Worst OEM Set, Ever!!!

[BC MIST]

I have often whined about the quality of the shaft assembly of OEM sets purchased at local retailers. Often, the frequency or stiffness of the shafts is a lot less than what is stamped on the shaft.

Today, I checked a set of Wilson, Deep Red, Fat Shaft irons, "Regular" flex. On my frequency meter, the recommended frequency for an "L" or Ladies flex club of a particular is 298 cpm. This is very soft. The club measured 252 cpm's. If the normal difference between flexes is, say, 10 to 12 cpm's, this would make this set LLLLL, or 4 flexes softer than ladies flex. Unbelieveable.

[downhillslider]

Wilson Fat Shafts men's are 38.5" (5i) of the rack. Royal Precision FM chart is based on a 37.5" 5i with a specific Head weight. "LLLLL" flex won't sell very well to the average macho man out there. Throw an "R" on it and mister macho is hammering is 5i like no other ( longer and softer ) and does not no the difference.B.C, you and I both know about the OEMs and there tricks.Eventually we will educate the masses.

[Chieflongtee]

I know what you 2 are saying but I would not discredit the fat shaft because of a butt frequency measurement. Since the tip size is a lot bigger maybe and just maybe the shaft is a lot stiffer in the tip section than the butt section. BC have you profiled that club on your frequency meter or you just measured the butt frequency?

[BC MIST]

I know what you 2 are saying but I would not discredit the fat shaft because of a butt frequency measurement. Since the tip size is a lot bigger maybe and just maybe the shaft is a lot stiffer in the tip section than the butt section. BC have you profiled that club on your frequency meter or you just measured the butt frequency?

I did not disassemble the fat shaft clubs to make a profile, merely measured the butt flex. I agree that the clubs would likely be stiffer than normal in the tip area. However, are we now labeling a shaft's frequency by the tip flex? It is still a scam. Imagine how much lower the frequency would be if we used a 3" clamp instead of our 5" one?

We know that how the shaft performs over its entire length is more important than a frequency measured 5" from the butt. Would it not be more meaningful to the golfing public to have the industry come up with a flex profile INDEX, which would more accurately reflect the true performance characteristics of available shafts? Or, even three groups showing golfers with FAST, MEDIUM and SMOOTH swings, and then another index for the flex. (FA or MR or SS for "fast senior," "medium regular," and "smooth stiff," The current L, A, R, S, & X designations are the most inaccurate, misleading and meaningless labels in the golf industry. But, maybe that's the intent.

[Chieflongtee]

I did not disassemble the fat shaft clubs to make a profile, merely measured the butt flex. I agree that the clubs would likely be stiffer than normal in the tip area. However, are we now labeling a shaft's frequency by the tip flex? It is still a scam. Imagine how much lower the frequency would be if we used a 3" clamp instead of our 5" one?

We know that how the shaft performs over its entire length is more important than a frequency measured 5" from the butt. Would it not be more meaningful to the golfing public to have the industry come up with a flex profile INDEX, which would more accurately reflect the true performance characteristics of available shafts? Or, even three groups showing golfers with FAST, MEDIUM and SMOOTH swings, and then another index for the flex. (FA or MR or SS for "fast senior," "medium regular," and "smooth stiff," The current L, A, R, S, & X designations are the most inaccurate, misleading and meaningless labels in the golf industry. But, maybe that's the intent.

I am afraid it'll stay that way as most companies won't share their data.

[emeraldlinksfan]

Guys, this is all about dollars and sales.

Have you checked the lofts on drivers ever? A number of companies list 9.5* or less and they are not even close to that.

Guys just think they need low loft drivers so companies print a low number of the heads. Fact is, we need higher loft drivers.

Does it really matter what it says on the shaft or clubheads? Find something that feels good and plays well. I don't care if I use an L Flex if the ball flight and distance works for me.

How many people really need stiff steel irons? I am sure companies just put Stiff labels to sell more. It makes good business sense.

I know for a fact that some companies ship iron sets with no stickers. Stores can then place the S or R flex labels to keep the customers happy.

[el tigre]

Chief/BC:

I have also heard that the Wilson Fat Shafts play much stiffer than the stated flex because of the radically different shaft profile, and went on a little online search to find out more. I found a quote on FGI from Tim Hewitt (owner of My Ostrich Golf and one of the most knowledgeable clubmakers around) that may help explain some things:

Remember that CPM does NOT EQUAL flex. The CPM of a shaft is a direct result of the shaft geometries, and is a BUTT frequency only. Using CPM to try to equate one shaft to another with a different geometry is one of the most common mistakes of clubmakers.

If you were to freq a Wilson Fat Shaft and compare it to a typical tapered graphite shaft, you would think that the S is an L - it isn't...

