|
Post by jeffy on Jan 23, 2014 12:12:17 GMT -5
I'm surprised that is sufficient for you! You're getting soft! Well, some of it is process of elimination. It really can't be anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jan 23, 2014 12:15:33 GMT -5
I understand the buzz behind the purported science. For me, I had/have a problem with taking my stroke outside-to-in. I will then go closed-to-open with the face to counter that. I also have always thought that looking at the hole while putting could be very advantageous if I could pull it off.
IIRC, YAR did offer to allow people to have a 30-day trial period with a putter. I didn't ask for one because I didn't know about it until afterward. I'm not a scientist and don't know anything about aeronautical engineering.
To me, it marketed itself as being able to have the putter swing naturally on an arc, eliminate that face rotation and to be able to make good consistent contact while looking at the hole.
Regardless what the science proclaims it is supposed to do, if it did not do that I would have junked it immediately.
Now for me, I did start off making everything when I got the putter. But even if I didn't, as long as the putter did those 3 things I would still have given it a try. In fact, when I went into a long putter drought afterwards, I continued to use it. Why? Because it did those 3 things and that is what I was looking for.
I think the 'science' behind the putter played a part in me buying one, but only a small part. And if you're the average Joe that could get a 30-day trial run, you at least get to see whether the putter is worth it or not.
I think the issue is that we have yet to find an aerospace engineer with golf experience that could explain Krol's thinking and design or disprove it or say 'I see what he was attempting, these ideas are right, these are wrong.'
But, there is certainly something very different than any putter I have ever putted with or just made some strokes with (I could probably be considered OCD when it comes to seeing a putter and immediately start making strokes with it. I'm Golfsmith's worst nightmare). The YAR just feels and behaves completely differently.
This is part of the problem I have with Hannen's story. I think he had the resources to have somebody pull this apart and figure out what the deal was. Instead, he was too obsessed with exposing Krol.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Jan 23, 2014 13:18:36 GMT -5
I understand the buzz behind the purported science. For me, I had/have a problem with taking my stroke outside-to-in. I will then go closed-to-open with the face to counter that. I also have always thought that looking at the hole while putting could be very advantageous if I could pull it off. IIRC, YAR did offer to allow people to have a 30-day trial period with a putter. I didn't ask for one because I didn't know about it until afterward. I'm not a scientist and don't know anything about aeronautical engineering. I don't think that's right; I recall people trying get a trial period and not having any luck. I think it is pretty easy to deduce from this video that zeroing torques, or moments, is exactly what Dr. V is talking about in the jet fighter example she gave McCord. Adding 700 pounds to a wing would increase the moments, or torques, acting on that wing and the overall moments of the aircraft would no longer sum to zero. The jet fighter would then not be in equilibrium and would be very unstable in flight. Dr. V was criticizing the driver design because changing weights in the head would be like adding weight to a wing without an offseting torque to maintain equilibrium. It really is pretty simple. In any case, no club is built to be in equilibrium like an airplane except, it seems, a Yar putter. That's the gist of Dr. V's criticism of conventional club design.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 23, 2014 16:22:57 GMT -5
I guess Dr. V has never used a torque balanced putter. The Axis-1 was the first that I saw and used and that came out years ago.
Plenty of putters in "equilibrium" since we're just using feelings to define equilibrium.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jan 23, 2014 16:31:13 GMT -5
The YAR feels different than the Axis-1 (which I like) and the Edel Torque Balanced putters (which I also like). But both of those putters feel different from each other and other putters I've tried. She probably never used a torque balanced putter because I don't think she ever played golf.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 23, 2014 16:54:40 GMT -5
Richie -
I'm not sure how the "equilibrium" of a torque balanced putter is scientifically different than "equilibrium"of the Yar putter. If we just stick with feelings than anything goes as long as it feels good to the user.
I didn't like the feel of the Axis-1 putter. I thought the sound was off and the impact felt cheap. I have a torque balanced Odyssey putter that I like much better. I did like twirling the Axis-1 putter around in my hands.
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Jan 23, 2014 17:14:24 GMT -5
Richie - I'm not sure how the "equilibrium" of a torque balanced putter is scientifically different than "equilibrium"of the Yar putter. If we just stick with feelings than anything goes as long as it feels good to the user. I didn't like the feel of the Axis-1 putter. I thought the sound was off and the impact felt cheap. I have a torque balanced Odyssey putter that I like much better. I did like twirling the Axis-1 putter around in my hands. The Axis-1 site talks about static net torque being zero, not zero net torque while in motion. That was part of Dr. V's rant to McCord about all the designs for the past 50 years being based on a static condition. I don't know whether or not the net torques are zero when the Axis-1 or Edel putters are swung, or whether it depends on how the putter is gripped. The Yar video claimed that the torques are balanced when the Yar is swung no matter how it is gripped.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jan 23, 2014 17:19:05 GMT -5
Richie - I'm not sure how the "equilibrium" of a torque balanced putter is scientifically different than "equilibrium"of the Yar putter. If we just stick with feelings than anything goes as long as it feels good to the user. I didn't like the feel of the Axis-1 putter. I thought the sound was off and the impact felt cheap. I have a torque balanced Odyssey putter that I like much better. I did like twirling the Axis-1 putter around in my hands. Which model of Axis-1 did you try? I tried the Eagle and it felt good. The Umbra felt poorly. The Eagles is on the left, Umbra on the right 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 23, 2014 23:01:07 GMT -5
Richie -
The black model. I only liked twirling it around!!! I wanted to like that putter because torque balanced putters on paper seem logical. I'm sticking with the Kuchar putter for now. I love how my lead wrist doesn't break. It takes some time to get used to this putter. Not a massive difference at first which I suspect might end up being a positive.
I think this will cut down three putting with more consistent distance control.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jan 24, 2014 8:54:07 GMT -5
I thought the black model felt poorly and cheap as well.
The face feels very stable in the Axis 1 putter. With Edel's Torque Balanced putters the face refuses to open thru impact. However, neither the Axis1 or the Edel Torque Balance feel like the YAR when it comes to the swing motion in the putting stroke. I can take the Axis1 and the Edel torque balanced outside in my backstroke without trying to. Can't with the YAR.
To me, the scientist and the fraudulent credentials or the gender does not matter to me. The putter behaves and feels differently from any other putter out there. I would gladly give mine to an aerospace engineer with golf experience, let them pull it apart and examine it. I think Krol, at the very least, was onto something. I would just like to understand fully what it was.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by ericpaul2 on Jan 24, 2014 10:42:07 GMT -5
I think the concept between the Axis1 and the Yar are similar, but go about it differently. The Yar tries to balance the moments by providing more symmetry around the connection point of the shaft, but that's not completely true because there's more weight behind the connection point then in front (face side). The Axis1 putters tries to balance it by playing with the moment arm and weight distribution, it's not symmetrical around the "center", which I'm not sure how they define. It "looks" like they're balancing around the sweet spot, but that is ignoring the attachment point and the forced rotation around it.
The fact is that equating a jet fighter to a golf driver is not accurate because the forces propelling the driver head are not centered and in the rear...it is necessarily to the side and top and influenced by the specific properties of the shaft being used (twisting, bending, etc). Even the designers of weight adjustable drivers will say the point of adjusting the weight is not to get stable movement, it's actually to get unstable movement in order to correct for some other imperfection that is creating less desirable impact conditions. I think with putters the balance of the club is much more important because there isn't the huge magnitudes of forces that can overpower imbalances in full swing clubs.
