Maltby TS2

[Cwebb]

On 10/21/2023 at 11:08 AM, Bryceslu said:

So is there a theoretical of where I would want the VCOG to be with an AOA of -2 to -3? I’ve got a solid swing of ball first then divot with roughly -2.5 or so (at least the last time it hit the LM). Where am I actually striking it on the face…does anyone know 😂 I guess that’s what face tape is for? I mean I guess face tape and a tape measure lol. My current irons have VCOG of .866 and I would say it feels like I can find the sweet spot easily enough.

 

The aspect of this that is confusing at first, is that our impact mark is not really an accurate representation of where the iron head's AVCOG has arrived at impact in relation to the center of the ball.

 

To start to get an understanding of this, take a look at this graphic and the bottom image with the highlighted impact mark.  Notice in this example that the AVCOG is towards the top of the mark, but the COG for this design had still arrived below the center of the ball.  With your current irons, the .866" AVCOG would be above the top of the impact mark in this illustration...and above the center of the ball (.840")....

 

https://www.golfworks.com/analyzing-ball-impact-wear-spot-of-a-pga-tour-player/

 

 

Edited October 22, 2023 by Cwebb

[T.B.]

On 10/21/2023 at 10:07 AM, Popeye64 said:

Self imposed issues. Quite frankly he is out of his mind. It's a shame too. Great product in those iron shafts. 

Funny that you say that. I work 3rd shift and one night I sent an email to them.  Thinking it’s just a company email address.  Anyway about an hour later I get an email back from the owner. It’s the middle of the night and he said he was in the hospital 

[Popeye64]

2 hours ago, T.B. said:

Funny that you say that. I work 3rd shift and one night I sent an email to them.  Thinking it’s just a company email address.  Anyway about an hour later I get an email back from the owner. It’s the middle of the night and he said he was in the hospital 

I'll send you a pm. Most times his in the 'hospital' is anything but. 

[Bryceslu]

8 hours ago, Cwebb said:

 

The aspect of this that is confusing at first, is that our impact mark is not really an accurate representation of where the iron head's AVCOG has arrived at impact in relation to the center of the ball.

 

To start to get an understanding of this, take a look at this graphic and the bottom image with the highlighted impact mark.  Notice in this example that the AVCOG is towards the top of the mark, but the COG for this design had still arrived below the center of the ball.  With your current irons, the .866" AVCOG would be above the top of the impact mark in this illustration...and above the center of the ball (.840")....

 

https://www.golfworks.com/analyzing-ball-impact-wear-spot-of-a-pga-tour-player/

 

 

Ahh this helps a lot. More or less, It’s a force vector line and not a static location of the club face in relation to the center of the ball.
I’m not sure it helps me understand what happens when the VCOG is delivered way underneath the center of the ball. His statements only say a lower VCOG helps promote a more solid strike and consistent trajectory. But the analyst in me wants to think there becomes a point where the VCOG of the club is so far below the center mass of the ball that the results start becoming worse. 🤷‍♂️ 

[Cwebb]

1 hour ago, Bryceslu said:

Ahh this helps a lot. More or less, It’s a force vector line and not a static location of the club face in relation to the center of the ball.
I’m not sure it helps me understand what happens when the VCOG is delivered way underneath the center of the ball. His statements only say a lower VCOG helps promote a more solid strike and consistent trajectory. But the analyst in me wants to think there becomes a point where the VCOG of the club is so far below the center mass of the ball that the results start becoming worse. 🤷‍♂️ 

 

Keep in mind that many of the most popular "players irons" through history, have had lower AVCOG's.  A few examples...

 

Mizuno MP-14: .687",  MP-33: .718",  MP-60: .720"

 

Titleist AP2: .733", 695 MB: .728", 680 MB: .754"

 

Lots of good stronger players (and tour players) have used these with success.  You're not very likely to be driving the AVCOG too far beneath the center of the ball with anything in this zone.

 

What would happen if you did go too far underneath, is an extreme high or excessive spin...soft ballooning type of ball flight, relative to the actual loft of the club

Edited October 23, 2023 by Cwebb

[Bryceslu]

18 minutes ago, Cwebb said:

 

Keep in mind that many of the most popular "players irons" through history, have had lower AVCOG's.  A few examples...

 

Mizuno MP-14: .687",  MP-33: .718",  MP-60: .720"

 

Titleist AP2: .733", 695 MB: .728", 680 MB: .754"

 

Lots of good stronger players (and tour players) have used these with success.  You're not very likely to be driving the AVCOG too far beneath the center of the ball with anything in this zone

Thanks for that! That helps me at least forget about it lol. 

