MUSCLE-BACK IRON GOLF CLUBS WITH HIGHER MOMENT OF INTERTIA AND LOWER CENTER OF GRAVITY
Disclosed herein are muscle-back iron golf clubs that have improved mass qualities to provide higher rotational moments of inertia and lower center of gravity while retaining the workability of muscle-back irons and the size, shape and dimensions preferred by tour players and low handicap players.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention generally relates to golf clubs, and, more particularly, to muscle-back iron-type clubs.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Individual iron club heads in a set typically increase progressively in face surface area and weight as the clubs progress from the long irons to the short irons and wedges. Therefore, the club heads of the long irons have a smaller face surface area than the short irons and are typically more difficult for the average golfer to hit consistently well. For conventional club heads, this arises at least in part due to the smaller sweet spot of the corresponding smaller face surface area.
To help the average golfer consistently hit the sweet spot of a club head, many golf clubs are available with cavity-back constructions for increased perimeter weighting. Perimeter weighting also provides the club head with higher rotational moment of inertia about its center of gravity. Club heads with higher moments of inertia have a lower tendency to rotate caused by off-center hits. Another recent trend has been to increase the overall size of the club heads, especially in the long irons. Each of these features increases the size of the sweet spot, and therefore makes it more likely that a shot hit slightly off-center still makes contact with the sweet spot and flies farther and straighter. One challenge for the golf club designer when maximizing the size of the club head is to maintain a desirable and effective overall weight of the golf club. For example, if the club head of a three-iron is increased in size and weight, the club may become more difficult for the average golfer to swing properly.
In general, the center of gravity of the cavity-back clubs is moved toward the bottom and back of the club head. This permits an average golfer to get the ball up in the air faster and hit the ball farther. In addition, the moment of inertia of the club head is increased to minimize the distance and accuracy penalties associated with off-center hits. In order to move the weight down and back without increasing the overall weight of the club head, material or mass is taken from one area of the club head and moved to another.
One solution has been to take material from the face of the club, creating a thin club face. Examples of this type of arrangement can be found in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,928,972, 5,967,903 and 6,045,456.
However, professional tour players and low handicap players, who can consistently hit the balls on the club's sweet spot, prefer muscle-back type clubs for the visual effect of a smaller head and better workability. Workability is a function of the size of the club head, the center gravity being closer to the hosel axis, the thinner sole and the reduced offset between the hosel and the hitting face. Workability is the ability to shape the shots and to control the trajectory's height.
Muscle-back clubs generally have lower inertia and higher center of gravity than cavity-back clubs. Muscle-back clubs, such as Kenneth Smith's Royal Signet clubs and Mizuno's MP-33 irons concentrate the club's weight near the sweet spot, thereby reducing its inertia. Also since the club's weight is not moved to the perimeter or to the sole, the conventional muscle-back club does not have as large a sweet spot or low center of gravity as the cavity-back club. Some of the commercially available muscle-back clubs are using multiple materials to change the mass properties. For example, the Bridgestone EC603 Pro iron clubs have a stainless steel body with a heavy tungsten insert in the lower portion of the back of the club (i.e., in the muscle portion of the club), and a urethane insert for vibration damping. Similarly, the Bridgestone Tanbec TB-2 has a titanium body and a heavy beryllium copper insert in the lower portion of the back of the club. However, these heavy inserts reduce the inertia of the club.
Hence, there remains a need for muscle-back clubs that have improved mass properties, such as higher inertia and better location of the center of gravity.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to muscle-back iron golf clubs that have improved mass properties, such as lower center of gravity and higher moments of inertia.
The present invention also relates to muscle-back golf clubs that have their mass redistributed to gain higher moments of inertia and lower the center of gravity while maintaining or improving workability.