The interesting thing about many field like golf club design (another is boat design) is that a ton of development it not done by "trained" scientists and engineers. It's a bunch of guys in their garage trying out different things. I'll take the example of boat design...a friend I went to school with really wanted to design competitive water ski boats. He basically forced, cajoled, and/or tricked his way into interviews with four different manufacturers (failing at about four others). At all four he learned that the engineers at those companies only dealt with working out how to fit in engines and electrical systems. The hull design and steering systems were done by a couple of guys, usually without college degrees, who had started the company by basically cutting the bottom out of boats, forming up a new idea, and then trying it out to see if it worked all the while pumping out the leaks caused by the on-the-fly fiberglass layout jobs. We're talking about very well known, industry leading companies in the competitive water ski boat field. One went so far as to stage water tank after the fact for marketing. Now, when you're talking about huge ships and competitive yachting, that's a different story, but the idea is the same in the golf industry.
The problem is that is just doesn't work very well to say "I took an old putter and welded different shapes on it until I liked how it felt". Way easier to convince "most" golfers based on claims of science or simply pushing brand loyalty (Scotty Cameron, I'm looking at you). That's one reason I like Martin Chuck's Tourstriker...he's totally upfront with coming up with an idea and then literally grinding the leading edge off an old club or two to see how it would work. No scientific explanation required.
I agree with Richie, particularly on the gender issue. That really is apropos of nothing. The part of this story that makes me uncomfortable is that clearly some people can't get past that aspect and want everyone who possibly contributed to them being "tricked" to pay. The reality is that if we ignore the scientific claims entirely (which, by the way, we do on a daily basis with the major OEMs), but putter appears to do what it is intended to do.
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Jan 24, 2014 12:43:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Jan 24, 2014 12:50:43 GMT -5
I thought the black model felt poorly and cheap as well. The face feels very stable in the Axis 1 putter. With Edel's Torque Balanced putters the face refuses to open thru impact. However, neither the Axis1 or the Edel Torque Balance feel like the YAR when it comes to the swing motion in the putting stroke. I can take the Axis1 and the Edel torque balanced outside in my backstroke without trying to. Can't with the YAR.3JACK Sounds like, while in motion, neither the Axis-1 or Edel are "torque balanced", in "equilibrium" or stable, and easily deviate from the intended path.
|
|
|
Post by ericpaul2 on Jan 24, 2014 14:42:05 GMT -5
It's all in what is omitted. Axis1 claims torque balanced around the center (their words), but I'm willing to bet good money that's the head only. Attaching the shaft total screws with net result (and by the way, can't be input into the CAM software since the shaft would change with length and grip variations). Attaching the shaft in the center reduces that problem, but not completely because its at an angle. And as you point out, that's only assuming a static condition, start swinging the thing back and forth and all sorts of problems with the concept crop up.
Same with driver heads...it's possible to design and measure clubhead MOI without the shaft attached, and then market that value. That's all fine and good until the ball is actually struck, and the clubhead is being restrained on one side by the shaft, which is still transmitting forces (one can argue the exact forces, which are likely dependent on shaft and user) at it's attachment point.
The reality in designing any product with this level of complexity, from golf clubs to automobiles, at some point all the calculations, modeling, and measurement of static components is still not sophisticated enough to account for all the variables. Eventually, trial and error and design evolution over iterations becomes the most effective methods of development. The challenge for small scale designers is that they don't have the decades of experience to fall back to justify breakthroughs, so they seem to feel the need to rationalize their innovations with science as if the concept was developed on paper using just scientific theory and immediately worked when applied to the real world. There shouldn't be a stigma on bright ideas...it's not like scientists or engineers have a monopoly. In fact, I think if you've been working on a particular product for too long, the opposite can be true.
My biggest frustration with the large OEMs is that they will market whatever sells regardless of effectiveness. The Scotty Cameron putters are a perfect example, but I think Ping is another one. By now, you know they are aware of the problems with a classic "anser" style blade and its conventional hosel. I bet they have figured out a say to measure torque at the clubs grip and know what designs reduce it and what don't. Instead of actually selling what works better, they promote and encourage misconceptions so they can continue to sell $300 putters that look pretty to whoever will buy them.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jan 24, 2014 15:11:44 GMT -5
And what is crazy is that when the Anser style first came out...people often remarked how 'ugly' they looked.
3JACK
|
|