Nippon Modus 110

[NRJyzr]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Interesting.

 

This is a pretty linear bend profile.  Definelty not uber stiff butt and soft tip like 130, and doesn’t have the big hinge in the middle like 120.  
 

Seems more like 105, 115, 125 profile

 

To me, it looks like like it has a stiffer mid than the 105 or 125.

 

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

To me, it looks like like it has a stiffer mid than the 105 or 125.

 

I agree, it was they all are more linear in bend compared to 130 or 120.

 

I guess this is why modus doesn’t really say it’s a lighter version of xxx, cause it’s not.

[OFore]

So what’s the 105 115 125 v 110 120 130 thought?

[NRJyzr]

48 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I agree, it was they all are more linear in bend compared to 130 or 120.

 

I guess this is why modus doesn’t really say it’s a lighter version of xxx, cause it’s not.

 

Looking at it again, reminds me of the Fuji Pro iron shaft, except the mid section bump in the curve is lower in the Modus 110 than in the Pro.

 

[pjc]

Some more food for thought, PIG review...as he states in the review, this guy has been playing the 115 for years:

 

https://pluggedingolf.com/nippon-modus-tour-110-shaft-review/

[Morry]

8 hours ago, pjc said:

Some more food for thought, PIG review...as he states in the review, this guy has been playing the 115 for years:

 

https://pluggedingolf.com/nippon-modus-tour-110-shaft-review/

Great Review

case closed

 

[RSLP]

https://nipponshaft.com/product/steel/steel_modus_110.php

 

Intended release , I didn't see it noted on the graphs yet.  120 is early , 105-115-125 is mid , and 130 is late.

 

It will be fun to test!

Edited January 25 by RSLP

[redshirtgolfer]

How big is the chance, that big manufacturers will add that shaft to their lineup soon?

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, redshirtgolfer said:

How big is the chance, that big manufacturers will add that shaft to their lineup soon?

Pretty likely, but pretty likely not till 2026.

[shackmangolf]

The 110 seems to be a very weird profile. It is nothing like the 120 nor the 130.

 

The 105,115, and 125 models all have similar profiles at different weights. 

 

The series that ends with “0” are all special models that are not related to each other and are completely different than the “5” models which have a traditional flex profile. None of the “0” models have similar profiles. 

 

The 120 is a Frankenstein shaft. Super soft at the butt. Stiff at the tip. No other manufacturer really makes a shaft with this profile. There is a distinct hinge point right under the grip.  For those that fit into it, the feeling is magical - effortless distance.

 

The 110 is doubly as weird. I don’t get it. 

- Stiff in the butt, soft in the tip. (Ha ha ha). As stiff as the “5” models in the butt. The tip section seems to be a relative wet noodle on the EI chart. The softest tip Modus makes in the pro line.

- This type of shaft should hit the ball higher than a “5” model.  But the guys at plugged in say otherwise. 

- I think the tip deflection would make this very hard to control with a tendency to go left.

 

Again, I don’t get this shaft. 

 

Last, if you like the Modus 120, you are going to hate this shaft. It’s the exact opposite profile. 

 

 

 

Edited February 2 by shackmangolf

[NRJyzr]

Ugh...
 

Edited February 2 by NRJyzr

[Morry]

I thought the 105 had a somewhat soft butt 

no?

[NRJyzr]

7 minutes ago, Morry said:

I thought the 105 had a somewhat soft butt 

no?

 

The upper third to half of the 105 is very close to the 120.  The 105 lacks that soft kick in the lower mid that the 120 has, though.

 

[Morry]

38 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

The upper third to half of the 105 is very close to the 120.  The 105 lacks that soft kick in the lower mid that the 120 has, though.

 

Right

so the 105 has a softer butt then, correct?

 

agree on the kick

 

thanks

[NRJyzr]

19 minutes ago, Morry said:

Right

so the 105 has a softer butt then, correct?

 

 

Such as my opinion counts, I would say yes.   🙂

 

[shackmangolf]

38 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Such as my opinion counts, I would say yes.   🙂

 

This is incorrect.  The 120 has the softest butt of any modus pro line shaft.  

[goin'low]

So is the 110 butt firmer than the 105?

[NRJyzr]

1 hour ago, shackmangolf said:

This is incorrect.  The 120 has the softest butt of any modus pro line shaft.  

 

I can only go by this.  Looks pretty close, which is what I said earlier.  There's a slight difference there, but I would be inclined to call it immaterial.

 

 

 

 

[Pnwpingi210]

3 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

I can only go by this.  Looks pretty close, which is what I said earlier.  There's a slight difference there, but I would be inclined to call it immaterial.

 

 

 

 

Agree the 105 and 120 from an ei perspective are the “same”.

 

from a feel better perspective the upper part of 105 feels softer than the 120 (it should being 15 grams lighter).

 

the softness most feel in the 120 isn’t the handle, it’s the mid section which is very very very soft comapared to anything else.

[shackmangolf]

@NRJyzr With all respect - I don’t think you understand. 
 

I’ve played them all. I’ve fit them all. I’ve built them all. 
 

The Modus 120 is an incredibly unique shaft.  It has the equivalent of a hinge right below the grip - an incredibly soft point in the shaft that allows the shaft to load at a specific point closer to the hands than the club head. No other shaft in this weight class has this profile - it’s a unicorn. 
 

The 105 is incredibly different. It has a progressive loading across the shaft.  That small gap vs 120on the ei charts is a Grand Canyon in terms of playability and feel, especially when you factor in that the 120 weights 8-10 grams MORE than the 105.  
 

The upper third of the 105 is nothing like the 120. Complete opposites. We are talking capitalism vs socialism.  
 

A player will rarely fit into both a 105 and 120.  Completely different profiles. 

 

 

 

[shackmangolf]

6 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Agree the 105 and 120 from an ei perspective are the “same”.

 

from a feel better perspective the upper part of 105 feels softer than the 120 (it should being 15 grams lighter).

 

the softness most feel in the 120 isn’t the handle, it’s the mid section which is very very very soft comapared to anything else.

Again - this is wrong. The cpm of a 120 stiff in the top 1/3rd is softer than the cpm of a 105 stiff top 1/3rd. 
 

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, shackmangolf said:

Again - this is wrong. The cpm of a 120 stiff in the top 1/3rd is softer than the cpm of a 105 stiff top 1/3rd. 
 

What are the cpm numbers?

[Jbar]

I would like to try this. I am playing DG X100 and will need a lighter shaft in a year or two. I didn't like DG lite shafts. 

[Morry]

5 hours ago, shackmangolf said:

@NRJyzr With all respect - I don’t think you understand. 
 

I’ve played them all. I’ve fit them all. I’ve built them all. 
 

The Modus 120 is an incredibly unique shaft.  It has the equivalent of a hinge right below the grip - an incredibly soft point in the shaft that allows the shaft to load at a specific point closer to the hands than the club head. No other shaft in this weight class has this profile - it’s a unicorn. 
 

The 105 is incredibly different. It has a progressive loading across the shaft.  That small gap vs 120on the ei charts is a Grand Canyon in terms of playability and feel, especially when you factor in that the 120 weights 8-10 grams MORE than the 105.  
 

The upper third of the 105 is nothing like the 120. Complete opposites. We are talking capitalism vs socialism.  
 

A player will rarely fit into both a 105 and 120.  Completely different profiles. 

 

 

 

agree 

been playing 105 for a decade

could NEVER make the 120 work 

appreciated 

 

[NRJyzr]

6 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

What are the cpm numbers?

 

Well, here are the Wishon shaft profile numbers.  They show the 105 has a slightly stiffer upper section than the 120.

 

 

 

I also have both the 120 and 105, have played them on the course, and planning on installing at least one set of each into a set that will get some play.  In spite of the numbers above that show the 105 and 120 being very similar around the 21" and 16" beam lengths, it's that mid and lower-mid where the 105 is noticeably different in performance.  In the swing, I feel the 105 is missing the lower-middle kick section the 120 has.

