New and Improved Shaft Chart

[Wardonation]

I am coming from a hard step S300. So this would be the closest match for me? Thank you very much.

[dcforuk]

Pardon my lack of knowledge. I have set out to put the pieces of the golf club equipment puzzle together, but unfortunately, it's often quite difficult to do without the corner pieces or putting it together upside down. Therefore, what should be a puzzle too often feels like a mystery. This forum has been a tremendous help but many gaps in knowledge still exist. I read recently that if you drop the first number of the CPM and add a decimal between the 2nd and 3rd numbers then you get FCM (for example, 258 CPM becomes 5.8 FCM). Hireko Golf shows Dynamic Gold 39" taper tip iron shafts as 321 CPM. That does not seem to reconcile with the previous sentence. I'm sure I just need some help finding one of the corner pieces?

[Howard_Jones]

@dcforuk

RIFLE or FCM flex has some BASE numbers, but CPM value change when we go longer or shorter
BASE is 43.00" with a Swing weight of D3

FCM 5.0 = 250 CPM
FCM 5.5 = 255 CPM....
FCM 6.0 = 260 CPM

If this club was 40 long, then the CPM value would raise with 4.3 CPM for each 0.5 or 8.6 for each inch
so at 40 : ( 3 x 8.6 = PLUS 25.8 )

FCM 5.0 = 250 + 25.8 = 275.8
FCM 5.5 = 255 + 25.8 = 280.8
FCM 6.0 = 260 + 25.8 = 285.8

IF SW value is other than D3, then CPM follow 1:1
Lower SW gives higher CPM so at D2 - ADD 1 CPM
Higher SW gives lower CPM so at D4 - Substract 1 CPM

Its all math, but this numbers is measured with a 2.5 inch clamp. If a 5.0 inch clamp is used, we can add 17 CPM (average)

EDIT : To early in the morning, gave you the wrong base length :-)

[dcforuk]

I found a document by Hireko titled chapter 4 "A Comparison of Shaft Frequencies". Within this document, they have a chart (chart 4-5) that appears to provide similar details. However, for a driver A thru X flex They show that the frequency measurements Were at the following men's standard lengths (43", D-1 driver, 37.5" D-1 #5 irons).

I have been wanting to compare Project X 5.0, 5.5, 6.0 etc to FCM.......but, I am now thinking there's no correlation (or at least not as much as I have trying to make them correlate).

[Howard_Jones]

Yes Hireko is using another standard, so when they uses D1, the reading will be 2 CPM higher than FCM standard who is D3

If you want a compare of PX Tour Issue Grapite, remember that PX uses labels like the FCM system, but they dont belong to the system
There is 7 CPM difference from 1 PX Ti Graphite to the next, while "it should have been" 5 cpm like labels indicate. (from 5.5 to 6.0 there is 10)

Butt CPM on PX Tour Issue is measured with a 5" clamp and a 200 gram drill chuck.
Pay attention to DEFLECTION numbers who better express differences in bending both tip and butt side. (DEF for short)

[url="http://peecee.dk/upload/view/379899/full"]http://peecee.dk/upl...iew/379899/full[/url]

The list is sorted by flex label, with LOWEST TIP deflection first (stiffest tip - lowest launch/spin)
Ø = average or diameter

EDID dec. 21 - tip weight used on PX graphite is 200 grams ( i had posted 285 grams, but thats what my own charts is based on.)

[tx33]

Always nice, those different 'standards'. Howard, does your chart/recent experience with FCM still match the old Royal Precision Frequency Calculator? I remember using that way back when & just wonder if it is still accurate or became obsolete due to equipment/labeling changes.

[gambit]

Hi Howard, the information you provided has been great. I'm wondering, however, when you were comparing the Px flighted to standard which iron length were you using. I read from the beginning of this thread, and it seems as if your partner who helped make the chart stated that Px flighted 6.0s would be closer 5.5 in the long, 6.0 in the mids, and 6.5 in the short, but you and others are saying that Px 6.0 flighted is = 5.5 standard. Please correct me if I misunderstood. My concern is that I just got some clubs with 5.5 flighted after demoing the 6 iron. I play 5.5 non-flighted previously so I'm worried that they'll either be too soft or a combo of too soft/hard depending if I'm hitting long or short iron. I've also read that standard 5.5s are stiffer than DGS300 shafts, so would the stiffness in flighted 5.5s be comparable to DGS300s and KBS Tour S? Thanks.

