From: davet@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Dave Tutelman)
Subject: Re: The Feel of Forged (was: high end iron selection)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs - Lincroft, NJ
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:04:30 GMT
Summary: manufacturing? try marketing...

In article <fragante.721085309@unixg.ubc.ca> fragante@unixg.ubc.ca (Gv Fragante) writes:
>In <5796@naucse.cse.nau.edu> kwc@elden.cse.nau.edu (Ken Collier) writes:
>
>>I was reading Tom Wishon's book "The Modern Guide to  Golf  Club-
>>making"  just last night and he addresses this question very well
>>in chapter 2....  Forged vs. Cast makes abso-
>>lutely no difference in the "feel" of the  club.   It  turns  out
>>that soft carbon steel lends itself to forging better than stain-
>>less steel while stainless steel flows better  for  casting  than
>>carbon steel.  So, most forged clubs are CS while most cast clubs
>>are SS.  Therefore, the material makes some  difference  in  club
>>softness  but  the  manufacturing  process does not.
>
>You've got some interesting findings. What then is the advantage of forging
>over casting ? If the characteristics of the *resulting* forged and cast club-
>heads are the same, why not make all clubheads under the casting process using
>stainless steel ?

I think the article says that it's the carbon steel, not the forging,
that helps the "feel".  If carbon steel flowed well enough to cast,
the minimum-cost method of building maximum-feel clubs would be to cast
them from carbon steel.  But apparently, that's outside the current
manufacturing technology.  So if you want CS, it's got to be the expensive
forged club.

>>seem that CS clubs would impart a different "feel" than SS  clubs
>>right?   Wrong.  Because of all of the other variables (ball con-
>>struction, shaft flex, etc.), the clubhead hardness only  affects
>>the  malleability  of the club not the way the club feels when it
>>strikes a ball.  This was confirmed in a blind study done in 1986
>>(I  think)  where  pros  hit balls alternating between forged and
>>cast clubs.  All with identical head  designs  and  shafts.   The
>>pros  were  consistently unable to "feel" any difference ...

So much for my above theory.  (If you read my post a few months ago about
the dynamics of a clubhead striking a ball, you won't be surprised that
I'd abandon the CS/SS-different theory so quickly.)

>Besides, casting is not only cheaper but more durable since
>forged carbon steel is known to rust much more quickly than SS (if SS does
>rust at all).

Very good point!

>I also have no doubt about the casting process creating a high-
>quality clubhead - proof of which are the Accuforms and the Taylor-Mades.
>Surely, there must be a reason, apart from manufacturing decisions, why forged
>blades are still being made.

New theory: It's not manufacturing reasons, its marketing!!!
As long as golfers (not generally impoverished as a group) are willing
to pay twice the price for "high quality feeling forged clubheads",
why should the manufacturers not sell it to them?  (And laugh all the
way to the bank.)

In fact, they may get some "feel benefit" from the expensive forged clubs.
There are few other sports where state-of-mind plays as large a part in 
performance.  I have NO DOUBT that non-blind tests would come out VERY
differently.  Those who believe forged will feel better WILL feel the
difference and WILL play better with them.

>subjectively I believe that the very subtle senses of the good golf player can 
>differentiate the "feel" - just like auditioning high-end 
>speakers. Objectively, they both sound very good. But when you listen longer 
>and longer, you find one speaker more pleasing than the other.

Bingo!  My point exactly!  I abandoned rec.audio several years ago, when the
"golden ears" started flame wars with the "objective testing" crowd about
whether they were wasting their bucks on high end equipment that was
indistinguishable from mid-fi in double-blind tests.

I hope we're not about to start that in rec.sport.golf.

Dave