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

[TomWishon]

[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]

Marrigo

This matter of "effective loft" is really superfluous and IMO should just be forgotten because it is too confusing for most people to relate to what it is trying to say. All that matter of effective loft is all taken care of when you think of things in this way. . . .

The shot results are always determined by what the static specs are when combined with the swing characteristics of the golfer.

Some of us open the face with our swings. Some of us close the face with our swings. Some of us hit down and de loft the head while others swing up and add loft to the head.

Getting the very best launch results for vertical launch angle, horizontal launch angle, spin and spin axis is what every golfer must achieve to play to the best of their ability. We can't know how to do this unless we know that the static specs of the driver are very close to what its specs are when the golfer places the head behind the ball to swing and hit the ball. That way when the shot results are not optimal for the golfer, we then know that we have to go back to get a different head with different static specs that when subjected to the swing characteristics of the golfer will result in better launch parameters for the golfer.

Effective loft just confuses all this. There's no need to know what the effective loft and effective face angle are at the moment of impact as long as you think in terms of

Static Specs + the Effect of the Swing = Shot Results


TOM

[BigLeftyinAZ]

[quote name='BirdieBob' timestamp='1365606737' post='6800559']
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
[/quote]


I've played with this driver and I don't see the 8* open. This driver doesnt look very open to me. Then again maybe my eyes dont know a thing

[Disco Stu]

Well, there are a couple of interesting and surprising things in this article, but the fact that you can't change loft through an adjustable hosel shouldn't really be one of them. Even if you didn't realize it before, the fact that TaylorMade's adjustable hosel suddenly went from changing face angle (on the R9 series) to changing loft (on the R11 series) using the exact same thing made it pretty obvious. I think most of us on this board probably realized that it's an "effective loft" adjustment, meaning that if the face angle has been opened, it will have lower effective loft if the face has been squared up at impact. Personally, I would rather have a square face angle and lower actual loft, but I know some players just like the look of an open face angle.

There were a few things that I did find intereseting...

1. How far off the measured lofts were from the stated lofts even with everything in the neutral position.
2. How open the face angles are in all positions (and why would the OEMs do this?).
3. That TM actually does have adjustable loft, it's just through the sole piece and not the hosel. In other words, they got it exactly backwards - the hosel adjusts the face angle and the sole piece adjusts the loft (although not independently).

Overall, another great article from Tom. And, unfortunately, much like the one where he dispelled the myth of the high launch/low spin shaft, one that will likely be ignored and/or forgotten in a matter of days. At least maybe this will help folks realize just how much nonsense the marketing departments of the OEMs throw at us every year in a desperate attempt to get us to buy clubs that will perform exactly the same as last year's model (assuming you were fit properly both times). Don't get me wrong - I have a bag full of OEM clubs (except for my TWGT 3W) and I buy new ones with some regularity. But I buy them because I like them or want them, not because I think they're going to perform any better.

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

So Tom's industry standard meaning of "loft" is quite clear. Sole to face angle about the plane parallel to scorelines and so forth.

Can we find an equivalently precise definition of effective as-played "loft" without reference to fixtures, soling the club or fixed parallel scorelines? I don't think so. Too much context dependency. Is there anything comes out of a Trackman session that tells is what "loft" the clubhead achieved at address and/or impact?

[TomWishon]

[quote name='greens hit' timestamp='1365555353' post='6796965']
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.
[/quote]


YES YES YES - you get it !!!!

Static Specs + The Effect of the Golfer's Swing Characteristics = Shot Results

When the shot results are not yet optimal for a golfer, we have to go back and get a head with different static specs so when the golfer makes his swing with all its errors, the final shot results are better. Thus the golfer needs to set the head down to rest on its sole at address so that the specs at address are as close as possible to the measured static specs. Do that and this whole "formula" stated above then works to help find the club specs that will result in the best shot results for each golfer's different swing characteristics.

For really good players who have a really good eye for the look of the loft and look of the face angle, fine, if they find that they can achieve their best shot results from holding the clubface in a specific position, as long as the shot results are good, then everything works ok. Might take a little trial and error to do that but if the golfer has a really good eye for the loft look and face angle look of the head, that can be done.

But for the masses and even for good players with a good eye, the goal of getting the most optimal shot results for their swing characteristics is so much easier to achieve when they pick a head with the right static specs that is then set down to rest flat on its sole at address so the specs at address are as close as possible to the static measured specs.

Do that and then it becomes a little easier to know for sure what changes in the static specs will result in better launch results.

TOM

[gatewaygolfer]

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1365607221' post='6800615']
[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.
[/quote]


Actually, no, I do agree. My statement concerning the ruler should have told you that. The argument that Tom's article is flawed because its not how golfers "use the club" is ridiculous. Manufacturer tolerances on entire heads varies 1-4 degrees...how do you think it is with thousands of adapters with multiple settings?

[I_HATE_SNOW]

Use the adapter to set the shaft in the proper spine location. All else is pointless?

[rybo]

Attached is a pic of two R1's one is set to 8* of loft and 3* closed face angle which = square face angle, and the other is set to 12* of loft and 3* open face angle which = square face angle.

Clearly these two clubs are very different.

