Lofts When Opening or Closing a Driver

[J.Bex]

There is certainly still some confusion around driver lofts in regards to opening and closing the face.  This is something I modeled up in CAD in support to explanations by @Howard_Jones.

 

Hopefully many have seen Mr. Wishon's explanation video by now on adjustable drivers, and how the shaft can be inserted at different angles vs the clubhead orientation.

 

Because of adjustable adapters, some believe lofts go down, generally speaking, when opening the driver face and go up when closing the face.  That's just a matter of that shaft angle vs the clubhead orientation, and then squaring up.  But if you simply rotate the the club by the grip, opening a driver will increase the loft, just like opening a wedge.

 

The CAD model below is just a crude flat driver face and shaft, but able to adjust loft, lie, toe up/down, face angle, and shaft lean.  I hope to complete a driver head design to play around with in CAD, but this is good enough to show effective static lofts when opening or closing the face.  Note that the lie angle affects the effective lofts a little when doing this (I had an old thread on wedge lofts when opening which stated this incorrectly). 

 

The first 3 tables show driver lofts from 8° to 10°, lie angles from 56° to 60°, and what their effective static lofts are to the ground when opening, keeping the head horizontal to the ground.  The 4th table shows lofts for the drivers at 60° lie but toe up 5°.  The last table are the lofts when closing, and how much to close to get 0° loft.  Hope this is informative. 

 

 

 

[Jc0]

Interesting info but this isn't how shaft adapters work. The assumes the tip of the shaft is straight, but it's not. If you look at most adapters you'll notice the tip is angled. Using this angled tip it allows the loft to be raised/lowered in respect to a straight line through the shaft. What causes the face angle shift is that when you sole the club the face opens or closes in comparison to it's neutral position. If you never sole the club the face won't the open/close. In order to square up the closed face you have to add the loft back to be square, and for open you have lower the the loft to get back to square.

 

You bold fact shows this. An adapter with open the club face 1 degree while maintain the listed loft of the head. The player then has to deloft the head 1 degree in order to square up the club head making it play effectively 1 degree lower. 

[Howard_Jones]

15 minutes ago, Jc0 said:

Interesting info but this isn't how shaft adapters work. The assumes the tip of the shaft is straight, but it's not. If you look at most adapters you'll notice the tip is angled. Using this angled tip it allows the loft to be raised/lowered in respect to a straight line through the shaft. What causes the face angle shift is that when you sole the club the face opens or closes in comparison to it's neutral position. If you never sole the club the face won't the open/close. In order to square up the closed face you have to add the loft back to be square, and for open you have lower the the loft to get back to square.

 

You bold fact shows this. An adapter with open the club face 1 degree while maintain the listed loft of the head. The player then has to deloft the head 1 degree in order to square up the club head making it play effectively 1 degree lower. 

You must have made a typo on the last part (the player dont have to "deloft".....only return Face angle to square)

This works just like "Loft and Bounce", we cant split them, so if one moves, the other moves, and that means a hosel where we want a lower loft, starts by opening face angle, and we finish it all by returning it square, but if we dont square up, we added loft, and its no way around that.

When we bend a iron or wedge for loft, its actually face angle we bend...but since we measure loft with a square face angle, we get a loft change instead of a face angle change.

I had @Adam C to measure this some time ago, and the measurements tells about the same numbers, but its always a hard job to measure this 100%, so i contacted @joostinto do this in CAD to get numbers that is "more correct". One of the issues Adam saw was a different ratio from face angle to loft depending on if face was open or closed. Here is the numbers he found using a loft and face angle gauge for woods. 

[Stuart_G]

5 hours ago, joostin said:

Because of adjustable adapters, some believe lofts go down, generally speaking, when opening the driver face and go up when closing the face.  That's just a matter of that shaft angle vs the clubhead orientation, and then squaring up. 

 

There is more to it than that - but I'll save that for later after I get a bit more clarification on the point of the post.

 

5 hours ago, joostin said:

But if you simply rotate the the club by the grip, opening a driver will increase the loft, just like opening a wedge.

