“Chris broke it.”
That was the statement by Alex Dee, VP of Fujikura Composites, during my recent visit to Fujikura’s R&D facility in Carlsbad, CA. The “it” to which he’s referring is ENSO, a $300,000 3D motion capture system.
Full disclosure, I didn’t really break it. But, for 10-15 minutes, plenty of nervous people considered it a real possibility.
Though this near-miss created a dash of levity bookended by several moments of panic, it revealed an important fact.
ENSO is Fujikura’s sacred cow.
It’s the heartbeat of Fujikura’s R&D process, and without it, Fujikura is likely just another middle-of-the-mall shaft manufacturer.
WHAT IS ENSO?
In (nearly) every golf shot, the ball, once struck, goes on an aerial journey, ultimately coming to rest in a fixed location. But how did it get there? And what role did each variable play in that outcome?
ENSO is a platform that measures and records large amounts of data to quantify the relationship between the shaft, swing, and ball flight. Going a layer deeper, ENSO evaluates all aspects of shaft movement to ultimately determine how shaft behavior impacts launch, spin, trajectory, peak height, and descent angle for every shot.
In other words, ENSO helps engineers like Alex Dee, VP of Fujikura, isolate the specific contributions of the shaft to ball flight. Put another way, ENSO is concerned with everything that happens with the shaft and clubhead during the swing while determining how every piece of the system impacts every other component because of individual swing characteristics.
Quick aside – the term ENSO is derived from a sacred Zen Buddhist symbol, meaning “circle.” Often, the spontaneous drawing leaves the circle incomplete, representing the perpetual quest for completion. Hopefully, this comes in handy during your next Trivial Pursuit game.
HOW DOES ENSO WORK?
The hardware side of ENSO consists of 10 high-speed motion capture cameras and several dozen motion-sensing diodes. The diodes are affixed to specific locations on the head, shaft, and grip. Moreover, at least three cameras (recording at +/- 1,000 fps) target each diode during the swing.
To put that in context, it’s comparable to systems used by motion picture companies to create animated sequences.
The proprietary ENSO software is a joint effort between Fujikura and Vicon. More or less, Fujikura told Vicon what the software needed to do, and Vicon designed it. To be clear, that’s a broad oversimplification of a far more complex piece of the ENSO system. Effectively, it’s like mapping the human genome, but for the golf swing. And without any of the double-helix references. In fact, the software creates a data dump with 3X more information than can be expressed in video.
ENSO DATA DEEP DIVE
This part might get a bit nerdy but stick with me. To understand the possible outputs of ENSO, it’s beneficial to take a glimpse into the sort of information it produces.
ENSO sees clubhead speed throughout the entire swing. Additionally, it traces the club handle and assesses every data point on all three planes of analysis. Think of it as a three-dimensional coordinate system (X, Y, Z). If that makes your eyes glaze over, just know that a shaft bends, deflects, and twists various amounts throughout a swing.
GOLD MEDAL WINNER
In this screengrab, we focused on Xander’s hands. Peak hand speed typically occurs during the downswing when the hands are close to hip height. This is true for most golfers, regardless of swing speed or skill.
His peak hand speed is 24.3 MPH, but at impact, it is 18.4 MPH. So, leading into impact his hands slow down almost 6 MPH. However, at the max hand speed location, the clubhead is traveling 65 MPH. At impact, it’s 119 MPH. So, as the hands decelerate, the club head accelerates by 64 MPH. Some version of a marginal decrease in hand speed coupled with a large increase in club head is typical for golfers with an efficient kinematic sequence.
Keep in mind that all of this happens in a little over 1 second. Xander’s backswing is a fraction over 0.9 seconds. His downswing takes 0.21 seconds.
AVERAGE JOE
The two most obvious differences when comparing an amateur golfer with an early release (casting) is the change in hand speed from max hand speed location to impact and clubhead speed at impact. Both players reach max hand speed and roughly the same time in the downswing. In this case, the amateur player had a max hand speed of 21 MPH, only 3 MPH less than Xander’s. However, the amateur’s hand speed decreased by 3 MPH leading into impact. The clubhead only gained 5-6 MPH from the max hand speed location to impact.
Amateur golfers aren’t trying to swing slow. In fact, they might be trying too hard to swing fast.
ENSO TELLS A STORY
After seeing these two swings, it was my turn. It felt a little like stepping on the scale the day after Thanksgiving. You’re not expecting a lot, but you wouldn’t mind if no one else watched.
