Golf shaft FLO correct position of spine
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 พ.ย. 2011
- Paul Jenner (The Golf Mechanic)
Explains how each shaft is different and how the position of the spine will change from club to club to create perfect FLO (Flat Line Oscillation). - กีฬา
Your demonstration and explanation has been the clearest and easiest to understand that I have viewed. Many thanks.
Hi Paul, I'm looking to get custom fitted for my driver shaft. I appreciate the video in helping me get educated on this process. Thanks again.
Great information! I’m just learning about spinning shafts and that information just made helped me understand more about the process!
Thx! Met a guy called Danny Seng who first told me about spine, good to see more Aussies getting into it
Very nicely explained and demonstrated! TY
Excellent explained very educational cheers mate
Hi Paul, ur videos are excellent, I’m a novice to club making. At the moment I'm putting a 350 shaft into a 335 adapter, how much clearance should there be for the the epoxy? Dill it out 9mm but it's still quite tight is a 9.5 mm too much?
Thanks so much Tadhg
Thanks, been thinking about get regulars to x-flex.. gonna do them myself.. would it be better to get the flow line with the head on or just a standard wieght.. I know the shaft would move differently if it was the head vs just a weight on the end? sorta a question.
@theMANxGOLFER
I like your question, the reality is that you can't test a club in addresses position with such things as shaft droop and load. The process of FLO is to put each shaft in your set into the most stable position that allows for the least amount of vertical oscillation. I asked the same question when I first witnessed the FLO process and after testing hundreds of shafts with different spine locations you can really feel the stability of a shaft when built to FLO vs anything else.
Paul, I realize this video has been up for years, I just saw it, really appreciate the information. Question: can the spine be located once a grip has been installed? What would be the simplest, if possible, to retro find the spine if you have already installed heads without this valuable knowledge. Thanks if you can respond
Thanks for the info!
Hope you are still there. Where did you get the quick vise clamp?
Seems to me that spineing is unnecessary if you FLO the shaft. ??
Hello Paul
How do you keep the clubhead from slipping off, when you twang it for FLO? What is the little trick
I noticed that this test was done with a right handed club, would you place the spine on the 9 o'clock position for a left-handed club?
I like this video. I would like an explaination of why you put the club horizontal. It seems most clubs are swung on (near) the plane of the player. Why, with the clubhead on, would you not run your test at that angle (Lie angle of the clubhead) instead of horizontal to simulate the true angle of force gravity would have at the impact position? Thanks for any information.
You cannot run it at an angle downwards because the club head would fly off during the test. You can glue it, but it will take too long.
So what is the point of finding the shaft spine if FLO is used for correct shaft position, just use FLO.
Wnen you spin the shaft, doesn't the shat want to go to the natural bend point.. which is 90 degrees from the spine or largest resistance to bending ?
Hi. Good video. I'm just not sure why you bother to find the spine, when the final orientation (as a result of FLOing) is different. Can you explain? Thanks.
He did. It gives a definitive starting reference to begin testing.
I think the confusion is what is the spine.. Is the spine the hard bend or easy/natural bend. Where you marked is the "easy" bend point .. i would say the correct position is pointing toward the target like how you had it.. I've seen people do it 90 deg from that point and I would think that would be wrong. You would be fighting the hard bend point of the shaft.
@PurifiedGolf Thanks for the answer
So what happens with drivers, f-woods, and hybrids that allow for loft and lie adjustments (Titlelist, Taylor-made, Cobra, etc)by rotating the shaft. I presume all FLO goes to pieces.
+Juan Romero Presumably you want to do it the right way, you find the best adjustment and stick with it, then FLO the shaft to the adjustments and leave it along.
Callaway has a system that accounts for this.
What you're calling the spine is actually the NBP. This is why you've heard people saying you should place the spine at 12:00: clubmaker-online.com/spines.html
Why go through the first process if you are going to use the vice and align it that way?
