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

[mxtitleistgolfer]

[quote name='Ri_Redneck' timestamp='1365645785' post='6806899']
[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
[/quote]

So in your opinion, the thousands of golfers who have seen benefits from a driver with an adjustable hosel are simply fooling themselves by changing their setup to the ball based off what they think should happen? More or less they think the "higher loft" setting will give them a higher launch, therefore it does? I'm sorry, but for as many people as I've fit into drivers with these technologies and have seen the performance improvements with changing the settings, the probability that they are all subconsciously or consciously deceiving themselves would be infinitesimal.

[Stretch]

Wow, Ping's really going for it on the loft inflation. The 10.5 Anser is actually a big honking 3 wood. I know it's really low spin but ...

[Cwebb]

Thanks for the study and report Tom. Always appreciated

A lot of the confusion, I believe, comes from the term "effective loft".

Here's an example of how "effective loft" can work with "face angle" or how a head sits at address. Lets use Vijay Singh as a good example, because he's a known player who has used significantly open face angles for many years. He was having heads bent and or rebored and shimmed open, back when this was not all that easy to get done.

So if Vijay gets a club that sits significantly open for him at address to minimize shots going left for him,....what happens when he returns this open face to square, by the time it gets to impact? The "effective loft" is lowered, because he 'released' the face closed during his swing.

He didn't have to hover the head at address and/or rotate it to square and hold it there at address to get the "effective loft" lower by the time he returned to impact. He could have just 'released' the face closed during his swing, which always lowers the "effective loft".

However, because the face was open for him at address, the shot didn't go left, even though he released the face closed during his swing.....which was his main goal with the significantly open face angle in the first place.....not to go left.

So what did Vijay have to do with this scenario and his selected heads and lofts, to get the right amount of "effective loft" for him? He has to start with a head that has more loft on it than he otherwise would with a head that doesn't have an open face, so by the time he releases it closed during his swing and delofts it, he will end up with enough "effective loft" at impact.

This is why he had heads that were 7 and/or 9 wood heads, that he said really played as 5 woods for him. He used to carry an original Callaway Steelhead 9 wood, that was shimmed well open. Combine the fact that their "9 woods" had rather strong lofts to begin with as their standard spec, with Vijay using a face angle that is lets say 4-5+* open,....and there you have a club that is "effectively" playing as a 5 wood

So my point is that the players who do see a change in launch and spin, are not necessarily manipulating the face angle at address, but are definitely doing it during their swing and release into impact,... which then produces different "effective loft". Either releasing an open face angle, closed during the swing which lowers the effective loft......or 'holding off' their release into impact with a setting that is more closed or closer to square, which then increases the "effective loft"

[Splitter]

Tom,

Thanks for taking the time to put that together. The paper and this thread have been interesting so far.

A few questions and thoughts.

1. According to your testing, the d2 8.5 driver I am playing in the D4 setting probably specs out at 12.5* & 4* open. To match that driver performance, would I actually order a 12.5* driver that is 4* open from you?

2. You have repeatedly said something to the effect of "if you could only see this in my shop". If this is true, I would think a simple video demonstrating the industry standard techniques would be very helpful. Would you be willing to produce this for us?

3. Candidly, the data you present is difficult to believe. As a very average player and less than average tinkerer I'm not saying it is wrong. I don't have the credentials or knowledge to intelligently dispute it.

What I do know is that in the "real world" I have experienced or watched multiple sessions where the adjustments to hosels did make a difference in ball flight.

So, we have the data of a well respected club maker vs. real world experiences. I think this will lead most people to question the accuracy of testing or the validity of using "old" methods to test "new" technology.

I would humbly request that you expand upon the paper to include more than just raw data that leaves more questions than answers for many of us. Use cases, real world application of that data, video of testing, etc.. would be helpful.

Thanks,

-S

[Wooderson]

Tom could you explain the orientation of the shaft during these tests? Does the position of the shaft move after you have adjusted the hosels? I concede that this technology does not change the actual loft, but I am curious if the more accurate way to measure their effects is with regards to the face to shaft relationship and not the face to sole relationship? When I swing I return the shaft to a specific position. If the shafts bore is offset to the original position then there will be a change in effective loft. It is no different than a super soft shaft allowing the head to travel in front of the hands to create effective loft.

