A Technical Discussion and Report on Adjustable Hosel/Adjustable Sole Piece Drivers in the Modern Go

[marrigo]

I thought it was pretty well understood that to get an adjustable driver to play at the stated adjusted loft the head had to be square at impact? Seems like a column in the results tables showing the effective loft when the head is squared would have been useful.

[TKS]

[quote name='marrigo' timestamp='1365552145' post='6796551']
I thought it was pretty well understood that to get an adjustable driver to play at the stated adjusted loft the head had to be square at impact? Seems like a column in the results tables showing the effective loft when the head is squared would have been useful.
[/quote]I can imagine what it would take in the swing to bring the face to square, "What do you mean its flying to the right! You've got to swing it right" Those are the exact words I heard the other day while at retail shop. Poor guy.

[mxtitleistgolfer]

[quote name='marrigo' timestamp='1365552145' post='6796551']
I thought it was pretty well understood that to get an adjustable driver to play at the stated adjusted loft the head had to be square at impact? Seems like a column in the results tables showing the effective loft when the head is squared would have been useful.
[/quote]

This is exactly true. Obviously the physical loft of the head isn't being changed, but the effective loft is what is adjusted. Anyone picking up one of these drivers can plainly see the visual changes that occur when making adjustments on these drivers, and while loft and lie may not be independently adjustable, these OEM's have found a way to manipulate the clubs appearance at address.

A good example of this is taking an R1 and setting the loft adjustment to 8 degrees and have the sole plate on "N". Keep the shaft in the same orientation as you would hold it in the stock setting, then set the club down and it obviously sits open compared to being in the 10 degree an "N" setting. To compensate for the new face angle appearance you can adjust the sole plate to a "closed" position and the club will sit more "square". For drivers where there is no sole plate, the golfer will need to grip the club in such a way that the face is square to the target in order to achieve an altered setting.

[mkirt]

Very interesting article and I have a lot of respect for Tom's knowledge about club fitting. I have no doubt that his testing is completely accurate. I have a few questions as to why I got the results I posted below with the Nike Covert (performance head not the Tour head that Tom tested). I see this as a learning opportunity and would like to hear thoughts to increase my understanding.

As a new Covert owner, I posted my results in another thread hitting on a launch monitor at each loft from the 8.5-12.5 setting in the [b]neutral position only[/b]. I am a 9 handicap with the associated less than optimal swing- so certainly a range of variations on where I hit the ball on the clubface, AOA, etc. Given that, I did my best to delete the really bad swings to try to get a fair comparison. I also varied the loft setting order periodically to try to ensure I didnt just groove one setting. The results are posted below. I settled on the 11.5 neutral setting and have not changed it since.
Here are my observations/questions after reading the article.

1. My launch angle on the launch monitor did seem to increase measurably as the loft setting changed. 8.5 definitely launched lower than 12.5. The pattern seems to be an increase in launch angle as the loft setting increased- although not as much variation as you would expect if the range was truly 4 degrees. Since Tom's testing shows the loft not really changing, what might account for the launch angle changes? Is it all within the variations of my swing?

2. I will say that on the actual course I do believe I see a difference in ball flight overall between 8.5 vs 12.5 (ie noticeably higher flight at 12.5), but can't honestly say that I can tell a definitive difference changing from 10.5 to 9.5 or 10.5 to 12.5.

3. I always set the club down for every driver swing. I assume that since my launch monitor session was with the neutral setting only, that face angle stayed constant and that is why my azimuth (club face angle) was pretty consistent when I went from loft setting to loft setting? Visually the face angle does not look open to me at any of the loft settings and I do not feel like I am consciously manipulating the face to look square. On course results are a consistent straight to slight pull with the Covert which is noticeably straighter than most other drivers I have had (I usually cut/fade the ball). Maybe the face angle on the performance head vs the tour head would be less open at all loft settings and face angle settings if Tom tested that Covert head instead of the tour head?

4. I do not find any real difference in the left vs neutral vs right setting at any of the loft settings. If anything, I think the left setting produces more of a fade than the right setting- as well as in my mind I do not make solid contact like I do at the neutral setting. I am pretty sure that I do manipulate the club to look square when I change the face setting- I do not like to see the face look obviously closed like on some closed face glued drivers.

I am certainly happy with my Covert and getting good results. I do not anticipate tinkering with the settings- especially after reading Tom's testing results. I guess at my 92mph swing speed that the 12-12.5 measured loft just happens to be about what I need to maximize my overall distance in oklahoma- where the wind comes sweeping down the plain....

[greens hit]

Let's not forget the most important premise in Tom's argument, namely the club is meant to be soled at address. Everything hinges on this premise. My conclusion is that the major OEMs will agree with this as well. Just the fact that they even reference face angle is enough proof. After all, face angle is a measurement of the face angle when soled.

[keyser]

I´d bet about 95% af golfers sole their driver at address and I´d make an evern bigger bet that more than 95% of golfers think they're adjusting loft without doing any physical manipulation of the face angles at addres. Why would they know this.. thre is no mention of this in the brochures that come with the drivers? Saying these drivers have adjustable loft is like I´d sell someone a 3 iron and say it's adjustable all the way down to a lob wedge. How you ask.. well I´ll just show you how to open the clubface to make it 60* or more.
While it may not be shocking to some golfers that the loft is not adjustable like they thought, the tolerance issues and specs on these drivers are shocking. To pay that amount of money for a golfclub and get specs that are nowhere close to what they claim and adjustments don't do anything that they claim either. I´m very surprised this is even legal and someone has not sued.

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

The tolerances for loft and lie on major OEM clubs are likely no worse than they've ever been or any worse than Wishon clubs for that matter. Flat-out lying about the loft is not the same as "tolerance".

I'll bet you 95% of all Ping drivers are within plus or minus one degree of their designed loft. The fact that they put a number 2-3 three degrees lower than the designed loft is a form of marketing, not poor tolerances. Poor tolerances would be if you bought two Ping Anser 10.5 drivers and found one was 9 degrees and the other 12 degrees. In fact, you'll find plenty of them 12 but probably never seen one marked as 10.5 that's really 9. Their "tolerances" are just fine.

For whatever reason, whether we like it or not, the specs sheets and numbers written on golf clubs mean virtually nothing industry-wide. They are arbitrary labels with pseudo-technical pretensions. All part of what I meant when I said the industry treats the consumer as a buffoon who will believe anything they're told...as long as it's something that fulfills their wishes.

[XYB34A]

I am all for glued driver heads. I personally think, that using a club to hit a draw or a fade, and not actually being able to pick up any club off any rack, and hit one without adjustability. Then you have a crutch in your golf swing, and until you learn to hit a draw, or hit a fade. Then you are just fooling yourself. Tom's findings, are something I have thought were true for the last few years. Commercials have said, the following for as long as their have been Madison Ave advertising exec's. YOU ARE STUPID, BUY ME. You see people comment on this forum, who is better Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, or tiger woods. tiger woods, doesn't play the same kind of golf either of these other gentleman did. Because of all the technology. Neither did Mr. Hogan, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Nicklaus, Mr. Player, or even Johnny "the mouth" Miller, play like Mr. Robert T. Jones. As the ball, the heads of clubs, shafts, agronomy have all changed golf. Just like my Chevy P/UP made in the 21 century, is anyway like the one that my father had when I was a child.

[keyser]

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1365556777' post='6797169']
The tolerances for loft and lie on major OEM clubs are likely no worse than they've ever been or any worse than Wishon clubs for that matter. Flat-out lying about the loft is not the same as "tolerance".
[/quote]
They certainly are worse. For non adjustable drivers I´ve measured "identical" models with over 2degrees difference. With adjustable drivers and their increased complexity I´ve seen them measured with even worse tolerance.
https://www.google.is/search?q=mygolfspy+worst+kept+secret+in+golf&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:is:official&client=firefox-a .. check out the top article .. some of them are they labelled loft.. some are way off. So I certainly disagree that the tolerance is "fine". But you're right that in this case I was more referring to you're tuning your driver to specs that are nowhere close to what they're telling you.

[ken1putt]

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1365556777' post='6797169']
The tolerances for loft and lie on major OEM clubs are likely no worse than they've ever been or any worse than Wishon clubs for that matter. Flat-out lying about the loft is not the same as "tolerance".

