What would be the effect of impact on the shaft assuming a flush shot with the clubface making contact slightly open and hinge action causing a rebound down the target line? I believe there was some research done in "Search for the Perfect Swing" but that is very dated research.
At impact the clubhead is still lagging behind the hands but because of hinging, the shaft is beginning to unload correct?
Then the force of impact must create additional stress on the shaft as the clubhead slows to absorb energy of impact. This while one or more accumulators keep driving or pulling.
Just thinking out loud here, but wouldn't the appropriate shaft flex be the one that keeps a consistent load on the shaft through the impact interval, i.e not releasing too soon or too late?
If this is the case, then wouldn't swing speed in combination with hinge action through the impact zone be one of the primary determinates of shaft flex?
Thanks,
Bagger
This is an excellent post that provides many springboards for fog-lifting. Allroads lead to Rome, as they say, but "so many roads, so little time."Bagger, let's see if you and I can work together on this one on apiece-by-piece basis, and via the cumulative mosaic, get the job done overtime.
Let's begin today with your first question:
1. The Search For the Perfect Swing is not only "very dated"today, it was dated the day it was published! In fact, in our January 1982 GSEMclass, Homer several times demonstrated certain Golfing Machine Principlesusing their research. Unfortunately, they usually were negative examples becausehe showed where, despite their good intentions, the research was flawed. [AsMae West used to say, "I was Snow White...But I drifted!"]
One of the points we discussed -- the application of the Hinge Action duringImpact -- bears directly on your quesiton. In Search For the Perfect Swing,there were close-up pictures of the Clubface alignment through Impact, andvarious conclusions were reached because of those alignments. While theconclusions reached were accurate enough given the alignments studied, Homershowed us how the alignments themselves were wrong! Thus, they had distortedthe research conclusions.
Specifically, the machine used to produce the Clubface Motion was producing an AngledHinge Action of the Clubface. And per 10-10-C, Angled Hinging producesClubface Layback and a Slice tendency that must be compensated per 2-J-1. As heexplained the problem, Homer showed us the pictures and then said somethinglike, "See?" Well, in a unison voice that would do justice to theMorman Tabernacle Choir, our five-person class sang out, "No, Homer. No,we don't see!" So, he proceeds to pull out a ruler from his desk,lay it on the photographs, and patiently demonstrate where the Clubface wouldhave been had Dual Horizontal Hinging been used!
Lean forward folks, and listen to me whisper, "This is not normal!"Who but Homer Kelley would ever have picked that fact up from a routine displayof Impact photos? What kind of a person thinks like that? Only a CertifiedGenius whose mission was to solve the riddle of G.O.L.F. for once and for alltime!
Instead its Angled Hinge Action, the machine should have been adjusted toproduce the true Centrifugal application; namely, Dual Horizontal Hinge Action(per 2-G and 10-10-D), wherein the Clubface maintains its "Closingonly" Motion -- no Layback. This is the Ideal Application discussedand illustrated in 2-C-1.
It is so designated because -- unlike the flawed experiments in Search Forthe Perfect Swing, "the Angled Clubshaft and Closing Clubface arerotating around the same center and there is no glancing force except forbackspin." Hence, the Point of Compression is never lost and the Line ofCompression is sustained through to Separation (2-C-0). Therefore, nocompensations are required.
Linear Mode