The present invention also relates to a method of making golf clubs from various materials.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
Rotational moments of inertia (inertia) in golf clubs are well known in art, and are fully discussed in many references, including U.S. Pat. No. 4,420,156, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. When the inertia is too low, the club head tends to rotate about an axis excessively from off-center hits. Higher inertia indicates higher rotational mass and less rotation from off-center hits, thereby allowing off-center hits to fly farther and closer to the intended path. Inertia is measured about a vertical axis going through the center of gravity (e.g.) of the club head (Iyy), and about a horizontal axis through the c.g. of the club head (Ixx), as shown in
Inertia is also measured about the shaft axis (Iaa) shown in
As shown in
In accordance with the present invention, muscle portion 30 is made separate from front 12 and hosel 24 and may contain lightweight insert or chip 32 and heavyweight cradle 34. In a preferred embodiment, front 12 and hosel 24 are made of the same or similar material and integral with each other. Front 12 and hosel 24 can be made by forging or metal casting, and each has a density that is higher than the density of lightweight chip 32 and is lower than the density of heavyweight cradle 34. In one example, hosel 24 and face 12 are made from stainless steel or carbon steel (density of about 8 g/cc) or titanium (density of about 4.5 g/cc); chip 32 is made from aluminum (density of about 2.7 g/cc) or polymers (density of about 1-1.5 g/cc); and cradle 34 is made from tungsten or tungsten alloy (density of about 11-19 g/cc). The densities and volumes of the components are selected so that the overall size and shape of the inventive clubs are similar to conventional muscle-back clubs preferred and accepted by tour and low handicap players. It will be appreciated that other suitable materials can be used so long as the relative densities satisfy the requirements above.
Cradle 34 can be attached to front 12 by laser welding the perimeter of cradle 34 to the back of front 12. The attachment of cradle 34 to front 12 can also be accomplished by other methods, such as co-forging, described below, or by screws or rivets or epoxy. Chip 32 can be attached to pocket 36 by interference fit, epoxy, screw(s), adhesive, etc. or a combination thereof.
In inventive club head 10, some of the mass has been shifted away from the geometric center by the placement of lightweight chip 32 proximate to the geometric center of front 12. Also, some of the mass has been shifted aft and toward the bottom of the club by cradle 34, which as illustrated has a thicker bottom 40, which forms sole 18 and void 38. The deployment of mass has moved the e.g. aft and lower and has increased inertia (Isa, Ixx and Iyy) to be more forgiving with mishits and to provide higher trajectory, similar to a cavity-back club.
This combination of multiple materials provides a club with improved mass properties, i.e., more forgiving of mishits and higher trajectory in a club head with size, shape, and proportion more traditional and more acceptable to tour players and low handicap players. The combination of these materials, e.g., stainless/carbon steel hosel 24 and hitting face 26, aluminum chip insert 32 and tungsten/tungsten alloy cradle 34 permits the club head geometry to remain substantially the same as that of a single material club, but features improved mass properties.
The inertia of the inventive clubs, e.g., the club shown in
For the inventive 3-iron, the c.g. in the vertical y-direction and aft or z-direction is lower than the two comparative 3-iron clubs, and the e.g. in the shaft axis is in between the two comparative clubs. This data shows that the e.g. of the inventive 3-iron club is indeed lower and more aft than the single material conventional 3-iron clubs. The data also shows that the e.g. in the shaft axis, which measures how far the e.g. is away from the shaft or hosel axis, is comparable to those of the conventional clubs. As discussed above, the closeness of the e.g. to the shaft axis indicates better workability. In other words, the inventive 3-iron is more forgiving due to better e.g. in the vertical and aft directions and has comparable workability to the comparative clubs.
The rotational inertia about the x, y and z axes and the aggregate inertia are higher than those of the two comparative clubs to reduce the tendency of the club head to rotate from mishits, and the inertia about the shaft axis for the inventive club is between those of the two comparative clubs indicating comparable workability.
The data for the inventive 6-iron club compared to the conventional 6-irons is similar to that of the inventive 3-iron club compared to the conventional 3-irons, as discussed above.
