Cutting down drivers, lead tape, and common sense

[Solutions Etcetera]

Lot of talk recently (not that it is new) about cutting down today's 46ish inch drivers to 44 (or even LESS), and I am up for discussing it.

 

From 46-44... that is 12 swing weight points, or 24 grams of lead tape. If we look at TM's MWT, jut moving 10 or 12 grams can change a draw biased club into a fade biased one.

 

Then there are quite a number of OEM comments over the years akin to "we were able to move X grams of weight by making the crown .000001 thick (or making it out of plastic), resulting in a lower|higher|further back|further forward COG and increased MOI that provides significant increases in playability|forgiveness|distance|uNameIT", where X is a far cry from 24 grams.

 

And while technical jargon can sometimes be a lot of hooey, as a fairly recent Ping convert, I believe it to be a fair assertion that the careful thought, research, engineering, and testing of the distribution of mass in a golf club can make a pretty big difference. And this in an iron with a 36" shaft, with a comparatively small volume club head. It is both complicated science and art.

 

Back to the driver, with much larger head, and much longer shaft, with some condoning making drastic changes in weight distribution in a seemingly random manner to a $400 piece of technology using paper thin titanium and advanced engineering to get the weight distribution just right. I can't help but think that the chances of improving on the original design characteristics by slapping lead all over place is anything but minuscule.

 

For any but the highly skilled golfer, one who's swing is so precise that they might actually be able to trial and error it solely based on results they can see and feel - and not let expectations get in their head and cloud their judgement, this seems a recipe for disaster. Case in point... my own frankenstein three wood experiment X 2, which in the long run, did nothing close to producing a more playable club - in fact, coming to the conclusion many months down the line, that it most likely had adverse affects.

 

Now with all of this said, I did cut down my Burner 2.0 SF a half inch, and installed a real grip on it, taking it down from about D8.5 to D2 (which I "seem" more comfortable with).

 

But two inches or more... I don't see how that is anything but a crap shoot, with the odds stacked against you.

 

Now if you truly have the skill and the tools to evaluate what is actually happening with these changes (as opposed to just succumbing to the "I think this should be better" thus your mind makes it happen for you - lets face it... even highly skilled golfers have heads that don't always follow linear reality), then you may have a chance to actually improve things, but I would be curious how many folks climbing on the "yup, I lopped of two inches and it's definitely better" train are members of this class and actually know that this is indeed the case for them (and not just the application of placebo effect) and would be for other golfers.

 

Please know that I am not declaring herresy here... even I have done it and thought it was an improvement, but after the honeymoon was over and I was able to more objectively compare the long term results, I was dubious at best.

 

I know it has been said the pros play shorter clubs, but they have access to custom heads and can wield monster shafts. Can the recreational golfer even get a driver from the OEM's at 43-ish that would come in at anything close to a desirable swing weight, and preserve what is undoubtedly a small fortune's worth of engineering in it's weight distribution?

[hardcaliber]

OP, you bring up some great points. I have actually been thinking about some of these same questions, as i am planning on building a high loft short shaft driver sometime in the near future.

Many posts on here seem to indicate that you can put lead tape anywhere you want and it doesn't matter. If this is true, then it means that OEM's talking about weight distribution is pure advertising BS. That would also mean that TM MWT is a crock as well. As golfers, we are so gullible to all kinds of claims, it wouldn't suprise me if it were all BS.

A lot of people here advocate hot melt as a more sophisticated way to add weight. Maybe hot melt has some ability to overcome the issue of weight distribution?

[farmer]

Obviously, TM made Sergio a driver with proper weight distribution at 43". Without their resources, putting in a shorter shaft and dumping in a bunch of hotmelt seems to me like a recipe to ruin a club.

[kmayer99]

I would like to hear what Tom Wishon has to say here.

[Howard_Jones]

Adding weight to a club head does make differences to the weight distribution, but the question is doest it matter ?
- The answers is YES it does, but it depend on how much weight we are talking about, and where you add it.

A driver head is like 200 grams standard, and when we cut down a shaft from 46 to 44 of play lenght, use 1.7 grams pr SW point or 10 grams pr inch, that makes a total of 20 grams needed to reset the original balance.

If you dont know any better, and place it all toe side, your driver will have a FADE bias doe to slower closing of the face before impact. You raise MOI or resistance to move/close this way.
If you place the same 20 grams heel side, the head will have a DRAW bias, but not with the same effect as the same weight toe side. It would not "speed up closing" in the same measurable amount.

Weight added to the butt of the club head, will raise launch angle since we move RCOG slightly back.

Im using hotmelt, but before i can add anything, i have to find out what benefits the player. Just adding weight to re-set SW is a shot in the dark. I let the player play the club with different weights to find what balance is good for him, but i also look at my Trackman to see if he benefits form more or less face angle closing, or from more or less launch angle.

By moving the weight to the position i think is right, and let him test again, i can dial in where to add hot melt.
All testing is done with outside weight attachments temporary

The same tests tells if the shaft becomes to weak, so before we cut it down, i would know if there should be part tip trim and the rest at butt trim, because when we cut down a shaft and add a lot of weight like this case, we do make a difference to the shaf behavior to, not only club balance and club head bias.

