Back to PuttingZone
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Main  

Polymer Face Inserts on Putters

October 13 2007 at 8:18 AM
  (no login)
from IP address 65.78.168.150

Geoff
Sort of responding to Tony's earlier post about putters. He had mentioned that he was interested in trying a center-shafted putter. I've been putting with a Carbite ZG, heel-shafted, cavity-back blade putter for years with excellent results. However, lately I've been experimenting with a famous name center-shafted blade with polymer insert for a while with fairly good results; however, I seem to have difficulty getting the ball to the hole, seemingly because of the polymner insert. With that said, I had been looking for a Carbite ZT center-shafted blade putter, only because of their polar-balanced technology and no polymer insert on the face...Carbite had discontinued this putter some years back. I did some research and found a used one online, in excellent shape, bought it and put a new grip on it. It doesn't have the polymer insert and I'm getting to the hole as I couldn't with the putter with the polymer insert.

What's your take and experience with the putters with polymer inserts as it seems that many putters today have the insert technology? It seems that many putters you promote don't have the polymer insert technology on the face, but not absolutely sure?

Regards,
Larry Stanley
The Putting Edge...How To One-Putt Every Green!
New Reduced Price!
www.theputtingedge.com


    
This message has been edited by aceputt from IP address 24.28.255.92 on Nov 8, 2007 6:38 AM


 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

(Premier Login aceputt)
Forum Owner
24.28.255.92

Inserts Prolong Ball-Putter Face Contact

November 8 2007, 6:37 AM 

Dear Larry,

For the realm of forces in poutting, polymer inserts have as their main effect a prolongation of contact between ball and putter face during the impact zone. This prolongation in time (as much as doubling the period) has a few spin-off effects.

One is "impulse" increase. The amount of work done over time is "impulse" -- more time at work like a factory piece-goods machine operator results in more finished widgets in the bin for shipping, even though the rate of production is the same as other workers This means that inserts don't really kill distance as much as people suppose, just from a physics viewpoint. In your case, I suspect that if you robotized a stroke and put the two putters thru the same stroke with the same impact velocity, you would get very similar distances. So why does the ball not roll as far in your experience? Perhaps you are subconsciously being a little "cautious" with the insert putter when you should just forget the insert and "let 'er fly" as usual. Why "cautious"? because you're a bit of a perfectionist and the insert putter is a new instrument and is not fully incorporated into your playing / artistic "comfort zone" just yet, like a new German violin -- fine, just not an Italian model from the 1700s.

Another effect is on line. The insert "molds" itself at the impact point somewhat to "cradle" the shape of the ball at the impact point, like placing a bowling ball on a mattress instead of on a floor as occurs with a metal face. This "cradling" would probably be illegal if the USGA focues on it, as "concave" faces are illegal due to their directional control features. The old Sun-Weapon of Archimedes at Syracuse was like the focal geometry of a telescope for concentrating the parallel rays at a single focal point in front of the mirror a certain distance out. The "cradling" insert does something similar. The Rule about the stroke (as opposed to the Rule about the equipment design) has a similar prohibition against "spooning" the ball being an illegal "stroke". A "spoon" is a concave shape that also prolongs contact and biases line -- more of a baseball shortstop's making a gloved-hand toss of the ball to the nearby second baseman for a quick double-play starting at second base followed by a leaping throw over the charging runner to beat the runner down the first-base line.

As far as softness of insert is concerned, the insert by the USGA cannot be any softer than the allowable softness of golf balls.

When it comes to drivers, however, the whole world of COR technology comes from Srixon, where Dr Tetsuo Yamaguchi has discovered that more "give" in the driver face produces more "trampoline-effect" and "go" in the ball for distance. This discovery alarmed the USGA, as it opened a new technology that threatened the existing courses. So, inserts are a bit complicated and not really fully understood quite yet.

For Dr Yamaguchi, see:

http://rheo.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~doi/publication_theme_new.htm

http://www.pga.com/equipment/equipment-showcase/srixon082404.cfm

http://www.srixon.com/pr_08_09_05d.html

http://www.golftransactions.com/exhibitor/0067.php

Cheers!


 
 Respond to this message   
Larry Stanley
(no login)
65.78.168.150

Re: Inserts Prolong Ball-Putter Face Contact

November 8 2007, 8:25 AM 

Geoff, thanks, your response is truly enlightening...excellent information! I am truly interested in demoing one of the Srixon drivers mentioned. For what it's worth, I've recently discovered that the used Carbite center-shafted blade putter that I've been experimenting with is much too heavy in the head and have actually gone back to my Odyssey center-shafted putter with polymer insert...in fact, rolled in a couple of 30 footers yesterday. I was really having problems with distance control with the Carbite center-shafted putter, although it's almost identical to a Carbite heel-shafted putter that I've had success with...my Carbite heel-shafted blade putter is much lighter than the center-shafted putter. Thanks again for your input.

 
 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - Polymer Face Inserts on Putters
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Main  
Back to PuttingZone