Question:
Need more help! I am able to buy some new irons this year and I am trying to decide whether to buy steel or graphite shafts. In trying several different models I noticed I hit the ball farther with graphite. It also seemed like I have better feel with the graphite shaft. I’m only in my second year of playing golf and my handicap is a 25 and 28 years old. I looking for some advice as to how I should choose my shaft, graphite or steel? Advantages and Disadvantages of both? Help me. Thanks. Eric
Response:
Graphite shafts are typically 1 inch longer than the same clubhead with steel shafts. In almost all cases this is where the added distance comes from. Check out the FAQ for more information on steel and graphite shafts at: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html Need more help! I am able to buy some new irons this year and I am trying to decide whether to buy steel or graphite shafts. In trying several different models I noticed I hit the ball farther with graphite. It also seemed like I have better feel with the graphite shaft. I’m only in my second year of playing golf and my handicap is a 25 and 28 years old. I looking for some advice as to how I should choose my shaft, graphite or steel? Advantages and Disadvantages of both? Help me. Thanks. Eric
– Dan Driscoll Current USGA Handicap Index – 16.3 RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/driscolld.htm Keep Usenet Clean, Trash a Spammer!
Response:
Graphite shafts are typically 1 inch longer than the same clubhead with steel shafts. In almost all cases this is where the added distance comes from. Um… what about the lighter weight of the graphite which contributes to a higher club head speed? I have X-14s in steel and my dad has identical X-14s in graphite. The length of the shaft are the same…
Well if we go back to basic physics we discover that speed X Mass = force. Thus a lighter weight Is offset by the higher speed. So unless the lighter weight allows you to have a longer shaft there would be no gain in totle force applied to the ball by a lighter shaft unless you have a longer shaft. The lighter weight = faster clubhead speed = distance equation is a myth. And please don’t blame me…take it up with Sir Newton. — The DeMented Golfer Golf spelled backwards is flog Rick DeMent "Time to pull a quick Hank Snow." To reply remove the XX from my E-mail address
Response:
Rick, <partial snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Well if we go back to basic physics we discover that speed X Mass = force. Thus a lighter weight Is offset by the higher speed. So unless the lighter weight allows you to have a longer shaft there would be no gain in totle force applied to the ball by a lighter shaft unless you have a longer shaft. The lighter weight = faster clubhead speed = distance equation is a myth. And please don’t blame me…take it up with Sir Newton. — The DeMented Golfer Golf spelled backwards is flog Rick DeMent "Time to pull a quick Hank Snow." To reply remove the XX from my E-mail address
You better check your physics book again. According to Sir Newton, force = mass x acceleration, _not_ force = mass x speed. And that doesn’t really matter anyway since in a collision (such as when a golf club head hits a golf ball), Conservation of Momentum is the physics principle that applies. In the case of a golf club, the clubhead mass X the clubhead velocity = the ball mass X the ball velocity (I’ve left out the coefficient of restitution between the club head and the ball to keep things simple). As long as the mass of the clubhead doesn’t change and the mass of the ball doesn’t change and the angle of attack doesn’t change, the faster the clubhead is moving at impact, the further the ball goes down the fairway (or into the rough in my case). Kenny and Sir Issac stick by that. Kenny http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/stultzk.htm
Response:
Some clubheads come in different weights depending on whether the head is to be installed on a graphite or steel shaft. Callaway is one of the companies that does this and that is why your clubs are the same length in steel and graphite. The total weight of the steel and graphite shafted clubs is probably about the same. This does result in a higher swingweight for the graphite shafted clubs. Graphite shafts are typically 1 inch longer than the same clubhead with steel shafts. In almost all cases this is where the added distance comes from. Um… what about the lighter weight of the graphite which contributes to a higher club head speed? I have X-14s in steel and my dad has identical X-14s in graphite. The length of the shaft are the same…
– Dan Driscoll Current USGA Handicap Index – 16.3 RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/driscolld.htm Keep Usenet Clean, Trash a Spammer!
Response:
this reply is really to Demented golfer and Joe, but as my server hasn’t got your messages yet I have to reply here. Firstly…. Joe is correct… it is F=Ma (force in Newtons = mass (kg) * acceleration m/s2 (can’t be arsed with superscripts)!!! It can also be written as force = rate of change of momentum!! Its certainly not F = mad (mad eh, maybe it is!!) The problem is a simple physics one….. conservation of momentum, conservation of energy…. the only thing that cocks up the cals is the coeffiecient of restitution and losses such as heat etc Before impact = after impact M1v1 + m20 = M1V2 + m2vball now there are 2 masses and 3 velocities to worry about… velocity of club before impact, velocity of club after impact, velocity of ball. The last version I saw on the group had neglected the fact that the club still has momentum after the contact. now we can also apply conservation of energy … and really the kinetic energy is the only one we need to worry about here. As demented said, 1/2mv2 is the Ke of an object and Ke before – KE after so stick in all the variables into the equation and the balls initial velocity falls out! As for steel to graphite lets complicate the thing and look at what the shaft is actually doing prior and after collision……. (ok lets not!) Before you buy.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Rick, <partial snip Well if we go back to basic physics we discover that speed X Mass = force. Thus a lighter weight Is offset by the higher speed. So unless the lighter weight allows you to have a longer shaft there would be no gain in totle force applied to the ball by a lighter shaft unless you have a longer shaft. The lighter weight = faster clubhead speed = distance equation is a myth. And please don’t blame me…take it up with Sir Newton. — The DeMented Golfer Golf spelled backwards is flog Rick DeMent "Time to pull a quick Hank Snow." To reply remove the XX from my E-mail address You better check your physics book again. According to Sir Newton, force = mass x acceleration, _not_ force = mass x speed. And that doesn’t really matter anyway since in a collision (such as when a golf club head hits a golf ball), Conservation of Momentum is the physics principle that applies. In the case of a golf club, the clubhead mass X the clubhead velocity = the ball mass X the ball velocity (I’ve left out the coefficient of restitution between the club head and the ball to keep things simple). As long as the mass of the clubhead doesn’t change and the mass of the ball doesn’t change and the angle of attack doesn’t change, the faster the clubhead is moving at impact, the further the ball goes down the fairway (or into the rough in my case). Kenny and Sir Issac stick by that. Kenny http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/stultzk.htm
Well ok so now you have to go back to the book. The minute the weight changes the mass changes because weight is proportional to mass, unless your on the moon (god bless you Allen Shepherd) And your right, speed is not the right term it and nether is acceleration. Velocity is the correct term. But the point here is that if the weight of the club (therefore the mass) is lighter, the increased speed of the club head will be a wash in terms of the force hitting the ball. coefficient of restitution between the club head and the ball that’s just BS because it will not change between a steel shafted laminated maple head and a graphite shafted titainium head (well ok it will, but not to any mesurable degree on the golf course.) Your equation makes no sense because the ball velocity is zero and the ball mass is not relevant because we are only concerned with the relative effect on the ball made by a lighter or heavier club. As fo the The only way to change the equation is to make the club head move faster in relation to the mass. The only way to do that is to make the shaft longer and maintain the same weight . This would make a wider arc and since the weight does not change you get the desired effect. — The DeMented Golfer Golf spelled backwards is flog Rick DeMent "Time to pull a quick Hank Snow." To reply remove the XX from my E-mail address
Response:
<snipped And your right, speed is not the right term it and nether is acceleration. Velocity is the correct term.
The equation was F = ma where I went to school, not F=mv. coefficient of restitution between the club head and the ball that’s just BS because it will not change between a steel shafted laminated maple head and a graphite shafted titainium head (well ok it will, but not to any mesurable degree on the golf course.)
All the clubhead speed in the world won’t matter if energy isn’t transferred to the ball during impact. Your equation makes no sense because the ball velocity is zero and the ball mass is not relevant because we are only concerned with the relative effect on the ball made by a lighter or heavier club.
