HELP, going crazy with launch monitor numbers on IRONS

[sammypvt]

Anyone out there fancy helping an old dinosaur that has been building clubs since the early 70’s. Long gone are the days of me chasing round a cold Irish garage, hunting for penny shims, looking for the best fine grit wet and dry sand paper and spending 10 hours on an old beat up persimmon driver. I am trying to understand building better, but all I hear on the forums are driver this, hybrid that and distance distance distance. I have spent a lot of time and effort, trying to understand the bread and butter end of the game by researching irons. I'm going crazy trying to understand iron launch monitor numbers better. It seems that the only data we can trust for this stuff is from radar or Trackman data. Does anyone have individual iron shots for further review and allow me to do a sanity check. A fax number can be provided if your reports are ready to send! I appreciate that most of you guys keep your data to yourselves; I am willing to share and really would appreciate the help.

[jvincent]

What are you trying to understand about the iron numbers?

[sammypvt]

What are you trying to understand about the iron numbers?

Different data gained by testing on Trackman and the like. I use Zelocity and have tested over 20 different combos and the results are quite different especially when different balls are used. I just would like to compare and share data.

[jvincent]

It sounds like you might be changing too many variables.

If you are trying to compare launch angles for two different iron heads you need to keep all other variables constant: shaft, ball, golfer, tee height, etc. or you won't be able to correlate changes in launch conditions properly.

[sammypvt]

It sounds like you might be changing too many variables.

If you are trying to compare launch angles for two different iron heads you need to keep all other variables constant: shaft, ball, golfer, tee height, etc. or you won't be able to correlate changes in launch conditions properly.

Been there, done that, got loads of data on that, but i would love trackman data for a different slant on things.

[TourIQ]

It sounds like you might be changing too many variables.

If you are trying to compare launch angles for two different iron heads you need to keep all other variables constant: shaft, ball, golfer, tee height, etc. or you won't be able to correlate changes in launch conditions properly.

Hi jvincent

I have run statistical tests changing many variables at the same time and it works.
It's called Design of Experiments [DOE]. Another method is Taguchi Robust Engineering.
The experiments are either Full Factorial or Fractional Factorial. You get better analysis.

With changing only 1 variable at a time, you can never test for a two-factor interaction.
There is specialized statistical software available to design, and analyze such experiments.
It's part of the Six Sigma Black Belt Body of Knowledge. It works but few want to use it.

My son once built 16 SW's and studied the effect of 5 variables and 10 two-factor interactions.
Then he rebuilt his Vokey's using the optimal predicted levels. They were 'golden' once rebuilt.

[TourIQ]

I'm going crazy trying to understand iron launch monitor numbers better. It seems that the only data we can trust for this stuff is from radar or Trackman data. Does anyone have individual iron shots for further review and allow me to do a sanity check.

Hi sammypvt

I think you hit the nail on the head. TrackMan is the only Launch Monitor
I would trust for reliable data. Many LM's only project the illusion of precision.
I also believe in using data from outside testing, and not hit to screen 15' away.
Many tests are not designed properly, so its garbage in and garbage out
Now to save up my $25K USD so I can purchase TrackMan and continue my research.
I've got research planned, but I really need a TrackMan to make it a reality.
A robot would be nice too, but I would take TrackMan over a hitting machine.