Graphite Design Tour AD Shafts - 2024 Forum Review

[DukeStKing]

On 7/24/2024 at 11:44 AM, DukeStKing said:

Another round with the Graphite Design AD VR 6S and this thing is really starting to show its true colors (and that matte blue is beautiful… have I mentioned that? ). As I’m grooving the feel and getting used to the profile, I would characterize it as smooth and powerful feeling. It continues to do what I ask it to now that I have it at the right setting for me: the small + (11.5). My swing speed is 98-101, so I think this is getting me at a more desirable launch (I’ll have to get on a LM again to confirm, but the height seems great with no ballooning). I played my home course, which is very hilly, so some of the bombs (for me) have to be taken with a grain of salt. Here’s a sample of my drives from this past round:

Hole # 3 (flat fairway) Nice draw. 

Hole # 4 (flat fairway) High fade - I got a little armsy.

Ended up fine with the fade, just lost a little distance with a strike off the heel. Thank you PING for the forgiveness. 

Now this one was one where the shaft/head/me did exactly what I needed the ball to do. This is a big downhill hole and everything bounces way right, so if you don’t hit a draw, you’re dead. I normally hit an iron or my trusty Callaway UW 21*. But I’m not testing those clubs, so I figured what the heck, right? I hit the perfect high draw: 

An unnecessary driver, but wow- just perfect. And to watch it sail from an elevated tee with the Ramapo mountains in the background- mmmmmmm! 

Number 9 has slightly elevated tee to a flat fairway until you reach the crest of a hill and then you’re off to the races. But of course you need to reach the crest of the hill, which is a 245-250 carry. Well, I reached the crest of the hill with a nice high draw:

To reach the green, there’s a downhill shot, so the 7 iron (which I usually hit 170) went 187- everything kicks forward and the green is hard to hold as it runs away from you. This used to be a par 4 that was a real bear, but they moved the tee back and made it a par 5, which if you can get a 250 carry consistently, makes it a real birdie opportunity- not so for me though as I hit a really poor chip. 

Hole 11 is a steady (not steep like #7) downhill and I hit another nice high draw:

I hit a nice 5 iron draw around a tree to the front of the green, which is two tiered. Three putt par… so it goes. 

Next example was a steep uphill where I got zero roll. This one was off the heel and turned into a slight fade that luckily stayed in play in play on edge of some junk and not in the bunker. 

Lucky shot on lucky 13! Hit a good 9 iron up the rest of the steep hill- my GPS gives me the plays like number- so I know that this shot plays more like 145.

This is a nice flat fairway with no elevation, so this drive gives you a good sense of how I’m hitting the AD VR. Another nice high draw:

I nailed the 7 wood and it took a crazy kick forward, which left me with a difficult chip. I hit another bad chip, but putted it in from the rough- 0 putts to on that hole according to the stats.

17 is one of my favorite holes- just gorgeous looking. The tee shot is not elevated and the fairway is flat. The tee was back, but I decided to challenge the bunkers instead of playing it safe to the left. (I’m not a smart man). 

“Stupid is that stupid does…” I guess it worked out for me. This was another high draw. Hit a good approach that was below the hole on one of the most difficult greens on the course. 
 

Finally, the shot I was most proud of and represents one of my furthest shots on the difficult all uphill 18th. This was a bomb - another high draw that ran uphill. This tells me I am definitely using the right setting on my driver head, because the descent angle must be good to get this sort of run. 

263 on this hole is an all time best for me. So it’s looking as the Kai Li White is not safe- the reason I played the Kai Li was for the added distance it gave me over the AD UB. Of course I have to hit the Kai Li some more in the +1 setting to confirm this conclusion. But both AD shafts had better dispersion in the 10.5 setting, so it will be a tall task for the Kai Li to supplant what I’m experiencing with the AD VR. Stay tuned. 

So I went into the archives to compare the the VR round above with a Kai Li round from earlier in the year. Here are some sample drives with the Kai Li (played it then at 9.5* in the -1).

This is a flat hole at my home course:

Out drove the VR by 30 yards. 
 

Downhill par 5 up next and again out drove the VR by 20 yards.

This s*** had no turn- straight up the gut and down the hill. 
 

And finally, the all uphill 18th. I hit the snot out of both of these (for me) and the VR was 2 yards longer. 

So, with a larger sample size, I would like to see the VR give me a couple that the Kai Li does - something close to 280 on flat fairways. By no means do I expect that consistently (my average is 260 now). I would just like to see it put one out there like the Kai Li does for me more often. It’s the little voice in the back of my head that tells me that I’m giving something up by playing the VR- you know the one… he’s got a pitchfork and looks like this:

As opposed to the other guy who tells me I’m doing fine, because my dispersion is better with the VR. (I don’t listen to that guy enough). 

[pete1276]

On 7/24/2024 at 5:58 AM, Josh Parker said:

Question for the testers now that everyone has had the shafts for a bit.

Without an in person fitting and without an "online" fitting tool, how does everyone feel they did with their selections?  

Did it make choosing more difficult?

My situation was a little different. I went off of the specs for my fitted shaft and identified a comparable one from the Graphite Design chart.  I wanted to find something with similar characteristics, and I'm happy with my choice.

[pete1276]

On 7/24/2024 at 12:26 PM, WaffleHouseTour said:

Very good question.  I struggled with what to pick.  I also have trouble with "online" fitting tools...  "what is mid trajectory????"  "what is soft vs firm?" I want to see things side by side and put my eyes on them.  

My hope was to get a higher launch and trajectory without changing my swing - a higher flying arrow without raising the bow...  I struggled with what to choose.    I know I need to lower my spin.  So looking at the chart, what do I choose?

I was torn between the UB (my ultimate choice) and the DI and IZ.  Ideally I would have tried them out against each other.  But we were self fitting and I opted for a one step at a time approach. 

I did find the recommended speed to shaft flex chart and options helpful.  I think I did choose correctly on that.  I've found my speed has been pretty consistently in the range they suggested for a Stiff/Regular - and I think it is helping me get that club face closed.  Because the GD UB shaft is still in the shop being re-epoxied, I used my older stiffer Hzrdous, and I was back in slice city for a good part of my round this morning.  So i'm anxious to get the UB back in the game. 

I'd ask @kam89 or @pete1276 if I could borrow their shafts for a trial against my UB, but something tells me they are playing a much stiffer flex than what I should be in.  But sometime I want to try them (the DI and IZ) - I'll have to see if Austads or GG has them in stock...  Now that would be interesting... would a fitter actually put me in the UB, or something else.   But in the meantime I'll keep paying attention to my launch angle and see if I can get it a bit higher - that's my goal - or at least what my Mevo tells me I need to do to optimize my drives. 

 

One of the things that I keep doing back to is the fact that most amateurs don't hit the ball high enough for their swing speed.  The IZ definitely seems to help with that.  

[WaffleHouseTour]

9 minutes ago, pete1276 said:

One of the things that I keep doing back to is the fact that most amateurs don't hit the ball high enough for their swing speed.  The IZ definitely seems to help with that. 

I know that is true for me. Or at least that’s what the FlightScope Swing optimizer keeps telling me. I am wishing I would have been more daring and given the IZ a try. Not complaining about the UB, but I should have more bold and chosen a “high” trajectory rather than a “mid” trajectory.  I’ve actually been hunting around in eBay to see if I could find one to test against the UB and see what the difference is. 

[DukeStKing]

5 hours ago, WaffleHouseTour said:

I know that is true for me. Or at least that’s what the FlightScope Swing optimizer keeps telling me. I am wishing I would have been more daring and given the IZ a try. Not complaining about the UB, but I should have more bold and chosen a “high” trajectory rather than a “mid” trajectory.  I’ve actually been hunting around in eBay to see if I could find one to test against the UB and see what the difference is. 

The VR is definitely higher for me. I would say the UB’s and the Kai Li’s flight was about the same for me (and the Kai Li is supposed to be low spin/low flight. YMMV. 
 

[DukeStKing]

5 hours ago, pete1276 said:

One of the things that I keep doing back to is the fact that most amateurs don't hit the ball high enough for their swing speed.  The IZ definitely seems to help with that.  

That was the case for me- the 9.5 setting I had my G430 10k was launching at 11-12, which is too low for my 98-101 swing speed. A more desirable angle would be 14 degrees (the other factor is that my spin is 2300-2500) for my SS. I’ve been really enjoying the ball flight with the VR at 11.5. I just haven’t produced one of those 280 yarders yet- hopefully I can. But if I can’t, I can live with the distance as long as I keep getting the good dispersion. 
 

[pete1276]

I went back to the sim yesterday to play around with the loft on my driver head and get some numbers with the Tour AD IZ 7-X (Izzy) shaft.  The driver head is a Mizuno ST-X 230 9.5° and I originally had it mounted at the standard setting.  I tested it at both 9.5° and 8.5°.  During the session I did notice a higher flight at the higher setting, but I also noticed I wasn't striking it as well which resulted in some lower ball speeds and a bit more dispersion than the lower 8.5° setting.  

Digging a little further into the numbers, it's pretty apparent that I'm hitting the ball further, and (more surprisingly) straighter with the lower loft than the higher one.  There's something about the kick point in this shaft and head combo that results in more consistent, better strikes with my swing by lowering the loft on my driver head.  I do have a positive angle of attack of around 2-3°, so that may also have something to do with it.  

For this session, I left all of the swings in, so there's no bias on hand-picking best shots.  There were a few stinkers in there, but that happens, just like out on the course.  Here are the details from the 9.5° setting.

And here are they are for the 8.5° setting.  I've highlighted the offline column since that seemed to be the most surprising part of this session.

I've also been playing on course at the lower setting and have quite a few rounds in.  I have noticed that the distance has improved.  The lower decent angle and dryer conditions is allowing the ball to roll out better as well.  I had a couple of drives that topped the 300 yard mark in a match play from yesterday afternoon.  Here is one of the better shots of the day. 

Of course, I couldn't get up and down for the birdie, but the drive felt good.  It was a bit more aggressive line than I originally planned, but it worked out in the end.

To sum it all up, I have lowered the loft on my driver head which is resulting in better, more consistent strikes with Izzy and better over all numbers.  I am planning on keeping it at this setting for the remainder of the test.  I am also planning on doing the same with my Fujikura Ventus Red TR 7-X (Ginger) and compare the results there.  

