Shaft Spining the same as Puring?

[Txxxxxxx]

As the title states, is it the same? I've read a couple of articles that mention the two words in the same sentence. I've had my shafts spine aligned before, but I notice a charge on the Golfworks site for puring service.

Is this the same method with two different names?

[jvincent]

Sort of.

PURing is a patented/trademarked process that involves putting the shaft in a special machine that determines the optimal alignment.

Spining is essentially the same idea, i.e. finding the optimal alignment, but there are many different methods that people use to find the spine.

You might also see the term FLO used as well.

[Txxxxxxx]

So essentially it's the same method as far as purpose goes? Is one better than the other?

[jvincent]

Well, the PURE guys would tell you there's is better since it's a commercially licensed/marketed system.

My swing is inconsistent enough that I don't bother.

[Chieflongtee]

Not the same method. This guy explains it well. There is more to it than the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DecL0hWralc

[Txxxxxxx]

The reason I ask is because I bought two shafts for my new driver and fwy wood that were spined and had the Titleist adapters installed. I was originally going to bring them to Golfworks to have them pured.

[hoganblades]

How did it work out for you?

Puring seems to me to be essentially spine aligning with high precision on a frequency meter. Simply spine aligning with a bearing setup doesn't seem too precise after doing some research on the topic. But, through my research, I think it provides a good starting point. After that, FLO aligning the shafts/heads makes sense to me.

I am really not sure how much difference aligning the heads makes. Are my slices, unintended fades, and hooks more a result of my swing, or the shaft alignment? Probably the former, and more a matter of how I am swinging it that day. However, I must say that I would like to have the confidence of knowing that I have set up my clubs to be as precise as possible so that my misses are in fact my fault. I think it is worth the cost for this reason, whichever way you go.

I am assembling my own clubs. I first spine align on a bearing setup, then I go the FLO route. I don't own a frequency meter, but when I see one at a cheap price, I'll snatch it up. Then I can be more precise. As a side note, I was surprised to find that I could detect spines in iron shafts, contrary to what some club builders report.

Cheers!

[Chieflongtee]

I am assembling my own clubs. I first spine align on a bearing setup, then I go the FLO route. I don't own a frequency meter, but when I see one at a cheap price, I'll snatch it up. Then I can be more precise. As a side note, I was surprised to find that I could detect spines in iron shafts, contrary to what some club builders report.

Cheers!

Not bad but only an approximation. As you know a shaft will FLO in the spine plane and also in the NBP plane. So you find FLO but don't know which is which. You could have 269 cpm in the spine plane and 261 cpm in the NBP plane. Which one are you going to align to the target?
Most steel shafts usually have the same cpm all the way around the shaft and will FLO in pretty much any direction. If there is a cpm variation it will be in the 1-2 cpm range and not worth aligning.
If you think you have found spines in a steel shaft in a bearing type spinefinder they only are shaft irregularities such as a bend, a shaft label, thicker in one spot, out of roundness etc..

Having a shaft spined will make for a better more consistent stick but they won't make you a better player.
BTW have you ever seen anyone spine their putter?

[hoganblades]

Hi Chieflongtee,
Thanks for the info! Some great food for thought, especially about the steel shafts having such little variation in cpms around the shaft.

The instructions that came with the bearing tool said to align the shafts with the bump felt in the shaft facing down the target line (or away from it). Some people report in their instructional videos on youtube to start with aligning the valley felt while spinning the shaft, down the target line, and FLO from there. I believe the "bump" is the spine, and the "valley", or resting point, is the NBP. I think the shaft should be FLO'd with the NBP down the target line, and the spine at 90 degrees to this. My feeling is that you would get greater resistance to shaft droop near ball contact, and having the NBP down the target line would give a little more flex, so shaft loading would be facilitated.

Please let me know what you think. I enjoy your posts, and gratefully learn a lot from them!

I totally agree with you about consistency in the sticks vs. becoming a better player! Practice, practice, practice! And lessons, too.

I think John Daly may have had the shaft of the putter he used to hit tee shots with spine aligned.

Cheers!

Not bad but only an approximation. As you know a shaft will FLO in the spine plane and also in the NBP plane. So you find FLO but don't know which is which. You could have 269 cpm in the spine plane and 261 cpm in the NBP plane. Which one are you going to align to the target?
Most steel shafts usually have the same cpm all the way around the shaft and will FLO in pretty much any direction. If there is a cpm variation it will be in the 1-2 cpm range and not worth aligning.
If you think you have found spines in a steel shaft in a bearing type spinefinder they only are shaft irregularities such as a bend, a shaft label, thicker in one spot, out of roundness etc..

Having a shaft spined will make for a better more consistent stick but they won't make you a better player.
BTW have you ever seen anyone spine their putter?

[hoganblades]

Hi Chieflongtee,
In your example, I would align the 261 cpm NBP plane towards the target (down the target line), the 269 cpm plane should be orthogonal (90 degrees) to it. That would face directly away from the golfer's chest. Say, the target line is 9 o'clock, the spine plane, at 269 cpm, would be at 12 o'clock.