Think of a 3 or 5 wood. Now we are getting close on club length, and head weight and most of you know that a wood should be tip trimmed compared to a driver, so dont just cut of the butt and add 20 grams, thats "lotto".

Its the job ahead of adding hot melt who takes time, not adding hotmelt itself.

[hardcaliber]

[quote name='Howard Jones' timestamp='1346396970' post='5564661']
Adding weight to a club head does make differences to the weight distribution, but the question is doest it matter ?
- The answers is YES it does, but it depend on how much weight we are talking about, and where you add it.

A driver head is like 200 grams standard, and when we cut down a shaft from 46 to 44 of play lenght, use 1.7 grams pr SW point or 10 grams pr inch, that makes a total of 20 grams needed to reset the original balance.

If you dont know any better, and place it all toe side, your driver will have a FADE bias doe to slower closing of the face before impact. You raise MOI or resistance to move/close this way.
If you place the same 20 grams heel side, the head will have a DRAW bias, but not with the same effect as the same weight toe side. It would not "speed up closing" in the same measurable amount.

Weight added to the butt of the club head, will raise launch angle since we move RCOG slightly back.

Im using hotmelt, but before i can add anything, i have to find out what benefits the player. Just adding weight to re-set SW is a shot in the dark. I let the player play the club with different weights to find what balance is good for him, but i also look at my Trackman to see if he benefits form more or less face angle closing, or from more or less launch angle.

By moving the weight to the position i think is right, and let him test again, i can dial in where to add hot melt.
All testing is done with outside weight attachments temporary

The same tests tells if the shaft becomes to weak, so before we cut it down, i would know if there should be part tip trim and the rest at butt trim, because when we cut down a shaft and add a lot of weight like this case, we do make a difference to the shaf behavior to, not only club balance and club head bias.

Think of a 3 or 5 wood. Now we are getting close on club length, and head weight and most of you know that a wood should be tip trimmed compared to a driver, so dont just cut of the butt and add 20 grams, thats "lotto".

Its the job ahead of adding hot melt who takes time, not adding hotmelt itself.
[/quote]

That all sounds like a very reasonable process. I think the OP's point is that when many of the posters on here talk about building shorter length clubs, they act like you can just tack the weight on pretty much anywhere and you are good to go. It doesn't seem like most people are able to go through the extensive testing/fitting process you described. Quite frankly, the process you described sounds very expensive. Around my neck of the woods, i'm sure the fitting session would be 100-150, and god knows how much to do the hotmelt work.

People on here seem to have good results we very low tech solutions, like stuffing cotton balls into the head or just going with lead tape. I will probably lean toward this myself to save some dough. Short driver at this point is still kindof an experiment for me, so i need to keep it on the cheap side.

[Solutions Etcetera]

HC… One suggestion I might make is to find a used R9 or similar (they are quite cheap these days). This gives you the advantage of easily swapping shafts and adding a good amount of weight (via MWT). I went that way for a while, but to be honest, I hit a stock SF so much better.

This returns me to my concerns about discretionary weight and how it affects driver performance. Driver is one of my better clubs (average about 8 of 12 fairways on a tight course). But the R9 felt dead on anything but a center hit, and big loss of distance. Burner has much more consistent distance across the face.

I for one will be interested in reading your conclusions from your experiment. My advice is to take your time and do not make snap judgements. Different can often be better initially, but many times does not hold up.

[Socrates]

What the OP asks (are we smarter than a room full of OEM engineers) is quite valid and something I have always believed is: that we are not. At least most of us. HJ has a good way to go about it - using real data before he makes it permanent. It would be interesting to know if any of the OEM's do testing on their products at shorter lengths to see what can happen so they can better direct their staff when Tour players ask for it. One would believe that they are told the parameters of the design and work around that, but I often wonder how often they design something that is really great and then marketing screws it up?

[thosser]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1346418682' post='5565169']
What the OP asks (are we smarter than a room full of OEM engineers) is quite valid and something I have always believed is: that we are not. At least most of us. HJ has a good way to go about it - using real data before he makes it permanent. It would be interesting to know if any of the OEM's do testing on their products at shorter lengths to see what can happen so they can better direct their staff when Tour players ask for it. One would believe that they are told the parameters of the design and work around that, but I often wonder how often they design something that is really great and then marketing screws it up?
[/quote]
I think you should keep in mind, that these engineers have constraints we do not have. Their end product has to be mass produced and also must be cost effective through that process. A labor intensive process that we could do with our own driver is not an option to them, as it would not be cost effective or even possible. All I am trying to say is that the room full of engineers is a bright group without question, but they have handcuffs that individual club builders do not.

[Ri_Redneck]

Excellent discussion! Weighting within the clubhead has been a major topic for a long time and many things are clearly known. For instance, moving more weight away from the sweet spot (while keeping the clubhead balanced) makes for a more stable clubhead. Placing weight lower creates a higher trajectory and vice versa. Moving more weight towards the heel of the club can help some golfers square the clubface better. Etc, etc.

