curious how the MPF UL Wood shafts (L/R/S flex) compare amongst themselves as well as how all compare with M890 (LL/L/R-flex).
primary interest would be carry distance, head rotation at impact (to help hold of a slice), as well as clubhead speed. All at same shaft length in same driver head.
The LL and the L in the M890 are have a more flexible profile than the L flex MPF UL in L flex. A flexes are similar in profile but the balance point is slightly higher in the M890. R flex is MPF UL is slightly firmer in the tip section than the R flex in the M890. The weights are noticeably lighter in the MPF UL and because of that the geometry of the shafts in the L and A flex mostly, is larger (bigger circumference). I only mention this because when you get into the sub 50 gram shafts geometry is important to maintain strength and that sometimes is why even though the profile of the shaft from a frequency or deflection standpoint may be slightly softer, the shaft can still feel more firm than the numbers suggest.
Both are excellent products. The lighter weight will be more likely to help with the club head speed. Torques are similar across both models so no impact on feel or head rotation.
Britt Lindsey
We have the data of the Grafalloy Attack Lite A flex in our data base (not sure what year) and it is stiffer in the butt section and mid section and very slightly softer in the tip section. Overall deflection shows it would play slightly firmer in the A flex than either the M890A flex or the MPF UL A flex.
Britt Lindsey
thank you sir
I would think that the UL would hold up well to more aggressive swings then the M890.
balance points are probably a little lower in the M890?
Thanks Britt, just what I was looking for.
Do you think the old Grafalloy Attack literally would be comparable to the Mpf UL both in A-flex?