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

[quote name='sblack5' timestamp='1365652942' post='6807791']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?
[/quote]

It depends on what you're comparing. Tom's measurement technique is used by manufacturers, clubfitters, qualtiy assurance technicians and anyone else who wants to compare different clubs to each other with a standardized basis for comparison. And the answer to your question is yes. A club that measures 12.5 and wide open is a "whole lot different" than a club measuring 7.5 and square or closed. Not al all the same thing.

But the other question is how does the ball flight from a given driver, even if it's one with 12.5 degrees measured static loft and wide open face angle, compare to the ball flight from the same club adjusted to slightly different face angle, lie and/or sole plate position. Even if the static, measured loft is 12.5 degrees. Nobody is saying that a high-loft, open-faced club turned down to square is exactly the same as a traiditional club with lower loft and less open face. But two things are obvious:

1) Lots of people get good ball flight out of these drivers that Tom's measurements show to have very, very high loft and very, very open face angles.

2) Lots of people show trajectory changes from adjustments which Tom's measurements show are only affecting face angle, lie and/or sole plate position.

Like many things involving human beings, there turn out to be more than one way to provide the same function or utility. Tom is describing the traditional way of building drivers, whether they are wood or stainless or titanium. You design it from that soled-on-the-ground position up to have a certain combination of all the geometric properties. The way a club measures in an Auditor machine and the way players set up to the ball and the performance that a clubfitter knows to expect when he sees "10.5" written on the sole...all of these things are locked together in a very specific and consistent way.

But that one way of shaping and building a driver clubhead is not the only possible way. The modern adjustable driver approach uses what seems to the traditional point of a view to be an awkward, overly complicated, non-intuitive combination of geometric characteristics to get to what in the end seems to be the same performance goal. From the player's point of view, nothing in Tom's article addresses just why this is a problem. The article is thoroughly from the designer's and clubfitter's point of view. Really his complaint (to the extent we take this article as a complaint and not just a statement of some technical findings) is this

[b]Even though players might get perfectly good results from these so-called adjustable loft drivers, the way they are designed completely throws longstanding ways of measuring clubs and interpreting driver head specifications out the window. The lofts written on the club or printed in the adjustment instructions do not translate easily into the clubfitter's expectations of what "10.5 degree" or "2 degrees open" traditionally meant. And the clubfitters can't just measure the "true" loft using the time-honored approach because the numbers when clamped in an auditor are nonsensical and unrelated to actual performance in the golfers hands.[/b]

So to answer [i]sblack5's[/i] question, the problem is a "true loft" of 12.5 measured on a Taylor Made R1 does not translate into ball flight results anything like a "true loft" of 12.5 would have done on some earlier generation, glued-in driver. Nor does it necessarily translate to 7.5 or some other number on a traditional driver. For that matter it may not even translate to a "true loft" of 12.5 on a Ping Anser or some other modern driver. The clubfitter has to develop and entirely new and somewhat specific set of expectations concerning each general type of adjustable-hosel driver.

[Nessism]

I have a Wishon 919 driver and it sits on the ground in an extremely stable position. This design characteristic bears out in Tom's study here, namely, he focus on this.

Obviously, the OEM's are manipulating shaft angle with the expectation that the user will square up the head when placed behind the ball. Seems all well and good, as long as the player doesn't have to abnormally hover the club above the ground or what have you to achieve the desired position. It would be interesting to know which heads sit the most stability on the ground behind the ball after being adjusted though their range. This whole "effective" positioning comes into play, but that shouldn't matter as long as the club sits behind the ball in a stable position.

[jegg]

I know it will probably never happen but I would really like the OEM's to weigh in here... Just to get the point of view from the companies who use and develop these adjustable technologies. I'm not going to question the numbers in the report or get too technical but I will say with all the fittings I do that the adjustable technologies do work in changing ball flight. It happens with and helps too many people to just dismiss it.

On a separate note I (+hc and former competitive player) have 3 drivers which I currently use and all lofts are very similar... I hand picked the heads and measured them all the same way on 2 different machines (not on a green machine). They each have hundreds/thousands of shots in LM testing and course play. All 3 have very different flight characteristics. 2 of the drivers are glued and have much different lie angles and one adjustable driver that fits right in the middle lie angle wise but due to the club head design launches much higher. I can also say without doubt that there is a much different ball flight dispersion (for me) with the adjustable driver when I change the settings (especially the lie angle).