I'll bet you 95% of all Ping drivers are within plus or minus one degree of their designed loft. The fact that they put a number 2-3 three degrees lower than the designed loft is a form of marketing, not poor tolerances. Poor tolerances would be if you bought two Ping Anser 10.5 drivers and found one was 9 degrees and the other 12 degrees. In fact, you'll find plenty of them 12 but probably never seen one marked as 10.5 that's really 9. Their "tolerances" are just fine.

For whatever reason, whether we like it or not, the specs sheets and numbers written on golf clubs mean virtually nothing industry-wide. They are arbitrary labels with pseudo-technical pretensions. All part of what I meant when I said the industry treats the consumer as a buffoon who will believe anything they're told...as long as it's something that fulfills their wishes.
[/quote]

Call away actually started it with the first Big Berthas that were consistently 2-3 degrees weak. The "improved" launch angle was commonly attributed to the head's low CG, but I and others thought they looked "off" and. Measuring them proved it to be true.

Wooden heads, in my experience were almost always on spec because they were faced by craftsmen with a loft gauge in hand.

The Call away deception gave 99%of golfers the loft they really needed and eventually everyone else was forced to do the same thing.

K

[Ri_Redneck]

Let me begin this post by saying that Tom's results make complete sense to me and appear totally accurate when measured in the Green Machine. He is extremely analytical in his practices and should be greatly respected in his contributions to this forum. Suggesting that his article is just marketing drivel is childish at best. That being said, one thing I think everyone should take note of starts about halfway down on page 2:

[b]"Once the driver head is in the proper lie angle position, the head then has to be positioned for proper face angle and loft measurement while retaining the correct lie position"[/b]

This statement verifies that the sole of the club is the basis from which the loft is to be measured and reveals that "loft" is defined, by Tom in this article, by the angle formed by the clubface and the sole. This is easily noticed in the R1 data by seeing that the loft measurements seem very relative to the sole settings. I will add that many other designers agree with this definition, [size=5][b]but[/b][/size] many also do not. Others define "loft" as the angle formed by the clubface and the shaft (with no reference to the sole)! This second group prefers the clubface to be square when the loft is measured. If this is done and the angle formed by the clubface and the shaft is measured, suddenly, the hosel adjustments change the "loft". I like to describe this loft measurement as the loft of the club, not the clubhead. I'm not saying either one is wrong or right, just that they're different and need to be noticed.

Since I've brought up squaring the clubface, another statement I have issues with is in the first full paragraph on page 10. Here, manipulation of the clubhead by rotating the grip seems to be discouraged. To the best of my knowledge, accomplished golfers visually align the clubface in this way quite frequently when playing. Even though they sole the driver on the ground, they typically take their grip before doing it. This is typically how draws and fades are produced. No, they are not setting a specific loft, they are aligning the face. The loft is what they get from picking specific clubhead specs. Example (per Callaway Specs): Callaway RAZR-FIT 11.5* (clubface to sole) driver set to 2* open gives 10.4* loft (clubface to shaft) when the face is squared. Unknowing amateurs, on the other hand, may do just as it says and take their grip while soling the club. In that case, he is spot on.

That's the only input I wish to give. Very informative article Tom.

BT

[rybo]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1365549432' post='6796219']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365545692' post='6795927']
[size=5][size=4]Here are two pics of the R1 without a shaft. One pic is with the button fully extended and the other with the button fully retracted. Clearly the contact points are different.[/size][/size]
[/quote]

RYBO

YOU CANNOT FIND THE PROPER SOLE TOUCH POSITION FOR A DRIVER WITHOUT A SHAFT OR MANDREL INSERTED INTO THE HEAD. You cannot do that just letting the head itself sit on its own. If you had the chance to ask anyone with many years of head design experience how long it took them to learn the nuances of proper head positioning for accurate specs measurement, you would hear that it takes many many hours with many many different types of heads.

[/quote]

Tom I was speaking directly to the R1 and how the different button settings changes the contact points when the various button settings are used. Nothing more. Purposely left the shaft off simply for convenience of taking the pictures. However, could just as easily replicated those pics with the shaft installed, just would have had to use the proper hosel setting with the corresponding button setting.


