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

[Godfather]

19 minutes ago, mstuewe said:

One solution to a practical way of testing could be test and control groups.  Have 28 players do an initial assessment.  Properly FLO 14 shafts and improperly FLO the other 14.  Tell them all you did “something” to improve the performance of the club.  Repeat the assessment and compare.  

This has been done for SST Puring and FLOing in a more scientific way. Search TXG and Mobile Clubmaker on YouTube for some entertaining double blind examples. Spoiler alert - there is no difference and more often than not, the tester guesses the wrong club. Mobile Clubmaker does a nice job explaining why rotating a shaft to get these ridiculous claims of added distance and accuracy is hogwash. Truly you will get more gains with a placebo effect if you can design an experiment for that.
 

To add just a little more to my earlier BS post, the fact that the gains were comically large and none were insignificant or even about the same is a joke. I mean if it wasn’t fabricated, then the confounding variable could be the old thing of take 3 swings when you’re cold and then I’ll make a change as you continue to warm up and then you have the placebo effect and you’re now warmed up. 10 more yards! It’s magic! Either way, the data is BS. 

Okay I decided to link a couple videos that do a nice job explaining why rotating a shaft is not getting you any gains.

 

The swing is one load, not 20:

 

Double blind SST PURE comparison:

 

[Stuart_G]

29 minutes ago, mstuewe said:

One solution to a practical way of testing could be test and control groups.  Have 28 players do an initial assessment.  Properly FLO 14 shafts and improperly FLO the other 14.  

 

Yes, A control group is almost an essential part of any test like this.   Lots of ways to do it in this particular case.

 

 

29 minutes ago, mstuewe said:

Tell them all you did “something” to improve the performance of the club.  Repeat the assessment and compare.  

 

Actually for this type of testing, the only thing the tester should be telling the subject is procedural information that's specific to their involvement - what will happen and what to do.  Never why and never tell them what changed or if anything changes (until after the testing is over). 

 

A tester is not a fitter and should never act like one.  A test can NOT be an interactive process and the tester has to avoid leading the individual or letting their own bias potentially influence the test.  If you want to ask questions (which is good) - it should be done with a standard written questionnaire that is given to the individual after the test is over.   Never ask questions during the test (other than "are you ready to proceed?").     Improper interactions during the test between tester and subject, by itself can be enough to invalidate the results.

 

[Adam C]

I was trying to be diplomatic with my initial response to this discussion but nothing I have read since has swayed my opinion after the initial read. The data is way way way to definitive especially as someone who has now conducted numerous tests "blind" to answer the same question.

If you have not seen any of my tests, my method was to construct two "identical" 6 irons. Same everything (as close as possible).

Head model

Head weight

Loft

Lie

Shaft

Shaft length

Grip

Grip size

Swing weight

I even had both KBS Tour shafts PURE'd by Golfworks.

One I installed in the correct PURE orientation, the other was installed at approximately 40 degrees off that axis to insure both that it was not in the PURE orientation but also that it was not aligned 90 degrees from there, which some people might also claim is beneficial. 

 

Having numerous golfers try the two shafts in a variety of settings both with and without LM data, my tests showed that some golfers preferred the PURE orientated club, some preferred the non PURE club, and some could not tell a difference (these golfers were in general higher handicap). It was basically 50:50 on who preferred the PUREd vs the non.

 

Now while I am willing to admit that aligning all the shafts in an iron set the same way might be beneficial to some, the fact that half the golfers (more like 40% if we could the undecideds)  preferred non PUREd orientation would result in half of all golfers liking the resulting PUREd set less.

 

And again while you could argue the benefit of an iron set being aligned in any orientation for consistency of feel through the set, a driver as an individual club would not see that same benefit.

 

End of the day, some golfers prefer the feel of a stiffer initial downswing loading where the spine sits at 12 o'clock and feels softer through the impact zone, while others will prefer the feel of a softer initial downswing load and stiffer feel through impact. Of course this all assumes you have shafts with a significant enough hard to soft side discrepancy to actually "feel" this difference.

[Howard_Jones]

2 hours ago, Snowman9000 said:

I spined and Flo’d a lot of clubs.  On some poorer quality shafts, I did notice better results.  Sometimes it would fix that one bad iron in the set.  

 

Tell us more about that one...



 

[B.Easy]

I have seen the videos and read a ton of posts and articles on various forums about how Pure, Flo, etc. is a waste of time and money-- and largely believed it.

