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

[biffstix]

On 1/13/2023 at 2:54 PM, nsxguy said:

 

Just so I understand, "9" would be the shaft pointing to the club head at address.

 

In the picture below, is this how you see it ? "12" would be the target line, correct ?

 

I always thought of it as a point of view clock where the target line would be 3 to 9 so now I’m confused. 6 to 12 target line would be ambidextrous so that makes more sense.

Is the laser twang still an appropriate method for finding flo?

thx @Mr. Magixfor posting your findings

 

 

 

[LongNwrong27]

3 hours ago, dono said:

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

I’m sure the OEMs do tons of internal testing they aren’t going to make public. Doesn’t change the fact that one of the biggest manufacturers thinks it’s not beneficial. 

[ChaosTheory]

I was told….  by a man heavily involved in shaft testing…. who talks to shaft companies….

That if a shaft only varies by 1 Cpm around 360 degrees, it is tour quality.  And 2 cpm is excellent for any of us, and orientation of such a shaft is unimportant.  

 

Take that for the third hand info it is. 

 

I think companies are getting a lot better at this.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2023 by Snowman9000

[DB Golf]

Kudos to Howard and Thomas for testing the question and bringing the results to this forum. Unfortunately this isn’t the proper forum. At least, not yet. 
 

The question of whether FLOing improves ball flight is a scientific one, and it warrants being put through the scientific, peer-reviewed process before the results are shared with golfing forums like this one. How many of us are familiar with the International Journal of Golf Science? If a study on this question hasn’t already been conducted, submitted, reviewed, and published in this journal, it should be. 
 

Today’s technology should be able to answer this question. In addition to launch monitors, a robot exists that can replicate any swing on the planet, and its use in a study like this would be critical for reducing the human variability debated in this thread. 
 

Gene Parente at Golf Labs, Inc. built such a robot. Today it is the industry standard. In 2019, he signaled his intent to use it for questions like this one. It never got off the ground. Curious. 
 

I recently encouraged Gene to reconsider. A test like this would be a safe place to start. It could be a blind test on various shaft makes and models without naming names. If conducted indoors, the test would eliminate the environmental variability that plagued his previous study on SST PUREing (hint: look closely at the crosswind impact on dispersion.)
 

The answer to the question is unlikely to be a simple yes or no but it it should be able to get the golfing world much closer to an answer than us WRXers will get to on our own. 
 

As to whether the answer translates to the course, well, that’s an entirely different question. 😉

 

[Howard_Jones]

2 hours ago, DB Golf said:

Kudos to Howard and Thomas for testing the question and bringing the results to this forum. Unfortunately this isn’t the proper forum. At least, not yet. 
 

The question of whether FLOing improves ball flight is a scientific one, and it warrants being put through the scientific, peer-reviewed process before the results are shared with golfing forums like this one. How many of us are familiar with the International Journal of Golf Science? If a study on this question hasn’t already been conducted, submitted, reviewed, and published in this journal, it should be. 
 

Today’s technology should be able to answer this question. In addition to launch monitors, a robot exists that can replicate any swing on the planet, and its use in a study like this would be critical for reducing the human variability debated in this thread. 
 

Gene Parente at Golf Labs, Inc. built such a robot. Today it is the industry standard. In 2019, he signaled his intent to use it for questions like this one. It never got off the ground. Curious. 
 

I recently encouraged Gene to reconsider. A test like this would be a safe place to start. It could be a blind test on various shaft makes and models without naming names. If conducted indoors, the test would eliminate the environmental variability that plagued his previous study on SST PUREing (hint: look closely at the crosswind impact on dispersion.)
 

The answer to the question is unlikely to be a simple yes or no but it it should be able to get the golfing world much closer to an answer than us WRXers will get to on our own. 
 

