Fire in the hall - FLO of golf shaft do have a influence

[Howard_Jones]

Most old timers in here, must be sick and tired of this debate, we never saw any evidence for this, so when the question pops up, we are fast to "close it down", saying it makes no difference, but it will not hurt either...

Fast forward, my former student, now Club fitter and Clubmaker, Thomas Rosenberg in Copenhagen made a project with 28 players, where he let them hit their driver while he measured with his Quad LM. Then he pulls the shaft, he FLOs it, and reinstall it like he mean it should be, and then the player hit the club again.

The ONLY mods he did, was to align the shaft to the best FLO line, and here is the row of numbers that came out of it.
Its really Danish, so "efter" is the same as "after".

I had to admit, i did not see this coming, but i never isolated this and tested it like Thomas has done, i just followed my own way, and that was to install shafts with the FLO line that fits the flex target found during fitting.

 

Lars Bjerre Hcp 16,2
Carry 190
Efter
Carry 231 
 

Simon Dohn Hcp +2,9
Carry 230 m
Ball speed 143 mph
Efter
245m Ball speed 152 mph

René Dunweper
Carry 200 m
Ball speed 135 mph
Efter
Carry 225 carry
Ball speed 143 mph

Henrik Emdal Hcp 4,8
Carry 191m
Ball speed 129 mph
Efter 
Carry 219
Ball speed 140mph

Marlene Lysgaard HCP 12
Carry 151
Ball speed 110
Efter
Carry 165
Ball speed 117

Magnus Atli Hcp 14
Carry 230
Ball speed 146
Efter 
Carry 240
Ball speed 154

Birger Asklær Madsen Hcp 1,9
Carry 230
Ball speed 145
Efter
Carry 252 
Ball speed 154 mph

Magnus Nøhr-Lerager Hcp 4,5
Carry 221
Ball speed  150
Efter
Carry 242 
Ball speed 158 mph

Claus lindqvist Hcp 9,2
Carry 210 
Ball speed  142
Efter 
Carry 232
Ball speed 154

Jesper Tiedjen Hcp 10,3
Carry 220 meter
Ball speed 151 mph
Efter
Carry 244 meter
Ball speed 157

Lars Mandal 15,2
Carry 200
Efter 
235 meter

Kent Smed 12,9
Ball speed 150 mph
Carry 195 meter
Efter
Carry 219 meter
Ball speed 153

Titliest
Carry 235 m
Ball speed 156
Efter
Carry 250m
Ball speed 163

Taylermade SIM2
Carry 256 meter
Ballspeed 165
Efter 
275 carry
Ball speed 170 mph

Berit Titliest tsi3
Carry 165 m
Ball speed 117
Efter carry 181  m
Ball speed 124 mph 

Martin Hcp 10
Cobra F9
Carry 230 m
Ball speed 158 mph
251 carry
Ball speed 163 mph 

Jacob 4,1 hcp
Ping
Ball speed 146 moh
Carry 220 carry
Efter
Ball speed 152 mph
Carry 237 m

Søren 8,5 hcp
Titliest 915
Ball speed 140 mph
Carry 208 
Efter
Ball speed 146 mph
Carry 229 

Charlotte 12,3 hcp
Carry 154 carry 
Efter
179 carry 

Morten Thygesen 14,9 hcp
Carry 207 meter
Ball speed 143 mph
Efter 
Carry 230 meter
Ball speed 150 mph

The numbers is not all uniformed with the same info for all here, and if you wants to see the LM reports, he has posted them on his FB wall
https://www.facebook.com/thomas.rosenberg.56

Thomas Rosenberg is a member of this forum, so feel free to ask him for more details

Edited January 13, 2023 by Howard_Jones

[Stuart_G]

Very interesting @Howard_Jones and certainly enough to make one think -  but so much is missing to be able to come to any reliable conclusions (at least from the info and data in your post and I couldn't find anything that I could read on his facebook page :-).