 

My issue is that I am an experienced, competitive archer and archery hunter.  My arrows (Easton, Victory) are built with the same carbon fiber (40t-90t) and resins used in golf shafts and assembled in the same fashion- to much tighter tolerances (+/- .001 straightness)

 

I would never consider shooting in a competition and especially at an animal without it being spine aligned.  At 20 yards it can make 6-8 inches of difference in any direction and will change arrow speed.  Eliminating variables that cause inconsistency make better archers.  It should create better golfers.

 

I simply can't comprehend why it would not make a positive difference.  At the very least, help with one of the variables of consistency over the course of a larger sample size.

 

I've never had it done and I don't have anyone near me that has the equipment to do it, but I'd like to try for myself.  Many times I have had that one or two clubs- woods and irons-- that give me fits of inconsistency-- and I'd like to know if this could help.

[Godfather]

26 minutes ago, B.Easy said:

I have seen the videos and read a ton of posts and articles on various forums about how Pure, Flo, etc. is a waste of time and money-- and largely believed it.

 

My issue is that I am an experienced, competitive archer and archery hunter.  My arrows (Easton, Victory) are built with the same carbon fiber (40t-90t) and resins used in golf shafts and assembled in the same fashion- to much tighter tolerances (+/- .001 straightness)

 

I would never consider shooting in a competition and especially at an animal without it being spine aligned.  At 20 yards it can make 6-8 inches of difference in any direction and will change arrow speed.  Eliminating variables that cause inconsistency make better archers.  It should create better golfers.

 

I simply can't comprehend why it would not make a positive difference.  At the very least, help with one of the variables of consistency over the course of a larger sample size.

 

I've never had it done and I don't have anyone near me that has the equipment to do it, but I'd like to try for myself.  Many times I have had that one or two clubs- woods and irons-- that give me fits of inconsistency-- and I'd like to know if this could help.

I’m no archer, but I would expect an arrow oscillates quite rapidly, correct? Perhaps 100-200+ oscillations per second per a quick google search. So that means an arrow is oscillating 20-40 times for a competitive shot? I would definitely expect to see a significant difference here as you point out. 

[B.Easy]

21 minutes ago, Godfather said:

I’m no archer, but I would expect an arrow oscillates quite rapidly, correct? Perhaps 100-200+ oscillations per second per a quick google search. So that means an arrow is oscillating 20-40 times for a competitive shot? I would definitely expect to see a significant difference here as you point out. 

Completely depends on the specifics of the arrow, length, construction, fletching, stiffness, distance of shot, speed, etc.  

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

1 hour ago, B.Easy said:

My issue is that I am an experienced, competitive archer and archery hunter.  My arrows (Easton, Victory) are built with the same carbon fiber (40t-90t) and resins used in golf shafts and assembled in the same fashion- to much tighter tolerances (+/- .001 straightness)

 

I would never consider shooting in a competition and especially at an animal without it being spine aligned.  At 20 yards it can make 6-8 inches of difference in any direction and will change arrow speed.  Eliminating variables that cause inconsistency make better archers.  It should create better golfers.

 

Weird.  I also bowhunted and target shot, once upon a time, and I noticed nothing like that at the 20-40 yards I typically shot at.  This was with aluminum arrows, mind, not anything as spendy as carbon fiber like you were doing, but I'd have noticed an inability to get our groups below 6" at 20 yds.  I definitely would not have been allowed to shoot at deer if I couldn't shoot better than that, for one thing.

 

We did not true or flo our shafts before mounting fletching, fitting the sockets for heads, etc...

 

Shrug.

[Stuart_G]

52 minutes ago, Godfather said:

I’m no archer, but I would expect an arrow oscillates quite rapidly, correct? Perhaps 100-200+ oscillations per second per a quick google search. So that means an arrow is oscillating 20-40 times for a competitive shot? I would definitely expect to see a significant difference here as you point out. 

It's not the oscillations or frequency that's the issue.  It's the direction of the initial bending of the arrow when released that will effect it's initial flight.   Any bending of the arrow while it's released will effect the direction of flight.  Consistent spine orientation of the arrows means consistent direction of bending and consistent "errors" in the initial direction of flight.   Now once the arrow leaves the bow - it does start spinning so the spine orientation has little effect once that starts happening (in theory at least - I haven't looked at the typical rotation rates of an arrow in flight).

 

1 hour ago, B.Easy said:

I simply can't comprehend why it would not make a positive difference. 

