• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jscomp

Anyone have the old Rifle "player fitting guide" and frequency tables?

6 posts in this topic

Apparently you need to take things like clubhead weight and hosel depth into consideration to get the right flex. But I've only come across broken links. Anyone have those guides/tables?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

http://www.shaftfit.com/front/

Have you tried the online fitting things offered by TT?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I'm talking about the old Rifle shafts. I need their old player fitting guide and frequency tables because head weight and hosel depth supposedly affect flex/frequency.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true of any shaft. No shaft is going to flex inside the hosel, there's a 1/4" shell of steel keeping it rigid. So in effect, all shafts basically perform as if they are tipped right up to the edge of the hosel. If you have 2 identical weight heads with one having a 1" longer hosel, that one will perform as if the shaft were tipped an inch compared to the other, essentially. If you have 2 identical heads but one has the hosel bored deeper than the other, the one with more of the shaft covered will play stiffer.

There are no standards for hosel depth so often a head's playing characteristics can be affected, such as older titleist woods with longer hosels that launch lower because they eliminate some of the flex in the shaft.

As for head weight, as well as length, they place more load (think leverage) on the shaft and make it play softer. There are no real standards for either but usually most models conform to the swingweight scale and play somewhere from D0 to D3. What you'd really need is a frequency machine and a bunch of weights to get a profile for the exact shaft in question. The easiest way to understand this relationship is from soft or hard stepping a set. I did this to mine and it made the shafts play slightly softer than standard without having to buy a different flex. I soft stepped them by putting the 2i-9i shafts in the 3-PW heads, using the shaft designed for 1 iron longer than the head. As a result, the 2i shaft was in the 3i; the 3i had about 7 grams more weight which made the shaft play softer, but it was butt trimmed a half inch to 3i length, making the swingweight manageable for me to swing and the shorter length made the shaft play as it should. Effectively, the frequency wasn't altered significantly, but the kickpoint was moved slightly and I got to use the heavier flex's weight. This resulted in very smooth X flex shafts that are heavier than stiff. That's about as precise as one needs to be in order to get more flex options. In the same manner, you could do this without using taper tip shafts by substituting a parallel shaft tipped for a 6i into a 7i, for example. Or you could tip trim less than half inch increments and get even finer tuning by trimming for example 1/4" extra off the tip but keeping the overall length the same. This would be like a quarter of a flex different depending on the shaft. Usually the trimming instructions let you know: http://kbsgolfshafts.com/downloads/fitting-info.pdf KBS's instructions, for example, tell you you can tip trim 3/16" extra for every 1CPM you want to go stiffer for that iron.

If you're frequency matching a set, you either sort through dozens of taper tip shafts to find a matching set or you buy a set of parallel tip shafts and tip each one bit by bit until it matches the target frequency for that head weight, then butt trim it to length. This is not unique to rifle shafts but it is way too much work; usually only high end clubfitters will go through this process and charge lots of money. Doing it yourself without being fitted is a waste of time and money though. The whole point is to make every club match, but if you don't have an exact frequency and model in mind, you won't be fitted that well. Plus using a discontinued model will bite you in the ass if you ever buy a new set and can't replace them; you'll need to be fitted then with the current shafts on the market.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Are you saying it won't make a diff for the vast majority of clubheads, and I should just go ahead with the Rifle flex recommended for my swing speed/tempo/carry distance?

Plus using a discontinued model will bite you in the ass if you ever buy a new set and can't replace them; you'll need to be fitted then with the current shafts on the market.

Let's be real. That applies to almost all shafts other than Dynamic Gold. lol

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying it won't make a diff for the vast majority of clubheads, and I should just go ahead with the Rifle flex recommended for my swing speed/tempo/carry distance?

Let's be real. That applies to almost all shafts other than Dynamic Gold. lol

Yeah, if you go with the recommended flex it should work well. The differences between clubheads are unlikely to make the shaft play vastly different from one another, unless their stock length is designed to be non standard which alters the needed weight. Hosel length is really minor unless you're talking about 1/2" difference or so. Most people would be able to tell a difference from half flexes, or about 5cpm, but anything much smaller than that and you may need a machine to notice.

If you want to fine tune their flex after the fact, you can always pull the shafts yourself and soft/hard step them, tip a bit more, or both. I'd write down how much you trimmed from each and hold onto it. It's unlikely that much fine tuning will be necessary though. This is a service you can pay hundreds of dollars for someone to do that precisely, and is strictly a luxury.

