FLO & Ventus TR

[juggernaut0629]

Has anyone FLO’d a ventus TR ? How stable are these naturally? Do they even need FLO or Puring?

Edited May 12, 2023 by juggernaut0629

[bmbsawy]

2 hours ago, juggernaut0629 said:

Has anyone FLO’d a ventus TR ? How stable are these naturally? Do they even need FLO or Puring?

Russ Ryder has a great site and while acknowledging their presence on tour- says the ventus scores relatively poor in terms of consistency shaft to shaft and overall symmetry

[third-times-a-charm]

FLO/PURE/etc is all unnecessary and a waste of time in modern aftermarket shafts from major shaft makers. Not worth it.

[Typhoon1992]

The problem arises if you FLO the shaft for the standard loft of the driver, glue on the adapter and then change the loft.

[juggernaut0629]

1 hour ago, Typhoon1992 said:

The problem arises if you FLO the shaft for the standard loft of the driver, glue on the adapter and then change the loft.

Which is why there’s been speculation that Callaway has the best adjustable adapter. Move cogs , not the adapter.

[juggernaut0629]

2 hours ago, bmbsawy said:

Russ Ryder has a great site and while acknowledging their presence on tour- says the ventus scores relatively poor in terms of consistency shaft to shaft and overall symmetry

 I checked FLO on a TR red today. It was swinging all over when I lined up to the graphics. So I agree with this comment. 1 of the worst shafts I’ve seen in some time. Actually reminded me of the Vista Pro. I thought premium shafts did not have this problem.

Edited May 13, 2023 by juggernaut0629

[Howard_Jones]

1 hour ago, juggernaut0629 said:

 I checked FLO on a TR red today. It was swinging all over when I lined up to the graphics. So I agree with this comment. 1 of the worst shafts I’ve seen in some time. Actually reminded me of the Vista Pro. I thought premium shafts did not have this problem.

Its s MYTH that production quality and control is so high we can forget it, its simply not true, and it takes a minute to do it, so why not?

[Glock917]

Yeah I subscribe to Russ site and the Ventus continues to score average in terms of radial consistency who’s every other shaft tested during and after Ventus released score above average to excellent scores. 
 

must be the way they designed or layer the Ventus portion of it as all models showed that trait

[kell]

I have flo'd many  fujikura shafts.With the ventus shafts if you you build the shaft with the velocore graphic down that will minimize lead deflection with an average of a few cpms softer in the toe droop direction. It is a clear design choice as all the ones I have done have these results.On some of the shafts I was only able to get three FLO lines and with those shafts the missing FLO line is always on the side of the velocore graphic where the shaft would be in compression with toe droop.

[Howard_Jones]

13 minutes ago, kell said:

I have flo'd many  fujikura shafts.With the ventus shafts if you you build the shaft with the velocore graphic down that will minimize lead deflection with an average of a few cpms softer in the toe droop direction. It is a clear design choice as all the ones I have done have these results.On some of the shafts I was only able to get three FLO lines and with those shafts the missing FLO line is always on the side of the velocore graphic where the shaft would be in compression with toe droop.

If that means the design is asymmetrical in behavior, the shafts is not legal for use.

[RentDeezy12]

9 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

Its s MYTH that production quality and control is so high we can forget it, its simply not true, and it takes a minute to do it, so why not? Can you show us any evidence that puring/floing a golf shaft has any positive effect on the shafts performance? 

 Have you ever recorded a golfer who experienced an increase in strokes gained with a particular club after it was “properly” pured/flo?
  If the guys on Tour Trucks building clubs for the best players in the world don’t practice or find this process necessary why is it gospel in some circles that this must be done in order to qualify the work as a proper build? 

[Jeff58]

2 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

If that means the design is asymmetrical in behavior, the shafts is not legal for use.

That rule, and “rotational behavior” is precisely the aspect that Ventus shafts are inherently superior to typical standard modulus models.

A significant advantage of very-high modulus materials is that you can/must use less of it. In the case of Ventus, a lot less. As Mr. Ryden points out in his site generically, lighter (less material) shafts tend to measure “worse” in his approach. That’s because in shaft manufacturing, there is always some degree of overlap. The more material, the less these overlapping layers are apparent.

 

The key here is that Ventus is showing us, if we care to look, that linear deflection variability is effectively meaningless. That’s because what really matters is rotational stability. In this area, the extreme modulus materials have an overwhelming advantage, as is blatantly displayed by the Ventus family.

 

Frankly, the assertion that Fujikura doesn’t or can’t control their design or manufacturing processes should raise an immediate red flag. What we have are people who don’t understand the materials applying metrics that aren’t applicable to the intended results, and others who are purporting to remove them.

[Howard_Jones]

17 hours ago, Jeff58 said:

That rule, and “rotational behavior” is precisely the aspect that Ventus shafts are inherently superior to typical standard modulus models.

A significant advantage of very-high modulus materials is that you can/must use less of it. In the case of Ventus, a lot less. As Mr. Ryden points out in his site generically, lighter (less material) shafts tend to measure “worse” in his approach. That’s because in shaft manufacturing, there is always some degree of overlap. The more material, the less these overlapping layers are apparent.

 

The key here is that Ventus is showing us, if we care to look, that linear deflection variability is effectively meaningless. That’s because what really matters is rotational stability. In this area, the extreme modulus materials have an overwhelming advantage, as is blatantly displayed by the Ventus family.

 

Frankly, the assertion that Fujikura doesn’t or can’t control their design or manufacturing processes should raise an immediate red flag. What we have are people who don’t understand the materials applying metrics that aren’t applicable to the intended results, and others who are purporting to remove them.

