Puring

[RoyalQ]

Natg,

Thanks for your answer.
Writing long posts in English gives me a headache, so I'll keep it short.
Don't try too hard to convince me, I am already. Just like to stir it up.
On another boad I frequent, someone launched a contest to find a replacement name for FLOing, as he feels it's inappropriate.
One guy just came up with his acronym suggestion: TMB
Ten More Bucks!
Just joking!

Most of what you say is true. My point is: Let's not put too much emphasis on this.
Are you a "Spinetalker"? (a private forum where I am a member)

Haven't shot 87 in the last 40 years?
Same here. At least in the last 4 months!

[Chieflongtee]

El tigre:
see http://www.golfworks.com/item_disp.asp?pn=2201WR

Don't know however if the frequency is constant all the way around.

[Chieflongtee]

RoyalQ.

This guy says floing only won't cut it.

http://www.advancedshaft.com/sub.cfm?pg=articles

El tigre: the same guy says they conducted an independent survey.

Golfdoc: Still waiting for a reply. What is your favorite set and why?
:o

[RoyalQ]

Read this:

For Immediate Release: Contact: Philip Talamonti
> tel: 936.271.1771
>
>
> TEXAS COURT RULES in Philip Talamonti versus SST & Richard Weiss
>
>
> The Woodlands, TX - December 30, 2002 - An order was entered this past week
by a Texas State Court Judge in a 2001 lawsuit filed by Philip Talamonti
against Richard Weiss and Strategic Shaft Technologies, LC. Among other things,
the Court's order states that Advanced Shaft Dynamics, Ltd. and its principal,
Philip Talamonti, may compete directly with SST in all markets. ASD will now
expand its service offering to include providing ASD's PEAK PERFORMANCE
LOCATING(TM) process as a retrofit option using a players existing golf shafts.
ASD had already been performing its golf shaft analysis and orientation process
on new golf shafts for assembly (both steel and graphite) in accordance with a
prior Court order dating back to April 2002 and will continue to do so.
>
> The Court further ordered that ASD and Talamonti may do unrestricted
business with anyone in the market, including those licensees of SST who were
or became licensees during Talamonti's tenure as SST's President, provided
those parties first terminate or otherwise discontinue their licensing
relationships with SST.
>
> In a separate matter coming out of last week's hearings, the Court also
granted Talamonti's motion for partial summary judgment against Weiss relating
to alleged business disparagement claims. The Court found that Weiss and SST
provided no evidence to support such claims against Talamonti.
>
> "Mr. Weiss has been attempting to use the Court to apply pressure and create
noncompete restrictions against me and my company to which he is not entitled.
The Court's rulings are very satisfying, even more so as I have become
increasingly aware of the erroneous information that was being used to mislead
the market regarding my ability to do business," said Talamonti. "We are
thankful that our prayers were answered and that the Judge ruled as he did on
these baseless claims and false allegations."
>
> ASD established an "Authorized Dealer" Network that has already been
assembling new "PEAKED(TM)" shafts in the market. A program involving
disassembly and "PEAKING(TM)" using a players existing set of shafts will now
be added. ASD is also in discussions with golf shaft manufacturers and
equipment companies who have expressed interest in incorporating ASD's
technology into their new product offerings.
>
> ASD possesses a patent-pending golf shaft analysis technology and equipment
that inventor and company founder Talamonti claims is vastly superior to any
other process offered in the marketplace. Talamonti remarks, "It's no secret
that most experienced clubmakers have been 'twanging' or deflecting shafts to
find a visual Flat Line Oscillation ("FLO") plane prior to club assembly. That
procedure has been used for decades. In fact, one company has been aggressively
marketing what amounts to an electronic version of this age old method. 'FLO'
analysis may have some legitimacy in analyzing fishing rods (where the
technique was first used) since that sport involves unidirectional 'load' and
motion lacking torque or rotation. However, the golf swing involves a
completely different set of dynamics. There is simply no scientific information
I am aware of to support 'FLO' as an appropriate golf shaft analysis
methodology."
>
> ASD has significant independent test data to support its own technology
claims. In testing, golf clubs incorporating ASD's PEAK PERFORMANCE
LOCATING(TM) process have shown improvements in golf shot accuracy of over 200
percent. ASD intends to make its eye-opening test results available soon
through a major golf publication.
>
> More can be learned about ASD at the company website: advancedshaft.com
>
>
> # # #

ANDRÉ:

One rule of thumb: DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT believe everything you see in print.
This guy Talamonti is CONTROVERSIAL, to say the least
(do your homework, my man, read, read, read... and see you hdc go up, ha, ha, ha!)
>
>

[Chieflongtee]

I believe we all agree on one thing. If a golfer raises up, falls off his back foot on the follow through, spins out of his shoes, it's not going to make a difference if he has the most expensive piece of equipment.
RoyalQ: You obviously are very well informed but you seem to indicate that spining/puring did'nt do much for you and your handicap . Can you tell us about your experience with pured clubs?

[lazzal]

It's like the guy that never learned to speak French---He said "why learn, I have never had occasion to use it"--He was asked, had he never been where French was spoken----"Oh I have" he said, but "I just find someone that speakes English"

If you are a great player with out having clubs "fine tuned", maybe you would be "greater" if they were spinned and FLO'd

[Chieflongtee]

I'd like to see Jacques Villeneuve drive a Ferrari.

[Chieflongtee]

Puring, Spining, FLO'ing, I've been spending many, m-a-n-y hours reading about these in the last three years & still confused. AS ARE a lot of tech heads posting in specialized forums (Spinetalkers, Shoptalk, etc.).
I'd rather have my shafts flo'ed, then if I hit a poor shot I know for sure it's the player and NOT the equipment! (like if I needed that!!)
Anyway, thanks for providing a link to that website, looks good.

Dear RoyalQ.
A year has gone by already and in retrospect I realise that you were right about FLO. Flo will help you find the true spine. In all honesty I only see 1 setback with your method. If there are 2 FLO planes then when you go through the FLOing process using the drill chuck method how do go go about finding which FLO is the NBP and which one is the spine. Anyway I just wanted you to know that I underestimated you and want to thank you for helping me in my search for better clubs.

[pagman]

Spining ...flo'ing...blah...blah...blah...If you want to shoot under 85 consistently....spend your practice time around the greens with your wedges and putter....practice your short games...can a clubfitter help you with that!!!!

For all you club fitting guru's...can you spine or flo your putter? Ha! Ha!

[natgolfer]

Spining ...flo'ing...blah...blah...blah...If you want to shoot under 85 consistently....spend your practice time around the greens with your wedges and putter....practice your short games...can a clubfitter help you with that!!!!

For all you club fitting guru's...can you spine or flo your putter? Ha! Ha!

Cynic.

The answers to your questions are, "Yes," and "Yes," however, considering your ...blah...blah...blah... from above, somehow, I don't think that you will believe me.

Roughly a year ago when this thread started, I, like Andre, had some knowledge of spining, FLOing, PUREing, and in the last year, by doing a lot of reading/research, taking part in the various technical forums(Spinetalkers, Shoptalk and the like) I/we have learned a lot more. There are people out there who are engineers and who have made shaft analysis a hobby and in some cases a business. Names like John Kaufman, Dave Tutleman, Tom Wishon, may be unfamiliar to some, however, they are the experts in the field and highly respected. They have conducted tests of different kinds, some will real live golfers, and while not all agree, there is much consensus amongst them all that I have been able to pick up:
1. few shafts are well made, but improvement is starting to show up in a few manufacturers product lines
2. orientation of a shaft in a head in one of the currently accepted alignment positions will improve the quality of shots golfers hit, all other things being equal.
3. NBP to target (9:00 o'clock) is the alignment most commonly used.
4. when buying off the rack equipment, you do not get what you pay for.

Early in the spring, some testing will be done to determine the significance of spine aligning shafts and what orientation works better. It is my understanding that the NBP to COG alignment is not part of this test, according to the current testing procedure plan, the link for which is below.
http://www.clubmaker-online.com/draft1.html


While it's obvious that working on the short game will improving scoring, with properly selected and assembled shafts, ball striking will improve, too, but it will be less discernible to some.

[pagman]

I guess I should take back some of the comments regarding fine tuning shafts as I do believe there is some merit. I think I'm just getting fed up of you clubmakers knocking the OEM's. Are you trying to tell me that engineers/designers like Tom Stites(Nike),Chris Mcginley/Bob Vokey(Titleist), Dr. Benoit Vincent (Taylormade) or Richard Helmstetter (Callaway) don't know what they are doing? Helmstetter (and Ely for that matter) at Callaway revolutionized the game.