The velocity of the ball is its launch velocity, which is hopefully not zero. The point of discussing the ball’s mass is simply that the smaller ball will move faster than the larger clubhead that hits it. The energy is transferred from the larger object to the smaller one in such a collision. The coefficient that you prefer to dismiss explains just how much of the energy is transferred. The only way to change the equation is to make the club head move faster in relation to the mass
You seem to be on the right track here, but notice that now you’re actually agreeing with Kenny. So there it is, a nice happy RSG ending. The only way to do that is to make the shaft longer and maintain the same weight .
Well, maybe not such a happy ending. There are plenty of other ways to speed up the clubhead. Oh well… Joe
Response:
Actually you have proved the first law of education, mainly that you forget 3/4 of what you learned. The equation your thinking of is: F = (ma)d where a is the acceleration applied to the mass, m, and d is the distance through which it acts.
If we’re talking about the same golfer, with the same shaft length, d is constant for this discussion. So if d figures in the force equation, which I don’t think it does, it would be a coefficient more than anything else. But the is another equation which masures that same thing (you forgot this one too.) E = 1/2mv2
I didn’t forget it. I didn’t know it. 
I was sticking to the one I knew. <points not really being debated snipped The velocity of the ball is zero at instance of contact unless your playing baseball. And the physics are the same if you hitting a golf ball or a bowling ball. Of course the golf ball will go farther but the force will be the same.
The equation Kenny mentioned, which is the only one relating to ball velocity, relates to the transfer of energy from the club to the ball. It’s a sort of "before and after" equation, where the ball’s velocity is not zero. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The only way to change the equation is to make the club head move faster in relation to the mass You seem to be on the right track here, but notice that now you’re actually agreeing with Kenny. So there it is, a nice happy RSG ending. The only way to do that is to make the shaft longer and maintain the same weight . Well, maybe not such a happy ending. There are plenty of other ways to speed up the clubhead. Oh well… Agreed but the context here needs to relate to the original idea which is if you have two clubs with the same shaft length but one is lighter because of the space age materials used will the higher swing speed resulting from the higher weight produce more distance. My answer was no unless you could increase the swing speed more then the marginal increase you would get due to the lighter swing weight.
I guess I can’t directly argue with you on this single point, because I don’t know just how much faster the club would travel with a lighter shaft, or how much speed translates to distance. I spent twenty years hitting those velocity-having baseballs, so every golf club I’ve ever swung felt light and traveled fast. If you’ve studied the increase in swing speed as it relates to shaft weight you’re a step ahead of me. I do, however, disagree with some of the fundamentals of your argument, which I’ve addressed. in E = 1/2mv2 The mass (which on earth is proportional to the weight) and the velocity make the higher swing speed of the lighter club a wash unless there is another factor at work, such as a longer shaft and no increase in weight.
