Speed vs Force, With Respect to Distance

[Tee2Trees]

54 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

Clubhead speed is a much larger factor than mass so the benefit of any extra mass is always offset by the loss in speed.  So though you could theorically increase the smash factor by a tiny fraction by adding weight, the player won't increase their max ball speed or distance.

So Wishon is correct, the only benefit of short and heavy is for the player to have a better sense of the club and make consistently better contact.

This all changes with off-center contact.  If you can swing a sledgehammer at 100 mph it doesn't matter where on the face you hit it, the sledgehammer does not twist from the impact of the ball and all of its energy is transferred and no gear effect is imparted.  This is the forgiveness benefit of a heavier clubhead regardless of its MOI.

[Lihu]

9 minutes ago, Tee2Trees said:

This all changes with off-center contact.  If you can swing a sledgehammer at 100 mph it doesn't matter where on the face you hit it, the sledgehammer does not twist from the impact of the ball and all of its energy is transferred and no gear effect is imparted.  This is the forgiveness benefit of a heavier clubhead regardless of its MOI.

This has been my experience.

This is kind of the effect that I am seeing using steel shafts, but as noted in the Tutleman page I lose about 10m or more with a normal swing because of the increased the shaft mass as it is an uncut 146gm X300 shaft. The 46.75" length provides a little more distance, but only marginal.

The advantage is that I can pretty much swing out of my shoes and not be punished as much with the mishits I get swinging out of my shoes. In the winter time, I tend to try to swing out of my shoes to get similar distances the same as summer with my normal Ping i25 PWR55 S driver. The steel shaft tends to be more forgiving and theoretically 1/4 the torque of a graphite shaft.

If you want to experiment, it will only cost you $18 for the shaft and another $20 to install and grip it. If you keep it at full length the flex needs to be higher.

[SavvySwede]

16 minutes ago, Tee2Trees said:

This all changes with off-center contact.  If you can swing a sledgehammer at 100 mph it doesn't matter where on the face you hit it, the sledgehammer does not twist from the impact of the ball and all of its energy is transferred and no gear effect is imparted.  This is the forgiveness benefit of a heavier clubhead regardless of its MOI.

But you can't swing a sledgehammer at 100mph. I've hit balls with those extra heavy training clubs and my best hits with them still don't go as far my poor hits with a regular driver.

 

 

[freshmanUTA]

1 hour ago, SavvySwede said:

Well I don't know anything about hockey so I assumed you just hit the puck. Just read about the slapshot on Wikipedia and it said they intentionally hit the ground first to bend the stick, interesting stuff. Learn something new everyday.

Never anything wrong with learning something new!

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

Oh, they also say somewhere that speed is time over distance, not the other way around.

Who would ever think that a published article could get both formulas wrong..

[DaveP043]

4 minutes ago, freshmanUTA said:

Who would ever think that a published article could get both formulas wrong..

I'm not surprised when simple things are wrong.  What does surprise me is that someone is so careless with the simple things, then expects to be taken seriously on the complicated things.

Oh, and its easy to get published when you own the website.  Please note, this is NOT intended to reflect on the ownership of this website, but rather on the owners of www.bull3d.net

Edited February 23, 2016 by DaveP043

[iacas]

3 hours ago, freshmanUTA said:

Speed=Time/Distance

Force=Mass * Accelleration(The article has it wrong)

That's not entirely accurate either, though, and I hate hate hate how F=ma is abused by people in golf.

F=ma is more a matter of solving for F, not in measuring F. A golf club traveling 100 MPH at impact delivers the same amount of energy or "force" (colloquially, not in physics terms) whether it's accelerating (positively or negatively) or not. And technically every clubhead traveling in an arc is accelerating, since the vector is changing.

F=ma is more appropriately applied to say "Okay, I have a clubhead or arms or whatever weighing this much and I want them to be going 140 MPH by this point, how much force do I need to apply to do it?" Or "How much force was applied to get the clubhead to do this in this amount of time and over this space?"

F=ma should almost never be used to determine how much "force" was applied to the golf ball. That's not what it's for.

E=1/2mv² is often more appropriate.

3 hours ago, freshmanUTA said:

Long drivers have a fast club-head speed due to a shorter acceleration into the ball, which according to the defenition of Force, would mean they have greater force.

No, it means they require or expend greater force to get the club to accelerate to a faster speed in less time/space.

3 hours ago, freshmanUTA said:

Their test "Short-Driver" swung fast but couldn't have the mass of his body match up with a fast Accelleration into the ball which means he provides less force which makes the ball go shorter.

That doesn't make any sense.

If both had similar impact conditions, the ball would go about the same distance. I doubt very much the short hitter had 140 MPH clubhead speed.

I think their software is goofy or faulty or something.

3 hours ago, freshmanUTA said:

Player A accelerates at 10MPH/S

Player B accelerates at 5MPH/S

Player A would swing at 100 MPH with 1000N of Force.

Player B would swing at 100 mph with 500N of force.

That's not how that works, no.

Consider applying 500N of force to something for 10 seconds - it will be traveling much faster than something hit with 1000N for less than half the time. Newtons are just kg*m/s² IIRC. All the numbers you've made show that you can apply less force but you need twice the time to reach the same end speed. It's like a 0-60 test… yes, both cars can reach 60 MPH, but the roadster does it in 3.6 seconds while the station wagon takes fourteen minutes.  Pretending all else is equal, they'll both have supplied the same total force, but one will spend less force for longer.