 

The reason it has no direct relevance to golf is that nothing is trying to twist the arrow while it's bending/unbending during the release.   In golf, our wrists are twisting the shaft about it's axis so there never will be one single axis the shaft bends on during that loading and unloading.   In fact typically the axis will shift (very roughly depending on the mechanics) a full 90* between the start of the transition when the shaft starts to load and impact where it's completely unloaded and starting to load in the other direction.

 

A better argument currently is that "there is no way it can hurt"  (other than potential effort and cost in the build).

Edited January 14, 2023 by Stuart_G

[B.Easy]

3 minutes ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

 

Weird.  I also bowhunted and target shot, once upon a time, and I noticed nothing like that at the 20-40 yards I typically shot at.  This was with aluminum arrows, mind, not anything as spendy as carbon fiber like you were doing, but I'd have noticed an inability to get our groups below 6" at 20 yds.  I definitely would not have been allowed to shoot at deer if I couldn't shoot better than that, for one thing.

 

We did not true or flo our shafts before mounting fletching, fitting the sockets for heads, etc...

 

Shrug.

I didn't say anything about "groups."  at 20- All of my arrows are likely touching.  If spine isn't aligned with the c-vane and nock, depending on many other factors, you can get a flyer--especially with broadheads. Archery equipment isn't even in the same universe it was 10+ years ago.

 

I'd like to hear more about the testing conditions and subjects.  Did I miss that?

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

4 minutes ago, B.Easy said:

I didn't say anything about "groups."  at 20- All of my arrows are likely touching.  If spine isn't aligned with the c-vane and nock, depending on many other factors, you can get a flyer--especially with broadheads. Archery equipment isn't even in the same universe it was 10+ years ago.

 

I'd like to hear more about the testing conditions and subjects.  Did I miss that?

Mine too at 20.  6" is big.  Robin Hooding nocks off is a PITA.

 

If I can get 6-8" inches of variation by where the fletching and nock are mounted on an arrow, and I'm not paying attention to wherever the Flo or whatever is on a spine, I'm likely mounting them randomly compared to where the spine is.  And if so, my accuracy should be all over the place, if your statement applied to my experience with archery.  But in my more limited experience than yours, it didn't.  Hence the shrug.

 

I'm glad your shaft prepping procedures had a positive result for you.

[B.Easy]

3 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

It's not the oscillations or frequency that's the issue.  It's the direction of the initial bending of the arrow when released that will effect it's initial flight.   Any bending of the arrow while it's released will effect the direction of flight.  Consistent spine orientation of the arrows means consistent direction of bending and consistent "errors" in the initial direction of flight.   Now once the arrow leaves the bow - it does start spinning so the spine orientation has little effect once that starts happening (in theory at least - I haven't looked at the typical rotation rates of an arrow in flight).

 

 

The reason it has no direct relevance to golf is that nothing is trying to twist the arrow while it's bending/unbending during the release.   In golf, our wrists are twisting the shaft about it's axis so there never will be one single axis the shaft bends on during that loading and unloading.   In fact typically the axis will shift (very roughly depending on the mechanics) a full 90* between the start of the transition when the shaft starts to load and impact where it's completely unloaded and starting to load in the other direction.

 

A better argument currently is that "there is no way it can hurt"  (other than potential effort and cost in the build).

 

I'm not arguing that it is definitely beneficial and I would agree that a better argument, as of now, is it can't hurt.

 

Arrows "torque" (twist and bend) when being fired. The fletching causes rotation and spinning as a means of stabilization.  Inconsistent torque reaction of the arrow, at the shot, can cause inconsistent flight.  It's not a direct 1:1 comparison, but there is crossover.  

 

I want to hear more about this and try to understand, without the sarcasm and people trying to shut down the discussion.  Or someone trying to sell a shaft upgrade of some kind.  I'm interested in the dispersion part of this convo.  

 

And I am a little slow sometimes, so I need to ask questions to try and figure it out for myself.  

[JCAG]

I am an advocate of FLOing and Puring (but not ball bearing spine finders) and I am dubious of the claimed distance increases. I believe it results in consistency in control and feel thus has merit for these reasons alone. I leave any distance claims on the table.

 

Personally I have my driver and fairway wood shafts Pured. The rest I FLO.

[ChipNRun]

On 1/13/2023 at 8:29 AM, Stuart_G said:

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.

 

I got one insight on benefits of adjustability six years ago at the regional Golf Expo. The senior instructor from a local country club said that one of the big benefits is in supply-chain management. With adjustability, she said her shop carried about 50% of long-club inventory compared to old "bonded only" days. She said the club can be tweaked on the spot, and maybe a shaft swapped out, as compared to having to order a specific bonded-head driver for the customer.  

