Spined/Pured Shafts

PeterJamesDoyle

"Using proprietary computer software and sensitive data-acquisition sensors, the SST PURE shaft alignment process analyzes the structural irregularities that exist to some degree in every golf shaft and locates the shaft's most stable orientation. By assembling the club with the shaft in its PURE orientation, off-line bending and twisting of the shaft are minimized and impact repeatability on the center of the clubface by the golfer improves up to 51 percent. The process can be performed on existing clubs, new clubs or new shafts - steel or graphite - from most major manufacturers."

http://sstpure.com/news/release070312.html

Hi all, I've been posting replies to various threads in the last few weeks. In some I've mentioned the aspects of puring and spine aligning. I've worked in the design engineering sector since 1995, so I'm always open to advances in technology, hence my reason for being "pro" puring technology. I would love to hear your views about it.

I understand that people in the golf equipment trade are terrified of the whole concept, as a person who buys pured shafts and has a reasonable swing will be less likely to travel to the golf shop after 6 months to buy another set of clubs. Please, once again, this is not a witch hunt, but I'd like to hear the "yay" and "nay"s.

I've also included a link from an independent testing company which carried out tests on Pured and Non-Pured clubs. Dispersion, spin, trajectory and total distance were included in the analysis.

http://www.sstpure.com/sstpure_study_08.pdf

stockdam

Thanks for starting a new thread.


The first question I have is "do you sell this service"?


The next question is .........some old carbon fibre shafts did have a spine as do any shafts that are wrapped. However I would suggest that it is not correct to say that steel shafts have a spine and it isn't correct to say that there's a significant difference between steel shafts.

Yes if you use sensitive enough equipment then you'll find that even steel shafts will vibrate more in one plane than another but the difference between the major axis and the others would be very small (i.e. a steel shaft doesn't really have a preference as to how if vibrates).

Long irons and woods would benefit most......the effect (if significant) would be much less for the short irons.

Then I'd suggest that my own swing is far too random to be affected by tweaking shaft orientation.

BombSquad

[quote=PeterJamesDoyle;60810998 impact repeatability on the center of the clubface by the golfer improves up to 51 percent. [/quote]

What does this mean in English?

stockdam wrote: »

Then I'd suggest that my own swing is far too random to be affected by tweaking shaft orientation.

While I'm not familiar with shaft puring I think this comment would be true for 99.99% of us...

ShriekingSheet

I view all such "improvements in technology" with one question in mind... "Is this going to mean I take less shots?".

It all seems too detailed to me - an attempt to eliminate variables from golf which is a fruitless pursuit IMO.

How can you be so scientific when, in realitme, what actually happens is a couple of blades of grass or grains of sand get caught between club and ball, a gust of wind, a slightly misalligned stance... but at least my shaft was pure... is that the point?

I'm not wholely against it but I'm trying hard to see worth and logic in the service/product and it's not exactly blowing my skirt up over my head.

Mister Sifter

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

I view all such "improvements in technology" with one question in mind... "Is this going to mean I take less shots?".

It all seems too detailed to me - an attempt to eliminate variables from golf which is a fruitless pursuit IMO.

How can you be so scientific when, in realitme, what actually happens is a couple of blades of grass or grains of sand get caught between club and ball, a gust of wind, a slightly misalligned stance... but at least my shaft was pure... is that the point?

I'm not wholely against it but I'm trying hard to see worth and logic in the service/product and it's not exactly blowing my skirt up over my head.

Boards poster in crossdressing admission shocker!!

PeterJamesDoyle

It can be gobbledegook alright. One thing I wo'nt do is bog down anyone in scientific stuff.
To simplify it, all shafts have a point along their circumference that is stiffer than any other point on the shaft. Some have two. But if you can find that point (where puring come in), and put into the head at a 12 O clock position, it can help improve your striking, depending on your level of handicap.
I'm not a mechanical golfer, I just hit the ball and go find it, then hit it again. But my setup routine is always the same. Pick an intermediate target in front of the ball, take my stance and get my body parallel to the target line. And I hit it.
90% of the time it goes that way. But what helps is knowing that I'm using shafts that I've spined myself. I'm playing off nine but if any of you looked at the impact areas of my irons, you'd see they are pretty consisent. I put it down to spining/puring.
If I play a bad shot, I know its my technique and not the gear I'm using, cause it is assembled correctly to give you consistency.
Keep it coming men.

Mister Sifter

PeterJamesDoyle wrote: »

It can be gobbledegook alright. One thing I wo'nt do is bog down anyone in scientific stuff.
To simplify it, all shafts have a point along their circumference that is stiffer than any other point on the shaft. Some have two. But if you can find that point (where puring come in), and put into the head at a 12 O clock position, it can help improve your striking, depending on your level of handicap.
I'm not a mechanical golfer, I just hit the ball and go find it, then hit it again. But my setup routine is always the same. Pick an intermediate target in front of the ball, take my stance and get my body parallel to the target line. And I hit it.
90% of the time it goes that way. But what helps is knowing that I'm using shafts that I've spined myself. I'm playing off nine but if any of you looked at the impact areas of my irons, you'd see they are pretty consisent. I put it down to spining/puring.
If I play a bad shot, I know its my technique and not the gear I'm using, cause it is assembled correctly to give you consistency.
Keep it coming men.

But, as Sheet says, how much of an effect does it actually make. There are so many small variables involved in hitting a golf shot that emilinating one, when there are an infinite number of others, is surely hardly worth it.

I'm not stating that as fact, that's just my intitial thoughts. I'd be interested to hear exactly how much of a benefit it would be to me, without the PR speak obivously.

markie4

PeterJamesDoyle wrote: »

It can be gobbledegook alright. One thing I wo'nt do is bog down anyone in scientific stuff.
To simplify it, all shafts have a point along their circumference that is stiffer than any other point on the shaft. Some have two. But if you can find that point (where puring come in), and put into the head at a 12 O clock position, it can help improve your striking, depending on your level of handicap.
I'm not a mechanical golfer, I just hit the ball and go find it, then hit it again. But my setup routine is always the same. Pick an intermediate target in front of the ball, take my stance and get my body parallel to the target line. And I hit it.
90% of the time it goes that way. But what helps is knowing that I'm using shafts that I've spined myself. I'm playing off nine but if any of you looked at the impact areas of my irons, you'd see they are pretty consisent. I put it down to spining/puring.
If I play a bad shot, I know its my technique and not the gear I'm using, cause it is assembled correctly to give you consistency.
Keep it coming men.

Just wondering Peter, are you using the propriety SST spining etc or you finding the spine yourself and working from there?
Seem to recall a discussion in another forum, where clubmakers were suggesting there no no great benefit to "puring", but that spine alignment @9 o'clock or at 3 o'clock gave them more consistency throughout a set.

I'd say for most golfers, it'd be more worthwhile getting the flexes of their various clubs checked, most OEM's seem to have at least two flexes in any given set.

BombSquad

PeterJamesDoyle wrote: »

if any of you looked at the impact areas of my irons, you'd see they are pretty consisent. I put it down to spining/puring.

You put it down to puring? Have you seen much of a difference in your game since puring the shaft? Do you know of anyone else who has done this and improved to any great extent?

Apologies if I sound skeptical on this but I've seen very little evidence of people buying a better game through technolgy. (I'm talking about the golfer who changes from last years top the range Callaway to this year's model as opposed to changing from an old persimmon driver to modern titanium model.) Hard work on the practice ground is a lot more reliable, fun and less expensive... IMO

ShriekingSheet

PeterJamesDoyle wrote: »

I'm playing off nine but if any of you looked at the impact areas of my irons, you'd see they are pretty consisent. I put it down to spining/puring.

Hmmm. How can you "put it down to spining/puring"?

As a matter of interest, can you extimate how many shots per round you save due to spining/puring, versus the same set of clubs unpured?

stockdam

PeterJamesDoyle wrote: »

To simplify it, all shafts have a point along their circumference that is stiffer than any other point on the shaft.

Are all steel shafts formed using a flat sheet that is welded.........if so then I concede that they will be stiffer along this point. Thus aligning the seam will have an effect. However my game is so random that I doubt I would notice any difference.

kagni

I think there might be some benefit but I don't see any evidence that the average golfer is going to notice much difference.


The "independent" survey you link to was paid for by SST so it's impartiality is questionable in my view.
Also some of the results contradict what SST say in regards to pureing reducing dispersion and increasing length.

In the test on the Makser driver, the unpured shaft hit the ball further than the pured shaft.

Also in the testing of the Nike driver - for the pured shaft the balls were closer to the centre line but had a much wider dispersion than the balls from the unpured shaft. Dispersion for the pured shaft was 90 feet, dispersion for the unpured shaft was 40 feet (Page 13 and 14 of the pdf you linked to http://www.sstpure.com/sstpure_study_08.pdf )

Surely the dispersion should be less for the pured shaft.

Sandwich

PeterJamesDoyle wrote: »

" I've worked in the design engineering sector since 1995, so I'm always open to advances in technology, hence my reason for being "pro" puring technology.

Dont think thats great logic. Working in engineering and being open to advances in technology should be a reason to evaluate critically the case for puring - not a reason to be "pro" it.

Also, if there is anything in it, would everyone not be using 100% "pure" graphite shafts in all clubs?

Sandwich

PeterJamesDoyle wrote: »

I'm playing off nine but if any of you looked at the impact areas of my irons, you'd see they are pretty consisent. I put it down to spining/puring.

Sorry, but even less logic here as already mentioned. Hand the clubs to a playing partner off 24 next time you're with one, and see if he sees a big improvement in consistent impact area on irons. Doubt it.

Overall Id say there is a theoretical case that can show there is a benefit. But if that benefit is in the range of 0.001 shots per round then its practically an irrelevance. Good marketing mumbo jumbo though to the golfer always chasing the dream club at the end of the rainbow.

PeterJamesDoyle

:DGraphite shafts start out as a sheet which is rolled around a spindle. Unfortunately, when its finished its left with an edge. After painting, and buffing, the edge is no longer visible due to the paintwork, but it is there.
As for steel shafts, they are made in two ways.

Seamless start off as solid rounds and are pierced thru and extruded to form a hollow tube. These tend to be the shafts that we see with stepping patterns etc.
Welded tube shafts start off as flat steel plate, which is formed around a spindle and welded. So these will have a "seam" to some degree, which may mean a more noticable "spine" in the clubmaking process.

Can I give an example? My mate is a golf freak, and may I say before anyone else does, I do believe that his money would have been better spent on lessons over the years instead of getting sucked into the marketing game.

I put in a pured Aldila NVS 60g Regular shaft into a FT9 recently. Overall length 45", trimmed as per the manufacturers instructions. The frequency was about 248cpm. Last week, he acquired a Diablo, same shaft, same length.

He asked me to change the grip to a Callaway grip, in case he decided to sell either the FT9 or the Diablo.

I asked him for both as I wanted to check the frequency on the "unpured" shaft. Told him it was just to make sure both were the same length.
It came in at 237CPM. Said s.f.a. to my mate, gave him back the clubs, never told him. Let him hit both over 9 holes. He got about 3 drives with each.

I asked him at the end of the round. What did he think. For an 18 handicapper, he replied that the FT9 with the pured NVS was more stable, straighter. The Diablo however, felt a little softer but a little less controllable. He did hit it 10 yards further (into the rough), but that was probably due to the fact the spine could have been nearer the 3 o clock position and assisting down the swing path.

I'm glad I analysed both because it does confirm to some degree what SST are saying, that depending on where the spine is in relation to the clubhead can mean the difference between a ladies flex and a stiff flex.

Please keep it coming lads, I'm off on holidays tomorrow, but thanks again for your comments.

markie4

PeterJamesDoyle wrote: »

I'm glad I analysed both because it does confirm to some degree what SST are saying, that depending on where the spine is in relation to the clubhead can mean the difference between a ladies flex and a stiff flex.

You absolutely sure about this comment? That's a fair degree of difference in a shaft. Do you know how old was the shaft they checked? I'd hope manufacturing processes have been improved. Didn't SST do testing on some modern shafts (possibly some of the diamana) and couldn't find a specific spine?

stockdam

PeterJamesDoyle wrote: »

Seamless start off as solid rounds and are pierced thru and extruded to form a hollow tube. These tend to be the shafts that we see with stepping patterns etc.

If these are the most common steel shafts then I don't see how there would be much difference in stiffness in any plane. I therefore can't see any advantages of "puring". And if I found out that I'd paid money for snake oil then I'd be annoyed.

So to me it's important to find out how your shafts are made.