Games using tangible projectile – Golf – Club or club support
Reexamination Certificate
1999-06-15
2002-08-13
Sewell, Paul T. (Department: 3711)
Games using tangible projectile
Golf
Club or club support
C473S329000, C473S332000, C473S340000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06431997
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to all golf clubheads, but more particularly irons and putters, where consistent distance and direction are more desirable than the maximum distance usually sought with low lofted woods and metalwoods. The present invention relates specifically to improved clubhead and clubhead insert designs, which substantially reduce or totally eliminate mishit distance loss.
Golf shots lose both distance and directional accuracy when a golf ball is struck at a clubface location not aligned with (i.e. directly in front of) the clubhead center of gravity. Misdirection is primarily caused by the angular rotation of the clubhead upon impact with a ball not aligned with the “clubhead center of gravity” (which includes the effect of clubshaft weight). Mishit distance loss is caused by both the misdirection [one minus the cosign of angular difference between initial line and post impact deflected line] and clubhead energy lost to clubhead rotation rather than transferred to the ball at impact.
These effects have long been postulated and intuitively observed by skilled golfers and club designers. Only in the past decade, however, have these effects been quantitively and empirically measured using ball striking robots featured in club and ball test reports in popular golf literature. Irons and woods (including metalwoods) have been tested with the famous “Iron Byron” and similar robots. Putter tests using Dave Pelz's “Perfy™” were periodically published in
Golf Magazine
(i.e. July 1994 pg. 64-65; March 1995).
Pelz putter test percent distance losses for ⅜″ and ¾″ mishits are summarized below:
Odyssey
Zebra
Titlest
Wilson 8802
Rossie II
(mallet)
Bullseye
Blade
±⅜″
5.56%
6.85%
9.07%
10.56%
±¾″
18.33%
18.89%
31.48%
32.41%
The above published Pelz data indicates that putterheads with the highest moment of inertia around the center of gravity tended to have the lowest percent distance loss. Doubling the mishit distance (i.e. from ⅜ in. to ¾ in.) tripled the distance loss.
In the art, Beaumont (U.S. Pat. No. 5,529,543) and Rohrer (U.S. Pat. No. 5,766,093), the disclosures of which are both incorporated herein by reference, both claim clubhead insert devices reducing mishit distance loss via variable energy absorption (more at center than periphery). Beaumont claims improved irons using a single energy absorbing “component” or “plug” of variable thickness (thickest at club center). In some claims, the single energy absorbing plug is behind a rigidly attached thin plate of stiff or hard, but flexible, material.
Softer elastomeric striking faces are less desirable than harder polymer or metal faces for both putters and irons for durability, feel, and acoustic reasons. Beaumont anticipates some of the above limitations in his claims 9-19 by rigidly affixing “by epoxy or the like” to the rigid clubhead body, a “thin plate . . . which is stiff, or hard, but deformable upon impact . . . ” over the energy absorbing void or elastomer.
Rohrer uses a plurality of energy absorbing elastomer “elements”, plugs, or components with or without faceplates with the deadest elements at the center of the clubhead and elements of more lively material more remote to reduce or eliminate mishit distance loss on putters.
Others have used either a single uniform thickness insert on putters to influence total distance (increase or decrease) and for feel (vibration feedback), but not to reduce mishit distance loss. Still, others have used multiple hardness materials to influence mishit ball direction or feel, but not to reduce mishit distance loss.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The subject invention provides alternative means to correct for mishit distance loss in putters and irons using more durable, compact, and practical variable energy absorbing designs than the prior art. The undesirable “trampoline or spring face” and “incompressibility” effects of the prior art are overcome.
DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
It is important to recognize that an elastomer's (or any other solid material) hardness (as typically characterized as Durometer or Elastic Modulus) is totally distinct from, and unrelated to, its energy absorbing properties (typically characterized as Bayshore Rebound % or Coefficient of Restitution). Some hard elastomers (like a squash ball) can be very dead while much softer elastomers (like multi-colored urethane “superbounce” toy balls) can be extremely lively.
Putter tests conducted by Rohrer using an impact robot (“Stainless Steve” who produces repeatable identical velocity strokes) on the constructions taught and claimed in Beaumont Claims 9-19, show that when thin metal or rigid plastic flexible faceplates or coverplates are rigidly attached to part or all of a clubhead periphery, most or all of the effect of any underlying variable energy absorbing mishit distance correcting mechanisms are lost for the following reasons:
1. To be durable and practical, Beaumont's thin cover plates must be metallic or have comparable stiffness and durability properties. When a metal cover plate is “rigidly attached” or affixed around all or part of its periphery to a rigid clubhead body (defined herein as, that when there is little or no relative movement between the coverplate and clubhead body at the attachment points), then the coverplate produces a “trampoline or spring face effect” which may actually absorb less energy than a solid clubhead with on-center hits (Reference 11-98
, Golf Smith Magazine
, pgs. I-1, I-2, I-7 & I-8). If an energy absorbing (low rebound rate or viscoelastic) elastomer is placed behind a “stiff hard” rigidly affixed flexible faceplate of practical thickness, the impact with a golf ball will not produce sufficient faceplate and underlying elastomer deflection to absorb the clubhead kinetic energy required to correct for a typical mishit. For purposes herein, a flexible faceplate is defined as a cover layer of a material of equal or greater hardness than a golf ball or ball cover and of sufficient durability for practical multiple ball strikes which cover layer would deflect, but not permanently yield or deform, upon typical impact velocity of play if said cover layer were not partially or fully attached or constrained around its periphery.
2. An energy absorbing, low rebound rate, viscoelastic elastomer constrained in a cavity behind any thin and stiff, or hard faceplate, can only absorb energy if it is sufficiently deformed. Elastomers behave like incompressible fluids. Even if the rigidly affixed faceplate overcame the trampoline effect limitations described above, the elastomer's fluid-like incompressibility would require that the faceplate deflect outward at locations remote from the ball impact point to provide sufficient viscoelastic deformation for adequate energy absorption. We shall hereinafter refer to this as the elastomer “incompressibility effect.” To illustrate the above effects, clubheads according to
FIGS. 1 through 4
were constructed and tested using an impact robot, “Stainless Steve”, which reproduces identical clubhead velocity throughout the tests.
FIG. 1
(A & B view) was a solid aluminum putterhead.
FIGS. 2
(A & B view) and
4
used a ⅜ in. deep high energy absorption (<10% Bayshore Rebound) elastomer of approximately 70 Durometer A hardness embedded (cast) into an aluminum clubhead cavity. In
FIG. 4
, a thin, hard (stainless steel) coverplate in intimate contact with (bonded to) the elastomer was rigidly attached (epoxied) to the clubhead body (a softer acetel plastic coverplate was similarly attached and tested). In
FIG. 3
, the same two coverplates (0.060 in. acetel and 0.060 stainless steel) were again epoxied to the clubhead with the viscoelastic inserts removed.
The
FIG. 2
insert showed a 30% distance loss (versus the
FIG. 1
solid aluminum clubhead) when struck before the clubhead center of gravity and 50% loss with ±¾ in. mishits (laterally).
FIG. 3
sho
Farrell Kevin M.
Sewell Paul T.
Varma Sneh
LandOfFree
Golf clubheads correcting distance loss due to mishits does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Golf clubheads correcting distance loss due to mishits, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Golf clubheads correcting distance loss due to mishits will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2953588