I think you misread that chapter from USGA
Deflection is simply defletion, and no matter what position we rotate the shaft and test deflection, it should be the same. 

The Ventus models came after i stopped, so i never worked with them, but i will check with my man in Denmark who is a huge Ventus pusher, but he measure ALL shafts before install.

[Stuart_G]

On 5/13/2023 at 9:10 AM, Howard_Jones said:

If that means the design is asymmetrical in behavior, the shafts is not legal for use.

 

 

Not necessarily.  Conformance with the rules is all about the intent of the designer, not the tolerances or limitations or imperfections of the manufacturing process.

 

 

Quote

Many graphite shafts have a small “spine” or “spines” running along the length of the shaft which may make them bend a little differently depending on how they are oriented during installation. The existence of a small spine is generally regarded as being the result of normal manufacturing processes and therefore not a breach of Section 2b. As previously noted, The R&A and USGA recognizes that it is difficult to produce a perfectly symmetrical shaft. Therefore, provided that the shaft is manufactured with the intention of meeting the above requirement, a reasonable tolerance is applied when evaluating shafts for conformance.

 

from:

https://www.usga.org/equipment-standards/equipment-rules-2019/equipment-rules/equipment-rules.html#!ruletype=interp&section=rule&partnum=2&rulenum=3

Edited May 14, 2023 by Stuart_G

[bmbsawy]

21 hours ago, RentDeezy12 said:

 Have you ever recorded a golfer who experienced an increase in strokes gained with a particular club after it was “properly” pured/flo?
  If the guys on Tour Trucks building clubs for the best players in the world don’t practice or find this process necessary why is it gospel in some circles that this must be done in order to qualify the work as a proper build? 

I’ve never paid for any of my shafts to be outed or whatever- but I have bought a few tour issue shafts uncut off the bay and they were all marked with a paint pen at the butt end aligned with the logo. Makes me wonder if they were pured from the factory before paint was applied

[Howard_Jones]

7 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Not necessarily.  Conformance with the rules is all about the intent of the designer, not the tolerances or limitations or imperfections of the manufacturing process.

 

 

 

from:

https://www.usga.org/equipment-standards/equipment-rules-2019/equipment-rules/equipment-rules.html#!ruletype=interp&section=rule&partnum=2&rulenum=3

I dont know how USGA test it or judge it, and my comment is directly related to the words from the one im replying to. If what he describe is correct, they can say what ever they like, and claim what ever intentions they like, but the shaft and its behavior speaks for itself.

The rules makes no sense what so ever, if you can manufacture shafts thats asymmetrical, and hide behind words saying "that was not our intention" if they all comes out like this


 

[Stuart_G]

2 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

I dont know how USGA test it or judge it, and my comment is directly related to the words from the one im replying to. If what he describe is correct, they can say what ever they like, and claim what ever intentions they like, but the shaft and its behavior speaks for itself.

The rules makes no sense what so ever, if you can manufacture shafts thats asymmetrical, and hide behind words saying "that was not our intention" if they all comes out like this

 

That's part of the game.   The rules are full of things that are entirely based on intentions.  Some level of integrity is expected and required as part of the game.   Do people play the game that don't have that level of integrity?  Of course but the companies have too much to loose if they were to get caught trying to "work around" the rules in that fashion.  So I doubt very much that that might be the case.   I would challenge that the unprofessional assessment above that "it's a clear design choice"  is completely false.

 

 

[Howard_Jones]

1 hour ago, Stuart_G said:

 

That's part of the game.   The rules are full of things that are entirely based on intentions.  Some level of integrity is expected and required as part of the game.   Do people play the game that don't have that level of integrity?  Of course but the companies have too much to loose if they were to get caught trying to "work around" the rules in that fashion.  So I doubt very much that that might be the case.   I would challenge that the unprofessional assessment above that "it's a clear design choice"  is completely false.

 

 

Im checking it now, since Thomas Rosenberg in Copenhagen is a LARGE Ventus pusher, so lets wait to here what he have to say about them. If his finding is the same, then this is bad.

Again, i dont know anything about how USGA test shafts, and how many samples etc....but we know from COR / CT testing, that intentions is not good enough, if measured values is beyond the limit.

[Stuart_G]

12 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

Im checking it now, since Thomas Rosenberg in Copenhagen is a LARGE Ventus pusher, so lets wait to here what he have to say about them. If his finding is the same, then this is bad.

Again, i dont know anything about how USGA test shafts, and how many samples etc....but we know from COR / CT testing, that intentions is not good enough, if measured values is beyond the limit.

 

I doubt they do much (if any) shaft testing on a regular basis.

 

Now - whether they have come up with an objective definition of how much asymmetry is "reasonable" or not is a different question - but if they have, it's not something that I've ever seen published.

[Howard_Jones]

15 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

I doubt they do much (if any) shaft testing on a regular basis.

 

Now - whether they have come up with an objective definition of how much asymmetry is "reasonable" or not is a different question - but if they have, it's not something that I've ever seen published.

The information on USGAs webpages dont tell much

Test protocols for shafts is missing. - its only balls and club heads
https://www.usga.org/equipment-standards/test-protocols-for-equipment-9df6d04f.html

But the "general" text includes shafts...but without a protocol.
https://www.usga.org/equipment-standards/research-and-test-center-primer.html

[juggernaut0629]

Geesh, I didn’t expect all this. Did I open a can of worms? Lol

 

what are your findings Howard?