Bend Point Poll

[dbleber]

I agree 100%!!! The golf industry is to big of a market to have set standards!

[Started2k3]

...
An indication of your swing speed, tempo, transition speed and how late you hold the wrist cock angle, may help get a better shaft suggestion.

I will have to get measured.

Do you do this? (I really like the look of the SMT Deep Bore. I know you have made them in the past.)

As a best guess:
Swing speed - 110 mph
- measured about 1.5 years ago probably more now.
- Drive ranges between 260-270 but trajectory is too high (cheap driver head and you know the shaft)

Tempo - has been described by my playing partners as "violent", so I guess "quick"

Transition speed - Not sure what this is?

I believe I hold the wrist cock angle quite late, but don't know for sure.

[SkinDawg]

its the most ovwerated thing in shaft description by far... its miniscule

[BC MIST]

I will have to get measured.

Do you do this? (I really like the look of the SMT Deep Bore. I know you have made them in the past.)

As a best guess:
Swing speed - 110 mph
- measured about 1.5 years ago probably more now.
- Drive ranges between 260-270 but trajectory is too high (cheap driver head and you know the shaft)

Tempo - has been described by my playing partners as "violent", so I guess "quick"

Transition speed - Not sure what this is?

I believe I hold the wrist cock angle quite late, but don't know for sure.

Tempo = SMOOTH(1), AVERAGE(2), FAST(3) You are a 3.

Release = EARLY(1), MIDWAY(2), LATE(3) You are 3.

Transition = SMOOTH(1), AVERAGE(2) or FORCEFUL(3) Smooth means that there is a defiinite pause at the top of your backswing, Average means that the pause in almost imperceptible and Forceful means that you put a visible bend on the shaft as you start down as if you are going to whack the snot out of it. These are part of Tom Wishon's method of determining what shaft might be suitable.

My guess is the you are a 3,3,3 or a 3,3 2 which would mean that shafts that are butt firm/tip medium/firm(3,3,2) or a butt firm/tip firm(3,3,3) would be suitable for your swing.

I like the 455 deep Bore and have assembled a few Have a new SMT Encore on order and an anxious to see how this one flies.

[Started2k3]

My guess is the you are a 3,3,3 or a 3,3 2 which would mean that shafts that are butt firm/tip medium/firm(3,3,2) or a butt firm/tip firm(3,3,3) would be suitable for your swing.

I like the 455 deep Bore and have assembled a few Have a new SMT Encore on order and an anxious to see how this one flies.

I was on the Wishon site today (http://www.wishongolf.com/glossary/) and looking at some my video from the fall of last year. I am most definately a (3,3,3).

I will see if I can get my swing speed checked this weekend. Would you suggest both my driver and 5iron speeds?

[BC MIST]

I was on the Wishon site today (http://www.wishongolf.com/glossary/) and looking at some my video from the fall of last year. I am most definately a (3,3,3).

I will see if I can get my swing speed checked this weekend. Would you suggest both my driver and 5iron speeds?

From the Wishon "Search..." book you are a candidate for a TRUE "X" driver shaft, and if your 5 iron swing speed is 90> mph, then a TRUE "X" would go in the irons, as well. Remember the "X" refers to butt frequency only. Because you are a 3,3,3 then the tip frequency would also be quite high, too. Also, the tip frequency is NOT the actual tip of the shaft but the tip section or the tip "half" of the shaft. Having very stiff shafts would diminish some of the good feel that we all like from a good shot, however, in golf, there seems to always be a trade-off.

[Started2k3]

From the Wishon "Search..." book you are a candidate for a TRUE "X" driver shaft, and if your 5 iron swing speed is 90> mph, then a TRUE "X" would go in the irons, as well. Remember the "X" refers to butt frequency only. Because you are a 3,3,3 then the tip frequency would also be quite high, too. Also, the tip frequency is NOT the actual tip of the shaft but the tip section or the tip "half" of the shaft. Having very stiff shafts would diminish some of the good feel that we all like from a good shot, however, in golf, there seems to always be a trade-off.

Thanks. Still no swing speed results.

If I decide to go with the Assassin, would you like to profile it before it is installed?

[BC MIST]

Thanks. Still no swing speed results.

If I decide to go with the Assassin, would you like to profile it before it is installed?

Appreciate the offer and, yes, I would like to add the numbers to my list.

[Started2k3]

Appreciate the offer and, yes, I would like to add the numbers to my list.

I'll let you know when I buy (still need to figure out what loft I need).

I was at Golftown this afternoon. Used the sims to measure my swing speeds:
Driver - 110 to 115 mph
5 iron - 87 to 93 mph (not including a shank )

I believe that this would put me in the x-stiff range. Especially if I go to graphite which (all other things being equal) should increase my swing speed.

My next question is:
Would TT dynamic gold X100's be OK in my irons? You had said earlier that you found TTDG's soft.

The shaft industry definately needs "standards" on measurements. But it is going to be hard to get a bunch of competing companies to agree on and adhere to a method/rating system. So I think the "club fitters" association (if there is one) should take the initative; one option would be to start by publically and electronically publishing shaft profiles. I am sure there are enough fitters out there profiling that an inventory of profiles could be easily built. Just think how much better it would be for a fitter to be able to confidently suggest almost any shaft for a person rather than only the ones the fitter has previously profiled. Anyway just an idea.

[BC MIST]

I'll let you know when I buy (still need to figure out what loft I need).

I was at Golftown this afternoon. Used the sims to measure my swing speeds:
Driver - 110 to 115 mph
5 iron - 87 to 93 mph (not including a shank )

I believe that this would put me in the x-stiff range. Especially if I go to graphite which (all other things being equal) should increase my swing speed.

My next question is:
Would TT dynamic gold X100's be OK in my irons? You had said earlier that you found TTDG's soft.

The shaft industry definately needs "standards" on measurements. But it is going to be hard to get a bunch of competing companies to agree on and adhere to a method/rating system. So I think the "club fitters" association (if there is one) should take the initative; one option would be to start by publically and electronically publishing shaft profiles. I am sure there are enough fitters out there profiling that an inventory of profiles could be easily built. Just think how much better it would be for a fitter to be able to confidently suggest almost any shaft for a person rather than only the ones the fitter has previously profiled. Anyway just an idea.

If you are geting an SMT 455, keep in mind that they play about .7* higher than the stamped loft.

I have found the Dynamic Gold shafts play softer than what one would think and if you are going to use a DG, the X100 would be better than the S300 for you. I don't have a comparative profile on the DG irons but I do on the woods. To give you an idea of where they stand in terms of flex, this is what I did:
1. I calculated the average tip flex (11"), mid flex (26") and butt flex (41") for all 300 shafts. Split the 300 shafts into thirds for each of these points. The S300 wood fell into the flexible third for each of the points measured, or 1,1,1.

2. I calculated the average frequency at 11", 16" and 21" combined (tip section), 21", 26" and 31" combined (mid section), and 31", 36" and 41" combined(butt section). I then took the range of frequencies for each section, divided by 3, and created 3 subdivisions for each of tip, mid and butt. That is, butt soft, butt average, and butt stiff, mid soft, mid average mid stiff, tip soft, tip average and tip stiff. The S300 fell into the middle, middle and soft, or 2,2,1 doing it this way. I hope that this makes sense. The bottom line is, the S300 woodis not very stiff, compared to hundreds of other shafts and my assumption is that the S300 iron is similar.

Using a heavier tip weight, here are some numbers for:
a DG S300 iron, Harrison Professional Steel, and a Rifle 6.5 1 iron shaft, respectively:
Tip - 738-756-773
Mid - 349-336-357
Butt - 202-193-217

Your driver swing speed is awesome and hopefully the shaft you chose will give you the accuracy you need with a high swing speed.

Wishon has profiles available for sale and I know other interested club makers are profiling shafts as well. There are two simple concerns: 1. a standard tip weight with the same insertation depth, must be used if information is to shared, 2. The frequency machines making the measurements need to be standardized. That is possible through the PCS with it "Equalizer," I think.

[Started2k3]

If you are geting an SMT 455, keep in mind that they play about .7* higher than the stamped loft.

You had mentioned that in an earlier thread and I was going to take that into account. But thank you for reminding me.

I have found the Dynamic Gold shafts play softer than what one would think and if you are going to use a DG, the X100 would be better than the S300 for you. I don't have a comparative profile on the DG irons but I do on the woods. To give you an idea of where they stand in terms of flex, this is what I did:
1. I calculated the average tip flex (11"), mid flex (26") and butt flex (41") for all 300 shafts. Split the 300 shafts into thirds for each of these points. The S300 wood fell into the flexible third for each of the points measured, or 1,1,1.

2. I calculated the average frequency at 11", 16" and 21" combined (tip section), 21", 26" and 31" combined (mid section), and 31", 36" and 41" combined(butt section). I then took the range of frequencies for each section, divided by 3, and created 3 subdivisions for each of tip, mid and butt. That is, butt soft, butt average, and butt stiff, mid soft, mid average mid stiff, tip soft, tip average and tip stiff. The S300 fell into the middle, middle and soft, or 2,2,1 doing it this way. I hope that this makes sense. The bottom line is, the S300 woodis not very stiff, compared to hundreds of other shafts and my assumption is that the S300 iron is similar.

Using a heavier tip weight, here are some numbers for:
a DG S300 iron, Harrison Professional Steel, and a Rifle 6.5 1 iron shaft, respectively:
Tip - 738-756-773
Mid - 349-336-357
Butt - 202-193-217

Your driver swing speed is awesome and hopefully the shaft you chose will give you the accuracy you need with a high swing speed.

I hope so too. It appears that the Rifle 6.5 is the stiffest of the shafts presented. Anyway, iron shafts will have to wait (woods are my $$ priority - before you mention it my putter is fine ), but not too long I hope.

[Started2k3]

Wishon has profiles available for sale and I know other interested club makers are profiling shafts as well. There are two simple concerns: 1. a standard tip weight with the same insertation depth, must be used if information is to shared, 2. The frequency machines making the measurements need to be standardized. That is possible through the PCS with it "Equalizer," I think.

I agree that standards need to be determined.
BC's Point 1:
I am guessing that there are actually two problems here:
a) the mass of the weight, but this could be standardized for sets of clubs 200g woods, ??g 1i-3i, ??g 4i-6i, ??g 7i-9i, ??g wedges. The desire would be to make this easily removable/reusable (I am sure if we ask nice mberube could MacGuyver these up in a weekend ). Somebody just has to decide on the concensus (this is usually decided by market forces - cheaper option will prevail). Yes, I am an economist.

b) As far as depth, there are only a few inches to profile. I would be amazed if you would want a single standard. I am sure Bore thru will have a different effect on the stiffness of the shaft as a blind bore. If the weights have the option of different depths, then multiple measures of a single shaft could be taken. I would not be surprised if the effect of depth on stiffness could be predicted (wait for the why I think so).

BC's Point 2:
This will be more difficult because I suspect that temperature (etc) will affect the frequency of the shaft. This can be overcome by the equipment providing a "calibration rod" (or some such thing). The rod should have the property that over a range of temperatures will result in an expected frequency. The machine can then have a calibration adjustment button. May have to be done at a couple of different lengths to ensure accuracy, but it can be done. (It appears that this is similar to what PCS equalizer does.)

Now to my points:
I was reading at something put out by Wishon:
http://www.wishongolf.com/etechrepor...ndex.html#art3

It appears that the work on shaft profiling is not done.