You may need to buy one extra shaft if you do this because you can't replace the trimmed sections of the shafts (though you can add butt extensions); you can only take more off one end or another and change the head it's installed in. But it's way cheaper than getting a whole new set. This only applies to .370" diameter shafts, the taper tip models can only be soft or hard stepped.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Posts

    • 2016 TST Initiative: Forward Tees Tournament
      In Lowest Score Wins, we recommend that golfers play from the forward tees in order to experience "breaking 80" for the first time, or shooting 65, or having more birdie putts than they've ever had, or whatever. This year, in 2016, we're taking it one step farther: we're encouraging everyone here to work with the head pro at your home course (or, if you play multiple courses, the head pro at each of them!) and to set up a serious "Forward Tees Tournament." A Forward Tees Tournament (FTT) will be: FUN! Enlightening Unique Challenging I'll give anyone who creates and/or participates in a FTT this year the special achievement/award seen to the left. Anyone with this award will be entered to win a TST prize to be determined at the end of the year (and I'll do my best to make it a fairly good prize, but that shouldn't be the main reason why anyone should do this). You can play: With or without handicaps. With or without brackets/divisions/flights. Stroke play or match play. 18, 27, 36, 54+ holes. One day, two days, three days. Etc. I think golfers will love playing in this type of tournament. I think it will challenge them to think about how they play and score. I think it will result in faster play, more fun, more birdies, more chances to hit 7-iron into par fives and feel like a Tour player for once, and… lower scores (or higher scores for the dumb players!). So there you have it. What can you do from here? Pledge here in this thread to talk to your head pro. Recruit your buddies and local golfers to play in your event. Work with your head pro to make the event a success. Play in the event! Post here after your tournament has been played to claim your super-exclusive award/achievement! I'm in. I'll be doing this, hopefully at multiple courses this year. Are you?
    • Posting old scores
      I haven't had an official handicap for about 15 years because in the past several I've only been able to play 6-8 times per year. This year I joined a club so that I could play in tournaments and since I need five scores to get a handicap, I entered some scores in GHIN from my last few rounds in 2015 (since I play so rarely, I can remember them). When I was doing this, I forgot to change the date when posting a score from August so it defaulted to today and is now my most recent reported score. GHIN won't let me change the entry but says to "contact my club" to fix it, which seems like a hassle for everyone involved. It's not my lowest score but it's close, so it will probably be included in my handicap calculation for quite a while unless the date is changed. How big of a deal is this?
    • How to eliminate blowup holes
      Another thing is sometimes to 'give up' on par. For example, as a bogey golfer, if I hit a bad tee shot and end up say 220yds from the hold on a par 4 rather than the usual 130yds, play the hole as if bogey is the new par. You've made the hole more difficult for yourself and rather than trying to hit the green with a 3 wood (a green designed to be hit with a mid/short iron), take 2 shots to get on the green and 2 shots to get down. 1 220yd par 4 is an easy hole (could even make birdie (which becomes par and a great save) whereas a 220 yd par 3, not off the tee, is asking for trouble. Not always the best way to play golf (read Lowest Score Wins) but the best way to avoid blowing up.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      Find it yourself please. I don't think that would provide much insight. Courses, technology… all very different. Too many differences. People who qualify for the Opens rarely actually compete for them. The winners and top finishers almost always come from those who qualify automatically. I'm not. Very few foreign golfers played on the PGA Tour in the 60s. It's been steadily growing - and travel has made it easier, too - through to now. And even now we're starting to see Asian golfers really take over. The only Asian golfer many could name who competed against Nicklaus was Isao Aoki. Maybe Jumbo Ozaki. I'm just talking about the number of golfers. There are a ton more now. I don't care. I realize perhaps your condition forces you to take everything literally, but I wasn't being literal here. The PGA Tour takes the best 150 players or so out of X. As X grows, the amount of separation between those top 150 players narrows. We're in a very narrow phase right now. When Jack was playing, the gap was significantly wider. No. Tiger was quite a bit more dominant and "above" even MORE highly competitive fields. Both halves of that are true: Tiger won by larger margins and against stronger fields. I agree. And I've said similar things. No…? You don't say? (On page 273 of a thread doing just that…)? You seem to be the only person who regards WGCs as weaker fields that offer a "competitive break." It says a lot about how others should consider your opinions on strength of field. You're assuming or haven't read many of my posts in this thread, because I've said several times that I'd put it within a few points of 50/50. Maybe 55/45. Hardly what I'd call "strong." Of course we're both "estimating." Tiger's record, IMO, against significantly stiffer competition, puts him ahead. Not by a lot. Not really. If only 30 players had a realistic chance to win a tournament, adding players beyond that 30th player does little to affect the strength of the field. The WGCs could add 200 club professionals that would never win and… the strength of field would remain exactly the same. Where have I said this? Because even if I did, it doesn't support whatever you're trying to force it into supporting here. The odds of a club pro beating anyone on the PGA Tour these days are slim to none. They were slightly more likely back when fewer "A" players played the PGA Tour… like in the 60s and 70s. A "C" player's game almost never varies enough - not for four days - to beat even 10 or 15 "A" players. Here's an opinion, but one I could probably back up if I cared enough to take the time (I do not): a modern WGC has a stronger field than many (perhaps all) of the majors Nicklaus won. I've said this before, and will say it again here: In Jack's day, there were maybe 10-15 "A" players, 25 "B" players, and the rest were "C" players. Today there are 100+ A players and the rest B players. I'm also going to request, mostly because of the number of times I've had to repeat myself in this thread, that you not quote or respond to me, @natureboy, in this thread. I'm not keen on repeating myself about something that, ultimately, I don't care that much about. It is what it is, their records are what they are, and they could only beat the guys they played against.
    • How to eliminate blowup holes
      Never try to hit through trees, always just get back to the fairway.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries