Wishon's report on adjustable hosels

[GolfSpy WD]

http://wishongolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/adjustable-hosel-drivers.pdf

 

I haven't read this entirely yet, but thought I'd share because the conclusions are very interesting.

 

Upon reading how far off the loft, lie and face angle specifications are from each company's stated specifications, it would be logical for loyal followers of these golf equipment companies to challenge the measurements in this report as either biased or incorrect. I assure you that the measurements are exactly as reported based on the experience gained in 27 years as a clubhead designer and as a serious student of the technology of golf equipment. The measurements were performed using the accepted manner of positioning a driver head for accurate loft, lie and face angle measurement as practiced for many decades by every clubhead production factory I have experience with, several which have produced clubheads for the major golf equipment companies for many years. I will admit I was so amazed at how far off these measurements were from each company's stated specifications that I repeated the measurements for each driver for every combination of adjustable device settings to be doubly sure of the accuracy of the specification measurements. These ARE the static loft, lie and face angle measurements for these drivers when the driver heads are placed in the specs measurement machine in the manner that has been practiced in this industry for many, many years.

 

The fact that the loft angle does NOT change from any of the adjustable HOSEL devices does not surprise me. I expected this would be the case based on my experience in manufacturing wooden woodheads and from my experience in having created the first adjustable hosel device for metal woods. You can definitely change the lie angle and the face angle by changing the angle of the shaft into the hosel and into the head, but you simply cannot change the loft of a woodhead through a change in the angle of the shaft using such an adjustable hosel device.

 

I was also surprised to see the face angle measurements be as open as many of the combinations of the adjustable hosel devices produced on the heads. I must also add that when a head measured substantially open in the Green Machine, it also looked very open when placed on a flat surface to simulate the natural resting address position of the head.

Only with the adjustable sole protrusion piece on the sole of the Taylor Made R1 can you change the loft, but in doing so you also change the face angle at the same time. As can be seen in the measurements, the measured face angle was rarely close to the face angle as designated by the marks on the adjustable sole device. Rarely, even with the additional influence of the R1 sole protrusion device, did the loft and face angle end up being close to what the company stated. As the head is tilted more closed by the sole piece protruding more from the sole, the loft automatically decreases, and as the head is tilted more open by the sole piece receding more upward, the loft automatically increases.

The ONLY way any of these drivers can come close to playing at the lofts stated on each company's hosel device is if the golfer manually rotates the clubface until the rotation achieves the stated loft. But then the golfer has to manually HOLD the club off the ground, and as carefully as possible, hold the clubhead in that position when addressing the shot and when commencing the swing to hit the shot. To truly achieve each stated loft, the clubhead would have to be rotated into a different position, and again, HELD manually by the golfer in that position. In performing a manual rotation of the head to achieve the stated loft, the face angle will also change. Manually holding the driver in a specific loft position is very difficult to do with any level of accuracy. How many golfers can tell if they have rotated the clubface to a difference of 1° or even 2° of loft?

 

That's why the commonly accepted manner of playing a driver has been to sole the club on the ground so it adopts its static specifications for loft and face angle, taking the grip, and starting the swing. No golfer should be or can be expected to have to rotate the clubhead to a specific position and hold the head in that position before starting the swing.

 

Following is a photo of one of the drivers that shows the general position for how each of these adjustable hosel drivers would have to be positioned and manually held so as to make the loft be closer to what the hosel device says it is. Rotating the face around to change the loft also changes the face angle. So even if the golfer managed to guess that he has manually rotated the face to achieve a specific loft, the face angle is locked in whatever position to go with that - which may not be a proper fit for the golfer's horizontal launch angle and accuracy. By far, the vast majority of golfers, even the majority of tour pros, set the driver down to rest on its sole when they address the ball to hit a tee shot, and leave the driver sitting on its sole when they start the swing to hit the shot. Doing that will result in these drivers setting up to the ball with the static specifications measured and stated in this report.

That is how golfers are supposed to set up to the ball with a driver or any wood for that matter. The whole reason a clubhead designer and his production factory painstakingly try to produce driver and woodheads to accurate static specifications is to allow the golfer to address the ball with as close to those specifications as possible so that the static specs of the club combine with the swing characteristics of the golfer to produce a specific shot result. Cause and Effect.

 

Static Clubhead Specifications + Golfer Swing Characteristics = Shot Results

Being a clubhead designer since 1986 with more experience in all areas of clubhead design and Clubfitting research than perhaps anyone in the game, I have complete respect for the engineering and design capability of the major golf club companies. I sincerely do. To use that engineering ability to create beautifully made driver heads which are very far off from achieving the specifications stated by each company is of no help to golfers who simply wish to acquire the very best golf clubs with which to play this great game to the best of their ability.

 

The best golf clubs for any golfer will be built with clubheads which possess static specifications which have been determined by the golf company and/or an experienced clubfitter to be able to produce the most consistent shot results when subjected to the swing characteristics of each golfer. If a golfer cannot rely on the static specifications of the clubhead to be what they are stated to be, achieving the most consistent shot results becomes a very disorganized trial and error process.

 

Results are VERY interesting, essentially showing that the adjustment is close to nothing.

 

That said, intuitively, I've seen a difference in results when switching lofts.

 

I'm going to read this more in depth later, but thought I'd share first.

[hckymeyer]

Just browsed through this, but I'm hooked and will have to dig into it tomorrow.

 

Just from looking at the numbers though I'm amazed at how open most of these drivers sit.

 

You would think after looking through the numbers that the different settings would make no change to the ball flight, but my personal experience has been that I do see a noticeable difference between various settings.

 

I guess I need to read the whole thing, but I'm trying to figure out if Tom is just trying to debunk a myth or if he is flat out against adjustable hosel drivers? From the bit I browsed he seems pretty down on them.

[GolfSpy WD]

I didn't have time to look at it in depth yesterday, but I'm thinking I don't buy it. If it were true OEMs could be accused of false advertising and no one would see any difference when making adjustments other than the ball going right or left.

 

I'm thinking when adjusted the grooves aren't necessarily parallel to the ground.

[Moecat]

Great info, thanks for sharing!

[apprenti23]

hmmm... So is this for all adjustable clubs or only the new ones where they have the "dial a loft" adjustment??? I'm wondering about the Titleist and Callaway where the club has an actual stated loft.

[GolfSpy WD]

hmmm... So is this for all adjustable clubs or only the new ones where they have the "dial a loft" adjustment??? I'm wondering about the Titleist and Callaway where the club has an actual stated loft.

 

Titleist is one of the clubs in the report

[Mr_Theoo]

From what I understood he only measured them in the static postion so while they all may measure the same loft i think the dynamic loft changes which is why we see different ball flights, shot shapes and ect.

[Kor.A.Door]

I'm really don't care what the " experts" show with all of their specs and measurements, when I move al the adjustments on my R11S I can tell a difference, whether or not the experts says it actually does anything.

 

This is one time I believe that it doesn't work on paper, but really does work in reality.

 

Usually with engineering it's the opposite of that.

[Tyk]

I'm really don't care what the " experts" show with all of their specs and measurements, when I move al the adjustments on my R11S I can tell a difference, whether or not the experts says it actually does anything.

 

This is one time I believe that it doesn't work on paper, but really does work in reality.

 

Usually with engineering it's the opposite of that.

 

 

Sounds suspiciously like some kind of faith based golf initiative. I need a voodooier doll!

 

Seems to me that Wishon is saying that not only are the lofts marked so poorly on many clubs as to be useless but that the adjustability doesn't work at all, at least not in any predictable fashion. I'm really not all that surprised, I was saying something similar as I was moving 15 grams around my R11 the other day, feeling how light they were and saying that there was NO WAY that could possibly make a difference! I did drive the ball well that day though, maybe I'll just move em as ritual.