As to whether the answer translates to the course, well, that’s an entirely different question. 😉

 

Page 9 in the report you link to 
Standard - PURE - FLO

Its many issues with this report
Clubs used has bounded hosel - Not the same club head.
We dont get to see all LM datas who can explain the numbers, (path, face angle, impact position)

The same test today using the same club head, and 3 shafts of the same model, Standard, PURE or FLO, and with ALL LM datas is whats needed.

Im actually a bit surpriced that not even club speed is as constant as we can expect from a robot, so over all, this test is not any better than the one Thomas has done, especially since its used 3 different clubs heads we know nothing about, and vital LM datas is missing.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Howard_Jones

[Stuart_G]

7 hours ago, DB Golf said:

Kudos to Howard and Thomas for testing the question and bringing the results to this forum. Unfortunately this isn’t the proper forum. At least, not yet. 
 

 

Nothing wrong with bringing it here.   But I agree with the following for the results to be considered "accepted."

 

7 hours ago, DB Golf said:

The question of whether FLOing improves ball flight is a scientific one, and it warrants being put through the scientific, peer-reviewed process before the results are shared with golfing forums like this one. How many of us are familiar with the International Journal of Golf Science?

 

Not to mention some very acceptable Scientific Journals on sports related biomechanics (e.g. Journal of Sports Science), or general physics or engineering (e.g. American Journal of Physics), college thesis and research repositories, ISEA proceedings (ISEA - International Sports Engineering Association), World Scientific Congress of Golf proceedings, and more.

 

 

7 hours ago, DB Golf said:

Today’s technology should be able to answer this question. In addition to launch monitors, a robot exists that can replicate any swing on the planet, and its use in a study like this would be critical for reducing the human variability debated in this thread. 
 

 

Taking out the human factor is usually a good first step but it isn't sufficient by any means.  The "human factor" is a integral part of the game and on course results.   It's influence can sometimes even dominate and completely over shadow the more direct contributions from the equipment.   Or to put it simply: how the equipment "feels" can matter quite a bit to some individuals.

 

The key problem here and biggest point of contention with the OP's test is not the presence of the "human factor" but rather the potential (and IMO highly probable) inclusion of a false bias in the results that is generated from and specific to the testing environment / methodology - and not from the equipment changes being tested.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2023 by Stuart_G

[Stuart_G]

FYI - for those asking questions about the alignment clock references.

 

Source: https://www.tutelman.com/golf/shafts/allAboutSpines4.php

 

And no, the spine and nbp references in the images is not what Tutelman is recommending for the "best" alignment.  He's just showing one possible example.

 

Edited January 16, 2023 by Stuart_G

[st1800e]

14 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

Page 9 in the report you link to 
Standard - PURE - FLO

Its many issues with this report
Clubs used has bounded hosel - Not the same club head.
We dont get to see all LM datas who can explain the numbers, (path, face angle, impact position)

The same test today using the same club head, and 3 shafts of the same model, Standard, PURE or FLO, and with ALL LM datas is whats needed.

Im actually a bit surpriced that not even club speed is as constant as we can expect from a robot, so over all, this test is not any better than the one Thomas has done, especially since its used 3 different clubs heads we know nothing about, and vital LM datas is missing.

/cdn-cgi/mirage/bbfe5c8c398555d4ae4d5e656825612098b7945949be825861b5f734eab9cc84/1440/cdn-cgi/mirage/bbfe5c8c398555d4ae4d5e656825612098b7945949be825861b5f734eab9cc84/1440/https://wrxcdn.golfwrx.com/uploads/monthly_2023_01/image.png.c1042e76156e0e00d4080e08b474d126.png

 

I see a wind factor in the FLO data, not on the others.  What’s that?  Would seem to me it would negate the entire test.  

Edited January 16, 2023 by st1800e

[DB Golf]

Sharing this exchange I had today with a major shaft company since it’s relevant to this thread: I recently ordered two 7-irons from two DTC club OEMs, both with the same graphite shaft. One OEM installed the shaft label up, while the other installed the shaft label down. 
 