[mxtitleistgolfer]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1365608113' post='6800781']
[quote name='greens hit' timestamp='1365555353' post='6796965']
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.
[/quote]


YES YES YES - you get it !!!!

Static Specs + The Effect of the Golfer's Swing Characteristics = Shot Results

When the shot results are not yet optimal for a golfer, we have to go back and get a head with different static specs so when the golfer makes his swing with all its errors, the final shot results are better. Thus the golfer needs to set the head down to rest on its sole at address so that the specs at address are as close as possible to the measured static specs. Do that and this whole "formula" stated above then works to help find the club specs that will result in the best shot results for each golfer's different swing characteristics.

For really good players who have a really good eye for the look of the loft and look of the face angle, fine, if they find that they can achieve their best shot results from holding the clubface in a specific position, as long as the shot results are good, then everything works ok. Might take a little trial and error to do that but if the golfer has a really good eye for the loft look and face angle look of the head, that can be done.

But for the masses and even for good players with a good eye, the goal of getting the most optimal shot results for their swing characteristics is so much easier to achieve when they pick a head with the right static specs that is then set down to rest flat on its sole at address so the specs at address are as close as possible to the static measured specs.

Do that and then it becomes a little easier to know for sure what changes in the static specs will result in better launch results.

TOM
[/quote]

All this measuring and defining is fine, but we need to remember that static specs really are a small factor when it comes to making a golf shot. Your equation should read more like this:

0.05(Static Specs) + 0.95(The Effect of the Golfer's Swing Characteristics) = Shot Results

When you look at the real world use of these clubs, both are not given equal weight. How do you think Tiger can hit his low stinger with a 2 iron, but then when he needs to he can hit a towering shot that lands soft? The static specs of his 2 iron didn't change, but his swing characteristics did greatly.

I think most of the confusion here is based in the underlying assumptions made before measuring, in other words reference points. While this study is based on using the same sole position for each measurement, the real world golfer is more likely to hold the shaft in the same orientation despite an adjustment to the head/adapter which will in fact change the static measurements (when referenced to the shaft) and this will all lead to a changed effective spec measurement at impact. When it all comes down to it do we care what the static specs are at address? No, we care about what is happening at that crucial moment when the clubhead impacts the golf ball. And this is where the modern adjustable driver has helped many people shave strokes and save money. Instead of going through 10 different heads to find the one that works best, they can buy one driver and tweak it at home or with the help of a fitter and be done with it.

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

So are you saying Tom's findings are NOT representative of those drivers?

I am quite willing to accept that on average the R1, 910d2 and Anser work and spec out on an Auditor as Tom's report states. If not exactly then close enough to.

Tolerances have nothing to do with it.

Somebody somewhere is swinging an Anser driver at this moment. But not with 14.4 degrees if loft and not with the face 6 degrees open or whatever. Tom says that is beside the point, the loft and face angle in one clamped position is the only thing that matters. The fact that any half competent golfer in the world will turn that driver down until it's somewhat closer to square is...

Is what exactly? If you want to call squaring the face rather than letting a driver flop open by several degrees of my "swing characteristics" that fine. But the important issue is this. BY TURNING THE RING ON THE HOSEL THE GOLFER ACHIEVES AB EFFECT ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE HAVING A CLUB WITH A DIFFERENT LOFT.

If I set a Covert to 8.5 and hit shots that Trackman say are similar to an 8.5 Wishon glued driver, then turn the ring to 12.5 and get Trackman numbers (higher launch angle and more spin) akin to a 12.5 Wishon glued driver then the hosel setting is working as intended. The fact that Tom's method says the loft has not changed is a trivia item. The effect was meaningful.

[BirdieBob]

[quote name='BigLeftyinAZ' timestamp='1365607555' post='6800687']
[quote name='BirdieBob' timestamp='1365606737' post='6800559']
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
[/quote]


I've played with this driver and I don't see the 8* open. This driver doesnt look very open to me. Then again maybe my eyes dont know a thing
[/quote]


You will probably find that you are NOT soling the driver head as was done in the tests. If you DO sole the head then you will find the face angle DOES change.
The R1 that has the ASP takes that into account and allows for a correction....very nice on the part of TM!

[TomWishon]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365600016' post='6799645']

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.
[/quote]

To understand how this protruding sole piece on the R1 works, do this. . . . Take two quarters and tape them on the rear half of the sole so they protrude down from the original surface of the sole. Now set the clubhead down so the quarters are touching the floor. You will now see that the head has turned a little more closed than how it sat when you did not have the coins taped to the sole.

The change in how much the R1 sole piece protrudes down when rotated causes the head to tilt differently. This is really no different than if you manually turn the club to rotate the face more open or more closed. The effect is that you are raising and lowering the leading and trailing edges to tile the angle of the sole to change the face angle - and when you do this you AUTOMATICALLY change the loft with it.

But one problem with this sole piece on the R1 is if the tee box is not mowed really short and firm like a putting green. If the tee box has longer grass, this protruding sole piece cannot contact a firm surface to do its function of causing the head to tilt into a different face angle position.

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365600016' post='6799645']
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?
[/quote]

Rybo, you do not have to test hit any of these nor any other head to know what the static specs will do to the shot results. PLEASE, this is REALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THIS. First, really think about this. . . . . . .

Shot Results = The Static Specs + The Effect of the Golfer's Swing Characteristics

We golfers all have different combinations of swing path, hand position at impact, swing speed, and angle of attack. It is those swing elements in each of us that determines what the shot result will be for what the static specs of the head are. So when you are fitting a golfer and you see less than optimal launch parameters and shot results, you know that the golfer's swing is interacting with the static specs of the head (and other specs too not related to the head) to result in the less than optimal shot results. So to get the shot results to be better, you go and select a head with different specs that when combined with the golfer's swing characteristics, result in different shot results.

So when the static specs are known, it is then possible to know what the shot results will be based on what the golfer's path, hands, swing speed and angle of attack.

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365600016' post='6799645']
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.
[/quote]

If you look at the data chart for the 913D2 measurements, you will see that we converted the Titleist chart into actual loft and lie specs. Their chart just tells you how much of a change in lie and loft the settings are supposed to give you. The chart does not say the loft is actually 10, or 11 or whatever. So we checked the 913D2 specs listed on Titleist's website, then applied the amount of + or - change shown in their chart to then list what the static loft and lie are supposed to be for each hosel setting.

Now as to you not getting the same measurements that I did, I am sorry but all I can tell you is that you are not positioning the head for loft, lie and face angle measurement in the same way that every foundry and every clubhead designer does. Don't feel bad. Because this industry has only operated with these manual specs measurement machines, the only way someone becomes proficient in always being able to position a head for accurate specs measurement is to be taught in person by someone who is a veteran in doing this.

Rybo I assure you that the method of driver head positioning that I tried to show in photos for each head are correct and are based on how all veteran experts in our field do it and have done it for many decades.

Hope this helps,
TOM

[TomWishon]

[quote name='BigLeftyinAZ' timestamp='1365604177' post='6800189']
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?
[/quote]

Please read my post #61 in this thread.

[gatewaygolfer]

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1365609047' post='6800967']
So are you saying Tom's findings are NOT representative of those drivers?

I am quite willing to accept that on average the R1, 910d2 and Anser work and spec out on an Auditor as Tom's report states. If not exactly then close enough to.

Tolerances have nothing to do with it.

Somebody somewhere is swinging an Anser driver at this moment. But not with 14.4 degrees if loft and not with the face 6 degrees open or whatever. Tom says that is beside the point, the loft and face angle in one clamped position is the only thing that matters. The fact that any half competent golfer in the world will turn that driver down until it's somewhat closer to square is...

Is what exactly? If you want to call squaring the face rather than letting a driver flop open by several degrees of my "swing characteristics" that fine. But the important issue is this. BY TURNING THE RING ON THE HOSEL THE GOLFER ACHIEVES AB EFFECT ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE HAVING A CLUB WITH A DIFFERENT LOFT.

If I set a Covert to 8.5 and hit shots that Trackman say are similar to an 8.5 Wishon glued driver, then turn the ring to 12.5 and get Trackman numbers (higher launch angle and more spin) akin to a 12.5 Wishon glued driver then the hosel setting is working as intended. The fact that Tom's method says the loft has not changed is a trivia item. The effect was meaningful.
[/quote]

A club closed down 4-6 degrees at address will not act the same as one manufactured to those specs to begin with. The weighting will be significantly different. Go ahead and try it. A competent golfer would never continue to play anything he has to close down 4-6 degrees.

Of course I trust Tom's findings. Where did I ever say I didn't? In fact, I reinforced it. I didn't equate a measurement to n=1 or even bring a golfers swing into the equation.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='mxtitleistgolfer' timestamp='1365608986' post='6800957']

All this measuring and defining is fine, but we need to remember that static specs really are a small factor when it comes to making a golf shot. Your equation should read more like this:

0.05(Static Specs) + 0.95(The Effect of the Golfer's Swing Characteristics) = Shot Results

[/quote]

How do you think an expert fitter knows what to do with his fitting procedure when he sees less than optimal shot results for a golfer?

Let's take one example only, a common one. Let's say the fitter has a golfer who slices the ball 30 yrds on avg. The fitter then measures the face angle spec of the golfer's driver and finds that it is 0 square. What does the fitter do to help the golfer reduce that slice? He has to go find a head with a more closed face angle so that when the golfer takes his avg swing, the face now comes to impact less open than it did before with the 0 square face head.

How does the fitter get a more closed face driver to help this guy reduce his slice? He has to get a head with the static face angle measurement more closed than what the golfer has now.

It's purely CAUSE and EFFECT - just like I stated in the report and like I have stated on several answering posts I have just made today.

No question, the swing controls the shot results because of all the mistakes we golfers can make in our path, hands position, angle of attack, etc. But we cannot deliver better shot results for any golfer's swing characteristics unless we know what the static specs are to begin with.

So the cause and effect "formula" is correct - Shot Results = Static Specs + The Effect of the Golfer's Swing


TOM

[gatewaygolfer]

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1365609047' post='6800967']
If I set a Covert to 8.5 and hit shots that Trackman say are similar to an 8.5 Wishon glued driver, then turn the ring to 12.5 and get Trackman numbers (higher launch angle and more spin) akin to a 12.5 Wishon glued driver then the hosel setting is working as intended. The fact that Tom's method says the loft has not changed is a trivia item. The effect was meaningful.
[/quote]

Actually no, they won't act the same. The Covert will hook more since its closed to achieve the effective loft. I know, I have one and have tried on several occasions.