 

I still find it interesting that the EI curve, as presented by Nippon, shows them fairly close to each another in the butt section.  

 

[Pnwpingi210]

51 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Well, here are the Wishon shaft profile numbers.  They show the 105 has a slightly stiffer upper section than the 120.

 

 

 

I also have both the 120 and 105, have played them on the course, and planning on installing at least one set of each into a set that will get some play.  In spite of the numbers above that show the 105 and 120 being very similar around the 21" and 16" beam lengths, it's that mid and lower-mid where the 105 is noticeably different in performance.  In the swing, I feel the 105 is missing the lower-middle kick section the 120 has.

 

I still find it interesting that the EI curve, as presented by Nippon, shows them fairly close to each another in the butt section.  

 

Well that’s certainly not telling a story of drastic difference in butt or even upper 3rd cpm.  What it does tell us is the 120 has a way way stiffer tip.

 

i think this aligns with the feeling I was describing.

 

[Glock917]

1 hour ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Well, here are the Wishon shaft profile numbers.  They show the 105 has a slightly stiffer upper section than the 120.

 

 

 

I also have both the 120 and 105, have played them on the course, and planning on installing at least one set of each into a set that will get some play.  In spite of the numbers above that show the 105 and 120 being very similar around the 21" and 16" beam lengths, it's that mid and lower-mid where the 105 is noticeably different in performance.  In the swing, I feel the 105 is missing the lower-middle kick section the 120 has.

 

I still find it interesting that the EI curve, as presented by Nippon, shows them fairly close to each another in the butt section.  

 

using a frequency meter to try to profile a shaft is a pretty poor technique if you think about it how it works. Sure when clamped at the butt is logical and relevant but when you start going down the shaft and start clamping and restricting only the mid and tip ends it becomes irrelevant data cause we don’t bend the shaft anchored from the midsection. 

Here is what Russ from golfshaftsreviews says:

 

The PCS recognized that frequency measurements were affected by clamp pressure, clamp length, weight and the actual instrument being used. They established a standard primarily focused on one of the instruments. Software knows as “The Equalizer”  was sold to PCS members. It came with a calibration stick that was used to standardize the readings to a common denominator across instruments. During its dominance as a club makers organization the PCS did not promote discussion of alternative shaft stiffness systems. Nor did it inform its membership that the shaft designers and manufacturers primarily used EI for understanding shaft stiffness.

Let’s take a look at an EI chart of three shafts with the same frequency.Each of these shafts has a frequency of 354 on my instrument. I use a pneumatic clamp, clamped 7″ from the butt of the shafts. These are 6 iron shafts and were measured with a 261 gram 6 iron head. Seven inches, the Fujikura standard, is still used by some club manufacturers and shaft companies.

 As you can plainly see, these three shafts which have exactly the same frequency are quite different when viewed with EI analysis. Tom Wishon, then at GolfSmith, recognized that butt frequency alone did not work. He measured frequency at several points down the shaft while sorting a box of iron shafts for a set he was building for a PGA tour pro. That evolved into a system of measuring the shaft with a frequency instrument at different point down the shaft. With that, the term ‘shaft profiling’ was born. That system was flawed in more ways than I want to discuss here. It gave very crude charts of stiffness down the shaft when compared to EI charts. If you want to understand the relationship and the difficulty of using frequency to estimate EI read page 205 of Cochran & Stobb that I referred to at the beginning of this section.

Shaft frequency is not of much use in evaluating shaft stiffness. The problem for club makers and fitters who recognized the importance of shaft profiling was that there was not an affordable EI instrument until I designed and manufactured one. They used the frequency instruments they had. As with all technologies, instruments and expertise evolves. Frequency profiling and frequency rating of shaft stiffness were an attempt by club builders to reverse engineer shaft knowledge not shared by the shaft companies. Affordable EI instruments have closed the knowledge gap between the shaft engineer and the club fitter.

