What shaft length for a 45" playing length SIM driver

Stuart_G · September 15, 2021

24 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

Your certainly entitled to your opinion. But the "builder details" you are answering with have you missing the forest through the trees imo. And I build clubs too, so I understand all the points your trying to make, but they just don't matter in this question.

Sorry, but I don't think I'm the one missing the point. You asked about why there were discrepancies in all the answers. That has nothing to do with my opinion or what I believe (or what you believe for that matter). That's entirely about what the people posting the answers believe. What they should or should not think or believe or what should or should not matter is irrelevant to your question. Only thing that matters is what they actually were thinking (or doing to get their answer) when posting.

Edited September 15, 2021 by Stuart_G

rsballer10 · September 15, 2021

1 hour ago, clinkinfo said:

Your certainly entitled to your opinion. But the "builder details" you are answering with have you missing the forest through the trees imo. And I build clubs too, so I understand all the points your trying to make, but they just don't matter in this question. I understand you think that's why everyone's numbers are different in this answer, but I disagree because what's being measured in this question is very clearly defined and eliminates most of those variables.

All the variations your referencing, all the oem differences, all the measuring differences .... They only exist because someone has decided to measure in a way inconsistent with the defined method of measuring playing length published by the usga.

Fast forward, the usga is now threatening to dramatically limit playing length of the driver, to a length that means some builds will be precariously close to the new limit. So if you want to keep using a different method, or you want to keep measuring to a different spot on the club, that's fine this is America and it's your right to do that. But at the end of the day, you better also learn how to consistently measure it the way the USGA instructs you to measure it because that's the only measurement that's going to matter when they're checking the legality of your playing length.

Oem variations, builder variations, grip variations, adapter variations, ruler variations, eye variations.... They don't matter. The playing length is defined in club rule 1c, and the method of measurement is included. If you choose to measure a different way, that's your right, but do so at your own risk.

USGA club length rules are to define what is a legal playing length and what is not. The only determination the USGA makes is whether a club is "legal" or "not legal". The rule does not define HOW all club builders and OEM's measure club length. Stuart_G is 100% correct. I have a consistent standard - my mitchell ruler, and can attest to the fact that one manufacturer's 37.75" 5 iron is sometimes identical to another OEM 38" 5 iron. The biggest discrepancy I see is in putters. The mitchell ruler reads much shorter than stated by the OEM, even when using their "putter sole block" or whatever it's called.

I need to know the building codes to do my job, and this is a classic case of knowing WHAT the rule/code means, but not knowing HOW to apply it.

clinkinfo · September 15, 2021

4 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

Sorry, but I don't think I'm the one missing the point. You asked about why there were discrepancies in all the answers. That has nothing to do with my opinion or what I believe (or what you believe for that matter). That's entirely about what the people posting the answers believe. What they should or should not think or believe or what should or should not matter is irrelevant to your question. Only thing that matters is what they actually were thinking (or doing to get their answer) when posting.

I'm one of those members that will find this thread months later when I'm trying to build a Sim driver shaft setup and I've searched the forum for keywords that end up bringing this thread up. So I appreciate when these threads have closure and clarity. It makes it far easier for me to get to a correct answer.

I originally asked why there were discrepancies, to which you replied measurement variations. But the part you seem to be missing ... since I can't know what all the prior measurements assumed, I tried to clarify each one of the variables so we could all be working off the same assumptions. Then I clarified how i'd be measuring, as the usga instructs, hoping some members might give updated numbers based on these common set of parameters. Maybe something got botched in the communication along the way, I don't know. I understand from prior posts, you haven't measured it yourself so you don't have anything else to add, which is fine and cool.

I also get it, there are different measuring methods. There shouldn't be, but there are. I've been doing this for 30 years, I've seen the same measurement discrepancies between oem's. But that's what the attempt to clarify was all about, sharing exactly where and how I was measuring, so another member could share what they measure. When I clarify exactly how and what I'm measuring, I've posted my results (3/4 of an inch measuring and 1 inch from the oem math).

I know that's what the future person will want to see to cut the driver shaft length correctly because that's what I'd be looking for. So if someone uses the usga measurement method and gets a different result, please, share it. Otherwise it's cool, just let the thread achive for the next sim length searcher!

Stuart_G · September 15, 2021

19 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

I originally asked why there were discrepancies, to which you replied measurement variations. But the part you seem to be missing ... since I can't know what all the prior measurements assumed, I tried to clarify each one of the variables so we could all be working off the same assumptions. Then I clarified how i'd be measuring, as the usga instructs, hoping some members might give updated numbers based on these common set of parameters. Maybe something got botched in the communication along the way, I don't know. I understand from prior posts, you haven't measured it yourself so you don't have anything else to add, which is fine and cool.

Yes, definitely botched communications. I thought you were still trying to "discuss" the answer to the original question you posed. From my perspective, the responses came across as much more contradictory to that answer than as a separate attempt to work toward a common methodology to deal with such questions.