When I moved to the R11, one of the things I KNEW I was going to experiment a lot with was the weight distribution. I picked up several weights. 2 each of 4gm, 6gm, 8gm, 12gm, 14gm and a single 10gm. I prefer a shaft in the 85gm range, so I reshafted it with the GD YS+ 8.1 which I have played for several years now. I also play a 43.5" length which is 2.25" shorter than standard. So, I was fairly sure I would need to change the weighting, but wasn't sure how much. First, TM claims that 10gm in the toe and 1 gm in the heel is neutral bias. ie a balanced clubhead. With the weights set this way, I balanced the clubhead (with adapter) on a piece if 1/8" aluminum plate along the up/down axis of the clubhead. It balanced perfectly in the center of the clubface. Next, I reversed the weights and sure enough, the balance point moved SLIGHTLY toward the heel of the clubface. So, TM's claims seem to be truthful, providing someone had not hotmelted this thing prior to my getting it (it was not new). Now, when I installed the shaft and began balancing the club to the feel I wanted, I knew what I wanted to do. As things ended up, I actually hit the club better with identical weights (8gm) in each port. On a whim, I also purchased a ProLaunch Blue 65 shaft to try out and had to increase the headweight to make it feel right. Just bumped the weights up till I got to the 12gm weights, and all was well.

Now, TM's MWT makes this pretty easy, but if you don't have weight ports and are stuck with using lead tape, then you should obviously put some thought into where you should place the tape. As long as you keep the balance of the clubhead the same, it should perform the same. Randomly slapping a bunch of lead tape on the club can greatly change the results you should be getting from simply shortening the club.

BTW, [b]Common Sense[/b] is the most important part of the title of this thread.

BT

[TomWishon]

[quote name='Solutions Etcetera' timestamp='1346373946' post='5563301']
Lot of talk recently (not that it is new) about cutting down today's 46ish inch drivers to 44 (or even LESS), and I am up for discussing it.

From 46-44... that is 12 swing weight points, or 24 grams of lead tape. If we look at TM's MWT, jut moving 10 or 12 grams can change a draw biased club into a fade biased one.

I believe it to be a fair assertion that the careful thought, research, engineering, and testing of the distribution of mass in a golf club can make a pretty big difference.

Back to the driver, with much larger head, and much longer shaft, with some condoning making drastic changes in weight distribution in a seemingly random manner to a $400 piece of technology using paper thin titanium and advanced engineering to get the weight distribution just right. I can't help but think that the chances of improving on the original design characteristics by slapping lead all over place is anything but minuscule.
[/quote]

SE:

You're comments are welcome because they do need to be discussed so that only, and I mean ONLY, the most truthful, helpful information can be brought forth to help golfers get the very best equipment for their game.

Yes, marketing does want golfers to believe if they put some weight over on the heel side of the head, that "draw bias" tendency will relieve a slice - and vice versa for "fade bias" weight in the heel. Golfers also want to believe when they put weight on the sole, they will hit the ball higher because of the lower center of gravity that results. Or by putting weight on the top of the head, they can lower ball flight.

You know, a long time ago, I too wondered about these things. FYI, the concept of "draw bias/fade bias" weighting was first exposed to the game in the 1968 book, "The Search for the Perfect Golf Swing." I remember reading about that in the 1970s and wondering if it worked. I had many questions for all sorts of other things attributed to moving weight around a clubhead.

So once I got into the clubhead design business, I began to dig into these and many other performance related issues. In conjunction with the late, great Elmore Just of Louisville Golf Company, in 1989 Elmore and I designed the industry's first draw bias driver head. Following that in 1994 I designed the industry's first draw bias metal wood head. In both cases it took 25 grams of weight moved into the heel area before ten scratch to 4 handicap players even began to see the ball visibly turn right to left or before a fade was reduced. For 12 to 18 handicappers, it took over 35 grams before a consistent effect on ball flight was seen. And even at that it was a slight change - nothing like what can be seen from a face angle change.

Here's another indication of how minimal the effect of head weight change is on ball flight. I've always designed in the custom clubmaking side of the industry, where my head designs were always sold to clubmakers as a component. Designing in this arena means you must design your clubheads with the ability for the clubmaker to add weight to the head. That's a must because when you fit and build clubs with a myriad of different weight shafts, grips to a variety of lengths, you have to have a weight addition capability in the heads to achieve the desired swingweight for each custom built club.

Since the mid 90s, all clubheads I have designed have been produced with a weight chamber at the bottom of the hosel bore. This chamber can hold up to 9 grams. In addition, clubmakers have also used tip weights in the end of the shaft to achieve the final desired swingweight of a club. All this weight addition in the HEEL side of the clubhead prompted some to question, "Is adding weight in the heel going to hurt the performance of the club?"

I too wondered that in my early days of design, so I went out to test for it and see what happens.

When you add 12 grams to the heel side of a club, no matter if that is done at the bottom of the hosel bore inside the head or with lead tape slapped on the outside of the heel side of the head, you move the head's center of gravity 1/8" (3mm) toward the heel. Hit testing shows that this is not enough of a movement of the CG to affect shot performance.