[bullrambler]

Good info, but I'll have to study it for a bit to get the most out of the chart. There are other factors that come into play, like bend points, kick points, total shaft weight, total shaft length for a given club, the weight if the club head, the weight of the grip used and the swing weight. It would be challenging to say the least if one wanted to demo a number of these variables to find the best of the best. Dynamics and Dynamic Golds have been around so long now, I figure most people are familiar with those shafts and can judge from that factor. It's obvious that Precision, Nippon, KBS and AWT and few others are significant players in the steel shaft market as well.

[Howard_Jones]

[quote name='gambit' timestamp='1346642183' post='5577007']
Hi Howard, the information you provided has been great. I'm wondering, however, when you were comparing the Px flighted to standard which iron length were you using. I read from the beginning of this thread, and it seems as if your partner who helped make the chart stated that Px flighted 6.0s would be closer 5.5 in the long, 6.0 in the mids, and 6.5 in the short, but you and others are saying that Px 6.0 flighted is = 5.5 standard. Please correct me if I misunderstood. My concern is that I just got some clubs with 5.5 flighted after demoing the 6 iron. I play 5.5 non-flighted previously so I'm worried that they'll either be too soft or a combo of too soft/hard depending if I'm hitting long or short iron. I've also read that standard 5.5s are stiffer than DGS300 shafts, so would the stiffness in flighted 5.5s be comparable to DGS300s and KBS Tour S? Thanks.
[/quote]

First of all, this is ONLY butt Cpm strength and it not useful to compare 2 shafts as a hole. Then we need the hole profile like Tom Wishons shaft profiling software. Im using the #6 iron shaft, since its the #6 iron im using for fitting of irons.
PX Flighted is on average 4 CPM softer than regular, so PX 5.5 Flighted equals to "PX 5.1" as standard.

In FCM numbers the shafts you mention looks like this

KBS Tour R+ = 5.5
PX 5.5 Flighted = 5.6
S300 = 5.8
PX 5.5 = 6.0
KBS Tour S = 6.0

Flighted is a mix of flexes but they dont vary in flex "as a set". They way they are trimmed makes them equal as a set, so the long irons who actually is a stronger shaft, becomes softer the way its trimmed, and the short irons who is actually a softer shaft is made stronger the way its trimmed. Thats why Flighted is descending weight even with taper tip shafts, while butt Cpm strength got normal progression with a average of 4 CPM from iron to iron like ordinary PX or DG.

I have a set of Callaway Prototype 3-PW on my table with PX 6.5 Flighted today, and i can give you all numbers later so you can see what slope they follow

[gambit]

[quote name='Howard Jones' timestamp='1346736182' post='5582641']
[quote name='gambit' timestamp='1346642183' post='5577007']
Hi Howard, the information you provided has been great. I'm wondering, however, when you were comparing the Px flighted to standard which iron length were you using. I read from the beginning of this thread, and it seems as if your partner who helped make the chart stated that Px flighted 6.0s would be closer 5.5 in the long, 6.0 in the mids, and 6.5 in the short, but you and others are saying that Px 6.0 flighted is = 5.5 standard. Please correct me if I misunderstood. My concern is that I just got some clubs with 5.5 flighted after demoing the 6 iron. I play 5.5 non-flighted previously so I'm worried that they'll either be too soft or a combo of too soft/hard depending if I'm hitting long or short iron. I've also read that standard 5.5s are stiffer than DGS300 shafts, so would the stiffness in flighted 5.5s be comparable to DGS300s and KBS Tour S? Thanks.
[/quote]

First of all, this is ONLY butt Cpm strength and it not useful to compare 2 shafts as a hole. Then we need the hole profile like Tom Wishons shaft profiling software. Im using the #6 iron shaft, since its the #6 iron im using for fitting of irons.
PX Flighted is on average 4 CPM softer than regular, so PX 5.5 Flighted equals to "PX 5.1" as standard.