[GolfSpy WD]

Sounds suspiciously like some kind of faith based golf initiative. I need a voodooier doll!

 

Seems to me that Wishon is saying that not only are the lofts marked so poorly on many clubs as to be useless but that the adjustability doesn't work at all, at least not in any predictable fashion. I'm really not all that surprised, I was saying something similar as I was moving 15 grams around my R11 the other day, feeling how light they were and saying that there was NO WAY that could possibly make a difference! I did drive the ball well that day though, maybe I'll just move em as ritual.

 

This is a good point, there are many independent sources that show moving the weight doesn't do anything.

 

Tom, for his best intentions, still cannot be seen as independent though because he sells his own clubs. The simplest way to really test this is to have someone try out different loft settings on a LM and see if it makes any difference.

 

MGS Labs?

[Super Tuna]

Sounds suspiciously like some kind of faith based golf initiative. I need a voodooier doll!

 

Seems to me that Wishon is saying that not only are the lofts marked so poorly on many clubs as to be useless but that the adjustability doesn't work at all, at least not in any predictable fashion.

 

Agree with the first and last comment. I don't know how you got adjustability doesn't work at all though. His numbers clear show that it does work, just not as they say they do. A 2* or 3* open face is a HUGELY different kettle of fish from one that is 6* open.

 

Clearly, adjusting the settings did do something. It's just by his measurements, it didn't do exactly what it says on the tin.

 

I am curious about a couple of the procedures on some of the heads. For example with the 913, changing the face angle/loft also monkey's with the lie angle. If the head is clamped flat for the vertical lines stay consistent then how is something that alteres the lie angle as part of it's changes suppose to function? By clamping it flat down again, the changes have effectively been zero'ed out by the measuring device.

[GolfSpy WD]

I am curious about a couple of the procedures on some of the heads. For example with the 913, changing the face angle/loft also monkey's with the lie angle. If the head is clamped flat for the vertical lines stay consistent then how is something that alteres the lie angle as part of it's changes suppose to function? By clamping it flat down again, the changes have effectively been zero'ed out by the measuring device.

 

Exactly my thought, you just worded it better. One of his measurement criterias was making sure the grooves were as parallel as possible to the ground, which doesn't seem right. AFAIK, the grooves don't really do anything anyway.

[RoverRick]

Wishon is in essence bolting this to the table and measuring different loft and lie and face angle. This is the fallacy of his logic. I am not sure about you but I am positive that the sole of my driver is not sitting flush on the ground at impact. Not saying I never hit the ground but I do not intend to. The adjustable sole plate has some effect on the measurement but in my opinion makes no difference during the swing.

 

If he were to anchor the grip of the driver, and measure from there I think he would get much different results. Simple math say, ok, geometry may not be considered simple, but because you are changing the lie angle, you are also changing the effective loft. The adjustable hosel is not different than taking a stronger of weaker grip. Or twisting the club before gripping it.

 

On a non adjustable hosel or even an adjustable one, when you strengthen or weaken your grip then you are changing the loft and face angle of the club. Also, say that you strike the ball with your hands even with the ball, and say that the loft at impact is 10 degrees. Now keep everything the same, but strike the ball with your hands 1" in front of the ball. The effective loft of the club is now about 8.5*. 2" the loft is 7*, 3 " is 5.4* and 6"=0.8* I am not talking about angle of attack, I am simply saying that by keeping the heel of the club at the same point at impact and moving the grip of the club and thus your hands that much forward, you will be changing the loft of the club that much. Conversely, by having the hands behind the ball 1" the loft is now 11.5*, 2" is 13* and 3 inches is 14.6*. Of course my manipulating your hands this much you have to have the face more closed or open to have the desired ball flight but that is not my point.

 

My point here is that the loft of the club in relation to the sole is simply stupid. It makes absolutely no difference and it is why all the club fitters say that the measured loft is so much different than what it marked. The method of measuring these lofts is what is flawed not necessarily the loft that is printed on it. I will say that the printed loft makes no difference.

