Altering Heft
Now we know how to estimate heft before the fact, and measure it
after the fact. But a clubmaker is often faced with an important
practical
aspect: altering the MOI or swingweight when a design that's good for
other purposes -- particularly length -- gives the wrong heft.
Let's say you have picked the components you need, and the swingweight
is just wrong. You can't go to a heavier/lighter shaft or clubhead; the
reason might be as simple as you're starting with an already completed
(or store-bought) club. What do you do to increase or decrease the swingweight.
Increasing heft
From the definition of swingweight, we can increase it by adding weight more than
14" from the butt or subtracting weight less than 14" from the butt. Let
me strongly recommend against the latter; any swingweight change achieved near the butt is bogus, and is not reflected in a heavier-swinging club. There may be other uses for butt weight for some golfers, but swingweight adjustment is not one of them.
If you're considering heft in terms of MOI, you won't suffer any such confusion; weight at the butt has no effect.
So we'll have to add weight to increase the heft. In order
to minimize the total weight gain for a particular swingweight or MOI gain, we'll
add it as far as we can from the pivot, at the clubhead. How do we do this
in practice?
-
The best way is inside the clubhead, if that's physically possible. Most
woods and metalwoods either have weight ports or at least have room for
you to make one. A few irons also have them (including many models from
Golfsmith and Tom Wishon). If your
club has a weight port, you can increase the swingweight with lead or tungsten (discs,
powder, or shot) and epoxy or "mouse glue" to hold it in place.
If your wood doesn't have a weight port, you can make one. The technique
of making a weight port is slightly different for woods and metalwoods.
With woods, you just have to remove the soleplate and you can do the obvious
woodworking to hollow out an area and fill it with lead and epoxy. Then
replace the soleplate. (Check a repair book for the ins and outs of removing
and replacing soleplates.)
With metalwoods, drill a hole in the
bottom of the hosel (or just remove the hosel plug if it's removable).
Put a "paste" of epoxy and lead or tungsten powder into the hole.
Then replace the hosel plug. A couple of details:
- You can use just the "Part A" of two-part epoxy. That way,
there is no working-time problem. The "paste" stays sticky and viscous
forever, so the fact that it isn't a hardened bond shouldn't hurt.
- When you drill the hole, use a 1/4" bit. The hole will be small
enough to leave a shoulder to seat the shaft, yet big enough to fit a
plastic drinking straw -- my preferred tool to insert the weighted
paste.
- If you have to make a new hosel plug, you can do so by punching
it out of plastic -- like the polyethylene top of a coffee can. My tool
of choice for the punch is the sharpened tip of a steel shaft of the
right diameter. Sharpen it with your 20° coning countersink. Then
use a [not sharpened] shaft tip to seat the plastic disc in the hosel.
-
If your clubhead doesn't have a weight port and you can't or won't add
one, add the weight with lead tape on the clubhead itself. Theoretically,
the best place to put the tape is somewhere that doesn't greatly affect
the placement of the CG of the head. Note that this implies adding tape
on two diametrically opposite sides of the clubhead, with the CG on the
line connecting them. If you can do this at the heel and toe of the club,
you'll also be increasing the peripheral weighting, thus making the sweet
spot bigger.
But, in truth, the position of the tape won't make too much difference.
The tape will seldom be as much as 10 grams, so neither the moment of inertia
nor the CG can be much affected by it. (It takes a lot of tape to get to
10 grams; the tape I use is a half-gram per inch, and that's pretty standard.)
I have heard a number of people complain that they don't like lead tape
because it's "ugly". The best I can do here is to point out relevant classic
quotes:
-
"Beauty is as beauty does." (William Shakespeare, poet.)
-
"Form follows function." (Louis Sullivan, architect.)
-
"When you hit the ball, you'll forget what it looks like." (John Solheim of Karsten Golf,
describing his incredibly ugly Ping Zing.)
-
Some still are convinced by the "ugly" argument, and advocate putting weight
at the tip of the shaft inside the hosel. There are two ways of accomplishing this:
- Ready-made tip weights, that are epoxied into the shaft tip
when the shaft is installed in the head. These are available in lead,
brass, and tungsten.
- Heavy powder (lead or tungsten) added down the shaft of an
already-assembled club, and secured near the tip with a cork. (Of
course, you'll have to remove the grip to add the powder and cork.)
This is okay, as long as you
don't add too much weight there. Weight at the shaft tip will move the
CG of the clubhead (and thus the "sweet spot" of the club) upward and toward
the heel. This is undesirable, but the move is negligible as long as you
don't put more than about 10 grams there.
A more serious problem with this approach is the danger of weakening
the shaft tip. This could result from:
-
The flange on the bottom of ready-made shaft-tip weights forces the shaft
to "bottom out" short of the bottom of the bore. That means there is less
supported tip in the hosel. Most weight designs limit this to about 1/16",
but some steal more bore from the shaft. "Short-shafting" is the most common
cause of graphite shaft breakage.
