Jump to content
JBones

Forum Member Review - Paderson Shafts

Recommended Posts

Mark,

 

Are you comparing the Fuji and ProV1 combo to the Paderson Duo Combo? Is that an accurate test?

 

I have not compared this shaft side by side to the Fubuki Zeta that it replaced yet.  but when I do, it will certainly be using the same ball to test with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Are you comparing the Fuji and ProV1 combo to the Paderson Duo Combo? Is that an accurate test?

 

I have not compared this shaft side by side to the Fubuki Zeta that it replaced yet.  but when I do it will certainly be using the same ball to test with.

 

No, on that particularly cold day I would have like to use all Duo's, but I didn't have enough, so I had to use other balls for the other head because I was hitting multiple tee shots every hole.   I could have used all ProV's, but it was so cold I actually wanted to post a score and not hurt my hands because I finished the holes with the duo ball.   I realize that the mixed ball comparison was an extra variable and stated as much in my post.   Of course, on my LM testing and today when I played again, I used all the same balls for all heads and shafts.  Don't worry too much about it, because on my follow-up tests, of which there will be MANY since I test over many weeks before I make a decision, the same balls will all be used.  

 

Here's the thing.   How many of you guys have two identical heads of your chosen test club?   Hands up anyone?   I didn't think so.   Therefore, when you do your on course tests, what are you gonna do?   Hit one shot and make a judgement call of how good it was compared to how you think you might have hit the other one?  Or perhaps you have enough time to torx a head off and torx a new shaft on every hole?   Well, I'm lucky that I have a nearly empty course every week and two heads of the same family that are quite similar to each other.   About like having a SLDR 460 and 430 together.   So I take 'em both out, adjust them to comparable settings, hit two to four drives per hole for the whole round and see how they do cummulatively.   Ultimately, after I do this over 4 or 5 rounds, I'll know which one I like best.  

 

And really, doesn't this test all come down to just one thing for each one of the 12 testers?   We don't have give it a score, or a letter grade, or four stars out of five.   We only need to worry about one decision -- Keep it or Toss it.    If I vote Keep It, after putting it through my wringer, that's a big deal for me, cause I toss 9 out of 10 I try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of variables going on here seems like.

 

BTW, the more a ball slides on the face, the less spin it will have, not more. That's why rougher wedges spin the ball more than worn out smooth ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of variables going on here seems like.

 

BTW, the more a ball slides on the face, the less spin it will have, not more. That's why rougher wedges spin the ball more than worn out smooth ones.

 

Except that many independent laboratory tests have shown that rough-faced wedges featuring micro-grooves, face-etching, spin milling etc. do nothing to increase spin on full wedge shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing.   How many of you guys have two identical heads of your chosen test club?   Hands up anyone?   I didn't think so. 

I'm really not sure how long this situation will last, but when my wife picked up my shaft after I'd left it with the fitter to install the Titleist adaptor, it arrived with another Titleist 913 D2 head attached.  Mine is a 12* head adjusted down to 11.25* and the "new one" is a 10.5* adjusted up to 11.25*, so I was able to do l head to head comparison yesterday.

 

It will be a couple of days before I can get back to town, so I'll take advantage of this as long as I can!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that many independent laboratory tests have shown that rough-faced wedges featuring micro-grooves, face-etching, spin milling etc. do nothing to increase spin on full wedge shots.

The more a ball slides on the face, the less spin it will have. That's fact, not opinion. And any slipping occurs when it first makes contact before it gets compressed and the friction builds up. Spin comes from the ball rolling up the face when the friction is too high for it to slip. The Duos will come off with more spin because they compress more and slip less.

 

Grooves and rough surfaces come into play when you're in real world conditions on the course. In other words when there is moisture and grass to contend with between the ball and face. The whole point of them is to get the moisture and debris out of the way so the ball can grip the face. Too much junk between the two and the ball will slide up the face and spin will be way down. Ever heard of a flier lie?

 

Yes in perfect "laboratory" conditions, clean, dry, the grooves and any rough surfacing aren't needed. But those aren't the conditions you deal with when actually playing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting back and forth about balls slipping and sliding up the club face and such.  Of course there is one more unknown factor that may be at work - markb may like the duo and therefore put a slightly better swing on it when he's hitting that ball.

 

Trust in equipment tends to breed confident swings its why we get fitted -

 

Fortunately for this test I don't have to deal with differing heads - in wbealsd's scenario the de-lofted club will have an open face and the lofted up one will have a closed face even though they are in theory the same loft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I am doing is hitting the Paderson more towards the heel no matter which head I put it in.   You can see it in the photos and I saw it on course yesterday a bunch.   Odd, because the shafts are all the same length.   So my swing must be ever so slightly different from shaft to shaft.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more a ball slides on the face, the less spin it will have. That's fact, not opinion. And any slipping occurs when it first makes contact before it gets compressed and the friction builds up. Spin comes from the ball rolling up the face when the friction is too high for it to slip. The Duos will come off with more spin because they compress more and slip less.