Edited July 30 by pete1276

[DukeStKing]

7 hours ago, pete1276 said:

I went back to the sim yesterday to play around with the loft on my driver head and get some numbers with the Tour AD IZ 7-X (Izzy) shaft.  The driver head is a Mizuno ST-X 230 9.5° and I originally had it mounted at the standard setting.  I tested it at both 9.5° and 8.5°.  During the session I did notice a higher flight at the higher setting, but I also noticed I wasn't striking it as well which resulted in some lower ball speeds and a bit more dispersion than the lower 8.5° setting.  

Digging a little further into the numbers, it's pretty apparent that I'm hitting the ball further, and (more surprisingly) straighter with the lower loft than the higher one.  There's something about the kick point in this shaft and head combo that results in more consistent, better strikes with my swing by lowering the loft on my driver head.  I do have a positive angle of attack of around 2-3°, so that may also have something to do with it.  

For this session, I left all of the swings in, so there's no bias on hand-picking best shots.  There were a few stinkers in there, but that happens, just like out on the course.  Here are the details from the 9.5° setting.

And here are they are for the 8.5° setting.  I've highlighted the offline column since that seemed to be the most surprising part of this session.

I've also been playing on course at the lower setting and have quite a few rounds in.  I have noticed that the distance has improved.  The lower decent angle and dryer conditions is allowing the ball to roll out better as well.  I had a couple of drives that topped the 300 yard mark in a match play from yesterday afternoon.  Here is one of the better shots of the day. 

Of course, I couldn't get up and down for the birdie, but the drive felt good.  It was a bit more aggressive line than I originally planned, but it worked out in the end.

To sum it all up, I have lowered the loft on my driver head which is resulting in better, more consistent strikes with Izzy and better over all numbers.  I am planning on keeping it at this setting for the remainder of the test.  I am also planning on doing the same with my Fujikura Ventus Red TR 7-X (Ginger) and compare the results there.  

This test has also had me re-evaluate my driver settings. I’m going in the opposite direction as I’m trying to bring launch up. This is what gets me so excited about golf- trying to dial in numbers with a new shaft like a fly fisherman trying a new fly. Nothing more gratifying than seeing the results of your experiment coming to fruition.
 

[GolfSpy AFG]

9 holes tomorrow with my boys, assuming the weather cooperates. If it does, I'll be able to post a comparision of the UB vs the stock PING Tour 2.0.  As I've said, it's definitely an improvement.  Just how much of an improvement I hope to be able to demonstrate tomorrow.  And then, launch monitor time...

[WaffleHouseTour]

20 hours ago, pete1276 said:

I tested it at both 9.5° and 8.5°.  During the session I did notice a higher flight at the higher setting, but I also noticed I wasn't striking it as well which resulted in some lower ball speeds and a bit more dispersion than the lower 8.5° setting.  

So... I've been wanting to raise my launch angle thru change in shaft alone... but I also want to reduce my spin.  Question for you - or the other gurus out there - do you think lowering your driver loft helped reduce your spin?

I'm wondering what is more important for me?  I always thought it was the launch angle, but I'm clearly very spiny.  That point was driven home the last couple days - I was in Asheville NC on business and played at the Omni Grove Park Inn - it was water logged.  I'm not going to claim a majority - but many of my drives landed and if they did not imbed they spun backwards.  With my driver...  Had never seen that before.  I know I have too much spin, but landing and bouncing backwards?

I have my driver head jacked up +2* and am questioning that now.

[DukeStKing]

12 minutes ago, WaffleHouseTour said:

So... I've been wanting to raise my launch angle thru change in shaft alone... but I also want to reduce my spin.  Question for you - or the other gurus out there - do you think lowering your driver loft helped reduce your spin?

I'm wondering what is more important for me?  I always thought it was the launch angle, but I'm clearly very spiny.  That point was driven home the last couple days - I was in Asheville NC on business and played at the Omni Grove Park Inn - it was water logged.  I'm not going to claim a majority - but many of my drives landed and if they did not imbed they spun backwards.  With my driver...  Had never seen that before.  I know I have too much spin, but landing and bouncing backwards?

I have my driver head jacked up +2* and am questioning that now.

I’m no guru, but I think I can answer this one. Lower loft can reduce backspin, but any side spin will be amplified in terms of dispersion. Lowering the loft makes the driver less forgiving in terms of sidespin delivered at impact. Higher loft adds more backspin and this reduces the effect of sides, which makes the driver “straighter.” It’s all opportunity/cost. 

[NM01]

9 minutes ago, WaffleHouseTour said:

do you think lowering your driver loft helped reduce your spin?

Less loft less spin. More loft is more spin. Other than changing the ball it’s the first place to look at for adjusting spin and launch.

Then look at where you are making contact on the face. For every 1/8” up the spin drops 240rpm and launch goes up .35°. It’s the opposite for going down the face.

12 minutes ago, WaffleHouseTour said:

I'm wondering what is more important for me?  I always thought it was the launch angle, but I'm clearly very spiny.

Both are important. You need to match them up. You don’t want a lot of launch with a lot of spin and vice versa you don’t want low launch and little spin.

you have to look at what’s causing the spin. Dynamic loft, club path, face to path and face angle all have a role in launch and launch.

I know some will say look at aoa but it not a big contributor to launch and spin.