I have to throw in that you are squaring the increase in swing speed, assuming that you mean v^2. This makes increased velocity more significant than reduced mass in this equation. You are also not reducing the mass (clubhead) which is striking the ball. Making the shaft lighter will not reduce that part of the equation. The club may be lighter, but the clubhead is not. Think about hitting the ground with the handle end of a sledgehammer while you hold the head. It’s not the same. If the mass in this equation included the shaft, it would necessarily include your arms, as they are all moving with the clubhead at impact. In any case, I’ve been reminded why I majored in Political Science and not Physics. This stuff could make your head spin if you tried to factor in everything that is involved. Joe
Response:
Sorry, I’ll have to go with F=ma. Acceleration is never applied to a mass, force is applied to the mass to cause acceleration. Brendan — Handicap: 11 Ouyen Golf Club Page http://members.xoom.com/ouyengc RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/deanb.htm
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snipped And your right, speed is not the right term it and nether is acceleration. Velocity is the correct term. The equation was F = ma where I went to school, not F=mv. Actually you have proved the first law of education, mainly that you forget 3/4 of what you learned. The equation your thinking of is: F = (ma)d where a is the acceleration applied to the mass, m, and d is the distance through which it acts. But the is another equation which masures that same thing (you forgot this one too.) E = 1/2mv2 where m is the mass of the object and v2 is its speed multiplied by itself coefficient of restitution between the club head and the ball that’s just BS because it will not change between a steel shafted laminated maple head and a graphite shafted titainium head (well ok it will, but not to any mesurable degree on the golf course.) All the clubhead speed in the world won’t matter if energy isn’t transferred to the ball during impact. Right like if you miss the ball. For the sake of this argument you have to assume it hits the ball and does so squarely or else we start quibbling about irrelevant facts. But the fact stands that this business about the coefficient of restitution in not relevant if you assume that the transfer takes place. This whole line is just a bunch of nonsense to complicate the simpler issue which is a lighter club will not increase distance over a club with the same shaft light but with more weight. Your equation makes no sense because the ball velocity is zero and the ball mass is not relevant because we are only concerned with the relative effect on the ball made by a lighter or heavier club. The velocity of the ball is its launch velocity, which is hopefully not zero. The point of discussing the ball’s mass is simply that the smaller ball will move faster than the larger clubhead that hits it. The energy is transferred from the larger object to the smaller one in such a collision. The coefficient that you prefer to dismiss explains just how much of the energy is transferred. Once again, mass and weight are proportional on the earth!!!! A larger lighter clubhead and a smaller head with more weight have the same mass (they could have a different mass but the idea is to make a clubhead as big as you can but not to increase the weight otherwise there is no sense in doing it) . The velocity of the ball is zero at instance of contact unless your playing baseball. And the physics are the same if you hitting a golf ball or a bowling ball. Of course the golf ball will go farther but the force will be the same. The only way to change the equation is to make the club head move faster in relation to the mass You seem to be on the right track here, but notice that now you’re actually agreeing with Kenny. So there it is, a nice happy RSG ending. The only way to do that is to make the shaft longer and maintain the same weight . Well, maybe not such a happy ending. There are plenty of other ways to speed up the clubhead. Oh well… Agreed but the context here needs to relate to the original idea which is if you have two clubs with the same shaft length but one is lighter because of the space age materials used will the higher swing speed resulting from the higher weight produce more distance. My answer was no unless you could increase the swing speed more then the marginal increase you would get due to the lighter swing weight. in E = 1/2mv2 The mass (which on earth is proportional to the weight) and the velocity make the higher swing speed of the lighter club a wash unless there is another factor at work, such as a longer shaft and no increase in weight. — The DeMented Golfer Golf spelled backwards is flog Rick DeMent "Time to pull a quick Hank Snow." To reply remove the XX from my E-mail address
Response:
While Callaway used to do this, they don’t anymore. Atleast not on the x-12s. Same exact clubhead regardless of shaft according to the rep I recently spoke to. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some clubheads come in different weights depending on whether the head is to be installed on a graphite or steel shaft. Callaway is one of the companies that does this and that is why your clubs are the same length in steel and graphite. The total weight of the steel and graphite shafted clubs is probably about the same. This does result in a higher swingweight for the graphite shafted clubs. Graphite shafts are typically 1 inch longer than the same clubhead with steel shafts. In almost all cases this is where the added distance comes from. Um… what about the lighter weight of the graphite which contributes to a higher club head speed? I have X-14s in steel and my dad has identical X-14s in graphite. The length of the shaft are the same… — Dan Driscoll Current USGA Handicap Index – 16.3 RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/driscolld.htm Keep Usenet Clean, Trash a Spammer!
Response:
In any case, I’ve been reminded why I majored in Political Science and not Physics. This stuff could make your head spin if you tried to factor in everything that is involved. Joe
Agreed !!!!!!! — The DeMented Golfer Golf spelled backwards is flog Rick DeMent "Time to pull a quick Hank Snow." To reply remove the XX from my E-mail address
Response:
Sorry, I’ll have to go with F=ma. Acceleration is never applied to a mass, force is applied to the mass to cause acceleration. Brendan — Handicap: 11 Ouyen Golf Club Page http://members.xoom.com/ouyengc
And as it is that’s fair enough, but the point is that both equations state exactly the same thing when you realize that on earth mass is directly proportional to weight.
Response:
Hi I have a problem. I am an intermediate golf player still wokring or my swing and I curently use graphite shafts with stiff flex but I have been told that in my new set I ma getting to go with steel shafts with regular flex because the stell is better they said. Well I know the Stiff flex in either is not what I need I need regular but graphite or steel I am going to use the shafts on my Taylor Made Super Steel Irons!!! I hope you guys can help me!
Response:
Hi I have a problem. I am an intermediate golf player still wokring or my swing and I curently use graphite shafts with stiff flex but I have been told that in my new set I ma getting to go with steel shafts with regular flex because the stell is better they said. Well I know the Stiff flex in either is not what I need I need regular but graphite or steel I am going to use the shafts on my Taylor Made Super Steel Irons!!! I hope you guys can help me!
If your an intermediate golfer I wouldn’t expect much difference either way. Your swing will be the greatest variable in your game. Graphite should give you a little more distance, but that probably won’t impact your overall score. The only problem I could foresee is if you are use to swinging ultralite graphite shafted irons you may feel like steel shafted irons are heavy. This "feel" problem could potentially mess you up in the short term, but you would probably get use to it over time. The best suggestion I can make is hit the type of irons you are thinking of getting with both types of shafts. Do this several times over the course of several weeks. If you feel comfortable with the steel then save yourself some money and go with those. If the steel doesn’t feel right than you might want to stick with graphite. Hope this helps, Mark Arrigo
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi I have a problem. I am an intermediate golf player still wokring or my swing and I curently use graphite shafts with stiff flex but I have been told that in my new set I ma getting to go with steel shafts with regular flex because the stell is better they said. Well I know the Stiff flex in either is not what I need I need regular but graphite or steel I am going to use the shafts on my Taylor Made Super Steel Irons!!! I hope you guys can help me! If your an intermediate golfer I wouldn’t expect much difference either way. Your swing will be the greatest variable in your game. Graphite should give you a little more distance, but that probably won’t impact your overall score. The only problem I could foresee is if you are use to swinging ultralite graphite shafted irons you may feel like steel shafted irons are heavy. This "feel" problem could potentially mess you up in the short term, but you would probably get use to it over time. The best suggestion I can make is hit the type of irons you are thinking of getting with both types of shafts. Do this several times over the course of several weeks. If you feel comfortable with the steel then save yourself some money and go with those. If the steel doesn’t feel right than you might want to stick with
graphite. Don’t graphite shafts have a more damping effect than steel shafts? That may be something to consider as well. I know myself,. I’ve hit both graphite and steel and prefer steel, in my irons anyway(broke down for the driver and have seen good results). Like he said though, it will be a question of feel. Which leads me to another question, though. When I was hitting the graphite irons, it didn’t seem like I was getting the same kind of feedback. Maybe it’s just in my head, or does graphite, kind of like a cavity-back clubhead, take away the feedback to a degree?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi I have a problem. I am an intermediate golf player still wokring or my swing and I curently use graphite shafts with stiff flex but I have been told that in my new set I ma getting to go with steel shafts with regular flex because the stell is better they said. Well I know the Stiff flex in either is not what I need I need regular but graphite or steel I am going to use the shafts on my Taylor Made Super Steel Irons!!! I hope you guys can help me! If your an intermediate golfer I wouldn’t expect much difference either way. Your swing will be the greatest variable in your game. Graphite should give you a little more distance, but that probably won’t impact your overall score. The only problem I could foresee is if you are use to swinging ultralite graphite shafted irons you may feel like steel shafted irons are heavy. This "feel" problem could potentially mess you up in the short term, but you would probably get use to it over time. The best suggestion I can make is hit the type of irons you are thinking of getting with both types of shafts. Do this several times over the course of several weeks. If you feel comfortable with the steel then save yourself some money and go with those. If the steel doesn’t feel right than you might want to stick with graphite. Don’t graphite shafts have a more damping effect than steel shafts? That may be something to consider as well. I know myself,. I’ve hit both graphite and steel and prefer steel, in my irons anyway(broke down for the driver and have seen good results). Like he said though, it will be a question of feel. Which leads me to another question, though. When I was hitting the graphite irons, it didn’t seem like I was getting the same kind of feedback. Maybe it’s just in my head, or does graphite, kind of like a cavity-back clubhead, take away the feedback to a degree?
Yup your right. Graphite does have a damping effect. I like to say they are "less harsh" than steel shafts. If you don’t like the damping effects then you should definitely stay away from graphite and the vibration dampened steel shaft like the sensicore. Mark
Response:
snip…. Yup your right. Graphite does have a damping effect. I like to say they are "less harsh" than steel shafts. If you don’t like the damping effects then you should definitely stay away from graphite and the vibration dampened steel shaft like the sensicore. Mark
Of course, you can still always tell a fat/thin, toe/heel hit, regardless of the shaft. The only difference is the degree and the amount of damage you do to your body on mishits. No way I ever go back to steel. I’m a better player with graphite, and my shoulder doesn’t hurt any more. Nothing else need be said for me. Rob
Response:
My take is that with a properly fit club, there will not be much of a difference between the two. Graphite should go farther, steel should give you better feed back. The bottom line is that only you will ultimately know what is better for you. I am and probably will always play steel for irons – it’s what I like. I do have friend who has more club head speed than the average guy on the Tour but plays Ping Zing 2’s with stiff graphite shafts. I would rather see him in a blade/steel combo but he still gets it up and down. He likes his get up and there fore plays with great confidence. Unless you have an injury or something that is sensitive in your arms/hands, I would favor steel. There are very flexible steel shafts out there and the tips can always be trimmed for stiffness. To me, there’s nothing like cracking down on a 7 in the first cut of rough, taking a little turf, feeling the impact and watching the ball sail to the pin…with a steel shaft! – Rob
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi I have a problem. I am an intermediate golf player still wokring or my swing and I curently use graphite shafts with stiff flex but I have been told that in my new set I ma getting to go with steel shafts with regular flex because the stell is better they said. Well I know the Stiff flex in either is not what I need I need regular but graphite or steel I am going to use the shafts on my Taylor Made Super Steel Irons!!! I hope you guys can help me! If your an intermediate golfer I wouldn’t expect much difference either way. Your swing will be the greatest variable in your game. Graphite should give you a little more distance, but that probably won’t impact your overall score. The only problem I could foresee is if you are use to swinging ultralite graphite shafted irons you may feel like steel shafted irons are heavy. This "feel" problem could potentially mess you up in the short term, but you would probably get use to it over time. The best suggestion I can make is hit the type of irons you are thinking of getting with both types of shafts. Do this several times over the course of several weeks. If you feel comfortable with the steel then save yourself some money and go with those. If the steel doesn’t feel right than you might want to stick with graphite. Don’t graphite shafts have a more damping effect than steel shafts? That may be something to consider as well. I know myself,. I’ve hit both graphite and steel and prefer steel, in my irons anyway(broke down for the driver and have seen good results). Like he said though, it will be a question of feel. Which leads me to another question, though. When I was hitting the graphite irons, it didn’t seem like I was getting the same kind of feedback. Maybe it’s just in my head, or does graphite, kind of like a cavity-back clubhead, take away the feedback to a degree? Yup your right. Graphite does have a damping effect. I like to say they are "less harsh" than steel shafts. If you don’t like the damping effects then you should definitely stay away from graphite and the vibration dampened steel shaft like the sensicore. Mark