[George Pazin]

I think any time you shorten pretty much anything, it will end up stiffer.

Please don't use this as an ED treatment....

 

[A.G._Crockett]

Shortening a club will not change its flex if you keep the swingweight constant.  In other words you need to add a bit of lead tape to the head if you shorten the club.

Not to get all Bombsquad.com or anything, but swingweight and flex are totally unrelated.  SW is the way the club "feels", regardless of flex, and shortening the shaft (from either end) will reduce swingweight.  That's why the shafts for fairway woods are significantly heavier to begin with than a driver shaft.

Shortening the shaft will decrease the swingweight and if you don't do anything the club will play stiffer.  That's why you need to add weight to the clubhead to get the swingweight back to its original measurement.  

Bombsquad is not a reliable place for golf club information, unless your query is how to quickly spend lots of money on the latest must-have club that the board owners have in inventory.

Kevin,
I'm not quoting bombsquad.  

Swingweight is NOT related to shaft flex in any way.  SW is a feel, and does not reflect the playing characteristics of the club.  You can raise the "feel" (SW) of a club by using a thinner grip, or with a little bit of lead tape, for instance.  That doesn't stiffen or add flex to the club at all.

[Garland Bayley]

Shortening a club will not change its flex if you keep the swingweight constant.  In other words you need to add a bit of lead tape to the head if you shorten the club.

Not to get all Bombsquad.com or anything, but swingweight and flex are totally unrelated.  SW is the way the club "feels", regardless of flex, and shortening the shaft (from either end) will reduce swingweight.  That's why the shafts for fairway woods are significantly heavier to begin with than a driver shaft.

Not to get all Bombsquad.com or anything, but shafts for fairway woods are the same weight as driver shafts until you do the trimming to the appropriate length, and then they are lighter! It is the clubhead that changes in weight. The driver weighs less than the 3 wood, 3 wood less than 5 wood, etc. all the way to the wedges which are the heaviest clubheads.

Garland,
I don't want to quibble, but manufacturers now use much, much lighter shafts in drivers than fairway woods.  Driver shafts run somewhere between 55 and 65 grams (Tour players MUCH heavier), while FW shafts start at 65 grams and go all the way to 85 grams.  Lots of manufacturers now show specs on their websites if you want to see them.

If you can show me just one shaft manufacturer that makes a driver shaft that they don't also give the trimming instructions for fairway woods to, then I will assign some credibility to your statement.

[Garland Bayley]

I think any time you shorten pretty much anything, it will end up stiffer.

George,

I think you are going to have to give me your definition of stiffness on that one!

The words used by others are "effective stiffness" which I believe to be a different concept.

[Tim Gavrich]

I find my 3 wood easier to hit than my driver, and I would think that this should always be true in the big-head-driver era because:

1. A 3 wood is shorter in physical length than a driver.  Ergo, it is generally easier to control left/right-wise.
2. A 3 wood has more loft than a driver, which also leads to a straighter general shot.  Because the face is angled up more, a ball hit with an open or closed clubface will still tend to fly "up" rather than "out" (i.e. left or right).
2a. This increased loft also means that since the toe of one's clubs is usually higher than the heel, the loft of a 3 wood will also point more for a draw, which helps higher handicappers control a slice more.
3. The head of a modern 3 wood is much smaller than that of a modern driver.  The main problem with 460cc heads is that their surface area (especially on the face nowadays) is so large that it creates a bit of drag, meaning that the air resistance experienced on the downswing is going to cause more mishits, especially if the player's swing-speed is not especially high.  The head of a 3 wood "cuts" through the air much more easily.  Once again, this leads to increased accuracy.

I've always had more of a "slap" swing, whereby I don't release my hands like I should.  Therefore, my natural shot-shape has always been a fade.  My 3 wood is much easier to hit straight or with a draw as a result.

[David_Tepper]

Here is the link to the article in the October issue of Golf Digest that discusses this issue:

www.golfdigest.com/equipment/2007/10/golftechdriver

[A.G._Crockett]

Shortening a club will not change its flex if you keep the swingweight constant.  In other words you need to add a bit of lead tape to the head if you shorten the club.

Not to get all Bombsquad.com or anything, but swingweight and flex are totally unrelated.  SW is the way the club "feels", regardless of flex, and shortening the shaft (from either end) will reduce swingweight.  That's why the shafts for fairway woods are significantly heavier to begin with than a driver shaft.