Obviously it would be fantastic to be a tour player and have hand picked, bent to my perfect spec bonded heads. However that is not really an option that will be available through any golf company due to many issues. Like I said... Would love to see the OEM's jump in here.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='Wooderson' timestamp='1365675818' post='6808421']
Tom could you explain the orientation of the shaft during these tests? Does the position of the shaft move after you have adjusted the hosels? I concede that this technology does not change the actual loft, but I am curious if the more accurate way to measure their effects is with regards to the face to shaft relationship and not the face to sole relationship? When I swing I return the shaft to a specific position. If the shafts bore is offset to the original position then there will be a change in effective loft. It is no different than a super soft shaft allowing the head to travel in front of the hands to create effective loft.
[/quote]

When measuring the static specs of a head in the Green Machine, the shaft is locked secure in a vertical position and can only move in the lie angle plane. So once the head's correct lie angle position is established in the machine, that shaft in the hosel will not move at all.

Of course this is different than we golfers. When we address the ball, we easily can change the face angle and loft by moving the hand position or ball position or turning the grip in our hands. So there always will be some deviation among golfers from what the static machine measured specs are vs the specs as the head sits in the manner the golfer ordains it when getting ready to hit a shot.

For the static specs to always have a direct relationship to the shot results, that requires the golfer to be at least reasonably consistent in how he sets up with the club to the ball. And while from one golfer to the next you do see differences in hand position, ball position, point of the sole that touches the ground, most golfers do repeat their own set up positions within a reasonable range.

TOM

[TomWishon]

I'd like to clarify some things regarding my technical report on the adjustable drivers.

First, I did the work and wrote this report to be sent only to custom clubmakers. I had received a LOT of requests from clubmakers to investigate the adj hosel drivers because clubmakers told me they were seeing odd things when either they measured specs or when they soled these drivers for certain hosel positions. Some were telling me that they had golfers walking in their shops asking for help with these drivers saying they were hitting dead right shots or very high shots.

As I said in the report, I too was curious because of the experience I had when I designed that first adjustable hosel set of woods back in 1995.

We emailed the link to the report to the clubmakers on our mailing list as well as to the two organizations of clubmakers, the ICG and AGCP.

I did not intend to post the report on WRX or any other public forum, nor send it to any golf magazine because I knew what I found in my study could be viewed as being controversial. Someone who was on our mailing list decided to post the link on WRX, and now we have what we have - some people who agree with the report and some who think I am an idiot. This was strictly an in depth technical report that was simply intended to show what the TRADITIONAL STANDARD METHOD OF HEAD SPECS MEASUREMENT REVEALED for the static specs of 4 of these drivers.

Obviously there are people who hit these drivers fine. I have addressed that in a couple of my posts on this thread. What this comes down to is how different golfers may sole, hold or position the driver behind the ball when they are ready to hit a shot. Also that there are some settings on these drivers which do result in more "normal" appearance of the face to the ball in the address position.

The point still is - using the same exact methods of head positioning used by all the clubhead factories, these heads measured as shown in the report.

The specs measurements did make me question if these companies were changing the manner in which they measure the loft and face angle of these heads. From the respect I have for these companies' engineering capability, I will honestly tell you that when I first saw some of the measurements my thoughts were. . . .

"I know these companies know what they are doing when it comes to spec measurements. They've all been measuring driver specs the same way forever. How the heck can these measurements be what they are WHEN I AM USING THE SAME EXACT POSITIONING METHODS THAT THESE COMPANIES AND ALL THE HEAD MAKING FACTORIES HAVE BEEN USING FOR DECADES?

My next thought was, "Are these companies now deciding to change the way they measure specs? Because the specs are not coming out close to what they say when the same exact head positioning methods in place for 30+ yrs in this industry are used."

At the same time, I've been around the block a few times when it comes to head design and specs measurement experience. 27 yrs, over 350 different set designs, and an experience in the past when 2 of the larger head making factories asked me to teach their people how to position and measure heads. I know what I'm doing in other words.