I was looking at the chart and also the profiles you had previously posted, and I "recognized" the line. If you reverse the x-axis so that 41" is on the right and use the following formula wavelength=1000/(###cpm).

You get almost a straight line. This is very good because straight lines are always easier to use and predict.

So the wavelength of the shaft is almost predictable (hence frequency is also). Closer to the tip appears to be less predictable. It looks like the shaft consists of at least 2 different wavelength lines. Where the butt is steeper than the tip which is probably due to the thickness of the shaft. The intercept of these two lines may have something to do with the bend point (kickpoint?) of the shaft, but this would have to be empirically tested.

Why is this important?

If bore depth has a predictable effect on the wavelength lines then this could be easily computed by a computer. This would eliminate your first point part b.

I would also guess that different masses of the weights used could also have a predictable effect on the wavelength lines, again a computer could determine this. This would eliminate your first point part a. Thing about being able to input the exact gram measurements of the heads and getting the perfect shaft(s) for all clubs.

The frequency profile graph is too difficult to use. To me the wavelength profile graph is so much easier to interpret (see attached - only the actual wavelength line shown would require more data points to get an accurate tip section and butt section slopes).

The relative steepness of the tip section to the butt section may also shed some light on how a shaft plays. For example, on a long drive forum one of the participants stated that the Assassin has a stiffer tip than the PRO LD. This could probably be proven with the wavelength slopes.

Also tip trimming would also have an effect on the shaft's frequency / wavelength.

That is all I have for now. BC I hope I have covered your concerns, and added new thoughts. Anyway more analytical and theorectical work is required. If I could I would get an inch by inch profile of a shaft to see if I could model that shaft exactly, then apply that model to other shafts and observe the results (may even require .5" by .5" analysis).

Oh, and yes I also have a science degree.

Edited: mixed up my right and left ... duhh

[BC MIST]

I agree that standards need to be determined.
BC's Point 1:
I am guessing that there are actually two problems here:
a) the mass of the weight, but this could be standardized for sets of clubs 200g woods, ??g 1i-3i, ??g 4i-6i, ??g 7i-9i, ??g wedges. The desire would be to make this easily removable/reusable (I am sure if we ask nice mberube could MacGuyver these up in a weekend ). Somebody just has to decide on the concensus (this is usually decided by market forces - cheaper option will prevail). Yes, I am an economist.

b) As far as depth, there are only a few inches to profile. I would be amazed if you would want a single standard. I am sure Bore thru will have a different effect on the stiffness of the shaft as a blind bore. If the weights have the option of different depths, then multiple measures of a single shaft could be taken. I would not be surprised if the effect of depth on stiffness could be predicted (wait for the why I think so).

BC's Point 2:
This will be more difficult because I suspect that temperature (etc) will affect the frequency of the shaft. This can be overcome by the equipment providing a "calibration rod" (or some such thing). The rod should have the property that over a range of temperatures will result in an expected frequency. The machine can then have a calibration adjustment button. May have to be done at a couple of different lengths to ensure accuracy, but it can be done. (It appears that this is similar to what PCS equalizer does.)

Now to my points:
I was reading at something put out by Wishon:
http://www.wishongolf.com/etechrepor...ndex.html#art3

It appears that the work on shaft profiling is not done.

I was looking at the chart and also the profiles you had previously posted, and I "recognized" the line. If you reverse the x-axis so that 41" is on the right and use the following formula wavelength=1000/(###cpm).

You get almost a straight line. This is very good because straight lines are always easier to use and predict.

So the wavelength of the shaft is almost predictable (hence frequency is also). Closer to the tip appears to be less predictable. It looks like the shaft consists of at least 2 different wavelength lines. Where the butt is steeper than the tip which is probably due to the thickness of the shaft. The intercept of these two lines may have something to do with the bend point (kickpoint?) of the shaft, but this would have to be empirically tested.

Why is this important?

