Soft and Hard stepping

[sammypvt]

Am I right in assuming that soft stepping is to remove the 3 iron shaft, insert it in the 4 iron head and butt trim to the correct length. Hard stepping is to remove the 3 iron shaft and tip trim to length before assembling it in the 4 iron head. Softstepping makes the shafts softer and hardstepping makes it harder. Double stepping is 3 iron shaft to the 5 iron head, etc etc. Comments please.

[Weirfan]

Am I right in assuming that soft stepping is to remove the 3 iron shaft, insert it in the 4 iron head and butt trim to the correct length. Hard stepping is to remove the 3 iron shaft and tip trim to length before assembling it in the 4 iron head. Softstepping makes the shafts softer and hardstepping makes it harder. Double stepping is 3 iron shaft to the 5 iron head, etc etc. Comments please.

essentially that is it for softstepping

hard stepping is moving a shaf the other way....so taking a shaft that was set up for a heavier head , the 4 iron and putting it in a 3 iron.

when you move pre cut shafts be wary that when you hard step....the shaft will be a 1/2 inch shorter....when you soft step 1/2 inch longer....and if you are doing a full set...somewhere you need an extra shaft on the ends....

also ss will add a bit of traj and hs lower.....

[sammypvt]

So what is the difference between doing what I said, tip trim making the shaft stiffer and leaving it the correct length. IE if the 3 iron is 39 inches, to put it into a 4 iron, the shaft will be half an inch too long, if it is tip trimmed by 1/2 an inch it will be 38.5 inches and stiffer. Obviously the 4 iron head is heavier but the small gram weight difference would not compensate for the differential of the tip trim of around 4 to 5 cpms. Isnt one the same as the other. moving the 4 iron into the 3 iron head means a butt extention of 1/2 inch.

[Weirfan]

So what is the difference between doing what I said, tip trim making the shaft stiffer and leaving it the correct length. IE if the 3 iron is 39 inches, to put it into a 4 iron, the shaft will be half an inch too long, if it is tip trimmed by 1/2 an inch it will be 38.5 inches and stiffer. Obviously the 4 iron head is heavier but the small gram weight difference would not compensate for the differential of the tip trim of around 4 to 5 cpms. Isnt one the same as the other. moving the 4 iron into the 3 iron head means a butt extention of 1/2 inch.

if I unsderstand what you are saying.....

if you take a 3 iron shaft and tip it an extra 1/2 inch putt it in the 4 iron head and butt trim it to length then all you have done is created a normal 4 iron shaft.

yes you added 4 cpm by tipping an inch, a 7 gram wt difference in the head is about 3.5 cpm ( 2 grams = 1 cpm) you have not really changed anything here so I am not sure why would do this.

when you take a raw set of parallel shafts they will basically have some std trim guide and say something like tip 1/2 inch for the 3 iron, and butt cut to length then progressively tip in 1/2 inch increments as you move to the 4, 5 etc.

remember, when you tip a shaft, you are not making a shaft stiffer because you are taking shaft away from the tip......you are making the shaft stiffer because you are leaving more butt section ( the butt being the stiffest part of a shaft).....so as you tip a set of prallel shafts the progressive stiffening is due to leaving more butt section to manage the heavier head weights.

tipping is also for trajectory control

[sammypvt]

I understand what your saying, but the soft stepping issue isnt what I am getting at, lets shelve this issue and move to hard stepping. Lets break it down. If you dry fit and tip trim shafts ready for installation, the 9 iron shaft will be 4cpms greater to accomodate for the extra head weight, correct. Therefore if you take that head off (at a later date) and use the same shaft to hard step up to an 8 iron, you end up with a shaft that is on a lighter head and if left the same length, ie 1/2 an inch shorter, you would get 1/2 a flex stiffer (aprox 4 cpm's). Problem here is that in order to achieve the correct playing length in the new hard stepped 8 iron, you must add 1/2 an inch to the butt, which brings it back to the exact same shaft you had in the 8 iron to begin with. I just simply dont understand how adding length to achieve a longer shaft (9 to 8 = + 1/2 inch) that the shaft can become stiffer. Removing from the tip end brings stiffness, (for reasons you allready stated) not the other way round surely.
I just spent 30 mins on my Mitchel F analiser with an old stock shaft and by tip trimming and adding the same length taken from the tip, to the butt, then putting it into a lighter head (9 to an 8) it came out the exact same frequency for the 8 as opposed to what it was before in the heavier 9 iron head. Is my machine broke or am I heading for the looney bin.