 

Grooves and rough surfaces come into play when you're in real world conditions on the course. In other words when there is moisture and grass to contend with between the ball and face. The whole point of them is to get the moisture and debris out of the way so the ball can grip the face. Too much junk between the two and the ball will slide up the face and spin will be way down. Ever heard of a flier lie?

 

Yes in perfect "laboratory" conditions, clean, dry, the grooves and any rough surfacing aren't needed. But those aren't the conditions you deal with when actually playing.

 

Stating something is a fact in a golf blog, doesn't make it so.   I could go get all the data on roughed faces and post it again, but it's available everywhere on the net, on every blog and it's been beaten to death many times.   Grooves (their depth and frequency) do affect spin rates on full wedge shots, roughed up surfaces such as spin milling etc. do not.   Here's just one of the better, clearer, simpler tests I seen.   There are many others.

 

http://www.andrewricegolf.com/andrew-rice-golf/2014/5/to-go-milled-or-not-milled

 

And sadly, the data on ball softness (or compressability) and driver spin rates also doesn't agree with you.   Here's a slightly older chart that doesn't feature the Duo, but does have a bunch of other cheap, soft balls along with the harder urethane tour balls.   As you can see, harder urethane tour balls to the right, cheap softer surlyns to the left.

 

spin rates.jpg

 

That general distribution is repeated on pretty much every test or chart you'll find.  The urethane cover is probably the factor that most increases spin.

 

The reality is that the person swinging the club affects spin rates much more than the club face roughness or the ball.   If it didn't, we might logically assume that a pro, with his higher swing speed and ability to compress the harder ProV1, would get MORE spin out of his ProV off his drives than Joe Duffer got of his.   But in reality, this is not the case.   Pro's can achieve driver spin much lower than I can get, along with more distance, using the same ball, regardless of the ball.  At the same time they can generally get MORE wedge spin than I can get, regardless of ball, regardless of club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a pretty old chart Mark - I remember it - what stands out to me isn't the difference but the similarity - what difference does 400 RPM in spin make?  What would be the difference between a drive launched at 14.5 2200 to 14.5 2600?  (That's a serious question because I don't know the answer)

 

I noticed that you had more heel heads with the Paderson as well and was going to ask about shaft length.  Regardless wouldn't more heel hits lead to greater average spin rate?  That would also account for your not getting more ball speed than with your gamer - that its the same is significant I would think.   Of course it would be crazy to think that the Paderson shaft that we are testing will perform better for all 12 of us.  It almost can't given the differences in our swings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that chart does nothing to prove his argument about a ball slipping as it comes off the face and thus spinning more. There is no point to posting that.

 

Do a little research on what makes a ball spin mark. I'm not making it up. Denying facts doesn't change facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that chart does nothing to prove his argument about a ball slipping as it comes off the face and thus spinning more. There is no point to posting that.

 

Do a little research on what makes a ball spin mark. I'm not making it up. Denying facts doesn't change facts.

 

Post some data backing up your assertion and I'll listen.

 

The reality is probably that the Duo used with the one club on that first day spun less for me because Duo's spin less and the ProV spun more because ProV's spin more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a pretty old chart Mark - I remember it - what stands out to me isn't the difference but the similarity - what difference does 400 RPM in spin make?  What would be the difference between a drive launched at 14.5 2200 to 14.5 2600?  (That's a serious question because I don't know the answer)

 

I noticed that you had more heel heads with the Paderson as well and was going to ask about shaft length.  Regardless wouldn't more heel hits lead to greater average spin rate?  That would also account for your not getting more ball speed than with your gamer - that its the same is significant I would think.   Of course it would be crazy to think that the Paderson shaft that we are testing will perform better for all 12 of us.  It almost can't given the differences in our swings.

 

Those impact marks are all from my first on course testing.   During the LM tests I used impact tape (Dr. Scholls is much better, BTW) and I warmed up thoroughly to the point where I was getting pretty comparable center strikes between shafts.   And in case I actually need to restate it, I did NOT compare different heads in my LM testing.   After checking in with all the heads and shafts to see what was working best and determining that the 460 and the Rogues seemed to spin more, I put them aside.    I compared only the Paderson and the Fuji in the 440 head, and only with one type of ball, which happened to be the Duo since they had it on hand.

