, Frank Newport said:

How does one find the optimal playing length for their driver and fairway woods?

I'm sure it boils down to trial and error for nearly everyone. How quickly you can accomplish that is reliant upon access to equipment and data.

 

As a lefty in a low population density area, it was a lot of effort and a fair bit of cash spent. 

 

Things that help: Driver head with changeable weights for swing weight, access to a club fitter with a big ol' cart full of shafts. Patience and zero expectations going in. You have to control for swing weight, if you just keep going shorter on the same head you're dropping swing weight. If your ideal SW is D2 you need to test the different lengths at that weight.

[Stuart_G]

22 minutes ago, Long_Left said:

As a lefty in a low population density area, it was a lot of effort and a fair bit of cash spent.

 

It does take some effort - but If you follow Howard's tutorial (link posted earlier) it only costs you about the price of a roll of lead tape, a bottle of foot powder spray, and a bucket of range balls.   Maybe $35 if you don't have any of those things to begin with (lead tape is getting expensive!).   

 

Edited March 26 by Stuart_G

[Long_Left]

26 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

It does take some effort - but If you follow Howard's tutorial (link posted earlier) it only costs you about the price of a roll of lead tape, a bottle of foot powder spray, and a bucket of range balls.   Maybe $35 if you don't have any of those things to begin with (lead tape is getting expensive!).   

 

I appreciate that process, it didn't work well for me though. While my squirrel brain chitters away in the background about counter balance weight and profile change when gripping down I get into "overthinking it" mode very quickly. For good or bad, I want a "final" build in my hands that is proven out by the numbers, I've had some negative experiences with clubfitting where the demo club performance was very far away from final build performance, another drawback of being 6+ hours away from "major metro" civilization.

 

The addendum on "Visual Fitting" hits very close to home for me. 

 

My logical brain knows how dumb this all is, but I've not found a way around it yet.

 

It did get me fully on board with using lead tape and foot spray though and understanding the "why" behind making changes, which helps quiet the chatter.

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, Long_Left said:

While my squirrel brain chitters away in the background about counter balance weight and profile change when gripping down I get into "overthinking it" mode very quickly. For good or bad, I want a "final" build in my hands that is proven out by the numbers, I've had some negative experiences with clubfitting where the demo club performance was very far away from final build performance, another drawback of being 6+ hours away from "major metro" civilization.

 

The addendum on "Visual Fitting" hits very close to home for me. 

 

My logical brain knows how dumb this all is, but I've not found a way around it yet.

 

It did get me fully on board with using lead tape and foot spray though and understanding the "why" behind making changes, which helps quiet the chatter.

 

I do get it and I wouldn't call it dumb. So yes, the mind can easily get in the way for some people.   I'm fortunate that it's not the case for me but I know plenty (including my brother) who are like that.   We can't always control how our minds work - we just have to work with what we got so it is a "real" thing that's can't be easily dismissed just because one wants it to go away.  It can take much more time and effort for those people to get through the process and believe in the results.

 

I don't know if will help (probably not) - but philosophically I try for an approach that - If I can't tell the difference in one range session about the positive or negative affect of a particular change - then it's most likely because it really doesn't matter.   IMO, I think that some people put too much emphasis on the equipment and not enough on the swing itself.   At least I've found that the more effort I put into working on the swing, the less time I spend messing with the equipment.  But then again, maybe that's just because I've already settled into the club specs that work best for me.

[Phebus]

My problem is that what works on the range doesn’t always translate to the course. I recently went through Howard’s fitting tutorial and added weight little by little to my driver until I had it working really well for me. Then I took it to the course and started off hitting it really well, but by the end of the round my push draw had turned into a straight push I removed some weight for the next round and the driver performed well for me the entire round. 

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, Phebus said:

My problem is that what works on the range doesn’t always translate to the course. I recently went through Howard’s fitting tutorial and added weight little by little to my driver until I had it working really well for me. Then I took it to the course and started off hitting it really well, but by the end of the round my push draw had turned into a straight push I removed some weight for the next round and the driver performed well for me the entire round. 

 

One potential problem with the testing process is that too much repetition can allow one to "groove" a swing for any particular feel.   Which isn't the same as the performance of the club when you only have one swing to get the job done.   No more than 2-3 hits for any configuration should be done during the testing - and the swing "sense" sometimes frequently needs to be "reset" with a few mid iron swings (or some other club) between the actual test shots.   Yes it adds to the time it takes for those people that might need to do that.   Another way is a validate the results in a separate session doing only random swing work (always changing clubs between every shot).   Of course on course performance is another way to accomplish that same thing.  Just make sure it's not a round that's all that important.

 

Edited March 26 by Stuart_G

[Pepperturbo]

19 hours ago, sanzo said:

If a driver off the rack is 45.75 and you get it shortened to 44.5 or even 44.25, would this affect swingweight and feel?

Generally, yes, adjustments will be needed to make that club playable. 

 

My TSR2 came with a stock shaft, believe D3 and 45" playing length.  Pulled the shaft and put in a Ventus Velo TR Blue cut to playing length of 44.75".  My builder adjusted grip weight, added some tungsten power, to work with my wraps, to get near D4.