Toe droop or not toe droop

[JonWil]

Given this premise: A shaft's toe droop is a funciton of the inertial forces correlated directly to the speed at which a golfer swings this or that shaft.


If True: What percentage faster would a golfer have to swing (beyond their swing speed when fitted for proper lie angle) to compromise the lie angle fitting?


If False: What is toe droop a direct function of and is it manipulable during the instance of a golf swing?


Curious minds would like to know.

 

[Todd Dugan]

The toe droops because the COG of the clubhead tries to align with the axis at the hands. The toe will not droop beyond the degree which allows this.

 

[JonWil]

Todd, thanks for the reply. If I understand you correctly then a golfer could swing the club X times faster than they swung for their fitting and as long as the hand path was identical there would be no lie issues.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Todd, thanks for the reply. If I understand you correctly then a golfer could swing the club X times faster than they swung for their fitting and as long as the hand path was identical there would be no lie issues.

while i understand and completely agree with Todd, i don't know if you are 100% jon..i'm guessing that shaft stiffness *could* have an impact.

Frans?

 

[Todd Dugan]

Todd, thanks for the reply. If I understand you correctly then a golfer could swing the club X times faster than they swung for their fitting and as long as the hand path was identical there would be no lie issues.

I'm saying that the shaft will only deflect far enough for the axis to align with the clubhead COG, both vertically (toe droop), and horizontally (added Dynamic loft). Assuming that this is happening with a given shaft, then a move to more flexible shaft will not increase the effect, nor will producing more speed with given shaft .

 

[Frans@France]

while i understand and completely agree with Todd, i don't know if you are 100% jon..i'm guessing that shaft stiffness *could* have an impact.

Frans?

Do not really like to answer this one as it is a very hard subject imho and the real discussion is if the swing itself consistent enough for the lie to be important enough in making a real impact in the final ball flight.

The shaft flex profile and the forces executed on it will determine the final droop however those forces do not directly relate to impact clubhead speed. IMHO it is possible to have the same clubspeed and same hand path but create a complete different "loading" of the shaft and thus creating a difference in the final impact drop. Same thing for a complete different club head speed and same hand path but have the forces changing such that the final droop is exactly the same as the previous club head speed.

That why some golfer with low swing speed could still need a X flex profile while others with higher speeds can still control the shot using a L flex profile.

However at the end the "Curious minds" could just buy a sharpie and measure the lie with their new found clubhead speed or visit their fitter again

 

[Frans@France]

I'm saying that the shaft will only deflect far enough for the axis to align with the clubhead COG.

True Temper shaftlab data seems to disagree (link : Lessons from ShaftLab). Question is if the shaftlab data did indeed measure that data correctly. ENSO with it's full image of the shaft bend profile during the complete swing could provide the real answer....

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Frans you don't disappoint,

 

[Todd Dugan]

True Temper shaftlab data seems to disagree (link : Lessons from ShaftLab). Question is if the shaftlab data did indeed measure that data correctly. ENSO with it's full image of the shaft bend profile during the complete swing could provide the real answer....

Don't see where it says in there that the lead deflection at impact can go beyond the COG aligning with shaft axis. My understanding of this comes chiefly from Tom Wishon.

 

[Frans@France]

Don't see where it says in there that the lead deflection at impact can go beyond the COG aligning with shaft axis. My understanding of this comes chiefly from Tom Wishon.

The diagrams at point 8 show the "theoretical" droop/lead positions in relation with the cog. However the data shows that the actual bend seems the be more forward (lead) then expected from a cog relation and the Droop is always less then expected when a cog relation would be the only reason.

So that why Tutelman states:

"Not a single point is on the CG line. Every one of the golfers not only has leading bend at impact, the lead is more than can be explained by CG-pull.

So something is going on besides (or instead of) CG-pull. That something can be best described as "rebound" from toe-up bend earlier in the swing, because it is leading the CG in every data point we have.
....
In summary, the theory that centrifugal pull through the CG accounts for all the bend at impact does not agree with the data. So it must not be true.
"

However my main questions is if the ShaftLab data is 100% correct and that maybe the data is skewed because of the placement of the stress-gauges. Thats why I think that if we would have ENSO images of the full shaft during the impact zone that would allow to better understand this lead/droop.

 

[Virtuoso]

If you put a metal ball on the end of the shaft, instead of the clubhead, the "head cg" would now be on the shaft axis....and you would still get lead and droop.

So, both cg offset and shaft bending properties play a role. Hard to extract them individualy.

 

[drewyallop]

Science is here ...

http://people.stfx.ca/smackenz/Publ... the delivery of the clubhead to the ball.pdf

 

[JonWil]

Science is here ...

http://people.stfx.ca/smackenz/Publ... the delivery of the clubhead to the ball.pdf

Damn!