I emailed the shaft company and asked: 

1) Where does [shaft company] install the label in relation to the spine and FLO of the shaft? (2) Does it matter how the shafts are oriented when installed?

Company’s response:

“Both are right.  We suggest that the orientation does not nor should not matter if a shaft is made properly.  I personally put all of my logo’s up because I work for the company and want people to know what just striped a shot closer than theirs.  However, my colleagues mostly put logo down as they say sometimes the logo is distracting and want as much bare shaft as possible. Long story short if you don’t have faith in the manufacturer to make a quality shaft you shouldn’t be playing it.  Have you noticed a difference?”

 

My reply:

“Great answer. I’ve always wondered why shaft manufacturers seem to be silent in the ongoing debates about PUREing, spining, FLOing. Seems like you could be marketing that your shafts don’t need any of that. If [shaft company] works with Gene Parente at Golf Labs, perhaps you might consider having him test those claims and putting the results on your website. If you go down that road, study his work on the SST PURE website and be sure to structure his testing methodology to eliminate the environmental variability that weakened his SST PURE tests—i.e., bring the robot inside to test. Anyway, thanks.”

[IC3BURGH]

On 1/16/2023 at 1:11 AM, Howard_Jones said:

Page 9 in the report you link to 
Standard - PURE - FLO

 

I can't help but chuckle at the fact that in many cases the unpured shaft yielded the lowest standard deviations of almost all the variables that were unlikely to be impacted by environment (launch vs flight/land data).

 

I'd love to know how the "unpured" shaft was defined here. Presumably the shaft would have needed to be pured, but then aligned against the traditional pure setting. How that was done (12-6 vs. 9-3 or 1030-430) is hard to say based on this documentation.

[pdxhak]

It would have been great to see data of 50% of the players tested did it in reverse so they hit with the FLO'd shaft first. Would they see an equivalent drop in distance and speed? 

[DB Golf]

16 hours ago, DB Golf said:

We suggest that the orientation does not nor should not matter if a shaft is made properly.

Perhaps there’s some truth to the claim made in the quote above from a major shaft OEM. On a related note regarding a shaft from a different OEM, today I stumbled on the quote below from a 2017 review of the TT Dynamic Gold 105 on golfshaftreviews.info:

 

“The radial consistency of the Dyanamic Gold 105 is excellent averaging 99.5% with a standard deviation of 0.3%. If anyone suggests aligining, spineing  or puring these shafts get out the door. They are round and have no need of alignment.“

 

https://www.golfshaftreviews.info/true-temper-dynamic-golf-105-iron-shaft-review/

This got me thinking about the OP and the topic of this thread. Perhaps FLOing helps with some shafts but not others, depending on the quality. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see where the original study addressed the variability of different shafts. 
 

I hope this thread inspires further study and replication, because it sure would be nice to see some definitive studies that put the matter to bed. 
 

Grateful for this thread. 

[Howard_Jones]

16 hours ago, DB Golf said:

Perhaps there’s some truth to the claim made in the quote above from a major shaft OEM. On a related note regarding a shaft from a different OEM, today I stumbled on the quote below from a 2017 review of the TT Dynamic Gold 105 on golfshaftreviews.info:

 

“The radial consistency of the Dyanamic Gold 105 is excellent averaging 99.5% with a standard deviation of 0.3%. If anyone suggests aligining, spineing  or puring these shafts get out the door. They are round and have no need of alignment.“

 

https://www.golfshaftreviews.info/true-temper-dynamic-golf-105-iron-shaft-review/

This got me thinking about the OP and the topic of this thread. Perhaps FLOing helps with some shafts but not others, depending on the quality. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see where the original study addressed the variability of different shafts. 
 

I hope this thread inspires further study and replication, because it sure would be nice to see some definitive studies that put the matter to bed. 
 

Grateful for this thread. 

The PURE test is from 2009, and "we was told" thats shaft production has improved so much since then, it was no longer needed.

I never bought that claim, and tested ALL shafts except putter shafts, and what i found was that for Graphite shafts, even for Tour Issue models, we have to check the product.

The "word" is, that if the difference between weak and strong FLO lines is 2 CPM or less, it does not matter, so lets say it is so, but take a look on the numbers i found, its from ONE box/shipment that came in my door the same day this question came up here on WRX (2012-2013)

If someone now say, ahh, Grafalloy is crap, let me remind you that the brand name is no longer that large, because their shafts is now sold as PROJECT X



It takes a few minutes to check the shaft, so its no reason NOT to do it, no matter "brand reputation or quality claims". I have no reason to believe this is any better today

Edited January 19, 2023 by Howard_Jones

[Stuart_G]

56 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

The "word" is, that if the difference between weak and strong FLO lines is 2 CPM or less, it does not matter

 

Unfortunately, there are just so many different "words" out there - and none of them have been properly validated.

 

FYI - from the TT response,  for a butt freq of 250 cpm,  the 95.5% w/ 0.3% std dev - equates to   1.25 cpm with a standard dev of 0.75 cpm.     Which would equate to roughly to a expectation of  ~3 cpm difference between strong and weak axis (at least that's one interpretation).

 

But with any mass manufacturing process, outliers can and will still exist even of a large majority of the products are within an acceptable tolerance (whatever you might consider "acceptable").   So testing your shafts is always a good thing.   

 

Of course that still doesn't help us with the big unanswered question of what to do when the difference is considered unacceptable.  

 

If I was really serious about the importance of symmetry,  I'd be more more likely to throw out the bad shafts instead of trying to align them any particular way.    At least until better data comes to light.

 

 

[Howard_Jones]

24 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Unfortunately, there are just so many different "words" out there - and none of them have been properly validated.

 

FYI - from the TT response,  for a butt freq of 250 cpm,  the 95.5% w/ 0.3% std dev - equates to   1.25 cpm with a standard dev of 0.75 cpm.     Which would equate to roughly to a expectation of  ~3 cpm difference between strong and weak axis (at least that's one interpretation).

 

But with any mass manufacturing process, outliers can and will still exist even of a large majority of the products are within an acceptable tolerance (whatever you might consider "acceptable").   So testing your shafts is always a good thing.   

 

Of course that still doesn't help us with the big unanswered question of what to do when the difference is considered unacceptable.  

 

If I was really serious about the importance of symmetry,  I'd be more more likely to throw out the bad shafts instead of trying to align them any particular way.    At least until better data comes to light.

 

 

Yes i know Stuart, and thats why i use "word", since thats all we got, but if its correct???

No idea, but as long as margins is so small in this business, and shaft manufacturers DONT test their shafts for anything after production (except weight sorting like SUB flex for DG), i still stand by my words where i say, it only takes a few minutes for the one who shall build the club to check it, and that dont cost a fortune as extra, so it should be done, just to make sure we did not get a shaft that is "far off" the expected flex like it sometimes can be.

About FLO and standard install (label up or down)
The small sample of 13 shafts above, show that 6 actually had good FLO with label up or down so when we try to figure out if FLO or not makes any difference, we should try a shaft that acts crazy (worse case scenario, but still with the expected flex), against a shaft that looks good.
"The truth" will be somewhere between those point as average, so its not right to say FLO WILL improve it, before we know if its bad as it is now.

For those shaft that had a good FLO label up, i cant see any potential for improvement, unless it was FLEX itself that was off in that position.

It was always only a quality check for me, and since shafts for fitting was installed to FLO too, i never saw the difference if there was any (as performance), but i can assure you all, the dispersion we see in the PURE PDF for FLO is NOT TRUE, if it was, ALL clubs i made would be terrible in play, since ALL was build and installed like that. Tour players or elite amateurs would instantly know, and we would have seen it during fitting too, where no shaft would deliver the dispersion we wanted.
 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Howard_Jones

[LongNwrong27]

1 hour ago, Howard_Jones said:

Yes i know Stuart, and thats why i use "word", since thats all we got, but if its correct???