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, B.Easy said:

 

I'm not arguing that it is definitely beneficial and I would agree that a better argument, as of now, is it can't hurt.

 

No worries. I understand that.

 

1 hour ago, B.Easy said:

Arrows "torque" (twist and bend) when being fired. The fletching causes rotation and spinning as a means of stabilization. 

 

Yes - but only after the nock leaves the string, not before - and there are several cycles of bending that happen to the arrow prior to the rotation starting.

 

1 hour ago, B.Easy said:

Inconsistent torque reaction of the arrow, at the shot, can cause inconsistent flight.  It's not a direct 1:1 comparison, but there is crossover.  

 

torque comes from the aerodynamics of the fletching.  Why do you think any asymmetric bending properties (and therefore spine alignment) of the shaft has any influence on the torque the fletching applies to the arrow?

 

On top of that there are numerous other differences between a shaft based projectile being bent from an axial force (that allows the arrow to bend on any axis it wants) and golf shaft driving and delivering a high mass head via tangential forces that force a specific bending axis.     So I'll just have to disagree that there is any crossover.   And nothing wrong with disagreements.

 

1 hour ago, B.Easy said:

I want to hear more about this and try to understand, without the sarcasm and people trying to shut down the discussion. 

 

Most people do want to learn more.  It is a public forum so the sarcasm is unavoidable but IMO easy to ignore. 

 

The main disputed question is how much the OP's data really does help us learn anything (or not).     Data will be the only real source of understanding - but only if it's collected using valid methodology.     The main problem I'm addressing at this point is that most of the over simplified attempts to try and "understand" what might be happening is really not very applicable and therefore not really helping anyone learn anything.

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Stuart_G

[B.Easy]

2 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

No worries. I understand that.

 

 

Yes - but only after the nock leaves the string, not before.

 

 

torque comes from the aerodynamics of the fletching.  Why do you think any asymmetric bending properties (and therefore spine alignment) of the shaft has any influence on the torque the fletching applies to the arrow?

 

On top of that there are numerous other differences between a shaft based projectile being bent from an axial force (that allows the arrow to bend on any axis it wants) and golf shaft driving and delivering a high mass head via tangential forces that force a specific bending axis.     So I'll just have to disagree that there is any crossover.   And nothing wrong with disagreements.

 

 

Most people do want to learn more.  It is a public forum so the sarcasm is unavoidable but IMO easy to ignore. 

 

The main disputed question is how much the OP's data really does help us learn anything (or not).     Data will be the only real source of understanding - but only if it's collected using valid methodology.     The main problem I'm addressing at this point is that most of the over simplified attempts to try and "understand" what might be happening is really not very applicable and therefore not really helping anyone learn anything.

 

 

Thank you.  This is helpful and not many disagreements.  Like I said.  Kinda slow sometimes, as it takes me time to process.

[Ri_Redneck]

Thomas, Thank you so much for sharing your information and posting clarifications. I feel FLOing may be more important the more flexible the shaft is. I would suspect the spine makes more of a difference in feel when the shaft bends more. You guys feel free to let me know if I'm right with this.

 

Personally, I like a shaft that has little bend (TX/X w/ 110 CHS) and my swing is a low-rotation swing (closed at the top). I don't recall ever feeling much difference in my driver shafts as they are rotated. I have played most of my adjustable drivers at their full range of loft (180* shaft rotation) and don't recall feeling any added looseness at any of the 5 (Cobra) or 6 (Mizuno) positions from lowest to highest loft. I plan to check my driver shafts though just to see where the spine is currently aligned. Then, adjust to see, again, if I feel any difference in control relating to how it is positioned.

 

Very interesting topic!

 

BT

[Mr. Magix]

Evening 🤗 Then comes info & it's crazy what a shaft can do for and against you😵‍💫

We started with new RCT balls
The player is Morten HCP +4.9

 

This is a 5 Wood where the shaft sat as when he arrived
 

Here we have set the shaft as well as possible according to what the connector allows This is the same club where he hits 2 fades and a draw. They come out as he wants 👍🏻
 

 

 

He has always felt this Driver was everywhere 😵‍💫 He is right about this. Shaft sits as when he arrived.

 

 

Here we have rotated the shaft. See what happens with the last 3 strokes. Here the player begins to feel the driver shaft. Now the player can develop his swing as he does not have to control the swing. Direction must be trained as driving has been impossible and this has meant that you have to control the sving. 