But thats just me..n=1.

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1365610067' post='6801229']Rybo, you do not have to test hit any of these nor any other head to know what the static specs will do to the shot results. PLEASE, this is REALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THIS. First, really think about this. . . . . . .
Shot Results = The Static Specs + The Effect of the Golfer's Swing Characteristics
We golfers all have different combinations of swing path, hand position at impact, swing speed, and angle of attack. It is those swing elements in each of us that determines what the shot result will be for what the static specs of the head are. So when you are fitting a golfer and you see less than optimal launch parameters and shot results, you know that the golfer's swing is interacting with the static specs of the head (and other specs too not related to the head) to result in the less than optimal shot results. So to get the shot results to be better, you go and select a head with different specs that when combined with the golfer's swing characteristics, result in different shot results.
So when the static specs are known, it is then possible to know what the shot results will be based on what the golfer's path, hands, swing speed and angle of attack.
[/quote]

But what about the following scenario. A golfer gets less than optimal launch parameters. He reaches down and turns the hosel ring from one setting to another. Through some mystical interaction between the static effect of that hosel-ring adjustment and the golfer's "swing characterstics" the launch conditions improve.
This little scenario gets played out every day by many golfers. Surely you can see that [b]from the golfer's perspective[/b] if the launch parameters get to where they need to be it doesn't really matter if it's from swapping in a different driver or turning a hosel ring.

Now a proficient clubfitter with twenty driver heads, twelve different shafts and the time to spend mapping out a launch parameter space for this particular golfer is the gold standard. Given enough time, money (i.e. demo clubs) and clubfitter expertise this process will eventually lead to a global optimum fit within that golfer's personal launch parameter space. No question.

But if for [b]some[/b] golfers with [b]some[/b] particular types of non-optimum launch conditions they can get [b]close enough[/b] to optimum just by trying one or two drivers and tweaking the hosel rings on them, that can be a perfectly croumulent way of improving over trying one or two drivers with fixed static characteristics.

The OEM's have stumbled on a couple different paradigms of monkeying around with static characteristics (other than "loft" as defined by an Auditor machine, horizontal blah, blah, blah) that seem to induce favorable launch parameter changes for a large number of golfers. Yes they are flat-out misusing the term "loft adjustment" according to its longstanding technical meaning. s*** happens. That term in the current golf vernacular now has a colloquial meaning of "The setting that makes you hit the ball higher or lower".

[mxtitleistgolfer]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1365610779' post='6801387']
[quote name='mxtitleistgolfer' timestamp='1365608986' post='6800957']

All this measuring and defining is fine, but we need to remember that static specs really are a small factor when it comes to making a golf shot. Your equation should read more like this:

0.05(Static Specs) + 0.95(The Effect of the Golfer's Swing Characteristics) = Shot Results

[/quote]

How do you think an expert fitter knows what to do with his fitting procedure when he sees less than optimal shot results for a golfer?

Let's take one example only, a common one. Let's say the fitter has a golfer who slices the ball 30 yrds on avg. The fitter then measures the face angle spec of the golfer's driver and finds that it is 0 square. What does the fitter do to help the golfer reduce that slice? He has to go find a head with a more closed face angle so that when the golfer takes his avg swing, the face now comes to impact less open than it did before with the 0 square face head.

How does the fitter get a more closed face driver to help this guy reduce his slice? He has to get a head with the static face angle measurement more closed than what the golfer has now.

It's purely CAUSE and EFFECT - just like I stated in the report and like I have stated on several answering posts I have just made today.

No question, the swing controls the shot results because of all the mistakes we golfers can make in our path, hands position, angle of attack, etc. But we cannot deliver better shot results for any golfer's swing characteristics unless we know what the static specs are to begin with.

So the cause and effect "formula" is correct - Shot Results = Static Specs + The Effect of the Golfer's Swing


TOM
[/quote]

Your "common" example is exactly why these new drivers have been so popular. The average golfer has access to such adjustments without having to go through multiple glued heads. With a few turns of the wrench the golfer can tweak his driver in such a way that improves his launch conditions all while using a single head. While the specs of the head without reference to the shaft haven't changed, they don't need to. The specs WITH reference to the head did change is this is why the technology works well. Even if the driver plays 11 degrees on the 10.5 setting, the point is that the golfer sees an improvement in his launch conditions and overall ball flight.

[rybo]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1365610067' post='6801229']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365600016' post='6799645']
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.
[/quote]

To understand how this protruding sole piece on the R1 works, do this. . . . Take two quarters and tape them on the rear half of the sole so they protrude down from the original surface of the sole. Now set the clubhead down so the quarters are touching the floor. You will now see that the head has turned a little more closed than how it sat when you did not have the coins taped to the sole.

The change in how much the R1 sole piece protrudes down when rotated causes the head to tilt differently. This is really no different than if you manually turn the club to rotate the face more open or more closed. The effect is that you are raising and lowering the leading and trailing edges to tile the angle of the sole to change the face angle - and when you do this you AUTOMATICALLY change the loft with it.