Can you explain to me why this component stuff from KZG, Snake Eyes, Maltby, XPC etc. all seems to come out after the OEM products. As far as I'm concerned they are nothing but clones ( I won't say knock offs as even I know that they are better quality than the knock offs). There is no engineering or design behind these components, they look exactly like the OEM stuff.

You see posts in the Want to buy classifieds of this website where someone wants OEM product X, and along comes one of the clubmakers trying to push " I can build you a cheaper version of the OEM with component Y". Enough of that nonsense!!!

Going back to the shafts.....True Temper Dynamic Gold have been around for probably 40 years and I think are still the #1 selling iron shaft in golf. I've used them for years and currently have a set in my Titleist 762's (which I purchased after a simple fitting session which involved face and sole tape and a plastic board). Those unspined, unpured, unfloed shafts and that head perform better than any other iron I've ever played. With my 8.0 index (of which I have intentions of lowering), I, like a lot of the other members of this forum ( and a lot of tour pros for that matter) will not get caught up in this hi tech shaft tuning stuff and rather concentrate on swing mechanics and good short game skills.

To think what Ben Hogan, Byron Nelson, Sam Snead, Jack, Arnie missed because their shafts weren't spined and pured. Maybe Greg Norman could have won the elusive green jacket with some flo'ed shafts.

[Chieflongtee]

:cryin So why then do most of the pros on tour nowadays have their clubs "pured"? And why do some of them add all kinds of lead tape or have some clubs grinded? I don't recall knocking down the OEM'S? I once said that clubmakers could do things that OEMS won't do mainly because of mass production. And lastly why does Harrison and Penley to name a few invest all kinds of jack in R&D to produce spineless shafts? If you want to buy the off the rack clubs then it's OK. When you performed that little sole plate test( commonly called lie test) you actually had one part of your clubs fitted.

[RoyalQ]

Hey Pag,

""""I guess I should take back some of the comments regarding fine tuning[...]""""

Reading the rest of your post, I'm not quite sure that's what you've done

[natgolfer]

I think I'm just getting fed up of you clubmakers knocking the OEM's.
If you think that by spending $1000 plus tax for a Titleist, Callaway, Mizuno, Nike set of irons, that you are getting the best fitted clubs available on the market, you are wrong. There is nothing wrong with most OEM's clubs that a good reshafting won't fix. If resale/trade-in value is important to you, then OEM's will get you more at a local retailer who takes trades.

I have only disassembled 3 sets of major OEM's-Hogan Apex blades, last years new Titleist blades and a set of Wilson's. The heads were gorgeous, except that 6 of the hosel bores were not drilled in the centre of the hosel, the swingweights did not match in any of the sets(maybe they were MOI matched ) in one set the 6 iron was stiffer than the 7, (Dynamic Gold S300's BTW), in one set some of the tips were not prepared for epoxying, some of the shafts were bent, and so on and so on. Would you not expect that for $1000 plus, you would want these clubs to be assembled better than what I just described? That's why I knock the OEM's. Great designs, but poorly assembled and overpriced.

Are you trying to tell me that engineers/designers like Tom Stites(Nike),Chris Mcginley/Bob Vokey(Titleist), Dr. Benoit Vincent (Taylormade) or Richard Helmstetter (Callaway) don't know what they are doing? Helmstetter (and Ely for that matter) at Callaway revolutionized the game. Of course they do, assuming these folks are club head designers. Their stuff is great looking, especially when you look at the back of the head, and weight distribution, shortened hosels, larger bores etc., have probably improved their performance, too, however, the real key to the success of these clubs is the design, quality and assembly of the shafts that they use. If I am going to spend $1000 on a set of forged irons, where am I likely to get a better fitted golf club? Off the rack at ***'s or from, for example, Eric Cook of Swing Sync, who is going to look at all the parameters necessary to fit you with a great set of golf clubs, like swing speed, rate of acceleration, length, lie, etc,. His KZG blades are as good as any head produced in the market today, OEM or otherwise. It's a no-brainer.