[Weirfan]

LOL! I assure you that you are not crazy

but now you have me going in circles...and I am tired

remeber freq slope not a flat line.

also, using a 5 inch clamp....a full flex is about 12 cpm so 4 cpm is not a 1/2 flex but a 1/3 flex and what is what you achieve typically when you hs and ss.

so remember a slope......
325 cpm 9 iron at 36 inches = R flex
321 cpm 8 iron a 36.5 inches = R flex

not sure what methodology and readings you are getting but take a raw parallel tip steel shaft

tip it per the recs for the 9 iron then twang it at 9 iron length = 36 inches, then put the 8 iron head on and twang it at 36.5 inches it should be roughly the same same cpm.

325 cpm 9 iron @36 = R flex
325 cpm 8 iron @36.5 = R+ flex

[Weirfan]

I understand what your saying, but the soft stepping issue isnt what I am getting at, lets shelve this issue and move to hard stepping. Lets break it down. If you dry fit and tip trim shafts ready for installation, the 9 iron shaft will be 4cpms greater to accomodate for the extra head weight, correct. Therefore if you take that head off (at a later date) and use the same shaft to hard step up to an 8 iron, you end up with a shaft that is on a lighter head and if left the same length, ie 1/2 an inch shorter, you would get 1/2 a flex stiffer (aprox 4 cpm's). Problem here is that in order to achieve the correct playing length in the new hard stepped 8 iron, you must add 1/2 an inch to the butt, which brings it back to the exact same shaft you had in the 8 iron to begin with. I just simply dont understand how adding length to achieve a longer shaft (9 to 8 = + 1/2 inch) that the shaft can become stiffer. Removing from the tip end brings stiffness, (for reasons you allready stated) not the other way round surely.
I just spent 30 mins on my Mitchel F analiser with an old stock shaft and by tip trimming and adding the same length taken from the tip, to the butt, then putting it into a lighter head (9 to an 8) it came out the exact same frequency for the 8 as opposed to what it was before in the heavier 9 iron head. Is my machine broke or am I heading for the looney bin.

here is your hang up......again it is butt that is the stiffest part of the shaft.....we remove tip section ( the weakest part of the shaft) more butt section equals stiffer....lighter head equals stiffer

it is not the same shaft.....the nine iron tipped shaft will have more of the weaker part of the shaft taken away from it and more of the stiffer part of the shaft left than the 8 iron tipped shaft..where more weak shaft is left and more strong shaft (butt) is taken away

[BC MIST]

A philosophical question. In a 3 to AW set of 9 irons, the frequency difference between successive clubs is 4.5 cpm's, making the AW 36 cpm's stiffer than the 3. According to the above, 12 cpm's constitute a flex range, therefore, the AW is 3 flex ranges stiffer than the 3. And yet, all the clubs in this set could be classified as a "REGULAR". Why?

In my non-traditional mind, all clubs that have the SAME frequency, should have the SAME classification and so are matched. A set of clubs with different frequencies should have a different classification label as they are mismatched, but at least they are mismatched consistently.

We also know that the tip stiffness is a factor in trajectory, so NOT trimming from the tip should allow the flexing forward of the shaft through impact to be more consistent with the loft of the club influencing the trajectory difference the most. However, if you tip trim, the stiffer tip of the shaft tends to decrease the trajectory. Thus, even though there should be a consistent loft difference to make a consistent difference in trajectory, when one adds the increasingly stiffer tip to the equation, should this not make the successive trajectory's inconsistent? Perhaps this is accomodated by having the centre of gravity of each successive club head fractionally lower than the preceeding one

[Weirfan]