 

 

He finished with this stroke which he felt was good. Development on this driver was under 20 min 😳🤣🤣 We went from an average of 246 meters carry And ends with a 280 meter carry 🚀

 

 

Regard Thomas Rosenberg

 

[ChaosTheory]

5 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

Tell us more about that one...



 

 

It was many years ago so I don't even recall the specifics.  But I recall having for example the 8 iron which didn't feel good and didn't seem to perform.  So I pulled the shaft and it had a big spine, and not in the right place.  After I spined and Flo'd, it felt like the rest of the set.

[Mr. Magix]

7 minutes ago, Snowman9000 said:

 

It was many years ago so I don't even recall the specifics.  But I recall having for example the 8 iron which didn't feel good and didn't seem to perform.  So I pulled the shaft and it had a big spine, and not in the right place.  After I spined and Flo'd, it felt like the rest of the set.

Yes Sir 👊💥🚀

[dono]

Just a question, the RCT ball has only been around a couple of years. How does the RCT ball impact data in a fitting or in this case observation in shaft changes?

[Dbe]

His Numbers are still all over the place…as far as I can see he is offline by +30m many times….I usually only look at Trackmann Numbers but if he is so much offline he is not on the fairway…his spinn Numbers are also all over the place….Is there something i am missing 

[dwboston]

1 hour ago, dono said:

Just a question, the RCT ball has only been around a couple of years. How does the RCT ball impact data in a fitting or in this case observation in shaft changes?

 

And why use an RCT ball with a photo-based launch monitor like GC Quad?  Why not use a regular Pro V1?  Aren't the RCT balls meant for radar-based LM's like TrackMan or FilghtScope?

Edited January 15, 2023 by dwboston

[DYOS4]

47 minutes ago, dono said:

Just a question, the RCT ball has only been around a couple of years. How does the RCT ball impact data in a fitting or in this case observation in shaft changes?

RCT is Radar Capture Technology from Titleist to help radar launch monitors better capture the ball. 

[Stuart_G]

12 minutes ago, DYOS4 said:

RCT is Radar Capture Technology from Titleist to help radar launch monitors better capture the ball. 

 

Yes.  And more specifically better capture the ball's rotation / spin when a metallic sticker is not used.

[Mr. Magix]

5 hours ago, dono said:

Just a question, the RCT ball has only been around a couple of years. How does the RCT ball impact data in a fitting or in this case observation in shaft changes?

This was only to show it was new balls.

[Mr. Magix]

5 hours ago, dwboston said:

 

And why use an RCT ball with a photo-based launch monitor like GC Quad?  Why not use a regular Pro V1?  Aren't the RCT balls meant for radar-based LM's like TrackMan or FilghtScope?

This was only to show it was new balls.

[mstuewe]

19 hours ago, Godfather said:

This has been done for SST Puring and FLOing in a more scientific way. Search TXG and Mobile Clubmaker on YouTube for some entertaining double blind examples. Spoiler alert - there is no difference and more often than not, the tester guesses the wrong club. Mobile Clubmaker does a nice job explaining why rotating a shaft to get these ridiculous claims of added distance and accuracy is hogwash. Truly you will get more gains with a placebo effect if you can design an experiment for that.
 

To add just a little more to my earlier BS post, the fact that the gains were comically large and none were insignificant or even about the same is a joke. I mean if it wasn’t fabricated, then the confounding variable could be the old thing of take 3 swings when you’re cold and then I’ll make a change as you continue to warm up and then you have the placebo effect and you’re now warmed up. 10 more yards! It’s magic! Either way, the data is BS. 

Okay I decided to link a couple videos that do a nice job explaining why rotating a shaft is not getting you any gains.

 

The swing is one load, not 20:

 

Double blind SST PURE comparison:

 

I’m familiar with what you posted.  The issue with this particular study is the need to manipulate the owners golf club.  You need their consent to realign their shaft, so you need to tell them you’re doing “something” to the club. The point was to control for a placebo effect or the “confidence” folks were feeling to swing harder.

 

After seeing the methodology in the example posted a few hours ago, it definitely seems like you could attribute gains to warming up, small initial sample size of shots, indoor swing syndrome, or players getting in a groove.

 

 

 

[LongNwrong27]

ping saying they looked into it and not helpful. 

[dono]

@doctor220 ^^^and the links to the studies are ......? 

Edited January 15, 2023 by dono
Adding member