|   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 

Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    golf
    Posts
    1
    Rep Power
    0

    Swingweight estimate help...

    hello everyone. i have a nike ignite 410 driver with the stock fujikura stiff shaft. i am wondering what the swingweight may change to if i were to trim 1/2" to 1" from the butt end of the club? also, would there be any negative effects when cutting the shaft??? the nike website claims a d3 swingweight for the club (65g shaft weight). thanks for any responses!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NCR CC, South
    Posts
    47
    Rep Power
    0
    For each 1/2" you trim, it will reduce the swingweight by 3 points; 1" trim will reduce by 6 points. I would do this with EXTREME caution, because once you've done it, it's done. And, going to a lighter swingweight can destroy the feel of the club, and make it feel like there's no weight in the head. Plus, all things equal, a shorter club has a shorter arc, and therefore less head speed, which results in less distance.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Mt. Aires
    Posts
    1,199
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by cyy
    hello everyone. i have a nike ignite 410 driver with the stock fujikura stiff shaft. i am wondering what the swingweight may change to if i were to trim 1/2" to 1" from the butt end of the club? also, would there be any negative effects when cutting the shaft??? the nike website claims a d3 swingweight for the club (65g shaft weight). thanks for any responses!
    Go here:\http://www.swingweightestimator.com/
    It is a swingweight calculator. I was amazed how accurate it is compared to my swing weight. Yes, everyone. I am a clubbuilder. I play component clubs as much as I play pro line. I love them. But I will not try to sell them to you, not even let you borrow mine. Nor will I start a cult to join or invite you to sell Amway. So please don't crucify me.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Harbour Town
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by bdcrowe
    Go here:\http://www.swingweightestimator.com/
    It is a swingweight calculator. I was amazed how accurate it is compared to my swing weight. Yes, everyone. I am a clubbuilder. I play component clubs as much as I play pro line. I love them. But I will not try to sell them to you, not even let you borrow mine. Nor will I start a cult to join or invite you to sell Amway. So please don't crucify me.
    I am not against well made component clubs. You should be a resource here on this subject.

    The reason I am FOR proline is because they undertake all of the R & D costs and marketing costs to get the clubs to market. I think component club manufacturers should come up with their own designs vs. making thinly veiled copies of what some other company has spent millions to design and develop at risk in the marketplace.

    On the other hand, I do know that some component makers design their own products and for these firms - I have no complaints....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Mt. Aires
    Posts
    1,199
    Rep Power
    21
    Once again,very well said. That's almost verbatim what I tell people wanting the Powersole irons or Turner driver or whatever else looks like a Taylor Made. More of a problem to me is that the Pro Lines use quality materials and the knockoffs give you pretty zinc alloys that will not play well, hold up more than a summer, and will vary in head weight by 4 - 8 grams (a pain to swingweight). Since my clubbuilding is more of a hobby, I have the luxury of only building components I trust and respect. Integra, SMT, Dynacraft, Golfsmith.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Oak Valley
    Posts
    7,980
    Rep Power
    30
    With all respect, Bravo, I think you may be blurring the distinction between "component clubs" and "clone clubs". As you know, clones are nothing more than knock offs of popular OEM's; the "thinly veiled copies" as you say. They border on counterfeiting. Components can be high quality and original (SMT, Snake Eyes, etc.), and shouldn't have to suffer "guilt by association" with clones that mimic the appearance of well known clubs from Callaway, Ping, Titleist, Taylormade, etc.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Mt. Aires
    Posts
    1,199
    Rep Power
    21
    dorkman makes a good point. I don't think, though that Bravo is blurring very much. To quote him : "On the other hand, I do know that some component makers design their own products and for these firms - I have no complaints...." :
    I do, however have a different take on the subject of R&D. R&D is not sacred between the Pro Lines, so I think that a different standard should not be held for component companies. i.e. Brother Karsten introduced the cavity-back. All companies have benefitted from that. I don't even know who introduced the first undercut cavity, but Hogan gets most of the hurah for it. When one Pro-Line figured out that copper inserts had certain benefits, they all went to that trend, then tungsten, then cryo-treatment, etc... infinium. They all "learn" from one another, so I don't see a problem between Nike's Slingshot and Integra's Super Concord or Synchron's Medic, or Callaway's X16 and Acer's XP Pro, as long as you know by looking at it that it is a component. Where I do have a problem is that each company has a right to it's name, it's reputation, it's consumer standing so-to-speak. When another company infringes on that by mimicking, or riding the coat-tails of what the Pro-line has done to establish itself, that is seedy and morally bankrupt. You see so many clubs that are low-quality look-alikes. You see Nike-style heads with a curvy checkmark as a logo that mimicks a swoosh, even one who's iron name is Swoosh. Give me a break! I feel like, aside from the R&D $ mentioned above, Pro-line companies put a lot of advertising $ into their product with tour sponsorships, etc... and then pass the costs to the customer. No problem here. But if a component company produces similar technologies, minus the endorsements and doesn't try to infringe on the trademark (different from technology monopoly, mind you) ownership, no problem here either. I feel that there is a genuine market for those who do not feel the need to play what Tiger plays, can't afford them, has different priorities, etc... but still would like to have the benefit of today's golfing technologies. While I hope that I've made it clear that I strongly feel that each company's rights should be upheld both morally and legally, for me it's about the golfer and not the company, because that is what drives our beloved industry-- the individual golfer. Trust me, the companies can and do fend for themselves. Their legal departments are well able to take care of the legal side of the coin. It's up to that individual golfer to refuse the purchase of morally bankrupt, name-stealing clones. My .02 anyway. Thanks Bravo for a great insight, and I'm sorry CYY for hijacking your thread.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What's your ideal driver swingweight?
    By Strick in forum Golf Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-22-2009, 02:39 AM
  2. What swingweight?
    By graham43 in forum Golf Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-08-2006, 12:00 PM
  3. distance estimate
    By 19handicap in forum Golf Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-06-2006, 06:47 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-12-2005, 03:55 AM
  5. swingweight
    By funamotoa in forum Golf Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-10-2005, 05:53 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •