31 May 2007 19:31:42 |

Alan Baker |

More up than out... |

There seems to be a myth that when one is hitting wedges, that there is some magical swing speed which produces the maximum distance they can go. And when you exceed this magic speed, the ball doesn't go any farther, because "it just makes the ball go higher". Well, this is just so much nonsense. What's more, the formulas recently cited to support the idea that wedges can't be hit beyond certain distances if "hit as designed" show that this is nonsense. <http://www.tutelman.com/golfclubs/DesignNotes/swing2.php?ref=color=#0000FF> > This website was given to me to refute the data I provided from Golf Digest. First let's look at the equation for ball speed: V(ball) = V(clubhead) * (1 + e)/(1 + (m/M)) * cos(loft) * (1 - 0.14Miss) Where e = coefficient of restitution m = mass of ball M = mass of clubhead Miss = how much you miss the sweetspot by. But we can ignore all these for now. What's important to note is that ball speed is proportional to clubhead speed. Double the speed of the clubhead and you'll double the speed of the ball at launch. No magice speed, no diminishing returns; a simple straight-line relationship. Now, launch angle: The guy who told me that hitting with more swing speed means hitting it up more but not farther must not have been checking his references very closely when it came to launch angle. The same website gives this equation for launch angle: LaunchAngle = Loft * (0.96 - 0.0071*Loft) The author admits that its just an equation that approximates the true launch angle, but that it stays within about a degree all the way to 60 degrees of loft. So, what launch angle does a 60 degree wedge have? 32 degrees. So, the ball is being launched at *less* than 45 degrees even off a 60 degree wedge. The vertical speed is given by v(ball)sin(32) v(ball-up) = v(ball)*0.53 and v(ball-out) = v(ball)*0.85 [cos(32)] Launch the ball at 100 mph, 32 degrees from horizontal and it will be doing 53 mph upward and 85 mph away from you. IOW, folks, you're essentially *never* hitting the ball "more up than out" and when you hit the ball with 10% more swing speed, the ball leaves with 10% more velocity. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |

31 May 2007 13:18:43 |

Draco |

Re: More up than out... |

On May 31, 3:31 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected] > wrote: > There seems to be a myth that when one is hitting wedges, that there is > some magical swing speed which produces the maximum distance they can go. > > And when you exceed this magic speed, the ball doesn't go any farther, > because "it just makes the ball go higher". > > Well, this is just so much nonsense. What's more, the formulas recently > cited to support the idea that wedges can't be hit beyond certain > distances if "hit as designed" show that this is nonsense. > > <http://www.tutelman.com/golfclubs/DesignNotes/swing2.php?ref=> > > This website was given to me to refute the data I provided from Golf > Digest. > > First let's look at the equation for ball speed: > > V(ball) = V(clubhead) * (1 + e)/(1 + (m/M)) * cos(loft) * (1 - 0.14Miss) > > Where e = coefficient of restitution > m = mass of ball > M = mass of clubhead > Miss = how much you miss the sweetspot by. > > But we can ignore all these for now. What's important to note is that > ball speed is proportional to clubhead speed. Double the speed of the > clubhead and you'll double the speed of the ball at launch. No magice > speed, no diminishing returns; a simple straight-line relationship. > > Now, launch angle: > > The guy who told me that hitting with more swing speed means hitting it > up more but not farther must not have been checking his references very > closely when it came to launch angle. The same website gives this > equation for launch angle: > > LaunchAngle = Loft * (0.96 - 0.0071*Loft) > > The author admits that its just an equation that approximates the true > launch angle, but that it stays within about a degree all the way to 60 > degrees of loft. > > So, what launch angle does a 60 degree wedge have? > > 32 degrees. > > So, the ball is being launched at *less* than 45 degrees even off a 60 > degree wedge. > > The vertical speed is given by v(ball)sin(32) > > v(ball-up) = v(ball)*0.53 > > and > > v(ball-out) = v(ball)*0.85 [cos(32)] > > Launch the ball at 100 mph, 32 degrees from horizontal and it will be > doing 53 mph upward and 85 mph away from you. > > IOW, folks, you're essentially *never* hitting the ball "more up than > out" and when you hit the ball with 10% more swing speed, the ball > leaves with 10% more velocity. > > -- > Alan Baker > Vancouver, British Columbia > "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall > to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you > sit in the bottom of that cupboard." My head is hurting. How is this going to help me hit my wedge better? If I have to think about all the math, I'll never get to the first tee. Draco |

31 May 2007 16:28:22 |

Joe |

Re: More up than out... |

Draco wrote: > On May 31, 3:31 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote: >> There seems to be a myth that when one is hitting wedges, that there is >> some magical swing speed which produces the maximum distance they can go. SNIP > > My head is hurting. How is this going to help me hit my wedge better? > If I have to think about all the math, I'll never get to the first > tee. > > > Draco > It gets worse. He left out aerodynamic lift and drag factors, altitude, air pressure, temperature, ball spin rates, ball restitution, gravity, etc. Just hit the ball! :) Joe |

31 May 2007 21:50:24 |

Alan Baker |

Re: More up than out... |

In article <[email protected] >, Draco <[email protected] > wrote: > On May 31, 3:31 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > There seems to be a myth that when one is hitting wedges, that there is > > some magical swing speed which produces the maximum distance they can go. > > > > And when you exceed this magic speed, the ball doesn't go any farther, > > because "it just makes the ball go higher". > > > > Well, this is just so much nonsense. What's more, the formulas recently > > cited to support the idea that wedges can't be hit beyond certain > > distances if "hit as designed" show that this is nonsense. > > > > <http://www.tutelman.com/golfclubs/DesignNotes/swing2.php?ref=> > > > > This website was given to me to refute the data I provided from Golf > > Digest. > > > > First let's look at the equation for ball speed: > > > > V(ball) = V(clubhead) * (1 + e)/(1 + (m/M)) * cos(loft) * (1 - 0.14Miss) > > > > Where e = coefficient of restitution > > m = mass of ball > > M = mass of clubhead > > Miss = how much you miss the sweetspot by. > > > > But we can ignore all these for now. What's important to note is that > > ball speed is proportional to clubhead speed. Double the speed of the > > clubhead and you'll double the speed of the ball at launch. No magice > > speed, no diminishing returns; a simple straight-line relationship. > > > > Now, launch angle: > > > > The guy who told me that hitting with more swing speed means hitting it > > up more but not farther must not have been checking his references very > > closely when it came to launch angle. The same website gives this > > equation for launch angle: > > > > LaunchAngle = Loft * (0.96 - 0.0071*Loft) > > > > The author admits that its just an equation that approximates the true > > launch angle, but that it stays within about a degree all the way to 60 > > degrees of loft. > > > > So, what launch angle does a 60 degree wedge have? > > > > 32 degrees. > > > > So, the ball is being launched at *less* than 45 degrees even off a 60 > > degree wedge. > > > > The vertical speed is given by v(ball)sin(32) > > > > v(ball-up) = v(ball)*0.53 > > > > and > > > > v(ball-out) = v(ball)*0.85 [cos(32)] > > > > Launch the ball at 100 mph, 32 degrees from horizontal and it will be > > doing 53 mph upward and 85 mph away from you. > > > > IOW, folks, you're essentially *never* hitting the ball "more up than > > out" and when you hit the ball with 10% more swing speed, the ball > > leaves with 10% more velocity. > > > > -- > > Alan Baker > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall > > to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you > > sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > > > My head is hurting. How is this going to help me hit my wedge better? > If I have to think about all the math, I'll never get to the first > tee. > > > Draco No one's on the tee when they're posting here, so it's not a problem. The point is to debunk a common myth: that swing harder with certain clubs won't result in more distance. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |

31 May 2007 21:52:04 |

Alan Baker |

Re: More up than out... |

In article <[email protected] >, Joe <[email protected] > wrote: > Draco wrote: > > On May 31, 3:31 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> There seems to be a myth that when one is hitting wedges, that there is > >> some magical swing speed which produces the maximum distance they can go. > SNIP > > > > My head is hurting. How is this going to help me hit my wedge better? > > If I have to think about all the math, I'll never get to the first > > tee. > > > > > > Draco > > > It gets worse. He left out aerodynamic lift and drag factors, altitude, > air pressure, temperature, ball spin rates, ball restitution, gravity, etc. I left them out because most can be treated as constants for examining the question of two swings that only differ in clubhead speed and even the ones that do interact with the launch speed and spin of the ball won't change the basic truth of what I posted. > > > Just hit the ball! :) And if you hit it farther than Joe can, you must be doing it wrong! :-) -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |

31 May 2007 18:39:02 |

Joe |

Re: More up than out... |

Alan Baker wrote: > In article <[email protected]>, > Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Draco wrote: -- --- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ----! !---- ----! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! -- ! ! ! ! ! / ! ! ! / ! ! !/ / ! / ! / ! / ! / |

31 May 2007 22:53:31 |

Alan Baker |

Re: More up than out... |

In article <[email protected] >, Joe <[email protected] > wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <[email protected]>, > > Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Draco wrote: Hey... If you don't want the flak: Don't tell people they're doing it wrong when you haven't the slightest clue what they're capable of. Don't ignore data because it disagrees with your pre-conceived notions of what is possible. Do have the class to admit when you're wrong. So far, you've struck out on all three. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |

31 May 2007 16:12:41 |

dugjustdug |

Re: More up than out... |

On May 31, 2:52 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected] > wrote: > In article <[email protected]>, > > Just hit the ball! :) > > And if you hit it farther than Joe can, you must be doing it wrong! > > :-) > > -- > Alan Baker Heck, Alan. I can hit a 60* Wedge about 130 yards! >From the side of the green. Skulled. Into the pond... |

31 May 2007 23:16:16 |

Alan Baker |

Re: More up than out... |

In article <[email protected] >, dugjustdug <[email protected] > wrote: > On May 31, 2:52 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > In article <[email protected]>, > > > Just hit the ball! :) > > > > And if you hit it farther than Joe can, you must be doing it wrong! > > > > :-) > > > > -- > > Alan Baker > > Heck, Alan. I can hit a 60* Wedge about 130 yards! > > >From the side of the green. Skulled. Into the pond... LOL Then you are a member of an elite group, my friend! :-D -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |

31 May 2007 21:07:09 |

MoiMoi |

Re: More up than out... |

In article <[email protected] >, [email protected] says... > On May 31, 2:52 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > In article <[email protected]>, > > > Just hit the ball! :) > > > > And if you hit it farther than Joe can, you must be doing it wrong! > > > > :-) > > > > -- > > Alan Baker > > Heck, Alan. I can hit a 60* Wedge about 130 yards! > > >From the side of the green. Skulled. Into the pond... I can hit ANY club 130 yards. (Except when I need precisely 130 yards, of course.) MM |

01 Jun 2007 08:16:36 |

Draco |

Re: More up than out... |

On May 31, 6:53 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected] > wrote: > In article <[email protected]>, > > Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > In article <[email protected]>, > > > Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Draco wrote: > > Hey... > > If you don't want the flak: > > Don't tell people they're doing it wrong when you haven't the slightest > clue what they're capable of. > > Don't ignore data because it disagrees with your pre-conceived notions > of what is possible. > > Do have the class to admit when you're wrong. > > So far, you've struck out on all three. > > -- > Alan Baker > Vancouver, British Columbia > "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall > to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you > sit in the bottom of that cupboard." Alan, Please ignore the art work. It isn't mine and I was being silly with my comments of my head hurting. The math work to show that the myth is debunked is beyond me by some. But I did understand it. Even though Joe did point out some of the varibles left out, he shouldn't have posted the art work with my name to it. Joe, say your sorry and take a penalty stoke. Draco Getting even isn't good enough. Doing better does. |

01 Jun 2007 11:33:19 |

Joe |

Re: More up than out... |

Draco wrote: > On May 31, 6:53 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote: >> In article <[email protected]>, >> >> Joe <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Alan Baker wrote: >>>> In article <[email protected]>, >>>> Joe <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Draco wrote: >> Hey... >> >> If you don't want the flak: >> >> Don't tell people they're doing it wrong when you haven't the slightest >> clue what they're capable of. >> >> Don't ignore data because it disagrees with your pre-conceived notions >> of what is possible. >> >> Do have the class to admit when you're wrong. >> >> So far, you've struck out on all three. >> >> -- >> Alan Baker >> Vancouver, British Columbia >> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall >> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you >> sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > Alan, > Please ignore the art work. It isn't mine and I was being silly > with my comments of my head hurting. The math work to show that the > myth is debunked is beyond me by some. But I did understand it. Even > though Joe did point out some of the varibles left out, he shouldn't > have posted the art work with my name to it. > > Joe, say your sorry and take a penalty stoke. > > > Draco > > > Getting even isn't good enough. > > Doing better does. > Draco, I replied to Alan, not you, but included your name when I snipped out the text. I apologize because my response was directed at Alan only. Joe |

01 Jun 2007 08:36:09 |

Draco |

Re: More up than out... |

On Jun 1, 11:33 am, Joe <[email protected] > wrote: > Draco wrote: > > On May 31, 6:53 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In article <[email protected]>, > > >> Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Alan Baker wrote: > >>>> In article <[email protected]>, > >>>> Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> Draco wrote: > >> Hey... > > >> If you don't want the flak: > > >> Don't tell people they're doing it wrong when you haven't the slightest > >> clue what they're capable of. > > >> Don't ignore data because it disagrees with your pre-conceived notions > >> of what is possible. > > >> Do have the class to admit when you're wrong. > > >> So far, you've struck out on all three. > > >> -- > >> Alan Baker > >> Vancouver, British Columbia > >> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall > >> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you > >> sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > > Alan, > > Please ignore the art work. It isn't mine and I was being silly > > with my comments of my head hurting. The math work to show that the > > myth is debunked is beyond me by some. But I did understand it. Even > > though Joe did point out some of the varibles left out, he shouldn't > > have posted the art work with my name to it. > > > Joe, say your sorry and take a penalty stoke. > > > Draco > > > Getting even isn't good enough. > > > Doing better does. > > Draco, > > I replied to Alan, not you, but included your name when I snipped out > the text. I apologize because my response was directed at Alan only. > > Joe- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Apology accepted. Penalty stroke removed. Art work, not bad. Start the weekend off right. Go play a round of twilight golf. Draco |

01 Jun 2007 16:03:54 |

Alan Baker |

Re: More up than out... |

In article <[email protected] >, Draco <[email protected] > wrote: > On May 31, 6:53 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > In article <[email protected]>, > > > > Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > > In article <[email protected]>, > > > > Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Draco wrote: > > > > Hey... > > > > If you don't want the flak: > > > > Don't tell people they're doing it wrong when you haven't the slightest > > clue what they're capable of. > > > > Don't ignore data because it disagrees with your pre-conceived notions > > of what is possible. > > > > Do have the class to admit when you're wrong. > > > > So far, you've struck out on all three. > > > > -- > > Alan Baker > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall > > to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you > > sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > Alan, > Please ignore the art work. It isn't mine and I was being silly > with my comments of my head hurting. The math work to show that the > myth is debunked is beyond me by some. But I did understand it. Even > though Joe did point out some of the varibles left out, he shouldn't > have posted the art work with my name to it. > > Joe, say your sorry and take a penalty stoke. > > > Draco > > > Getting even isn't good enough. > > Doing better does. Don't worry, Draco. I realized that it wasn't from you and I don't get upset about such things in any case. Joe's just upset because he doesn't have the good grace to admit he was wrong. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |

01 Jun 2007 17:03:57 |

Dr. Brian Wilkinson |

Re: More up than out... |

Test On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:16:36 -0700, Draco <[email protected] > wrote: >On May 31, 6:53 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote: >> In article <[email protected]>, >> >> Joe <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Alan Baker wrote: >> > > In article <[email protected]>, >> > > Joe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> Draco wrote: >> >> Hey... >> >> If you don't want the flak: >> >> Don't tell people they're doing it wrong when you haven't the slightest >> clue what they're capable of. >> >> Don't ignore data because it disagrees with your pre-conceived notions >> of what is possible. >> >> Do have the class to admit when you're wrong. >> >> So far, you've struck out on all three. >> >> -- >> Alan Baker >> Vancouver, British Columbia >> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall >> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you >> sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > >Alan, > Please ignore the art work. It isn't mine and I was being silly >with my comments of my head hurting. The math work to show that the >myth is debunked is beyond me by some. But I did understand it. Even >though Joe did point out some of the varibles left out, he shouldn't >have posted the art work with my name to it. > > Joe, say your sorry and take a penalty stoke. > > >Draco > > >Getting even isn't good enough. > >Doing better does. > |

01 Jun 2007 13:29:25 |

Frank Ketchum |

Re: More up than out... |

"Draco" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected] > > > Start the weekend off right. Go play a round of twilight golf. > And deloft your wedges to hit them properly. |

01 Jun 2007 17:33:04 |

Alan Baker |

Re: More up than out... |

In article <[email protected] >, "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected] > wrote: > "Draco" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected] > > > > > > Start the weekend off right. Go play a round of twilight golf. > > > And deloft your wedges to hit them properly. :-D -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |

01 Jun 2007 10:55:53 |

dsc-ky |

Re: More up than out... |

I've got a little program (several years old) called Trajectory Model. When I put in a 320 gram 60 deg. wedge and 95 mph I get 89 yards carry, 100 mph = 93 yards carry and 105 mph = 96 yards carry. The laungh angle appears to be fixed at 33.1 degrees for this model. The inital spin rate is around 11000 rpm. I wouldn't count too much on the accuracy of this program. |

01 Jun 2007 18:07:20 |

Alan Baker |

Re: More up than out... |

In article <[email protected] >, dsc-ky <[email protected] > wrote: > I've got a little program (several years old) called Trajectory Model. > When I put in a 320 gram 60 deg. wedge and 95 mph I get 89 yards > carry, 100 mph = 93 yards carry and 105 mph = 96 yards carry. The > laungh angle appears to be fixed at 33.1 degrees for this model. The > inital spin rate is around 11000 rpm. I wouldn't count too much on the > accuracy of this program. Perhaps not in absolute terms, but it nicely shows what I've been saying: Hit the ball with more clubhead speed: the ball goes farther. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |

01 Jun 2007 14:34:18 |

Joe |

Re: More up than out... |

dsc-ky wrote: > I've got a little program (several years old) called Trajectory Model. > When I put in a 320 gram 60 deg. wedge and 95 mph I get 89 yards > carry, 100 mph = 93 yards carry and 105 mph = 96 yards carry. The > laungh angle appears to be fixed at 33.1 degrees for this model. The > inital spin rate is around 11000 rpm. I wouldn't count too much on the > accuracy of this program. > > Dudley That is the Max Dupilka program that started this whole discussion and it reasonably accurate. Launch angle is computed and for the 60 it will be around 33deg. You can see that if you adjust the spin coefficient of the ball. The swing speeds are what drove my statement originally. Converting a 95 mph LW swing speed back to the driver (44in shaft) gets you around 117 +/- a bit, 100 gets a driver speed at 122 and 105 at 127 mph. How many RSGers have these speeds and don't need to go to the hospital right after the swing? Joe |

01 Jun 2007 18:48:05 |

Alan Baker |

Re: More up than out... |

In article <[email protected] >, Joe <[email protected] > wrote: > dsc-ky wrote: > > I've got a little program (several years old) called Trajectory Model. > > When I put in a 320 gram 60 deg. wedge and 95 mph I get 89 yards > > carry, 100 mph = 93 yards carry and 105 mph = 96 yards carry. The > > laungh angle appears to be fixed at 33.1 degrees for this model. The > > inital spin rate is around 11000 rpm. I wouldn't count too much on the > > accuracy of this program. > > > > > Dudley > > That is the Max Dupilka program that started this whole discussion and > it reasonably accurate. Launch angle is computed and for the 60 it will > be around 33deg. You can see that if you adjust the spin coefficient of > the ball. > > The swing speeds are what drove my statement originally. Converting a > 95 mph LW swing speed back to the driver (44in shaft) gets you around > 117 +/- a bit, 100 gets a driver speed at 122 and 105 at 127 mph. How > many RSGers have these speeds and don't need to go to the hospital right > after the swing? > > Joe Your math is wrong. It's based on the idea that: Driver swing speed = LW swing speed * Driver length / LW length. Ds = 95 * 44/35.5 = 117.7, that's true, but: The actual change in swing radius is more complicated, because you're rotating the club head from your shoulders. So one should really be talking about the change in proportion from ball to shoulder distance, which is about 66" for the driver and perhaps (I'm estimating since I don't have a wedge handy) 60" with a wedge. So then you get: Ds = 95 * 66/60 = 104.5 The true answer probably lies somewhere between the two, but that's only if you ignore another factor: Not all clubs are equally easy to swing. It's all well and good to just look at the proportionality based on shaft lengths and centres of rotation and declare a simple swing speed, but what if I made the driver 60" long? What if it were 120" long? Baseball pitchers get their *hands* moving at close to 100 mph, so clearly there isn't a simple relationship between length of the lever and speed of at its end, is there? Face it, Joe: you're wrong. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |

01 Jun 2007 20:08:31 |

Robert Hamilton |

Re: More up than out... |

Joe wrote: > dsc-ky wrote: > > I've got a little program (several years old) called Trajectory Model. > > When I put in a 320 gram 60 deg. wedge and 95 mph I get 89 yards > > carry, 100 mph = 93 yards carry and 105 mph = 96 yards carry. The > > laungh angle appears to be fixed at 33.1 degrees for this model. The > > inital spin rate is around 11000 rpm. I wouldn't count too much on the > > accuracy of this program. > > > > > Dudley > > That is the Max Dupilka program that started this whole discussion and > it reasonably accurate. Launch angle is computed and for the 60 it will > be around 33deg. You can see that if you adjust the spin coefficient of > the ball. > > The swing speeds are what drove my statement originally. Converting a > 95 mph LW swing speed back to the driver (44in shaft) gets you around > 117 +/- a bit, 100 gets a driver speed at 122 and 105 at 127 mph. How > many RSGers have these speeds and don't need to go to the hospital right > after the swing? > > Joe You've never seen people in there with a simulator swinging out of their skeletons to get some maximal swingspeed, which they then claim as "their swingspeed"? I'm sure many RSGers can get the thing up to 125mph! |

01 Jun 2007 14:45:27 |

dsc-ky |

Re: More up than out... |

On Jun 1, 2:34 pm, Joe <[email protected] > wrote: > dsc-ky wrote: > > I've got a little program (several years old) called Trajectory Model. > > When I put in a 320 gram 60 deg. wedge and 95 mph I get 89 yards > > carry, 100 mph = 93 yards carry and 105 mph = 96 yards carry. The > > laungh angle appears to be fixed at 33.1 degrees for this model. The > > inital spin rate is around 11000 rpm. I wouldn't count too much on the > > accuracy of this program. > > Dudley > > That is the Max Dupilka program that started this whole discussion and > it reasonably accurate. Launch angle is computed and for the 60 it will > be around 33deg. You can see that if you adjust the spin coefficient of > the ball. > > The swing speeds are what drove my statement originally. Converting a > 95 mph LW swing speed back to the driver (44in shaft) gets you around > 117 +/- a bit, 100 gets a driver speed at 122 and 105 at 127 mph. How > many RSGers have these speeds and don't need to go to the hospital right > after the swing? > > Joe Very few normal golfers can swing a 90+ mph wedge... no disagreement there. |

01 Jun 2007 14:48:03 |

dsc-ky |

Re: More up than out... |

> You've never seen people in there with a simulator swinging out of their > skeletons to get some maximal swingspeed, which they then claim as "their > swingspeed"? I'm sure many RSGers can get the thing up to 125mph! I might be able to swing @125 (don't know for sure)... but could I ever hit a golf shot swinging @125? |

03 Jun 2007 10:28:33 |

Frank Ketchum |

Re: More up than out... |

"Alan Baker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected] > > The actual change in swing radius is more complicated, because you're > rotating the club head from your shoulders. > > So one should really be talking about the change in proportion from ball > to shoulder distance, which is about 66" for the driver and perhaps (I'm > estimating since I don't have a wedge handy) 60" with a wedge. > > So then you get: > > Ds = 95 * 66/60 = 104.5 > > The true answer probably lies somewhere between the two, but that's only > if you ignore another factor: > But but but the software model doesn't account for this so it must not be true! Sort of shows the foolishness of using a software tool (which would be useful for some calculations probably) and proclaiming it as gospel for everything. Reminds me of the climate change computer models. In your example, you would also need to include a derating factor based on how delofted the club is at impact. A driver would be at full extension, not delofted but a wedge would be delofted which means that the effective radius is smaller. |