• Write up on full testing methodology
  • doesn't sound like it was a blind test - everyone likely knew that the second session was the FLO'd shaft.
• complete before/after club and ball data.
  • including dispersion/accuracy data.
• Information about the shaft asymmetry for each player:
  • Where was the strong axis aligned to
  • how much was each shaft rotated
  • what was the freq differential between the weak and strong FLO axis
• How repeatable was it?  e.g. 
  • if the shaft was rotated back to the original position would the results be consistent with the 'before' data.

That's just the first few things that come to mind.

[Howard_Jones]

29 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

Very interesting @Howard_Jones and certainly enough to make one think -  but so much is missing to be able to come to any reliable conclusions (at least from the info and data in your post and I couldn't find anything that I could read on his facebook page :-).

• Write up on full testing methodology
  • doesn't sound like it was a blind test - everyone likely knew that the second session was the FLO'd shaft.
• complete before/after club and ball data.
  • including dispersion/accuracy data.
• Information about the shaft asymmetry for each player:
  • Where was the strong axis aligned to
  • how much was each shaft rotated
  • what was the freq differential between the weak and strong FLO axis
• How repeatable was it?  e.g. 
  • if the shaft was rotated back to the original position would the results be consistent with the 'before' data.

That's just the first few things that come to mind.

Yes i know, im a bit ahead of time posting what he sent me as a PM, and thats why there is no uniformity to the datas, but he has everything, including LM reports before and after

Thomas DID NOT have a profile here as i though, but he is opening one now, and i will make sure the needed datas will be added with LM reports.

Its clearly a few more details for some of this players where more confidence is part of it (after seeing that it works better, allowed them to add speed, still with improved dispersion).

Thomas will chime in later today

[the bishop]

this should be good. 🍿

[Adam C]

This is interesting. I do find it difficult to believe that every single player saw this same level of speed improvement. Was the study population actually larger than the 28 players shown here. These were all done at FLO set at 12 o'clock?

As Stuart mentioned, would like to see the before and after shaft orientation. Would also be useful addition to the test to just use a simple hosel rotation (available for anyone except Callaway users) with the adapter after the reshafts just to see a different "incorrect" orientation at the same moment in time. Also really should have been "blind" as we all know how much of this game is mental.

Still this makes me think I might need to start working on a test of my own.

[bladehunter]

I’m surprised someone did this. But I’m not shocked at the results.  And I’ll tell you why.  
 

as a player who is a plus handicap with a balky putter , my strong point has always been ball-striking.  So I have always had this ability to hit 2-3 balls with a new club , and either be impressed or an absolute no.  It’s instantly.  Ok.   Take that fact and couple it with This.  I’ve had good clubs I tried to recreate perfectly.  Most times it cannot be done. Not completely. Why ?  Even if measuring each component as same weight etc. it still feels or performs slightly off. Or my favorite.  An iron set.  Usually I’ll love certain irons based on frequency of use. For instance. Pitching wedge is usually a favorite club.  That makes sense. But occasionally you’ll get a set where a single iron is just not the same. It’s awful.  I have learned anecdotally to immediately switch out the shaft of the loft and swing weight is checked and up to spec. Almost 100 % of the time the shaft change to an identically marker one , will repair the issue. Why ?  It has to be because of how the shaft reacts .  There’s no other explanation.   
 

 

I have a lob wedge right now that is the single most repeatable club I’ve ever owned.  I just cannot hit it off center. And have a small wear mark to prove it. I’d bet you any amount of money that if I bought a new head. New grip and a new shaft , that are identical. It wouldn’t be as good. Not until I swapped the current shaft into the new head. Then it may be. And I believe it’s because of dumb luck that I have it indexed to it’s optimal  position in the head.
 

this  info Kind of kills the adjustable drives usefulness, in a way.  Doesn’t it ?  

Edited January 13, 2023 by bladehunter

[Stuart_G]

35 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Almost 100 % of the time the shaft change to an identically marker one , will repair the issue. Why ?  It has to be because of how the shaft reacts .  There’s no other explanation.   

 

Actually it's more likely because of the way you react to the variations in the shaft.   Some people can be very sensitive to the changes in the stiffness, loading, unloading feel from the shaft.   Those variations happen regardless of whether or not there might be asymmetry in the shaft and how that asymmetry is aligned with the club head.    The question of symmetry and alignment does add a potentially additional variable in the question of feel from the shaft - but it's not the only contributing factor.

 

How much the asymmetry and alignment might effect the results in a way that's independent of how it influence the feel of the shaft is a completely different aspect of the question - but unfortunately one that is very difficult to isolate and test in a way that eliminates the potential "feel" contribution.   That would have to be done through robot testing - and specifically with a robot that accurately duplicated human mechanics (not all do).

 

 

35 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

this  info Kind of kills the adjustable drives usefulness, in a way.  Doesn’t it ?  

 

Not yet and even if true not completely.     Especially if you look at the adjustability as a way to fine tune the fit when the club is first purchased or put into play - and not as something that is meant to be adjusted from day to day by the player.

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Stuart_G

[Shilgy]

@bladehunter to your last sentence I agree EXCEPT in the case of Titleist and Callaway(?) where the shaft orientation does not change when adjusting.

[WristySwing]

43 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

@bladehunter to your last sentence I agree EXCEPT in the case of Titleist and Callaway(?) where the shaft orientation does not change when adjusting.

 

Titleist is one of the worst for rotating around the axis.  Callaway and Nike were the only two companies I can think of where the shaft did not move when adjusting the head.

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Actually it's more likely because of the way you react to the variations in the shaft.   Some people can be very sensitive to the changes in the stiffness, loading, unloading feel from the shaft.   Those variations happen regardless of whether or not there might be asymmetry in the shaft and how that asymmetry is aligned with the club head.    The question of symmetry and alignment does add a potentially additional variable in the question of feel from the shaft - but it's not the only contributing factor.

 

How much the asymmetry and alignment might effect the results in a way that's independent of how it influence the feel of the shaft is a completely different aspect of the question - but unfortunately one that is very difficult to isolate and test in a way that eliminates the potential "feel" contribution.   That would have to be done through robot testing - and specifically with a robot that accurately duplicated human mechanics (not all do).

 

 

 

Not yet and even if true not completely.     Especially if you look at the adjustability as a way to fine tune the fit when the club is first purchased or put into play - and not as something that is meant to be adjusted from day to day by the player.

 

Right i understand what you’re saying. In a way.  But. It’s still going to prove useless to fit for loft if the given data here on flo alignment is proven absolutely universal truth.  Right ?   So you’d have to align the shaft before each loft lie adjustment to get a real take.  
 

how is that different than just swapping same shaft from head to head ?  The old way.  To find a loft lie fit.  

Edited January 13, 2023 by bladehunter

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

@bladehunter to your last sentence I agree EXCEPT in the case of Titleist and Callaway(?) where the shaft orientation does not change when adjusting.

On callaway yes. Titleist only keeps shaft same if you adjust minor and stay in the same corner or the adjustment chart.  If you go from flat to upright or -2 degrees loft , the shaft changes alot.  

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

There are some huge differences there. I would say more than be explained away by just "added confidence".

 

I'm following this.

 

 

 

[ShortGolfer]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

this  info Kind of kills the adjustable drives usefulness, in a way.  Doesn’t it ?  

If true, this makes adjustable drivers more useful to me.  My level of clubmaking skill allows me to swap out adapters with a graphite shaft puller.

I can easily swap shafts and change the orientation of shafts until I find the combination that works best.  Easily to do A/B comparisons.

 

Pulling shafts out of a hosel and making comparisons is too hard for me.

Edited January 13, 2023 by ShortGolfer

[Howard_Jones]

2 hours ago, Adam C said:

This is interesting. I do find it difficult to believe that every single player saw this same level of speed improvement. Was the study population actually larger than the 28 players shown here. These were all done at FLO set at 12 o'clock?

As Stuart mentioned, would like to see the before and after shaft orientation. Would also be useful addition to the test to just use a simple hosel rotation (available for anyone except Callaway users) with the adapter after the reshafts just to see a different "incorrect" orientation at the same moment in time. Also really should have been "blind" as we all know how much of this game is mental.

Still this makes me think I might need to start working on a test of my own.