But one problem with this sole piece on the R1 is if the tee box is not mowed really short and firm like a putting green. If the tee box has longer grass, this protruding sole piece cannot contact a firm surface to do its function of causing the head to tilt into a different face angle position.

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365600016' post='6799645']
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?
[/quote]

Rybo, you do not have to test hit any of these nor any other head to know what the static specs will do to the shot results. PLEASE, this is REALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THIS. First, really think about this. . . . . . .

Shot Results = The Static Specs + The Effect of the Golfer's Swing Characteristics

We golfers all have different combinations of swing path, hand position at impact, swing speed, and angle of attack. It is those swing elements in each of us that determines what the shot result will be for what the static specs of the head are. So when you are fitting a golfer and you see less than optimal launch parameters and shot results, you know that the golfer's swing is interacting with the static specs of the head (and other specs too not related to the head) to result in the less than optimal shot results. So to get the shot results to be better, you go and select a head with different specs that when combined with the golfer's swing characteristics, result in different shot results.

So when the static specs are known, it is then possible to know what the shot results will be based on what the golfer's path, hands, swing speed and angle of attack.

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365600016' post='6799645']
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.
[/quote]

If you look at the data chart for the 913D2 measurements, you will see that we converted the Titleist chart into actual loft and lie specs. Their chart just tells you how much of a change in lie and loft the settings are supposed to give you. The chart does not say the loft is actually 10, or 11 or whatever. So we checked the 913D2 specs listed on Titleist's website, then applied the amount of + or - change shown in their chart to then list what the static loft and lie are supposed to be for each hosel setting.

Now as to you not getting the same measurements that I did, I am sorry but all I can tell you is that you are not positioning the head for loft, lie and face angle measurement in the same way that every foundry and every clubhead designer does. Don't feel bad. Because this industry has only operated with these manual specs measurement machines, the only way someone becomes proficient in always being able to position a head for accurate specs measurement is to be taught in person by someone who is a veteran in doing this.

Rybo I assure you that the method of driver head positioning that I tried to show in photos for each head are correct and are based on how all veteran experts in our field do it and have done it for many decades.

Hope this helps,
TOM
[/quote]

Tom,

In the first question I clearly reference the machined ramp on the hosel, not the button on the bottom of the club. Your findings in the article do not correspond to what the club visually looks like. And no I do not believe this is a smoke and mirrors trick. The R1 has limitations, specifically if you want *8 of loft and a closed face angle, you can't get that with the R1. Conversly if you want 12* of loft and an open face angle, nope can't have that either. Both of these scenarios are outside of the design capabilities of the head.

As a former professional player and current plus handicap I fully understand how swing characteristics effect shot performance. I am in no way being naive to this! However it's much easier and quicker to get the desired change with a few quick adjustments then measuring countless heads to get something close to what is needed. I've been on Trackman numerous times and somehow when the club is set to lower loft settings, the ball flies lower, higher loft settings and the ball flies higher. And I am not the only one who has this happen. Honestly I've never seen anybody get the same result from different settings. The settings work.

Titleist has many charts some they use on their website, some like the one I posted that is from the fitting carts the PGA pros use for fitting. Regardless, never seen a Titleist head that I could not get to look closed. Actually, it's quite hard to get on to look open.


Something is wrong but in all honesty I do not know what it is. Maybe the problem lies in the fact when a driver is used it's not in a static position when striking a ball. So do static measurements really mean anything? Not sure. It's pretty easy today to make small adjustments to how the head is orientated on the end of the shaft that could have large effects when in the dynamic movement of striking a golf ball.

Maybe the problem lies in the premise of this is how it has been done for decades statement. Maybe the clubs have changed quite drastically which in turn has changed the meaning of the measurements. Regardless something is not quite right, clubs today work better then those of just a couple of years ago. They produce visible, your eyes, and measurable, Trackman, differences when the different settings are used.


Even the chart shows the R1 loft changing from 9 - 13*. The face angle settings measurements I can not duplicate at all but so be it. No way can I get the R1 to have an open face angle on the 12* loft setting. Square to ridiculously closed, yes. Open, not a chance.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365612303' post='6801717']

Something is wrong but in all honesty I do not know what it is. Maybe the problem lies in the fact when a driver is used it's not in a static position when striking a ball. So do static measurements really mean anything?

Even the chart shows the R1 loft changing from 9 - 13*. The face angle settings measurements I can not duplicate at all but so be it. No way can I get the R1 to have an open face angle on the 12* loft setting. Square to ridiculously closed, yes. Open, not a chance.
[/quote]

Rybo

There is one and only resolution to yours and my disagreement on this and unfortunately that's not likely to happen. You would have to be right here in my shop with me as I do these spec measurements and then put the clubs down on the ground after each one to let the head sole as it does when you lay it down on a flat surface to sole in its natural position. I absolutely positively guarantee you that you would see this.

The R1 actually was quite easy to get into its proper specs position for measurement in the gauge. All you have to do is first set the head in gauge with the scorelines parallel to the base of the machine, then press down on the head so it touches on the only two sole points it can touch on - the rear protruding rotational sole piece and the front under surface of the sole. Then you re check the lie position because sometimes when a head sits well open or closed you do have to readjust the lie position. But from the standpoint of touch position on the sole for proper loft and face angle the R1 cannot move into any other position than what I just described.

The other heads, like so many driver heads today require you to really study how the head wants to sit with a shaft in the hosel while being held at its proper lie angle position. You have to study where that main point of sole contact is that allows it to sit under its own weight with the shaft in it. This gets slightly tricky because these heads like mine and most all others have a little bit of face to back radius on the sole. But here again, someone with years and years of head design and head specs measurement experience can do this. Someone who has not been taught this is going to get confused and won't be consistent in how they fixture the heads.

As to your comment query about whether static specs mean anything. . . . .

For every single driver head ever made, why do companies put the loft number on the head and then offer a chart in their catalog and website which lists the other specs? If we erased every spec reference from a head and never published spec charts on heads, how would golfers even begin to try to choose what model is best for them and their swing?

We HAVE to have static specs to go on. And I can assure you that every single head spec ever listed in a company's spec charts ARE THE STATIC SPECS and they are measured precisely and repeatedly as I measured these and measure every other clubhead I work on or analyze. The same exact way that every clubhead factory on the planet has and does measure specs on the heads they produce.

I really do wish you could stop in my shop so I could show you all of this stuff. Because that is the only possible way you could be convinced that what I wrote in this report is absolutely true.

Golfers who have one of these adjustable hosel drivers and hit them well must be either, 1) consciously or subconsciously addressing the shot with the head positioned in a different way than the static specs are measured and in a way that looks right to their eye but is not soled completely; 2) using settings which have static specs which are not way off from what they need to match with their swings. In the charts of the measurements there are some of the settings which do result in more "normal" static specs.

TOM

[rybo]

Tom,

Someday I hope to stop in your shop. I am in Colorado quite often but usually more in the Denver/I70 corridor. May have to set aside a day and drive down to you.

Let me be clear I am not doubting what the green machine is giving you. The issue seems to be one of perceived visual differences to the golfer. One can easily make the head looked closed or open but somehow this seems to only translate to open measurements and in some cases quite excessive open measurements on the green machine. Why? Something is not correlating. Each setting has its own measurements. Each setting has to have its own set up in the green machine. The head is moving in relation the shaft.

In the case of the R1 with 12* on the hosel, the best face angle you should get via the button is square face angle. Every other setting is closed. And per TM the most closed it should be is 8*. Something nobody would use. On the other side of the loft scenarios, 8* of loft on the hosel the face angle goes from square to open 8*. [u]This is what the head does when you set the club down and look at it in the different settings.[/u] Somehow this is not what is being measured. Not even close.

I was on staff with a major OEM for 5 years. I have a garage full of tour issue clubs. I am not your ordinary high capper nonchalant golfer. I believe I have a pretty good grasp of how clubs work, but I am always learning more. If I am able to change settings and get visible and measurable differences in ball flight then the club is doing what the design was intended to do. And no I do not think I am manipulating the face. Definitely no conscious effort to do so. Have I been using specs that are so off from what I need? Doubtful since I've been fit by some of the best in the industry. Can I render the R1 to very bad performance by changing to some extreme settings?... absolutely! Have I found a sweet spot that I get the best performance out of the R1? ... YES! Quite frankly the R1 has been the best single club I have used in maybe the past 10 years. Biggest distance and accuracy gains since maybe the Ping G2!

[BirdieBob]

"The R1 has limitations, specifically if you want *8 of loft and a closed face angle, you can't get that with the R1. Conversly [b]if you want 12* of loft and an open face angle, nope can't have that either[/b]. Both of these scenarios are outside of the design capabilities of the head."



I will agree on the 8* and a closed face angle, but on the 12* and open face angle it appears from the chart that is incorrect.
According to the chart on the R1, at 12* setting (and actual loft of 12.75*) with the ASP at 3 Open, the face angle is actually measured to be 3.25* Open.

Hosel Set - [b]12*[/b]
ASP Set - 3 Open
Measured Face Angle - [b]3[b].[/b]25* open[/b]
Measured Loft - 12.75*


We can also say that at 8* or 12* it is impossible to get a closed face with the Nike Covert as well! So, the R1 is not by itself in that regard. All settings show the face angle to be "Open".

[greens hit]

[quote name='mxtitleistgolfer' timestamp='1365611994' post='6801645']
[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1365610779' post='6801387']
[quote name='mxtitleistgolfer' timestamp='1365608986' post='6800957']
All this measuring and defining is fine, but we need to remember that static specs really are a small factor when it comes to making a golf shot. Your equation should read more like this:

0.05(Static Specs) + 0.95(The Effect of the Golfer's Swing Characteristics) = Shot Results

[/quote]

How do you think an expert fitter knows what to do with his fitting procedure when he sees less than optimal shot results for a golfer?

Let's take one example only, a common one. Let's say the fitter has a golfer who slices the ball 30 yrds on avg. The fitter then measures the face angle spec of the golfer's driver and finds that it is 0 square. What does the fitter do to help the golfer reduce that slice? He has to go find a head with a more closed face angle so that when the golfer takes his avg swing, the face now comes to impact less open than it did before with the 0 square face head.

How does the fitter get a more closed face driver to help this guy reduce his slice? He has to get a head with the static face angle measurement more closed than what the golfer has now.

It's purely CAUSE and EFFECT - just like I stated in the report and like I have stated on several answering posts I have just made today.

No question, the swing controls the shot results because of all the mistakes we golfers can make in our path, hands position, angle of attack, etc. But we cannot deliver better shot results for any golfer's swing characteristics unless we know what the static specs are to begin with.

So the cause and effect "formula" is correct - Shot Results = Static Specs + The Effect of the Golfer's Swing


TOM
[/quote]

Your "common" example is exactly why these new drivers have been so popular. The average golfer has access to such adjustments without having to go through multiple glued heads. With a few turns of the wrench the golfer can tweak his driver in such a way that improves his launch conditions all while using a single head. While the specs of the head without reference to the shaft haven't changed, they don't need to. The specs WITH reference to the head did change is this is why the technology works well. Even if the driver plays 11 degrees on the 10.5 setting, the point is that the golfer sees an improvement in his launch conditions and overall ball flight.
[/quote]

I don't think he's disagreeing with you. All he's saying is that the loft cannot be changed through a hosel manipulation alone. He never claimed that it won't affect the ball flight. Hosels open and close the face angle with not much effect on the static loft. The effective (dynamic) loft is up to the individual golfer and his/her tendencies.

[rybo]

[quote name='BirdieBob' timestamp='1365633541' post='6805293']
"The R1 has limitations, specifically if you want *8 of loft and a closed face angle, you can't get that with the R1. Conversly [b]if you want 12* of loft and an open face angle, nope can't have that either[/b]. Both of these scenarios are outside of the design capabilities of the head."



I will agree on the 8* and a closed face angle, but on the 12* and open face angle it appears from the chart that is incorrect.
According to the chart on the R1, at 12* setting (and actual loft of 12.75*) with the ASP at 3 Open, the face angle is actually measured to be 3.25* Open.

Hosel Set - [b]12*[/b]
ASP Set - 3 Open
Measured Face Angle - [b]3[b].[/b]25* open[/b]
Measured Loft - 12.75*


We can also say that at 8* or 12* it is impossible to get a closed face with the Nike Covert as well! So, the R1 is not by itself in that regard. All settings show the face angle to be "Open".
[/quote]

BB,

I am going by TM's design intent and how the club actually looks in the different settings not the numbers from Tom's chart.

Go to this link and at the bottom of the page set the loft to 12* and then change the ASP setting and see what the design intent is. (0* - 8* closed)

http://taylormadegolf.com/drivers/R1,en_US,pg.html

I own two R1's and neither of them can get to anything that even looks remotely like an open face angle in the 12* loft setting. This visual perception is identical to what TM says it should do.

[sandiegonative]

I've read the attached Tom Wishon .pdf and all three pages of comments. The one issue/problem/concern I have with Tom's argument is that everything is based on the premise that the driver clubhead is meant to be soled at address. Outside of Taylormade (they are the only company with a face angle sole plate), I do not agree this is the design for other manufacturers.

I do agree most golfers (me included) do sole the club when they are addressing the ball. However, this "soled position" (sole of the clubhead is parallel to the ground) may be different then the position when the ball is contacted by the clubhead.

My one question for Tom is:
1) Instead of measuring loft, lie, or face angle based on the "soled" clubhead, can they be measured based on the impact position being static (i.e. grip, shaft angle, distance between ball and golfer, everything but the clubhead itself)? Essentially you are adjusting the "weighted" end on a pendulum.

Hope that makes some sense.

Additional Comment: The loft and lie of irons. Are they measured with the hands at address (similar to the driver specs measured while the clubhead is soled) or are they measured with the hands at impact (which is what I'm trying to explain above).

Thanks

[BirdieBob]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365640085' post='6806069']
[quote name='BirdieBob' timestamp='1365633541' post='6805293']
"The R1 has limitations, specifically if you want *8 of loft and a closed face angle, you can't get that with the R1. Conversly [b]if you want 12* of loft and an open face angle, nope can't have that either[/b]. Both of these scenarios are outside of the design capabilities of the head."



I will agree on the 8* and a closed face angle, but on the 12* and open face angle it appears from the chart that is incorrect.
According to the chart on the R1, at 12* setting (and actual loft of 12.75*) with the ASP at 3 Open, the face angle is actually measured to be 3.25* Open.

Hosel Set - [b]12*[/b]
ASP Set - 3 Open
Measured Face Angle - [b]3[b].[/b]25* open[/b]
Measured Loft - 12.75*


We can also say that at 8* or 12* it is impossible to get a closed face with the Nike Covert as well! So, the R1 is not by itself in that regard. All settings show the face angle to be "Open".
[/quote]

BB,

I am going by TM's design intent and how the club actually looks in the different settings not the numbers from Tom's chart.

Go to this link and at the bottom of the page set the loft to 12* and then change the ASP setting and see what the design intent is. (0* - 8* closed)

http://taylormadegolf.com/drivers/R1,en_US,pg.html

I own two R1's and neither of them can get to anything that even looks remotely like an open face angle in the 12* loft setting. This visual perception is identical to what TM says it should do.
[/quote]


Here is a chart that shows what you are saying according to TM... 8* and no more closed than neutral; 12* and no more open than neutral. Tom's measurements are just real world measures.

I also have two R1's with three shafts and agree with you. If you really want it open/closed then twist the shaft (which no longer allows for true soling) and bingo!


[attachment=1628037:R1 loft face.png]

[rybo]

BB,
Great chart that makes it very easy to see the intended face angle progressions for each loft. Now this begs the question how can there be absolutely no similarities to Tom's measurements yet visually the club looks like what the above chart states?

[Ri_Redneck]

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1365609047' post='6800967']
So are you saying Tom's findings are NOT representative of those drivers?

I am quite willing to accept that on average the R1, 910d2 and Anser work and spec out on an Auditor as Tom's report states. If not exactly then close enough to.

Tolerances have nothing to do with it.

Somebody somewhere is swinging an Anser driver at this moment. But not with 14.4 degrees if loft and not with the face 6 degrees open or whatever. Tom says that is beside the point, the loft and face angle in one clamped position is the only thing that matters. The fact that any half competent golfer in the world will turn that driver down until it's somewhat closer to square is...

Is what exactly? If you want to call squaring the face rather than letting a driver flop open by several degrees of my "swing characteristics" that fine. But the important issue is this. BY TURNING THE RING ON THE HOSEL THE GOLFER ACHIEVES AB EFFECT ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE HAVING A CLUB WITH A DIFFERENT LOFT.

If I set a Covert to 8.5 and hit shots that Trackman say are similar to an 8.5 Wishon glued driver, then turn the ring to 12.5 and get Trackman numbers (higher launch angle and more spin) akin to a 12.5 Wishon glued driver then the hosel setting is working as intended. The fact that Tom's method says the loft has not changed is a trivia item. The effect was meaningful.
[/quote]

You, sir, have hit the nail on the head!!

BT

[Ri_Redneck]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1365630055' post='6804751']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365612303' post='6801717']
Something is wrong but in all honesty I do not know what it is. Maybe the problem lies in the fact when a driver is used it's not in a static position when striking a ball. So do static measurements really mean anything?

Even the chart shows the R1 loft changing from 9 - 13*. The face angle settings measurements I can not duplicate at all but so be it. No way can I get the R1 to have an open face angle on the 12* loft setting. Square to ridiculously closed, yes. Open, not a chance.
[/quote]

Rybo

There is one and only resolution to yours and my disagreement on this and unfortunately that's not likely to happen. You would have to be right here in my shop with me as I do these spec measurements and then put the clubs down on the ground after each one to let the head sole as it does when you lay it down on a flat surface to sole in its natural position. I absolutely positively guarantee you that you would see this.

The R1 actually was quite easy to get into its proper specs position for measurement in the gauge. All you have to do is first set the head in gauge with the scorelines parallel to the base of the machine, then press down on the head so it touches on the only two sole points it can touch on - the rear protruding rotational sole piece and the front under surface of the sole. Then you re check the lie position because sometimes when a head sits well open or closed you do have to readjust the lie position. But from the standpoint of touch position on the sole for proper loft and face angle the R1 cannot move into any other position than what I just described.

The other heads, like so many driver heads today require you to really study how the head wants to sit with a shaft in the hosel while being held at its proper lie angle position. You have to study where that main point of sole contact is that allows it to sit under its own weight with the shaft in it. This gets slightly tricky because these heads like mine and most all others have a little bit of face to back radius on the sole. But here again, someone with years and years of head design and head specs measurement experience can do this. Someone who has not been taught this is going to get confused and won't be consistent in how they fixture the heads.

As to your comment query about whether static specs mean anything. . . . .

For every single driver head ever made, why do companies put the loft number on the head and then offer a chart in their catalog and website which lists the other specs? If we erased every spec reference from a head and never published spec charts on heads, how would golfers even begin to try to choose what model is best for them and their swing?

We HAVE to have static specs to go on. And I can assure you that every single head spec ever listed in a company's spec charts ARE THE STATIC SPECS and they are measured precisely and repeatedly as I measured these and measure every other clubhead I work on or analyze. The same exact way that every clubhead factory on the planet has and does measure specs on the heads they produce.

I really do wish you could stop in my shop so I could show you all of this stuff. Because that is the only possible way you could be convinced that what I wrote in this report is absolutely true.

Golfers who have one of these adjustable hosel drivers and hit them well must be either, [b]1) consciously or subconsciously addressing the shot with the head positioned in a different way than the static specs are measured and in a way that looks right to their eye but is not soled completely; [/b] 2) using settings which have static specs which are not way off from what they need to match with their swings. In the charts of the measurements there are some of the settings which do result in more "normal" static specs.

TOM
[/quote]

They are doing this, I will bet any amount of money on it.

BT

[sblack5]

I've always been told that the driver is the only club in the bag that you don't sole. something to the effect that it helps you to have a better feel of the weight of the club and allows for a better beginning to the swing. kinda like some of the players of yesteryear waggling and then firing off the last waggle or shortly thereafter as opposed to soling the club and starting from a stopped position. I understand that it really throws off what loft you are hitting with, face angle, etc., but trajectory wise, due to a static loft of a head being a steadfast thing, shouldnt hitting with a 12.5* true static lofted head be a whole lot different than hitting a 7.5* true static lofted head, regardless of whether or not you sole or hover the club at address?