No idea, but as long as margins is so small in this business, and shaft manufacturers DONT test their shafts for anything after production (except weight sorting like SUB flex for DG), i still stand by my words where i say, it only takes a few minutes for the one who shall build the club to check it, and that dont cost a fortune as extra, so it should be done, just to make sure we did not get a shaft that is "far off" the expected flex like it sometimes can be.

About FLO and standard install (label up or down)
The small sample of 13 shafts above, show that 6 actually had good FLO with label up or down so when we try to figure out if FLO or not makes any difference, we should try a shaft that acts crazy (worse case scenario, but still with the expected flex), against a shaft that looks good.
"The truth" will be somewhere between those point as average, so its not right to say FLO WILL improve it, before we know if its bad as it is now.

For those shaft that had a good FLO label up, i cant see any potential for improvement, unless it was FLEX itself that was off in that position.

It was always only a quality check for me, and since shafts for fitting was installed to FLO too, i never saw the difference if there was any (as performance), but i can assure you all, the dispersion we see in the PURE PDF for FLO is NOT TRUE, if it was, ALL clubs i made would be terrible in play, since ALL was build and installed like that. Tour players or elite amateurs would instantly know, and we would have seen it during fitting too, where no shaft would deliver the dispersion we wanted.
 

10 years leaves lot of time for progress in quality control, stiffer materials, better designs, etc. 

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, Howard_Jones said:

Yes i know Stuart, and thats why i use "word", since thats all we got, but if its correct???

 

Yes.  I know you know 🙂

 

 

1 hour ago, Howard_Jones said:

shaft manufacturers DONT test their shafts for anything after production (except weight sorting like SUB flex for DG)

 

I presume you mean test every single shaft.   I have no doubt they do random QA testing of every batch to check on production quality.  That will give them a good idea (statistically speaking of course) how tight the tolerances are but it wont completely protect the customers from those outliers that might happen.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Stuart_G

[Howard_Jones]

14 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Yes.  I know you know 🙂

 

 

 

I presume you mean test every single shaft.   I have no doubt they do random QA testing of every batch to check on production quality.  That will give them a good idea (statistically speaking of course) how tight the tolerances are but it wont completely protect the customers from those outliers that might happen.

 

 

 

 

Since most of shaft production is outsorced to China, i cant imagine that it should "cost a fortune" to check each shaft before its packed and shipped, i simply cant, but all they do is to claim a production quality thats not seen or prooven.

Some might say, hey, we have seen datas from Russ Ryden that say they are good, but how many shaft has he seen of each model?  maybe 3, and for all we know, those was "hand picked" and checked before they sent them,  since they know Russ will run a test on them, so his datas cant be used as evidence for production quality in general, we need more shafts than only 3 to base it. on....just my 2.

I will check with Thomas in Copenhagen if he does tests and take notes like those 13 shafts i listed here. That might shed some more light on this subject, and he has more shaft brands than i had. 

[Howard_Jones]

2 hours ago, doctor220 said:

10 years leaves lot of time for progress in quality control, stiffer materials, better designs, etc. 

Wishfull thinking, margins have NOT improved, that means they DONT control anything more than they did. Materiel stiffness dont make any difference at all here, i have no clue where you got that idea from, but its not right at all. Flag design and how its put together YES, thats where it is, but if both has improved to the level where FLO or measurements is not needed, lets see in a few hours.

Thomas Rosenberg is now measuring some shafts of the same models he has in stock, so lets see how those numbers looks like, i dont expect them to be much different then mine numbers 10 years ago.

The shafts he will measure tonight is VENTUS Blue, Red, Black and Velocore (all models)

Edited January 19, 2023 by Howard_Jones

[Manz60]

re shaft orientation,  seems to be about direction not distance:

" these inconsistencies can cause mis-direction problems when the shaft is installed in such a way that those inconsistencies get in the way of the required bending of the shaft.