[wahz]

Tim has it right. If they were to build the deep red shafts with the same frequency or flex as a normal diameter shaft, it would be impossible to hit. IT WOULD BE WAYYYYYY TOO STIFF.
BC is right...when the freq of a fat shaft is measured, it plays incredibly softer than it says. Even if it was done on a flex board. But that's because it's a fat shaft. If they are going to stiffen up a shaft with incredibly low torque (ie. thicker tip), they are going to have to soften it up somewhere. Were you expecting something else? It seems pretty logical to me, and I was even a weak science student.

Personally, i prefer to use a flex board so that you can see where the shaft is bending. I need a shaft that has a high kick point and very firm tip. Chances are that your machine is not going to tell me that. Wouldn't your machine mislead me with information that I'm not exactly looking for? Might not be as off as I think, but certainly wouldn't be worth setting in stone.
I find it pretty comical how people moan and complain about OEMs. I don't disagree with you that the quality control might not be the best. But I think it's better than most people claim it to be. Companies don't have time to perfect EVERY set they build. Maybe the problem has started before assembly?
Is it possible for assembly workers to be told (by their boss) "take this shaft, cut it x amount in the tip, and glue"? If that's the case, and these shafts are as whack as they are, maybe the real problem might be the manufacturers of the shaft. I don't have any evidence to back this up, and it might not be the major problem, but i'm just sort of throwing this idea out there.

Chief/BC:

I have also heard that the Wilson Fat Shafts play much stiffer than the stated flex because of the radically different shaft profile, and went on a little online search to find out more. I found a quote on FGI from Tim Hewitt (owner of My Ostrich Golf and one of the most knowledgeable clubmakers around) that may help explain some things:

Remember that CPM does NOT EQUAL flex. The CPM of a shaft is a direct result of the shaft geometries, and is a BUTT frequency only. Using CPM to try to equate one shaft to another with a different geometry is one of the most common mistakes of clubmakers.

If you were to freq a Wilson Fat Shaft and compare it to a typical tapered graphite shaft, you would think that the S is an L - it isn't...

[BC MIST]

Guys, this is all about dollars and sales.

Of course, and to make more money it is OK to lie?

Have you checked the lofts on drivers ever? A number of companies list 9.5* or less and they are not even close to that.Guys just think they need low loft drivers so companies print a low number of the heads. Fact is, we need higher loft drivers.

The decision on what loft I need/want is mine and the manufacturer has no right to lie to me about what I may be purchasing. If it determined that a 9* is best for me then I want a 9*, period. One reason I like SMT products is that Mike Tait tells you that an 9* Deep Bore plays at 9.70* so you know exactly what you are getting.

Guys just think they need low loft drivers so companies print a low number of the heads. Fact is, we need higher loft drivers.

This only partly true. Golfers with lower swing speeds probably would CARRY the ball farther with more loft on their drivers, but those in the 105+ mph, do not need similar lofts.

Does it really matter what it says on the shaft or clubheads? Find something that feels good and plays well. I don't care if I use an L Flex if the ball flight and distance works for me.

Yes. I want to know exactly what I am getting, not an approximation.

How many people really need stiff steel irons?

Golfers with fast tempos, and swing speeds in the 85 mph range and up.

I am sure companies just put Stiff labels to sell more. It makes good business sense.

Again, you are suggesting that it is OK to lie to golfers, just to make more money. Are you serious? If the pants I need are 32"W and 32"I and the tailor sells me 36" W and 34"I, but labels the pants 32"W and 32"I, it is OK? "It makes good business sense." I guess it's obvious I have difficulty understanding why some people think it is acceptable to be dishonest.

[BC MIST]

Remember that CPM does NOT EQUAL flex. The CPM of a shaft is a direct result of the shaft geometries, and is a BUTT frequency only. Using CPM to try to equate one shaft to another with a different geometry is one of the most common mistakes of clubmakers. .

I am surprised that Tim would write this as comparing the frequencies of shafts at several standard locations along the shaft, as many of us and major companies like Golfsmith, etc., are now doing, is extremely helpful in determining a good fit for the golfer.
There is a direct relation between a golfers tempo, point of wrist hinge release, and the speed of the transition to the downswing, and the flex profile of golf shafts that would work for the golfer. Knowing this information is extremely helpful and it is primarily based on frequencies.

[sandbagger72]

wilson fat shafts

[emeraldlinksfan]

It may not be ok with you but the fact is, business is business.

Retail companies do it all the time. Nike and Adidas changed their sizing for shoes several years ago. They changed sizes because women want small sizes and men want to say they wear big sizes. This was purely for sales and it was all based on deception.

Is it ok that companies keep lowering lofts on irons. Is it ok that Cobra used to claim they had the longest irons when all they did was change lofts?