BC, I just spent 20 minutes typing out a very long and detailed response to your points....but for about the 10th time since I joined here I push submit and get bounced off....very frustrating
I have not the time or energy to rewrite it....only to say that I can guarantee you 100 % that you will not find a frequency matched set of clubs in any store bought set...even if frequency matched shafts are used there will still be variability

the addage of shorter shafts with heavier heads needing to be stiffer is not new nor is it the gospel.

frequency does not equal flex....but the PCS has logged ranges of freq for "flexes"

a good clubbuilder will build the set of clubs to the frequency slope that best suits the golfer .

recommended shaft trim guides are justthat frecs from the manufacturer...to follow those as gospel would be reflective of poor clubmaking

here is a nice read on flex and freq

http://www.golftodaymagazine.com/0302Feb/flex.htm

as for your tip trim and launch....while I agree a bit, the effect swing mechanics, head loft, and club head design are going to to be the major factors impacting trajectory....in irons the shaft charcteristice are a minimal contributor

oh kudos for thinking non-traditionally...I tend to be more empirically motivated

[mpare]

I have had similar problems in the past and have found a solution that you might want to employ. My guess is that you get bounced, because you've timed out of the reply area of the site. This happens because while typing your answer, the site software assumes that you are not active. The solution to this is to either type the extended reply in Word and paste it into your reply or copy the body of your reply before hitting the Submit Reply key. If you do that and you get bounced, then you can simply "Post Reply" anew and paste your saved message in the message box and then hit Submit Reply. Sorry for being so long-winded, but it works.

BC, I just spent 20 minutes typing out a very long and detailed response to your points....but for about the 10th time since I joined here I push submit and get bounced off....very frustrating

[Chieflongtee]

http://www.golftodaymagazine.com/0302Feb/flex.htm

Thanks for the link. A very interesting read. However I have built a couple sets using a flatline slope and I did not lose any distance at all in the short irons. As a matter of fact I gained distance and had to readjust my yardage with each club. Granted the lofts were a little strong on one particular set but still did not lose any distance( 8 iron 160 yards Raven undercuts)

[mcgoo]

It has happen to me often also. But if you open a wordprocessing program without exiting the site you automatically log out of the site, which is double troubling. My solution is too be loged on to the site twice but this also a pain in the but.

[rhh7]

A philosophical question. In a 3 to AW set of 9 irons, the frequency difference between successive clubs is 4.5 cpm's, making the AW 36 cpm's stiffer than the 3. According to the above, 12 cpm's constitute a flex range, therefore, the AW is 3 flex ranges stiffer than the 3. And yet, all the clubs in this set could be classified as a "REGULAR". Why?

In my non-traditional mind, all clubs that have the SAME frequency, should have the SAME classification and so are matched. A set of clubs with different frequencies should have a different classification label as they are mismatched, but at least they are mismatched consistently.

We also know that the tip stiffness is a factor in trajectory, so NOT trimming from the tip should allow the flexing forward of the shaft through impact to be more consistent with the loft of the club influencing the trajectory difference the most. However, if you tip trim, the stiffer tip of the shaft tends to decrease the trajectory. Thus, even though there should be a consistent loft difference to make a consistent difference in trajectory, when one adds the increasingly stiffer tip to the equation, should this not make the successive trajectory's inconsistent? Perhaps this is accomodated by having the centre of gravity of each successive club head fractionally lower than the preceeding one

I agree with this, so I am going to build my new set of irons with no tip trimming whatsoever, only butt trim to length.

[Weirfan]

I agree with this, so I am going to build my new set of irons with no tip trimming whatsoever, only butt trim to length.

there is no reason why you cannot do this....clubfitters change the slope al the time.

I have done butt trim only on several occasions, mostly with thick walled grapite shafts and slower ss golfers.....and some shafts are designed as such...butt trim only ....like the Apollo Hump....

whether it works for you really depends on your needs and the shafts

when people are in doubt the best method is to find the amount of trim that works best for you for the shortest and longest irons in your set....then trim the irons in between to that slope. it is more work but the bst

good luck and let us know how it works

[Started2k3]

Maybe one of you guys could answer this.

According to the formula (see Tutelman's or Kaufmann's sites for full formula) doesn't tip trimming have a dispropotional effect on frequency measurements along the shaft?