In more than 25 yrs of being a clubhead designer, during which time I have designed more than 300 different families of clubheads, one of the many things I have learned is that YOU HAVE TO MAKE BIG CHANGES IN A CLUBHEAD TO RESULT IN SMALL CHANGES TO THE FLIGHT OF THE BALL.

In the example of cutting 2" from a 46" driver to make it more consistently playable, if the club's original swingweight is to be restored, that will require the addition of some 24grams to the head, as you said. Now in the case of 24 grams, if you added that all to the heel side of the head, you would be just getting the draw bias tendency to a point that a pretty good player will notice the effect. At the same time, if any clubmaker is faced with the prospects of adding 24 grams to a clubhead, common sense tells him to use some manner of equal weight distribution around the head.

This is one reason why some of the golfers on WRX who need to add more substantial weight to the clubhead to achieve the right headweight feel for their swing do it by injecting a sticky glue inside the head. Doing that makes it a little easier to equally distribute the weight and negates the addition of gobs of lead tape to the outside of the head.

Seriously SE, there is nothing secret or magical about the weight of clubheads or where weight needs to be put when clubhead weight needs to be increased.


[quote name='Solutions Etcetera' timestamp='1346373946' post='5563301']
For any but the highly skilled golfer, one who's swing is so precise that they might actually be able to trial and error it solely based on results they can see and feel - and not let expectations get in their head and cloud their judgement, this seems a recipe for disaster. Case in point... my own frankenstein three wood experiment X 2, which in the long run, did nothing close to producing a more playable club - in fact, coming to the conclusion many months down the line, that it most likely had adverse affects.

But two inches or more... I don't see how that is anything but a crap shoot, with the odds stacked against you.

Please know that I am not declaring herresy here... even I have done it and thought it was an improvement, but after the honeymoon was over and I was able to more objectively compare the long term results, I was dubious at best.

I know it has been said the pros play shorter clubs, but they have access to custom heads and can wield monster shafts. Can the recreational golfer even get a driver from the OEM's at 43-ish that would come in at anything close to a desirable swing weight, and preserve what is undoubtedly a small fortune's worth of engineering in it's weight distribution?
[/quote]

Let's finish with a point that truly needs to be cleared up. . . .

From the early 20th century through the early 1980s, driver lengths stayed at 43". EVERY company used 43" as their std length for a man's driver, one inch shorter for their std women's driver. NO COMPANY DEVIATED from this. But then, starting in the 80s, driver lengths began to increase. To the point where today, a 45" driver is considered short and 46 to 46 1/2" is more of the norm. So the obvious first question that begs to be answered is. . . .

What justified increasing driver lengths from 43 to 46 and longer? Do the OEMs know something the rest of us don't? Did people all of a sudden get taller over the past 30 yrs? Think about it.

Interestingly, one thing that did change in the 1980s was the number of golf club companies all competing against each other for sales. Between the late 70s and late 80s, the number of golf club companies TRIPLED. What do you think that did to competition for golf club sales? Decade after decade in the golf equipment industry it has been shown that the lure of more distance sells more golf clubs than any other marketing and design element. Increasing club length was a way for the golf companies to market and sell more clubs on the basis of "you'll hit it farther."

There is ZERO technical justification for increasing the length of drivers and woods the way that the golf industry has done over the last 30 yrs. In fact, there is quite a compelling series of technical points that say going longer with the woods actually hurts a high percentage of golfers and prevents them from being able to be all they can be as a golfer.

Longer length RADICALLY increases the MOI of the assembled club. In turn, that causes the club to be more of an effort to swing and more difficult to control to achieve proper swing characteristics and a consistent swing path and consistent delivery of the face to the ball. THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.

So too are the hundreds of thousands of golfers who have improved their wood play from having been PROPERLY FIT for shorter length drivers. Shoot, most who simply cut down their existing drivers do find more consistency. Yes, of course it does require some experimentation to get the headweight right for the shorter length so that the club matches golfer's timing/tempo/rhythm. But this is a simple process and not complicated at all. You add weight until you feel the presence of the head enough so you are not swinging too quick nor laboring to swing the club either.

Bottom line. . . .

Over the past 15 yrs or so the hundreds of thousands of golfers who have been fit into 43-44 inch drivers or retro fit their existing driver shorter or gone to shorter fwy woods and immediately seen an improvement in consistency are complete proof that shorter lengths in the woods IS BETTER FOR THE VAST VAST MAJORITY OF GOLFERS. Yes, if you do this with an existing driver, you do need to re weight the head so as to find each golfer's best headweight FEEL to allow them to achieve their most consistent swing tempo. But that is a simple proposition and in no way does it harm anything originally done in the design of the head.

Of course, it is FAR better to be fully custom fit from scratch for that shorter driver/woods so that ALL 13 of the key fitting specs can be tailored to the golfer's individual size, strength, athletic ability and swing characteristics. Do that and you will achieve all you can be as a golfer. Buy these 46-46.5" drivers off the rack and 80%+ of all golfers will never, ever achieve all they can be as a golfer.