In FCM numbers the shafts you mention looks like this

KBS Tour R+ = 5.5
PX 5.5 Flighted = 5.6
S300 = 5.8
PX 5.5 = 6.0
KBS Tour S = 6.0

Flighted is a mix of flexes but they dont vary in flex "as a set". They way they are trimmed makes them equal as a set, so the long irons who actually is a stronger shaft, becomes softer the way its trimmed, and the short irons who is actually a softer shaft is made stronger the way its trimmed. Thats why Flighted is descending weight even with taper tip shafts, while butt Cpm strength got normal progression with a average of 4 CPM from iron to iron like ordinary PX or DG.

I have a set of Callaway Prototype 3-PW on my table with PX 6.5 Flighted today, and i can give you all numbers later so you can see what slope they follow
[/quote]

Thanks Howard!!! If you could provide those numbers that would be great. I think that would really help me understand this concept much better.

[Howard_Jones]

OK here they are...
The set is 3-PW Callaway Prototype PX 6.5 Flighted at 0.5 over "std", and numbers are NOT adjusted. (SW vary a bit)
All numbers are measured with both 5.0 and 2.5 clamp at 0.5 over - std - 0.5 under length
[url="http://peecee.dk/upload/view/382275/full"]http://peecee.dk/upl...iew/382275/full[/url]

Remember to adjust for SW value when you read "std" and 0.5 below std.
The set is D3 playing 0.5 over, so you must remove 3 CPM from every number at "std, and 6 CPM when reading numbers 0.5 below

The 6 iron is with a 2.5 clamp 316 CPM at 37.50" (if SW value was D3 as the FCM standard)
On my own FCM chart, thats 6.9, and at 0.5 over they are 313 CPM, and thats 7.0 on my chart. (*)
Going longer IS going stronger in PX

For Compare with the other 6.5 PX (numbers with 285 gram tip weight - 2.5" Clamp)
- Net shaft length, as playing length for Callaway Prototype (identical clamp points as the set w. 6.5F)

#6.... ... +0.5 / std / -0.5
6.5.........315 / 321 / 327
6.5F.......314 / 320 / 326
6.5 PXi 291 / 297 / 303

#8.... ... +0.5 / std / -0.5
6.5.........348 / 354 / 360
6.5F.......340 / 346 / 352
6.5 PXi 325 / 331 / 337

(*) PX was NOT made to be judged with the FCM system, so here we got 3 PX 6.5, but all different in Butt CPM strength. In your case, DONT worry about to strong short irons. As you can see they are quite a bit softer than regular 6.5. When we look at PXI, they dont fit into this type of measuring at all, so PX shafts is not that easy to judge this way.

For Flighted True Temper say go 1 flex over standard, but for PXI they say go strait in. The numbers above should indicate that we should jump more than 1 flex up if we go PXI, so its not easy to understand this shafts by butt CPM numbers only.

EDIT - Clamp size 2.5 on numbers with 285 gram tip weigth

[gambit]

Thanks for all the info, Howard. It's really very helpful an much appreciated!

[AlexCzervic]

Howard,

You mentioned that the flighted PX has a larger descending weight difference and this benefits some and hinders others. Have you identified what body type/swing characteristics are better suited to a greater descending weight?

A larger descending weight runs contrary to Monte's MBI, any thoughts?

AC

[Howard_Jones]

[quote name='AlexCzervic' timestamp='1347047841' post='5603277']
Howard,

You mentioned that the flighted PX has a larger descending weight difference and this benefits some and hinders others. Have you identified what body type/swing characteristics are better suited to a greater descending weight?
A larger descending weight runs contrary to Monte's MBI, any thoughts?
AC
[/quote]

Yes and No. What i found is that some players got a feel of weight who makes them uncomfortable with heavy long irons and light short irons, even if there is small steps. I we follow basic and known knowledge about shaft weight, it seems to be a limit for up to 15-20 gram difference before we really feel any difference if SW value is equal. That means most players will have no problem by playing a descending weight like Rifle / PX flighted is, while others is sensitive to feel of weight, and dont like it.

If i recall right a set of DG as parallel tip in 3-PW got just above 12 grams difference from the lightest the PW shaft to the longest the 3 irons. On PX flighted the difference is just above 14 grams, and no big difference from a standard descending weight but...
The PX 6.5 Flighted as plus 0.5 is the set ive got specs on in front of me, and the PW shaft is 118.1 grams and 3 irons shaft is 132.2 grams so the 3 irons shaft here cut to play length is just as heavy as S400 uncut. Heavy stuff simply and not for everyone to swing in a 3 iron.

