It’s good to calibrate your carry and total distances for both a draw and a fade. What you are referring to is a high fade and a low draw. Bear in mind that a higher draw and a lower fade will have comparable distances to each other, indeed it is possible that a medium trajectory (power fade) will travel further than a similar draw as well as a normal straight shot.
The test was done hitting normal shots but changing the set up to alter the ball flight. This of course will affect the dynamic loft and trajectory. So the idea was to know how to club and idea calibrate if you choose to play these shots on the course. I regard to the possible distance it would depend on the obliqueness of the strike and how that affects spin loft. Hope I have answered your question.
Hello. Can differences in distance between a draw and a fade have anything to do with loft and spinrates? If you are hitting a fade, the club is open to the path, and when you are hitting a draw, the club is closed to the path. That should effect both spinrates and dynamic loft at inpact, given that the club head speed and angle of attack is the same?
Question nr 2- Does the smashfactor have anything to do with face angle compared to the swing path, besides the possible differences it creates in dynamic loft? Do you get a maximum ball speed if the ball goes in the direction of the swing path?
Alistair, with respect, it is not strictly correct to associate Spin Loft with ball speed, spin yes, Spin Loft no. There is only a weak correlation between so-called Spin Loft and spin, not surprising as the Spin Loft is not the main spin generator. The D-Plane Model that spawned the metric ‘Spin Loft’ has so many flaws and incorrect assumptions that I couldn’t begin to go through them all here.
Suffice to say that research since the 1990s has shown that for the longer clubs, strain energy stored in the ball’s inner core and released when the ball reforms is the dominant spin generator, not the turning arm motion due to the Spin Loft. You can test this easily by checking the ratio of backspin to Spin Loft for a power fade vs a high fade. You will find that the ratio of spin per degree of Spin Loft is much lower for the power fade, telling you that the spin rate has been significantly suppressed.
As the spin rate is suppressed dynamically, the ball speed increases. This is why the power fade is the preferred shot of top tour players. It produces a powerful flatter, straighter, and longer ball flight, the more the spin is suppressed.
Non ball-strikers might find it helpful to go along with D-Plane theory and model their downswing on swing and club geometry and a circular arc, by taking their wrists out of the shot. However it is an anathema to the true ball-striker who relies on ‘feel’, and on swing and strike dynamics.
Incidentally, the Clubhead Direction (Attack Angle and Club Path metrics), an essential element of the Spin Loft metric, has no direct relevance to spin. Spin is entirely a function of where on the ball it is struck and the magnitude and direction of force imparted through that point throughout the duration of impact.
The clubhead direction is not the same as clubhead velocity, which refers to the direction and magnitude of force applied by the clubhead to the ball. The two are rarely aligned. Indeed the clubhead does not have a ‘direction’ it travels on a curved arc. The fact that it is possible to establish where it is pointing at an arbitrary moment in time has nothing to do with spin generation.
Time to move away from D-Plane theory and swing and club geometry, and revert to true ball-striking.
Hope this helps Alistair. Apologies for the lengthy retort, I just wanted to attempt to dispel some of the myths that are all too prevalent in golf instruction today. Science has moved on since the era of the D-Plane. I’m afraid LM manufacturers who base their impact models on the D-Plane are barking up the wrong tree. Eventually this will be realized, but I fear that will be many years hence given the vested interests.
The D-plane model is a simplified version of the complicated impact between the club and the ball. F.ex. the D-plane assumes that impact is happening instantaneously. In reality the ball and club face is deformed during impact, the ball reaching a width of app. half the diameter in the middle of the finite collision time of app. 0.5ms etc. Nevertheless, the D-plane model, together with the gear effect concept, is capable of explaining the major factors that influence the ball flight. Millions of shots have shown very tight correlation with D-plane+gearing and ball fight, including the effect Alastair explains with fades and draws for an iron. It is worth noticing that the D-plane requires you to use the ‘right’ definitions of the different club parameters. F.ex. the face angle and dynamic loft is the orientation of the club face where impact actually happens and not in the center of the club face – this is a big factor for drivers where bulge and roll, twist face etc makes the club face not being flat.
So we do not agree that D-plane model is flawed, but of course it must be used correctly.
There are significant scientific testing, papers etc. verifying that club direction and orientation together with club speed, impact location, MoI and location of CoG, friction all affects the spin rate. Equipment manufactures test this every single day with robots.
It is correct that spin rate is function of where the ball is struck and the force and direction (linear part), but also the torque and direction (rotational part) that is applied during the duration of impact. But this is exactly what the D-plane + gear effect concept does extremely well.
Alistair,
It’s good to calibrate your carry and total distances for both a draw and a fade. What you are referring to is a high fade and a low draw. Bear in mind that a higher draw and a lower fade will have comparable distances to each other, indeed it is possible that a medium trajectory (power fade) will travel further than a similar draw as well as a normal straight shot.