 

As far as the adjustable hosel having an effect on ball flight, yes it does. Assuming you are impacting the ball with your hands generally in the same spot. And it assumes that you are taking the same grip every time, then adjusting the hosel will have an effect. Does it have any more effect than strengthening or weakening your grip, or playing the ball father up in your stance? No. It does not have as much effect as those. Mainly because you can adjust that only 1.5-3* While you can adjust the grip much more.

 

I have three adjustable drivers, an adjustable 3 wood and an adjustable hybrid. The Callaway Razr is the only adjustment that really did anything for me.

 

As far as the adjustable weight technology, that makes one part of the club heavier and one part lighter, making it easier to close the face or not. This cause the face angle to be slightly different causing different spin on the ball. This absolutely works. It is hard to believe that 10 grams in 250 grams makes any difference but it darn sure does for me.

[wbealsd]

"This is one time I believe that it doesn't work on paper, but really does work in reality."

 

Sounds like my game

[JBones]

This is a good point, there are many independent sources that show moving the weight doesn't do anything.

 

Tom, for his best intentions, still cannot be seen as independent though because he sells his own clubs. The simplest way to really test this is to have someone try out different loft settings on a LM and see if it makes any difference.

 

MGS Labs?

I've done that with the R1. Set at 9.5* I was getting a 14-15* launch angle, when the loft was adjusted to 8*, it was launching around 11-12* with less spin. As far as the weights and face angle are concerned, I've played with them both and notice no difference at all.

[RookieBlue7]

Rick,

Tom knows what he's doing. He's been designing clubheads for a long time and designed the first adjustable hosel ever.

 

That said, he also sells a non-adjustable driver in his lines.

[RookieBlue7]

Here are some of Tom's responses to some questions:

 

Wish you were in my shop so I could show you easily in person what is so hard to express clearly in words. LIKE IT IS DONE IN EVERY SINGLE CLUBHEAD PRODUCTION FACTORY IN THE WORLD, the sole touch point is duplicated for each head for each adjustable measurement so you can see the effect of the change of the angle of the shaft into the head as dictated by the rotation of the hosel device.

 

I assure you that the methods for positioning the heads in the gauge are precisely how all driver heads are measured for loft, lie and face angle by every clubhead production factory in the industry.

 

TOM

 

An answer to a person that posted pics of an R1 head with no shaft installed to show different sole touch positions and how it looked different:

RYBO

 

YOU CANNOT FIND THE PROPER SOLE TOUCH POSITION FOR A DRIVER WITHOUT A SHAFT OR MANDREL INSERTED INTO THE HEAD. You cannot do that just letting the head itself sit on its own. If you had the chance to ask anyone with many years of head design experience how long it took them to learn the nuances of proper head positioning for accurate specs measurement, you would hear that it takes many many hours with many many different types of heads.

 

This is one reason why some years ago I was asked by two of the largest clubhead production factories to teach their QC and toolmakers how to properly measure head specs so they could see if their people were doing this the right way. I can assure you that one of these two factories that asked me to teach this to their people is one of the three factories that have made all Taylor Made driver head models since 2006.

 

TOM

 

Wishon responding why he did this article:

No, I did it because I did invent the first adjustable hosel device for changing lie and face angle of woods back in 1995 and from that work, I knew without a doubt that changing the angle of the shaft into the head cannot change loft, but it will change face angle and lie angle. So I did the report because with all these companies claiming they could change the loft with their adj hosel devices, I had to know for myself if they did or did not - and if the modern devices could allow the stated specs to be achieved.

 

That's all I wanted to know.

 

TOM

[Blade]

Of course the static loft won't change. Clamping it in a machine based on it's "soled" position will give the same result regardless of the angle the shaft enters the club head. However, regardless of whether a person soles the club at address or not, the clubs effective loft will be in relation to the shaft, not the sole. Changing the angle the shaft enters the club by making it lean toward the face will increase the loft while it is swung, the same way it does when you adjust irons to add loft. A person's swing, the shaft lean at impact, will not change because the hosel was adjusted. The head will be in a different position at impact in relation to the shaft and will not match the "soled" position.