If bore depth has a predictable effect on the wavelength lines then this could be easily computed by a computer. This would eliminate your first point part b.

I would also guess that different masses of the weights used could also have a predictable effect on the wavelength lines, again a computer could determine this. This would eliminate your first point part a. Thing about being able to input the exact gram measurements of the heads and getting the perfect shaft(s) for all clubs.

The frequency profile graph is too difficult to use. To me the wavelength profile graph is so much easier to interpret (see attached - only the actual wavelength line shown would require more data points to get an accurate tip section and butt section slopes).

The relative steepness of the tip section to the butt section may also shed some light on how a shaft plays. For example, on a long drive forum one of the participants stated that the Assassin has a stiffer tip than the PRO LD. This could probably be proven with the wavelength slopes.

Also tip trimming would also have an effect on the shaft's frequency / wavelength.

That is all I have for now. BC I hope I have covered your concerns, and added new thoughts. Anyway more analytical and theorectical work is required. If I could I would get an inch by inch profile of a shaft to see if I could model that shaft exactly, then apply that model to other shafts and observe the results (may even require .5" by .5" analysis).

Oh, and yes I also have a science degree.

Edited: mixed up my right and left ... duhh

Thanks for all the comments.

I have the Wishon Profiling software and spent several hours copying the frequencies on to an Excel SS so that I could do the averaging and other calculations. From the Tech Report, Tom used 41 and 36 for the butt while I included 31, as he suggested using this several months ago. Similarly, I used 11, 16 and 21 for the tip, while he used just the 11 and 16. I will redo my calculations so they correspond to his. Knowing what constitutes a flex difference at the different "points" along the shaft, is also very helpful.

The use of this kind of profiling is obviously at its infant stage and it is apparent that, in time, and with modifications, it will become a meaningful way to fit shafts. One obvious weakness is measuring frequency in the tip section, something I discovered awhile ago when using a 650 g weight, the 11" measurements could differ by 10 to 15 cpms. Tom's 454 g weight would lead to even more inconsistent results. Perfecting an electronic deflection method would give us much more accurate results.

Whatever method they finally choose, let's hope that the shaft manufacturers get on board, and use the same measuring devices so that we have a meaningful standard. Even if it is just a tip weight, make them all the same.

In looking for a new shaft for my Encore which is coming, I have viewed many graphs that compare what I have used in the past to what is available today and find the visual representation makes it so easy to see how close or how far one shaft's profile is from another. One simple observation is that there are a huge number of shafts that are almost identical to a given profile so the choice is nothing more than a personal preference.

While I enjoy learning about this kind of analysis, I also believe that the difference in performance from hugely different profiles, is still relatively small, and those who might benefit most from this stuff, are those who already have a very good golf swing, which is reflected in my signature below.

[Started2k3]

Thanks for all the comments.

I have the Wishon Profiling software and spent several hours copying the frequencies on to an Excel SS so that I could do the averaging and other calculations. From the Tech Report, Tom used 41 and 36 for the butt while I included 31, as he suggested using this several months ago. Similarly, I used 11, 16 and 21 for the tip, while he used just the 11 and 16. I will redo my calculations so they correspond to his. Knowing what constitutes a flex difference at the different "points" along the shaft, is also very helpful.

The use of this kind of profiling is obviously at its infant stage and it is apparent that, in time, and with modifications, it will become a meaningful way to fit shafts. One obvious weakness is measuring frequency in the tip section, something I discovered awhile ago when using a 650 g weight, the 11" measurements could differ by 10 to 15 cpms. Tom's 454 g weight would lead to even more inconsistent results. Perfecting an electronic deflection method would give us much more accurate results.

Whatever method they finally choose, let's hope that the shaft manufacturers get on board, and use the same measuring devices so that we have a meaningful standard. Even if it is just a tip weight, make them all the same.