 

In my LM testing didn't see any appreciable difference in ball speed between shafts and I didn't see any appreciable difference in spin rates either.    What I did see was that I was able to slowly acheive lower spins, with higher ballspeeds, and longer carries the MORE I hit, regardless of shaft.    Each 5 ball cluster between switching shafts would get slightly better.   I attribute this to "monitor chasing", trying to make the machine move in the direction you want it to move in, something that is probably deadly to the natural golf swing, and after a bit I finally stopped.   The objective of the test wasn't to push to get higher bs's or lower spins, the objective was to compare shafts.

 

While I didn't see lower spin or longer carries out of the Paderson on the monitor, I do feel I'm getting it on the course.   And I'm seeing tighter dispersions everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an article analyzing driver face slippage from Tourspecgolf.   As you may have read, Bridgestone contends that reducing face slippage on a driver through the use of power milling can reduce spin by 200-300 rpms.   Marketing hype or real science?   Who knows, 95% of golf equipment is hype anyway, but the video is cool (if you can find it), and at least it's data, not just a blogger shouting that facts are facts.

 

http://www.tourspecgolf.com/blog/bridgestone-j715-b5-driver-introduction-and-the-subtle-demise-of-tourstage/

http://www.pgatour.com/equipmentreport/2015/01/08/bridgestone-golf-unveils-j715-460-driver.html

 

slippage.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, if you want to believe that the ball slipping on the face makes it spin more, not less, have at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting back and forth about balls slipping and sliding up the club face and such.  Of course there is one more unknown factor that may be at work - markb may like the duo and therefore put a slightly better swing on it when he's hitting that ball.

 

Trust in equipment tends to breed confident swings its why we get fitted -

 

Fortunately for this test I don't have to deal with differing heads - in wbealsd's scenario the de-lofted club will have an open face and the lofted up one will have a closed face even though they are in theory the same loft.

It's my understanding that with the Titleist adapter, based on their settings chart, both heads CAN be set to the same face/loft positions.  Not all adapters provide that, but the settings I used were for both heads to be at 11.25* with neutral face positions.  On the Titleist adapter chart, they show all possible loft/lie positions and their respective settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a pretty old chart Mark - I remember it - what stands out to me isn't the difference but the similarity - what difference does 400 RPM in spin make?  What would be the difference between a drive launched at 14.5 2200 to 14.5 2600?  (That's a serious question because I don't know the answer)

 

 

http://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/

 

Rev, check out that link for an easy way to see what the ball does with various changes to spin, speed and launch angle.  I took 155mph ball speed and just looked at carry distance because roll is too hard to predict.  14.5/2200 goes 263.2 and 14.5/2600 goes 264.9

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that chart does nothing to prove his argument about a ball slipping as it comes off the face and thus spinning more. There is no point to posting that.

 

Do a little research on what makes a ball spin mark. I'm not making it up. Denying facts doesn't change facts.

 

 

Post some data backing up your assertion and I'll listen.

 

The reality is probably that the Duo used with the one club on that first day spun less for me because Duo's spin less and the ProV spun more because ProV's spin more.

 

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to make a call one way or the other.  But here is the article from T over on the blog talking about the Bridgestone driver and reducing slippage to lower spin.  The way he puts it, it makes sense.

 

 

 

The most visually intriguing of Bridgestone's new technologies is the Power Milled Face. Aesthetically is resembles the micro grooves found on some of today's wedges, and the idea is that the milling helps the ball adhere to the driver face, which ultimately leads to better compression and reduced spin (Bridgestone's robot tests say 200-300RPM compared to non-power milled faces).

Basically, we're talking about reducing spin without reducing loft. For the overwhelming majority of golfers, this a good thing.

Don't Grooves add Spin?

Some of the more analytical among you many find yourselves wondering why milling would reduce spin on a driver when we all know it adds spin in wedges.

Good question (that you may or may not have actually asked). It's probably not worth digging into the ab solute details from a physics perspective, but it has to do with loft and the way the ball responds to it.

The short of it is that at lower lofts, face textures reduce spin. As loft increases the impact of texture slowly decreases and then, at a certain point, grooves, texture, etc. begin to add rather than reduce spin.

Really short version; it's related to loft, and I promise you we'll be seeing more of this face texture stuff from other companies in the very near future.

Back to those Key Technologies..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, hadn't heard that concept for sure.

 

Putting something slippery like oil on the face of a driver is proven to reduce spin by letting the ball slip instead of grip the face. This seems to do the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, hadn't heard that concept for sure.

 

Putting something slippery like oil on the face of a driver is proven to reduce spin by letting the ball slip instead of grip the face. This seems to do the opposite.

I'm guessing a lot has to do with angle of attack.  I'd be very curious to see if reduces spin with a downward angle of attack or actually increases it. 

 

They don't state any of the testing parameters other than "robot testing" which basically to me means they couldn't replicate it with an actual person swinging the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...