Then, another thought came to mind, and this one is very pertinent to this situation. [b]Before the introduction of the adj hosel drivers, every single one of these OEM companies used the same exact head specs measurement techniques that I use and that all the head making factories use.[/b]

How do I know this? First, I've been to a couple of these companies in the past and saw how they did head specs measurement. Second, all these companies have always published the static specs for all their head models and all these companies use head making factories that I guarantee you use this same method of specs measurement.

Every time I have measured driver head specs on any OEM models made with conventional hosels, the specs come out either on or close to what they say they are. (for this discussion forget the intentionally higher lofted drivers some companies make) Never once have I seen an OEM driver head with a conventional hosel result in measurements which were even close to being as far off as some of these measurements for the adjustable drivers.

So something has had to change with these companies and their adj drivers. Is it possible that these companies all decided on their own to change the way they position the heads in the specs machine for loft and face angle measurement? I mean, there are no standards for anything else in this industry so is this the start of making head specs measurement the same way with no more standards for measurement ?

I can't speak to that. What I do know is that to get the lofts and face angles to be what they are said to be for many of the hosel settings, you definitely have to position the driver in a different way than every one of these companies and all the head making factories have done for specs measurement since the invention of specs measurement machines.

If that's what these companies intend, then fine, so be it. But the point still stands - using the same exact head positioning and measurement methods that all these companies and all the head making factories have used since the early 80s, I guarantee the spec measurements in the charts are accurate.

Now if golfers want to set the clubs down behind the ball in a different way from how heads have been positioned for decades for proper specs measurement, so that the head looks about right, that's fine. Do it.

I simply did a study because I and many clubmakers were curious, and the report shows what I found using the same methods of spec measurement that have been in place for decades.

TOM

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

Thanks for the clarification. That's exactly what I had deduced, you were studying the issue from the point of view of a clubmaker/clubfitter needing to reconcile this oddball way of configuring driver heads with the long standing practices in the field. I'd say you nailed it down pretty well unless somebody comes up with an adjustment dealie very different from any of those four drivers, which seems unlikely.

[RichieHunt]

We have no real evidence that ‘thousands of golfers are benefitting from the Adjustable Hosel Drivers.’ Maybe they are, maybe they are not. All we know is that lots of people are buying them. But, that doesn’t tell us that they are benefitting from them. And if they were, I would suspect that the average score would drop immediately given the statistical influence that driving has on scores for higher handicappers.

Again, maybe they are helping…but, we have no evidence other than some people saying they [i]think[/i] it helps them. Instead, we would need some sort of independent testing done.





RH

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

And what golf equipment purchase has ever caused handicaps to plummet overnight? Causing the entire population of golfers to suddenly become better players is not a prerequisite for a viable product. If it were then the entire industry would have died decades ago.

[RichieHunt]

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1365706508' post='6812139']
And what golf equipment purchase has ever caused handicaps to plummet overnight? Causing the entire population of golfers to suddenly become better players is not a prerequisite for a viable product. If it were then the entire industry would have died decades ago.
[/quote]

Yes, I agree.

I think the most logical conclusion would be to get an independent test being done that measures a golfer's distance, accuracy and precision with adjustable versus non-adjustable drivers.

To top it off, we would need an independent examination of the Green Machine's accuracy and tolerances.

From my experience, I'm with Tom on this one. When I was at the Demo Day for the PGA Merchandise Show I was hitting 8.5* lofted drivers much, much higher than my 10* Wishon 919THI. At the time I chalked it up to the longer shafts (I play a 44-3/8" shaft), but when I saw Wishon's report I was not completely shocked by it.

It's obvious that OEM's have really tried to tap into the customization and fitting market over the years. The problem is that there's no feasible way for them to provide the best fitting possible for a customer. So they instead rely on gimmicks and try to convince the golfing public that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.






RH

[rybo]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1365705465' post='6811935']
Now if golfers want to set the clubs down behind the ball in a different way from how heads have been positioned for decades for proper specs measurement, so that the head looks about right, that's fine. Do it.
[/quote]

Really?!?! So as I sit here watching the Masters seeing all of these R1's in play, I'm supposed to believe that all of the top players in the world are tricking themselves to simply make the "head look about right"? These guys are trying to win arguably the most illustrious major of the year with smoke and mirrors and parlor tricks? Sorry, that doesn't fly.

