Increase Swing speed? Heavy or Light Driver

[andemw01]

Thinking about getting a new driver (Wilson Staff Shockwave). I admit I have low swing speed, only lower 80's, but I am pretty happy with results in terms of being in fairway and going straight. If I wanted to try to increase swing speed even a little, what would help more, I heavier driver or a light driver? May sound silly but not 100% sure which would help the most, even if only a little.

[jlund]

Why not go down and spend an hour with a pro on some swing computers, try a few different setups and see what works best for you? It's worth the $$$ if you are in the market for a new driver.

[deronsizemore]

Lighter driver, but I wouldn't expect any big increase.

How old are you? Depending on your age, physical ability, fundamentals, etc, that will allow you to swing the club faster quicker than anything. If you're an 18 handicap like your profile says, I assume your fundamentals are not as good as they could be. Improve them, and your swing will likely get faster. Of course, some people are just blesses with athletic ability. my driver swing is 109mph give or take, but I can promise you that no matter how hard I try, I'll never be able to swing the club as fast as say, JB Holmes. He's just got a natural ability that most don't have. You may never hit the ball 300 yards, but with better fundamentals, you'll start seeing better contact and greater distance.

[andemw01]

I am 38 years old, 5'8" and weigh about 170 with my winter poundage on. I only started golfing three years ago, and normally shoot around 100, sometimes two or three above or two or three over. I have taken golf classes and private lesson. Lack of distance is what kills me because do not have full rotation (hockey player in me doesn't seem to want to high stick the club???). Pretty straight except for once in awhile i slice one. My drives average around 220. So thought maybe lighter driver would let me rotate or take it back little farther also.

[Greg]

I would think a lighter driver would increase your swing speed, my driver is very light. I didnt spend much for my driver, got it for $30 on rockbottomgolf's ebay store so wasnt a big investment. A lighter driver would let you not swing so hard but yet still generate more clubhead speed. I've seen this new training aid on the golf channel called swingnature, endorced by Hank Haney. Its a shaft with added weight for strength but you can take the weight out and makes it really light for speed as they claim you need both to get more swing speed. Need to increase strength with weight but also teach the muscles to move fast with a lighter club, makes sense I guess, just wondering if anyone has tried it.

[Scott_K]

A lighter driver can increase your swing speed, but it won't help you rotate further. That comes with flexibility and fundamentals as mentioned above. Also, taking it farther back doesn't necessarily mean you'll hit it further. When I go past parallel, I'm probably less effiient with the torque I built up in my backswing.

[WUTiger]

.....So thought maybe lighter driver would let me rotate or take it back little farther also.

I'm hearing two stories on how to increase distance. One way is the lighter driver, which I thought initially meant a lighter swingweight. Not so. Looks like they're going for lighter shafts. My driver (circa 2008) has a D5 swingweight and is 45.5" long.

* The new Burner Superfast has a D8 swingweight, and is 46.5" long. For Burner SF, thw weight comes out from the shaft: Matrix XCon 4.8 ranges from 49 (X) to 45 grams (L) in shaft weight. * The new Cleveland Launcher DST has a D4 swingweidht and is 45.75" long. Stock shaft is the Ultralite Diamana Red 44, which weighs 47 grams. Ads claim it is "25 gr. lighter." Suggested custom shafts range in weight from the low 60 to the low 80s. http://www.clevelandgolf.com/US_laun...d_drivers.html Another way to increase distance is to stay with the heavier driver, and rely on long smooth swing + tempo + square contact to increase distance. One way to increase square contact would be shorter driver shafts, but the manufacturers seem to only offer this on a custom basis. (If anyone knows of 44" shafted off-the-shelf drivers, please share.) The clubsmith says I could cut a three-quarters an inch off my drive - this would lower swingweight to D2. Only drawback, it would stiffen the shaft about a half a flex. Also, has anybody seen men's drivers with swingweights D2 and lower? Related to Distance: I've been looking into flexibility. I hurt my hip this summer, and in rehab the therapist said I didn't have very good hip flexibility. I didn't realize it, but low hip flexibility can also choke off your follow-through, preventing you from maximizing your swing efforts.

[zeg]

I assume that you're not actually interested in a faster swing speed in itself, you really want longer drives. In that case the answer to whether heavier or lighter will help you is "it's complicated." There's a long thread on here from a couple months ago---there really isn't a simple answer to that question. A lighter club will certainly increase your swing speed, but it may or may not give you more distance depending on how well you control it, how effectively it transfers its energy to the ball, etc. I think the only solution is to try out clubs and/or get a fitting to find what combination of head design, head weight, shaft weight, and shaft stiffness give you the best results. Any theorizing is unlikely to be accurate enough to do better than flipping a coin.

[SirPuff]

I've tested the burner superfast a few weeks ago and it increased my swing and ball speed a ton. On an average swing with my 2009 burner driver it's around 85-90 mph, with the superfast it was clocking me over 95 and i didnt lose any accuracy as some might think with the longer shaft. The lighter driver may not be for you but you should at least go test a few out to make sure. and for the body turn, it's all about slimming down your core .

[andemw01]

I might try to test the new cleveland driver this weekend, over spring break going to canada (yeah, weird destination for a spring break) but want to try wilson's shockwave while there. Thanks for all your input. I hate the thought of those long 46" drivers, anybody have any idea if cutting those down to 44" will affect them, I assume it would make them even a touch lighter.

[Shanks A Million]

I might try to test the new cleveland driver this weekend, over spring break going to canada (yeah, weird destination for a spring break) but want to try wilson's shockwave while there. Thanks for all your input. I hate the thought of those long 46" drivers, anybody have any idea if cutting those down to 44" will affect them, I assume it would make them even a touch lighter.

Yes, you will need to have them re-swingweighted, or accept the new swingweight.

The best way to hit the ball farther is to hit the center of the clubface. For every half inch you miss it, you're losing about 20 yards. You need to find the best fit to ensure that you hit the center of the face as much as possible. This could mean shorter (I recommend 44"), and it could mean a different swingweight. Any way in which you can increase the on center hit percentage will be the best way to hit it farther. I have a friend who is one of the best amateur players around. His swing is just perfect, and I don't think I've ever seen him miss. His swing is about 100 mph, compared to my 110 mph. He hits it as far, or maybe farther than me. The reason is that he hits the center of the face much more often than I do.

[jamo]

Either way you likely wont get any added distance. Because momentum = mass * velocity, when you take away mass to make it faster, you are just reducing one number and making the next bigger. The amount that the numbers change could be slightly different, but it wouldn't be very off, basically negligible.

[Shanks A Million]

Either way you likely wont get any added distance. Because momentum = mass * velocity, when you take away mass to make it faster, you are just reducing one number and making the next bigger. The amount that the numbers change could be slightly different, but it wouldn't be very off, basically negligible.

Nah, because mass is not squared, velocity is. So, any reduction in mass is offset by an exponential increase energy from velocity. Think E = MC². Basically, mass is on its own, but C (representing velocity) is squared. There is of course, a balance, which mostly has to do with off center hits (MOI is related to weight of course).

[jamo]

Nah, because mass is not squared, velocity is. So, any reduction in mass is offset by an exponential increase energy from velocity. Think E = MC². Basically, mass is on its own, but C (representing velocity) is squared. There is of course, a balance, which mostly has to do with off center hits (MOI is related to weight of course).

I think KE = (1/2)mv^2 is more of the equation you were going for, but either way, it doesn't matter because when the energy is transfered to the ball, you need to square the v there also, so they balance out. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it seems like to me?

[Shanks A Million]

I think KE = (1/2)mv^2 is more of the equation you were going for, but either way, it doesn't matter because when the energy is transfered to the ball, you need to square the v there also, so they balance out. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it seems like to me?

Yes, E = 0.5(MV²) is the correct equation. My algebra skills are touch and go, but basically here's the deal. The M is not squared because the V² is parenthetical. So, to write it another way would be E = 0.5[M(V²)]. The distributive property shows that multiplication distributes over addition, so the same goes for exponents, which distribute over multiplication. Therefore, when we break down a problem using both, exponents take precedence in the order of operations... I think.

[kilbyman]

momentum=mv, just like Jamo says. But that's for linear momentum. The golf swing includes angular momenta as well, so the simple equation isn't a good model... but the point is still valid. Either increase the velocity with the same mass, or increase mass with the velocity (swing speed). Best way to do it is to hit the sweet spot.

[Jay-Bird]

I think KE = (1/2)mv^2 is more of the equation you were going for, but either way, it doesn't matter because when the energy is transfered to the ball, you need to square the v there also, so they balance out. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it seems like to me?

Swing speed alone doesn't make the ball go far. It's total power put into the ball.

Power = Torque x Angular Velocity (speed that a mass rotates around an axis = as in a golf swing).

[jamo]

Swing speed alone doesn't make the ball go far. It's total power put into the ball.

So then what would constitute torque?

So then what would constitute torque?

I guess I'll answer that myself. Torque = Polar MOI * Angular Acceleration

That leaves us with Power (equal to Work / Time) = Polar MOI * Angular Acceleration * Angular Velocity