Howard Jones has a lot of information posted about launch, spin, the role of shafts. He has charts showing how spin a launch change, aoa changes. How to determine where on the face based on club data including smash factor. I’ve deleted all the charts showing this off my phone

Another good read. People still like to say the opposite of what’s in this article despite the data that shows otherwise from experienced and respected fitters

 

https://www.golfwrx.com/6419/tom-wishon-talking-to-wrx-readers-10-myths-about-shafts-factual-info-about-shafts-to-help-you-all/

[KC Golf]

13 hours ago, DukeStKing said:

This test has also had me re-evaluate my driver settings. I’m going in the opposite direction as I’m trying to bring launch up. This is what gets me so excited about golf- trying to dial in numbers with a new shaft like a fly fisherman trying a new fly. Nothing more gratifying than seeing the results of your experiment coming to fruition.
 

I have found that with my 3W, the AD-DI has really narrowed my dispersion.  Not adding more distance vs a stock Tensei Blue, but I find I am able to get a lower launch with tighter dispersion and better outcomes on misses which generally go straighter.  

The Testers are really doing a great job.  Can’t wait to see the final reviews.

[pete1276]

15 hours ago, DukeStKing said:

This is what gets me so excited about golf- trying to dial in numbers with a new shaft like a fly fisherman trying a new fly. Nothing more gratifying than seeing the results of your experiment coming to fruition.

It is definitely fun tinkering around to dial it in.  I'm glad I have a simulator where I can just hit and then dig into the numbers after the fact.  There's really only so much I can do during the session and I just want to concentrate on hitting.  I take care of the analysis after I step away for a bit.

I'm looking forward to hearing about the results of your testing.

[pete1276]

3 hours ago, WaffleHouseTour said:

do you think lowering your driver loft helped reduce your spin?

In my case, lowering the driver head loft did reduce spin, yes.  It will for a majority of other players as well, but lowering spin also can increase the likelihood of offline hits because it can accentuate any axis tilt, and it can also feel like the ball is dropping out of the sky if the launch is too low.

In an ideal scenario, it would be preferred to have a high-launching, low-spinning shot.  The great part about all of the data that we have out there is that we know what the windows are for what is considered optimal, and as long as we don't fall too far outside of those parameters, then we're doing pretty good.

If you're struggling with high spin on your driver, it's not uncommon.  There are a number of things you can do to lower it.  Lowering the loft on your driver head is one of those things, but you also may need to make an adjustment by hitting up on the ball more in order to get the launch angle that you want. 

Strike location also has an impact on spin.  If you're making contact on the face low or in the heel, it will spin more.  If that is the case, one thing you can play around with is tee height.  Teeing the ball higher and putting the ball closer to your front foot at address may also help reduce spin.  This should both help promote an upward angle of attack, and increase the likelihood of a higher strike on the face, both of which should help reduce spin.  

These are the things that I have found work for me, and that I've worked on over time.  I am not a teaching professional, but I've worked with many of them and done a lot of research over the years.  These are pretty common things to try if you're looking to reduce driver spin.

Edited July 31 by pete1276

[HikingMike]

On 7/25/2024 at 10:08 PM, Nick_D said:

Got in the garage for some numbers comparison between the CQ and my previous Maltby UL. 

Club and Ball speed are pretty much the same, however, you'll see the carry and total is quite a bit more in the CQ! Definitely a small sample size, but you'll see I delivered the club pretty consistently in all 14 shots when looking at club path and angle of attack. More to come, but what do you guys think? 

Great data!

Just a quick note - you should absolute value the "Total Offline" column so that the average is more useful for checking lateral dispersion. Make a second column if you want to see both. In Excel, it's ABS(). As it is, the average doesn't mean much other than whether you went more right or more left, and whether you got lucky for left and right to cancel out or not.

[HikingMike]

3 hours ago, WaffleHouseTour said:

Question for you - or the other gurus out there - do you think lowering your driver loft helped reduce your spin?

I wouldn't call myself a guru  , but lowering driver loft reduces spin for me. My driver fittings early this season put me in a Ping G400 LST 8.5 degree, turned down to Big Minus, so -1.0 degree (caveats - this may technically just be changing lie angle and the player reduces loft when adjusting grip to keep the face in line). I was in a lower loft with the Callaway AI Smoke and TaylorMade Qi10 as well. With the sim numbers, I/we could definitely see the spin come down. My strong draw also contributed to choosing that loft setting. I have been reducing my strong draw lately, so I miiiiiight try adjusting that to Small Minus or Neutral.

It's been talked about a ton all over, with more knowledgeable people than me. But I did talk about driver spin a lot in my Driver Quest 2024 thread, with some numbers from different fittings, so I'll link that here too-

 

[NM01]

4 hours ago, WaffleHouseTour said:

So... I've been wanting to raise my launch angle thru change in shaft alone... but I also want to reduce my spin.  Question for you - or the other gurus out there - do you think lowering your driver loft helped reduce your spin?

I'm wondering what is more important for me?  I always thought it was the launch angle, but I'm clearly very spiny.  That point was driven home the last couple days - I was in Asheville NC on business and played at the Omni Grove Park Inn - it was water logged.  I'm not going to claim a majority - but many of my drives landed and if they did not imbed they spun backwards.  With my driver...  Had never seen that before.  I know I have too much spin, but landing and bouncing backwards?