The measurements the green machine attained do not match what the human eye can see and that is that there is simply no way the R1, 913D2 or Covert have anywhere near the open face angles the green machine says they do. If they did none of these clubs would even be playable. The performance of each would be so poor nobody would be able to play them. Surely not anyone trying to win the a major or playing for a paycheck every week.

Maybe, just maybe the OEM's took your initial design and improved upon it. Maybe these adjustable heads can not be measured properly on decades old equipment because sometimes new technologies require new measuring tools. Maybe soleing the driver is not necessary for measuring purposes. Maybe these clubs work exactly as intended.

You call out the four largest OEM's with a scathing 10 page report detailing how each of their drivers are not just out of spec but ridiculously out of spec and we are supposed to believe this was never intended for public viewing or scrutiny, just for some club builders. Honestly I don't have a horse in this race, I do not work for anyone in the golf industry or am I on staff with any OEM, but this report appears to be done with full intent.

I'm sure I will be blasted for what is written above but I really don't care. We do not have to agree. Just like I don't believe the average driver length on tour is 44 1/2" in 2013 or that a Grafalloy Blue and a Grafalloy ProLaunch Blue somehow should play even remotely alike because they have nearly identical 'measured' profiles.

Let the flogging begin!

[TomWishon]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365716485' post='6813723']

Really?!?! So as I sit here watching the Masters seeing all of these R1's in play, I'm supposed to believe that all of the top players in the world are tricking themselves to simply make the "head look about right"? These guys are trying to win arguably the most illustrious major of the year with smoke and mirrors and parlor tricks? Sorry, that doesn't fly.

[/quote]

Let me copy and paste unedited an email I got this week. . . . .


[b]From:[/b] Dan Harms
[b]Sent:[/b] Tuesday, April 09, 2013 1:00 PM
[b]To:[/b] Tom Wishon
[b]Subject:[/b] Re: ADj Drivers

The adj models used on tour have no adjustment. The collar looks similar but only for show. The public only looks at the heads. Use these comments anyway you choose. I'm betting I see more tour heads than most of your club makers so I know this is a fact.

Dan Harms
Tour Professional

[TNGolfer8]

[quote name='RichieHunt' timestamp='1365706076' post='6812047']
We have no real evidence that ‘thousands of golfers are benefitting from the Adjustable Hosel Drivers.’ Maybe they are, maybe they are not. All we know is that lots of people are buying them. But, that doesn’t tell us that they are benefitting from them. And if they were, I would suspect that the average score would drop immediately given the statistical influence that driving has on scores for higher handicappers.

Again, maybe they are helping…but, we have no evidence other than some people saying they [i]think[/i] it helps them. Instead, we would need some sort of independent testing done.





RH
[/quote]

Richie,

I think you are exactly right when you say we have no real proof that these adjustable drivers are benefitting a large number of golfers. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. I will say that I have seen some guys hit them very well, but I've also seen a couple of things that really made me wonder. Last fall, I saw a guy hitting what appeared to be an R11 on the range, and he was really struggling with it. He started out hitting these low, hard left pulls and, when I last saw him, they were going almost dead right. Later on at the putting green, I heard him talking to his golf buddy and found out that was his first time to hit his new driver, he said he tried every setting possible setting, and the best he could do was some short, straight pop ups that went about 200 yards.
Two weeks ago, I saw a guy on the # 2 Tee Box (also using what appeared to be an R11) hit three straight shots dead right into the trees. We pulled up to the tee box as they were driving away and I heard him say he "set it open because he normally hooks the ball."
The one guy that I've played with recently that had a Titleist adjustable driver really hit his well. He is also one of the better local players. When I asked him what his adjustments were, he said "all Standard."
So, what I'm guessing is that these two guys that hit their drivers so poorly are probably playing a shaft that is too long, it's not the right shaft for their swing, and they are trying to fix those one or two problems with the adjustability of their drivers. I'm just guessing, of course.
I'm not against the adjustable drivers, I've just come to the conclusion that, for me, it's just not needed. If you've been fitted and you know your specs, why would anyone need an adjustable driver?
And, as for all of the hoopla on these adjustable drivers measurements in all of the different settings, well, there's only one guy that's taken the time to measure them all. He's also been offered jobs by some of the manufacturers of these adjustable drivers. So, like you, I"m going to side with the guy that's taken the time to do the measurements and who is well known for his experience in club design and club fitting.

[TNGolfer8]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1365717393' post='6813861']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365716485' post='6813723']
Really?!?! So as I sit here watching the Masters seeing all of these R1's in play, I'm supposed to believe that all of the top players in the world are tricking themselves to simply make the "head look about right"? These guys are trying to win arguably the most illustrious major of the year with smoke and mirrors and parlor tricks? Sorry, that doesn't fly.

[/quote]

Let me copy and paste unedited an email I got this week. . . . .


[b]From:[/b] Dan Harms
[b]Sent:[/b] Tuesday, April 09, 2013 1:00 PM
[b]To:[/b] Tom Wishon
[b]Subject:[/b] Re: ADj Drivers

The adj models used on tour have no adjustment. The collar looks similar but only for show. The public only looks at the heads. Use these comments anyway you choose. I'm betting I see more tour heads than most of your club makers so I know this is a fact.

Dan Harms
Tour Professional
[/quote]
Ok, this adds some validity to something I heard sometime last fall. (from a guy that's done some clubwork for a few well known Tour pros.)

[rybo]

Go to the 3:15 mark and watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONNs7tcVHP4

[rybo]

Ok just texted a friend of mine who is on the PGA Tour this season, he's not playing at the Masters, and is sponsored by one of the 4 OEM's in the report. His driver has an adjustable tip just like we get.

Also sent texts to two friends who are on the WEB.Com tour to see if they have adjustable tips. I'll post what they have to say when they respond.

And I guess the TaylorMade Tour head I personally have that has an adjustable tip is not a true tour head or something even though it came directly from the Tour Van.

[drake47]

[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]

We have a winner, this comment basically ends the discussion. The clubs in the discussion use effective loft to raise or lower the ball flight, and that effective loft is created by changing the face angle, that is it. These clubs do go higher or lower depending on the effective loft created by the face angle, case closed.

[greens hit]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365716485' post='6813723']

Maybe, just maybe the OEM's took your initial design and improved upon it. Maybe these adjustable heads can not be measured properly on decades old equipment because sometimes new technologies require new measuring tools. Maybe soleing the driver is not necessary for measuring purposes. Maybe these clubs work exactly as intended.

[/quote]

This tells me all I know about your club making/club fitting knowledge.

[rybo]

[quote name='greens hit' timestamp='1365719059' post='6814085']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365716485' post='6813723']
Maybe, just maybe the OEM's took your initial design and improved upon it. Maybe these adjustable heads can not be measured properly on decades old equipment because sometimes new technologies require new measuring tools. Maybe soleing the driver is not necessary for measuring purposes. Maybe these clubs work exactly as intended.

[/quote]

This tells me all I know about your club making/club fitting knowledge.
[/quote]

First flog?

[greens hit]

[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365719127' post='6814101']
[quote name='greens hit' timestamp='1365719059' post='6814085']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365716485' post='6813723']
Maybe, just maybe the OEM's took your initial design and improved upon it. Maybe these adjustable heads can not be measured properly on decades old equipment because sometimes new technologies require new measuring tools. Maybe soleing the driver is not necessary for measuring purposes. Maybe these clubs work exactly as intended.

[/quote]

This tells me all I know about your club making/club fitting knowledge.
[/quote]

First flog?
[/quote]

Tell me how to measure face angle without soling it. When you pick up a driver at the pro shop, how do you go about checking if its open/close face?

[scottvw13]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1365717393' post='6813861']

Let me copy and paste unedited an email I got this week. . . . .


[b]From:[/b] Dan Harms
[b]Sent:[/b] Tuesday, April 09, 2013 1:00 PM
[b]To:[/b] Tom Wishon
[b]Subject:[/b] Re: ADj Drivers

The adj models used on tour have no adjustment. The collar looks similar but only for show. The public only looks at the heads. Use these comments anyway you choose. I'm betting I see more tour heads than most of your club makers so I know this is a fact.

Dan Harms
Tour Professional
[/quote]

That is a BOLD accusation...

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

So now we have an official pissing contest. That's disappointing. What starts out with a valuable clubmaking resource turns into this.