This is what I have noted.
Partial derivative (note I have converted to %):
%f = -3/2*%L

So a 0.5" tip trim will increase the tip section frequency by 7.5% (measured initially at 10") and at the butt section by 2.4% (measured initially at 31"). Likewise, 1.0" tip trim --> 15% increase at 10" measurement and 4.8% at butt.

So although a hard/soft stepped shaft may have very little stiffness/softness change in butt section, the tip section would be quite a bit stiffer/softer. This increase in the tip section could be more than a "flex" (depending on the initial flex of the shaft).

Is this correct?

[Weirfan]

Maybe one of you guys could answer this.

According to the formula (see Tutelman's or Kaufmann's sites for full formula) doesn't tip trimming have a dispropotional effect on frequency measurements along the shaft?

This is what I have noted.
Partial derivative (note I have converted to %):
%f = -3/2*%L

So a 0.5" tip trim will increase the tip section frequency by 7.5% (measured initially at 10") and at the butt section by 2.4% (measured initially at 31"). Likewise, 1.0" tip trim --> 15% increase at 10" measurement and 4.8% at butt.

So although a hard/soft stepped shaft may have very little stiffness/softness change in butt section, the tip section would be quite a bit stiffer/softer. This increase in the tip section could be more than a "flex" (depending on the initial flex of the shaft).

Is this correct?

If you consider that in all most all steel shafts the thinnest part is the tip and the shaft gets thicker as you move towards the butt....this makes sense...I cannot substantiate the exact quantification of change but,,,,yes you would have a more proportionate increase in tip stiffness versus butt stiffness as you shorten the beam length for your frequency measurement.

[Started2k3]

If you consider that in all most all steel shafts the thinnest part is the tip and the shaft gets thicker as you move towards the butt....this makes sense...I cannot substantiate the exact quantification of change but,,,,yes you would have a more proportionate increase in tip stiffness versus butt stiffness as you shorten the beam length for your frequency measurement.

Why not just run an experiment?

Do a Wishon style frequency profile (measurements at 30", 25", 20", 15", 10" from tip).
Then tip trim by 0.5".
Then re-profile but taking into account the tip trim so measurements at
29.5", 24.5", 19.5", 14.5", 9.5" from tip (same physical postion on the shaft).

Then see if the relative changes of the measurements are disproportionate. If they are, do they match (or at least come close to) theory?

[Weirfan]

Why not just run an experiment?

Do a Wishon style frequency profile (measurements at 30", 25", 20", 15", 10" from tip).
Then tip trim by 0.5".
Then re-profile but taking into account the tip trim so measurements at
29.5", 24.5", 19.5", 14.5", 9.5" from tip (same physical postion on the shaft).

Then see if the relative changes of the measurements are disproportionate. If they are, do they match (or at least come close to) theory?

shaft profiling is not new nor proprietary to Tom Wishon...the PCS has been doing it for years and it is being done being done all over and data bases are being compiled by ind and groups.....

I do believe that all this information is available and taken into consideration by shaft manufacturers when they rec their shaft tipping guidelines.

It is not theory that a shaft wall is thicker at the butt, but fact....it is not theory that a soft stepping or hardstepping changes the relative flex, but fact.....I am not sure what yiu are getting at???

[Started2k3]

I was just responding to the part in bold from your post. That the relative effect should be quantifiable.

shaft profiling is not new nor proprietary to Tom Wishon...the PCS has been doing it for years and it is being done being done all over and data bases are being compiled by ind and groups.....

Great. I was just using Wishon as an example. Are these databases readily available to the public?

I do believe that all this information is available and taken into consideration by shaft manufacturers when they rec their shaft tipping guidelines.

Great.

It is not theory that a shaft wall is thicker at the butt, but fact....

As I recall from my limited experience:
-the butt diameter is thicker than the tip (this is obvious so no debate)
-the wall thickness in a graphite shaft is thicker at the tip than at the butt
-the wall thickness in a steel shaft is about the same at the tip and butt
(unfortunately I don't have calipers or shafts lying around to check this.)

it is not theory that a soft stepping or hardstepping changes the relative flex, but fact.....I am not sure what yiu are getting at???