Not to get all Bombsquad.com or anything, but shafts for fairway woods are the same weight as driver shafts until you do the trimming to the appropriate length, and then they are lighter! It is the clubhead that changes in weight. The driver weighs less than the 3 wood, 3 wood less than 5 wood, etc. all the way to the wedges which are the heaviest clubheads.

Garland,
I don't want to quibble, but manufacturers now use much, much lighter shafts in drivers than fairway woods.  Driver shafts run somewhere between 55 and 65 grams (Tour players MUCH heavier), while FW shafts start at 65 grams and go all the way to 85 grams.  Lots of manufacturers now show specs on their websites if you want to see them.

If you can show me just one shaft manufacturer that makes a driver shaft that they don't also give the trimming instructions for fairway woods to, then I will assign some credibility to your statement.

Garland,
Sorry to take so long to get back to you, but I had to teach my last couple of classes and then go play 9 holes.  I wrote you an IM.

[A.G._Crockett]

What I haven't seen - but is probably out there, because every idea I have seems to have already been done by someone - is a club with 3 wood or 5 wood loft, and a much larger head. That would not work as well off the deck, but it would probably be a better driving club for most lesser golfers.

George,
They're out there; Ping made a 15.5 degree, 400 cc version of the G2, and several other manufacturers have something similar.  The problem, I think, is that you still have to have a driver shaft in it, or the swingweight is so low that it just feels too light for most men.

[Mark Buzminski]

"3. The head of a modern 3 wood is much smaller than that of a modern driver.  The main problem with 460cc heads is that their surface area (especially on the face nowadays) is so large that it creates a bit of drag, meaning that the air resistance experienced on the downswing is going to cause more mishits, especially if the player's swing-speed is not especially high.  The head of a 3 wood "cuts" through the air much more easily.  Once again, this leads to increased accuracy."

"Drag" with a 460 cc driver causing mishits?  I'm no physicist, but I have never heard this opinion expressed anywhere else, nor have I ever heard of anyone complaining of experiencing "drag" using a modern 460cc driver. And, if anything, the larger face and new technology - bigger speet spot, more MOI, moveable weight technology, draw bias, etc.  - only helps any mishit shot and actually reduces the severity of the result (which would be worse with a 3 wood).  

[Kevin_Reilly]

Kevin,
I'm not quoting bombsquad.  

Swingweight is NOT related to shaft flex in any way.  SW is a feel, and does not reflect the playing characteristics of the club.  You can raise the "feel" (SW) of a club by using a thinner grip, or with a little bit of lead tape, for instance.  That doesn't stiffen or add flex to the club at all.

If you shorten a club without increasing the clubhead weight, you decrease the club's swingweight.  The shortened club's shaft will oscillate faster than it did before it was shortened - unless you compensate by adding weight to the head.  Shaft oscillation - its frequency in cycles per minute - is a conventional method of quantifying shaft stiffness.

A.G., do you disagree that a shaft in a club that is shortened without adding weight to the head will oscillate faster than a shaft with the same weight head that is not shortened?  

Shivas, turn your head away...we've entered Dork Scale grad school (even though it is basic physics).  

[Jim Nugent]

Jim Nugent,

When Tiger hits his 3-wood, it's because he wants to end up in a predetermined LZ, not because he's more accurate.

Here's what Tiger says, on his website:

"I'll show you my strategies and techniques for hitting the shots I rely on most off the tee - the high-flyer and stinger with the driver and, when I need more precision, the fade and draw with the 3-wood."

[Mike Benham]

If you shorten a club without increasing the clubhead weight, you decrease the club's swingweight.

I'm siding with Dork Reilly on this one.  

[Kevin_Reilly]

If you shorten a club without increasing the clubhead weight, you decrease the club's swingweight.

I'm siding with Dork Reilly on this one.  

That was the introduction to the argument...go spend a few hours in the archives at golfwrx or Tom Wishon golf so you can understand and agree with the rest of it.  

[A.G._Crockett]

Kevin,
I'm not quoting bombsquad.  

Swingweight is NOT related to shaft flex in any way.  SW is a feel, and does not reflect the playing characteristics of the club.  You can raise the "feel" (SW) of a club by using a thinner grip, or with a little bit of lead tape, for instance.  That doesn't stiffen or add flex to the club at all.

If you shorten a club without increasing the clubhead weight, you decrease the club's swingweight.  The shortened club's shaft will oscillate faster than it did before it was shortened - unless you compensate by adding weight to the head.  Shaft oscillation - its frequency in cycles per minute - is a conventional method of quantifying shaft stiffness.

A.G., do you disagree that a shaft in a club that is shortened without adding weight to the head will oscillate faster than a shaft with the same weight head that is not shortened?  

Shivas, turn your head away...we've entered Dork Scale grad school (even though it is basic physics).  

Kevin,
The way that we got into this was your statement that "Shortening a club will not change its flex if you keep the swingweight constant.  In other words you need to add a bit of lead tape to the head if you shorten the club."

Shortening a shaft WILL make it stiffer, and it WILL lower the swingweight.  BUT, if you then add lead tape to get the swingweight back up, you will NOT change the flex of the club.  Again, swingweight is "feel", not flex.  Two drivers could both be D3's, but one could be an X and the other an R.  You could add enough lead tape to the R to make it D10 if you wanted, but it would still be an R.  A goofy, weird R, but an R nonetheless.

 

Or, said another way; If you change the length of a given shaft, you will change both the swingweight and the flex.  However, if you change only the swingweight, you will NOT change the flex.  In that respect, they are unrelated.  I hope that's at least sorta clear...

[Bryan Izatt]

Swingweight is a measure of the relative heaviness of the head at the end of the lever that is the shaft.  Add 3 or 4 grams to the head and the swingweight goes up by one point.

Flex designations like R, S and X are pretty meaningless.  Hence the use of shaft frequency as a way to describe flex.  In a frequency matched set, there is a frequency difference of roughly 4 cpm between adjacent clubs in a set. (e.g. 5 iron is 316 cpm and the 6 iron is 320 cpm)  If you plot frequency vs club # (shaft length) you get a straight line sloped at 4 cpm.  Yet the set is described as having x-stiff or 6.5 shafts.  The frequency is affected by the length of the shaft and the weight of the head.  If you make the shaft one inch long or add weight to the head to change the swingweight then the frquency of the shaft is no longer x-stiff.

If you cut an existing shaft down and don't change the headweight, the frequency will go up about 4 cpm per inch IIRC.  However, the flex of the shaft will still be on the same sloped line and hence will still feel like the same stiffness.

If you add weight to bring the swingweight back up, then the frequency will decline leaving you with a slightly softer shaft.

So I agree with A.G. up to that point.  I disagree on the last point, If you add enough headweight to make a driver swingweight at D10 then the frequency of the shaft in that configuration will be lower, and it will flex at something less than  an "R".  

And to add to the dorkiness, I believe it is a matter of physics that a 3 wood is straighter than a driver, just as a nine iron would be straighter than a 3 wood.  There are a couple of reasons.  A driver has less loft than a 3 wood.  The lower the loft, the more sidespin relative to backspin is applied for each degree the clubface is open or closed at impact.  The more sidespin, the more curvature.  Also the amount of curvature depends on the speed of the ball.  The higher the speed, the more the curvature. Ball speed is higher with the driver than the 3 wood, hence more curvature.

   

[Kevin_Reilly]

So I agree with A.G. up to that point.  I disagree on the last point, If you add enough headweight to make a driver swingweight at D10 then the frequency of the shaft in that configuration will be lower, and it will flex at something less than  an "R".    

Going from D2 to D10 would require 16 grams of headweight, and would reduce the frequency of the driver by 8 cpms, or virtually a full flex (10 cpms is a full "letter" flex).

-Dork out

[A.G._Crockett]

So I agree with A.G. up to that point.  I disagree on the last point, If you add enough headweight to make a driver swingweight at D10 then the frequency of the shaft in that configuration will be lower, and it will flex at something less than  an "R".    

Going from D2 to D10 would require 16 grams of headweight, and would reduce the frequency of the driver by 8 cpms, or virtually a full flex (10 cpms is a full "letter" flex).

-Dork out

O.K., I'll plead guilty to gross hyperbole, since nobody in their right mind would take a driver to D10 anyway.  My bad.

Raising the swingweight from C9 to D3, though, after shortening the shaft, would be a more realistic example, and I'll maintain in that case that the swingweight change would be noticeable while the flex change would not.  