I have my driver head jacked up +2* and am questioning that now.

Dug through and found some threads with good info. The posts from Howard Jones (well reposted retired fitter from Europe and has fit touring pros as well as regular joes) and Stuart a very smart equipment guy.

https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1993065-does-shaft-stiffness-affect-gear-effect-of-driver/

https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1975778-reducing-spin-in-driver-head-spin-bias-or-loft/
 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1938545-regular-vs-ls-model-drivers-question/
 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1940246-share-your-trackman-or-launch-monitor-numbers-with-photos-of-face-impact-position-if-you-have/

[DukeStKing]

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Dug through and found some threads with good info. The posts from Howard Jones (well reposted retired fitter from Europe and has fit touring pros as well as regular joes) and Stuart a very smart equipment guy.

https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1993065-does-shaft-stiffness-affect-gear-effect-of-driver/

https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1975778-reducing-spin-in-driver-head-spin-bias-or-loft/
 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1938545-regular-vs-ls-model-drivers-question/
 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1940246-share-your-trackman-or-launch-monitor-numbers-with-photos-of-face-impact-position-if-you-have/

I do appreciate your penchant for citing expert sources, but come on brother- how about some cliff notes? 

[NM01]

10 minutes ago, DukeStKing said:

I do appreciate your penchant for citing expert sources, but come on brother- how about some cliff notes? 

Cliff notes. Are all the samethings I’ve been saying.

Shafts don’t spin or launch. They are a timing device. 

AoA has no role in spin 

swing and contact point on the face determine launch characteristics.

Shafts can influence dynamic loft which is per of what affects launch and spin.

you want to improve launch, spin, accuracy then fix contact point on face. Search diy driver tuneup to fix that. No lessons or swing changes needed.

Shafts aren’t as important as people want to believe them to be.

now you have the cliff notes as well as data and information to better understand what causes launch and spin to change 

Those that want to get better at understanding equipment will read and dig into the information there as well as go to the links from tutleman, search out more information from guys like Howard, tutleman, Wishon and others. Those who don’t will continue to think shafts are some magic fix

Edited July 31 by RickyBobby_PR

[GolfSpy BOS]

24 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Cliff notes. Are all the samethings I’ve been saying.

Shafts don’t spin or launch. They are a timing device. 

AoA has no role in spin 

swing and contact point on the face determine launch characteristics.

Shafts can influence dynamic loft which is part of what affects launch and spin.

you want to improve launch, spin, accuracy then fix contact point on face. Search diy driver tuneup to fix that. No lessons or swing changes needed.

Shafts aren’t as important as people want to believe them to be.

now you have the cliff notes as well as data and information to better understand what causes launch and spin to change 

Those that want to get better at understanding equipment will read and dig into the information there as well as go to the links from tutleman, search out more information from guys like Howard, tutleman, Wishon and others. Those who don’t will continue to think shafts are some magic fix

I'm going to play devil's advocate here because I think a lot of the shaft talk comes down to arguing over semantics.  

Shafts don’t spin or launch. They are a timing device. 

Shafts can influence dynamic loft which is part of what affects launch and spin.

The two bold statements above from your post cannot both be true, right?  If they (the shaft) alters my swing timing, which has an influence of my impact pattern, dynamic loft, and other launch metrics, then the change of "shaft" did change my launch and spin, because it (the shaft) caused me (the golfer) to swing differently yes?

Swing and contact point on the face determine launch characteristics.

This bold statement for "swing and contact point" on the face has been significantly altered for me in both consistency (repeatability) and location (general spot on the face) when switching shafts with the same club head.  So how can we say that the shaft change did not impact my launch and spin if the shaft change is what changed me (the golfer) to swing differently? Is that not in effect changing launch and spin?

I could just as easily say the driver head doesn't launch or spin by that logic.  It doesn't, the golfer does the work.  How we deliver the club head to the ball is what causes launch and spin.  But that logic, the clubhead isn't as important as people think either.  And if that was the case, why are there driver heads that work better for me and ones that don't? And why do different shaft profiles help me swing more consistently than others while getting my strikes into a better location?

The shaft is a part of the system that is going to impact how a golfer swings.  It is nowhere near as important as getting an appropriate head and loft first, but I believe that it is still an important part of the story.

[GolfSpy AFG]

Alright, so recall that I charted 3 rounds/30 drives on my home course with the PING G430 Max 10K with the PING Tour 2.0 Black shaft. If you missed that, or don't feel like scrolling, here it is:

Well, I now have the same number of drives under my belt at the same course.  I grant you, this is not a controlled environment...weather, time of day, my own performance that day...lots of variables.  That said, here's the chart for the same head now with the Graphite Design Tour AD UB in:

In summary, I saw an average distance increase from 259 to 272. Fairways in Reg (and we can debate the value of that metric another time) changed from an average of 33% to 46%.

The FIR thing definitely is where the human element came in. I was still trying to play and score, and you'll notice from the chart I had just one left miss with the UB. Sounds good, but frankly much of that is likely because I started setting up to play a cut that I don't normally play because for the life of me I could not get the UB to turn over. 

