Heavier driver head = further distance?

[lekimann]

I have been hitting different drivers and shafts for the past few months. 

Sim2 9 degree - Ventus black

Stealth 8 degree - Ventus black

Stealth 8 degree - Autoflex

Ping g425 - Ventus black

 

It seems that the longest I have hit was with the Ping G425max. This is with what I would call a regular on course golf swing. When I try to swing super fast the stealth with autoflex is the furthest. 

 

I have been messing with the weights in my stealth to try and optimize my autoflex and changed the movable weight and back weight from 10g to 6g. I went to the range yesterday and it seemed like my distance went down a lot (the range uses toptracer and there was a headwind so that could have been it if toptracer tracks the actual distance the whole way.)

 

It got me curious though, if I swung the stealth at the same speed and one was lighter then would the lighter one go shorter? Was I hitting the G425max the furthest because it was the heaviest and I was swinging it the same speed as the stealth? 

 

 

 

[phizzy30]

Assuming that you hit the sweet spot for both heads and the face is relatively square, the lighter set up should be longer.  However, we know that when the head is too light, it's harder to feel what square feels like at impact therefore, a mishit is more likely to occur.  In your case, your on course swing would be more important and whatever setup weight/swing weight wise helps you the most get the best contact consistently would be the way to go. 

Edited June 3, 2022 by phizzy30

[Jeff58]

Although F=MA, or it’s rotational equivalent, would appear to be a possible component, the difference in mass isn’t adequate to significantly affect distance. It’s far more likely that the added mass at the end of your swing radius is delaying the point of maximum velocity until later in your swing, and closer to the impact location.

[Howard_Jones]

2 hours ago, phizzy30 said:

Assuming that you hit the sweet spot for both heads and the face is relatively square, the lighter set up should be longer.  However, we know that when the head is too light, it's harder to feel what square feels like at impact therefore, a mishit is more likely to occur.  In your case, your on course swing would be more important and whatever setup weight/swing weight wise helps you the most get the best contact consistently would be the way to go. 

i think you made a typo here.
All else equal the head with the most weight would move the ball the longest distance (higher smash factor), and from 100 mph club speed 2.5 grams head wgt is 1 yard, so if we add 10 grams its 4 yards, but we should never use more weight to gain distance, impact position alone is the most important.

[Valtiel]

2 hours ago, lekimann said:

Was I hitting the G425max the furthest because it was the heaviest and I was swinging it the same speed as the stealth? 

Ultimately you'll need more accurate launch monitor data to say anything for sure. As @phizzy30 mentioned, it is far more likely that strike consistency was better with the heavier head which lead to better numbers from that alone. There are a few questions to be answered here though in two different realms, fit and physics. 

From a fit standpoint, it is all about finding what allows you to deliver the club with maximum consistency and thus achieve the best possible strike quality. This is often a mixture of tweaking the major variables such as playing length, weight (both static and head), loft, and angles (face and lie). Some folks will be very sensitive to one or more of these and those are the most important questions to answer. Some of those questions can be tough though, because a driver can produce better numbers for many reasons, some more esoteric than others.

1) Weight. PINGs are heavier on average when compared to other OEMs, and if the additional weight suits your swing/timing/feel then you might simply be delivering the club more consistently and thus striking the ball more solidly producing better numbers.
2) Head MOI. PING has a high MOI design philosophy, especially with the MAX models, which means better mishit performance on average. If you have trouble finding the center at times then heads like this will trend towards better average numbers over a bigger data set.
3) Launch conditions. PINGs trend towards being higher lofted than the stated loft more so than many other OEMs, so if you need a little more loft for whatever reason then that could simply be producing better launch conditions leading to more distance.
4) CG bias. If you tend to strike the ball very consistently but maybe have a miss that trends towards one side of the face then the actual location of the sweet spot can be relevant as it is not always dead in the middle. Moveable weights can help with this with the general idea being to shift weight towards your miss to maximize efficiency.  
4) Setup. The PING might sit a certain way on the ground or look a certain way behind the ball that simply inspires confidence that leads to better swings. 

All of these are more important than the more academic physics related components of mass/force/speed. I believe either @Howard_Jones or @Stuart_G have detailed this before, by my recollection is that there is in fact an ideal weight for efficiency (around 215-220g headweight I think?) that can hypothetically produce better efficiency/higher smash factors, but it is pretty slight and can be immediately overridden by any of the fit related variables above. 

If you want to go deeper then Howard's Driver DIY fitting thread contains all the granular detail you need. As far as comparing clubs, detailed launch monitor data can shed more light (clubhead speed, ball speed, launch angle, spin, smash factor, path etc). 
 

 

[phizzy30]

Just now, Howard_Jones said:

i think you made a typo here.
All else equal the head with the most weight would move the ball the longest distance (higher smash factor), and from 100 mph club speed 2.5 grams head wgt is 1 yard, so if we add 10 grams its 4 yards, but we should never use more weight to gain distance, impact position alone is the most important.

I think my post came off as confusing.  You're absolutely right in that more weight shouldn't be added to gain distance and that impact position is important.  Golfers do need to feel where the head is as to have a better chance for a good strike with a relatively square face which is where adding enough weight comes into play IMO. 

[Stuart_G]

4 hours ago, Valtiel said:

All of these are more important than the more academic physics related components of mass/force/speed. I believe either @Howard_Jones or @Stuart_G have detailed this before, by my recollection is that there is in fact an ideal weight for efficiency (around 215-220g headweight I think?) that can hypothetically produce better efficiency/higher smash factors,

 

If you're talking about the efficiency of - or really the amount of energy transfer between head and ball - no there really isn't an ideal or optimal head weight.

 

The basis for an elastic collision like the club hitting a stationary ball starts with:

 

V_ball = V_clubhead * 2 / (1 + m/M)
m = ball mass, M = clubhead mass

 

So basically the ball velocity will keep increasing as head weight increases.  There are additional reductions due to elastic inefficiencies (COR) and linear energy being lost to rotational energy (ball spinning due to loft) but those don't really cause any peak or optimal point when mapping head weight to ball speed, at least not within practical values.

 

4 hours ago, Valtiel said:

but it is pretty slight and can be immediately overridden by any of the fit related variables above. 

 

Correct.  As one example, for a 100 mph club head speed, going from 200 gm to 210 gm in the head might ideally get you an extra  1.3 mph of ball speed assuming pretty optimal delivery (~10* spin loft - and perfect center face contact) and also assuming that that delivery wont change in any other way - which is very unlikely.

 

So, as you already mentioned, I'll add some emphasis.  The effect of the head weight on the swing and delivery of the head into impact has by FAR much more influence on the ball speed than the theoretical transfer of energy from the head to the ball caused by any change in head weight.

 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Stuart_G

[Valtiel]

1 hour ago, Stuart_G said:

 

If you're talking about the efficiency of - or really the amount of energy transfer between head and ball - no there really isn't an ideal or optimal head weight.

 

The basis for an elastic collision like the club hitting a stationary ball starts with:

 

V_ball = V_clubhead * 2 / (1 + m/M)
m = ball mass, M = clubhead mass

 

So basically the ball velocity will keep increasing as head weight increases.  There are additional reductions due to elastic inefficiencies (COR) and linear energy being lost to rotational energy (ball spinning due to loft) but those don't really cause any peak or optimal point when mapping head weight to ball speed, at least not within practical values.

 

 

Correct.  As one example, for a 100 mph club head speed, going from 200 gm to 210 gm in the head might ideally get you an extra  1.3 mph of ball speed assuming pretty optimal delivery (~10* spin loft - and perfect center face contact) and also assuming that that delivery wont change in any other way - which is very unlikely.

 

So, as you already mentioned, I'll add some emphasis.  The effect of the head weight on the swing and delivery of the head into impact has by FAR much more influence on the ball speed than the theoretical transfer of energy from the head to the ball caused by any change in head weight.