If we look at the shafts in the hole bag, most players whos been fitted for their clubs will have a shaft weight progression starting light in the driver and ending up heavy in the wedges. The steps in shaft weight pr. inch might vary, but im using 5 grams pr. inch as a "static fitting" of shaft weight for better players, while a weak slower swinger might be down at 2 grams pr inch.

If we take this rules with us and judge our irons, we should play descending weight, but the o posit direction, where the longest was the lightest, so a set of flighted is kind of "against the book" when it comes to shaft weight, but most play well with them if they need more launch in the long irons. I guess the weight system is a big reason for most better players to choose a set with constant weight, and there is options as flightet in constant weight to. True Temper Tour Concept is both flighted and Constant weight. Another option might be dropping the long irons for hybrids if you dont want descending weight and a shaft like Tour Consept dont fit your needs.

- Im no big fan of the descending weight system as it is now, but like i said, we are within the limits of what a major part of the playing public want notice as differences from the longest to the shortest club. Most players who plays descending weight have no idea about it at all, just like they dont know that iron heads got different weight, and as long as they dont complain about what they feel of the club, there is no reason to fix it :-)

[lettucebcereal]

I think my brain just exploded from this information overload...great work!

[Rpc518]

this is some good info, thanks for this!

[EK16]

Does anyone know where True Temper Monacos or Tour Concepts fit on this chart?

[Howard_Jones]

[quote name='EK16' timestamp='1356062170' post='6099105']
Does anyone know where True Temper Monacos or Tour Concepts fit on this chart?
[/quote]

Just put the side by side with ordinary Dynamic Golds like this

DG - Tour Prototype

DG S300 - S flex
DG X100 - X-flex
DG Tour X7 - TX Flex

[EK16]

[quote name='Howard Jones' timestamp='1356118281' post='6101491']
[quote name='EK16' timestamp='1356062170' post='6099105']
Does anyone know where True Temper Monacos or Tour Concepts fit on this chart?
[/quote]

Just put the side by side with ordinary Dynamic Golds like this

DG - Tour Prototype

DG S300 - S flex
DG X100 - X-flex
DG Tour X7 - TX Flex
[/quote]

Thank you!

[wally8888]

Way back when TT introduced the DG shafts (nothing but Dynamic X, S, R, A, L prior), I was told they actually changed nothing.
I was told they just hired a guy to weigh all Dynamic Shafts, separate all according to weight in piles, then apply or assign shaft bands!
Soon I will write about the first Ping Irons, at least before they had color dots and the first graphite shafts or at least the first ones available to me.
Gary Player played w/ steel shafts painted black, know why?

[nova6868]

[quote name='wally8888' timestamp='1356442053' post='6114855']
Gary Player played w/ steel shafts painted black, know why?
[/quote]

I believe he had some contract where he was supposed to be playing fiberglass/graphite shafts, right?

[GBYO]

Thanks ... nice chart!

[wally8888]

[quote name='nova6868' timestamp='1356443638' post='6114903']
[quote name='wally8888' timestamp='1356442053' post='6114855']
Gary Player played w/ steel shafts painted black, know why?
[/quote]

I believe he had some contract where he was supposed to be playing fiberglass/graphite shafts, right?
[/quote]

Yep! Black fiberglass.

[pullfade]

Howard....do you know where Pxi fits in this chart? Is it comparable to flex of the original PX? Thanks!

[Howard_Jones]

[quote name='pullfade' timestamp='1356530081' post='6117849']
Howard....do you know where Pxi fits in this chart? Is it comparable to flex of the original PX? Thanks!
[/quote]

Good question, and if we dig into the math only, the answer is no.......long story..
PX shafts was not made to be judged by the FCM system like RIFLE shafts is, but for some reason we all like to get it down digital to make our self an opinion about whats up and down, but sorry, it does not go down that way.

PX is like the L.A.R.S.X system, only a LABEL for flex, and when True Temper labels a PX as 6.5 and a PXi as 6.5 they are meant to fit the same player as alternatives. One model fits one player, the other fits another: Its about weight and preference for feel of flex, NOT what the shaft can handle, thats already taken care of by True Temper.

Butt CPM strength on PXI is so much lower than ordinary PX that they cant be compared at all by this system, and they was not designed to be judged that way either.