In looking for a new shaft for my Encore which is coming, I have viewed many graphs that compare what I have used in the past to what is available today and find the visual representation makes it so easy to see how close or how far one shaft's profile is from another. One simple observation is that there are a huge number of shafts that are almost identical to a given profile so the choice is nothing more than a personal preference.

While I enjoy learning about this kind of analysis, I also believe that the difference in performance from hugely different profiles, is still relatively small, and those who might benefit most from this stuff, are those who already have a very good golf swing, which is reflected in my signature below.

When testing the 11" section and getting 10-15 cpm differences. Are you getting a result, stopping the machine and then testing the same shaft again (without removing and reinstalling the shaft) and getting a different result? Or, are you testing two different shafts with the same 650g weight?

If you are doing the former then your machine apears to have about a 1% to 1.5% error. This cannot be helped except through improved tolerances of the machine / measuring device. This, in my opinion, is really too high for any "scientific" measuring device.

If you are doing the latter then either:
- the shaft manufacturer's tolerances for the tip section are in the aforementioned range,
or
- the ability of fitter to get the shaft at precisely 11" could result in the differences. It appears that 2mm difference from 11" could result in a 10cpm difference in results.

In reality it is probably a combination of all three sources of error.

NB: I don't really have time to look up the current research on this stuff, so all of my ramblings are all out of my head. I am guessing that alot of my ideas were/are somebody else's as well. I am just trying to learn and more importantly think.

BTW: What loft did you go with? I am guessing around 8°.

[Started2k3]

FYI - I came across this in my internet travels:
http://csfa.com/tech36.htm

It has a small discussion about how when using frequency profiling steel shafts appear to have a softer tip than graphite. The author attributes this to the higher mass of the steel shafts.

[BC MIST]

FYI - I came across this in my internet travels:
http://csfa.com/tech36.htm

It has a small discussion about how when using frequency profiling steel shafts appear to have a softer tip than graphite. The author attributes this to the higher mass of the steel shafts.

John Kaufman's site is always an interesting read and from it I have learned a tremendous amount. I also have one of his Club Scout FA's which I like as it is more portable than most so that when I am trying to get a tip measurement, I can hold it in such a way as to be able to break the light beam, which is hard to do when the tip is oscillating at 800 or more cpm's.

In the tech note you referred to John said, "Two shafts with identical tip stiffness might have tip frequencies as much as 15 cpm different just because one is a heavy shaft and one a light shaft." How would he know that the stiffness is the same if he uses frequency to measure stiffness? Perhaps a deflection method was also used.

When I do my testing I mark each shaft at the 7 reference points using a jig that I made and I twang the shaft 5 times in each position just to see if there are any differences. The 11" end is the only one that has a significant variations and this only happens with the stiffer tipped shafts, which makes sense. I don't know what a 2mm difference would make, but I doubt that it would be very much. For my purpose, I don't really care as I am just trying to get a reasonably accurate profile of the shaft, and not one down to the nearest tenth of a cpm. As it is, tip frequencies have ranged from 606 to 963 in the 300 shafts and if 30 to 40 cpm's represents the difference of a flex range, then the numbers I have give me what I want. However, I can see where more precise measurements may be needed if a standard method of doing all of this is going to be used and accepted by all. Fat chance.

I did order the 8* Encore as I have both a 7* and an 8* 455 Deep Bore. The 7* has an Accuflex VS 339 shaft in it while the 8* has the Accuflex Evolution. I can hit both over 80' trees, 180 yards out, or ground hog high if need be, which is the reason I don't buy the "more loft is better theory." Actually, I can hit the 7 higher than the 8 which does show some of the influence of tip stiffness, although there is only a 24 cpm and a 21 cpm difference in tip frequencies at 16 and 11 inches, with the EV being the stiffer of the two.

Interesting stuff..

[Started2k3]

John Kaufman's site is always an interesting read and from it I have learned a tremendous amount. I also have one of his Club Scout FA's which I like as it is more portable than most so that when I am trying to get a tip measurement, I can hold it in such a way as to be able to break the light beam, which is hard to do when the tip is oscillating at 800 or more cpm's.

In the tech note you referred to John said, "Two shafts with identical tip stiffness might have tip frequencies as much as 15 cpm different just because one is a heavy shaft and one a light shaft." How would he know that the stiffness is the same if he uses frequency to measure stiffness? Perhaps a deflection method was also used.

When I do my testing I mark each shaft at the 7 reference points using a jig that I made and I twang the shaft 5 times in each position just to see if there are any differences. The 11" end is the only one that has a significant variations and this only happens with the stiffer tipped shafts, which makes sense. I don't know what a 2mm difference would make, but I doubt that it would be very much. For my purpose, I don't really care as I am just trying to get a reasonably accurate profile of the shaft, and not one down to the nearest tenth of a cpm. As it is, tip frequencies have ranged from 606 to 963 in the 300 shafts and if 30 to 40 cpm's represents the difference of a flex range, then the numbers I have give me what I want. However, I can see where more precise measurements may be needed if a standard method of doing all of this is going to be used and accepted by all. Fat chance.

I did order the 8* Encore as I have both a 7* and an 8* 455 Deep Bore. The 7* has an Accuflex VS 339 shaft in it while the 8* has the Accuflex Evolution. I can hit both over 80' trees, 180 yards out, or ground hog high if need be, which is the reason I don't buy the "more loft is better theory." Actually, I can hit the 7 higher than the 8 which does show some of the influence of tip stiffness, although there is only a 24 cpm and a 21 cpm difference in tip frequencies at 16 and 11 inches, with the EV being the stiffer of the two.

Interesting stuff..

I was wondering if you would be interested in conducting an experiment on shaft frequency with me? This discussion has really sparked my interest.

I don't have the equipment to run empirical tests but I have some ideas about how frequency testing could be even more useful to club fitters (and golfers).

[Started2k3]

I was wondering if you would be interested in conducting an experiment on shaft frequency with me? This discussion has really sparked my interest.

I don't have the equipment to run empirical tests but I have some ideas about how frequency testing could be even more useful to club fitters (and golfers).

I will take your non-response as a no.

No problem. Later.

[BC MIST]

I was wondering if you would be interested in conducting an experiment on shaft frequency with me? This discussion has really sparked my interest.

I don't have the equipment to run empirical tests but I have some ideas about how frequency testing could be even more useful to club fitters (and golfers).

I responded to a couple of other threads, but did not read the above. I am interested in the ideas you might have and wonder what contribution I can make. Is a frequency analyzer sufficient equipment? That I have. LMK

[Started2k3]

I responded to a couple of other threads, but did not read the above. I am interested in the ideas you might have and wonder what contribution I can make. Is a frequency analyzer sufficient equipment? That I have. LMK

I'll PM you with my ideas (once they are done formulating in my head - few days) and you can let me know if it has already been done (or not).

I will also include an initial outline of the steps (as I see them).

I think a frequency analyzer is sufficient, but a spine finder may also be useful.

What information can be obtained from the Wishon Frequency Profile Software? Also what can it be used for?

CJS

[BC MIST]

I'll PM you with my ideas (once they are done formulating in my head - few days) and you can let me know if it has already been done (or not).

I will also include an initial outline of the steps (as I see them).

I think a frequency analyzer is sufficient, but a spine finder may also be useful.

What information can be obtained from the Wishon Frequency Profile Software? Also what can it be used for?

CJS

The software is a data base of frequency readings for over 300 after market shafts and some stock shafts, spread over 7 locations on each shaft. For most, the weight and the balance point is also given, and for a few, deflection readings, as well.

If you have a shaft you like and are looking for one with a similar profile then the software will come up with a list of comparable shafts, within a certain percentage of the original. It will also graph the chosen shafts making it easier to see how similar they really are.

I have the FA, as I said, and still have my NF2, spine/bend finder. The NF4 is better as it does deflection readings.