If company A is honest and 9* was 9*, most people couldn't hit them. This would hurt sales because company B is going to sell a 11* that is marked 9* and sell more.

If you could make $1 Million selling 11* drivers that are marked 9*, what would you do?

Why do we even need irons with numbers? Why not just have exact lofts? Instead of using your PW and me using my PW, you could use your 47* and I could use my 45*.

Markings in golf are not accurate. Get used to it.

[jonf]

It may not be ok with you but the fact is, business is business.

Retail companies do it all the time. Nike and Adidas changed their sizing for shoes several years ago. They changed sizes because women want small sizes and men want to say they wear big sizes. This was purely for sales and it was all based on deception.

Is it ok that companies keep lowering lofts on irons. Is it ok that Cobra used to claim they had the longest irons when all they did was change lofts?

If company A is honest and 9* was 9*, most people couldn't hit them. This would hurt sales because company B is going to sell a 11* that is marked 9* and sell more.

If you could make $1 Million selling 11* drivers that are marked 9*, what would you do?

Why do we even need irons with numbers? Why not just have exact lofts? Instead of using your PW and me using my PW, you could use your 47* and I could use my 45*.

Markings in golf are not accurate. Get used to it.

First off, why don't we just rename this thread "why lying is suddenly admirable and society is going to hell because of it," or maybe the catchy line "What's the truth when you've got money"

Your logic here is absolutely terrible - I really can't believe what I'm reading.

Shoe size is arbitrary - its a relative measurement, so it really doesn't matter what size they call it. You buy the ones that fit. If shoes were marketed as being of a particular measurement, let's say 30cm, there is an expectation that the shoe is actually 30 cm long. There is no such expectation for an arbitrary size, because, well, what the hell is a size 9 anyway.

The degree of loft on a club, however, is entirely different. They don't call a club with 9 degrees of loft a 'size 9'. They state that it has 9 degrees of loft. If you buy that club, knowing you need a club with a loft of 9, and it is not ACTUALLY a loft of 9, it's false advertising - its illegal. The only way they can actually do that, is to either do what McDonalds does, and get a patent for the name "100% all beef," or you have to give a disclaimer, telling the customer that what they are buying isn't actually what it says it is.

As far as making a million dollars based on a bold faced lie, I'd rather not, thanks. I like my self-respect plenty.

[sensfan63]

As far as making a million dollars based on a bold faced lie, I'd rather not, thanks. I like my self-respect plenty.

Are you one of those guys who looks at himself in the mirror and says "Wow, I'm such a GOOD person!"

I'm kidding...

But I had to weigh in on this topic, even though it is sort of off topic from the original thread. When you go to the shoestore, do you just ask for size 9s and meet the salesperson at the counter? I didn't think so...you would try the shoes on before buying them, wouldn't you? Well, the same goes for buying golf clubs...try before you buy!! That way you have the BEST chance of getting exactly what you want. Notice I said the BEST chance because no two shafts are EXACTLY the same. Unfortunately that is the nature of golf club (and shaft) manufacturing. Unless you can try a club and just take it from the rep right then and there if it's right for you...then we are all at the mercy of the manufacturing process. It is the nature of the business...nothing in life is perfect, I guess.

[jonf]

Haha...in fact....I am one of those people...but enough about me.

You shouldn't have to try out a golf club to see if it's what you want - if you've done your research ahead of time (say you've been fitted on a launch monitor) and you know what you want, the loft should be accurate. Most people aren't going to stand in front of the screen in the back of the store, look down at their 9 degree loft club, and be able to tell that its actually 11 degrees. They have to be able to trust the manufacturer to give them accurate information. (I'm staying away from the shaft argument here, because I don't have a clue, and it doesn't seem nearly as cut and dry)

[emeraldlinksfan]

I think it would be great if the manufacturers could all be honest and could all come to agreements.

It would be great if every shaft company used the same flex and torque standards. It would be great if standard lofts could be established.

All this would be great, but it's going to be tough to get comapnies on board.

All I am saying is that companies in an industry as competitive as golf, use tricks to sell their products. Plain and simple.

It might not be honest, but it's business and bottom lines are what matters.

[Wesvans]

Shoe size is arbitrary - its a relative measurement, so it really doesn't matter what size they call it.

Yep, shoe size is arbitrary, just like calling a shaft "stiff" or "regular", which is I think the point most of the people are trying to make. Is it a lie if you use such arbitrary terms?

I think telling a lie about a driver loft is a lie, but the original complaint in the thread was about the lies in relation to staff stiffness ratings.

Unfortunately, the arbitrary rating for shafts just does not work because there is no apples to apples comparison at that level of granularity. Otherwise, the Aldila 65-S shaft in my driver has no place being there with my slow ass swing speed, but damn if I don't hit my best shots ever with it.

[jonf]

Yeah, I was taking more about loft than anything, responding to emeraldlinksfan - kind of a thread-jack I guess. But I think you're right, that when they call a shaft stiff, or regular, it is an arbitrary rating, so that they can get away with whatever they want.

[BC MIST]

It may not be ok with you but the fact is, business is business.

As a clubmaker, you come to me and I fit you with clubs with the following specs: 38" 5 iron, butt frequency 310 with consecutive clubs differing by 4 cpm's, D2 swing weight and grips 1/16" oversize. I charge you $800.

Your take these clubs to anther club maker because they just don't seen right. You discover that the 5 is 37.5" long, butt frequency 290 cpm's, no pattern to all the others, the swingweights range from C5 to D4 and your grips are standard size. Do you accept this as "business is business," or are you pissed at me for not making the clubs you needed? If you accept the clubs, you should not, because your game will suffer and if you are pissed, your previous comments are hypocritical.

Is it ok that companies keep lowering lofts on irons.

YES!!! What you need to understand is that when PING invented the cavity back iron, moving the weight to the perimeter of the head and to the bottom, the center of gravity of the head was lowered. When this happens, physics says the the trajectory of the ball will be a lot higher and the consequence of this is that the ball's distance will be shorter. To achieve comparable distance with the same numbered club, the lofts were lowered. This is not deception, but common sense.

If you could make $1 Million selling 11* drivers that are marked 9*, what would you do?

If I could make a million lying, I could make 2 by being honest.

Markings in golf are not accurate. Get used to it.

This is the whole point of the discussion and is obvious. That's why you off the shelfers MAY be hurting your game by playing with poorly fitted clubs. If this is fine with you then I understand your flippiant, dishonesty is OK attitude. However, most forum members are passionate about their games and want to improve. Having properly fitted clubs is one significant starting point and taking lessons is another. BTW: Would you take lessons from a pro who doesn't know what to teach? And there are some.

You might be interested in reading a 67 page book and relate the content to the golf industry. It is called "On Bull," by Harry Frankfurt. Ottawa Public Library

[The Saint]

I acquired a used TM driver with the M.A.S "S flex" shaft and was curious to see what the (butt frequency) or CPM's were. I was actually surprise to see them fall into the "S" flex area of 250 cpms, however when I checked for FLO (Flat Line Oscillation) the shaft took wide rounding arcs, then started wobbling the opposite direction, then flat line and proceed to making oval oscillating patterns again. I couldn't believe it. I could have pulled the shaft and found the spine and set it so it would flat line but....will just change the shaft instead.

Point being when you buy off the rack don't assume that you are buying quality just because the price tag is $500. Have the shaft checked as well to ensure you'll be getting the best performance out of the equipment you paid for.

[el tigre]

I am surprised that Tim would write this as comparing the frequencies of shafts at several standard locations along the shaft, as many of us and major companies like Golfsmith, etc., are now doing, is extremely helpful in determining a good fit for the golfer.

I believe that is what Tim is saying. As I understand his quote (which is from 2003 BTW), he is stating that taking a reading of the BUTT frequency only is very misleading because of different shaft profiles - and he is using the Wilson Fat Shaft as the extreme example of that.

In any case, my point was that the "LLLL" reading you got on the Wilson Fat Shaft was probably a lot closer to "Regular" than you originally thought.

As you probably know, Tim posts regularly on FGI and GEA (ID is thewitt) and is FAR more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am. Perhaps you should ask him about this and about the Fat Shafts in particular. He seems like a really nice guy and I think he would be more than willing discuss this stuff in more detail.

[BC MIST]

I believe that is what Tim is saying. As I understand his quote (which is from 2003 BTW), he is stating that taking a reading of the BUTT frequency only is very misleading because of different shaft profiles - and he is using the Wilson Fat Shaft as the extreme example of that.

In any case, my point was that the "LLLL" reading you got on the Wilson Fat Shaft was probably a lot closer to "Regular" than you originally thought.

As you probably know, Tim posts regularly on FGI and GEA (ID is thewitt) and is FAR more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am. Perhaps you should ask him about this and about the Fat Shafts in particular. He seems like a really nice guy and I think he would be more than willing discuss this stuff in more detail.

Tim is one of the most helpful and reasonable posters on the FGI forum. I may ask the question about the fat shafts and post his reply here.

I agree that the butt flex is only one measure of the shaft and not necessarily the most important. It simple measures how flexible the shaft is under the hands and if too soft, will cause the shaft to bend a lot more than needed. These particular clubs are like wet spaghetti in the hands, but the thickness of the mid and tip sections, in some way hopefully, balance the effect of the extremely soft butt flex.

In 2003 we were not profiling shafts so it will be interesting to see what response he has now.