 

Today, many shaft makers pre-test their shafts to locate a consistent plane of bending in the shaft, and only then paint and apply the name/logo to the shafts. Thus, with the vast majority of quality shafts made today, there is little need to have the shafts checked for spine location and re-installed in the clubheads."  

 

per Tom Wishon article

 

Hope this helps

M60

[st1800e]

I’ve been FLO’ing for many years.  In the last couple years I’ve noticed the shafts arrived with the FLO and graphics, mostly lined up.  Just a few days ago I bought a set of Ping CB graphite iron shaft pullouts.  All but one had the FLO aligned with the logo.  So ping says FLO doesn’t matter? 
Twenty years ago I was fitted for and bought a set of Ping G2’s, graphite.  The shafts were so mismatched.  I ended up pulling them all, realigned the frequencies, e.g., the 5 iron shaft ended up in the 9, etc.  And then FLO’d, far better.  
 

And I’ve noticed that the Callaway woods I’ve bought in recent years were FLO’d pretty well.  
 

 

[st1800e]

“There is little need to have the shafts checked “. 
With all the precision and analysis that goes into shafts, this seems lame.  

[Leska]

I might have belived the posted results on the first post, if the results where within a few meters, but im suppose to belive, that people gained 20+ meters, because the shaft wasnt FLO'ed ? The results seems cherry picked, and only the best and worst shots was picked
And that handicap +4.9 gained 34 meters of average carry ? A +4.9 handicap ? Dont you think he has his gear somewhat optimzed ? Im sure, he could probely gain a tiny bit, if he went to the right fitter, but 34 meters ? Sounds like cherry picked shots
Im willing to let me convice, if the data is good and the results are within reason, but those findings posted in the first post and from the 3 page, just seems, well to good to be true

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Leska

[maximusppl]

I am about to FLO using the laser method, pulling horizontally on the shaft (from 3 to 9). Once I find the FLO on that horizontal (3 to 9) line, does it matter whether the shaft is installed that way or flipped 180 since I don’t have a way to measure actual frequency? 

[ChaosTheory]

21 minutes ago, maximusppl said:

I am about to FLO using the laser method, pulling horizontally on the shaft (from 3 to 9). Once I find the FLO on that horizontal (3 to 9) line, does it matter whether the shaft is installed that way or flipped 180 since I don’t have a way to measure actual frequency? 

No, it’s the same both ways.

[Stuart_G]

10 hours ago, maximusppl said:

I am about to FLO using the laser method, pulling horizontally on the shaft (from 3 to 9). Once I find the FLO on that horizontal (3 to 9) line, does it matter whether the shaft is installed that way or flipped 180 since I don’t have a way to measure actual frequency? 

 

No difference over 180" - but all shafts will  have two different axis that give you flat line oscillation (FLO) - usually separated by 90*.    One will be the strongest axis (spine) and the other will be the weakest axis (NBP).   The only way to know which is which is to measure with frequency.    So If you don't' have a frequency meter, you're just rolling the dice as to which one you will get.   In fact,  just using the laser can potentially give you the worst possible results, a set with a mixture of both the strongest and weakest axis aligned together.

 

 

Edited April 21 by Stuart_G

[maximusppl]

What if I find the spine first using the rolling method? And find then FLO to the left of that. 

[Stuart_G]

55 minutes ago, maximusppl said:

What if I find the spine first using the rolling method? And find then FLO to the left of that. 

 

Bearing method is unreliable.  If you want to find the spine w/o a freq meter - differential deflection of the two FLO axis is probably the best alternative - although still requires some specialized setup that you might be able to put together in a DIY build.

 

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

https://www.tutelman.com/golf/shafts/allAboutSpines2.php

 

and actually a few more pages as well.

 

 

Edited April 21 by Stuart_G

[Howard_Jones]

What are we looking at here?
- Bad club making, where, they could not get Logos up or down, or do we see a shaft thats FLO or PURE alligned?...asking for a friend

Edited July 17 by Howard_Jones