Can you explain to me why this component stuff from KZG, Snake Eyes, Maltby, XPC etc. all seems to come out after the OEM products. As I see the component industry, there is a mixture of poorly made knockoffs, designs similar to OEM's, and an increasing number of original designs that each companies produce to avoid infringing on others' patents. Admittedly, there is some junk out there, but if you stay with the better Golfsmith heads like the Proforged blades, Tom Wishon's 550m's and the KZG blades, or the corresponding cavities of these lines, and there are other good companies, you will get a club every bit as good as on OEM, even though they lack the name(Titleist) which for some is important. Have you ever heard of Mercury Golf? They produce a stepless steel shaft that is guaranteed to measure within 1 CPM any where around the 360* of the shaft. There spineless!! You won't get that from TT Dynamic Gold shafts or many Rifles. Hey, if Titleist was to put the Mercury stepless in their heads, now you would have a great set of sticks.

If you want superior component woods, try the SMT line,(smtgolf.com) or the Bang line. (banggolf.com) Unique designs, wonderful performance and at half the price.


You see posts in the Want to buy classifieds of this website where someone wants OEM product X, and along comes one of the clubmakers trying to push " I can build you a cheaper version of the OEM with component Y". I agree with this, but not all clubmakers deal in clones.

With my 8.0 index (of which I have intentions of lowering), I, like a lot of the other members of this forum ( and a lot of tour pros for that matter) will not get caught up in this hi tech shaft tuning stuff and rather concentrate on swing mechanics and good short game skills. By all means work on your game and I hope you lower that index because I understand the feeling of satisfaction that comes with improvement. Most of your improvement will come from what you do, and not from the clubs. Not being interested in the tech side of shaft fitting is a choice for you, many others and that's fine, too. But to suggest that there is no merit to proper shaft fitting and spine alignment is simple denial. While the older professionals played outstanding golf with the obsolete equipment that they had, don't kid yourself. Today's pros play with high tech, finely tuned stuff. How many of them have not been to a shaft lab or a testing facility? Would Ben, Arnie Sam and Jack have gone there, too. You bet your last Mulligan they would have.

Good luck with your game.

[lazzal]

Since the invention of the NF-2/NU-2 spine finder by Dan Nuebecker, several shaft features have become apparent---Almost all, if not all sheet wrapped graphite shafts have two spines---One is stronger than the other---They are 180 degrees from each other---At 90 degrees from them are the two NBP's---We orient the strongest spine [N-1] to the clubhead toe [12 o'clock]--Thats put one of the NBP's to the target [9 o'clock]---Orienting the N-1 to the 9 o'clock makes a much stronger shaft, but a very unforgiving club--Just a bit off the sweet spot and the ball will fly off line on the side of the sweet spot missed--

Steel is different--The spine is 180 degrees from the NBP, not 90 degrees like the graphite shaft--We still orient the NBP to the 9 o'clock which puts the spine at 3 o'clock---Some disagree with this and state that steel does not have a spine, but instead has a "residual bend" [flaw from the manufacturing process]---We agree that many shafts are not completely straight, but in the NF-2 we can diferentiate between the "false" NBP caused by the "residual bend" and the true NBP caused by the shaft flex--If the bend is "slight", we ignore it--If the bend is prominate we do not use the shaft and return it to the supplier as a reject--

Some shafts will not FLO---We have some Penley's for example, around the complete 360 degrees we can not get a flat line--So we orient by use of the spine and NBP and do get are very satisfactory functioning finished golf club---So we kind of look at FLO as good thing, but not absolutely necessary---lazzal

www.customgolfstudio.com

[Chieflongtee]

Hi LAZ. Sent you a pm.

[lazzal]

Hi LAZ. Sent you a pm.

I am pretty much retired---Dan Armstrong owns and operates the shop

My home email address is lazzal@nu-world.com

[natgolfer]

lazzal,

Until there is definitive, scientific proof that poorly aligned shafts cause otherwise good swings, to hit the ball somewhat off line, the sceptics and those in denial, will continue to dismiss those of us who have seen both how bad some shafts can be and how much improvement can be realized with proper aligning. Many assume that because it's a Titleist or a Callaway, that it must be good. Not!

A question about your use of your NF2. I borrowed Andre's FA yesterday and was checking the locations of the NBP's, spines and residual bends, on some of the shafts that I had. On some, the NF2 and the FA were in agreement, while on others, mainly cheap graphite shafts, the N1/N2 and S1/S2 markings from my NF2, were perhaps 10* to 15** off from what the FA indicated. Based on this statement We agree that many shafts are not completely straight, but in the NF-2 we can differentiate between the "false" NBP caused by the "residual bend" and the true NBP caused by the shaft flex-- what do you do to get the NF2 to indicate the different location of the residual bend from from the NBP? Is it perhaps that my NF2 has not been subjected to any of the updates?