 

There is rather large difference between "gained carry", both as distance and %, so its not like they all gained 15% or 30 yards. I dont have more details until Thomas chimes in here himself, but we can assume that all this clubs came with logo up from OEM

A test like this CANT be done as a blind test, its the players own club, its not "similar shafts", its THE shaft the player got, and to say it like i feel it, its really THAT question most players seeks the answer to, not how a "shaft X" that dont belong to the player works "before and after" for 10 or 20 players.

The reason for my thinking here is the typical question....
"ive been fitted for....should i pay the extra for PURE or FLO?
I really think thats the question most of us wants the answer to, or said with other words, if we by fitting find a good shaft, can it be improved any further this way?

Its also quite a spread on HDCP, so Thomas should add if the player was fitted for the actual club/shaft, or if it simply was the club they once bought without fitting. 

Another claim from Thomas during our chat was that for some of this players, the adjustable hosel settings "did not really work as they should", before the shaft was aligned, but again, details must be added by him.

Thomas is both a club maker, club fitter, and swing trainer, so he must also tell us if he made any changes to the players swing who could "muddy the waters" here, but as i understood it, this project was strictly shaft alignment, and what happened when done.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Howard_Jones

[ode1]

NBP and spine, are they the same thing🙃

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

Right i understand what you’re saying. In a way.  But. It’s still going to prove useless to fit for loft if the given data here on flo alignment is proven absolutely universal truth.  Right ?   So you’d have to align the shaft before each loft lie adjustment to get a real take.  
 

how is that different than just swapping same shaft from head to head ?  The old way.  To find a loft lie fit.  

 

It really all depends on the effects of the spin alignment.   What is actually gained by doing it.  Whatever they might be, I doubt that it would effect what the best settings might be - at least for the majority.   Think of it as a bonus to a good fitting setup.   e.g. Fit for adjustment w/o spine alignment - then add the spine alignment to get a bit "more".   That's really what the preliminary test results are really about (assuming the methodology was not flawed in some way).  All those people were fit to their equipment w/o spine alignment and the test was looking at how the results changed w/o refitting for any of the head specs or any further adjustment.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

A test like this CANT be done as a blind test, its the players own club, its not "similar shafts", its THE shaft the player got, and to say it like i feel it, its really THAT question most players seeks the answer to, not how a "shaft X" that dont belong to the player works "before and after" for 10 or 20 players.

 

I disagree.  In fact for it to have any merit, it MUST be a blind test.

 

The question is how might spine alignment effect the results.   Starting with a shaft the player was fit for (assuming an equal high quality fitting was done for all involved) only is needed to rule out (as best as possible) the question of how good a fit the test equipment used might be for each player.   The order that the player hits the aligned and unaligned shaft (and whether they know which is which) does not matter if the results are legitimate.

 

 

 

 

 

[Stuart_G]

10 minutes ago, ode said:

NBP and spine, are they the same thing🙃

 

No.   Spine is the strong FLO axis,  NBP is the weak FLO axis  (90* off of the spine axis).

 

https://www.tutelman.com/golf/shafts/allAboutSpines1.php

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Stuart_G

[DFS PFD]

Without digging into the study too deep, based on FLO as the only variable (besides any placebo and obvious user error), we see a range of 5-14 mph of increased ball speed? Even with improved contact for the shots used for averages, there have to be some major outliers on high and low side that are well outside the standard deviation one would expect and make this data hard to use in any meaningful way. Though I know I'm missing things that Stuart and Howard understand much better than I. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by DFS PFD

[bladehunter]

13 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

It really all depends on the effects of the spin alignment.   What is actually gained by doing it.  Whatever they might be, I doubt that it would effect what the best settings might be - at least for the majority.   Think of it as a bonus to a good fitting setup.   e.g. Fit for adjustment w/o spine alignment - then add the spine alignment to get a bit "more".   That's really what the preliminary test results are really about (assuming the methodology was not flawed in some way).  All those people were fit to their equipment w/o spine alignment and the test was looking at how the results changed w/o refitting for any of the head specs or any further adjustment.

 

 

 

I disagree.  In fact for it to have any merit, it MUST be a blind test.