 

OK.  But I don't think I've every seen anyone question that or any confusion with respect to the effect on loft when rotating the club by the grip.   So I have to assume there is some other point?   

 

All the confusion I've seen is related to what happens when changing face angle with the adapter, not by simply rotating the club at the grip.

 

But it's not clear, but I hope you're not trying to say (or implying) that the consequential opening/closing of the face angle with an adapter is in any way equivalent to rotating the club in the grip to open/close the face?

 

[J.Bex]

5 hours ago, Jc0 said:

Interesting info but this isn't how shaft adapters work. The assumes the tip of the shaft is straight, but it's not. If you look at most adapters you'll notice the tip is angled.

I think we're talking about the same thing.  This statement below was exactly because of the "angled" tip of the adapter.  Because of the adapter, the axis of the shaft is no longer concentric with the axis of the clubhead's hosel, which allows for all the fun adjustability.  Wishon compares it to the old wood drivers that they'd bore at different angles non-concentric to the hosel depending on what was desired:  

 

the shaft can be inserted at different angles vs the clubhead orientation.

 

Because of adjustable adapters, some believe lofts go down, generally speaking, when opening the driver face and go up when closing the face.  That's just a matter of that shaft angle vs the clubhead orientation, and then squaring up

[J.Bex]

9 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

OK.  But I don't think I've every seen anyone question that or any confusion with respect to the effect on loft when rotating the club by the grip.   So I have to assume there is some other point?   

I have seen comments alluding to this, and apparently Howard also, because that was the reason he asked for this CAD exercise to clarify how much opening the face lofts up.  So no, no other point other than to show what those lofts are 🙂

 

12 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

I hope you're not trying to say (or implying) that the consequential opening/closing of the face angle with an adapter is in any way equivalent to rotating the club in the grip to open/close the face?

No, not at all.  Just showing the effective lofts when rotating the club by the grip (while maintaining a horizontal line on the face to be parallel with the ground, as spelled out in the tables, which means the height of the grip end changes as we rotate open or closed).

[Stuart_G]

4 hours ago, joostin said:

I have seen comments alluding to this, and apparently Howard also, because that was the reason he asked for this CAD exercise to clarify how much opening the face lofts up.  So no, no other point other than to show what those lofts are 🙂

 

No, not at all.  Just showing the effective lofts when rotating the club by the grip (while maintaining a horizontal line on the face to be parallel with the ground, as spelled out in the tables, which means the height of the grip end changes as we rotate open or closed).

 

OK.  Thanks for the clarification.  Sorry for the interruption.  Carry on 😁

[Howard_Jones]

The "new" method for loft measurement is that the club is measured with a square face angle, so lets take one example, using Joostins charts.

We start form 10* static loft. (square), and want -1.0* loft or 9.0*
If the club we now have, is delivered to the ball with a face angle thats 2.0* open, loft is not 9.0* but 10.3*. so we added loft, we did not reduce it.



Thats identical with the chart ive made and posted a endless number of times, where a 60* lie angle and a face angle thats 2.0* open, adds 1.33* of loft. so we ends with 9.0* + 1.33* = 10.33* of loft at impact.

[Stuart_G]

3 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

We start form 10* static loft. (square), and want -1.0* loft or 9.0*
If the club we now have, is delivered to the ball with a face angle thats 2.0* open, loft is not 9.0* but 10.3*. so we added loft, we did not reduce it.

 

Seems about right to me.  The 10* loft (0* face angle) head adjusted to 9* would have a naturally soled face angle of less than 2*.  Going to a 2* face orientation at impact would be opening it up a bit more so makes perfect sense that it would increase the loft a bit.

 

[Howard_Jones]

1 hour ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Seems about right to me.  The 10* loft (0* face angle) head adjusted to 9* would have a naturally soled face angle of less than 2*.  Going to a 2* face orientation at impact would be opening it up a bit more so makes perfect sense that it would increase the loft a bit.

 

Thats right, but since Joostins numbers was with 1-2-3 as options, i simplified it so we could use his numbers.

If lie is 60* and we try to reduce loft by 1* we get a club who in grounded position will have a face angle of 1.50* open.
If we maintain that FA at delivery, we want have a 9.0* head (like the hosel settings indicate), but a 10.0* head just like we started from, now with 1.5* open face angle. (again, because our "new 9.0*" head will add 1.0* of loft since FA was 1.5* open to path at delivery to the ball)

Thats why ive been trying to explain the difference in "loft needs" for a FADE vs a DRAW player, by saying the FADE player should start from a LOWER static loft, since his wanted ball flight is a face angle open to path who adds loft at impact. The DRAW player should start from a higher static loft, since his wanted ball flight demands a FA closed to path who reduces loft at impact.

Simplified (again), if we say AOA is 0* and the shaft dont bend, and wanted loft for both players was 9.0* the FADE player should pick a 8.0* head to get there, while the draw player should pick a 10.0* head to get there. 

Edited June 12, 2022 by Howard_Jones

[sinatra]

On 6/12/2022 at 4:40 AM, Howard_Jones said:

Simplified (again), if we say AOA is 0* and the shaft dont bend, and wanted loft for both players was 9.0* the FADE player should pick a 8.0* head to get there, while the draw player should pick a 10.0* head to get there. 

Great info, but I am confused when looking at the titleist surefit chart.

 

From my understanding of what you have stated, B4 would be the most fade and D2 would be the most draw?

 

[North Butte]

2 minutes ago, sinatra said:

Great info, but I am confused when looking at the titleist surefit chart.

 

From my understanding of what you have stated, B4 would be the most fade and D2 would be the most draw?

 

The annotations of "MORE DRAW" and "MORE FADE" on Titleist's chart are referring to the lie angle under the assumption that upright lies encourage draws and flat lies encourage fades. Titleist assumes you will be squaring the clubface at impact, which is why they shot loft change and not face angle change on the vertical axis. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by North Butte

[Howard_Jones]

18 minutes ago, sinatra said:

Great info, but I am confused when looking at the titleist surefit chart.

 

From my understanding of what you have stated, B4 would be the most fade and D2 would be the most draw?

 

Look at LIE ANGLE on that chart, that explains it.
1.5* Upright = More draw
0.75* Flat = Fade

Since launch want change unless we square up the club(vertical axis on the chart), they dont include face angle (open or closed) as Fade or Draw, even if thats what happen if we dont sqauere up, so the chart has a "implicit understanding" that face angle would be returned to square before the player places his hands on the club.

 

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, Howard_Jones said:

Look at LIE ANGLE on that chart, that explains it.
1.5* Upright = More draw
0.75* Flat = Fade

Since launch want change unless we square up the club(vertical axis on the chart), they dont include face angle (open or closed) as Fade or Draw, even if thats what happen if we dont sqauere up, so the chart has a "implicit understanding" that face angle would be returned to square before the player places his hands on the club.

 

 

It's marketing.  So yes, they are including face angle and launch along with the lie angle.  That's why the "most draw" and "most fade" are in the corners, not along the whole top or bottom rows.

 

 

1 hour ago, sinatra said:

Great info, but I am confused when looking at the titleist surefit chart.

 

The reality of what each individual sees is going to be different.  The chart is covering all potentials - it's not a guarantee of what you'll see.   How much potential each person will realize is going to be different.  Some will see the launch angle change, some will see the shot shape change, and some will see a little of both but not quite as much as someone who only sees one or the other.   It's a whole spectrum.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Stuart_G

[Howard_Jones]

To me, it seems like those arrows is "relative to STD" or the A-1 setting.
The B-4 setting will close face angle just as much as A-3, but i read A3 as Draw due to lie angle and B4 as Fade due to lie angle. ....a 0.75* lie against flat want deliver a HIGH FADE (B-4) if the player grips the club with a face angle thats about 2.0* closed like it will be grounded in that setting