Achieving higher peak flight without adding much spin/losing distance

[JamesFisher1990]

My Stealth2+ 5w carries around 225-230 & is very low flighted and I wish to see this fly in a higher window, but I don't want to add much spin. Would I get to this goal by:

-increasing loft but moving the sole weight forward

-decreasing loft but moving the weight back

 

Current ball is a "higher" spin tour ball, not something like an AVX, etc. All else fails, would switching heads to something like G430 help? I'd prefer to keep my set up and just make tweaks.

 

 

[Howard_Jones]

12 hours ago, JamesFisher1990 said:

My Stealth2+ 5w carries around 225-230 & is very low flighted and I wish to see this fly in a higher window, but I don't want to add much spin. Would I get to this goal by:

-increasing loft but moving the sole weight forward

-decreasing loft but moving the weight back

 

Current ball is a "higher" spin tour ball, not something like an AVX, etc. All else fails, would switching heads to something like G430 help? I'd prefer to keep my set up and just make tweaks.

 

 

Launch and spin is both products of DYNAMIC LOFT.
What ever way we go to add launch, will also add spin, we can NOT change one without changing the other, so moving weights who has the potential to add or reduce dynamic loft, will also add and reduce both launch and spin.

So, another ball who launch higher is what you must look for here.

[JamesFisher1990]

3 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

Launch and spin is both products of DYNAMIC LOFT.
What ever way we go to add launch, will also add spin, we can NOT change one without changing the other, so moving weights who has the potential to add or reduce dynamic loft, will also add and reduce both launch and spin.

So, another ball who launch higher is what you must look for here.

Using a Z Star right now - I noticed in the past the XV seemed to launch and fly higher, but I didn't love the green side action/feel. Use B X as well but I've run out and I tend to use Srixon balls because they are really easy to find on eBay for good prices.

 

Switching ball is easier than clubs (g430), so do you have a suggestion for a ball which launches a little higher but doesn't feel overly clicky & retains most spin on shorter shots?

[Howard_Jones]

37 minutes ago, JamesFisher1990 said:

Using a Z Star right now - I noticed in the past the XV seemed to launch and fly higher, but I didn't love the green side action/feel. Use B X as well but I've run out and I tend to use Srixon balls because they are really easy to find on eBay for good prices.

 

Switching ball is easier than clubs (g430), so do you have a suggestion for a ball which launches a little higher but doesn't feel overly clicky & retains most spin on shorter shots?

im not up to date on golf ball models, i still play the same model the last 12-14 years...bought a largebox of them...Callaway HX 56, they dont make that model anymore

[North Butte]

On 5/22/2024 at 4:22 AM, Howard_Jones said:

So, another ball who launch higher is what you must look for here.

Please say "another ball who flies higher" to be clear, it's not about increasing initial launch angle, it's about increasing downrange trajectory. 

[Jeff58]

Changing balls to alter a single outlier club’s trajectory is like using hand grenades to clean your dishes. It may work, but…

[Howard_Jones]

10 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Please say "another ball who flies higher" to be clear, it's not about increasing initial launch angle, it's about increasing downrange trajectory. 

How do you get higher?
It's either by more ball speed on the same launch angle, or a higher LA if ball speed remain unchanged, both will influence on descent angle. Another way to change descent is more spin.

So...you will NOT find a ball that "flies higher", unless its either higher ball speed (not likely with a ball change), or higher initial launch (that can be found) or a ball that spins more, (that can also be found).
 

[Socrates]

The only way you are going to hit it higher is increasing the launch angle.  And the only way you are going to achieve that and not lose distance is to increase the launch velocity (swing speed).  So if you are maxed out on swing speed (most of us are), you are looking for something you likely can't achieve.  Maybe go with more loft and find a distance you can live with.

 

And HJ got in there just before I posted.  Same info.

[North Butte]

1 hour ago, Howard_Jones said:

How do you get higher?
It's either by more ball speed on the same launch angle, or a higher LA if ball speed remain unchanged, both will influence on descent angle. Another way to change descent is more spin.

