So theoretically... Parallel vs Taper Tip shafts

[natekwhaaattt]

I'm sure this has been beaten more than the proverbial dead horse in multiple threads, I just haven't found a clear explanation. So, assuming the only real difference between a parallel tip shaft, say a DG X100 .370, and a taper tip, DG tour issue X100, is the tip diameter and not the general profile of the shaft... Could I not just buy some tour issue 1 iron shafts and trim them I would for a parallel set?

[rbpwrx]

27 minutes ago, natekwhaaattt said:

Could I not just buy some tour issue 1 iron shafts and trim them I would for a parallel set?

 

As far as stepping goes, yes. As far as weight goes, maybe not.

 

I mean, you would get a set of clubs. They'd be essentially flighted, descending weight. As you say, like an old-school unitized parallel set. Cut from identical blanks.

But some profiles are designed to be constant weight. Some even ascending. The same or heavier in the shorter irons. This would NOT work for that.

[natekwhaaattt]

I think what I'm getting at is whether the .355 section is even long enough to allow for that amount of tip trimming. 

[rbpwrx]

40 minutes ago, natekwhaaattt said:

I think what I'm getting at is whether the .355 section is even long enough to allow for that amount of tip trimming. 

I assume you mean distance to first step? The .355 'section' is only the very tip. It grows to .370" within the first inch.
But YES. There's about a 10" tip section on an X100 1-iron. 12" on S300 and almost 15" on R300.
You'd be chopping off the first inch anyway to get from 1i to 3i, which gets rid of most of the taper section, if not all.
Bear in mind you're committed to .370 heads. Why, did you come across a stash of one-iron shafts, cheap?

Edited April 20 by rbpwrx

[natekwhaaattt]

Not really, well not anymore expensive than any single shaft usually is. I managed to find exactly what I was looking for for a project build and I'm just flipping over all the stones right now on a budget. I currently have Modus 120tx in my irons and find them launching miles too high with way too much spin, even with the lowest of spin balls. Like, 140-150 feet 7 irons spinning 8500rpm. So, not a good fit.

[tx33]

5 hours ago, natekwhaaattt said:

I'm sure this has been beaten more than the proverbial dead horse in multiple threads, I just haven't found a clear explanation. So, assuming the only real difference between a parallel tip shaft, say a DG X100 .370, and a taper tip, DG tour issue X100, is the tip diameter and not the general profile of the shaft... Could I not just buy some tour issue 1 iron shafts and trim them I would for a parallel set?

There is probably a more detailed post explaining it thoroughly on this forum, but the difference between the individual irons throughout the set is far more than just the tip diameter. See this basic explanation and look at the step patterns and tip length below.

[Stuart_G]

8 hours ago, natekwhaaattt said:

I'm sure this has been beaten more than the proverbial dead horse in multiple threads, I just haven't found a clear explanation. So, assuming the only real difference between a parallel tip shaft, say a DG X100 .370, and a taper tip, DG tour issue X100, is the tip diameter and not the general profile of the shaft... Could I not just buy some tour issue 1 iron shafts and trim them I would for a parallel set?

 

Are you asking specifically about TT DG's?

 

If so there is more than just the length of the tip section to consider.  You also have to consider whether the tip of the single length blanks have been reinforced (thicker walls) over a longer section to handle the higher stresses at the top of the hosel.   A designer typically wouldn't waste material doing that on a taper tip shaft.

 

If you're asking in a more generic context - you really have to look at each model independently.    e.g.  this is not something you could do with any graphite taper tip shaft model or stepless steel shaft.   You might be able to get away with it (structurally ) in some models - but the profile will not be the same as actually using a taper tip shaft.  And obviously neither would the resulting shaft weight since you would be turning a const weight shaft into a descending weight shaft.

[NRJyzr]

10 hours ago, natekwhaaattt said:

I'm sure this has been beaten more than the proverbial dead horse in multiple threads, I just haven't found a clear explanation. So, assuming the only real difference between a parallel tip shaft, say a DG X100 .370, and a taper tip, DG tour issue X100, is the tip diameter and not the general profile of the shaft... Could I not just buy some tour issue 1 iron shafts and trim them I would for a parallel set?

 

10 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

 

As far as stepping goes, yes. As far as weight goes, maybe not.