 

Thanks for the details, I think the hypothetical "ideal" number was presented within the context of practical application e.g. this is as much head weight as we deem practical for "normal" people to swing within "normal" driver lengths or some other vague qualifiers. It makes sense that ballspeed would continue to increase as headweight increased as long as you could still swing it the same speed. I feel fortunate that my personal preferences happen to also lineup with these hypothetically more efficient specs, because I don't get much more out of lighter 45.75" builds and my 44.25" build has a 212g head (without the adaptor) and that combined with a heavily tipped shaft has been extremely efficient and consistent for me. 

[Billfitz]

The limitations of the human body are an equal part of the equation. If you could keep adding weight without a loss of swing speed the force would rise and distance would increase. But you can't do that. A point comes when added weight results in a loss of swing speed, and a loss of force and distance. The flip side of that coin is that reducing mass can result in higher swing speed, also increasing force and distance, but no matter how low the mass you can only swing so fast and no more. What you're looking for is the Goldilocks combination of mass and swing speed that gives maximum force. It's going to be different for everyone.

[lekimann]

I played a round today starting with the lighter weights in the head. The head weight was probably around 189grams. I felt like I wasn’t getting as much distance. Hit it well and it went about 295y. I felt like I didn’t have as much control of which direction it went. Put the stock weights back in and It felt so much more solid. It’s crazy how much 8grams made a difference. It could just all be in my head but it felt like a big difference. Felt like I gained about 10 yards from adding the weights back in. 
 

before I actually got the weights I played around with hitting the stealth with the movable front weight removed and then the back weight removed and it just felt off. Anybody else try that before?

[phizzy30]

54 minutes ago, lekimann said:

I played a round today starting with the lighter weights in the head. The head weight was probably around 189grams. I felt like I wasn’t getting as much distance. Hit it well and it went about 295y. I felt like I didn’t have as much control of which direction it went. Put the stock weights back in and It felt so much more solid. It’s crazy how much 8grams made a difference. It could just all be in my head but it felt like a big difference. Felt like I gained about 10 yards from adding the weights back in. 
 

before I actually got the weights I played around with hitting the stealth with the movable front weight removed and then the back weight removed and it just felt off. Anybody else try that before?

I've removed the weights before on some of my previous drivers but that never worked out.  I have to play a head that's heavier than 200 grams it seems but not go over 210.  I recently switched over to a cb shaft a few months back which dropped the total swing weight 2 points.  I actually had to add 8 more grams of swing weight through lead tape to bring it back up to the point where I could feel the head again.  No distance gained or lost doing so, but my contact and dispersion has improved. 

[Stuart_G]

8 hours ago, Valtiel said:

Thanks for the details, I think the hypothetical "ideal" number was presented within the context of practical application e.g. this is as much head weight as we deem practical for "normal" people to swing within "normal" driver lengths or some other vague qualifiers.

 

I thought by definition, no one who plays golf qualifies as "normal"   😁

 

But yes, those would be pretty meaningless qualifiers.  Any kind of optimal that includes the limitations and abilities of the person swinging the club is going to very widely between the different individuals.

 

8 hours ago, Valtiel said:

It makes sense that ballspeed would continue to increase as headweight increased as long as you could still swing it the same speed.

 

For those that might be reading and still considering it and not the greatest at reading math equations - it should be pointed out it's not a linear increase.  Going from 210 gm to 220 gm is going to get less of a theoretical gain in ball speed then the increase from 200 to 210.   The heavier the head, the less the increase.

 

 

[Phebus]

With the light setups, do they also have light swingweights?

[Phebus]

Question then.  With the manufacturers quest and competition to have the longest driver, why haven’t they embraced super light components and builds utilizing the current technology?

[ode1]

Lol headweight metrics🤮

[Howard_Jones]

9 hours ago, Edhead said:

Old thread, but technology has changed and we learned more about head weight, so clarity to clear up the false info is imperative.

 

ready to shatter your understanding of this? Lighter heads go farther than heavier heads, period. Heavier heads can’t be swung the same speed as a lighter head and if they can on some tries… it takes twice the amount of effort, defeating the purpose of going heavy for distance. While more mass does help distance, you have to swing harder and faster to see any change… and it ultimately will not be enough of an improvement to warrant the extra effort needed to swing the same speed as a lighter head. 
 