-
The second leading cause of graphite shaft failure is an epoxy "plug" inside
the shaft, that rises to or above the top of the hosel. If you epoxy the
weight in place inside the shaft, it becomes such a plug. So get a weight
that isn't a tight fit inside the shaft, and don't epoxy it to the shaft
but rather inside the hosel, or just epoxy the flange to the tip of the shaft.
- If
you are using powder and a cork instead of epoxying in a tip weight,
the cork or column of compressed powder may have the same effect as an
epoxy plug.
These failure modes are much more common in graphite shafts than steel.
As Murphy's law would predict, shaft-tip weights for graphite shafts have
thicker flanges and are longer, leading to more shaft vulnerability. So
be careful.
-
I have seen some advocate drilling holes in the stainless steel of the
clubhead, and filling the holes with lead. I don't mean a weight port to
the inside of a hollow clubhead, but rather a replacement of stainless
steel with lead.
This is pretty ineffective, because the gains of replacement are pretty
trivial. Stainless steel weighs 8 grams per cc, and lead 11 grams per cc.
That means that for every cc replaced, you gain only 3 grams (a little
over one swingweight point). Just for reference purposes, a 1cc hole is
made by a 3/8" drill bit 1/2" deep. That's pretty severe surgery for most
iron heads, and you only get three extra grams out of it.
Whether we're adding weight in a port, in the shaft tip, or taping it to
the clubhead, we should bear in mind the amount of material we'll need
to apply. Consider the table below:
| Material |
Specific
Gravity |
Melting
Point |
Solid tungsten
|
19
|
|
Tungsten powder
|
11
|
|
| Pure Lead |
11 |
326 C |
| 50-50 Solder (Pb,Sn) |
9 |
220 C |
| Wood's metal (Pb,Bi) |
10 |
150 C |
| Lead/epoxy (50-50) |
6 |
|
While epoxying is a technology familiar to every clubmaker, we
shouldn't
automatically be scared off by the thought of melting lead. It's easier
than you think, and gives a much higher-density weight. You can melt it
with the torch you use to remove shafts, and drip it into a mold of
some sort -- or directly into the cavity, if possible. Solder, which is
still heavier than a lead/epoxy paste, can be easily melted with an
electric soldering iron.
It is probably worth noting that lead, absorbed repeatedly over long
periods of time, is toxic. If you weight clubs with lead powder or by
melting lead once or twice a year, this is no big deal. But, if you are
a professional clubmaker who does this all the time, you need to treat
lead as a hazardous material.
Decreasing heft
From the definition, we decrease swingweight by subtracting weight more
than 14" from the butt or adding weight less than 14" from the butt. As
noted above, swingweight modification at the butt, while it does affect
both the calculated and measured swingweight, does nothing for the
"heft"
of the club in any constructive way. It doesn't affect the MOI -- the
real, physics-based measure of heft -- nor does it show any effect in
computer simulations. Heavy grips and butt weights affect the
swingweight, but not the underlying heft factors. There may be other uses for butt weight for some golfers, but swingweight adjustment is not one of them.
So the only ways to decrease heft usefully are to reduce the
shaft weight or length, or the clubhead weight. Consider:
- Shaft weight is controllable, at some expense. Lightweight steel
and graphite
shafts offer a way to reduce swingweight. Weights range from the
standard
weight steel shafts, at 120-130 grams, to ultra-light graphite, at
60-70
grams. There are even super-light shafts in the 50-gram range. That's a
range of over ten swingweight points. But as the weight goes
down the price goes up, especially if you want to keep torque constant.
Moreover, it takes about three times the weight savings in the shaft to
equal the swingweight impact of saving weight in the clubhead.
-
Clubhead weight is a lot harder to control. The total range of head weights is less than
10 grams, or five swingweight points, and the vast majority
of component heads lie in a 3-gram range. (That's a 5-iron between 253
and 256 grams, and the rest of the irons on a 7-gram interval.)
One way of reducing head weight is grinding it off. I've done
this with
a grinding cylinder in a Dremel Moto-Tool, removing as much as 7 grams
of steel. The best way is to remove material from the inner wall of the
cavity-back, since the cavity walls are not structurally important. But
have plenty of abrasive disks handy; you'll wear them out fast on the
hard stainless steel used in most golf clubs. And don't try this trick
on forged clubs, unless you're going to have them re-chromed
immediately.
- Shaft length can be reduced but, as we saw in the previous
chapter, only
if a more upright lie can be tolerated. For every degree of lie that
the
shaft is more upright, it can be a half inch shorter or three
swingweight
points lighter. Of course, you will still need to do a dynamic lie test
to fine-tune the lie. After all, changing the length and lie changes
the swing plane, so it may change the swing enough to knock off the
one-degree-per-half-inch rule.
Design Example
OK, so you've decided what length club you need to build.
