Spinner shafts.

Following a petulant round I'm in the process of re-shafting a set of irons. However I have noticed a "spinner" shaft available from a couple of manufacturers to increase spin on wedges.

Does anyone have experience of such a shaft in their wedges, and does it make any difference?

Seen them, not tried them. How many pros use them? I'd imagine if you hit the ball well (and I would guess you do), you should be able to get plenty of spin with a decent ball. Cost cf. regular type of shaft?

More to do with the hard unreceptive greens I play on Navy, just wondering if that little bit extra spin might help hold the green a bit better. Only about 6-7 more than a standard so not expensive to give one a blast.

Will buy one for a test when I re-shaft my main irons.

I have recently changed my Taylormade RAC TP 52/56/60 (with TM's "standard" wedge shaft) for the Vokey SM4 52/56/60 and opted for the Dynamic Gold Spinner Wedge+ shafts on the new bats. Cost wise the new shafts added about £12 per club from one web site and nothing at a local pro shop (although either route ended up about £99 per club total).

As the Vokeys have "legal" grooves where the TMs were the older ones a straight comparison isn't perhaps entirely fair, but I find the spinner shafts to be excellent and the spin I now generate isn't noticably less than the old clubs. I found that the dispersion off the new clubs to be much tighter. (Although that probably just means my old shafts were totally wrong for me!). In fact, so happy with the new wedges was I that I have ditched my PW from my iron set and replaced it with the Vokey 48 too.

Incidentally - hello all. Just signed up after merely browsing for a number of months having found a topic on which I may (just about) have a comment of some relevance!

Welcome Coaster. Whereabouts are you based?

S_R

Don't let Mac hear you saying that you want a bit more spin into hardish greens - surely the only way is to play the "ground game"??

One other thing R_C. Don't worry about your comments being irrelevant(ish) to a thread - that sort of thing doesn't stop most of us from posting!

Navy, mac would want me to replace my current shafts with hickories and play with a commando.

Navy

I am glad someone is starting to cotton onto my mantra. straight to the top of the class for you.



How can a shaft put more spin on the ball anyone, or at least how many more RPM can it put on the ball on top of loft at impact, launch angle, grooves, bounce etc?


Seems a bit of a gimmick to me.

Mac, for someone who paints himself as intelligent you don't really get physics do you? Shaft flex and the position of the flex in the shaft has a massive bearing on the type of spin put on a ball.

Have you never been on a launch monitor or even wondered why certain shafts suit you amd others dont?

Never been on a launch monitor and it is hard to see why they would produce a flex even more flexible than current wedge shafts. It would reduce accuracy, which is surely the most important thing with any club.

I assumed they were claiming it gave spin in some other way? But if you say it is nothing more than a super flex wedge shaft i will believe you.

Mac, it isn't a case of making it less or more flexible but where the flex is delivered from.
It isn't a guarantee it would reduce accuracy as depending on the swing of the user it may reduce sidespin as launch angle and smash factor would change.

You don't like change, so see it as a gimmick, but shafts are the major driver behind optimum swing/club matching.

It may be it doesn't suit me, but they are designed to improve backspin, and a high loft club naturally has a low degree of sidespin already so it won't be significantly less accurate and be worth a shot to get a bit more stop on the hard greens of links.

You don't understand about shafts, and clearly don't understand the physics, have never been fitted and don't understand how swing, shaft etc combine to create spin of different types, so if you have no experience and nothing to add other than ignorant uneducated, naive theory, please don't bother at all.

I am curious super, what theories, laws and equations should I look into to ensure I am more able to contribute to shaft discussions in the future?

I am keen to do the learning, to avoid making the clearly ignorant comments I made above in the future.

No need to be sarcastic Mac, but its clear you don't understand how a shaft works and how a spinner shaft might add extra backspinto a ball, and how it might actually be more accurate.

I can explain if you want, as to why it works, but as the explanation hasn't come from your trusted sources of wiki or the back cover of a book I doubt you'd understand.

Super

Sadly I am not at one with physics so I need equations and theories to help me understand things. I was being genuine with my question about what research I could do to better understand.

the fights between you 2 used to be funny but now the are just getting boring

tell me about it.

Think of a tennis racket, they are not all strung to the same tension, some are strung for power at the expense of accuracy while others are the opposite. Some have a bit of both, same with fishing rods.

A golf shaft is no different, but it is the position in the shaft of different types of flex combined with swing speed/hand position/skill of the golfer etc which determine how much spin (and which type of spin is imparted)
For example if I am 70 yards away from a green I might put the club back in my stance, grip down a bit, put my hands forward a bit, swing steeper and a bit quicker, to increase spin but its a tough shot even though it imparts more spin, a spinner shaft might make this a bit easier/and or give me more options to play different types of shot.

I'm sure you'll say that technology is ruining the game, that's up to you, but its the same in every sport, so you either carry on using your antique clubs with no technology or science in them or you get with the times.

Side spin is perhaps less prevalent in the shorter sticks, so perhaps the shaft flex/kickpoint etc relatively less significant than on the big dog. I do, personally, find that on full wedge/gap shots in particular the new wedges are more accurate than the old.

Although it may also come down to confidence. First couple of shots were great, I think I can use them better, ergo I do use them better. If you are happy and very good with (say) the old 1980's <insert brand> beryllium sand wedge versus the new stuff then crack on. You'll certainly be richer than I now am!!!

But spare a thought for those poor marketing guys at Taylormade/Titleist et al, they won't be able to buy their third new Audi/BMW this year without your support! (where's that tongue in cheek smiley?).

I buy new wedges every year anyway Roller, so it's not like I'm using old technology. Just wondering what people experience of Spinner shafts were and whether the claimed increase in backspin rates were noticeable.

super_realist wrote:Think of a tennis racket, they are not all strung to the same tension, some are strung for power at the expense of accuracy while others are the opposite. Some have a bit of both, same with fishing rods.

A golf shaft is no different, but it is the position in the shaft of different types of flex combined with swing speed/hand position/skill of the golfer etc which determine how much spin (and which type of spin is imparted)
For example if I am 70 yards away from a green I might put the club back in my stance, grip down a bit, put my hands forward a bit, swing steeper and a bit quicker, to increase spin but its a tough shot even though it imparts more spin, a spinner shaft might make this a bit easier/and or give me more options to play different types of shot.

I'm sure you'll say that technology is ruining the game, that's up to you, but its the same in every sport, so you either carry on using your antique clubs with no technology or science in them or you get with the times.

This from the man who slates F1 at every opportunity.....

It's completely different Diggers and you know it.

Not really, if you take it to an amateur level some...like you...you can afford all the best gear with all the advantages it brings. Better balls and clubs and a good GPS and some people just have 10 year old sticks and lake balls. Cheat.

Total balls Diggers.

The truth hurts I know. You are the Lewis Hamilton of the golf board mate.

Ha ha, yeah, I won an open last year, perhaps I should hand it back because everyone else couldn't afford good equipment.

Well yours clearly gives you an advantage, otherwise why spunk money on it. You'd have to be a complete mug to do that.

How is it clearly an advantage? In any event, it doesn't have to be expensive, merely that it is suited to me. My rescue clubs are 8 years old, and bought off ebay. Almost everyone I see has newer clubs than that.

"I'm sure you'll say that technology is ruining the game, that's up to you, but its the same in every sport, so you either carry on using your antique clubs with no technology or science in them or you get with the times."

Your words. You answered your own question.

Diggers, I've just bought a new driver at £300, it doesn't suit me as well as my 5 year old Callaway so I've gone back.

That new technology hasn't given me an advantage, it's put me back.
Therefore as long as people can find what suits them, golf is a level playing field compared to F1 where only 2 teams can ever win the championship.

I think golf technology has been at a zenith for a number of years. Hence why more are going down the custom fit route.

You seem to be missing the point. The technology is all about developing the club to suit the individual surely ? It gives you options you would never have had in the past.
Also at least 3 teams are in with a shout this year in FI.

Out of how many?

Whereas if I enter a scratch golf competition, everyone from 0-5 in the field could win. It's not as if someone elses three iron will go 100 yard less than anyone else.

The 3 iron with the right set up worked out on computer to suit the players swing will have an advantage though. Youre completely back tracking if you don't admit that.

Not at all, everyone has access to it at a pretty minimal cost. I might have a very slight advantage, but only over a total pikey who probably couldn't have afforded to play golf in the first place.
My current irons (due to me snapping a few of my first choice irons) are at least 10 years old, have a regular instead of a stiff shaft, are a bit too short, not fitted to me at all, but seem to work. No reason why everyone can't do that.

People can always sell clubs, trade in or buy clubs off ebay for ones which suit them better. F1 teams can do nothing to level the playing field if they don't have experienced engineers and pots of cash for development.

The F1 teams with the biggest budget just have a slight advantage , makes all the difference though.

I see what you are trying to say, but there are a lot of people in golf with more money than me, more time to practice and more opportunity to get fitted more often. Doesn't mean they perform better, despite the technological/scientific/development advantage. Their advantage counts for nothing if they don't have the skill to use the clubs, whereas in Formula 1 you could be a truly amazing driver like Alonso, but your skill cannot overcome your technological shortcomings regardless of how good you are.

It may be measured in fractions of a second, but it might as well be a chasm.

Super

It might not seem obvious but generally this season the top 10-15 cars are within 1% of each other over a race distance. So even a car on the verge of being lapped can be very close in performance to the winning car. If you look at qualifying a car 0.1 seconds behind the lead time of 90.5 (seconds for a lap) is 99.89% as good as that car. F1 really is very tight.

Lets look at golf; for this years masters the last player making the cut was around 8% away from the winning players score.

Also please explain why you change wedges so often if technology over 1-5 year time span has negligible influence in your score?

Yes Mac, I'm well aware of that, but the 1% might as well be 50% given how much more resources and know how/development are required to be the top teams.
Alonso is widely regarded as a top two driver, but unless he drives for Red Bull or McLaren has no chance this year of winning the championship. That's how unlevel a playing field it is.

I change wedges regularly, not because of new technology coming along which might help but because they get worn out very easily over the course of a season. It doesn't matter what you have if the grooves are blunt, you aren't going to have control.

get a groove sharpener?

You must be hitting it too hard super

McLaren wrote:get a groove sharpener?

Nah, they are rubbish, and wedges aren't expensive. You can get a head for about £20.

McLaren wrote:Super

It might not seem obvious but generally this season the top 10-15 cars are within 1% of each other over a race distance. So even a car on the verge of being lapped can be very close in performance to the winning car. If you look at qualifying a car 0.1 seconds behind the lead time of 90.5 (seconds for a lap) is 99.89% as good as that car. F1 really is very tight.

Lets look at golf; for this years masters the last player making the cut was around 8% away from the winning players score.

Also please explain why you change wedges so often if technology over 1-5 year time span has negligible influence in your score?

F1 is still gash though no matter how you spin it. Great technology, demanding to drive a car on those circuits but for the spectator? Pants. Unless you're excited by a loud noise whizzing past every few seconds that is.

McLaren wrote:get a groove sharpener?

They'll almost certainly render your clubs illegal.


Just out of interest S_R, how many practice hours do you put in with your wedges in a year? Any idea, roughly, how many balls you hit?

Navy,
Not as much as I used to, but I reckon 90% of all my practice is done using the 52 and 58 clubs.
I play off sandy soil at my clubs and out of bunkers a lot so they get pretty worn, pretty quickly.

I used to do about an hour a night 5 times a week from April to Sept. So probably hitting around 150-200 shots a night.

Navy in relation to F1 as a spectator sport I have to say Im increasingly thinking golf is probably the worst spectator sport from a TV sense.
Basically you really have no idea with a long range shot how well its been hit most of the time. You see a swing and it landing, not much of any relevance with concerning what happens in between. A bit of ball flight maybe but with no point if reference other than the commentary. The ball is just moving too fast and the area of course is too big to get a perspective.
What do we see most of, putting. How dull is that, I doubt anyone would take the game up if it only concerned putting and yet the vast majority of TV coverage is around putts becasue they of course produce the end product in the score.
I think anyone who slates another sport whilst watching golf iso n pretty dodgy ground personally.

Diggers wrote:Navy in relation to F1 as a spectator sport I have to say Im increasingly thinking golf is probably the worst spectator sport from a TV sense.
Basically you really have no idea with a long range shot how well its been hit most of the time. You see a swing and it landing, not much of any relevance with concerning what happens in between. A bit of ball flight maybe but with no point if reference other than the commentary. The ball is just moving too fast and the area of course is too big to get a perspective.
What do we see most of, putting. How dull is that, I doubt anyone would take the game up if it only concerned putting and yet the vast majority of TV coverage is around putts becasue they of course produce the end product in the score.
I think anyone who slates another sport whilst watching golf iso n pretty dodgy ground personally.

Have you tried watching the England football team?

Football though is a great game to watch from a TV perspective. You can get a full view of the pitch, know exactly if a pass is going to get where it should, know whether a shot is a good one from the moment it leaves the boot as we see the ball flight all the way, and fram a lot of different angles.
In short it works.

UNless you are watching England, which is so boring I would rather watch my hair grow.

super_realist wrote:UNless you are watching England, which is so boring I would rather watch my hair grow.

Probbaly a common pastime up where you live now. Once you've had your daily sheep.

Actually, watching England is good, because they are so terrible, but think they are so good.

Baaaa

You know what, I've been up here a month and not seen a single sheep.