15 replies to this topic

[Nspiel58]

I have a set of Wilson Tour Block 4300 persimmon woods and they have R500 shafts.  Are these a firm flex?

[Viewing As Guest]

You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with existing members and access to certain forums. Join our community today and enter into a chance to win a free regular giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

[W/S]

All True Temper shafts with a "R" designation are "regular flex"; "S" is for stiff and "X" is for extra-stiff. The three digit number following the R (200/300/400) is to do with the weight of the shaft. R200/R300/R400 parallel wood shafts weigh 122g/125g/129g respectively. I've not seen a R500 shaft, but we might assume that it weighs 132-133g. I play R400 shafts in my Wilson Staff Tour Block persimmon woods and I don't notice any difference between their weight and woods with the standard R300 shafts.

[justaman5]

its just a heavier regular shaft. same flex as r300 just weighs more     true temper used to make R100 thru R500, S100 thru S500, X100 thru X500.  The higher the number the heavier weight.

[Nspiel58]

Thanks for the info. Cheers!

[spilbellman]

Nspiel58, on 16 April 2010 - 07:46 PM, said:

Thanks for the info. Cheers!

When True Temper came out with the "Gold" series, I managed to get through to their R & D department. I believe that the man's name was Bob Bush, who may have headed the project. What he told me was this:  True Temper was trying to compete with the frequency matched Rifles by Brunswick, and get into the F.M. Market. TT  figured out that the heavier the shaft, the stiffer the shaft. The result was 5 different weights in each flex area, but their problem was that there was overlapping. IE an S500 was basically the same as an X300. An S100 was the same as an R300.

Now consider this:  if you have two shafts of equal length, step-downs, material, and one shaft measures stiff on the frequency meter and one is regular,
what is the reason? It can only be the weight. If  one shaft is heavier than the other shaft, then there is only one other variable as I see it. the wall of the shaft has to be thicker. If the wall is thicker, then the the shaft will be stiffer.  How many times have we pulled 14 shafts out of a box and found through trial and error, weighing, checking the frequency, have we come out with different results?

Bill

[Cwebb]

spilbellman, on 22 October 2010 - 07:40 PM, said:

Nspiel58, on 16 April 2010 - 07:46 PM, said:

Thanks for the info. Cheers!

When True Temper came out with the "Gold" series, I managed to get through to their R & D department. I believe that the man's name was Bob Bush, who may have headed the project. What he told me was this:  True Temper was trying to compete with the frequency matched Rifles by Brunswick, and get into the F.M. Market. TT  figured out that the heavier the shaft, the stiffer the shaft. The result was 5 different weights in each flex area, but their problem was that there was overlapping. IE an S500 was basically the same as an X300. An S100 was the same as an R300.

That's incorrect.  An S500 would not be close to an X300 in it's overall flex/bend profile.  Neither is the currently available S400 anywhere close to the same flex as the X100.

An S400 on a frequency analyzer, cycles at 1-3 cycles stiffer than an S300.  This is a very small difference in flex and doesn't bring it close to an X100.

[spilbellman]

Cwebb, on 22 October 2010 - 10:11 PM, said:

spilbellman, on 22 October 2010 - 07:40 PM, said:

Nspiel58, on 16 April 2010 - 07:46 PM, said:

Thanks for the info. Cheers!

When True Temper came out with the "Gold" series, I managed to get through to their R & D department. I believe that the man's name was Bob Bush, who may have headed the project. What he told me was this:  True Temper was trying to compete with the frequency matched Rifles by Brunswick, and get into the F.M. Market. TT  figured out that the heavier the shaft, the stiffer the shaft. The result was 5 different weights in each flex area, but their problem was that there was overlapping. IE an S500 was basically the same as an X300. An S100 was the same as an R300.

That's incorrect.  An S500 would not be close to an X300 in it's overall flex/bend profile.  Neither is the currently available S400 anywhere close to the same flex as the X100.

An S400 on a frequency analyzer, cycles at 1-3 cycles stiffer than an S300.  This is a very small difference in flex and doesn't bring it close to an X100.

CWebb   It has been a while since that conversation with TT. My memory is pretty good, but not infallible.  You have piqued my curiosity and I will check it out. I didn't know that TT still offered the S400. I did like that shaft.
anyway, I have never looked at this forum on Classics before two days ago and I am thrilled that so many still have an interest.

