From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Graphite Shaft Prices
Organization: none
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:03:28 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>FROM:   Dave Tutelman <davet@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
>
>In article <727910703.AA09234@tdkt.kksys.com> David.Moore@tdkt.kksys.com (David Moore) writes:
>>I've assembled several graphite shafted clubs and I usually stick to
>>the  mid  to  low  price  range  of the graphite shafts. You can get
>>$12.50 cheapies like Golfsmith's "Carbon Stick" for  irons  all  the
>>way  up  $150  shafts  made  by various companies  for  professional
>>golfers.  There  is  a inverse relationship between torque and price
[...]
>IMHO, the main (probably only) reason for going to a graphite or other
>composite shaft is weight.  (Debate below, for those who dispute this.)
>The weight costs you in either looser torque or $$$$.  I agree with
>David Moore on most of his points above, but come at it from a slightly
>different point of view.  Building on what Dave writes...
>
>I don't want loose torque if I can avoid it.  I don't know if it does in
>fact produce a higher trajectory (I thought that was low bend point, not
>torsion), but I don't need to hit the ball any higher (quite the contrary).
>However, I certainly want a torsionally stiff shaft when my clubhead hits
>the ground; this is when the forces on it are most likely to knock the
>face off line.  So, where does this push me?
> - Low torque OK on a driver, because I shouldn't be hitting the ground
>   anyway.  (And I've found that a keel sole driver resists twisting when
????

Doesn't torque develop because the toe is offset from the hosel, and the 
shaft twists under the acceleration?

[...]
>I promised to debate whether composite shafts are good for anything but
>weight reduction.  IMO, the only argument worth considering here is
>the "feel" argument.  Graphite DOES damp a lot of high-freq vibration,

I agree.  If you can afford them, graphite shafts are nice, but I don't 
think they cut shots off my handicap compared with a top quality lightweight 
steel.

>>>>>Given  all  this,  can  anyone  tell me if graphite shafts priced
>>above $25 apiece ACTUALLY HELP a person's game (handicap  of  10  to
>>25).    By  this,  I  mean  helping  by  actual  physics....not  the
>>confidence that comes from hitting a club with a $150 shaft on it.
>
>I think I made myself clear on this point.

There may be a miniscule advantage, but you can't save many strokes with 
tiny advantages tee to green.  The pros are going to graphite because 
they are paid to play them, for one thing, and for another,  even one 
shot over the course of the weekend will pay for the whole set of clubs 
and then some.  With this in mind, there are still successful pros with 
steel shafts in their clubs.  I don't think it matters much, just so the 
shaft is a good one.

>
>>>>>What about durability of the shaft itself vs.  price?  I've never
>>seen even a cheapy graphite shaft snap....
>
[...]
>(BTW, if a graphite shaft DOES snap, DON'T -- repeat, DO NOT -- handle
>it near the point where it broke.  The fibers are exposed, tiny, stiff,
>and as splinters are damnably difficult to remove.  Don't ask me how
>I know  :-()
>
>Dave

I got 2 summers out of a $70 Aldila HM something or another.  I got 
splinters in my fingers two shots BEFORE it snapped!  Nasty little black 
buggers.   I'm going back to an expensive steel (cheap relative to a 
comparable graphite.)  GREAT shaft while it was in one piece.  I just 
don't think it was $70 great.  

IMHO, the playability difference between top line clubs and 
second line clubs is frequently the shaft.  The shaft is one of the most 
important equipment considerations -- never skimp on a shaft.  A cheap
shaft feels crumby even with an expensive head, but a crumby head can 
feel pretty good with a top line shaft.

My other graphite is ready to go any time now.  Like I said -- back to 
steel for me.

-jim


Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf