Why is there no r^2 term in the formula for the swing weight of a golfclub?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the formula for the swing weight of a golf club and its relationship to angular acceleration. Participants explore the differences between swing weight and angular acceleration, questioning the absence of an r² term in the swing weight formula and its implications for understanding the mechanics of swinging a golf club.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the swing weight formula as SW = m * (r - 14) and questions why angular acceleration, which involves r², is not reflected in this formula.
  • Another participant argues that swing weight and angular acceleration are not the same and have different units, suggesting a fundamental difference in their definitions.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of rigorous physical foundation for the swing weight formula, with one participant suggesting it may be an informal measurement used by golfers.
  • Some participants note that swing weight is related to how hard it is to swing a golf club and may be linked to torque and linear acceleration, although the exact relationship remains unclear.
  • There is mention of swing weight being measured in alpha-numeric units and its dependence on the club's weight distribution relative to a fixed fulcrum point, rather than a dynamic measurement.
  • One participant expresses a desire for a formal physics derivation that connects swing weight to the force needed for swing rotation, indicating a potential link to established physics concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the relationship between swing weight and angular acceleration, with multiple competing views and uncertainties remaining regarding the definitions and implications of swing weight in physics.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about swing weight, its measurement, and the definitions of related concepts. The discussion reflects a mix of informal understanding and attempts to connect to formal physics without resolving the underlying complexities.

Lars278
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
The Swing Weight of a golfclub = m * (r - 14)
m = mass of the club in grams
r = distance from the top of the shaft to the center of mass of the club in inches
6050 equals the swing weight D-0
But the formula for the angular acceleration of any object spinning around an axis is:
ωdot = τ / I
In the case of a thin rod spinning around one of it's endpoints this will be:
ωdot = 3 * τ / (m * r2)

m, and r are now in SI units though. (kg and meters)

But in the formula for swing weight there is no r2 only an r. Why is this?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Why are you comparing swing ‘weight’ with angular acceleration? They are not the same, and their units are not the same.
 
It's not clear that the formula you show has a rigorous foundation in physics. It may just be an informal unit of measurement with which people identify clubs.
 
The linear acceleration of the club head would be related to the torque at the wrists by something similar to this "swing weight".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
FactChecker said:
It's not clear that the formula you show has a rigorous foundation in physics. It may just be an informal unit of measurement with which people identify clubs.
Maybe not in physics but millions of golfers rely on it. It's supposed to describe how hard it is to swing a golfclub. How hard it is to perform angular acceleration.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
Lars278 said:
Maybe not in physics but millions of golfers rely on it. It's supposed to describe how hard it is to swing a golfclub. How hard it is to perform angular acceleration.
I can find no reference which defines it in terms of angular acceleration for a fixed torque. Most of what I can Google up is very dumbed down and talks about feel. The references which speak of measurement or definitions allude to equipment which does a static balance (proportional to r, not r squared).

For instance:
  • A club's weight distribution relative to a fixed fulcrum point, typically 14 inches from the butt (grip end) of the club. Swingweight is measured in alpha-numeric units such as D-1, D-2. The letters used are A through G, with numerals from 0-9 (up to 10 for G).
    The higher a club’s letter-number unit, the closer its balance point is to the head, and the heavier it will feel when swung. The lightest possible swingweight is A-0; the heaviest is G-10. For men, the standard swingweights are D-0 and D-1; for women, C-5 to C-7.
or

It is really not a dynamic measurement as the name implies but rather a simple balance system what in mechanics is called First Moments. This is where the distance of the weight from the fulcrum multiplied by the weight itself must be the same on both sides for the beam to balance.
 
Lars278 said:
Maybe not in physics but millions of golfers rely on it. It's supposed to describe how hard it is to swing a golfclub. How hard it is to perform angular acceleration.
That makes sense. And it fits in with @jbriggs444 idea that it is related to the force needed to accelerate the swing rotation the desired amount. In that case, it can be related to a formal physics derivation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K