So...you will NOT find a ball that "flies higher", unless its either higher ball speed (not likely with a ball change), or higher initial launch (that can be found) or a ball that spins more, (that can also be found).
 

That's a sadly limited understanding of modern golf ball design practices. Manufacturers now offer different models with various aerodynamic designs in order to produce higher or lower downrange trajectory at any given set of launch conditions. It's become quite a refined bit of engineering over the past 15-20 years.

 

To a certain extent, they can even tweak downrange trajectory differently for different types of shots (driver, long clubs, short irons, wedges) although there are limits to how much that can really be done given that they don't want to give up overall performance and given they need a ball to work over a range of player characteristics. 

[Howard_Jones]

Just now, North Butte said:

That's a sadly limited understanding of modern golf ball design practices. Manufacturers now offer different models with various aerodynamic designs in order to produce higher or lower downrange trajectory at any given set of launch conditions. It's become quite a refined bit of engineering over the past 15-20 years.

 

To a certain extent, they can even tweak downrange trajectory differently for different types of shots (driver, long clubs, short irons, wedges) although there are limits to how much that can really be done given that they don't want to give up overall performance and given they need a ball to work over a range of player characteristics. 

Thats text claims and marketing, where is the data's that support those statements?

[North Butte]

Just now, Howard_Jones said:

Thats text claims and marketing, where is the data's that support those statements?

Feel free to disbelieve what you want, Howard. It's unfortunate, though, for someone as extremely well informed and experienced in so many areas as yourself.

[JamesFisher1990]

7 minutes ago, North Butte said:

That's a sadly limited understanding of modern golf ball design practices. Manufacturers now offer different models with various aerodynamic designs in order to produce higher or lower downrange trajectory at any given set of launch conditions. It's become quite a refined bit of engineering over the past 15-20 years.

 

To a certain extent, they can even tweak downrange trajectory differently for different types of shots (driver, long clubs, short irons, wedges) although there are limits to how much that can really be done given that they don't want to give up overall performance and given they need a ball to work over a range of player characteristics. 

I want like... 30ft of height additional though. Perhaps the Stealth+ head is just very CG forward and maybe my ask is impossible? If I increase loft too much, then distance wise, it'll run into my 7w.

 

If I'm in a Zstar right now... Is moving to XYZ ball going to add that much height?

 

I have a Garmin R10 and I can try and post here some actual numbers I get between same balls and just tweaking loft and the movable weight. Maybe a different ball can close the gap if moving settings around adds 10-15ft.

[Howard_Jones]

4 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Feel free to disbelieve what you want, Howard. It's unfortunate, though, for someone as extremely well informed and experienced in so many areas as yourself.

Im retired, and dont spend much time to keep up to date with the latest ball models out there, but the law of physics has NOT changed....

If you want a higher ball flight, we can get there by
- More ball speed, who move apex higher

- Higher initial launch angle
- Higher spin value

The way you express this, they have found a way to bypass this 3, and overrule ball flight laws??
Thats why im asking for the data's who support the claims, but that was not possible?
I really think you have misunderstood what ever it is you have been reading about it.

[North Butte]

Just now, JamesFisher1990 said:

I want like... 30ft of height additional though. Perhaps the Stealth+ head is just very CG forward and maybe my ask is impossible? If I increase loft too much, then distance wise, it'll run into my 7w.

 

If I'm in a Zstar right now... Is moving to XYZ ball going to add that much height?

 

I have a Garmin R10 and I can try and post here some actual numbers I get between same balls and just tweaking loft and the movable weight. Maybe a different ball can close the gap if moving settings around adds 10-15ft.

Yeah, as far as I understand it the dimple engineering stuff is all fine-tuning around the basic launch characteristics. I've seen robot tests showing several feet of difference for similar-launching balls designed to fly higher or lower. But nothing game-changing like a 30 foot increase, for sure. 

 

In my inexpert opinion, the one sure fire big deal way is changing loft. Changing weight settings or maybe shafts are less powerful. Beyond that the ball can give you options for final fine-tuning. I certainly wouldn't give up a ball that was otherwise ideal just for a different one that flew 5-10 feet higher .