 

 

Here the EI profile of the 120. The butt is not necessarily soft but fell vs real and most people feel that but it’s more the midsection is the soft portion and creates a bend point that “feels” like it has a soft butt end when it truly doesn’t. 
 

Just like the 130. I guarantee you any one who has tried that shaft does not come away with the tip being too soft. That’s because the mid and butt are so stiff the tip doesn’t bend much under load. 
 

 

[OFore]

Anyone play the 115

[chinaski]

18 minutes ago, OFore said:

Anyone play the 115

I just shafted some Z745 heads I've had around for a while with 115. Found a new set cheap and decided to try them blind. They were like my 6th option on Mizuno shaft optimizer, but didn't have a demo shaft near me available. I play LZ 6.5 now which was my top option and it's great. I tried 120X, previously. They were okay. I'm typically in between S and X. I found the 120S way too soft, but I've got a fast tempo. These are supposed to be more like DG 120. I've alway been a fan of DG profile. Going to test on trackman tomorrow.

Edited February 3 by chinaski

[Pnwpingi210]

52 minutes ago, Glock917 said:

using a frequency meter to try to profile a shaft is a pretty poor technique if you think about it how it works. Sure when clamped at the butt is logical and relevant but when you start going down the shaft and start clamping and restricting only the mid and tip ends it becomes irrelevant data cause we don’t bend the shaft anchored from the midsection. 

Here is what Russ from golfshaftsreviews says:

 

 

The PCS recognized that frequency measurements were affected by clamp pressure, clamp length, weight and the actual instrument being used. They established a standard primarily focused on one of the instruments. Software knows as “The Equalizer”  was sold to PCS members. It came with a calibration stick that was used to standardize the readings to a common denominator across instruments. During its dominance as a club makers organization the PCS did not promote discussion of alternative shaft stiffness systems. Nor did it inform its membership that the shaft designers and manufacturers primarily used EI for understanding shaft stiffness.

Let’s take a look at an EI chart of three shafts with the same frequency.Each of these shafts has a frequency of 354 on my instrument. I use a pneumatic clamp, clamped 7″ from the butt of the shafts. These are 6 iron shafts and were measured with a 261 gram 6 iron head. Seven inches, the Fujikura standard, is still used by some club manufacturers and shaft companies.

 As you can plainly see, these three shafts which have exactly the same frequency are quite different when viewed with EI analysis. Tom Wishon, then at GolfSmith, recognized that butt frequency alone did not work. He measured frequency at several points down the shaft while sorting a box of iron shafts for a set he was building for a PGA tour pro. That evolved into a system of measuring the shaft with a frequency instrument at different point down the shaft. With that, the term ‘shaft profiling’ was born. That system was flawed in more ways than I want to discuss here. It gave very crude charts of stiffness down the shaft when compared to EI charts. If you want to understand the relationship and the difficulty of using frequency to estimate EI read page 205 of Cochran & Stobb that I referred to at the beginning of this section.

Shaft frequency is not of much use in evaluating shaft stiffness. The problem for club makers and fitters who recognized the importance of shaft profiling was that there was not an affordable EI instrument until I designed and manufactured one. They used the frequency instruments they had. As with all technologies, instruments and expertise evolves. Frequency profiling and frequency rating of shaft stiffness were an attempt by club builders to reverse engineer shaft knowledge not shared by the shaft companies. Affordable EI instruments have closed the knowledge gap between the shaft engineer and the club fitter.

 

 

Here the EI profile of the 120. The butt is not necessarily soft but fell vs real and most people feel that but it’s more the midsection is the soft portion and creates a bend point that “feels” like it has a soft butt end when it truly doesn’t. 
 

Just like the 130. I guarantee you any one who has tried that shaft does not come away with the tip being too soft. That’s because the mid and butt are so stiff the tip doesn’t bend much under load. 
 

 

Agree with all this.  The 120s hinge is  mid high (even per nippon)and not directly under the grip.