Do OEMs Measure Lie Angles Consistently?

[JD3]

I know we go thru this discussion with regard to length, but it also looks like OEMs measure lie angles differently too. I was comparing some Callaways, Titleist, taylormade and mizunos, and even though TM reports the highest lie in a wedge, I swear it's less than the Mizuno which is 0.5" less, and the same as Callaway which is 1.0" less. Titleist reports at high end of range too but also appears flatter than others with higher reported specs. 

 

Idk if it's me or what, but you'd think they could at least get this angle correct. Or is it quality control is poor and they put out clubs that are +/- 1 degree off. 

Edited May 20 by JD3

[Cwebb]

Every manufacturer has a 1* tolerance for loft and lie angles.  So all brand new clubs must be measured and be prepared to have some adjusting done, if you want everything on your desired specs

[Golfrnut]

How are you measuring?

 

Beyond that, there are likely tolerances for the mass produced batches that are assembled.  They may check, but probably are not bending each one unless its outside whatever tolerance they allow. 

[Streuner]

OEM an Lie angle is a very difficult toppic:

from my experience some of the OEM does not even know how to measure it. Even those who are iron head specialists and their advertisement tells us "nothing feels like..." have been completely off from the order specs randomly on European orders in the past.

 

Lie angle is a very sensitive and important part of your costum made clubs, I would allways control them on a new set of irons. I know a lot of better resellers that are controlling every single custom order before they hand out to the buyers bag.

Edited May 20 by Streuner

[Stuart_G]

6 hours ago, Cwebb said:

Every manufacturer has a 1* tolerance for loft and lie angles.

 

Or more in some cases.

 

7 hours ago, JD3 said:

Idk if it's me or what, but you'd think they could at least get this angle correct. Or is it quality control is poor and they put out clubs that are +/- 1 degree off. 

 

I don't mean to be insulting or intend this as any kind of attack - but lie angle in irons is one of the more difficult things for amateurs to measure accurately - even if they were willing to spend the big bucks on the right equipment to measure it.   Using the wrong equipment (like a bending machine) would make any such measurement suspect.   So my first thought is also this:

 

6 hours ago, Golfrnut said:

How are you measuring?

   

Or more specifically which gauge are you using?

[Bad9]

7 hours ago, JD3 said:

I know we go thru this discussion with regard to length, but it also looks like OEMs measure lie angles differently too. I was comparing some Callaways, Titleist, taylormade and mizunos, and even though TM reports the highest lie in a wedge, I swear it's less than the Mizuno which is 0.5" less, and the same as Callaway which is 1.0" less. Titleist reports at high end of range too but also appears flatter than others with higher reported specs. 

 

Idk if it's me or what, but you'd think they could at least get this angle correct. Or is it quality control is poor and they put out clubs that are +/- 1 degree off. 

 

What gauge or you using to measure or are you using your LL machine? Are you 100% sure you are setting it up properly?

[JD3]

7 hours ago, Golfrnut said:

How are you measuring?

 

Beyond that, there are likely tolerances for the mass produced batches that are assembled.  They may check, but probably are not bending each one unless its outside whatever tolerance they allow. 

Does it make sense to custom order even by 0.5" so the OEM will focus on getting it correct?

[Stuart_G]

36 minutes ago, JD3 said:

Does it make sense to custom order even by 0.5" so the OEM will focus on getting it correct?

 

Unlikely.   Precision and accuracy are completely different things.  The factory process determines the accuracy, not the ordered specs.

Edited May 20 by Stuart_G

[rsballer10]

2 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Or more in some cases.

 

 

I don't mean to be insulting or intend this as any kind of attack - but lie angle in irons is one of the more difficult things for amateurs to measure accurately - even if they were willing to spend the big bucks on the right equipment to measure it.   Using the wrong equipment (like a bending machine) would make any such measurement suspect.   So my first thought is also this:

 

   

Or more specifically which gauge are you using?

second this. Without a club gauge and the skill to use it properly, it's going to be REALLY hard to measure loft/lie with certainty precision. I would figure "certainty precision" is somewhere +/-0.25 degrees. That's pretty hard to do, but with loft and lie being spec'd in half degrees I can't see any less precision being absolute necessary.

 

As a hobby builder, I've owned a gauge for ~10 years and it's still the hardest spec to measure like Stuart says. If that iron/wedge isn't soled properly, the reading is wrong. If the club face isn't dead square in the machine, the reading is wrong. Seems easy enough, until you get clubs with unusual soles and camber. The good news is, I don't think most players are sensitive to these spec changes +/- 0.5 degree. If you need your wedges at 64 lie angle, you can probably play at 64.5 and 63.5 without even noticing. 

 

Bottom line, the OEM's could be wrong but the human element in measuring is still the biggest factor at play.

Edited May 20 by rsballer10
wording

[Stuart_G]

28 minutes ago, rsballer10 said:

t's going to be REALLY hard to measure loft/lie with certainty.  I would figure "certainty" is somewhere +/-0.25 degrees.

 

At the hobbiest level, I'd put it higher than that - easily +/-0.50 degrees and even up to +/- 1 degree in some case depending on the gauge used.

[rsballer10]

1 minute ago, Stuart_G said:

 

At the hobbiest level, I'd put it higher than that - easily +/-0.50 degrees and even up to +/- 1 degree in some case depending on the gauge used.

Yeah I probably said that wrong. Precision is the right word. 

 

 

[Socrates]

9 hours ago, Cwebb said:

Every manufacturer has a 1* tolerance for loft and lie angles.  So all brand new clubs must be measured and be prepared to have some adjusting done, if you want everything on your desired specs

Exactly ^^^

 

I never expect clubs to be at the specs advertised.  I always check and often tear them apart and rebuild them.  And when I'm measuring and I want to be precise, I'm doing it several times.  If I keep getting the same number, I can trust it.  If I get 2 different numbers - which can easily happen - I'm rechecking several times.  And it comes out of the gauge every time and start from scratch so that I don't make the same error, if I made an error.  

 

Don't expect that from any OEM, no matter what they tell you.

[Ty_Guy]

Over the last few years, I've had two iron sets: Callaway Apex Pro and Avoda Single Length

 

Taking in both for their "25,000 mile checkup" at the beginning of their second season, Callaway's had some 1 deg flat and some 1 deg up. I ordered them at 1 deg up. Avoda's were all exactly 2 deg up, as ordered. Callaway clearly makes great clubs, but there is an acceptable tolerance difference when dealing with the scale of a larger manufacturer vs. a specialized direct to consumer company.

 

As an aside, I'm sure large companies have a sure fire system of club building, but I would always recommend having the same individual builder bend all your clubs. Reading something like a degree measurement will still fall victim to a builder's physical biases. I want someone who reads the machines and installs parts in an identical way to ensure whatever human component is added in the build will be consistent across the set. If they all are .5 deg off, so be it. As long as they are all that way.

Edited May 20 by Ty_Guy

[JD3]

1 hour ago, Stuart_G said:

 

At the hobbiest level, I'd put it higher than that - easily +/-0.50 degrees and even up to +/- 1 degree in some case depending on the gauge used.

Why is it so hard to measure an angle?

[Stuart_G]

2 hours ago, rsballer10 said:

Yeah I probably said that wrong. Precision is the right word.

 

FYI - I was actually referring to accuracy, not precision.   Precision of the gauge is also a consideration on top of that.

 

1 hour ago, JD3 said:

Why is it so hard to measure an angle?

 

The short answer is that the sole of the iron isn't flat.   So the problem tends to be in positioning the club on the gauge in way in which you are measuring the angle against the correct reference plane.  And the club has to be correctly oriented on not just one, but two different axis to get accurate results.   That leaves plenty of room for error.

 

Actually not a lot of difference in how different playing length measurement methods can end up with different length values.

Edited May 20 by Stuart_G

[Socrates]

40 minutes ago, JD3 said:

Why is it so hard to measure an angle?

Because, for the most part, it involves a human.  Human's make mistakes.  I can look at a club 5 times and come up with 2-3 different outcomes if I am not extremely diligent.  It might only be 0.5º and that might be my fault, it might be a bad groove that I picked to zero off of.  That's why I usually do it a couple of times and try to be consistent in how I do it.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

About the only one I’d trust is Ping.

[JD3]

53 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

FYI - I was actually referring to accuracy, not precision.   Precision of the gauge is also a consideration on top of that.

 

 

The short answer is that the sole of the iron isn't flat.   So the problem tends to be in positioning the club on the gauge in way in which you are measuring the angle against the correct reference plane.  And the club has to be correctly oriented on not just one, but two different axis to get accurate results.   That leaves plenty of room for error.

 

Actually not a lot of difference in how different playing length measurement methods can end up with different length values.

So is it safe to say a sole with less role and camber will yield more consistent results? I.e. a large, bouncy game improvement sole leaves open the widest room for variances, while a narrower flatter blade sole should yield more consistent results ?

Edited May 20 by JD3

[Stuart_G]

6 minutes ago, JD3 said:

So is it safe to say a sole with less role and camber will yield more consistent results?

 

If it is, it's probably more of an issue for the less experienced.  I wouldn't expect it to make much difference for someone very experienced in taking those measurements.

 

It's certainly could be a consideration, but how important of one is hard to say.  Probably depends on the methodology used to find the right ground plane.  Although Tom Wishon never cared for it, some people do just use the grooves to find the right reference plane.  Those people probably would not be effected much by variations in the sole geometry.   On the other hand, those who find it by making sure the sole contact point (to the gauge base) is perfectly centered on the face hitting area might be more effected by it - maybe?

 

 

Edited May 20 by Stuart_G

[Socrates]

3 hours ago, JD3 said:

So is it safe to say a sole with less role and camber will yield more consistent results? I.e. a large, bouncy game improvement sole leaves open the widest room for variances, while a narrower flatter blade sole should yield more consistent results ?

The sole has nothing to do with it.  Every OEM uses the grooves as their reference point.  Grooves parallel to the device base and then measure the shaft.  Ideally the centerline of the shaft although that is varied.  Parallel tip shafts - not a problem.  Shafts with taper to them - main source of error for most people.

 

FWIW, a few years ago, I measured a bunch of heads.  Finding the center point based on the sole curvature and did not find one that didn't have the grooves at right angles to that point.  Which was always the center of the face, btw.  Are there outliers out there?  Likely, but not in the mainstream. 

[Golfrnut]

I know this will never be the most efficient way of doing things, specially for those that don’t have access to the equipment, but I have come to treat the spec number on paper as almost trivial and meaning nothing, at least to the extent of it meaning next to nothing unless its compared to clubs of the exact same build. With different CG locations, flex in the shaft, head weights, etc., there’s just too many variables to worry too much about one sets lie makeup coinciding to another's.  
 

My thoughts have migrated come down to this: 

Once you have a point of reference for the club, you just make adjustments off the previous measurement.  Measure before bending and that becomes the reference.  The paper spec that might be on the OEMs sheet, website, whatever is trivial IMO.  If its too flat/upright, measure from the initial test measurement and move on. It removes all the ambiguity of shaft taper, etc etc unless you end up at a point where you are borderline having to clamp at a step point (TT gives me a headache on this one).  You can also get an accurate measurement going forward, even on a bending machine as long as its the same one. That now means something on a spec sheet.  If playing a set based on a single iron spec, then its already a crapshoot anyway.  IMO, its basically no better than accepting the accuracy you are going to get bending based on a untested spec sheet.  OEM stock numbers in a set are just a baseline spec based on what they think might work. Some move in half degrees, some in full. Its just liek everything else, there is no real standard.  Start altering the shaft makeup, or head weight, and its all out the window anyway.  

 

[Socrates]

7 hours ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

About the only one I’d trust is Ping.

I wouldn't even trust them.   From an OEM, unless it comes straight out of a Tour Van, you can only hope that it falls within the +/- they post.

[AzRoger]

This is a video of Ping manufacturing and includes how they go about measuring and adjusting the loft and lie on a custom build. They use a computerized system with cameras that measure off of the grooves, any bending needed is still done manually. According to the video they can only move on to the next club in the set after the current club meets the specs indicated on the computer screen. I'm pretty sure their tolerance is like most other OEM's (+/-1 degree) but any Ping irons I've used seem to be well within that.

 

Edited May 21 by AzRoger

[gvogel]

8 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

If it is, it's probably more of an issue for the less experienced.  I wouldn't expect it to make much difference for someone very experienced in taking those measurements.