I also found that with steel shafts, while the NF2 showed high and low deflections 180* apart, the FA showed the high/low frequencies only 90* apart. Perhaps the latter shows the true spine versus a measurement of part of the residual bend.

It is also interesting that several major shaft manufacturers are now selling shafts that have been spined and labelled to be installed in a particular way. Penley, Rifle, UST are examples. It is also my understanding that Harrison is changing their manufacturing procedures to produce shafts that are close to spineless like the SK Fibers. If there were no benefits to this spining idea, why would these major companies even consider doing this?

[lazzal]

In my previous post where I referred to Spine as N-1, I meant to write S-1 for the strongest spine, S-2 for the weaker spine--Thanks Andre for pointing this out--

Some of the earlier than the NF-2/Nu-2 spine finders can be a bit tricky to get a correct reading---On the 3 bearing, 2 bearings inside the PVC and one pushing down on the shaft tip, the shaft will turn with the most flexibile side on top, almost!!---If you rotate the shaft to the point where it snaps down, then mark the top side, then rotate the opposite direction and let it snap down and again mark the top side, there will be a space between these two marks---The "true" NBP is half way between these two marks---Spine will be 180 degrees from this middle mark for steel shafts

On the NF-2, the shaft will snap down also, but is does it exact--You can mark the top side, then rotate to the highest reading on the dial indicator to get the spine---On steel shafts this is 180 degrees from the NBP---For graphite the shaft snaps down to NBP also, but when you find the highest reading on the dial indicator it will be 90 degrees from the NBP---Both NBP's will read almost exactly the same amplitude on the dial indicator---The false "residual bend" on steel is easy to locate---It will be a "less" reading on the dial than the spine and "more" reading than the true NBP--

[Chieflongtee]

Hi Lazzal.
Sorry for thinking you were Dan Armstrong. Coul you perform the following test for me? Do you have access to a frequency analyser? Or do you know someone who has one?
Could you insert a steel shaft in your NF2 and mark the spine and the NBP. Then insert the same shaft in the FA and tell me if your mark corresponds to the highest cpm and lowest cpm in the FA when the shaft is rotated. Please let me know your findings. Your help in conducting this experiment would be greatly appreciated. Have a great day.

[lazzal]

Andr'e----Sent you an Email---FYI on this forum

We found that on graphite with the two NBP's in the "twang" plane the readings can be as much as 15CPM's less than having the two spines in the "twang" plane--

On steel when the NBP is in the "twang" plane the spine is also because they are 180 degrees from each other--We found also that if the steel is rotated 90 degrees and "twanged" on the frequency analyzer the shaft is so erratic the readings are not consistent--As I explained the Andr'e, the shaft does a strange thing almost like a boat propeller would "cavitate" in water---That is probably the wrong description, but it acts strange--We would never assemble a club with the NBP and the spine on steel to the 12 and 6 o'clock anyway, so really does not matter--

lazzal

[Chieflongtee]

Lazzal. Or anybody with a spinefinder and a FA.
I am not debating your alignment method. That's entirely up to you. All I am asking of you is to conduct the little test and get back with your findings.

[natgolfer]

Well Andre, being a former believer that the spine was 180* from the NBP in a steel shaft, I conducted your test and found: (1) that the true NBP and spine, point of lowest and highest frequencies on your FA, were 90* apart, not 180*.

(2) I also tested a graphite shaft, rotating through 360*, the deflection and frequency readings of which were:

N1 .560" 196 CPM

S2 .598" 203 CPM

N2 .570" 196 CPM

S1 .605" 203 CPM

So obviously, S1 = S2, and N1 = N2 on the FA, but not on the NF2.

Now comes the $64,000 question, for those old enough to remember that programme(I do). Why does the NF2 show different N1/N2 and S1/S2 readings while the FA does not?

The other interesting thing is that the NBP found on the NF2 is not quite in the same position as found by the FA. While my alignment procedure will not change, ie., NBP to 9:00, I will now align the true NBP, unless someone can prove to me that the FA is lying.

