Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 4125 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

I need to re-shaft my Ping G20 10.5 driver (good driver), the factory TFC169D Regular flex developed a crack, and it's out of warranty.  While I'm at it I want to bring the trajectory down by using a L/M launch shaft and I'm torn between the Aldila NV55/Regular and the Fujikura Fuel 50/Regular. Specs on both are similar, and I had an NV65 in my older Taylor RX360 which worked well.  I'm leaning towards the Fuji but a guy I play with makes clubs and he says the Fuji is no better, just more expensive, almost double.  I never had a Fuji shaft before.  Also, the tip on the Fuji is .335 and the G20 hosel is .350 so the Fuji will need a shim.  Any opinions on which shaft might perform better and what difference will a shim make ?

Thanks,

Fred


Posted
I'd contact PING and see what they say anyway. If the NV65 worked, why not stick with what you know. Also a stiffer/heavier shaft will bring the trajectory down more than what you have listed.

:tmade: R15 14* Matrix Black Tie 7m3

:adams: Speedline Super S 3w & 5w Matrix Radix HD S VI

:callaway: X-12 4-PW Memphis 10

IONNOVEX  Type S GDT 50*, 54* & 62* Mitsubishi Rayon Kuro Kage Black 80ir

:odyssey: Tri-Ball SRT

-Landon


Posted

Thanks.  That was my feeling also.

I did contact Ping and they're pushing me to use their Ping Tour 169.  I'm thinking that this is just a sales pitch.  Will probably go with the Aldila.  I'll likely have Golfworks do it.

Fred


Posted
Is PING willing to replace it?

:tmade: R15 14* Matrix Black Tie 7m3

:adams: Speedline Super S 3w & 5w Matrix Radix HD S VI

:callaway: X-12 4-PW Memphis 10

IONNOVEX  Type S GDT 50*, 54* & 62* Mitsubishi Rayon Kuro Kage Black 80ir

:odyssey: Tri-Ball SRT

-Landon


Posted

Nope, it's not under warranty, I got it used, but I want to stick with it.  It's a good club and works well for me.  It's a solid club, good distance, good control.  As I said my only issue is that it launches too high.  I'm hoping to bring the trajectory down and pick up a few yards and some more roll-out.

Still torn between the NV 55/R and NV 65/R.  Any advantage or disadvantage to either ?

Fred


Note: This thread is 4125 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • I am fascinated by this article. Given so many are upset, I would love to see how the calculations changed for them. In the USA, it likely reduced handicaps, at least for me. In the UK it appears to inflate handicaps but not uniformly? 
    • Wordle 1,632 3/6* ⬛🟦⬛🟦🟦 ⬛🟦⬛🟦🟧 🟧🟧🟧🟧🟧
    • Day 12: stole about 10 minutes in the garage, doing my drill with foam balls. 
    • Day 116 12-6 Still working on getting to lead side. Tonight I also tried some skill work with clubface awareness.  Hit foam balls. 
    • To flog this subject even further, if that's even possible, this article from Golf Monthly just appeared today in one of my news feeds. Written by a golf writer in the UK who I never heard of, he's basically saying that there should be only 3-5 rounds from the most recent 20 that should count towards the average and only competitive rounds should count. He claims the erratic scorers would have less of an advantage than they do now. He makes a lot of references to "club golfers" in the UK being the ones who are mostly dissatisfied. https://share.google/qmZZBEoJvOxHxJGil  In my experience with my league where we have golfers with indexes ranging from 5 to 40, looking at the weekly results from the past two years, I can detect no pattern that would substantiate the claim that the current system gives an unfair advantage to either erratic golfers (aren't we all?) or higher handicappers. Apparently though, at least in the UK, this seems to be "a thing."
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.