On the distance front, I'm no bomber, but I'm not happy with those numbers...I am capable of bigger/better distances than this. (Some of my fellow outing attendees would hopefully vouch for me on that front.)

Final reviews are imminent. I'm going to be challenged to write it. Part of me is wrestling with how to review the shaft itself versus what I think is the larger question...the merits or risks of buying and gaming a shaft without a fitting and the opportunity to understand how that shaft comports with your swing, a particular driver head, etc.  Deep thoughts, I know.

[DukeStKing]

5 minutes ago, GolfSpy BOS said:

I'm going to play devil's advocate here because I think a lot of the shaft talk comes down to arguing over semantics.  

Shafts don’t spin or launch. They are a timing device. 

Shafts can influence dynamic loft which is part of what affects launch and spin.

The two bold statements above from your post cannot both be true, right?  If they (the shaft) alters my swing timing, which has an influence of my impact pattern, dynamic loft, and other launch metrics, then the change of "shaft" did change my launch and spin, because it (the shaft) caused me (the golfer) to swing differently yes?

Swing and contact point on the face determine launch characteristics.

This bold statement for "swing and contact point" on the face has been significantly altered for me in both consistency (repeatability) and location (general spot on the face) when switching shafts with the same club head.  So how can we say that the shaft change did not impact my launch and spin if the shaft change is what changed me (the golfer) to swing differently? Is that not in effect changing launch and spin?

I could just as easily say the driver head doesn't launch or spin by that logic.  It doesn't, the golfer does the work.  How we deliver the club head to the ball is what causes launch and spin.  But that logic, the clubhead isn't as important as people think either.  And if that was the case, why are there driver heads that work better for me and ones that don't? And why do different shaft profiles help me swing more consistently than others while getting my strikes into a better location?

The shaft is a part of the system that is going to impact how a golfer swings.  It is nowhere near as important as getting an appropriate head and loft first, but I believe that it is still an important part of the story.

I wholeheartedly agree that shafts are an important part of the story- especially when it comes to feel, spin, and energy transfer. Why else would we see different results from spin and launch angle when switching shafts? The bend profile of each shaft also will affect both spin and launch. This thread and the data the testers have produced thus far prove these points. None of this is a perfect science because we still have feel, but I think we are being as scientific as possible- using the same drivers and comparing them with previous shafts all on launch monitors and on the corse. It’s been rigorous thus far- but it’s also been fun. 

[GolfSpy BOS]

9 minutes ago, GolfSpy AFG said:

Alright, so recall that I charted 3 rounds/30 drives on my home course with the PING G430 Max 10K with the PING Tour 2.0 Black shaft. If you missed that, or don't feel like scrolling, here it is:

Well, I now have the same number of drives under my belt at the same course.  I grant you, this is not a controlled environment...weather, time of day, my own performance that day...lots of variables.  That said, here's the chart for the same head now with the Graphite Design Tour AD UB in:

In summary, I saw an average distance increase from 233 to 245. Fairways in Reg (and we can debate the value of that metric another time) changed from an average of 33% to 46%.

The FIR thing definitely is where the human element came in. I was still trying to play and score, and you'll notice from the chart I had just one left miss with the UB. Sounds good, but frankly much of that is likely because I started setting up to play a cut that I don't normally play because for the life of me I could not get the UB to turn over. 

On the distance front, I'm no bomber, but I'm not happy with those numbers...I am capable of bigger/better distances than this. (Some of my fellow outing attendees would hopefully vouch for me on that front.)

Final reviews are imminent. I'm going to be challenged to write it. Part of me is wrestling with how to review the shaft itself versus what I think is the larger question...the merits or risks of buying and gaming a shaft without a fitting and the opportunity to understand how that shaft comports with your swing, a particular driver head, etc.  Deep thoughts, I know.

That is going to be hard to qualify the results looking better on paper, but not being what you need on the course.   Shockingly, I'll vouch for Hayes that he can indeed hit it further.  Looking forward to the final review.

6 minutes ago, DukeStKing said:

I wholeheartedly agree that shafts are an important part of the story- especially when it comes to feel, spin, and energy transfer. Why else would we see different results from spin and launch angle when switching shafts? The bend profile of each shaft also will affect both spin and launch. This thread and the data the testers have produced thus far prove these points. None of this is a perfect science because we still have feel, but I think we are being as scientific as possible- using the same drivers and comparing them with previous shafts all on launch monitors and on the corse. It’s been rigorous thus far- but it’s also been fun. 

I have to say, this thread has been a fun follow.  You all have produces tons of data from the simulators and experiences out on the course where it matters to helping you score better.  Being part of the Terra Forza reviews I know it's not an easy process and the small changes can be impactful from a performance and playability standpoint.

[RichL85]

I'm not involved in this little "argument" and I have no interest to be included, I'm just going to express an opinion and then I'm hopping out of this because I'm not going to argue semantics and minutiae over something so ridiculous. We are talking about a review involving real people, not robots.

Think of it as a Root Cause Analysis, or go through a 5 Why's over why launch conditions changed when a shaft change was made (assuming shaft change is the only variable here).

Why #1: Launch conditions changed because the head of the golf club made contact in a different way from "standard".
Why #2: The head of the golf club made contact in a different way (whether it be strike location, face angle, AoA, whatever) because the incoming path of the club head changed.
Why #3: The incoming path of the club head changed because something in the swing was different from "standard".
Why #4: If the only thing to change was the shaft, we assume that something about the different shaft, whether it be balance point, bend profile, weight, whatever the case may be, is having an affect on the player's swing in a way that alters the club head delivery.

Don't really need the 5th Why here, but it's probably safe to assume that if the club head delivery is changed, that will lead to a change in the launch conditions, spin, launch angle, etc. Looking at this, I wouldn't say that shaft A spins more/less than shaft B, but it creates a situation in which the spin is different. If one player finds that Shaft A spins more than Shaft B, will everyone find the same results? Probably not, because there are a lot of different variables at play here, but if we are talking an isolated situation in which we are changing the least number of variables for one player, the statement can be made. Whether you say the shaft spins more or argue that the player is the one causing the spin because they swing the shaft differently causing it to spin more, It's essentially saying the same thing, but in a different way. And honestly, it comes off a little... combative?, especially through a forum where the tone of a comment is hard to gauge. This is basically what I imagine in my head.

Edited July 31 by RichL85

[Josh Parker]

I feel like I have missed so much!  I have enjoyed this thread and test.  

[NM01]

4 hours ago, GolfSpy BOS said:

So how can we say that the shaft change did not impact my launch and spin if the shaft change is what changed me (the golfer) to swing differently? Is that not in effect changing launch and spin?

The shaft causes a change in your delivery there caused a changed in club delivery which is what caused a caused a change in the spin and launch. Simple that the shaft changed your swing and that’s it.

4 hours ago, GolfSpy BOS said:

I could just as easily say the driver head doesn't launch or spin by that logic. 

Except that would be as wrong as saying the shaft does. The head is repsonsible for the spin and launch. Cg and weight placement affect that. It’s why weight in the front of the head causes spin and launch to go down and weight in the back causes them to go up.

Here is the info from Wishon who has some of the most data and writing out there on fitting and club data and how the swing affects things.

Spend some time on tutlemans website and see for yourself.

 

Shaft Myth #1 – The shaft is the engine of the golf club 

If I had a dollar for every time I have heard this statement, I might not be rich, but I definitely would be able to go to a nice restaurant and enjoy a good dinner with a good bottle of wine! It is far more truthful to say that “the golfer is the engine,” while “the shaft is the transmission of the golf club.” 

A shaft does not create energy during the swing. It is simply the component that takes the energy generated by the golfer and transmits it to the clubhead to hit the ball. It is true that if certain elements of the shaft are not properly fit to the golfer’s specific swing characteristics, the golfer can lose distance by experiencing a lower clubhead speed or more off-center hits than he could generate from using a correctly fit shaft. At the same token, if the shaft is accurately fit, the golfer has a much better chance of fully optimizing his/her potential to hit the ball to the best of their ability. 

Performance wise, the shaft, 1) can affect the dynamic loft of the clubhead at impact within a narrow range of 2 to 3 degrees, but only for those golfers with a later to very late release; 2) will chiefly control the total weight of the club, which in turn can have an effect on the golfer’s clubhead speed, 3) can affect some golfers’ (not all) confidence and swing consistency by displaying a “bending feel” during the swing that is either more preferred or less preferred by the golfer. That’s it, that’s the full list of what the shaft can do. 

Shaft Myth #2 – The shaft is the most important component of the golf club

Sorry, but when you’re talking about ALL golfers, the shaft is not as important to the actual performance of the shot as is the clubhead. I’ll give you an example of when this was actually “tested and proven” in the golf industry by a huge number of golfers. Back in the early 1970s when PING golf company moved to the front of the golf industry through the introduction of their deep cavity back original Ping Eye model irons, the standard shaft installed in every set of Eye irons was a 125 gram X flex steel shaft. 

Ping’s founder Karsten Solheim used these shafts in his irons because he believed a heavier and stiffer shaft would help all golfers hit the ball straighter. Literally millions of sets of PING irons with X flex heavier weight steel shafts were sold throughout the 1970s and you know what? Literally millions of golfers liked their new PING irons more than their previous irons. Why? Because the original PING Eye irons were the very first irons with a deep cavity back design AND lower lofts than what had been the norm for irons – this meant the moment of inertia (MOI) of the Eye irons was FAR higher than any previous iron model yet designed. This in turn gave golfers such a huge improvement in off center hit performance as well as on center hit distance over the irons they previously used that this big leap forward in head performance completely overshadowed the potentially bad effects to golfers using a shaft that was too heavy and too stiff for their swing. 

Of course, we know today that playing with too heavy and too stiff of a shaft can rob the golfer of clubhead speed and shot consistency and make the feeling of impact become “dead and boardy.” But the point shown by the PING example of the 1970s is that if the clubhead’s improvement is great enough for the golfer over what they used to play, the shaft does not have to be accurately fit for the golfer to still realize significant game improvement.
 

Shaft Myth #4 – The shaft is a key element for the amount of backspin imparted on a shot

That can be true. . . but only if you are a golfer who unhinges your wrist-**** angle late in the downswing and you have a clubhead speed north of 100 mph with the driver. If you are a golfer with a late release and a clubhead speed in the area of 85mph, the shaft is only going to have a small effect on backspin. And if you are a golfer with an early release, no matter what your clubhead speed, the amount of backspin you put on the shot is purely going to be determined by your clubhead speed, your angle of attack into the ball, the loft of your driver and where on the face you made contact with the ball. 

It is very common for companies to market shafts as having spin characteristics – “low, medium or high spin” in their design. The problem is that it takes a very specific type of swing characteristic to even allow the shaft to have any effect whatsoever on the amount of spin imparted on the shot. That swing move is when you unhinge your wrist-**** angle to release the club during the downswing. In short, the later you hold onto the wrist-**** angle on the downswing, and the higher your clubhead speed, the more the shaft could have an effect on the backspin of the shot. 

Here’s why, and here’s how shafts may or may not have a bearing on the amount of spin on a shot. First of all, keep in mind that only three things determine the amount of backspin on a shot – clubhead speed, the dynamic loft on the clubface at the point of impact, and the point of impact in relation to the center of gravity of the clubhead. (Angle of attack is a part of the dynamic loft) The higher the clubhead speed, the higher will be the spin for any given loft angle, the higher the loft on the clubhead at the moment of impact, and the lower the point of impact in relation to the CG, the greater will be the amount of backspin. Vice versa applies to these things for less spin. 

But let’s talk about how the swing gets involved in all of this to be able to potentially interact with the club to have an effect on spin. Let’s say we’ve all made our backswing and we have the club positioned at the top, ready to swing down to the ball. From the moment the club starts down, for as long as we retain and hold our wrist-**** angle between our arms and the shaft, the arms and the club are accelerating at the same rate and the arms and club are both moving at the same velocity. 

The split-second we start to unhinge the wrist-**** angle, the arms begin to slow down while the club begins to accelerate to a higher velocity. Because the arms are slowing down while holding on to the club, the faster moving clubhead starts to push against the shaft that is being held back by the hands and the shaft begins to flex forward. The more flexible the design of the shaft and/or the more tip flexible the design of the shaft, the more the shaft could flex forward at impact and from it, have more of an effect on launch angle, trajectory and spin. 

If the golfer happens to hold the wrist-**** angle until very late in the downswing, the forward flexing of the shaft happens right when the clubhead meets the ball. If the shaft comes to impact flexed forward, this forward curve of the shaft increases the loft on the clubhead at impact – which in turn increases the launch angle AND increases the amount of backspin put on the shot. When shaft companies say this or that shaft is a “low spin design”, what they mean is that the shaft is designed to either be stiffer overall, or, stiffer in the tip section of the shaft. Stiffer shaft means less forward bending before impact, which means less of a loft increase at impact on the clubhead. . . but ONLY for a player with a later to very late unhinging of the wrist-**** angle on the downswing. 

On the other hand, if the golfer unhinges the wrist-**** angle early on the downswing, all this forward flexing of the shaft happens well before impact. Thus for the early release golfer, by the time the clubhead gets to the ball, the shaft will have had time to flex back to a virtual straight position. That’s why for early release golfers, the shaft cannot have any additional effect on the dynamic loft on the clubhead and the amount of spin on the shot.

[Nick_D]

Not going to sugar coat it, it wasn't good 

Let me tell you though.. the drive on #4 felt lovely.

I've got league night tomorrow with the CQ, so we'll see if we can find a few more fairways than this past round. I'm really liking the feel of the CQ on days that I am putting better swings on it, so I'm looking forward to getting my swing back under control.

[NM01]

There’s a reason when you go to a good fitter like Ian (txg/cc) TruSpec, TPI, ECPC, The kingdom and any top fitter they all start with the head. The use the head to get the right launch window. Then they fine tune with the shaft. They ask questions another what the golfer feels with the shaft and then tweak the shaft profile to fit the feel needs of the golfer

[Shapotomous]

5 hours ago, GolfSpy AFG said:

Alright, so recall that I charted 3 rounds/30 drives on my home course with the PING G430 Max 10K with the PING Tour 2.0 Black shaft. If you missed that, or don't feel like scrolling, here it is:

Well, I now have the same number of drives under my belt at the same course.  I grant you, this is not a controlled environment...weather, time of day, my own performance that day...lots of variables.  That said, here's the chart for the same head now with the Graphite Design Tour AD UB in:

In summary, I saw an average distance increase from 233 to 245. Fairways in Reg (and we can debate the value of that metric another time) changed from an average of 33% to 46%.

The FIR thing definitely is where the human element came in. I was still trying to play and score, and you'll notice from the chart I had just one left miss with the UB. Sounds good, but frankly much of that is likely because I started setting up to play a cut that I don't normally play because for the life of me I could not get the UB to turn over. 

On the distance front, I'm no bomber, but I'm not happy with those numbers...I am capable of bigger/better distances than this. (Some of my fellow outing attendees would hopefully vouch for me on that front.)

Final reviews are imminent. I'm going to be challenged to write it. Part of me is wrestling with how to review the shaft itself versus what I think is the larger question...the merits or risks of buying and gaming a shaft without a fitting and the opportunity to understand how that shaft comports with your swing, a particular driver head, etc.  Deep thoughts, I know.

Hayes, Unless I am missing something obvious, I believe you have a math error on your average yardages.  I get 266 and 271 for Round 1 for each shaft computing the average distance using the yardages listed.  I get similar #'s for the other rounds also.