Not to mention that the units are off… let's not mix imperial and metric, please.

Anyway, that has little to do with the golf swing, really. The short hitter is not swinging the clubhead at 140 MPH.

18 minutes ago, Lihu said:

This is kind of the effect that I am seeing using steel shafts… The advantage is that I can pretty much swing out of my shoes and not be punished as much with the mishits I get swinging out of my shoes.

You really aren't, @Lihu. I know you like your steel shafted driver, but the higher static weight probably just makes you swing more slowly so you make more centered contact.

You aren't benefitting from the added mass of the bottom 3-4 inches or so of the steel shaft over the graphite ones.

18 minutes ago, Lihu said:

If you want to experiment, it will only cost you $18 for the shaft and another $20 to install and grip it. If you keep it at full length the flex needs to be higher.

Please don't spend the time or effort to do this. @Lihu you shouldn't be, either…

10 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

But you can't swing a sledgehammer at 100mph. I've hit balls with those extra heavy training clubs and my best hits with them still don't go as far my poor hits with a regular driver.

Right.

[Lihu]

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

You really aren't, @Lihu. I know you like your steel shafted driver, but the higher static weight probably just makes you swing more slowly so you make more centered contact.

You aren't benefiting from the added mass of the bottom 3-4 inches or so of the steel shaft over the graphite ones.

 

I definitely won't argue that as the likelier possibility, I should just pull out the Ping i25 and swing "normal".

There is no distance benefit to the steel shaft as far as I can tell from the Tutelman page. He states a gain of more than 10m with 80gm lighter shafts.

 

[freshmanUTA]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

F=I'm ma is more a matter of solving for F, not in measuring F.

F=ma is more appropriately applied to say "Okay, I have a clubhead or arms or whatever weighing this much and I want them to be going 140 MPH by this point, how much force do I need to apply to do it?" Or "How much force was applied to get the clubhead to do this in this amount of time and over this space?"

F=ma should almost never be used to determine how much "force" was applied to the golf ball. That's not what it's for.

I think their software is goofy or faulty or something.

Not to mention that the units are off… let's not mix imperial and metric, please.

I can't get the multi quote to work so bear with me.

 

1.) This is correct, I didn't say it was exact. I'm explaining how the article says the formulas work.

2.) I understand that, but the article used the equations(the wrong ones too, I made the mistake of not correcting the speed formula) and I was trying to explain how they thought they were using A. The right formulas, and B. Using them correctly.

3.) F=ma is a classroom equation, I understand. But it still has some basis in applied physics.

4.) Their whole study is off.

5.) It actually doesn't matter if you mix a unit of distance with a unit of mass/weight, as there are no direct conversions between the two. I understand that it is annoying and confusing to see me mix. It's just easier for me to use grams for weight and mph for speed since I do live in the us, but I'm studying first year applied physics.

 

As for everything in a whole, my post was explaining the "research" they did in the article, I even said it was oversimplified and in reality it's not how the golf swing works. I understand you have much more experience than I do working with equations in relation to golf, but I don't appreciate being treated like I'm completely wrong in everything. I already stated in my original post that the work done was incorrect and oversimplified.

 

But thank you for pointing out how they could have done better, maybe we could have TST study and write a counter-article on why their information is incorrect?

[Tee2Trees]

4 hours ago, SavvySwede said:

But you can't swing a sledgehammer at 100mph. I've hit balls with those extra heavy training clubs and my best hits with them still don't go as far my poor hits with a regular driver.

 

 

Right, but there are a lot of players who can swing their 3 wood the same speed as their driver (like me).  This is despite the fact that the 3 wood has a heavier head and a shorter shaft.  Of course it does suggest there is some speed left on the table when it comes to swing mechanics, but it also means that for the given swing, a customized driver built to the same length and weight as the 3 wood will produce the same distance with greater forgiveness than an off-the-rack driver.

[Ernest Jones]

4 hours ago, SavvySwede said:

But you can't swing a sledgehammer at 100mph. I've hit balls with those extra heavy training clubs and my best hits with them still don't go as far my poor hits with a regular driver.

 

 

BINGO!

Distance comes from speed and centre contact. 

[BlackandGold]

I remember reading an article that said Evolution was "just a theory".  The guy who claims to be scientifically literate and states F= M / A is the guy who upsets me more... 1+1=2, as in my 2 cents.

[Tee2Trees]

On 2/23/2016 at 5:08 PM, Ernest Jones said:

BINGO!

Distance comes from speed and centre contact. 

If you just want distance and center contact is a forgone conclusion, then use a 185 gram head, a sub 40-gram shaft, and 8 degrees or lower loft.  You will gain at least 5 mph over anything off the rack.

You can fit to maximize the benefit of your best strikes or to minimize the penalty of your worst ones, but not both.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Tee2Trees

[SavvySwede]

7 minutes ago, Tee2Trees said:

If you just want distance and center contact is a forgone conclusion, then use a 185 gram head, a sub 40-gram shaft, and 8 degrees or lower loft.  You will gain at least 5 mph over anything off the rack.

You can fit to maximize the benefit of your best strikes or to minimize the penalty of your worst ones, but not both.

I think you're overvaluing the effect that head weight has on forgiveness. We tend to find the center more often with heavier heads which makes them appear more forgiving. You want to play the lightest head you can that doesn't effect your strike pattern.