Does everyone realize that if you want to play the R1 at 8* of loft at a square face angle the loft setting is set to 8* on the hosel and the button is set to 3* closed? And the opposite is true to play the R1 at 12* of loft with a square face angle the settings are 12*on the hosel and 3* open on the button. Knowing how to use the settings properly can go a long way. The button and hosel work together, not independent of each other. I think Taylormades' attempt at trying to simply the settings to something intuitive only made the settings more confusing. The button on 'Neutral' is not universal to each loft setting.



And for a square face angle the button setting are as follows for each of the loft settings:

12* / 3* open
11.25* / 2* open
10.5* / 1* open
10* / Neutral
9.5* / 1* closed
8.75* / 2* closed
8* / 3* closed

11.25* U / 2* open
10.5* U / 1* open
10* U / Neutral
9.5* U / 1* closed
8.75* U / 2* closed


Any reason why the charts do not reflect Taylormades loft settings? The loft settings are as follows:

12*
11.25*
10.5*
10*
9.5*
8.75*
8*

11.25* U
10.5* U
10* U
9.5* U
8.75* U

[Sawgrass]

I wonder if players subconciously change their ball postion a touch (forward to backward) when setting up with an adjustable club that has been "loft adjusted." For instance, if you increase the loft number on an adjustable driver, but grip it in such a way that you've squared the face you have made your own adjustment back to the original loft. But if you then move the ball forward, and grip the club from that set up position, you have increased the effective loft of the club -- as you were told would be the case when you look at the number on the shaft.

(I hope I made that clear, I guess I should point out that I don't grip my driver while it is soled any more than I do my 5i, and I can't even imagine soling my narrow 5i in order to take my grip. I look at the shaft angle to the ground and square the face to my target line.)

Anyway, it is possible that adjusting a driver's stated loft ends up achieving an actual loft increase if you end up changing the ball's postion as a natural result. Of course you don't need an adjustable driver to do that, but it's possible that the face angle change on an adjustable club encourages you to do so.

I'm going to shut up now because I'm just winging it!

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

[quote name='Ri_Redneck' timestamp='1365560887' post='6797669']This statement verifies that the sole of the club is the basis from which the loft is to be measured and reveals that "loft" is defined, by Tom in this article, by the angle formed by the clubface and the sole.
[/quote]

And that's what I meant when I said from the first look I ever took at an adjustable driver, it was obvious that the loft [i]per se[/i] meaning the loft defined by that sole-to-face loft angle was not changing at all. While Tom's detailed mapping of face angles and lies in various hosel settings is excellent and informative, saying that "loft never changes" could just as easily be said "the face never moves relative to the sole. Except of course when the sole plate is moved on the R1.

[mikpga]

I would imagine all that matters is how the club performs for the individual!

[rybo]

Tom,

How does TM's machined symmetrical elliptical ramp hosel produce such variable and non linear measurements from one side to the other? Something is going on here because there is definitely a change visually from open to closed among the different settings when using the R1.


Since you had these clubs in your possession to measure did you actually hit any of them in the different settings yourself? How about on your swing robot? Trackman?

Having owned a Titleist 910D2, I am having trouble understanding how every setting produced an open face angle. It was quite easy to make the club look like it had a closed face on most settings. Just the opposite of your findings. And attached is the Titleist reference chart that includes face angles.

Not surprised by the loft on the Ping's. This has been known problem with Ping for years.

If all of these clubs have such wildly open face angles maybe this explains why I could never get along with any of your clubs that were all hand selected with open face angles but visually look very closed.

[Awalkspoiled]

Very disappointing article from Tom. Once you sole the club with scorelines horizontal the party's almost over, and using a consistent contact point on the sole cleans up the paper plates and starts serving orange juice. How clubheads HAVE been measured historically is irrelevant - what would have been useful is research, or at least additional research in how clubs are actually played, and how they SHOULD be measured, to reflect how players use them. In a nutshell, making the soling point consistent was the wrong constant if you want to look at how a club actually is played. What should be constant instead is lie angle for a given clublength.

Very few drivers are designed with the expectation of their being played with the scorelines horizontal (Tom's are a rare exception with typical static lie at 58°, and Titleists are also closer historically) because it's ridiculous to play a driver with the same lie angle as your 6i. Typical lie angle with horizontal scorelines is 62° and some drivers like the Cobras of a few years ago have been as high as 66°. But that's not how they're played by anyone of normal proportions - they're played at a static lie angle of 56-58° with the toe way up in the air and the soling point way back toward the heel, and even after toe-droop during the swing bends the clubhead flatter, it rarely gets to where the scorelines are horizontal at impact. You can verify this by marking a vertical line on your golfball and seeing what angle it forms when transferred to the clubface.

So what WOULD have been useful? Pick a golfer with fairly typical WtF and stance, and see where he sets up to one of these drivers, at its actual ridiculous clublength (often close to 46" - I know, I know...). Let's guess that the lie angle at address is around 56° depending on clublength, but whatever it is, set the machine at that lie angle, shaft in a plane perpendicular to the target line (I know that's not always the case with golfers, but you do have to normalize SOMETHING, pun sort of intended) and let the club sole itself. This is not how clubheads have been measured, but it's how players set up to the ball. NOW measure FA, loft, and scoreline variance from horizontal.

The soling point will move slightly depending on how the hosel is set up, and therefore the loft will move also, but how much, and how does the FA change along with it? These are the effects the golfer will actually see at setup, and which will or won't have an effect on ballfight.

My request - I'm not interested in just taking shots at such a generous resource as TW has been - is that he pick one of these clubs and see what results he gets with a realistic lie angle as the constant, allowing soling point and everything else to move (or not) as the hosel is adjusted.

[BigLeftyinAZ]

We may not be changing static loft,but what about effective loft. If your driver is 12.5 but 3* open wouldn't you have an effective loft of 10.7?

[deke]

[quote name='Awalkspoiled' timestamp='1365603394' post='6800095']
Very disappointing article from Tom. Once you sole the club with scorelines horizontal the party's almost over, and using a consistent contact point on the sole cleans up the paper plates and starts serving orange juice. How clubheads HAVE been measured historically is irrelevant - [i][b]what would have been useful is research, or at least additional research in how clubs are actually played, and how they SHOULD be measured, to reflect how players use them[/b][/i]. In a nutshell, making the soling point consistent was the wrong constant if you want to look at how a club actually is played. What should be constant instead is lie angle for a given clublength.

Very few drivers are designed with the expectation of their being played with the scorelines horizontal (Tom's are a rare exception with typical static lie at 58°, and Titleists are also closer historically) because it's ridiculous to play a driver with the same lie angle as your 6i. Typical lie angle with horizontal scorelines is 62° and some drivers like the Cobras of a few years ago have been as high as 66°. But that's not how they're played by anyone of normal proportions - they're played at a static lie angle of 56-58° with the toe way up in the air and the soling point way back toward the heel, and even after toe-droop during the swing bends the clubhead flatter, it rarely gets to where the scorelines are horizontal at impact. You can verify this by marking a vertical line on your golfball and seeing what angle it forms when transferred to the clubface.

So what WOULD have been useful? Pick a golfer with fairly typical WtF and stance, and see where he sets up to one of these drivers, at its actual ridiculous clublength (often close to 46" - I know, I know...). Let's guess that the lie angle at address is around 56° depending on clublength, but whatever it is, set the machine at that lie angle, shaft in a plane perpendicular to the target line (I know that's not always the case with golfers, but you do have to normalize SOMETHING, pun sort of intended) and let the club sole itself. This is not how clubheads have been measured, but it's how players set up to the ball. NOW measure FA, loft, and scoreline variance from horizontal.

The soling point will move slightly depending on how the hosel is set up, and therefore the loft will move also, but how much, and how does the FA change along with it? These are the effects the golfer will actually see at setup, and which will or won't have an effect on ballfight.

My request - I'm not interested in just taking shots at such a generous resource as TW has been - is that he pick one of these clubs and see what results he gets with a realistic lie angle as the constant, allowing soling point and everything else to move (or not) as the hosel is adjusted.
[/quote]

Of Course. And that makes sense because [i][b]all[/b][/i] players swing the same everywhere all the time. Sheesh!

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

Well measuring how 5,000 golfers sole and align the club is better than just n=1. But one real golfer tells you more than zero. And zero is how many golfers perfectly aligning their R1 as though it were clamped in an Auditor.

[rybo]

deke - first post in 7 years and that's the pearl of wisdom bestowed upon us..........

[gatewaygolfer]

That's like saying 5,000 people can eyeball 6 inches better than a ruler.

[deke]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365605517' post='6800387']
deke - first post in 7 years and that's the pearl of wisdom bestowed upon us..........
[/quote]

That's not wisdom, just common sense.
1011 posts and that's the best comeback you can muster? LoL

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

No it's saying if you want to know how far 6 inches is you look at a ruler. If you want to know how someone will swing a golf club you look at a golf club being swung by a person.

It all comes down to what question you want to answer. Tom has a six inch ruler and has IMO thoroughly answered the "ruler" question about these drivers. Now time to move on to the questions that matter to golfers and not club designers.

[gatewaygolfer]

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1365605842' post='6800427']
No it's saying if you want to know how far 6 inches is you look at a ruler. If you want to know how someone will swing a golf club you look at a golf club being swung by a person.

It all comes down to what question you want to answer. Tom has a six inch ruler and has IMO thoroughly answered the "ruler" question about these drivers. Now time to move on to the questions that matter to golfers and not club designers.
[/quote]

I didn't know the consensus was to move on. Toms article is about loft, lie and alignment and that matters to some people. If its not important to you or the answer is sufficient, you can move on.

[BirdieBob]

So, Nike says changing the loft on their Covert does NOT change the face angle?
Well, according to Tom's measurements that is not the case!

[b][size=5]BOOM![/size]


8.5*[/b]
Neutral
[b]> 8 open[/b]°
12.5
60.25

[b]9.5*[/b]
Neutral
[b]7.25 open[/b]
12
60.5

[b]10.5*[/b]
Neutral
[b]6 open[/b]
12.5
60.75

[b]11.5*[/b]
Neutral
[b]3.75 open[/b]
12.5
60

[b]12.5*[/b]
Neutral
[b]4 open[/b]
12.75
59.5

[rybo]

[quote name='deke' timestamp='1365605687' post='6800411']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365605517' post='6800387']
deke - first post in 7 years and that's the pearl of wisdom bestowed upon us..........
[/quote]

That's not wisdom, just common sense.
1011 posts and that's the best comeback you can muster? LoL
[/quote]

It was a statement not a comeback. Look forward to posts 3 and 4

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

[quote name='gatewaygolfer' timestamp='1365606345' post='6800507']
[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1365605842' post='6800427']
No it's saying if you want to know how far 6 inches is you look at a ruler. If you want to know how someone will swing a golf club you look at a golf club being swung by a person.

It all comes down to what question you want to answer. Tom has a six inch ruler and has IMO thoroughly answered the "ruler" question about these drivers. Now time to move on to the questions that matter to golfers and not club designers.
[/quote]

I didn't know the consensus was to move on. Toms article is about loft, lie and alignment and that matters to some people. If its not important to you or the answer is sufficient, you can move on.
[/quote]

So do you NOT agree with me that Tom has thoroughly addressed the question of adjustable driver measurements in their absolute, clubmaker/QA context? I just don't much room for additional work needed from that perspective. His article is an admirably well researched answer to that particular set of questions.

All of the flak and alleged disagreement with his findings in this thread amount to people wanting to change the subject to the effective, AS-USED loft/lie/FA if this type club. That is still an unanswered question.

[gatewaygolfer]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365606768' post='6800563']
[quote name='deke' timestamp='1365605687' post='6800411']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365605517' post='6800387']
deke - first post in 7 years and that's the pearl of wisdom bestowed upon us..........
[/quote]

That's not wisdom, just common sense.
1011 posts and that's the best comeback you can muster? LoL
[/quote]

It was a statement not a comeback. Look forward to posts 3 and 4
[/quote]

Right, equating post count with wisdom wasn't a comeback or veiled insult. Way to encourage new members!

[rybo]

[quote name='gatewaygolfer' timestamp='1365607313' post='6800637']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365606768' post='6800563']
[quote name='deke' timestamp='1365605687' post='6800411']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365605517' post='6800387']
deke - first post in 7 years and that's the pearl of wisdom bestowed upon us..........
[/quote]

That's not wisdom, just common sense.
1011 posts and that's the best comeback you can muster? LoL
[/quote]

It was a statement not a comeback. Look forward to posts 3 and 4
[/quote]

Right, equating post count with wisdom wasn't a comeback or veiled insult. Way to encourage new members!
[/quote]

Fine .... my bad ..... I was wrong.