Would you agree, or have it another way? If you would orient it another way, I am curious as to why. Thanks!

Cheers

p.s. I love your avatar. I guess, "I see nothing" wouldn't fit, so you shortened it. Great one!

[Chieflongtee]

Most say align NBP to target but if I recall correctly one company suggested aligning spine to target. If you're dealing with graphite and assuming there is a good difference between the 2 planes(some shafts hardly have any difference in cpm between NBP and spine and not worth aligning) then you could end up with a half flex or a full flex between the 2. So if you want it to play stiffer then align to target.

IF you are finding FLO without a frequency meter then you may align either to target but you won't know which is which.

And if you are buying 3 wood shafts from the same make you might end up with different flexes depending on how you align them.

As for the bearing type spinefinder the shaft will snap in the position of least resistance. I would just align them in a consistent way although I don't believe they are spines but rather bends.

There is much controversy about this in the past. If you are into it read Tutelman's articles on the subject.

Lastly these measurements are taken in either a vertical or horizontal plane but the golf swing is in between the two


Cheers

[hoganblades]

Hi Chieflongtee,
Your last comment gave me a good laugh, and a moment of thought! Thanks!

Cheers!

Most say align NBP to target but if I recall correctly one company suggested aligning spine to target. If you're dealing with graphite and assuming there is a good difference between the 2 planes(some shafts hardly have any difference in cpm between NBP and spine and not worth aligning) then you could end up with a half flex or a full flex between the 2. So if you want it to play stiffer then align to target.

IF you are finding FLO without a frequency meter then you may align either to target but you won't know which is which.

And if you are buying 3 wood shafts from the same make you might end up with different flexes depending on how you align them.

As for the bearing type spinefinder the shaft will snap in the position of least resistance. I would just align them in a consistent way although I don't believe they are spines but rather bends.

There is much controversy about this in the past. If you are into it read Tutelman's articles on the subject.

Lastly these measurements are taken in either a vertical or horizontal plane but the golf swing is in between the two


Cheers

[TourIQ]

PUREing is a patented process owned by D*ck Weiss, and he has proclaimed they are a different process. I use a NF2 to find N and S planes, the lowest frequency of the N planes is defined as NBP (neutral bend point). For graphite shafts, a lot of clubmakers will use a laser to find FLO (flat line osculation) near NBP for shaft orientation at 9:00 for RH'ed golfer and 3:00 for LH'ed golfer towards the target.

The plane you find for a steel shaft is usually a residual bend but I align them too, but not as critical to fine-tune using a laser. Yes I've aligned the odd putter shaft ... LOL!

I wonder when the Weiss patent runs out, should be soon if not already. Anyone know?

[hoganblades]

Hi TourIQ,
Thanks for the reply to my thoughts! I appreciate your sharing your knowledge.

Interesting to me that what I thought of steel shaft spines, and nbp's, turns out to be artifacts of a residual bend. I do FLO my shafts, but without a frequency meter, it is impossible for me to tell which nbp I have aligned towards the target. I do know, that after a couple of months of playing with my aligned clubs that they feel much more stable. I do think the trouble of FLOing them when re-shafting is worth it to me. Of course, I do my own work, but I feel that it is time well spent.

Cheers!

PUREing is a patented process owned by D*ck Weiss, and he has proclaimed they are a different process. I use a NF2 to find N and S planes, the lowest frequency of the N planes is defined as NBP (neutral bend point). For graphite shafts, a lot of clubmakers will use a laser to find FLO (flat line osculation) near NBP for shaft orientation at 9:00 for RH'ed golfer and 3:00 for LH'ed golfer towards the target.

The plane you find for a steel shaft is usually a residual bend but I align them too, but not as critical to fine-tune using a laser. Yes I've aligned the odd putter shaft ... LOL!

I wonder when the Weiss patent runs out, should be soon if not already. Anyone know?

[TourIQ]

Hi hoganblades,

Great to see more golfers doing their own work and gaining new skills + knowledge along the way. We are here to help each other.
Steel shafts still have a S and a N but it is also masked by a residual bend. Best to orient plane with little wobble during frequency.

I have a GS digital frequency machine for sale if you are interested. FLO is the best orientation, a must do for graphite shafts.
In the end, it removes another variable in golf, and helps to inspire increased confidence, even if it is subconscious it all helps!

Kind regards, Harry

Hi TourIQ,
Thanks for the reply to my thoughts! I appreciate your sharing your knowledge.

Interesting to me that what I thought of steel shaft spines, and nbp's, turns out to be artifacts of a residual bend. I do FLO my shafts, but without a frequency meter, it is impossible for me to tell which nbp I have aligned towards the target. I do know, that after a couple of months of playing with my aligned clubs that they feel much more stable. I do think the trouble of FLOing them when re-shafting is worth it to me. Of course, I do my own work, but I feel that it is time well spent.

Cheers!