Lmao , just saw this video n read ur comments exactly the same thought as me
is that essentially what pure'ing the shaft is
It certainly is a key element of pureing. Systems using computerized equipment make additional data more precisely, the goal of aligning the shaft to optimize its flexing characteristics under dynamic load is the same.
The trick is to use a rubber band or piece of plastic bag to secure the clubhead
So what's the point of finding the spine then? Why can't you just jump into finding the FLO?
SO WEST
This method does not account for club droop. I think the S1 position (stiffest) should be at 12:00. That's normally 90* clockwise from the N1 (most flexible) position. In my opinion, I think club droop is the #1 variable in the golf swing because it changes with your swing speed and can easily cause off center hits even when you are swinging right on plane.
Club droop is in the equation ,since the the club butt end is supported in the vise and the head end is not supported.The dynamics of each individual swing is not and should be incorporated in rhe flo peocedure.A purist like Moe N would be easy but J Furyk would be difficult.What convinces me about floing a shaft is,I can make a club hook or slice by adjusting the head to the spine.
@@randolphsnyder1505 you are overthinking very small variables
@@billmoyer3254
Yes Bill,I am a overthinker but that's what it took to design the first space simulator,and the people at NASA liked me.The clocking of the club face is fraught with variables, however,I have proven to myself,given the time,I can clock a players graphite shaft to a position that will consistently send the ball to the direction I desire except straight away.Emphasis on GRAPHITE.I have not been able to clock the face to produce consistent straight away shots , I think it is because the center of mass of the head is cantilevered in relation to center of shaft and very slight path deviations produce variable torque values to the shaft.the fade bias on a driver usually ends up between 15 and 40 yards and a consistent fade bias,might sneak in a straight away shot but never a draw.
I have been thinking it would be possible to produce a shaft with high torque resistance while it would allow some flex inline with the club path and still maintain the round tapered outward appearance. By the way I love the PXG gen11 driver heads.I have been able to tune them by moving and change weights on stiff shafts.
@@randolphsnyder1505 you made a strawman competency statement and are ignoring the fatal flaws most engineers have in the human input to the equation. Most players negatively shift their weight and cast their hands from inside the proper plane to outside the plane in a late attempt to flush the ball. Toss in the inconsistency of those efforts and you have what?
@@billmoyer3254
Please excuse me if my statements appear to be changing the subject matter.
Of course dynamic loading of the golf shaft should be considered and yes the path of the center of mass does change relative to the path of the shaft during the golf swing,and is further complicated by the rolling of the wrists through impact.My work on clocking my shafts has been for my clubs and my swing, it works for me and the proof is,I can make one of my drivers produce a horrible cut 9 out of 10 times,change the shaft and hit it straight 9 out of 10 times.
The USGA has recognized these possibilities and have ruled against clocking shafts to produce these results.
should just use a laser
waste of time spining it in that case.....plus the club is rebounding from slightly higher near the end as that's how you were bending it. there's too many variables, if you going to align that way you need something to pinch the club from the same place every time
Sorry but this seems like a big bunch of BS. If your Phil Mickelson then maybe all of this high tech stuff matters but to the 8-12 handicapper theirs to much difference in their swing for all of this to be accurate.
You're spot on with that. Pureing/ F.L.O. alignment are a greater benefit to the scratch golfer that to a double-digit hacker with an inconsistant swing pattern. For most recreation level amateurs these added cost procedures provide a psychological placebo.
Sorry, but I beg to differ!
If you at least know the club is set up correctly, any offline paths tell you it has to be your swing that's at fault.
With a poorly setup club, you haven't got a clue where the fault lies.
It could be club, swing, or both.
I'd sooner blame the Indian and not the Arrow.
Just my opinion.
@@alanread4763 My opinion, based on fact, is that it does very little to nothing at all. I floed my irons that I had been using for 20+ years and found no difference in Distance, Accuracy or Consistency. They felt stiffer at first because I found the strongest bend in each of the shafts and aimed this at the target, then fine tuned floed with the head on. After about 3 games they felt normal again (IE: I got used to them). Fact is I am playing my best golf ever (lowest handicap) with untouched clubs now for about 5 straight years.