From a completely different set of considerations, you've decided
what swingweight it needs to be. (We'll use swingweight for this example, because it's a little harder than MOI.)
All that remains now is to choose a compatible set of components
from the catalog and build the clubs. Right? Well, maybe. Let's look at
a challenging example of design to a simultaneous specification of length
and swingweight.
I'll focus on the case of long clubs, because that's where I've
most frequently found a challenge in designing to both the right length
and swingweight. Consider the problem of designing a set of irons for my
son, who is very tall and requires clubs 1.5" over a nominal men's set.
However, I don't want to give him anything that swings heavy. From experience, I know he does best with a D-1 or so.
We'll work the problem for a 5-iron; I advise starting with a
middle iron, because the solution that works for that club usually can
be applied equally well to the longer and shorter irons. (This principle
isn't as applicable when working with woods because most bags don't have
a lot of them, and the driver is frequently designed quite differently
from the others.)
| Start with a "standard" sort of 5-iron: |
|
"Usual" clubhead (say an Acer) |
256 grams |
|
True Temper Dynamic shaft |
128 grams |
|
"Standard" length for men's 5I |
37.5 inches |
|
|
|
|
Gives a swingweight of . . . . . |
D-0 |
No surprise that "standard" components will give a "standard" swingweight.
But, when we add 1.5 inches to the length, the swingweight jumps
to D-9. (Check with the sensitivity tables; 6 swingweight points per inch
times 1.5 inches is 9 points.) So we have to do things to reduce the swingweight
by at least 9 points. Let's look at the different ways we could accomplish
the design:
Lighter Clubhead
This is the first approach that comes to mind, because weight at the clubhead
is a very strong determinant of swingweight. (If we were trying to increase
swingweight instead of decreasing it, adding weight to the clubhead is the time-honored way of doing it.)
Unfortunately, there isn't too much available in this department. Many
Golfsmith heads are down to 253 grams for the
5-iron, but I know nothing on the market any lighter.
Looking at the swingweight tables for cross-sensitivity, we see that
saving 3 grams of head weight saves 2 swingweight points. We'd be down
to D-7. Let's do it!
Lighter Shaft
We've saved all we can at the clubhead, where
saving a gram really buys
something. It takes 10 grams in the shaft to save a swingweight point.
We're trying to get from D-7 to D-1, so we will need to save 60 grams.
That means we need a 68-gram shaft (60 grams less than the "standard"
128g from the table).
Can we find shafts that light for
irons? Well, they will be graphite, not steel, at that weight. And
looking in the catalogs, we find they are available. But shafts that light tend to have a flex profile and torque
that are better suited to slower-swinging seniors and women, not a
tall, strong athlete. An iron shaft that would fit my son for the other
shaft specs (other than weight) will be 10-15 grams heavier, in the
78-83g range -- and there are a lot of choices there. So let's get
something in that range, and resign ourselves to needing to still find
an extra swingweight point or a bit more.
It should be noted here that, while most steel
shafts have a centered balance point, almost all graphite shafts have a
balance point 3/4" to 1.5" higher than the middle of the shaft. That
will reduce the swingweight further. For instance, raising the balance
point by 1" on an 80g gram shaft will reduce the effective torque of
the shaft by 80 gram-inches. Remembering that 50 gram-inches is one
swingweight point, we may have achieved our target swingweight already.
In fact, we probably want to try the club out
in this configuration. In many cases, a slightly higher swingweight
than the one that gives optimum golf shots with give good golf shots --
and more more reliably. (That's experience more than theory.)
But suppose our testing shows that we really need to reduce the clubs by another point plus...
Upright Lie
We can't save any more swingweight by reducing weight, but maybe we can
reduce the length. Yeah, I know we said 1.5" long but....
A lot of tall players learned their swing before they got a set
of clubs built for their height. Those that did tend to have a rather upright
swing plane. That means we already should have been thinking about an upright
lie for them, but now we have additional motive. Remember that each degree
of lie is worth 1/2".
Let's try it! We only need to reduce the club's swingweight by 1-1.5
points, which means reducing the length about 1/4 inch. That is only a
half degree more upright. We know we are going to measure and set the
lie angle dynamically after the clubs are finished. If a half degree
error on the lie angle matters to you, then you can count on having to
bend some of the clubs to match the golfer anyway. So the swing plane
change due to 1/4" of length reduction is probably not going to change
the amount of bending to get the clubs' lie angles right.
A more important consideration is whether the shorter, more upright
club is good for the golfer. You can only find that out by having him
hit balls. The choices at this point are:
- The clubs are good at the target swingweight and 1/4" shorter
than designed, with lie adjusted for the slightly more upright swing
plane.
- Go with the target length and one swingweight point heavy.
Frankly, the latter will usually be better in the long term, but only
trying it out can tell which to do. In fact, both designs are very
close at that point -- much closer than you'll ever be able to fit this golfer with off-the-rack clubs.
Last modified Nov 4, 2006
|