 

I mean, you would get a set of clubs. They'd be essentially flighted, descending weight. As you say, like an old-school unitized parallel set. Cut from identical blanks.

But some profiles are designed to be constant weight. Some even ascending. The same or heavier in the shorter irons. This would NOT work for that.

 

 

DG tapered and DG parallel are different shafts.  They have different step profiles, which you can see on tx33's post.  And, the tip section of the tapered shafts has a constant taper that finishes to roughly .390 or .395 at the bottom of the first step.  

 

Just now, measured some .355 DG shafts I have lying around with dial calipers, confirming that .390+ tip section diameter at bottom of first step.  An inch or two above the ferrule, it was close to .380".

 

When you look at other shaft models across the landscape, it is as Stuart mentions, you have to evaluate each model individually.  Some shafts are manufactured such that the parallel and tapered shafts are the same, except for the tapers being swaged at the tip.  Others could be like DG.

 

Ultimately, no, your idea of tip trimming 1 iron DG TI shafts won’t work.  

 

Side note:  for a great many years, there has been one of those "common wisdoms" floating around that said tapered shafts have stiffer tips than parallel.  This is true of DG shafts, due to that constant tapering of the tip mentioned above, but can't necessarily be applied across the shaft arena. 

Edited April 20 by NRJyzr

[Howard_Jones]

8 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

 

 

DG tapered and DG parallel are different shafts.  They have different step profiles, which you can see on tx33's post.  And, the tip section of the tapered shafts has a constant taper that finishes to roughly .390 or .395 at the bottom of the first step.  

 

Just now, measured some .355 DG shafts I have lying around with dial calipers, confirming that .390+ tip section diameter at bottom of first step.  An inch or two above the ferrule, it was close to .380".

 

When you look at other shaft models across the landscape, it is as Stuart mentions, you have to evaluate each model individually.  Some shafts are manufactured such that the parallel and tapered shafts are the same, except for the tapers being swaged at the tip.  Others could be like DG.

 

Ultimately, no, your idea of tip trimming 1 iron TI shafts wouldn’t work.  

 

Side note:  for a great many years, there has been one of those "common wisdoms" floating around that said tapered shafts have stiffer tips than parallel.  This is true of DG shafts, due to that constant tapering of the tip mentioned above, but can't necessarily be applied across the shaft arena. 

What shaft number did you measure here?
How high above hosel are we before we go beyond 0.370
I never took those measurements, but i made this one using a DG X100 40.00" and 37.00"
Both the shafts measured was 0.386 at the top of the tip before first step.

Edited April 20 by Howard_Jones

[NRJyzr]

Just now, Howard_Jones said:

Whats shaft number did you measure here?
How high above hosel are we before we go beyond 0.370
I never took those measurements, but i made this one using a DG X100 40.00" and 37.00"
Both the shafts measured was 0.386 at the top of the tip before first step.

 

I have to admit, I'm not sure.  I randomly grabbed a pullout that was leaning against the wall.  Could have been anything from 3i to 7i.

 

I might have a 1i or 2i DG shaft somewhere that I could measure...

 

[Howard_Jones]

18 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

I have to admit, I'm not sure.  I randomly grabbed a pullout that was leaning against the wall.  Could have been anything from 3i to 7i.

 

I might have a 1i or 2i DG shaft somewhere that I could measure...

 

From the hip, it looks like we can tip trim half of actual tip section MINUS insert, (to make it fit a 0.370 hosel), but i never tip trimmed a DG taper more than 1.0", so im not sure what the limit really is...

The #9 has a 6 inch long tip section, so tip trim seems limited to 3 minus 1.25 = 1.75", but maybe we can make it both 2 and 2.5?.

The #1 iron is 10", who becomes 5 minus 1.25 or max 3.75" tip trim, unless we can stretch it a little longer than to the MID of the tip before its too wide.

I simply dont know, if the second taper is "constant", so my thinking here is based on ONE taper (3.46 to 3.86 and 3.66 at the mid, but its NOT like that.
The first taper is 6/8 long, from officially 0.355 to 0.370, but it is a tad smaller.
The next taper should then be 0.370 to 0.386....so we need actual mesurements to know, and i never took those measuements.

But i would never try to make a set based on taper #1 iron shafts, even if we was able to, like it seems that we are.

Edited April 20 by Howard_Jones

[NRJyzr]

16 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Whats shaft number did you measure here?
How high above hosel are we before we go beyond 0.370
I never took those measurements, but i made this one using a DG X100 40.00" and 37.00"
Both the shafts measured was 0.386 at the top of the tip before first step.

 

A follow up...

 

I have a Mizuno MS-11 2 iron that is shafted with DGX100.  It may be soft stepped.  The ferrule appears to be 5/8" or 16mm long.  Roughly 1" above that ferrule, my caliper measured the shaft at .380".

 

Edit to add: checked at top of ferrule, it was around .373" to .375".

 

I have to admit, my dial calipers is not a sophisticated model.  I have a somewhat better digital caliper that is battery powered, but the battery needs replacing.  🙂

 

Edited April 20 by NRJyzr

[rbpwrx]

I just measured the tip section of a DG X7 4i I had lying around.
- the entire tip section is 8.5"

- just below the first step it measures 3.94" AND STAYS PARALLEL for almost 4"

- @ 4.5" from the tip it starts tapering, seemingly at a constant rate, finishing at .355.

So I retract my earlier assertion. You CANNOT use a taper tip 1-iron shaft as a 'blank' to make an iron set, at least not DG X7. It is not 'parallel .370' anywhere.

This is interesting Saturday info. I had assumed that a taper tip shaft was .370 parallel for the tip section, swaged down to .355 in the last inch. Intriguing to learn that much more of the tip section is tapered.

That would explain why TTs FEEL different from PTs. I've always preferred the feel, but never had an explanation for why. More stable tip. A conical tube of larger diameter will always be harder to bend than a simple pipe. Maybe even one with slightly thicker walls?

Thanks, all! Good to know.

 

Edited April 20 by rbpwrx

[NRJyzr]

33 minutes ago, rbpwrx said:

I just measured the tip section of a DG X7 4i I had lying around.
- the entire tip section is 8.5"

- just below the first step it measures 3.94" AND STAYS PARALLEL for almost 4"

- @ 4.5" from the tip it starts tapering, seemingly at a constant rate, finishing at .355.

So I retract my earlier assertion. You CANNOT use a taper tip 1-iron shaft as a 'blank' to make an iron set, at least not DG X7. It is not 'parallel .370' anywhere.

This is interesting Saturday info. I had assumed that a taper tip shaft was .370 parallel for the tip section, swaged down to .355 in the last inch. Intriguing to learn that much more of the tip section is tapered.

That would explain why TTs FEEL different from PTs. I've always preferred the feel, but never had an explanation for why. More stable tip. A conical tube of larger diameter will always be harder to bend than a simple pipe. Maybe even one with slightly thicker walls?

Thanks, all! Good to know.

 

 

It's also important to realize it's only been demonstrated true for DG and X7.  I believe it was also true for TTLite, and part of why TTLite tapered stiff was notably stiffer than TTLite parallel.

 

But other shafts, not so much.  Rifle shafts, and the Precision stepped shafts before them, were made using the swaging process.  I suspect tapered Nippon iron shafts are swaged, due to Nippon offering tapered and parallel models of many of their products, that they tout as being the same.  Which doesn't mean there isn't a tapering higher up the tip.  😉

 

This was all quite a bit easier 25 years ago when it was largely TT and RP here in the USA, with a hint of Apollo.  I'll still take the modern world, many more options.  😁

 

Edited April 20 by NRJyzr
Autocorrect! The musical!

[Nessism]

I once took a taper tip DG S300 4 iron shaft and chopped it down to wedge size by tipping a few inches.  The tip OD wouldn't fit into the wedge head, so I bored it out to fit.  Yes, hack work.  That was a fine wedge when finished, though.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 20 by Nessism

[natekwhaaattt]

47 minutes ago, rbpwrx said:

I just measured the tip section of a DG X7 4i I had lying around.
- the entire tip section is 8.5"

- just below the first step it measures 3.94" AND STAYS PARALLEL for almost 4"

- @ 4.5" from the tip it starts tapering, seemingly at a constant rate, finishing at .355.

So I retract my earlier assertion. You CANNOT use a taper tip 1-iron shaft as a 'blank' to make an iron set, at least not DG X7. It is not 'parallel .370' anywhere.