[North Butte]

Just now, Howard_Jones said:

Im retired, and dont spend much time to keep up to date with the latest ball models out there, but the law of physics has NOT changed....

If you want a higher ball flight, we can get there by
- More ball speed, who move apex higher

- Higher initial launch angle
- Higher spin value

The way you express this, they have found a way to bypass this 3, and overrule ball flight laws??
Thats why im asking for the data's who support the claims, but that was not possible?
I really think you have misunderstood what ever it is you have been reading about it.

Not at all. The things you mention are crucial.

But once all those things are determined, there is an additional influence on downrange trajectory and peak height due to the ball's aerodynamic design. It's an additional degree of freedom that all the major manufacturers exploit nowadays. No magic and it doesn't overrule the effects of speed, spin and launch angle. It's just one more element that can be optimized. 

 

[Howard_Jones]

1 minute ago, North Butte said:

Not at all. The things you mention are crucial.

But once all those things are determined, there is an additional influence on downrange trajectory and peak height due to the ball's aerodynamic design. It's an additional degree of freedom that all the major manufacturers exploit nowadays. No magic and it doesn't overrule the effects of speed, spin and launch angle. It's just one more element that can be optimized. 

 

Its more than 10 years ago since i was into Trackmans university, but from my memory....no matter ball speed, initial launch, and spin.....the moment the ball starts falling, it has the same speed (a 90 mph vs a 110 mph players balls will both have the same speed when they start falling)

Aerodynamics...yes, but moist of us dont have the needed speed to see those differences, they are mostly valid for HIGH speed players. (i cant even recall the needed ball speed and boarder here, it was never much of a subject anyway)

When we go to Titleist ball selector, or compare, i picked 2 models, both HIGH "flight"
The text in the bottoms, indicates that the ball to the left, goes higher due to a higher initial launch, the ball to the right, a combination of higher initial launch and spin value.

So, if there was a revolution in aerodynamics here, its kind of strange i never heard about that, even if im not working with this 16 hours a day like i used to. I even took a few meta searches and found no news at all. The latest scientific article about Golf ball aerodynamics and drag is from 2011...and thats not news...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251716774_A_study_of_golf_ball_aerodynamic_drag

 

[North Butte]

5 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Its more than 10 years ago since i was into Trackmans university, but from my memory....no matter ball speed, initial launch, and spin.....the moment the ball starts falling, it has the same speed (a 90 mph vs a 110 mph players balls will both have the same speed when they start falling)

Aerodynamics...yes, but moist of us dont have the needed speed to see those differences, they are mostly valid for HIGH speed players. (i cant even recall the needed ball speed and boarder here, it was never much of a subject anyway)

When we go to Titleist ball selector, or compare, i picked 2 models, both HIGH "flight"
The text in the bottoms, indicates that the ball to the left, goes higher due to a higher initial launch, the ball to the right, a combination of higher initial launch and spin value.

So, if there was a revolution in aerodynamics here, its kind of strange i never heard about that, even if im not working with this 16 hours a day like i used to. I even took a few meta searches and found no news at all. The latest scientific article about Golf ball aerodynamics and drag is from 2011...and thats not news...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251716774_A_study_of_golf_ball_aerodynamic_drag

 

You happened to pick two ball models that Titleist specifically markets as having high trajectory. Their whole pitch for Left Dash is it's a ball for those who want the high trajectory of the Pro V1x with less spin.

 

If you had selected Pro V1 the "FLIGHT" is shown as "Mid" (and "LONG GAME SPIN" is "Mid"). 

 

I'm not surprised there's no open access, peer reviewed studies of proprietary design details of golf balls. Anything useful an OEM comes up with will be trade secrets, wouldn't you think? 

[Howard_Jones]

27 minutes ago, North Butte said:

You happened to pick two ball models that Titleist specifically markets as having high trajectory. Their whole pitch for Left Dash is it's a ball for those who want the high trajectory of the Pro V1x with less spin.

 

If you had selected Pro V1 the "FLIGHT" is shown as "Mid" (and "LONG GAME SPIN" is "Mid"). 

 

I'm not surprised there's no open access, peer reviewed studies of proprietary design details of golf balls. Anything useful an OEM comes up with will be trade secrets, wouldn't you think? 

LOL...most of you is not aware of that i have 20 years for General Motors on my CV....
If the competitors came up with something new and interesting, what do you think happened?
Exactly, GM bought one, took it to the test lab, and stripped it down to particles to study how they did it, so when we are claiming China for being a "copy machine", they learned that from the worlds largest industrial company (back then, my years was 1981 to 2000).

So, what ever comes to the marked place, its deeply tested and studied by all others, and clever minds will always find a way to improve it, or make the same function for a lower price a different way, thats how our world works.

Back to golf balls
I picked HIGH, since that was subject for debate, but LOW or MID is the same, its the balls respond to compression and loft changes due to shore value of the core vs other layers, and thats not news either, since we already know that we have balls that spin more or less, launch higher or lower, but its done via initial launch (high, mid or low), or by spin values.

And in the end, if higher apex is "target", why would someone have problems with higher launch to get there? Visual disturbance? 

We have the same "impossible questions" every week on this forum, players who want higher launch, but insist, it CAN NOT be done by weaker lofts, since that.....

They simply dont understand that loft is loft, and that the ball has no clue where it came from, not even if you told it before you hit it. To get higher launch, the club head must be delivered to the ball with more loft, and if dynamic loft goes up with 1.0* its sole bounce also changed with 1.0*, spin values will change equal to 1.0*, so will distance....

The same with balls....its either initial launch or spin, its very limited what aerodynamics alone can do here, also because actual spin during flight is most often about 1/10 of the numbers we talk about. As example, a typical driver shot has a flight time of 6 to 7 seconds as flight time, and lets use 6, since thats 1/10 of a minute.
if spin value is 2500 rpms, then that value is per minute, while the flight is only 1/10 of a minute, thatmeans spin during flight is also about 1/10 of the value we use, before we subtract about 4% per second of flight time from launch to apex.

250 Rpm as "expected rpms during flight" at launch
- 4% drop the first second = (minus 10)
- 4% drop the 2. second of flight = (minus 9.6)
...if we simplify and use minus 10 all the way, actual spin during flight time is only 190 rpm, but we say spin is 2500 rpm.

How much can change on a object that rotates 200 rpm during flight?>
Drag YES...launch...not much, so if drag can be reduced enough, it will be just like higher ball speed on the same launch angle, since less drag will give the ball longer flight before its energy is use up, and its starts to fall down.

But again, i have NOT seen any numbers on later models, and i really dont think there has been a silent revolution here, the difference to drag was 40% in the 2011 report, and that means we should have seen those differences long ago if that difference made a difference to apex and distance worth taking notice of.

Edited May 23 by Howard_Jones

[North Butte]

Howard,

 

I'm not talking about some impossible revolution in lift or drag performance or that OEM's have invalidated the basic ball design tenets that applied in 2011. 

 

Here's what I'm saying:

 

1) Every major manufacturer today claims to be able to deliver ball models with higher or lower downrange trajectory for a given initial launch and spin.

 

 2) It's is physically plausible for them to be able to do with that without violating any laws of physics or requiring heretofore unknown technology. 

 

3) I personally do not believe that every golf ball maker is lying to me and every player who has chosen a ball based on those claims had been tricked. 

 

So you are of course free to agree or not with any or all of that. It won't do me or you any good for me to engage with the question any further at this point.

 

I get the impression you believe (and perhaps I misinterpret your ideas) that everything that matters about the ball flight can be measured in the first few inches or feet after launch and that any differences beyond that point are either so small as to be meaningless or they actually non-existent creations of a marketing team. 

 

Either way, I've had my say. 

[Stuart_G]

As I understand it, ball design can effect height in two primary ways for any given impact condition.

 

1) Ball core and cover material design can definitely effect spin - and that change in spin will change lift and therefore height.  I think most people are aware of this.   But they might not be aware that even the amount of friction between the face and the ball (a function of cover material) can effect the vertical launch angle as well as spin.

 

2) Dimple pattern designs can directly manipulate the amount of lift for a given amount of spin.   This is likely what @North Butte is referring to.  But more lift generally also means more drag - and faster decay of velocity - so it's a bit of a balancing act and likely why you're not going to see big changes.   Or why some people (higher ball velocity) will see more change than others.

 

I don't think you're going to find a lot of details on this later effect on-line.  Public research on the effect of dimples on aerodynamics seems to be a bit limited - at least from what I've been able to find.  And the ball OEM's aren't going to give away their secrets.

Edited May 23 by Stuart_G

[Socrates]

All this discussion about what a ball can or cannot do (high launch etc...) and if I'm not out to lunch here, were are talking about a few feet difference between one extreme and the other.  Certainly not the amount of height difference the OP was talking about (30 ft).  He's already playing a high spin and likely a high launch ball too, so his options are really limited to changing the launch angle with loft and speed.  Loft is easy.  Speed is not.  

[Urb]

Keep it simple.  You have ONE club that doesn't hit a "window".  And 12 clubs that (assuming) are OK.

 

Does it go the distance you need?

 

Does it hold greens?

 

If yes to both, rock on.

 

 

Edited May 23 by Urb

[JamesFisher1990]

4 hours ago, Urb said:

Keep it simple.  You have ONE club that doesn't hit a "window".  And 12 clubs that (assuming) are OK.

 

Does it go the distance you need?

 

Does it hold greens?

 

If yes to both, rock on.

 

 

It flies too low to hold a green for sure. Off the tee, it's "lower than I want" but it's not the end of the world. Compared to my 7w, it's flying in a window that is at least 40% lower. My 7w can be hit off the deck and clear medium tall trees without much issue and the 5w would struggle to get over those - and I'm no slouch with speed. Not as fast as other years as I just haven't been as dedicated in the gym due to other things.

[Socrates]

11 hours ago, JamesFisher1990 said:

It flies too low to hold a green for sure. Off the tee, it's "lower than I want" but it's not the end of the world. Compared to my 7w, it's flying in a window that is at least 40% lower. My 7w can be hit off the deck and clear medium tall trees without much issue and the 5w would struggle to get over those - and I'm no slouch with speed. Not as fast as other years as I just haven't been as dedicated in the gym due to other things.

Be like the rest of WRX.  Sell the 5w and buy another.  Rinse and repeat until you find one that works.

[JamesFisher1990]

24 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Be like the rest of WRX.  Sell the 5w and buy another.  Rinse and repeat until you find one that works.

Well that is what I'm trying to avoid by asking about this - I figured adding that much height wasn't possible without changing the head, but figured it's cheaper and easier to ask first.

[Socrates]

3 minutes ago, JamesFisher1990 said:

Well that is what I'm trying to avoid by asking about this - I figured adding that much height wasn't possible without changing the head, but figured it's cheaper and easier to ask first.

I would try a HL 5 wood and maybe add a little length to the shaft to see if one can increase the peak without giving up too much distance.  Unless you can suddenly channel Rory and hit a low lofted fwy wood sky high and 280.

 

I've been down this road and eventually gave up and accepted the height and distance I would get from my fwy wood.  If I need more height and I have the room, I try to hit a cut which will add loft to the impact.  Otherwise, it's going to be low and hot.

[JamesFisher1990]

So i took my R10 to the range today.. Granted it's range balls and it was downwind today which is rare, I still got a relative comparison.

 

The 7w which is set to 22.5*, even with a big draw was peaking at 40-45 yards. Cuts where my face was a little open... up to 51 yards peak height.

 

5w which was set to 19.5 and weight forward was only peaking 30-35yard on a draw, but with a fade around 40. Issue is I generally play the draw and tend to miss closer to the toe. My conclusion is that the head is just less forgiving and therefor when I don't hit the middle and go near the toe, it's shutting down and delofting, cutting spin and peak height. Certainly it's not in a window that's 40% lower than the 7w (ideally I want my woods going like 110-120ft height) but it's not as high as I'd like on my primary shot shape.

 

I will probably move the weight back a click or two and test that for a few rounds. If it's still too low, I'll either just accept it, or try a more shallow head, probably G430.