TOM

[Cletus]

I used to feel the same way as the OP. Then I started buying and trying all kinds of drivers. I am a bargain hunter and have probably tried every mainstream OEM driver from the last 5-7 years. I no longer believe that the latest/greatest is all that different. I also believe you should modify your driver unless you have the means to have one built specifically for you. On more than one occasion, I have not been able to find a new driver in a big box store that can match or better the results of my own driver, and its not like I use something crazy - my typical driver is 10.5* with a 60-70 gram stiff shaft at 44.5"

I'm not sure that modifying a driver means you think you are smarter than an OEM engineer. Like everything else, they have to make compromises. I happen to believe a lot (not all) of the tech they advertise is hype or an incremental change that the typical user cannot detect. Even then, the change may be better or it may be worse, it depends on the user. I don't really care if the crown is now .4 mm thinner... Notice how they often express the changes in percent, if they said "we moved 8 grams 2mm back and 1 mm lower" no one would spend their $$$. Every day there is a thread about the latest, greatest driver. Soon they are forgotten, which is fine with me because I then buy them on the cheap.

We are talking about a ~200 gram piece of Ti that is 44-46 inches from you hand. They all have similar rebound characteristics off of the face. Yes, there are different categories (game improver, workable low-spin) that have different COG and MOI, the buyer needs to be aware of that. But, moving/adding a few grams around is simply a feel thing. Making sure the driver is the right length, weight, and loft is more important than moving the COG 1.8mm from its factory location. The rest is aesthetics, sound, feel, and brand recognition - none of which will impact your score

You need to be aware of the changes you are making. You may have to play around a little. For me it was a combination of trial/error, reading a lot of info from reliable sources (Wishon), and a basic understanding of physics. I have made changes that didn't feel right. There have been times I did not like what happened to the shaft characteristics after the change. If you don't know what you are doing and you are afraid of messing up your new $400 driver that is certainly understandable, but don't be afraid to talk to a knowledgeable club builder or fitter about making changes if you are not satisfied with your setup. That said, if you never take the time to understanding the how/why of the changes you make, you will always be at the mercy of others. I am 6'5" and have benefited every time from cutting down my driver to the 43.5-44.5" range and weighting it to ~D3.

Edit: Never mind this post. Now that Mr. Wishon has posted I have nothing to add.

[cardoustie]

Good read

I know I am a much better driver of the ball with a driver at 44.5" and d6-d8 swing weight. (I am 6'2"). I feel like I can stay on top of the ball better

The Titleist 910 weight kits are great. I use a 9g in one head and a 12g in another (I have a d2 and a d3). No tape on the drivers but lead tape still goes on my fwy woods though (even with 80g shafts)

No loss of speed and many more centre contacts is the result. The guy that fit me at Titleist was sort in shock with how many times I threw down smash factors of 1.5

My 2 yrs of experimenting at 46, then 45.5, then 45 have proven this to me in playing over 120 rounds. I also learned that I am a 70-80 gram guy.

SIDE NOTE: The ~60g weighted shafts (even in X) were a gong show - just too much dispersion. Keep in mind lightest isn't the best for everyone either. There is a great video of a guy in another thread that gets fit into a 130 g steel shaft ... best #'s for his swing.

[Solutions Etcetera]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1346424867' post='5565601']through the early 1980s, driver lengths stayed at 43"[/quote]

Tom... this time frame was pre-titanium, right? So when ti hit, drivers not only got bigger but lighter, is that correct? Have OEM driver heads become lighter as lengths have sky rocketed over the last 6 years or so? I would think they had to.

And what about lie angle? Have they gotten flatter; 2+ inches seems like it should change the lie up to 3 degrees. Is this not important?

I just dug out the first set of woods that I ever had any degree of success with (Mitsushiba Vipers). The driver is indeed in the neighborhood of 44". What's surprising is that the three wood is much closer to today's 3 wood (within maybe a half inch or so).

For those who are playing 43-44" driver... what length is your 3 wood?

[randy6675]

Tom,

First off, let me once again express my appreciation of your presence on this board.

Over on the equipment forum, there is a topic about using steel shafts and reverting to 43" - 44". It was started by Robopti, who is well respected over there. He, and many others are excited about the results, and the topic has quickly expanded to 10+ pages. What are your thoughts about using steel shafts? Esp, what, if any, concerns are there as pertains to moi as it relates to an average golfer?

Thank you for your time.

[ej002]

What sergio is playing 103g at x and 43 is like steel...

[Cletus]

[quote name='Solutions Etcetera' timestamp='1346430971' post='5566217']
For those who are playing 43-44" driver... what length is your 3 wood?
[/quote]

I play a 4 wood at 42.5"

[enduro]

The biggest advantage of moving weight around on a head is to change the feel. Sure, adding 10 g to the heel or toe might not affect draw or fade bias , But, the difference in feel can affect how a we swing or release through the ball.

One major problem is people try shortening a 46" driver by butt trimming only and compensate by adding a bunch of weight to the head . The swingweight might be correct but who knows what the flex is? I doubt that OEM shaft designed around a 196g head is ever going to perform well with a 15 or 20 g heavier head

[Kadin 25]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1346424867' post='5565601']
[quote name='Solutions Etcetera' timestamp='1346373946' post='5563301']
Lot of talk recently (not that it is new) about cutting down today's 46ish inch drivers to 44 (or even LESS), and I am up for discussing it.

From 46-44... that is 12 swing weight points, or 24 grams of lead tape. If we look at TM's MWT, jut moving 10 or 12 grams can change a draw biased club into a fade biased one.

I believe it to be a fair assertion that the careful thought, research, engineering, and testing of the distribution of mass in a golf club can make a pretty big difference.

Back to the driver, with much larger head, and much longer shaft, with some condoning making drastic changes in weight distribution in a seemingly random manner to a $400 piece of technology using paper thin titanium and advanced engineering to get the weight distribution just right. I can't help but think that the chances of improving on the original design characteristics by slapping lead all over place is anything but minuscule.
[/quote]

SE:

You're comments are welcome because they do need to be discussed so that only, and I mean ONLY, the most truthful, helpful information can be brought forth to help golfers get the very best equipment for their game.

Yes, marketing does want golfers to believe if they put some weight over on the heel side of the head, that "draw bias" tendency will relieve a slice - and vice versa for "fade bias" weight in the heel. Golfers also want to believe when they put weight on the sole, they will hit the ball higher because of the lower center of gravity that results. Or by putting weight on the top of the head, they can lower ball flight.

You know, a long time ago, I too wondered about these things. FYI, the concept of "draw bias/fade bias" weighting was first exposed to the game in the 1968 book, "The Search for the Perfect Golf Swing." I remember reading about that in the 1970s and wondering if it worked. I had many questions for all sorts of other things attributed to moving weight around a clubhead.

So once I got into the clubhead design business, I began to dig into these and many other performance related issues. In conjunction with the late, great Elmore Just of Louisville Golf Company, in 1989 Elmore and I designed the industry's first draw bias driver head. Following that in 1994 I designed the industry's first draw bias metal wood head. In both cases it took 25 grams of weight moved into the heel area before ten scratch to 4 handicap players even began to see the ball visibly turn right to left or before a fade was reduced. For 12 to 18 handicappers, it took over 35 grams before a consistent effect on ball flight was seen. And even at that it was a slight change - nothing like what can be seen from a face angle change.

Here's another indication of how minimal the effect of head weight change is on ball flight. I've always designed in the custom clubmaking side of the industry, where my head designs were always sold to clubmakers as a component. Designing in this arena means you must design your clubheads with the ability for the clubmaker to add weight to the head. That's a must because when you fit and build clubs with a myriad of different weight shafts, grips to a variety of lengths, you have to have a weight addition capability in the heads to achieve the desired swingweight for each custom built club.

Since the mid 90s, all clubheads I have designed have been produced with a weight chamber at the bottom of the hosel bore. This chamber can hold up to 9 grams. In addition, clubmakers have also used tip weights in the end of the shaft to achieve the final desired swingweight of a club. All this weight addition in the HEEL side of the clubhead prompted some to question, "Is adding weight in the heel going to hurt the performance of the club?"

I too wondered that in my early days of design, so I went out to test for it and see what happens.

When you add 12 grams to the heel side of a club, no matter if that is done at the bottom of the hosel bore inside the head or with lead tape slapped on the outside of the heel side of the head, you move the head's center of gravity 1/8" (3mm) toward the heel. Hit testing shows that this is not enough of a movement of the CG to affect shot performance.

In more than 25 yrs of being a clubhead designer, during which time I have designed more than 300 different families of clubheads, one of the many things I have learned is that YOU HAVE TO MAKE BIG CHANGES IN A CLUBHEAD TO RESULT IN SMALL CHANGES TO THE FLIGHT OF THE BALL.

In the example of cutting 2" from a 46" driver to make it more consistently playable, if the club's original swingweight is to be restored, that will require the addition of some 24grams to the head, as you said. Now in the case of 24 grams, if you added that all to the heel side of the head, you would be just getting the draw bias tendency to a point that a pretty good player will notice the effect. At the same time, if any clubmaker is faced with the prospects of adding 24 grams to a clubhead, common sense tells him to use some manner of equal weight distribution around the head.

This is one reason why some of the golfers on WRX who need to add more substantial weight to the clubhead to achieve the right headweight feel for their swing do it by injecting a sticky glue inside the head. Doing that makes it a little easier to equally distribute the weight and negates the addition of gobs of lead tape to the outside of the head.

Seriously SE, there is nothing secret or magical about the weight of clubheads or where weight needs to be put when clubhead weight needs to be increased.


[quote name='Solutions Etcetera' timestamp='1346373946' post='5563301']
For any but the highly skilled golfer, one who's swing is so precise that they might actually be able to trial and error it solely based on results they can see and feel - and not let expectations get in their head and cloud their judgement, this seems a recipe for disaster. Case in point... my own frankenstein three wood experiment X 2, which in the long run, did nothing close to producing a more playable club - in fact, coming to the conclusion many months down the line, that it most likely had adverse affects.

But two inches or more... I don't see how that is anything but a crap shoot, with the odds stacked against you.

Please know that I am not declaring herresy here... even I have done it and thought it was an improvement, but after the honeymoon was over and I was able to more objectively compare the long term results, I was dubious at best.

I know it has been said the pros play shorter clubs, but they have access to custom heads and can wield monster shafts. Can the recreational golfer even get a driver from the OEM's at 43-ish that would come in at anything close to a desirable swing weight, and preserve what is undoubtedly a small fortune's worth of engineering in it's weight distribution?
[/quote]

Let's finish with a point that truly needs to be cleared up. . . .

From the early 20th century through the early 1980s, driver lengths stayed at 43". EVERY company used 43" as their std length for a man's driver, one inch shorter for their std women's driver. NO COMPANY DEVIATED from this. But then, starting in the 80s, driver lengths began to increase. To the point where today, a 45" driver is considered short and 46 to 46 1/2" is more of the norm. So the obvious first question that begs to be answered is. . . .

What justified increasing driver lengths from 43 to 46 and longer? Do the OEMs know something the rest of us don't? Did people all of a sudden get taller over the past 30 yrs? Think about it.

Interestingly, one thing that did change in the 1980s was the number of golf club companies all competing against each other for sales. Between the late 70s and late 80s, the number of golf club companies TRIPLED. What do you think that did to competition for golf club sales? Decade after decade in the golf equipment industry it has been shown that the lure of more distance sells more golf clubs than any other marketing and design element. Increasing club length was a way for the golf companies to market and sell more clubs on the basis of "you'll hit it farther."

There is ZERO technical justification for increasing the length of drivers and woods the way that the golf industry has done over the last 30 yrs. In fact, there is quite a compelling series of technical points that say going longer with the woods actually hurts a high percentage of golfers and prevents them from being able to be all they can be as a golfer.

Longer length RADICALLY increases the MOI of the assembled club. In turn, that causes the club to be more of an effort to swing and more difficult to control to achieve proper swing characteristics and a consistent swing path and consistent delivery of the face to the ball. THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.

So too are the hundreds of thousands of golfers who have improved their wood play from having been PROPERLY FIT for shorter length drivers. Shoot, most who simply cut down their existing drivers do find more consistency. Yes, of course it does require some experimentation to get the headweight right for the shorter length so that the club matches golfer's timing/tempo/rhythm. But this is a simple process and not complicated at all. You add weight until you feel the presence of the head enough so you are not swinging too quick nor laboring to swing the club either.

Bottom line. . . .

Over the past 15 yrs or so the hundreds of thousands of golfers who have been fit into 43-44 inch drivers or retro fit their existing driver shorter or gone to shorter fwy woods and immediately seen an improvement in consistency are complete proof that shorter lengths in the woods IS BETTER FOR THE VAST VAST MAJORITY OF GOLFERS. Yes, if you do this with an existing driver, you do need to re weight the head so as to find each golfer's best headweight FEEL to allow them to achieve their most consistent swing tempo. But that is a simple proposition and in no way does it harm anything originally done in the design of the head.

Of course, it is FAR better to be fully custom fit from scratch for that shorter driver/woods so that ALL 13 of the key fitting specs can be tailored to the golfer's individual size, strength, athletic ability and swing characteristics. Do that and you will achieve all you can be as a golfer. Buy these 46-46.5" drivers off the rack and 80%+ of all golfers will never, ever achieve all they can be as a golfer.

TOM
[/quote] Well played sir thank you as always for your time and effort.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='Solutions Etcetera' timestamp='1346430971' post='5566217']

Tom... this time frame was pre-titanium, right? So when ti hit, drivers not only got bigger but lighter, is that correct? Have OEM driver heads become lighter as lengths have sky rocketed over the last 6 years or so? I would think they had to.
[/quote]

No, No, No, No, No. . . . . With the move into titanium driver heads, yes for sure they got larger in volume size, but the heads actually got lighter in weight because, 1) the longer lengths required a lighter headweight to get to the same low D range swingweights; 2) the advent of lighter graphite shafts did offset this a little because typically as you go lighter in the shaft weight, you need to have a little more headweight to again get to the low D range in swingweight. But as lengths went 1 inch longer, the head actually had to be lighter and lighter even though graphite was becoming the shaft material of choice for drivers.

In short, going to titanium HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH HEADWEIGHTS. Headweights are all about what is the length and what is the shaft weight. Period.

[quote name='Solutions Etcetera' timestamp='1346430971' post='5566217']

And what about lie angle? Have they gotten flatter; 2+ inches seems like it should change the lie up to 3 degrees. Is this not important?
[/quote]

Lie really is not all that important in the DRIVER - because we hit the ball off a tee AND because if we have a misdirection problem, we can far better reduce that tendency with a different FACE ANGLE. It's also not that important in the driver because the misdirection angle from an ill fit lie is directly proportional to the loft on the clubface. Even though one might think that the extra distance of the driver will magnify the off line effect of an ill fit lie, it does not really pan out that way because, 1) the misdirection angle of a 9, 10, 11 degree face is not even close to being what it is for a 40* + iron; 2) the fairway is 30-60 yds wide so even a small misdirection angle is not a problem off the tee where it can be hitting an iron into a small green.

Lie IS important with the fwy woods and irons, mainly because these clubs are hit most of the time off the deck - and no one feels good about the sole contact being on the heel, even though that is NOT the cause of any lie induced misdirection.

I do understand why the golf industry went more upright with Driver lies as driver length increased. The longer length caused more downward shaft droop than when drivers were only 43" in length. But after 26 yrs of clubhead design and more years than that in fitting research, I think the std 60* lie of drivers is still about 2-3* too upright for most golfers. Still, it's not a big deal on the driver so I don;t make a big issue about that.

With fwy woods, yes, there is no good reason for any company to make lies on the fwy woods be 60*. I don't on my fwy wood models, and in the past two years, I have now started to design my fwy woods and hybrids with a special softer hosel so they can be bent +/-4* for fitting.


[quote name='Solutions Etcetera' timestamp='1346430971' post='5566217']

I just dug out the first set of woods that I ever had any degree of success with (Mitsushiba Vipers). The driver is indeed in the neighborhood of 44". What's surprising is that the three wood is much closer to today's 3 wood (within maybe a half inch or so).

For those who are playing 43-44" driver... what length is your 3 wood?

[/quote]

VERY GOOD question here. When we teach wood fitting, we teach the clubmakers to first find the right length for each golfer for the driver. If that happens to be 44.5 or longer, never do the 3w at any longer length than 43 - and then never make the wood to wood length increments to be less than 1 inch apart. If the driver length is 44 or shorter, then make the 3w to be 1 inch shorter than whatever the driver length is, and then still make the wood to wood increments after the 3w to be 1 inch.

This matter of 3 woods at 44 and 43.5" in length is ridiculous for such a low loft wood that is supposed to be hit off the deck. And making fwy woods to only be 1/2" separated from each other in length leaves many golfers with too narrow of a distance gap between the woods.

But there are a lot of custom fwy wood fitting features that we teach also - another huge one is to never assume all golfers need to have a 3w to follow the driver. ONLY if the golfer is good enough to easily hit a 3w loft high to fly off the deck should they use one. So in fitting we commonly inquire to find what is the lowest loft you can easily hit up off the deck to fly and we never make the golfer's "second longest hitting wood" to have a lower loft than that.

Anyway, too much rambling so time to head home for the weekend,
TOM

[TomWishon]

[quote name='randy6675' timestamp='1346434492' post='5566561']
Over on the equipment forum, there is a topic about using steel shafts and reverting to 43" - 44". What are your thoughts about using steel shafts? Esp, what, if any, concerns are there as pertains to moi as it relates to an average golfer?

[/quote]

Whatever shaft weight ends up putting the TOTAL WEIGHT at a level that is compatible with the golfer's strength, transition force, downswing tempo, and their sense of FEEL is the right solution.

At the same time, there are a boat load of stronger, more forceful transition, more aggressive downswing players who can be fit just fine with a graphite shaft that weighs 80-90 grams - you see that on the world tours all day long.

In addition, it is possible to put some stronger golfers with a more forceful transition and more aggressive downswing into a 60-65g shaft but with a very high swingweight and still enable them to have an overall weight FEEL that matches well to their tempo/timing and swing rhythm.

And finally, there are a number of golfers with a more forceful transition and more aggressive downswing who achieve their best swing tempo consistency when putting a 30 to 50 gram counterweight into the end of their driver.

There is no single one best weighting solution for all golfers. This sort of fitting does take some experimentation because what allows one player to achieve their most consistent tempo/timing may not for another golfer with similar swing characteristics. It's things like this that make experimenting with your clubs to be fun.

TOM

[capehack]

Really enjoying this thread, especially Tom's input. I'm one of those guys with a 33" wtf measurement and prefer my driver in the 43.5"- 44.5". I don't like to add 20gr of lead tape to get to D2 SW but am wondering how much using a lightweight grip such as Winn's 26gr DriTec grip adds to the SW. It's obviously a balancing situation. My concern is I'm considering buying a Callaway Razor Fit, G20, or building one with a Wishon 919 head. I'm not crazy about taking the Fit or G20 apart to add a tip weight but I don't have too many options. I can measure SW but don't have any way to measure any flex changes. I'm assuming that if I pair up a 200 gr head with a 45-48 gr shaft and a 26 gr grip for a 44" driver should require less lead to get me to a D2.

[Solutions Etcetera]

IMHO the light grips don't do anything. They change the scale's readings, but the scale's fulcrum is 14 inches from the butt. With the change in weight from a lighter grip being only at the actual swing weight fulcrum (your hands) , there is very little difference in swing weight feel.

[cxx]

[quote name='Solutions Etcetera' timestamp='1346508509' post='5570497']
IMHO the light grips don't do anything. They change the scale's readings, but the scale's fulcrum is 14 inches from the butt. With the change in weight from a lighter grip being only at the actual swing weight fulcrum (your hands) , there is very little difference in swing weight feel.
[/quote]

Oh I think they do make a difference. It's not that they are a great improvement, but they sure feel different. I don't like them but 25 grams on a sub 300 gram club is significant. A friend plays jumbo grips on the same clubs I play. They are about +20 grams and make the clubs feel very different, light headed.

The OEM engineers have been spending their efforts to make clubheads lighter to support the longer and lighter drivers. Those clubs work for some people by the way.

[Gotblades]

I LOVE it when Wishon gets on here and sets the record straight. Thanks Tom.