This is interesting Saturday info. I had assumed that a taper tip shaft was .370 parallel for the tip section, swaged down to .355 in the last inch. Intriguing to learn that much more of the tip section is tapered.

That would explain why TTs FEEL different from PTs. I've always preferred the feel, but never had an explanation for why. More stable tip. A conical tube of larger diameter will always be harder to bend than a simple pipe. Maybe even one with slightly thicker walls?

Thanks, all! Good to know.

 

Well, there go my dreams of creating the most frankensteined set imaginable. Not the end of the world, like I said it's kind of a side project, found some Macgregor Pro M irons that I plan on building out, the issue is that they're .355 hosels and my budget doesn't exactly allow for dropping money on 6-7 taper tip shafts. Hence why the 1 iron shaft thought. 

[Nessism]

3 minutes ago, natekwhaaattt said:

Well, there go my dreams of creating the most frankensteined set imaginable. Not the end of the world, like I said it's kind of a side project, found some Macgregor Pro M irons that I plan on building out, the issue is that they're .355 hosels and my budget doesn't exactly allow for dropping money on 6-7 taper tip shafts. Hence why the 1 iron shaft thought. 

 

Come on man, you are a 2 handicap, which means you must play a few times each week, and golf ain't cheap!  Go on the hunt for a set of DG pulls.  I bet if you put an ad in the WTB section you will get some hits, for cheap sets.  

[natekwhaaattt]

4 minutes ago, Nessism said:

 

Come on man, you are a 2 handicap, which means you must play a few times each week, and golf ain't cheap!  Go on the hunt for a set of DG pulls.  I bet if you put an ad in the WTB section you will get some hits, for cheap sets.  

Way to miss the entire point my dude. 

[Nessism]

2 minutes ago, natekwhaaattt said:

Way to miss the entire point my dude. 

 

13 minutes ago, natekwhaaattt said:

the issue is that they're .355 hosels and my budget doesn't exactly allow for dropping money on 6-7 taper tip shafts. 

 

Sorry, but this is what you wrote.  A money issue.  Feel free to explain further...

[natekwhaaattt]

1 minute ago, Nessism said:

 

 

Sorry, but this is what you wrote.  A money issue.  Feel free to explain further...

Simply that, this is a BUDGET project that I want to do from SCRATCH (minus the heads obviously). Taper shafts are invariably more expensive than parallel shafts because you're dealing with individuals rather than a singular blank across multiple shafts. Besides, I have other bills and living expenses to prioritize. Does that mean this project will be more expensive than just doing plug and play swaps? Yeah, by design. 

[Howard_Jones]

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

I just measured the tip section of a DG X7 4i I had lying around.
- the entire tip section is 8.5"

- just below the first step it measures 3.94" AND STAYS PARALLEL for almost 4"

- @ 4.5" from the tip it starts tapering, seemingly at a constant rate, finishing at .355.

So I retract my earlier assertion. You CANNOT use a taper tip 1-iron shaft as a 'blank' to make an iron set, at least not DG X7. It is not 'parallel .370' anywhere.

This is interesting Saturday info. I had assumed that a taper tip shaft was .370 parallel for the tip section, swaged down to .355 in the last inch. Intriguing to learn that much more of the tip section is tapered.

That would explain why TTs FEEL different from PTs. I've always preferred the feel, but never had an explanation for why. More stable tip. A conical tube of larger diameter will always be harder to bend than a simple pipe. Maybe even one with slightly thicker walls?

Thanks, all! Good to know.

 

X7 is overall wider than X100, that's how they can make it a full flex stronger with the same step pattern. Just compare step OD with the drawing i uploaded.  

I DONT think its possible to use X100 either, since its 2 tapers, and the first becomes 0.370 somewhere right above the first taper, still in the hosel. Ive tip trimmed them 1 inch, and i think thats about the max we can go before we meet insert issues, but again, i never measured how far up we are before we go beyond the limit (on X100 #9 iron shafts). 

 

[rbpwrx]

1 hour ago, natekwhaaattt said:

Well, there go my dreams of creating the most frankensteined set imaginable. Not the end of the world, like I said it's kind of a side project, found some Macgregor Pro M irons that I plan on building out, the issue is that they're .355 hosels and my budget doesn't exactly allow for dropping money on 6-7 taper tip shafts. Hence why the 1 iron shaft thought. 

 

You can get iron shaft at incredible bargains. I snagged a set of Tommy Armour blades with S400s for $20 at a yard sale. Shafts + heads are easily worth 20x that.

[rbpwrx]

1 hour ago, natekwhaaattt said:

found some Macgregor Pro M irons that I plan on building out

 

I played the Pro Ms for years. Great heads. Mine came with KBS Tours. Good fit for those blades. Ebay will have good used .355 pulls. Or PM me. I might have a set or two...

[Nessism]

1 minute ago, rbpwrx said:

 

I played the Pro Ms for years. Great heads. Mine came with KBS Tours. Good fit for those blades. Ebay will have good used .355 pulls. Or PM me. I might have a set or two...

 

See!  What did I say...

 

Another option is to ream out the heads to .370.

[rbpwrx]

51 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

X7 is overall wider than X100, that's how they can make it a full flex stronger with the same step pattern. Just compare step OD with the drawing i uploaded.  

I DONT think its possible to use X100 either, since its 2 tapers, and the first becomes 0.370 somewhere right above the first taper, still in the hosel. Ive tip trimmed them 1 inch, and i think thats about the max we can go before we meet insert issues, but again, i never measured how far up we are before we go beyond the limit (on X100 #9 iron shafts).

 

Interesting. It seems like the X7 is one constant taper from tip .355 to .394, over about 4.5". Assuming this would be similar to other DG lines, albeit w/ smaller diameters? Or is it really 2 separate tapers? I'm not finding a second 'flat spot' on these X7s...

[natekwhaaattt]

16 minutes ago, Nessism said:

 

See!  What did I say...

 

Another option is to ream out the heads to .370.

That's actually exactly what I'm thinking of doing. I was sort of leaning that way anyway to begin with. But all the information everyone has been putting out is fantastic. Plus if this is to be the long term test project it just makes sense.

[rbpwrx]

1 minute ago, natekwhaaattt said:

That's actually exactly what I'm thinking of doing. I was sort of leaning that way anyway to begin with. But all the information everyone has been putting out is fantastic. Plus if this is to be the long term test project it just makes sense.

 

What are your favorite shafts? I would put something good in those heads. You're gonna love em.

[Stuart_G]

21 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

I might have a 1i or 2i DG shaft somewhere that I could measure...

 

I have a  set of AMT's (pulls) I could measure if anyone wants.  Other than that it's just a bunch of DG wedge shafts - not sure how much use it would be getting measurements from those.

 

21 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

I have to admit, my dial calipers is not a sophisticated model.  I have a somewhat better digital caliper that is battery powered, but the battery needs replacing.  🙂

 

 

Don't confuse sophistication with accuracy.   I largely use my analog calipers instead of my digital ones for the exact same reason - I get tired of having to replace the battery when it's months between uses.

Edited April 21 by Stuart_G

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, natekwhaaattt said:

Simply that, this is a BUDGET project that I want to do from SCRATCH (minus the heads obviously). Taper shafts are invariably more expensive than parallel shafts because you're dealing with individuals rather than a singular blank across multiple shafts. Besides, I have other bills and living expenses to prioritize. Does that mean this project will be more expensive than just doing plug and play swaps? Yeah, by design. 

 

Not always true.   Well, there certainly are budget model shafts available in .370" that can be had for lower costs than you can find taper tip shafts for.  But if you're thinking about getting a new uncut TT DG, the price is the same regardless of whether it's .355" tp or .370."   Only the taper tip TI shafts are more expensive.

 

https://www.golfworks.com/true-temper-dynamic-gold-355-steel-iron-shafts/p/dgi/

https://www.golfworks.com/true-temper-dynamic-gold-370-steel-iron-shafts/p/udgi/

 

Edited April 20 by Stuart_G

[natekwhaaattt]

14 minutes ago, rbpwrx said:

 

What are your favorite shafts? I would put something good in those heads. You're gonna love em.

So the only shafts I've played were DG X100s, KBS Ctaper 130x, and my current nippon 120tx. I loved the feel and dispersion I had with the c tapers but those launched wayy too low. The DG were fine, didn't love them didn't hate them, and the nippons are both launching and spinning miles too high. I've never really changed my irons often (unlike my woods...), so this is a bit newer territory for me.