Yes, there were such a club called Sounders Club, in case those will
confuse this with Founders Club.
Sounders went out of production many years ago (about 8-10). They did
have the Sounders Star model. I recall Seve played and endorsed these
clubs early in his career.
Unfortunately, it's probably not worth much. It's not a collector's
item in any way.
GV
>Yes, there were such a club called Sounders Club, in case those will
>confuse this with Founders Club.
>
>Sounders went out of production many years ago (about 8-10). They did
>have the Sounders Star model. I recall Seve played and endorsed these
>clubs early in his career.
>
>Unfortunately, it's probably not worth much. It's not a collector's
>item in any way
In the words of Ed McMahon, "You are correct, sir!". The big gimmick on
the Sounder Star clubs was that each club had the same "swing". They had
a device that was placed in your local golf shop that suspended two
different irons ( i.e. 3 and 8) from a clamp that allowed them to swing
like a pendulum, and demonstrated that each lost it's kinetic energy at
the same rate, so the two clubs would oscillate back and forth in unison.
If the same test was done with any other clubs, they would soon be out of
synch, and you had a sale. Sounder used extensive butt weighting to
achieve this effect, and the results can be guaged by their current
popularity.
I'm a little confused. What does this have to do with losing energy at
the same rate? Sounds to me like the ratio of moment of inertia to first
moment (about the clamp hinge) was the same. But I'm open to explanataion.
>If the same test was done with any other clubs, they would soon be out of
>synch, and you had a sale. Sounder used extensive butt weighting to
>achieve this effect...
Now I'm really confused. How does changing the butt weight affect the
frequency of a pendulum suspended from the butt?
Cheers!
Dave
>>... The big gimmick on
>>the Sounder Star clubs was that each club had the same "swing". They
had
>>a device that was placed in your local golf shop that suspended two
>>different irons ( i.e. 3 and 8) from a clamp that allowed them to swing
>>like a pendulum, and demonstrated that each lost it's kinetic energy at
>>the same rate, so the two clubs would oscillate back and forth in
unison.
>
>I'm a little confused. What does this have to do with losing energy at
>the same rate? Sounds to me like the ratio of moment of inertia to first
>moment (about the clamp hinge) was the same. But I'm open to
explanataion.
Sorry for the confusion, Dave. I was "out of it" when I was browsing the
newsgroup, and my brain obviously wasn't working as fast as my fingers.
What I meant to say was that each "pendulum" maintained an equal period
and amplitude, yet the amplitude of both was gradually reduced (loss of
kinetic energy due to friction). Your statement that the ratios of the
moments was the same is correct, and therefore, at any point in time, the
moments would be equal.
>>If the same test was done with any other clubs, they would soon be out
of
>>synch, and you had a sale. Sounder used extensive butt weighting to
>>achieve this effect...
>
>Now I'm really confused. How does changing the butt weight affect the
>frequency of a pendulum suspended from the butt?
Again, I was a bit vague here. These butt weights were not placed exactly
in the butt of the club. Each club had a chunk of lead epoxied at some
point inside the shaft (it was usually somewhere in the grip area, and
that's why I said "butt weights"). This process allowed them to locate
the center of mass of each club the same distance from the butt.
Basically, they were using a swingweight system that used the butt as the
fulcrum point, rather than an arbitrarily chosen point on the shaft. BTW,
if you put these clubs on a standard swingweight scale, they were all over
the place, and many were off the scale altogether. Thanks for keeping me
on my toes.
[ More detailed explanatio of previous post deleted ]
Thanks for the clarification.
I think we're in sync now, even if our clubs aren't.
(Unless, of course, we had Sounder clubs. :-)
Cheers!
Dave
Speaking of sync'ed up clubs, has anyone spec'd out a set
of Swing-sync clubs ? (I may have messes up that Co. name,
but they're the folks in Ottawa (?) who do the modal sync).
If memory serves Miko has some knowedle of these. Miko ?
We had a set in and were a bit suprised.
dave
I talked with one of the Swing-Sycn engineers last fall.
As I understand it, the club set is:
Frequency matched-ALL THE SAME FREQUENCY;
and Moment of Inertia Matched...
The fitting set consists of a range on irons, (1,3,5,7,9,?),
all made to 6 different frequency specifications. The client,
(for the price of the clubs, they're clients not customers :{) ),
selects their prefered club from each length...
MOI is selected from swingspeed...
The magic of the system is that all shafts DO NOT exhibit
the same characteristics when assembled...
i.e. A 265 CPM TTLite IS NOT THE SAME as a 265 CPM Dynamic...
Swing-Sync has a way of equating the frequencies...
WOODS may or may not be matched to the iron...
I believe that length is selected by BALL STRIKING proficiency...
You may contact:
sy...@calweb.com
Trevor Joyner
for more info :{)
BTW-they also have a Web Site now:
http://www.kitchenmedia.com/swingsync/
--
| |
db miko
Mac Shack Golf
PCS-Class A Clubmaker
London, Ontario, CANADA
I have complete set of Sounders that belonged to my brother. Seve
Ballesteros was plugging them in the early 80's. I believe their claim to
fame was that they are both statically and dynamically balanced.
Wayne LaRochelle