 

Also the 695s takes me back…it’s what I picture in my mind when someone says a damn good looking iron. That and the CG1 black pearl. Which interestingly enough many years ago, I pulled a set out of my bosses office one day, hit some range balls fantastically, then played in a 36 hole PAT the next day 😆 Those have a VCOG of  .709…starting to fit together in my brain. 

[Cwebb]

14 hours ago, Bryceslu said:

Thanks for that! That helps me at least forget about it lol. 

 

Also the 695s takes me back…it’s what I picture in my mind when someone says a damn good looking iron. That and the CG1 black pearl. Which interestingly enough many years ago, I pulled a set out of my bosses office one day, hit some range balls fantastically, then played in a 36 hole PAT the next day 😆 Those have a VCOG of  .709…starting to fit together in my brain. 

 

What all of those examples lack, is a longer C-dimension.   So their design is beneficial vertically on the face, but not very much across the face and on the toe side of center.

 

All of the Maltby designs have both a lower or "mid" AVCOG and a long C-dimension relative to their blade length, which creates a more friendly or "playable" club in both the vertical and horizontal directions on the face.  These result in more total face area to work with for relatively solid contact and just an easier club to hit in general.

 

Here is another good article that addresses this...

https://www.golfworks.com/build-a-better-blade/

Edited October 23, 2023 by Cwebb

[deepred]

I looked up the FST shafts on the DSFI chart and the 115 cut to X is slightly more flexible than the 125 cut to S. Something to consider if mixing them.

[mynameisntshawn]

Forgot to show this group my DIY Pseudo-Lag Shot trainer/warmup club. It’s a TE 7i head with a healthy amount of lead tape attached to an LL flex Launch Tech graphite shaft, built to the same specs as my regular 7i. I can hit it just as far as my actual 7i if I am perfectly on-plane and on-tempo, but it really lets you know if either of those things is off. I love it for warmup and occasionally on-course if I’m just goofing around.

[yeee707]

Currently gaming the Sti2 and getting the itch for a new iron set, either the TS3 or TS1-IM, most upgrading for looks. I shoot around 100, would the TS3 or TS1-IM be a better pick?

 

also if anyone has a demo TS3 or ts1-im they’re trying to sell, let me know, interested to try it out

Edited October 24, 2023 by yeee707

[T.B.]

5 hours ago, yeee707 said:

Currently gaming the Sti2 and getting the itch for a new iron set, either the TS3 or TS1-IM, most upgrading for looks. I shoot around 100, would the TS3 or TS1-IM be a better pick?

 

also if anyone has a demo TS3 or ts1-im they’re trying to sell, let me know, interested to try it out

I’m also looking and wondering the same thing.  I’m a 6 and honestly my short game makes me a 6.  I’m playing the TS2 and they’ve helped me hit more greens, but you know how it is,,, lol winter is around the corner in central Ohio and would like to have another set to mess around with.  🙄

[pjc]

Club building question here.  If I were to buy some Maltby heads, say the new TE+V4, and by taper tip shafts, and I take them to a club builder, do they need to know or do anything different being that the hosel bore is universal?  

[htaolx]

4 minutes ago, T.B. said:

I’m also looking and wondering the same thing.  I’m a 6 and honestly my short game makes me a 6.  I’m playing the TS2 and they’ve helped me hit more greens, but you know how it is,,, lol winter is around the corner in central Ohio and would like to have another set to mess around with.  🙄

 

I'm currently testing both of them thanks to @Popeye64 I'll keep you posted on which way I'm going. So far the ts3 is butter smooth, soft forged face feel. Ts-1im has a clickier face on impact, ball flight seems a touch lower on the ims. 

 

I'm a 4 handicap ATM, with a pretty strong move at the ball for reference. I'm playing tomorrow morning and will hit a bunch of balls all over the course and report back.

 

Edited October 24, 2023 by htaolx

[Klubster]

7 minutes ago, pjc said:

Club building question here.  If I were to buy some Maltby heads, say the new TE+V4, and by taper tip shafts, and I take them to a club builder, do they need to know or do anything different being that the hosel bore is universal?  

Consider having Golfworks assemble them to your specs for you.  I started using them last year after previously assembling my own.  They do a great job and you can not beat the price.

[vandyfan]

Can you send Golfworks BB&F ferrules to include in your order or do they find that highly annoying/don't do that?

[pjc]

24 minutes ago, Klubster said:

Consider having Golfworks assemble them to your specs for you.  I started using them last year after previously assembling my own.  They do a great job and you can not beat the price.