On page 3 on this post, i wrote q few words about PX / PX Flighted and PXI (cut & paste)

[color=#282828]True feel of flex is impossible to predict from butt CPM only, and i only got 1 set of PXi so i only had 1 single #6 iron/39.00 shaft to measure, but there is no doubt that this shaft is softer butt side compared to the standard. Marked for cut down to standard #6 iron at 37.50 with butt cap, measured with a 2.5 clamp and 255 gram head weight:

PX 6.5 - 340
PX 6.5 F - 336
PXi 6.5 - 314

As you ca see BUTT is much softer, but the label say 6.5 but PX is NOT FCM matched, and since i have not got anyone to test this shaft side by side with the others yet, i cant tell much about spin, launch or if it really feels softer than 5.5 (see below)

For reference
PX 6.5 = 340
PX 6.5F = 336
PX 6.0 = 338
PX 6.0F = 335
PX 5.5 `= 330
PX 5.5F = 326
PXi 6.5 = 314
Numbers are not ready to convert to FCM values. They are only for direct compare[/color]

If PXi was to be judged by the FCM system, a PXi 6.5 will have a label like 4.9, or LOWER than the softest PX the 5.0
Thats why a CPM compare of butt strength only is useless, since it only tells about strength at butt, even if the term used often is "Over all flex" its got nothing to do with over all flex or anything else than BUTT flex ONLY, and the part of the shaft is much to small to make a MAJOR influence on performance, or feel of flex.

The FCM system is RIFLE and this shafts was designed to be measured and judged with this system, but other shafts is not, so we dont do it right, when we "force" other shafts design to be measured and judged by this system.

Flex IS a can of worms, but if we are stupid, and judge flex by BUTT CPM only, we want be able to get it right, no matter how bad we want it to be that simple, but sorry, its not how it works real life.

I can promise you that a PXi 6.5 can handle much more of a player than a PX 5.0, even if butt CPM is close to equal, and the reason is this shafts was not supposed to be judged by the FCM system, so just trust the labels, they tell whats right here.

[pullfade]

Thank you Howard for responding. I agree with you 100% on your outlook toward these shafts. We do put too much emphasis on numbers and not feel, ballflight and most importantly results.

FWIW....my experience with these has been higher launch and spin. Much softer feel while remaining controllable and much easier to load than standard PX. Maybe more like a lighter weight KBS Tour. For me the standard PX is the only shaft that reduced spin and I am not really sure why True Temper decided to use the Project X name on these Pxi shafts as I feel there are not many similarities.

[Howard_Jones]

@Pullfade.

True Temper is expanding the PX line up, and we know the PXI , but now comes PX 95 who is sub 100 gram in a flighted package.
- On graphite we first saw the Blue series, then the Black, and now a new TRUE SUB 40 grams shaft is on its way to the marked.

[pullfade]

[quote name='Howard Jones' timestamp='1356593066' post='6122465']
@Pullfade.

True Temper is expanding the PX line up, and we know the PXI , but now comes PX 95 who is sub 100 gram in a flighted package.
- On graphite we first saw the Blue series, then the Black, and now a new TRUE SUB 40 grams shaft is on its way to the marked.
[/quote]

Just like "Dynamic Gold" Lite, SL, XP, High Launch, etc....just branding I guess. You really can't judge results by a name.

[nova6868]

Tom Wishon posted some charts with PXi ratings, they basically showed that the PXi 6.5 was VERY soft in the butt, like said above. It was tip stiff, as I recall basically about as tip stiff as DG x100. But not nearly as tip stiff as Modus 3.

I have tried the PXis, and I don't think they compare very well to the regular PX. The feel is totally different. I'm also not sure why they are in the "Project X" line, I guess because they are stepless. If you played regular PX 6.0, I think you will probably prefer the feel of PXi 6.5.

[Howard_Jones]

[quote name='nova6868' timestamp='1356617347' post='6123011']
Tom Wishon posted some charts with PXi ratings, they basically showed that the PXi 6.5 was VERY soft in the butt, like said above. It was tip stiff, as I recall basically about as tip stiff as DG x100. But not nearly as tip stiff as Modus 3.

[/quote]

Here it is
http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/740015-tom-wishon-irons-shaft-graphs-in-regular-flex/