 

So, no, the static loft will not change unless a sole plate or other device that lifts or lowers the rear of the club when soled is used. But the loft can definitely be changed in relation to the shaft which is the controlling factor during the swing. Soling the club on turf will give far more variation on those measurements than when setting it on a solid surface. That's not "repeatable". Drivers now do not have the big flat sole plane to position them with as the old woods he described did. Using that as the "benchmark" for what loft a person will get during their swing is a flawed argument. Measurements comparing the face to the shaft are what will tell the true story the same as with irons. It's just trickier to take those measurements due to the shape of the heads and bulge and roll of the face.

[RoverRick]

Rick,

Tom knows what he's doing. He's been designing clubheads for a long time and designed the first adjustable hosel ever.

 

That said, he also sells a non-adjustable driver in his lines.

 

I am sorry to disagree or hell you might even agree with it but my point is that apparently for years they have alway based these measurements on a fixed point on the ground. Yet the driver never touches the ground, These measurements IMHO should be in relation to the shaft.

 

There was the mother who was cooking a ham one day, and her 10 year old daughter was watching and "learning how". The mother said, "The first thing you do is cut the end of it off," and as 10 year old girls do, she asked "Why?" The mother said,"I do not know, that is how my mother taught me let me call her and find out." So she did, Her mother's response was the same. "That is how my mother taught me." Finally, the mom calls the great grandmother and asks why she cut the end of the ham off.

 

The great grandmother replied, "I do not know why you do it, deary, but I used to do it because my pan was too small."

 

Wishon explains the "Green Machine" and how he used this to debunk the effectiveness of the adjustable hosels. Well, it may be the excepted way to do it, but that does not mean that is the proper way to prove or disprove the adjustable hosel.

[Shambles]

Seems to me the adjustable hosel is just another way of helping the player adjust the club position relative to himself to effect a different swing direction into the ball therefore making a change in ball flight or launch angle possible. It does not physically adjust loft in the accepted measure but it does adjust subjective loft provided the player can swing like a machine, i.e., exactly the same way each time. I think changes will be effected upon the swing because of changes in lie and perspective to which we are all subject.

 

The necessity of having a base to conduct a measure from is a necessity. It's as necessary as having a definition for the words we use to communicate. Without a firm place to stand on, we are uncertain and confused. Marketing, on the other hand, thrives on confusion to push impressions that are not necessarily accurate to description. Thus we have the foolish terms such as carbon steel and the immeasurable and non quantifiable " quality ". If we are to discuss measures and make use of history, we must begin with the most common and accepted method of measure.

 

It's unfortunate that we are involved in a game wherein even the loft of a Driver is measured differently. To the best of my knowledge, there are three ways to do the measure, though I accept the base/face center as making the most sense. For marketing purposes, access to other ways of measure is an open door to gleeful claims of creation and achievement.

 

We really do need a firm place to stand on if discussion is to make progress.

 

 

Shambles

[Blade]

Seems to me the adjustable hosel is just another way of helping the player adjust the club position relative to himself to effect a different swing direction into the ball therefore making a change in ball flight or launch angle possible. It does not physically adjust loft in the accepted measure but it does adjust subjective loft provided the player can swing like a machine, i.e., exactly the same way each time. I think changes will be effected upon the swing because of changes in lie and perspective to which we are all subject.

 

The necessity of having a base to conduct a measure from is a necessity. It's as necessary as having a definition for the words we use to communicate. Without a firm place to stand on, we are uncertain and confused. Marketing, on the other hand, thrives on confusion to push impressions that are not necessarily accurate to description. Thus we have the foolish terms such as carbon steel and the immeasurable and non quantifiable " quality ". If we are to discuss measures and make use of history, we must begin with the most common and accepted method of measure.

 

It's unfortunate that we are involved in a game wherein even the loft of a Driver is measured differently. To the best of my knowledge, there are three ways to do the measure, though I accept the base/face center as making the most sense. For marketing purposes, access to other ways of measure is an open door to gleeful claims of creation and achievement.

 

We really do need a firm place to stand on if discussion is to make progress.

 

 

Shambles

I understand your point. The trouble with that is the sole/face relationship is completely meaningless during a swing and has zero effect on the outcome.

 

On the other hand, the shaft/face relationship is EVERYTHING!!! You change that relationship, you change what the club does through impact. You change loft and lie on irons by bending the hosel. You can adjust one without changing the other. The reality is, it's the same thing with a driver. It's more difficult to measure a driver due to its shape and the bulge and roll on the face. But the fact is, the sole is irrelevant during the swing.

 

To make the claim that soling a driver with an uneven bottom shape on grass is a repeatable and reliable way to set up to the ball is ludicrous. Look at the difficulty he described getting repeatable results in a fixed machine, perfect flat square surface, on a work bench looking at it a few inches away, the pains one has to go through to make sure it's "just right". And plopping it down on the grass is the way to set up the same every time? ABSURD!

 

Nothing Tom said in that article was "wrong". It was all fact. But the facts he shared are not the ones that make a difference to the club orientation in a swing.

 

As Rick said, the "basis" for measurement should be the face relationship to the shaft. The "standard" way of measuring a driver is flawed. It should be done the same way it's done with irons although a different machine is necessary obviously.

[Shambles]

Blade,

 

Here we have a difference of opinion, possibly because we have a difference in technique. I sole all my clubs at address and from there proceed with the swing I planned on. There was a time I followed the Jack Nicklaus technique of holding the club suspended behind the ball, and I did find the practice advantageous when in the rough or sand mostly because those places were not so strange to me because I was then very practiced in holding the club suspended, but I have since become lazy and sole all the clubs when able to do so. I sole the club but make sure of having the grooves reasonably parallel to the surface. If uneven ground does not allow, I try to keep the grooves parallel regardless unless the shot calls for something different. Suspending the club works well enough to buy Nicklaus a bunch of championships, and it did work for me but I'm lazy these days.

 

I doubt Wishon needs any defending from me. I am not doing so, but am merely pointing out the need for standards and that marketing demons are constantly assaulting the establishment of standards in their efforts to find a more exciting way to present a club that is almost always just another minor variation of a theme. Obviously, a non moveable face cannot change it's loft under the measure Wishon subscribes to. There was a time not so long ago that some Japanese company marketed J's secret weapon as a 10.5* driver. A lot of name pros tried it out they did get extra distance, mostly by added roll. It subsequently turned out that it's loft was measured differently by the manufacturer. I no longer remember their way of measure but that was the time I learned there were three ways of doing so. By the standard used by Wishon, it was actually a 6* Driver, thus the added roll. I have since used that same standard but bend a copper wire and measure on a grade school protractor. It works for me. I do what I can to find out what I'm actually buying, unless I'm getting it so cheap I can disregard the cost.

 

I agree there are a lot of changes to the swing that can be made by adjusting the shaft/face relationship, but honestly, there is no need for the adjustable shaft to take advantage of that aspect. Besides, you're not allowed to change the playing characteristics of a club in play. As a learning tool it might have some use, and it's a bit fun to think of a learning tool that you can play in that one configuration during a game, but I feel it's better to simply learn why it works and how to work it.

 

 

Shambles

[GolfSpy WD]

As I said, and JBones showed with his results, it's very simple to test the effectiveness by simply going on a LM and seeing if there's a difference in launch angle and trajectory, because in the end that's all that matters, the results.

[Blade]

As I said, and JBones showed with his results, it's very simple to test the effectiveness by simply going on a LM and seeing if there's a difference in launch angle and trajectory, because in the end that's all that matters, the results.

Exactly.