I understand this, but I want to buy a shaft that they do not sell.

[brew4eagle]

54 minutes ago, pjc said:

Club building question here.  If I were to buy some Maltby heads, say the new TE+V4, and by taper tip shafts, and I take them to a club builder, do they need to know or do anything different being that the hosel bore is universal?  

Nothing different needs to be done.

[Cwebb]

9 hours ago, pjc said:

Club building question here.  If I were to buy some Maltby heads, say the new TE+V4, and by taper tip shafts, and I take them to a club builder, do they need to know or do anything different being that the hosel bore is universal?  

 

You just want to make sure that with the exact actual tip diameter of the shaft you're using (manufacturing tolerance), that there is not too much space when inserted in the universal hosel.   Sometimes there is....and I choose to use a .355" - .370" shim.  If it's too tight with the shim, then simply trim two of the prongs off on opposite sides.

 

If you wanted to play it safe, you could purchase some of these shims with your order, just to make sure the clubmaker has the right supplies if needed.  He probably has them, but you never know when someone might be out of them.

https://www.golfworks.com/the-golfworks-brass-adaptor-shims/p/shim/

Edited October 25, 2023 by Cwebb

[jblough99]

Anyone put the TS3 up against the new TE+V4?  Curious what differences you’re seeing if any?  All the specs and dimensional measurements are so close, it would seem they would play almost the same.

[mynameisntshawn]

Have people actually started receiving/playing the V4 yet? I assume it's still too soon.

[Bryceslu]

1 hour ago, htaolx said:

 

I'm currently testing both of them thanks to @Popeye64 I'll keep you posted on which way I'm going. So far the ts3 is butter smooth, soft forged face feel. Ts-1im has a clickier face on impact, ball flight seems a touch lower on the ims. 

 

I'm a 4 handicap ATM, with a pretty strong move at the ball for reference. I'm playing tomorrow morning and will hit a bunch of balls all over the course and report back.

 

I’m surprised you didn’t throw the ts4 into the mix. Similar specs to the ts1im but solid forged. 

[Cwebb]

9 minutes ago, mynameisntshawn said:

Have people actually started receiving/playing the V4 yet? I assume it's still too soon.

 

[htaolx]

51 minutes ago, Bryceslu said:

I’m surprised you didn’t throw the ts4 into the mix. Similar specs to the ts1im but solid forged. 

I just tried out what was available. I have been intrigued with the foam filled since I have a 699 pro 4iron that is foam filled

[wjmfour1]

Built a KE4 Max 7 iron with the Elevate ETS 95 shaft that Golfworks is selling in the close out section. Currently playing the DBM Forged with Nippon Modus 105 shafts. Not sure if it was the shaft or head but the KE4 Max felt great.  Loft is even I believe with my DBM 6 iron and the Max 7 was flying further. I love my DBMs but may have to build a set of KE4 Maxs. Golfworks is only selling the Elevates as a set - I hate to pull the 7 iron shaft and install it in my DBMs to see if it's the shaft.

[brew4eagle]

1 hour ago, Cwebb said:

 

Glad to see these.  I have TS3s I've barely used and was thinking the V4s looked better based on golfworks pics.  After seeing in hand pics I prefer the TS3 looks.  I can't imagine they play much different if at all.

[ApostateDrive]

15 hours ago, vandyfan said:

Can you send Golfworks BB&F ferrules to include in your order or do they find that highly annoying/don't do that?

 

From what I've heard, you just send them the ferrules and they assemble without issue. IDK if the employees themselves have issues with it, but it is a service that they offer.

[iamlowsound]

19 hours ago, Cwebb said:

 

Those are way better looking that the pictures on the site. I know this gets said about every club but this has to be the most glaring example I've seen. 

[Cwebb]

2 minutes ago, iamlowsound said:

Those are way better looking that the pictures on the site. I know this gets said about every club but this has to be the most glaring example I've seen. 

 

I don't know why they don't just do pictures like this for their website.   A head scratcher at this point

[ApostateDrive]

22 minutes ago, iamlowsound said:

Those are way better looking that the pictures on the site. I know this gets said about every club but this has to be the most glaring example I've seen. 

 

No kidding, I thought they were kinda ugly in the site pics, but they're pretty stunning! This pic in particular is giving me the flutters. 

 

[iamlowsound]

1 hour ago, Cwebb said:

 

I don't know why they don't just do pictures like this for their website.   A head scratcher at this point

I've always thought that they look like the Titleist DCI irons which I find ugly. Those don't look like the DCI at all. They shouldn't also do a picture from address with a ball, that would really reinforce how compact the irons are.