Said another way, I don't think there would be any club guys who would try to make flex changes by adding weight; the amount of the weight would be extreme, and make the club "feel" much, much too heavy.  Conversely, when adding enough weight to make a "normal" adjustment to swingweight (say 4 points for the sake of argument?), a change in shaft flex is NOT a worry.

[A.G._Crockett]

And to add to the dorkiness, I believe it is a matter of physics that a 3 wood is straighter than a driver, just as a nine iron would be straighter than a 3 wood.  There are a couple of reasons.  A driver has less loft than a 3 wood.  The lower the loft, the more sidespin relative to backspin is applied for each degree the clubface is open or closed at impact.  The more sidespin, the more curvature.  Also the amount of curvature depends on the speed of the ball.  The higher the speed, the more the curvature. Ball speed is higher with the driver than the 3 wood, hence more curvature.

   

Bryan,
Thanks for getting us back to the original question!

I think the disconnect comes because what you have written is an "all other things equal" statement of physics, and for most players all other things are NOT equal in comparing their driver to their 3W.

The original question was NOT straighter, it was EASIER.  The driver is 460 cc, the 3W usually only around 200cc +/-.  Additionally, many more of us have fitted the driver on launch monitors, including the shaft.  Also, drivers tend to be more lofted now, reducing whatever advantage the 3W has due to more backspin.  I think players now tend to make more confident swings with their drivers, and I think the premise of the thread was that all of that makes the driver the easier club to hit, the opposite of what has always been the case in golf.

Maybe evidence of that would be that more and more players don't carry a 3W; they've replaced it in their bag with hybrids.

[Bryan Izatt]

A.G.,

Back on topic, the original post was:

they are more comfortable hitting driver off the tee for accuracy

So it had to do with straighter.  But, off the tee, perhaps there isn't as much difference as their once was.  But, on ball speed alone the 3w has to be a bit straighter, and being a shorter club the ultimate distance off line has to be smaller.

Back to OT, I guess I'm not really in my right mind.  I have a couple of drivers at D9 and one that's even at E4 (lots of rattle stop plus lead hosel weight plus 80 gram shaft.  They all work quite nicely.  Most people can't tell the difference from a D3.

[Jason McNamara]

O.K., I'll plead guilty to gross hyperbole, since nobody in their right mind would take a driver to D10 anyway.  My bad.

Darren Clarke is up there pretty good, isn't he?

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,

Back on topic, the original post was:

they are more comfortable hitting driver off the tee for accuracy

So it had to do with straighter.  But, off the tee, perhaps there isn't as much difference as their once was.  But, on ball speed alone the 3w has to be a bit straighter, and being a shorter club the ultimate distance off line has to be smaller.

Back to OT, I guess I'm not really in my right mind.  I have a couple of drivers at D9 and one that's even at E4 (lots of rattle stop plus lead hosel weight plus 80 gram shaft.  They all work quite nicely.  Most people can't tell the difference from a D3.

Bryan,
I'm done!  There is no way I'm arguing with a guy who can swing an E4!  I couldn't hit an 80g shaft in a 3W, so I don't want to get on your bad side.  I'm lifting weights 3X a week so I can swing a D3 these days.

[Doug Sobieski]

Any of you guys remember the Palmer Extreme Gripless Driver (1997)? If you do, you may remember the commercials with me and Mr. Palmer on The Golf Channel    At any rate, the overall weight of that driver was about 9 oz., yet the swingweight was in the E range. One of the lightest drivers ever, yet a very high swingweight. Goldwin also made milled aluminum drivers in that era that were very light overall but had a very high swingweight (E+). Don't assume that a high swingweight translates into difficult to hit. It means more of the mass is behind the ball at impact.

Dow Finsterwald would always go for a walk every morning with a driver in his hands (for exercise) that weighs a couple pounds, yet has a swingweight around D2.

Funny story about the Gripless driver. The Saturday before the 1997 Masters, Tiger played in the Shootout at Bay Hill with Mr. Palmer (since Mr. Palmer was always the A player in the group, Tiger was the B   ). On the range beforehand, I was standing there watching AP and Tiger hit balls together, and Mr. Palmer let Tiger hit the Gripless driver. He hit it AT LEAST 30 yards past the Cobra driver that he went on to win the Masters with!!! Tiger said "The last thing I need is to hit it farther."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()