I was just curious if fact matched theory.

The theory is based on a uniform shaft (same diameter and wall thickness along the entire length), while in real life the shafts are tapered or stepped.

[Weirfan]

I do not believe that the information is being distributed widely.... The info on steel shafts that have been around forever is discussed ad nauseum...graphite not so much.
The old Dynacraft DFSI tables are great for basic information.

There is loads of data being collected by various groups.....some with freq analysers, some with the Neufinder, there are other devices as well for profiling and I think that Wishon is trying to create a data base, the problem is there is variability btn shafts from same runs and different runs in a same model...so many have to be tested and with a specific and consistent criteria to be accurate.

I think that you are correct on your shaft thickness ....the stiffness obviously relates to more steel per square inch in the butt versus tip.

The Apollo Hump though is a unique beast

[BC MIST]

frequency does not equal flex....but the PCS has logged ranges of freq for "flexes"
http://www.golftodaymagazine.com/0302Feb/flex.htm

I just read the article but it did not give me an explanation of what I had hoped it would. In reading stuff like this that sound so good, I look for clues, statements that give the entire work credibility.

We all know that what the shaft label says, does not necessarily mean that the shaft is that. The PCS Equalizer obviously helps to more accurately define the flex of the shaft. What bothered me was the bold statement that a shaft that is too stiff robs the golfer of a significant amount of distance. Contrast that with Eric Cook who says that club head speed is NOT related to shaft stiffness.

The article does not define exactly what "flex" is, but does state that the perfect flex is the point where swing speed and ball speed is the highest. So when I find the highest of each, how do I define the flex of that shaft? What is really meant by "a shaft that is too soft does not have the "backbone" to carry the clubhead energy through the ball?"

The one statement that blew me away in its stupidity and inaccuracy was "the flat line slope won't work for everyone...we're not sure it is right for anyone." I guess that means that my 0.2 factor would be +6.6 if I had a sloped set versus a flat line one. Tom Wishon responded to my post on his forum where I wanted his opinion on which would be better. He indicated that it was just perception. If you think that a flat is better, it is, and if you think a sloped is better , it is. Not very technical, but probably more accurate than what this guy wrote.

The author's suggestion to have the long irons soft and flat, the mid irons stiffer, but flat and the short irons stiffer again, but flat as well, also made me shake my head. He said have the long irons this way for tempo, mid irons for consistency and short irons "take another step up the frequency chart." I decide what the tempo is, not the club, and I want the same tempo for all clubs. Likewise, I want consistency with all my clubs not just the mid irons and what's the hidden meaning of "take another step up the frequency chart?"

Some writings make it tough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Weirfan]

BC...I am sorry for posting a link with "flawed" info. The reference was used soley for the showing a reference to slopes and frequency and flex and the different possible methodologies.

I could not find the link I wanted to the actual scientific paper and other web site on shaft flex and freq so this one was all I could find saved.

As for the remainder of the article...truth be I did not read much more of it,,,,have now
I too do not prescribe to the notion that club head speed is not related to shaft stiffness....however am positive that too stiff a shaft for someone will in most, not all, instances decrease their distance....sometimes though a stiff shaft will increase accuracy and in so doing distance.
Too many other variables at play so his logic is not sound.
Smash factor is far more related making good center face contact with a sound swing and as such to a golfers ability to achieve this.....and I would say much more to a properly fitted shaft for length than flex.... Release point , angle of attack etc etc all come into play
The shaft is a vehicle for helping transfer the energy from the swing energy to the ball....it does not add additional energy to the ball by springing forward like a boomerang..I think that TW has spoken of this before.
Too soft or too stiff a shaft can certainly rob distances more to directional miscuses.
As for flat slope...it does work, I have used it ......in isolation of other methods of setting up clubs it will however not be appropriate for many and there are definite feel and performance impacts....sheesh....I do not want to disagree with Tom ...but it is some thing that is perceivable......moreso to the higher ss golfer and less so to the lower ss golfer.
Anyways we have kinda taken this thread on a tangent....great discussion I would be happy to continue in another thread or offline
I hope that I can find the other references I was meaning to post

[Weirfan]

FWIW, it does appear that this author has at least some credibility in your books

http://forum.ottawagolf.com/showthread.php?t=20111

see and I am one not yet convinced that MOI matching is the new greatest thing in clubmaking....not yet anyway and not enough to use it regularly even though the person I respect most in the industry Tom W does.

[Chieflongtee]

See this Charles:
http://www.freegolfinfo.com/forums/t...&key=&#1981361

What happens to the shaft will depend mostly on the shaft design, but in general, yes.

When you replace tip (thin and flexible) with butt (stuff and inflexible) in the total length of the shaft you will usually stiffen the playing flex.

On steel, it's automatic.

On graphite, it's going to depend on the shaft's design.

Shafts with a softer butt section will not "move" much, while shafts with a very stiff butt will react to tip trimming with much more vigor.

An easy way to test this is to not trim the shaft, but to use a tip weight that you can slide up over the tip 1 1/2" before you tighten it. Then simply slide the shaft foward in the clamp 1 1/2" simulating the addition of a butt extension (which will be under the clamp) and you can see what will happen if you tip and extend a specific shaft.

-t

[BC MIST]

I could not find the link I wanted to the actual scientific paper and other web site on shaft flex and freq so this one was all I could find saved.

If you ever find these links I would appreciate your passing them on as they are always interesting and informative.

I too do not prescribe to the notion that club head speed is not related to shaft stiffness....however am positive that too stiff a shaft for someone will in most, not all, instances decrease their distance....sometimes though a stiff shaft will increase accuracy and in so doing distance.

Solely from my experience using shafts of hugely varying stiffnesses, I agree with Eric. The FEEL was different, the trajectory a little higher with the softer shafts, but the distance and accuracy was the same.

The shaft is a vehicle for helping transfer the energy from the swing energy to the ball....it does not add additional energy to the ball by springing forward like a boomerang..

Amen! How many golfers have been told that "the shaft is the engine of the golf club?" Nonsense. I am the engine and as you said, the shaft transfers my energy through good or bad mechanics, through the shaft, to the ball.

After 18 or so years of assembling clubs and trying to learn some of the science of shaft performance, I am slowing coming to the conclusion that the shaft has a lot LESS an affect on ball flight than we have been led to believe. Feel and trajectory are all important and stiffness has little affect on distance and accuracy.

If you can jump into the single frequency matched mindset for an instant, when you say that a shaft that is too stiff is less accurate, then all of you who play traditionally sloped frequencies, are playing with clubs whose frequencies cover 3 full flexes, so some may be too stiff and some may be too flexible. This could have a negative affect and D & A, if you believe stiffness is a factor influencing these. If your downswing effort is the same with all clubs, it is illogical to me to have 9 irons with 9 different frequencies, AND 9 different MOI's.

[Started2k3]

See this Charles:
http://www.freegolfinfo.com/forums/t...&key=&#1981361

What happens to the shaft will depend mostly on the shaft design, but in general, yes.

When you replace tip (thin and flexible) with butt (stuff and inflexible) in the total length of the shaft you will usually stiffen the playing flex.

On steel, it's automatic.

On graphite, it's going to depend on the shaft's design.

Shafts with a softer butt section will not "move" much, while shafts with a very stiff butt will react to tip trimming with much more vigor.

An easy way to test this is to not trim the shaft, but to use a tip weight that you can slide up over the tip 1 1/2" before you tighten it. Then simply slide the shaft foward in the clamp 1 1/2" simulating the addition of a butt extension (which will be under the clamp) and you can see what will happen if you tip and extend a specific shaft.

-t

I get it. It is because we are trimming and extending. The trim would increase the frequency by 2.4% (based in 0.5" trim and 31" measurement), but the extension would decrease the frequency by 2.4%. This would result in an almost identical CPM reading. The reason why a shaft may read stiffer is because of the nonlinear slope of frequency vs length. So the steeper the nonlinear slope of the butt section the more the CPMs will increase from a tip trim, but even this will only be marginal.

Since the nonlinear slope increases as the point of measurement gets closer to the tip, then the effective stiffening effect would increase.

Cool. Thanks Chief.