Is all Gear Effect the Same

[ekennedy]

Brian,

I have been experimenting a bunch on FS lately with Gear Effect on the driver, intentionally hitting balls on the heel and toe, high and low, but with different angles of attack and club paths and charting the results.

Is it possible that the golf ball reacts differently, sometimes dramatically, with the same face impact (ex. slightly high and on the toe or low on the heel) if the club is moving up, down, left or right at impact?

Just curious, because there seems to be places on the clubface that would benefit a certain "type" of swing and places on the clubface that would really hurt the same swing. It seems for me, and probably some others, that the club that produces some of the biggest variations of Spin Axis are with the driver and anything we can do to minimize that would be beneficial, and the center of the clubface doesn't always seem to produce the straightest ball flight.

I would appreciate any input you may have. Thanks.

 

[Frans@France]

The data you found is very likely driver design specific and to be more precise face insert design specific. Also swing speed related and to a smaller extent also ball design.

Issues like variable face thickness, asymmetrical face curvature, face hardness etc any other trick the designers can think of

It's one good reason to do driver fittings (sorry could not resist )

 

[mgranato]

The center of the face is not always lining you up with the CoG. Especially when you consider different paths and AA. I'm guessing this is what was responsible for the various results you saw as you moved the ball around the face while moving the face around the ball.

 

[Frans@France]

arrggg did not see that the impact position stayed the same but the directions changed.....stupid me...

 

[SteveT]

Too many variables with the driver. You can't duplicate swings and impact effect. The golfswing is just too unstable because the human body is only an approximation machine.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Too many variables with the driver. You can't duplicate swings and impact effect. The golfswing is just too unstable because the human body is only an approximation machine.

Agreed, it would be fun to test the OP theories on a Pingman

 

[mgranato]

The golfswing is just too unstable because the human body is only an approximation machine.

Try to drive while you hold... should clear "unstable" right up.

 

[ekennedy]

My point wasn't about repeat-ability. My question concerned the nature of gear effect on a driver that is hitting a round object from many different angles, with many different clubface variations. Does the ball react the same way that has always been taught and discussed regardless of angle of attack or club path?

I suggest that it does not.

 

[SteveT]

Try to drive while you hold... should clear "unstable" right up.

Huh...

My point wasn't about repeat-ability. My question concerned the nature of gear effect on a driver that is hitting a round object from many different angles, with many different clubface variations. Does the ball react the same way that has always been taught and discussed regardless of angle of attack or club path?

I suggest that it does not.

Are you suggesting that the D-plane concept is just an idealization, and in real life there may be too many variable swinging a driver clubhead? :eek"

 

[birly-shirly]

@ekennedy - was all your testing done with a driver? I think what you're seeing is that heel and toe hits can't be defined relative to a static point on the face, never mind the centre point on the face. The "sweetspot" is going to move around the face somewhat, because the sweetspot is the point where a vector parallel to the clubhead's direction of travel, drawn from the clubhead's CoG, intersects the face. Hence, the sweetspot's location on the face varies with swing direction, and clubface alignment.

Because the sweetspot varies, you need to redefine heel and toe, high and low hits (and the "size" of the miss) relative to the effective sweetspot for any given swing direction and clubhead alignment.

The effect is exaggerated on the driver because the clubhead's CoG is positioned so far behind the face. For a less rearward CoG, there will be correspondingly less variation in the position of the sweetspot on the face.

 

[ekennedy]

@ekennedy - was all your testing done with a driver? I think what you're seeing is that heel and toe hits can't be defined relative to a static point on the face, never mind the centre point on the face. The "sweetspot" is going to move around the face somewhat, because the sweetspot is the point where a vector parallel to the clubhead's direction of travel, drawn from the clubhead's CoG, intersects the face. Hence, the sweetspot's location on the face varies with swing direction, and clubface alignment.

Because the sweetspot varies, you need to redefine heel and toe, high and low hits (and the "size" of the miss) relative to the effective sweetspot for any given swing direction and clubhead alignment.

The effect is exaggerated on the driver because the clubhead's CoG is positioned so far behind the face. For a less rearward CoG, there will be correspondingly less variation in the position of the sweetspot on the face.

Yes, all the testing was done with a driver and less than strictly scientific. However, my question is based more around the theory that toe hits (4-5 dimples not 1/2 inch) impart more draw spin than a center hit. In some cases, it seems to create less.

And, for arguments sake, if a good player can make relatively consistent center contact with a driver than with a slight adjustment they can make slightly toe or heel hits on command.