Heavier heads are for slower swinging players that favor a sense of more control in the swing at the cost of swing speed and distance. Take a look at tour driver heads vs long drive driver heads. Some have a disparity of 20g… long drive heads are much lighter in weight because to benefit from a lower lofted head you need speed. A lighter head is easier to accelerate than a heavier one. But just because you have a lighter head doesn’t mean you will swing faster, you actually have to try to swing faster, and the lighter head will allow you to accelerate MORE than a heavier head. Velocity always outweighs mass, when it comes to distance. Velocity matters way way way more than mass, for distance… that’s the true science. The trick, some brands go light with non durable material and they break easily… brands that use beta titanium are leading the market with ultralite ultra durable builds. For example, Krank Fire LD 6° head is now 187g… the average tour head is 210g… awhile back you didn’t have the option of pairing with a x -stiff shaft that was also lightweight… so you were forced to go heavy shaft for stiffness. Now our shafts have the ability to be for stiff and very very light.. so you get more stability back and sharper dispersion, even with a lighter head… and now your total driver weight is some 40g-50g lighter… so if distance is key, light grips/lite x stiff shaft/lightest beta titanium head you can find. You can also cut more weight by playing a driver shaft cut to 43.5”, so the total build is 45” in length. Making it this short greatly increases center strikes giving even more distance with less effort… as well your club is lighter and able to accelerate faster. If a light build is causing you to feel less control… you aren’t swinging fast enough. The faster you swing, the more stability comes back. 
 

 

You contradict your self here several times , and claim the laws of physics is false.....
And who told you that heavy heads is for slow swingers?
You also seems to think impact position always remains the same, no matter head wgt, and that 45" as PL is "short" and implicit should fit all....

 

Where did you get your education, and where did you work with this since you make so bold claims about how this works, and makes you qualified "to clear up the false info is imperative." to use your own words?

[Stuart_G]

10 hours ago, Edhead said:

Old thread, but technology has changed and we learned more about head weight, so clarity to clear up the false info is imperative.

 

Technology may have changed but the basic physics and biomechanics have not changed.

 

As the head weight changes, you can NOT make any assumptions about how the club head speed might change.  There are no valid equations that tell us what will happen and lighter does NOT always equal faster.

 

As the head weight changes, you can NOT make any assumptions about how "all things will be equal" in terms of face impact consistency and location and all the other impact conditions.

 

For any individual, you can not make any assumptions about how either weight or stiffness will effect control or that one will be able to compensate in any way for the other being a poor fit.

 

There are just too many critical and dominant factors that you are completely ignoring - even if the basis for those numbers you are throwing out was valid - which I sincerely doubt they are.

 

About the only valid point you made in all those posts, was that if you want to increase club head speed, you should work on doing some dedicated speed training.

 

I'm glad you found a setup that works well for you but that has little meaning or validity to what might work for anyone else.

 

Edited April 4 by Stuart_G

[Howard_Jones]

3 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Technology may have changed but the basic physics and biomechanics have not changed.

 

As the head weight changes, you can NOT make any assumptions about how the club head speed might change.  There are no valid equations that tell us what will happen and lighter does NOT always equal faster.

 

As the head weight changes, you can NOT make any assumptions about how "all things will be equal" in terms of face impact consistency and location and all the other impact conditions.

 

For any individual, you can not make any assumptions about how either weight or stiffness will effect control or that one will be able to compensate in any way for the other being a poor fit.

 

There are just too many critical and dominant factors that you are completely ignoring - even if the basis for those numbers you are throwing out was valid - which I sincerely doubt they are.

 

About the only valid point you made in all those posts, was that if you want to increase club head speed, you should work on doing some dedicated speed training.

 

I'm glad you found a setup that works well for you but that has little meaning or validity to what might work for anyone else.

 

I think its right to simply warn about this profile, he clearly have no clue about what he is talking about. I looked into his profile and the few posts he have been writing, and i found this one from december last year, then 15 grams head wgt should be added.....after tip trimming a super light x flex shaft more than tip length accept...now head wgt should be as light as possible, and if you cant feel it, you should swing out of your shoes, since your club speed is to low to feel it...not a bad fit, but your club speed is the problem....

@Edhead

Please stop giving advice about stuff you dont understand, nobody needs it, but you might reach a reader who think this is good stuff, while its anything but that. We dont need more golf tech myths and BS.

[Phebus]

I figured that if there was merit to his premise, that manufacturers would be promoting it. 

[Ger21]

2 minutes ago, Edhead said:

Krank is the only company to use beta titanium

Companies have been using beta titanium for drivers for 20 years. Even low end manufacturer's, and component suppliers.

[PNW]

55 minutes ago, Edhead said:

Name one thing you think I’m being contradicting about, and I’ll clear it up for you. A heavier head is for someone who wants more control/feel at the expense of speed and distance… not rocket science. As for face position at impact being affected by head weight, I think you are confusing yourself with head weight overall vs weight position on the head. A company making a lighter head will keep that in mind when establishing CG… and will offer position options to either hold off closing or opening of the face angle… we are talking total head weight. Where did you learn to read/debate? Lol

You clearly don't know who you are 'debating' with here. Maybe take a step back and reconsider your position. 

[animalgolfs]

[Howard_Jones]

3 hours ago, Edhead said:

If you can’t understand logic, that’s not my problem. Everything stated is backed by evidence. Instead of trying to shoot down the truth, try adding to the convo… or just hang by the sidelines. It’s not up for debate, it’s already fact. It’s simple math and physics… nothing too hard to understand. 
 

if anything, my older post of trying heavier heads is proof that I have been experimenting and am talking from a place of experience. I tried heavier weights to see what it would do for ball speed. As much as 12 extra grams, what happened? I didn’t gain much distance and my swing speed was way harder to keep the same… so much so the shaft couldn’t handle the pressure and the tip broke. That lead me to research more, while you were sitting in a chair looking at YouTube videos for your slice lol. Then I learned that velocity is incredibly way more important than mass for ball speed and distance… that is absolutely not up for debate, as much as you want it to be. Research physics anywhere you want, you will reach the same exact conclusion. So, in order to swing faster I made a new build with the same head but removed the weights. By dropping weight in the head, I am able to swing it faster WHEN I try to. If you swing with the same energy as you usually do with a standard weight driver… you won’t swing faster with a lighter head… it will feel faster because it’s lighter and it might be 1mph faster here and there… but to benefit in speed, you still have to give it effort more effort. That’s where a lighter head and overall driver build shines, have the ability to swing it faster by having the potential to accelerate it faster thru the ball. It’s very very simple. It’s not about mass, velocity far exceeds distance than mass ever will. I’m qualified to give advice because I do the work to learn. You don’t have to benefit from my advice, but that doesn’t mean others aren’t allowed to hear the truth.

 

the farthest hitter in the world and all the others right behind him, all use light driver heads… why do you think that is? It’s not magic 🪄 it’s just good ole science. Kyle Berkshire’s driver head is 186g… his shaft is 56g… and he uses a midsized grip with a clubspeed of 150mph. If you are going to sit here and try to convince us that a lighter head and or build all together has absolutely no bearing on speed… get ready, because you have a lot of work to do lmao! 🤣 🍿 🎥 

 

Speed matters more than mass, to get speed you need something light and strong, mega manufacturers don’t have the man power/pay to mass produce within their deadlines. A beta titanium face is not the same advancement as a completely beta hardened titanium head… why do you think Bryson Dechambeau left Cobra? They made light heads for him, and they kept breaking because of poor material choice. He saw they were just trying to save money with quantity over quality… and he left cobra and started to use Krank, because they were both light (long drive heads are lighter and packed with new technology) and didn’t break. Krank became a company with the CEO having that one goal, make a head that doesn’t break. They have had a very long run in the business. They are a small company, and to get a head from them it takes almost 2 months at times… can you imagine the loss in sales from a company like cobra, that you have to wait 2 months for a head? Consumers will just opt for something that is readily available. Eventually the market will have to catch up with better quality practices. 
 

I get it, being an old dog as yourself… it’s hard to wash out the conventional golf ideologies that have been burned into your brain… but you don’t have to be a slave to that old modality anymore, it’s a new age. 
 

all the best Mr. Grumpy pants.👖 

 

a word of advice, make some space in the text to make it readable. and ANSWER the questions asked....where is your education from? where did you work? where is your credidentials ?

 

if you are in doubt about mine, feel free to ask about it, in this forum, or what ever golf forum on the globe. use Ai if you like....

 

but answer the questions asked.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4 by Howard_Jones

[jll62]

@Edhead From a physics standpoint, you're not entirely wrong. More kinetic energy will be produced by increasing velocity compared to increasing mass by a similar amount. That's a fact and not debatable, but I also feel that's a false equivalence in your logic. People aren't suggesting to add weight to make the ball go farther. We know that you need to swing it faster to hit it farther.

 

Where the questions arise, and this is what @Stuart_G was talking about, is how a lighter head affects: a) the player's delivery of the clubhead, and b) how a lighter head performs during the collision with the ball. How are the mass properties of the head changed when the weight is reduced, and how do they impact launch, spin, etc. 

 

I haven't hit the Krank or any other LD heads, but I have spent a considerable amount of time testing modern driver heads with a lighter configuration. I can swing them 3-4mph faster, but anecdotally I've noticed less energy transfer into the ball. I use a 180g SIM2 head for speed training and when I'm swinging that at 125mph, I'm still getting comparable ball speed numbers to my 197g gamer head. Spin is also all out of whack. Even on shots that I feel are well struck, the ball speed doesn't seem to be there with the lighter head. Again, this is likely due to me removing weight from a head, whereas I'm assuming a LD head is designed to be that light up front.

 

I think this is an area where some personal testing is warranted if someone has the means to do so. I don't believe there's anything sacred about the head weights of drivers as they exist today. They allow OEMs to hit D2/D3/D4 swing weights, as opposed to being mathematically optimal weights. It might be a player dependent variable, like total weight and swing weight.

 

But dude...this is not how you have a debate on a forum. @Stuart_G and @Howard_Jones are incredibly well respected members of GolfWRX because of the wealth of information they've provided over the years. If you're trying to make a point, do it with some tact and respect, please.

Edited April 4 by jll62

[gdb99]

I’m not that smart, so don’t yell at me. 
On the Long Drive Tour, don’t they have a 48” driver limit? I would think that might have something to do with using lighter head weights. 
 

And Edhead, your attitude here is pretty poor. 
This will be another thread shutdown soon…

Edited April 4 by gdb99

[Stuart_G]

On 4/4/2025 at 12:11 PM, Edhead said:

False sir, and it’s already been proven over 5 years ago. Race cars are made to be light, so they can go faster. A heavier car with the same engine is going to travel slower because the extra mass…

 

Over simplifications don't prove anything and does not constitute valid logic or proof.    If you want anyone to take your statements seriously, you have to show you actually understand the principles involved.   Name dropping those principles is never going to be enough.

 

We're not talking about something as simple as a car, we're talking about the human body performing a complex sequence of actions that have to be timed just right in order to efficiently use what power it is potentially able to deliver.  A system where the application of power (muscle action) at the wrong time can actually be detrimental to the results or completely wasted. The club head speed a person is able to achieve is dependent on a LOT more than just the weight of the club head.  In fact the weight of the club head is a trivial amount compared to all the mass that has to be moved and controlled.   Even something as "simple" as a change in head weight feel can have a profound effect on how one controls their swing.  Resulting in unpredictable effects on things like the sequencing and efficiency of the swing as well as the ability to deliver the head into impact consistently and with the ability to get the desired ball flight results.  

 

The real data and evidence has shown us for a long time that this is far from being as simple as you perceive it to be or assuming it is.   A lighter head weight has been proven time and time again, that it will not automatically guarantee an increase in club head speed.  In some cases it has been shown that a drop in head weight will reduce the club head speed for certain individuals in certain situations.   

 

And that doesn't even include the consequences of loosing ball speed when the change in head weight keeps the individual from being able to hit the center of the face.

 

 

On 4/4/2025 at 12:11 PM, Edhead said:

in golf, we are talking kinetic energy transfer. Speed gives way way more kinetic energy transfer than mass. It’s easier to swing something lighter than it is something that is heavier, as well. I’m sorry you don’t like the science

 

I love the science, specifically kinetics and dynamics.  I wouldn't' have spent so much time (4 years) in grad school studying it if I didn't.   

 

Since you aren't really showing anything about how you are actually using those principles or specifically applying them, one can only guess where your misunderstandings might be.  But (among other things) you seem to be confusing the amount of KE in a body with the amount of energy transferred - they not the same thing at all.  So if all you're considering is raw Kinetic Energy of the head, your understanding of the physics is limited at best.   it's likely more along the line of "a little knowledge being dangerous."    But feel free to prove me wrong.   Can you even show that you know how to derive a basic equation for ball speed as a function of club head speed, club head mass, COR?    And can you show well you understand how loft and spin might also effect ball speed?  Numerically that is - with actual equations.

 

 

On 4/4/2025 at 12:11 PM, Edhead said:

I stand by my words and what I have researched for over 5 years.

 

Glad you had fun with it and feel free to keep at it.  But I'm sorry to say that if it isn't properly documented and published, it's not worth much to anyone but yourself.  So don't expect it to hold any weight around here unless you can back your arguments with some actual substance.  Not just with the use veiled and over generalized references to concepts you haven't shown you actually understand fully.

 

And if you have no interest in making any effort to show any of that - that's certainly your choice.   Just don't expect to accomplish much around here with that kind of approach.

Edited April 5 by Stuart_G

[JungleJimbo]

19 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Over simplifications don't prove anything and does not constitute valid logic or proof.    If you want anyone to take your statements seriously, you have to show you actually understand the principles involved.   Name dropping those principles is never going to be enough.

 

We're not talking about something as simple as a car, we're talking about the human body performing a complex sequence of actions that have to be timed just right in order to efficiently use what power it is potentially able to deliver.  A system where the application of power (muscle action) at the wrong time can actually be detrimental to the results or completely wasted. The club head speed a person is able to achieve is dependent on a LOT more than just the weight of the club head.  In fact the weight of the club head is a trivial amount compared to all the mass that has to be moved and controlled.   And why are you obviously ignoring things like how something as "simple" as a change in head weight feel can effect how one controls their swing and things like the sequencing and efficiency of the swing as well as the ability to deliver the head into impact consistently and with the ability to get the desired ball flight results.    The real data and evidence has shown us for a long time that this is far from being as simple as you perceive it to be or assuming it is.

 

 

 

I love the science.  But maybe that's why I have a much better understanding of it than you do and know better than to try and over simplify it the way you seem to be.   Since you aren't really showing anything about how you are actually using those principles or specifically applying them, one can only guess.  But you seem to be confusing the amount of KE in a body with the amount of energy transferred - they not the same thing at all.  So if all you're considering is raw Kinetic Energy of the head, your understanding of the physics is limited at best.   As best as I can tell, it's more along the line of "a little knowledge being dangerous."    But feel free to prove me wrong.   Can you even show how to derive a basic equation for ball speed as a function of club head speed, club head mass, COR?    And can you show well you understand how loft and spin might also effect ball speed?  Numerically that is - with actual equations.

 

 

 

Glad you had fun with it and feel free to keep at it.  But I'm sorry to say that if it isn't properly documented and published, it's not worth much to anyone but yourself.  So don't expect it to hold any weight around here unless you can back your arguments with some actual substance.  Not just with the use veiled and over generalized references to concepts you haven't shown you actually understand fully.