 

The question is how might spine alignment effect the results.   Starting with a shaft the player was fit for (assuming an equal high quality fitting was done for all involved) only is needed to rule out (as best as possible) the question of how good a fit the test equipment used might be for each player.   The order that the player hits the aligned and unaligned shaft (and whether they know which is which) does not matter if the results are legitimate.

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose. Or at least I see what you’re saying. We won’t know until it’s tested both ways.  
 

but in the vein of fitting.  I consider myself a gear junkie.  And I do my own work , mostly from necessity of being a tall guy and not being able to play off the rack.   Well. I truly have no idea where I could go and get a club fitting that I’d rely on for any price if I had the inclination to do so.  Short of a tour contact l don’t Believe it exists for most people.  
 

I for instance believe that to know you’re playing the best driver combo ( for you ) made …. It might take a week with a fitter who has access to all , and multiple sessions  to find it.  Nobody can stand and hit 200 drivers and remain consistent.  Who does that ?  99.99999 % do not.  I attempt it as money allows on my own. But I find better at least twice a year. So I fail miserably in some sense.  That’s partially why to me this idea would go first.  Not last. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by bladehunter

[Howard_Jones]

11 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

It really all depends on the effects of the spin alignment.   What is actually gained by doing it.  Whatever they might be, I doubt that it would effect what the best settings might be - at least for the majority.   Think of it as a bonus to a good fitting setup.   e.g. Fit for adjustment w/o spine alignment - then add the spine alignment to get a bit "more".   That's really what the preliminary test results are really about (assuming the methodology was not flawed in some way).  All those people were fit to their equipment w/o spine alignment and the test was looking at how the results changed w/o refitting for any of the head specs or any further adjustment.

 

 

 

I disagree.  In fact for it to have any merit, it MUST be a blind test.

 

The question is how might spine alignment effect the results.   Starting with a shaft the player was fit for (assuming an equal high quality fitting was done for all involved) only is needed to rule out (as best as possible) the question of how good a fit the test equipment used might be for each player.   The order that the player hits the aligned and unaligned shaft (and whether they know which is which) does not matter if the results are legitimate.

 

 

 

 

 

Tell me how a blind test of this can be done, im not able to see it with the term and conditions present, and when you say if its not a blind test, it has no merit, i have to ask why?

For me this is just the same as a loft and dispersion tweak, the clubs is the same, but tested before and after adjustments of loft/lie. The test is not blind, so what we find has no merit with your thinking? im not able to follow that idea

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, ShortGolfer said:

If true, this makes adjustable drivers more useful to me.  My level of clubmaking skill allows me to swap out adapters with a graphite shaft puller.

I can easily swap shafts and change the orientation of shafts until I find the combination that works best.  Easily to do A/B comparisons.

 

Pulling shafts out of a hosel and making comparisons is too hard for me.

Sure in theory.  But I’d say be careful of You’re  using anything fujikura.  I love their shafts. But. I’ve had two failures last year and I use a puller and a mini torch for a fast localized heat.   A pull only takes seconds.  And yet I still have had two shafts crack.  At the tip.  I’ve pulled 20 at least graphite design  last year and never an issue …. So I get what you’re saying . But research the ventus shafts failing.  You won’t pull one or those 5-10 times and not see a failure. 

[ode1]

27 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

No.   Spine is the strong FLO axis,  NBP is the weak FLO axis  (90* off of the spine axis).

 

https://www.tutelman.com/golf/shafts/allAboutSpines1.php

 

I know, I just could not help myself.  Unfortunately the terms will be interchanged and far too often.

[Stuart_G]

34 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

We won’t know until it’s tested both ways.  
 

 

Agree.  There is just too much that is not known or understood.   So we're really just throwing out different possibilities.

 

 

34 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Short of a tour contact l don’t Believe it exists for most people.  
 

 

Also agree.   Real good fitters are few and far between.   But proper testing could potentially determine how important a good fitting may or may not be in order to gain any advantage of spine alignment.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Tell me how a blind test of this can be done, im not able to see it with the term and conditions present, and when you say if its not a blind test, it has no merit, i have to ask why?