Hi Paul,
The test was done hitting normal shots but changing the set up to alter the ball flight. This of course will affect the dynamic loft and trajectory. So the idea was to know how to club and idea calibrate if you choose to play these shots on the course. I regard to the possible distance it would depend on the obliqueness of the strike and how that affects spin loft.
Hope I have answered your question.
Regards
Alistair
Bad hook with all my irons , just started doing it, ?
Hooking with all my irons , started two weeks ago , about to drive me batty ?
Hi James, in order to hit a hook ball flight the club face will be closed at contact. So my advice would be to try to get the club face squarer first. Watch this playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpccpKGyfOJgvLOQ-xVaQkCB_vZizS2_S
Thanks
Hello. Can differences in distance between a draw and a fade have anything to do with loft and spinrates? If you are hitting a fade, the club is open to the path, and when you are hitting a draw, the club is closed to the path. That should effect both spinrates and dynamic loft at inpact, given that the club head speed and angle of attack is the same?
Question nr 2- Does the smashfactor have anything to do with face angle compared to the swing path, besides the possible differences it creates in dynamic loft? Do you get a maximum ball speed if the ball goes in the direction of the swing path?
Best regards
Andreas
Hi, yes dynamic loft affects distance and smash factor and is the main reason draws go further. The lower the spin loft the more the ball speed.
Alistair, with respect, it is not strictly correct to associate Spin Loft with ball speed, spin yes, Spin Loft no. There is only a weak correlation between so-called Spin Loft and spin, not surprising as the Spin Loft is not the main spin generator. The D-Plane Model that spawned the metric ‘Spin Loft’ has so many flaws and incorrect assumptions that I couldn’t begin to go through them all here.
Suffice to say that research since the 1990s has shown that for the longer clubs, strain energy stored in the ball’s inner core and released when the ball reforms is the dominant spin generator, not the turning arm motion due to the Spin Loft. You can test this easily by checking the ratio of backspin to Spin Loft for a power fade vs a high fade. You will find that the ratio of spin per degree of Spin Loft is much lower for the power fade, telling you that the spin rate has been significantly suppressed.
As the spin rate is suppressed dynamically, the ball speed increases. This is why the power fade is the preferred shot of top tour players. It produces a powerful flatter, straighter, and longer ball flight, the more the spin is suppressed.
Non ball-strikers might find it helpful to go along with D-Plane theory and model their downswing on swing and club geometry and a circular arc, by taking their wrists out of the shot. However it is an anathema to the true ball-striker who relies on ‘feel’, and on swing and strike dynamics.
Incidentally, the Clubhead Direction (Attack Angle and Club Path metrics), an essential element of the Spin Loft metric, has no direct relevance to spin. Spin is entirely a function of where on the ball it is struck and the magnitude and direction of force imparted through that point throughout the duration of impact.
The clubhead direction is not the same as clubhead velocity, which refers to the direction and magnitude of force applied by the clubhead to the ball. The two are rarely aligned. Indeed the clubhead does not have a ‘direction’ it travels on a curved arc. The fact that it is possible to establish where it is pointing at an arbitrary moment in time has nothing to do with spin generation.
Time to move away from D-Plane theory and swing and club geometry, and revert to true ball-striking.
Hope this helps Alistair. Apologies for the lengthy retort, I just wanted to attempt to dispel some of the myths that are all too prevalent in golf instruction today. Science has moved on since the era of the D-Plane. I’m afraid LM manufacturers who base their impact models on the D-Plane are barking up the wrong tree. Eventually this will be realized, but I fear that will be many years hence given the vested interests.
Paul, thank you for input on the TrackMan blog.
The D-plane model is a simplified version of the complicated impact between the club and the ball. F.ex. the D-plane assumes that impact is happening instantaneously. In reality the ball and club face is deformed during impact, the ball reaching a width of app. half the diameter in the middle of the finite collision time of app. 0.5ms etc. Nevertheless, the D-plane model, together with the gear effect concept, is capable of explaining the major factors that influence the ball flight. Millions of shots have shown very tight correlation with D-plane+gearing and ball fight, including the effect Alastair explains with fades and draws for an iron.
It is worth noticing that the D-plane requires you to use the ‘right’ definitions of the different club parameters. F.ex. the face angle and dynamic loft is the orientation of the club face where impact actually happens and not in the center of the club face – this is a big factor for drivers where bulge and roll, twist face etc makes the club face not being flat.
So we do not agree that D-plane model is flawed, but of course it must be used correctly.
There are significant scientific testing, papers etc. verifying that club direction and orientation together with club speed, impact location, MoI and location of CoG, friction all affects the spin rate. Equipment manufactures test this every single day with robots.
It is correct that spin rate is function of where the ball is struck and the force and direction (linear part), but also the torque and direction (rotational part) that is applied during the duration of impact. But this is exactly what the D-plane + gear effect concept does extremely well.
/FT