 

It's certainly could be a consideration, but how important of one is hard to say.  Probably depends on the methodology used to find the right ground plane.  Although Tom Wishon never cared for it, some people do just use the grooves to find the right reference plane.  Those people probably would not be effected much by variations in the sole geometry.   On the other hand, those who find it by making sure the sole contact point (to the gauge base) is perfectly centered on the face hitting area might be more effected by it - maybe?

 

 

I have used a loft/lie machine, Mitchel I think, and I have assumed that score lines should be used as a proxy for the sole.  I think that it works for my Titleist irons and wedges.  

[Socrates]

11 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

It's certainly could be a consideration, but how important of one is hard to say.  Probably depends on the methodology used to find the right ground plane.  Although Tom Wishon never cared for it, some people do just use the grooves to find the right reference plane.  Those people probably would not be effected much by variations in the sole geometry.   On the other hand, those who find it by making sure the sole contact point (to the gauge base) is perfectly centered on the face hitting area might be more effected by it - maybe?

 

 

That's really old school thinking.  Tom Wishon is a smart guy, but this is one thing I never agreed with.  I think you would be hard pressed to find any modern club where the center of the sole tangent isn't parallel to the grooves.  I know I've done it and couldn't find one that wasn't.  Maybe back in time you might find something where the grind was weird.  I've checked the lies on likely a dozen OEM's (Ping, Miura, Titleist, Mizuno, etc...) and all use the grooves to reference off of.  

[Cwebb]

4 minutes ago, Socrates said:

That's really old school thinking.  Tom Wishon is a smart guy, but this is one thing I never agreed with.  I think you would be hard pressed to find any modern club where the center of the sole tangent isn't parallel to the grooves.  I know I've done it and couldn't find one that wasn't.  Maybe back in time you might find something where the grind was weird.  I've checked the lies on likely a dozen OEM's (Ping, Miura, Titleist, Mizuno, etc...) and all use the grooves to reference off of.  

 

It seems to happen more often on drivers, fairways, or hybrids, than it ever does for irons/wedges anymore

[RickyBubbs]

This issue can be addressed with optical methodology and you get precision, accuracy and basically no room for measurement bias. A single diode laser, two alignments on the shaft and a thin film beam splitter in a kinematic mount can be setup to measure the ground plane and lie angle. I did this when studying manufacturing technique tolerances. You can even automate the process if the kinematic mount is motorized and you use a photodiode as the sensor for the laser which creates a feedback loop for the alignment process. 

[TKS]

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

That's really old school thinking.  Tom Wishon is a smart guy, but this is one thing I never agreed with.  I think you would be hard pressed to find any modern club where the center of the sole tangent isn't parallel to the grooves.  I know I've done it and couldn't find one that wasn't.  Maybe back in time you might find something where the grind was weird.  I've checked the lies on likely a dozen OEM's (Ping, Miura, Titleist, Mizuno, etc...) and all use the grooves to reference off of.  

[DrLeoMarvin]

I’m fairly certain that one of the best experiences I had with an OEM getting the lies angles on point was when they completely botched the lofts, swing weights and lengths. If I remember rightly the fitter that measured them said “well…..at least they got that right!”

[Stuart_G]

15 hours ago, Socrates said:

Every OEM uses the grooves as their reference point.

 

Not according to Tom Wishon - who was one of those industry designers.

 

7 hours ago, Socrates said:

Tom Wishon is a smart guy, but this is one thing I never agreed with. 

 

I didn't say I necessarily agreed with it either.   But I'm not actually in the industry the way he was so I'm not going to discount it off hand until I actually see some hard and statistically significant and professionally collected QA data on the accuracy of the score lines  to back up or dispute the claim.

 

10 hours ago, gvogel said:

I have used a loft/lie machine, Mitchel I think, and I have assumed that score lines should be used as a proxy for the sole.  I think that it works for my Titleist irons and wedges.  

 

FYI - that approach doesn't actually bother me.  Even if it does matter, I'm certainly not as much a perfectionist as Tom was.   I just include it in the context of "full disclosure."

 

Or maybe it's just because I don't feel the need to worry about how perfect lie angles might be for me (or most) and either way is more than good enough for most peoples needs.

Edited May 21 by Stuart_G