 

Well "no merit" might be a bit strong - but it would certainly leave any results suspect.  Why is easy.  The mind plays too big a part in the golf swing.  What a player may or may not believe can have a major influence in the results.

 

How isn't really all that difficult.  Time consuming maybe but not difficult.  Here is one possible way.

 

Collect the equipment before the testing starts.  Measure and mark the original alignment and the spine (e.g. mark under the grip where it can't be seen when the club is being used).   Use skins to hide the label and graphics alignment from the player.   Randomly select which of the participants will start the test with the original alignment and which will start with the spine aligned shafts for the first session and set the club up for that alignment.   Repeat several times (2 is not enough, I'd say at least 6 sessions per player but more would be better - limit the number of sessions per day).   Don't always switch the shaft either between subsequent sessions.   You just want to make sure half the sessions were spine aligned and half were not.  The more inconsistent the sequence of aligned vs unaligned the better.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

For me this is just the same as a loft and dispersion tweak, the clubs is the same, but tested before and after adjustments of loft/lie. The test is not blind, so what we find has no merit with your thinking? im not able to follow that idea

 

Loft adjustments would be difficult to do blindly since the face angle changes and that's something you can't hide from the user.   But there is also much less potentially influential stigma associated with loft adjustments then there is with spine alignment.

 

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Stuart_G

[grochol17]

Every one of the 28 players saw a pretty big jump in performance.  But, at least a couple of the players should have, by random chance, already had a shaft that was aligned properly (or very close to it) so that nothing really changed when their shaft was reinstalled.  The fact that everyone improved definitely makes me think there was a bump in confidence from knowing that their club was "better than before."  Like Stuart mentioned, this is interesting, but needs blind testing before we can say for sure that the improvements are due to the FLOing rather than being psychological. 

[LongNwrong27]

14 minutes ago, grochol17 said:

Every one of the 28 players saw a pretty big jump in performance.  But, at least a couple of the players should have, by random chance, already had a shaft that was aligned properly (or very close to it) so that nothing really changed when their shaft was reinstalled.  The fact that everyone improved definitely makes me think there was a bump in confidence from knowing that their club was "better than before."  Like Stuart mentioned, this is interesting, but needs blind testing before we can say for sure that the improvements are due to the FLOing rather than being psychological. 

Exactly. Or the data is falsified, improperly measured,  etc. too good to be true. 
 

if I can get 20 meters carry by lining my shaft up on some voodoo axis, sign me up 

[LongNwrong27]

Could be something as simple as the people literally walked in and hit their driver 5 times cold and then it got aligned and they swung it again. Some of these people gained like 10-12 mph ball speed. It seems pretty ludicrous to think people were swinging the driver 7-8 mph at minimum faster due to it being aligned differently. 

[Jeff58]

Any “before vs. after” test is inherently flawed and shows no understanding of basic statistics or methods. It could have been done appropriately, but would have had to randomize the optimization order.

[jj9000]

Just read a portion of the OP, and by trying to silently pronounce the names of each participant in my head, I've come to the conclusion that the testing didn't happen in Lincoln, Nebraska.

 

In all seriousness though...I'm just here for the S-Show to follow.

[DYOS4]

Hopefully Thomas can chime in with more details. 

 

Personal real world experience, I've probably FLOed over a dozen or so driver and fairway shafts for myself and I've yet to come to anything like this. If I have an extra 5 minutes, I'll FLO the shaft, if I don't have the time, I don't lose any sleep over it.

 

I didn't test specifically for the effect of spining vs logo down but everything over time gave me very similar results. Nothing scientific or experimental here, just on course experience and Trackman/Quad indoor sessions. 

 

Like Stuart pointed out, mental side of this stupid game can have a big effect. On the physical side, a bad night of sleep can have a couple mph clubhead different vs feeling good.

[DYOS4]

16 minutes ago, doctor220 said:

if I can get 20 meters carry by lining my shaft up on some voodoo axis, sign me up 

Well, it's not voodoo, these 2 axis do exist. 

 

But, yea, I agree with the 7-8 mph increase is contributed from somewhere else given that the club is exactly the same weight and length.