Thank you @Stuart_G and @Howard_Jones for the years of sharing insights here on this golfWRX forum (and patiently answering questions from me and others) … most of us here appreciate your expertise & effort to reply

 

 

 

[JungleJimbo]

34 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Over simplifications don't prove anything and does not constitute valid logic or proof.    If you want anyone to take your statements seriously, you have to show you actually understand the principles involved.   Name dropping those principles is never going to be enough.

 

We're not talking about something as simple as a car, we're talking about the human body performing a complex sequence of actions that have to be timed just right in order to efficiently use what power it is potentially able to deliver.  A system where the application of power (muscle action) at the wrong time can actually be detrimental to the results or completely wasted. The club head speed a person is able to achieve is dependent on a LOT more than just the weight of the club head.  In fact the weight of the club head is a trivial amount compared to all the mass that has to be moved and controlled.   And why are you obviously ignoring things like how something as "simple" as a change in head weight feel can effect how one controls their swing and things like the sequencing and efficiency of the swing as well as the ability to deliver the head into impact consistently and with the ability to get the desired ball flight results.    The real data and evidence has shown us for a long time that this is far from being as simple as you perceive it to be or assuming it is.

 

 

 

I love the science, specifically kinetics and dynamics.  I wouldn't' have spent so much time in grad school learning it if I didn't.   

 

Since you aren't really showing anything about how you are actually using those principles or specifically applying them, one can only guess where your misunderstandings might be.  But (among other things) you seem to be confusing the amount of KE in a body with the amount of energy transferred - they not the same thing at all.  So if all you're considering is raw Kinetic Energy of the head, your understanding of the physics is limited at best.   As best as I can tell, it's more along the line of "a little knowledge being dangerous."    But feel free to prove me wrong.   Can you even show that you know how to derive a basic equation for ball speed as a function of club head speed, club head mass, COR?    And can you show well you understand how loft and spin might also effect ball speed?  Numerically that is - with actual equations.

 

 

 

Glad you had fun with it and feel free to keep at it.  But I'm sorry to say that if it isn't properly documented and published, it's not worth much to anyone but yourself.  So don't expect it to hold any weight around here unless you can back your arguments with some actual substance.  Not just with the use veiled and over generalized references to concepts you haven't shown you actually understand fully.

 

And if you have no interest in making any effort to show any of that - that's certainly your choice.   Just don't expect to accomplish much around here with that kind of approach.

waiting for a “Dave Tutelman-level”!mathematical equations, in response 

 

… but I wouldn’t understand the maths! 🤷‍♂️ 

 

 

[Stuart_G]

41 minutes ago, JungleJimbo said:

waiting for a “Dave Tutelman-level”!mathematical equations, in response 

 

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting.  My hopes certainly aren't that high.

 

[Stuart_G]

15 hours ago, jll62 said:

@Edhead From a physics standpoint, you're not entirely wrong. More kinetic energy will be produced by increasing velocity compared to increasing mass by a similar amount.

 

But he's not entirely right here either.  That's assuming you can come up with some level of judging "equivalence" between mass and velocity in a more practical sense.  It's only that simple if the impact were to stop the head completely and all energy gets transferred to the ball.  But we know that's not the case.   Even if we look purely at impact, impact dynamics is about conservation of Kinetic Energy and Conservation of Momentum (and COR).  Just knowing the increase in KE of the head isn't enough to tell you how the ball speed will change.   A head that has more KE going into impact also is going to have more KE post-impact that did not get transferred to the ball.  

 

So unless you actually start to look at the results of using the known equations for elastic collisions for specific contexts of practicable club changes relevant to golf - the statement above is really meaningless - even before considering the subjective influences of the feel changes on the swing and results.   With the equations, the best you can do is say going from a head weight of A to B will give you the same ball speed increase as a change in club head speed of X to Y.

 

Now that being said, it's well known that in terms of potential - club head speed really is the key to ball speed and distance.   However, the question of how to go about getting the fastest club head speed and getting consistent impact conditions good enough to fully utilize that potential - is far from simple and where things really make the waters cloudy.

 

Edited April 5 by Stuart_G