Question

2.25K viewsMay 5, 2020

muskie67 14 May 5, 2020 0 Comments

Hi Britt,

Was hoping you would elaborate a bit on the loft spacing in iron designs. The TS1’s for example, are not near the 4* per iron spacing you see in most club designs (with 3* in the longer irons). 2.5*, 2.5*, 3.5*, 3.5*, 4*, 4.5*, 4.5*…it’s just a bit odd/non-conventional to me. I’m wondering if proper distance gapping is what is looked for/tested…and is therefore present in the irons, and the stated loft “is what it is” so to speak…but still produces 10-15 yards gap between clubs?

Anyway, if you would please elaborate, I would appreciate it.

Thank you in advance, Muskie

2 Answers

Answer 1 · 2020-05-06T13:19:11+00:00

Loft progressions are a bit tricky, but are mostly driven by the need to achieve a progressive, playable level of distance gapping throughout the set. That being said, the trends that are the result of different companies going strong on lofts to create the illusion that technology is creating more distance (when it’s primarily strong lofts) have had to come into consideration when determining lofts and loft progressions. On the long and mid iron portion, because we have to be able to compete and because lofts have become so strong, progressions tend to get narrower, as you see in the TS1. Because we did a #3 iron in the set, the gap(s) between the 3,4,5 needed to be a little narrower to be able to be where we needed to be on the #6 iron. From there, we can go back to the more conventional gapping of 3.5 to 4 degrees in the 6,7,8. When you get into the short irons, we must stretch them to 4.5 degrees so that by the time you get to the PW and GW, you are in a place that allows better transition gapping into the scoring wedges. If we did not offer a #3 iron, and TS1 and the legacy models TE and DBM are the only models we offer the #3 iron, it would be easier. Without the #3, the gaps will be 3 degrees to 4 degrees throughout the set, usually. In hindsight, the #3 was probably not needed in the TS1. Makes no sense to make a #3 iron with less than 20 degrees, remembering that traditionally they were at least 22 degrees. Obviously when you have 2.5 degrees progressions, the distance gap between the #3 and #4 will be less, probably 10-12 yards vs 12-15 yards, but this will vary greatly from player to player. We are conscious of where the cg location is in the lower lofted clubs and analyze ball flight to insure that the combination puts the trajectory in a good window.

No real formula, but we do look at each design, the category we are designing for, the target window for the vertical cg lcation, and the trends and go from there. Ultimately first articles are evaluated and we tweak from there, if needed.

Britt Lindsey

Answer 2 · 2020-05-13T09:08:47+00:00

Interesting, So no studies done to find the true loft ‘gap’ needed to give the player even distances between clubs? I am not altogether certain that this can only be done on a personal basis for individual, surely there can be a theoritical analysis.

PING seem to have done this with very specific variable loft gabs in their irons to 1/10 of a degree/

Personally, I have long been bemused that most GW’s are same headweight/shaft lengh as PW’s but the same loft gapping. That must mean a narrower distance gap between the two clubs relative to othe rest. I threw out my PW, and bent all others around it, I now have 5 degree gaps between 8iron and 58 degree on my Maltby DBMS, ie 7i 34,8i 38,9i 43,GW 48, then 53,58

this permits me to drop one club, so now I carry 13, or I have an array of differnet fairways, hybrids etc that I can swap in for different courses or conditions.

I would like expand the loft gaps on 4-7, irons but there isnt any logical way to do it, without doing some crazy bending or weight changes, and I havent yet tested my whacked out theory on the trackman yet, but I am happy.

Loft gapping is individual as you can get and for those that want to take the time and truly analyze, they can most likely find that “perfect” progression, for them with the clubs they have chosen. In theory, through modeling and maybe even robotic testing, you could come up with a consistent loft/gap/ distance number, but it could be different for each design even if the lofts are the same between the two designs you are testing. Also, if you change the shaft, you can change the results. So, one shaft, one head, one club head speed, one attack angle would yield one result. Difficult to extrapolate that data and say that is the “true” loft gap needed for every player. There are other reasons why it is up to the individual player to work and determine what loft progressions give them the gapping they need, but hopefully this is enough to explain why there are variations. As designers, we simply start with a progression that generally should give the player an acceptable and playable gapping for that particular design.

Britt Lindsey