Bill

[jmck]

If my rusty memory is correct (ahem...) there's some overlap, but not as much stated above.  I thought they set it up so that an S500 played to the same stiffness as an X100, but the S500 would have a heavier static weight.  I wish I still had an old Matby catalog from 1990.  I remember this all being spelled out clear as day with a little chart and everything.

So I'd suspect that the R500 shaft the OP found plays to an S100 stiffness, but is heavier.  

Who know?  Maybe someone will chime in with a scan of a page out of that old Matby catalog I'm thinking of.

[Texsport]

X-100 then and now are different IMO.

S-500 was heavier but just a touch softer than X-100 back then.

A great shaft. i've still got 3 or 4 sets in clubs around here.

Texsport

[petter7]

Texsport, on 08 November 2010 - 05:30 PM, said:

X-100 then and now are different IMO.

S-500 was heavier but just a touch softer than X-100 back then.

A great shaft. i've still got 3 or 4 sets in clubs around here.

Texsport

I played both the S500 and X100 back in the day and agree with you Texsport.

Still have a set with the S500 myself.

[Viewing As Guest]

You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with existing members and access to certain forums. Join our community today and enter into a chance to win a free regular giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

[rankoutsider]

spilbellman, on 22 October 2010 - 07:40 PM, said:

Nspiel58, on 16 April 2010 - 07:46 PM, said:

Thanks for the info. Cheers!

When True Temper came out with the "Gold" series, I managed to get through to their R & D department. I believe that the man's name was Bob Bush, who may have headed the project. What he told me was this:  True Temper was trying to compete with the frequency matched Rifles by Brunswick, and get into the F.M. Market. TT  figured out that the heavier the shaft, the stiffer the shaft. The result was 5 different weights in each flex area, but their problem was that there was overlapping. IE an S500 was basically the same as an X300. An S100 was the same as an R300.

Now consider this:  if you have two shafts of equal length, step-downs, material, and one shaft measures stiff on the frequency meter and one is regular,
what is the reason? It can only be the weight. If  one shaft is heavier than the other shaft, then there is only one other variable as I see it. the wall of the shaft has to be thicker. If the wall is thicker, then the the shaft will be stiffer.  How many times have we pulled 14 shafts out of a box and found through trial and error, weighing, checking the frequency, have we come out with different results?

Bill

Hey Bill: the other variable that affects overall shaft weight is the number of welds along the length of the shaft: more welds = heavier weight.  All DG shafts have the same thickness in the wall of the shaft, but there is a surprising variation in the overall weight where a shaft has many more welds than another in the same flex group.

[stage1350]

The weld seam does more for frequency variance on Dynamic Golds than the weight ever will.  Spine a set of DG shafts and the frequency slope becomes very linear.  

It's mainly a weight thing.  I've played X-100, X-200, and X-300 shafts.  No difference in performance.

The exception is the DG Tour (X7) which has thicker steps than a normal X-100 and a .615" butt.  The butt and steps create a slightly hotter trajectory with less spin than X-100.

[blipnitz]

From Golfworks "1993 Full Line Catalog" page 2-75 "Comparison Chart for Dynamic™ and Dynamic Gold™ Shafts":
T500 is Weak 'X', Standard "S", Strong "T" ("Note: T and R flex are the same flex.")

[okesa]

Some interesting stuff but mostly peripheral discussion about S500 when the original question concerns R500.It's of interest to me too as I've just bought a set of the last model Wilson Staff Fluid Feel irons (no knurling on hosel) and apparently they are fitted with R500 shafts which I'm unfamiliar with but guessed that they would play a bit firmer than an R300 or R400,the R400 was the most popular shaft in the UK back in the '80's and early '90's as I recall,then replaced largely by the R300 which plays a bit softer and I did have a set made up by Mizuno of Pro Original blades with S200 shafts which were terrific.
Back then I think that we generally reckoned that the only difference between an R300 and R400 was the shaft band.

[NRJyzr]

okesa, on 10 December 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

Back then I think that we generally reckoned that the only difference between an R300 and R400 was the shaft band.

It's basically the same between R400 and R500.  The difference is a couple grams in total weight.  No structural differences to help account for flex.

If you're a person who prefers to believe in the theory behind this supposition, you could believe the R500 might be a couple CPMs stiffer, due to the very slightly greater wall thickness evidenced by the extra 2 grams of overall weight.  Personally, don't think it's worth thinking about.  

[okesa]

Thank you,much appreciated.