Interesting slow motion impact video

[Tevenor]

This small snippet was posted on the PGATour instagram account and its a bit mesmerizing. It's one of Bryson's tee shots. Fun to watch on loop and notice the details ( ignore the annoying voice over ).




Couple of interesting things I picked up on.

1) DIdn't expect to see the paint fly off the ball like it shows.
2) Strike was a little high and you can see the clubhead gear a bit on impact.
3) Wasn't prepared for how much the ball oscillates after impact. I wonder how far it goes until it recovers to full round.
4) Interesting to see the carbon shell on the top of club oscillate after impact.

Thoughts?

 

[Snickerdog]

Thanks for posting.

 

[Jmk202]

Thoughts are here is a GREAT way to make golf broadcasting a bit more interesting, Throw some super high speed cameras out there.

Also on #2 I learned recently a slightly above center strike helps launch angle a good bit, so likely that is Bryson's goal is to strike right about there to maximize launch conditions.

Thanks for posting!

 

[JB]

Thoughts are here is a GREAT way to make golf broadcasting a bit more interesting, Throw some super high speed cameras out there.

Also on #2 I learned recently a slightly above center strike helps launch angle a good bit, so likely that is Bryson's goal is to strike right about there to maximize launch conditions.

Thanks for posting!

They can promote higher launch, but will also decrease spin, so depending on his fit, it very well could have just been a miss.

 

[blueonblack]

Looks like a slight mishit. Swing easier, young man.

 

[McLovin]

with the right aoa, an above-center strike can go FAR. but that lower spin can be bad if there are face-to-path discrepancies, and at his speed a small discrepancy will produce an exacerbated dispersion.

 

[blueonblack]

with the right aoa, an above-center strike can go FAR. but that lower spin can be bad if there are face-to-path discrepancies, and at his speed a small discrepancy will produce an exacerbated dispersion.

Wow, I'm surprised to hear they are still suggesting high face strikes for less spin. This has been with us since, what, the 983K/E series?
Haven't they manipulated the CG/MOI to the point you no longer need to do that?

 

[McLovin]

Wow, I'm surprised to hear they are still suggesting high face strikes for less spin. This has been with us since, what, the 983K/E series?
Haven't they manipulated the CG/MOI to the point you no longer need to do that?

somebody smarter than I am can answer that, but unless you put more weight higher up the head, a high strike will always produce less spin. and low strikes will always produce more spin. and toe strikes will produce less spin, and heel strikes more spin. weight distribution will always affect that. face tech is helping bring the ball back to center and always manage spin on mishits, but that doesn't mean the laws of physics have been altered lol

 

[Jmk202]

Wow, I'm surprised to hear they are still suggesting high face strikes for less spin. This has been with us since, what, the 983K/E series?
Haven't they manipulated the CG/MOI to the point you no longer need to do that?

Think its just a factor of the bulge &roll (not sure which is the vertical component). But essentially 10.5* driver isn't 10.5* all over, just kinda average, so above center has a slight higher loft so a bit more effective loft. Golf Science Lab did a decent pod cast that touched on this recently.

As for spin specifically, not a club engineer by any stretch, but I could see it having to do with being more inline with the vector of momentum. Slightly positive angle of attack, so draw a line from the COG along the velocity of the club at impact, the closer the the ball is to being on that line the smaller the force couple which i think results in less spin. Maybe we can get @Master Yagley or some actual expert to weigh in.

 

[OldandStiff]

Wow, I'm surprised to hear they are still suggesting high face strikes for less spin. This has been with us since, what, the 983K/E series?
Haven't they manipulated the CG/MOI to the point you no longer need to do that?

Wouldn't that just be a gearing effect of the not perfectly flat face taking effect more than moi?

Edit: aaand I'm too slow

 

[blueonblack]

Wouldn't that just be a gearing effect of the not perfectly flat face regardless of moi?

Edit: aaand I'm too slow

Oh definitely. Always has been.
For a while it almost seemed like faces had a little less bulge and roll and looked a little flatter. But with CG and CAD/CAM, I would think they'd try to design "optimum" impact with the center of the face. I would think it would last longer too if there is a weld anywhere near the crown/topline area.

 

[JB]

Oh definitely. Always has been.
For a while it almost seemed like faces had a little less bulge and roll and looked a little flatter. But with CG and CAD/CAM, I would think they'd try to design "optimum" impact with the center of the face. I would think it would last longer too if there is a weld anywhere near the crown/topline area.

Spin reduction doesn't mean better efficiency.

 

[blueonblack]

Spin reduction doesn't mean better efficiency.

Ummm... burn all launch monitors? Fine by me.
Why did they start doing that if it offered no advantage in launch conditions?

 

[Tevenor]

Spin reduction doesn't mean better efficiency.

I think this thought has gotten lost with the chase for the perfect low spin numbers. You can hit a driver will too low of spin, as I found out with the SIM at 9 degrees.

 

[JB]

Ummm... burn all launch monitors? Fine by me.
Why did they start doing that if it offered no advantage in launch conditions?

Im not sure what this means.

Lower spin doesn’t mean more distance or more speed. Driving distance is a combination of launch, speed and spin and every club has an area that maximizes efficency.

 

[#troy]

cool video, saw it during live broadcast. Impressive camera tech to get those frame per seconds rates so high.

Bryson is crushing golf balls.

 

[OldandStiff]

Ummm... burn all launch monitors? Fine by me.
Why did they start doing that if it offered no advantage in launch conditions?

It does in certain situations. I use a high on the face, high launch, low spin shot a lot here. It can be the most efficient for total yardage. It can also not be anywhere near the most efficient shot. Lots of variables.

 

[blueonblack]

Im not sure what this means.

Lower spin doesn’t mean more distance or more speed. Driving distance is a combination of launch, speed and spin and every club has an area that maximizes efficency.

Its been that way for a long time now. They started hitting it high on the face to negate spin back in the days of the 983E/K, DLIII, all of them were doing it to overcome the excess spin they were seeing with the equipment at the time.

Fast forward not even that many years, and they were already talking about and engineering heads so that the CG was far enough back that you no longer needed to hit high on the face to attempt to negate spin. And in cases where you have a face weld high on the face, that was an area of weakness and potential failure, so it really wasn't "optimal" to hit it there on the face repeatedly from an engineering standpoint.

And the faceplates are more or less meant to be hit in the center, with bulge and roll and face milling doing its best to negate off-center strikes.
You jump in the middle of the trampoline for stability and kinetic energy potential.

Why with all this supposed R&D would they still intentionally hit anywhere but faceplate "middle" now?
If they are positioning "middle" higher, intentionally, that is another story.
Is that what they are doing now? And are most designs cup face of late, or are there still weld positions to consider?

 

[JB]

Its been that way for a long time now. They started hitting it high on the face to negate spin back in the days of the 983E/K, DLIII, all of them were doing it to overcome the excess spin they were seeing with the equipment at the time.

Fast forward not even that many years, and they were already talking about and engineering heads so that the CG was far enough back that you no longer needed to hit high on the face to attempt to negate spin. And in cases where you have a face weld high on the face, that was an area of weakness and potential failure, so it really wasn't "optimal" to hit it there on the face repeatedly from an engineering standpoint.

And the faceplates are more or less meant to be hit in the center, with bulge and roll and face milling doing its best to negate off-center strikes.
You jump in the middle of the trampoline for stability and kinetic energy potential.

Why with all this supposed R&D would they still intentionally hit anywhere but faceplate "middle" now?
If they are positioning "middle" higher, intentionally, that is another story.
Is that what they are doing now? And are most designs cup face of late, or are there still weld positions to consider?

Actually weight going further back doesn't necessarily lower spin.

I guess I am con am confused, why is there an assumption that Bryson meant to hit the ball high on the face for more distance?

 

[blueonblack]

It does in certain situations. I use a high on the face, high launch, low spin shot a lot here. It can be the most efficient for total yardage. It can also not be anywhere near the most efficient shot. Lots of variables.

No doubt, but this was what they were doing a long time ago already. That's a lot of my point. Why hasn't this changed? Or has it?

For more accuracy and distance potential, I would have to believe Bryson Science would deduce that a smaller head would get him there.
Only problem, he needs ALL the MOI he can get with strikes like these.
He's one guy I'd love to see compete with the others with 365cc heads again. No rules changes needed. Just have "365 Events" and have a tournament rule limit for driver size. See how far he "smashes" it then.
Where did he finish the tournament, again?

 

[zbeekner4]

What surprises me the most is how little the ball compresses into the face. I’m so used to seeing 1/3 of the ball flatten against the driver face. Maybe I’m imagining things here but I remember seeing that more than once

 

[Jmk202]

No doubt, but this was what they were doing a long time ago already. That's a lot of my point. Why hasn't this changed? Or has it?

For more accuracy and distance potential, I would have to believe Bryson Science would deduce that a smaller head would get him there.
Only problem, he needs ALL the MOI he can get with strikes like these.
He's one guy I'd love to see compete with the others with 365cc heads again. No rules changes needed. Just have "365 Events" and have a tournament rule limit for driver size. See how far he "smashes" it then.
Where did he finish the tournament, again?

I mean Bryson may not be your best argument for that one. He carries his 3 wood (a 148cc club) about 295 yd.

 

[blueonblack]

I mean Bryson may not be your best argument for that one. He carries his 3 wood (a 148cc club) about 295 yd.

Most of them can. They're young and work out. Its not all that miraculous. JT smacks it and hes not all that big.
At the 3M, the 289 yard par 4 into the wind and Finau misses badly with 460cc driver. Couldn't get 3W there.
DJ got old. Bryson is next man up in the distance marketing.

 

[InTheRough]

This is why you need to be fit for drivers. If your miss is slightly high toe, some drivers actually give you a boost there - lower spin and that "knuckle ball" that goes about 10 - 15 yds further. Other drivers may have a "dead" spot there or add spin. That's my miss. According to GCQ, my efficiency drops when I strike there, but my distance goes up. So I've had to learn over the years which driver fits me and I just found out which brand this year.

You don't need to be big and strong to hit the ball far. Yes you need strength, but you need superb timing and tempo.

This is from 2009. Be in awe, Bryson. Be in awe.

 

[Luchnia]

Remember when thinking about Bryson's hit and spin his loft is somewhere around 5 or 5.5 now.