[lazzal]

We kind "eye ball" for shaft bend---We roll the raw shaft on a flat work bench top and see if there is a place the shaft raises from the bench top indicating a bend---If there is we mark the top where the shaft is bending down---Then we insert into the NF-2 and see if our NBP is going to be with that mark on top---If it is we search for another NBP with less amplitude on the dial indicator, if we find one we mark that---The we search for the two spines---If the two spines are 90 degrees from our low amplitude NBP, we assume our NBP mark was correct--We then ignore a residual bend point mark---

For steel we do the same---We mark the top of the shaft where the shaft is bending down if there is a residual bend---We then use the NF-2 to see if we are going to get a NBP that does not have our residual bend point mark on the top side---If we do we mark that, then search for the spine---If the spine is 180 degrees from NBP mark we consider we have both spine and NBP---If the spine is 180 degrees from the residual bend mark and the amplitude is about the same for residual bend position as the NBP mark, we use the spine at 3 o'clock and the residual bend mark at the 9 o'clock, if they are 180 degrees from each other-----

[Chieflongtee]

Lazzal. :reallymad Natgolfer and I (correct me if I'm wrong Natgolfer) know the procedures for finding S1 S2 N1 N2 in a spinefinder. Please conduct the experiment that Natgolfer performed with the Frequency analyser and then we can talk....

[natgolfer]

For steel we do the same---We mark the top of the shaft where the shaft is bending down if there is a residual bend---We then use the NF-2 to see if we are going to get a NBP that does not have our residual bend point mark on the top side---If we do we mark that, then search for the spine---If the spine is 180 degrees from NBP mark we consider we have both spine and NBP---If the spine is 180 degrees from the residual bend mark and the amplitude is about the same for residual bend position as the NBP mark, we use the spine at 3 o'clock and the residual bend mark at the 9 o'clock, if they are 180 degrees from each other-----

I/we understand your procedure, however, you are still saying that on a steel shaft that the spine and the NBP are 180* apart, because the NF2 indicates this. A frequency analyser does not agree with the NF2. The FA I am using shows the spine to be 90* from the NBP in all of a dozen steel shafts that I just checked, even though the NF2 shows the highest deflection 180* apart.

So either the FA is measuring something that is not the spine, or the NF2 is, because the locations differ by 90*. One of these is measuring the true spine and one is NOT, that is quite obvious. The question is: which plane of highest frequency/deflection has the greatest affect on shaft performance? Probably neither, if aligning the true NBP to target is the orientation used.

Dave Tutleman and John Kaufman were right-and I actually doubted their findings.

[lazzal]

I/we understand your procedure, however, you are still saying that on a steel shaft that the spine and the NBP are 180* apart, because the NF2 indicates this. A frequency analyser does not agree with the NF2. The FA I am using shows the spine to be 90* from the NBP in all of a dozen steel shafts that I just checked, even though the NF2 shows the highest deflection 180* apart.

So either the FA is measuring something that is not the spine, or the NF2 is, because the locations differ by 90*. One of these is measuring the true spine and one is NOT, that is quite obvious. The question is: which plane of highest frequency/deflection has the greatest affect on shaft performance? Probably neither, if aligning the true NBP to target is the orientation used.

Dave Tutleman and John Kaufman were right-and I actually doubted their findings.

OK OK OK You want numbers?????

45 inch club with graphite shaft , 202 gram clubhead, 5 inch clamp Stiff flex, S-1--245 CPM's, S-2 --241 , NBP's both 239 CPM's---

TX-90 "R" flex 39.5 inch club [3 iron], 240 gram clubhead, 5 inch clamp S-1 in the twang plane 278 CPM's , reverse 180 degrees 279 CPM's, [do not know why??], rotate 90 degrees, not sure, 269 to 273, not stable---

[Chieflongtee]

OK OK OK You want numbers?????

45 inch club with graphite shaft , 202 gram clubhead, 5 inch clamp Stiff flex, S-1--245 CPM's, S-2 --241 , NBP's both 239 CPM's---

TX-90 "R" flex 39.5 inch club [3 iron], 240 gram clubhead, 5 inch clamp S-1 in the twang plane 278 CPM's , reverse 180 degrees 279 CPM's, [do not know why??], rotate 90 degrees, not sure, 269 to 273, not stable---

Lazzal.
I have been giving your reply some thought and 3 things came to mind.Either you fudged the numbers just to prove me wrong either your clubs are seriously misaligned or your FA is out of control. There is only one S and one N in a FA therefore the same frequency in the S and the same frequency in the N plane.

[Chieflongtee]

Moreover if SI and S2 were to be different and N1 N2 were to be different as well you'd never be able to find FLO. :dj

[Chieflongtee]

http://www.clubmakingwire.com/sst_2004_05_10.html