The data for the inventive 9-iron shows that the e.g. in the vertical direction is indeed lower and the e.g. in the shaft axis remains comparable to the conventional clubs, but the e.g. in the aft direction for the inventive club is only comparable to the conventional clubs, i.e., between the two conventional clubs. The inertia for the inventive 9-iron is higher in the y- and z-axis and aggregate inertia is better or higher than the conventional clubs, but the inertia about the x-axis is only higher than one of the two conventional clubs. The inertia about the shaft axis is higher than the conventional muscle-back clubs.
It can be concluded from the above data that the inventive clubs enjoy better e.g. location and higher inertia while maintaining comparable workability, especially in the long and mid-irons, where the shots are harder to make. The inventive iron clubs, such as those shown in
The weight of the iron-type clubs varies throughout the set, e.g., 236, 242, 248, 254, 267, 268, 275, 283, and 287 grams for 2-iron to pitching wedge, respectively. In one embodiment, the materials and volumes should be selected so that the final weight of each club meets these selected weight for each club.
In this embodiment, hosel 24 and front 12 are made from stainless steel, carbon steel, titanium or other conventional metals. Cradle 34 is preferably made from a high density metal, such as tungsten or tungsten nickel or tungsten nickel copper. Dampening layer 37 can be made from any polymeric material that can absorb vibrations, such as rubber, elastomers, urethane or nylon. Nylon is useful because it can be polished along with metals. Dampening layer 37 may also be pre-stressed, i.e., be compressed between cradle 34 and front 12, to keep the connection between front 12 and cradle 34 a tight fit, such as by a mechanical lock, and minimizes relative movements between front 12 and cradle 34.
To further improve or increase the rotational inertia of the inventive clubs while maintaining workability, heavyweight inserts can be positioned on opposite sides of the c.g. or of the geometric center, or on opposite sides of a vertical line going through the c.g. or geometric center. As shown in
To maintain the c.g. as low to the ground as possible, heavyweight hosel collar 52 can be replaced by heavyweight heel pin 58 to balance toe insert 50 shown in
The embodiment of
In another embodiment of the present invention, the mass properties of the muscle-back clubs vary from the long irons to the short irons and wedges. In general, in the long irons, the weights are shifted or moved toward the sole, heel and/or toe. Preferably, the long irons include one or more heavy inserts in the toe region to keep the c.g. near the hosel axis for better workability. The mid-irons may include a heavy hosel collar and a toe insert, and an optional heel insert. The short irons and wedges would have a lightweight heel insert and possibly a heavy crown insert. All these clubs would have lightweight chip 32 positioned in the muscle portion 30 of the clubs, as described above. These various combinations allow the golf club designers multiple degrees of freedom to customize a set of forgiving muscle-back clubs to a player's particular needs.
In one example, as shown in
The lightweight and heavyweight inserts can be placed at multiple locations in the club head to achieve a desired result, and the present invention is not limited to any particular combinations shown herein.
As mentioned above, club heads in accordance with the present invention can be made by co-forging as illustrated in
Another method for attaching the inserts, such as chip 32 to the club head is by swaging and preloading, as shown in
While it is apparent that the illustrative embodiments of the invention disclosed herein fulfill the objectives stated above, it is appreciated that numerous modifications and other embodiments may be devised by those skilled in the art. Therefore, it will be understood that the appended claims are intended to cover all such modifications and embodiments, which would come within the spirit and scope of the present invention.
1. A muscle-back iron-type golf club comprising a hosel, a hitting face and a back portion, wherein the hosel and the hitting face are made integral with each other and the hitting face has a substantially uniform thickness, and wherein the back portion is made from a material having a higher density than a material of the hosel and the hitting face and the back portion is attached to the back of the hitting face to form the golf club.