[rybo]

[quote name='greens hit' timestamp='1365719573' post='6814153']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365719127' post='6814101']
[quote name='greens hit' timestamp='1365719059' post='6814085']
[quote name='rybo' timestamp='1365716485' post='6813723']
Maybe, just maybe the OEM's took your initial design and improved upon it. Maybe these adjustable heads can not be measured properly on decades old equipment because sometimes new technologies require new measuring tools. Maybe soleing the driver is not necessary for measuring purposes. Maybe these clubs work exactly as intended.

[/quote]

This tells me all I know about your club making/club fitting knowledge.
[/quote]

First flog?
[/quote]

Tell me how to measure face angle without soling it. When you pick up a driver at the pro shop, how do you go about checking if its open/close face?
[/quote]

I, like most set it on the sole, but apparently the green machine says these clubs have wide open face angles while my eyes tell me it looks very closed. So the sole interaction has to be causing some of these discrepancies.

With that said, these adjustable drivers appear to working a bit differently. They are moving the head around like it's a on a ball joint, plus the club never touches the ground during impact with the ball. So at that point the head can be adjusted to have more or less loft and open and closed relative to the shaft. The sole is no longer in the equation. And the shaft is the only thing we the golfers touch. Even inconsistent golfers are pretty consistent in how they return the club to the ball. This is the entire premise that makes custom fitting work.

[keyser]

[quote]
Really?!?! So as I sit here watching the Masters seeing all of these R1's in play, I'm supposed to believe that all of the top players in the world are tricking themselves to simply make the "head look about right"? These guys are trying to win arguably the most illustrious major of the year with smoke and mirrors and parlor tricks? Sorry, that doesn't fly.[/quote]
If the tour players are using adjustable drivers, they'll be hand picked and they probably never play with the settings. Given how the tolerance they´ll be able to get the specs they're looking for. So what the players are using the masters has nothing to do with this discussion.

[quote]The measurements the green machine attained do not match what the human eye can see and that is that there is simply no way the R1, 913D2 or Covert have anywhere near the open face angles the green machine says they do. If they did none of these clubs would even be playable. The performance of each would be so poor nobody would be able to play them. Surely not anyone trying to win the a major or playing for a paycheck every week.[/quote]
Again about the tour players... apples to oranges. Ure probably right about the green machine.. screw science and measurments, your eyes are probably much more accurate and better.

[quote]Maybe, just maybe the OEM's took your initial design and improved upon it. Maybe these adjustable heads can not be measured properly on decades old equipment because sometimes new technologies require new measuring tools. Maybe soleing the driver is not necessary for measuring purposes. Maybe these clubs work exactly as intended.[/quote]
It's much more likely that the measurements got outdated really suddently than the designs aren't working up to their advertised potention. Again that is sarcasm.. I feel I have to point that out as anyone that doesn't see how absurd the above quote is I doubt will pick up the sarcasm.

[keyser]

[quote]Honestly I don't have a horse in this race, I do not work for anyone in the golf industry or am I on staff with any OEM, but this report appears to be done with full intent.[/quote]
Too bad you don't work for an OEM .. that would be a better explination for your rude and childish comments than most others.

[quote]I'm sure I will be blasted for what is written above but I really don't care. We do not have to agree. Just like I don't believe the average driver length on tour is 44 1/2" in 2013 or that a Grafalloy Blue and a Grafalloy ProLaunch Blue somehow should play even remotely alike because they have nearly identical 'measured' profiles.[/quote]
Again those darned facts, science and numbers. Your personal experience and opinion is of much more value.

[Wooderson]

Yep, after thinking about this some today it is without a doubt evident that a new way to measure driver specs is in order. This new measurement device needs to take the sole out of the equation when measuring the relationship of face to shaft. The idea that offsetting a shaft to the forward or rear side of a hosel will not effect loft is just plain non sense. It is my belief that when a club is put into this machine with the same shaft orientation and same sole contact point that something has to give and that is merely that the club is rotated to make it possible to get the club into the same two positions as another setting. This changes the face angle. If you could devise a device that only kept the shaft orientation the same and then measured the loft that you would see that the loft changes. If not then the notion that shafts bending forward or lagging behind changes launch conditions would be a fallacy. The fact is it's not. The fact is that if you lean the club forward by an offset hosel then you will have more loft at impact with your hands in the same place. This is not even debatable.