2. The golf club of claim 1, wherein the back portion forms a muscle-back of the golf club.
3. The golf club of claim 1, wherein the back portion defines a pocket.
4. The golf club of claim 3, wherein the pocket is formed between the hitting face and the back portion and the pocket is interior to the golf club.
5. The golf club of claim 3, wherein the pocket is sized and dimensioned to receive a lightweight insert having a density less than a density of the hosel and the hitting face.
6. The golf club of claim 5, wherein the lightweight insert is positioned proximate to the geometric center of the hitting face.
7. The golf club of claim 5, wherein the lightweight insert overlaps the geometric center of the hitting face.
8. The golf club of claim 4, wherein the pocket is filled with a lightweight-material insert having a density less than the density of the hosel and the hitting face.
9. The golf club of claim 8, wherein the pocket is filled with a vibration dampening material.
10. The golf club of claim 1 further comprising a post connecting the hitting face to the back portion.
11. The golf club of claim 10, wherein the post is made integral to the hitting face and the back portion defines a hole sized to receive the post and wherein a head of the post is flattened to secure the back portion to the hitting face.
12. The golf club of claim 11 further comprising a dampening layer between the hitting face and the back portion.
13. The golf club of claim 12, wherein the dampening layer is prestressed.
14. An iron-type golf club comprising a hosel, a hitting face and a back portion, wherein the back portion comprises an upper portion and a lower muscle portion, said muscle portion being substantially thicker than the upper portion, wherein the golf club further comprises at least two heavyweight inserts having higher density than a density of the hitting face and a density of the back portion and wherein the heavyweight inserts are located on opposite sides of a vertical line through the geometric center of the hitting face.
15. The golf club of claim 14, wherein one of the heavyweight inserts is located proximate to the shaft axis.
16. The golf club of claim 15, wherein said heavyweight insert is a hosel collar.
17. The golf club of claim 15, wherein said heavyweight insert is a heel insert.
18. The golf club of claim 15, wherein one of the other heavyweight inserts is a toe insert.
19. The golf club of claim 14 further comprising a lightweight insert having a density lower than the density of the hitting face and the density of the back portion, wherein the lightweight insert is positioned within the muscle portion.
20. The golf club of claim 14 further comprising a lightweight insert having a density lower than the density of the hitting face and the density of the back portion, wherein the lightweight insert is positioned within the heel of the golf club.
21. The golf club of claim 14 further comprising a lightweight insert having a density lower than the density of the hitting face and the density of the back portion, wherein the lightweight insert is a hosel collar.
22. The golf club of claim 14 further comprising a third heavyweight insert located proximate to a crown of the golf club.
23. An iron-type golf club comprising a hosel, a hitting face and a back portion, wherein the back portion comprises an upper portion and a lower muscle portion, said muscle portion being substantially thicker than the upper portion, wherein the golf club further comprises:
- at least one heavyweight insert having higher density than a density of the hitting face and the back portion and wherein the heavyweight insert is located proximate to the sole of the golf club,
- at least one lightweight insert having a density lower than the density of the hitting face and the back portion and wherein the lightweight insert overlaps the geometric center of the golf club.
24. A method for forging a golf club head comprising the steps of:
- a. forging a workpiece into a rough shape, so that said rough shape resembles the golf club head;
- b. interrupting the forging process;
- c. machining a cutout in the workpiece;
- d. placing an insert in the cutout, wherein said insert is made from a material different from the material of the workpiece; and
- e. working the workpiece and insert into the golf club head so that the insert is locked with the golf club head.
25. The method of claim 24, wherein step (e) comprises additional forging.
26. The method of claim 24, wherein step (e) comprises swaging.
27. The method of claim 24, wherein the cutout in step (c) comprises a cavity.
28. The method of claim 24, wherein the insert in step (d) comprises chamfered shoulders.
29. The method of claim 28, wherein after step (e) the material of the workpiece covers the chamfered shoulders.
30. The golf club of claim 3, wherein the back portion has a “U” shape.
International Classification: A63B 53/00 (20060101);