As mentioned, a shaft has three states of deformation. In techy terms, droop (or drift) is the vertical bend of the shaft. Lead/lag is horizontal bend, and twisting manifests in the clubhead opening/closing at impact.
With the first shaft, I had a max handle speed of 27.7 MPH. This decreased to 13.3 MPH at impact with a total shaft deflection of 5.46.” The droop/drift was 0.9, but the face twisted 5.6° closed.
The shaft had 1.45″ of lead and a negative kick of 3.2 MPH. This means this shaft robbed the clubhead of at least 3 MPH of swing speed.
SHAFT NUMBER TWO
With the second shaft, the max handle speed dropped to 20.8 MPH and 15.1 MPH at impact. I didn’t deflect this shaft quite as much (4.68″), but the kick speed went from -3.2 MPH to +1.3 MPH. In general, 3 “-3.5” of shaft deflection is reasonably optimal.
The bounce speed on the second shaft indicated that the clubhead twisted shut but also shot away from me approaching impact. This is what caused the droop/drift numbers to sit close to zero, which “we’ve never seen before…and I didn’t think was even possible,” according to Alex Dee. This was the point at which it seemed more likely that I ruined Fujikura’s prized possession than actually had a swing with 0.2° drift.
While neither shaft I tested produced optimal results, the quick experiment unveiled a couple of crucial points of differentiation. The second shaft launched 2° lower with a start direction 1.5° closer to my target line. It might not sound like much, but 1°, 1 MPH or 100 RPM can be a big deal, particularly when trying to fine-tune performance. Moreover, think of each individual degree of launch or start direction as a zip code. From 30,000 feet, it might look insignificant. That is until your Amazon package arrives in the wrong part of town.
REAL-WORLD APPLICATIONS
It would be easy to skim this article and reach the conclusion ENSO-provided information disproportionately benefits better players. And when it comes to very specific use-case scenarios, that line of thinking largely holds up. For example, ENSO helped Fujikura TOUR staff find an additional 15-yards of carry distance while retaining the desired feel in the driver of 3X PGA Tour winner, Jhonattan Vegas. Vegas’ Fujikura Motore 70X shaft is a little softer profile and probably not the obvious choice for a guy with a 120 MPH swing and quick tempo. But, tipping the shaft 2″, increased the total stiffness while creating more lead into impact. Again, more lead increases dynamic loft. The net result is more distance without a sacrifice in feel for this specific player.
For the rest of us mere mortals, the implications are likely as impactful, though perhaps not as targeted. ENSO can identify and quantify the relationship between specific swing characteristics and shaft profiles that best fit certain golfers. With that in mind, why couldn’t ENSO data be leveraged to optimally fit any golfer in 3-5 swings? Or perhaps identify the most impactful variables that fitters should assess during a shaft fitting? If ENSO can articulate the levers that most directly impact ball flight, why couldn’t Fujikura develop fitting protocols based chiefly around those elements? It’s my understanding that we’re much closer to tangible answers than some might think.
WHERE DO WE GO NOW?
ENSO is roughly 10 years old and “we’re just scratching the surface” according to Dee. The primary upside to big data is always the main drawback – there’s a lot of it. It took engineers several years to get a framework of what ENSO could measure. From there, the primary objective centered around finding palpable applications for the mountain of data. And now that Fujikura has a reasonable handle on what that means, what’s next?
In the short term, it’s examining the best way to arrange materials to best serve the needs of the majority of golfers. That’s bland marketing speak for let’s find dominant swing characteristics of average golfers and build shafts based on those needs. It might read something like a prescription drug commercial. “Have an early release and steep swing? Try this.” “Want to hit that majestic tight draw, but struggle to shallow the club in transition. We got you.” Or it could be more simplistic scenarios where ENSO findings allow engineers to construct a shaft with a positive kick (adding MPH of swing speed) on top of previous EI profiles. Basically, taking an existing design and tweaking it to be faster.
The “you don’t know what you don’t know” category is always viable, particularly in R&D applications. Fujikura’s Ventus shaft emanated from ENSO data that illuminated how bending and torsional stiffness operate together. In practice, Ventus increased the golfer’s access to driver MOI (forgiveness). If a shaft can make a driver more forgiving, what could it do for irons or wedges? It’s a blue ocean of potential answers.
And while the nebulous world of composite shafts will evolve, at least one thing is abundantly clear.
Does the shaft matter? Damn straight, it does.
*This content is backed by the MyGolfSpy Integrity in Advertising Promise.
*We may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site.
Cody Reeder
1 year agoI got to see the enzo in person 3 years ago. I was amazed by it. I have been a fuji homer ever since.
Vince Schiavo
1 year agoEnzo Stuarti!!
leftright
1 year agoFujikura needs something because their shafts are not real good. I consider them somewhere between stock and Aldila in terms of quality and consistency. They do not play true to flex and they don’t offer middle flexes SR, RS, etc which with their supposed technology they should be able to do. The butt and tip flex numbers I have found mean very little but should be able to allow someone to get the right shaft dialed right in.
Cody Reeder
1 year agoInteresting take.. Tell that to the large number of Tour players winning with Ventus shafts…
Rob Rains
1 year agoChris-
Thank you for the article. Really enjoyed learning about ENSO.
Francis Donohue
1 year agoThanks- Do your daughters play golf? Coaching is a wonderful way of giving back- Please keep up the Good Works
Kevin
1 year agoGreat article Chris one question what was the second shaft.
Chris Nickel
1 year agoThat was part of the fun – I have no idea. Fuji has 14 or so Franken-shafts to use with ENSO. They know the precise EI profile of each shaft and theoretically what it should do when subjected to different swing characteristics.
bill
1 year agoAnyone remember the old system true temper had? I was was fit using a special sensor laden club back in 2002, and again in 2009. Similar idea but with strain gauges instead of cameras. The data was phenomenal, I am not sure why TT moved on from it. It fit me to a shaft that honestly I still use today in a stiffer form, with great feel and results. I would love to eventually see better integration of this type of club deflection data alongside the GC launch data in fittings.
Sam
1 year agoGood article, but remember it is still the best athlete not the implement that wins the day….
Chris Nickel
1 year agoI don’t think it’s that simple. Plenty of great athletes on all professional tours – and it’s not always the “best” athlete that wins. Too many factors to discuss, but properly fit equipment is pretty high up on the list.
Harry P
1 year agoGreat article! Isn’t Ping the only club OEM that has an ENZO system and uses it to design shafts that best fit their clubheads?
Chris Nickel
1 year agoYes, there are three ENSO systems in existence. Fujikura owns two and PING has the other one – which, might give you some idea as to how seriously PING takes shaft research/design.
ralph daiuto
1 year agoChris, what did you do to ENSO that made everyone think you may have broken it?
Chris Nickel
1 year agoBasically, I generated a droop/drift number that they initially felt impossible. Something like, starting your car, going for a long drive, only to realize your gas take was more full than when you left. That type of thing.
With the shaft and how it bends, ENSO measures droop/drift, lead/lag and twist/closure. That’s basically, the X, Y and Z coordinate stuff. And I had figures for everything, except droop/drift that was basically at 0°. As in ZERO, nada. Didnt’ make any sense. There’s no way some could deform a shaft by a total of 5″+ and not create any droop or drift….Or so they thought…
So, they brought in one of the engineers to look at everything….and then we put several other people on ENSO to see if they got wonky readings as well…but they didn’t and everything was fine, until I took a swing…
Long story, longer, my swing was such that with that specific shaft, I bent it a lot in one direction, but then right before impact, it bent another direction (sort of bouncing away from me) that negated the first defection and then we ended up with an artificially low number.
Apparently, I’m one of a kind.
I’m
Gerald Foley
1 year agoWonderful article! Love the technology. It does make you wonder tho if it’s a “chicken or egg” question for some golfers. Thinking back to hickory shafts it’s been said the early days of golf golfers had to change their swing tempo to accommodate the characteristics and weaknesses of hickory. It’s akin to the argument of blades vs game improvement irons. Does a blade force the golfer to become a better swinger? ie a blade makes you hit the center of the clubface and transmits ‘feel’ so you know. With shafts I have an anecdotal story. Some years ago I traveled to visit a golfing buddy but didn’t bring my sticks. I borrowed a set of identical Mizuno irons except the shafts had more flex. Same for the woods. After a few holes and snap hooking everything I subconsciously slowed my swing and adapted to these borrowed clubs and hit them surprisingly well. This raises the issue of. Do we swing the shaft or does the shaft dictate the swing? One wonders how many beginners or stubborn aging golfers never realize they are playing with too stiff or too whippy shafts? Most beginners pick up clubs before getting “fitted” and it compounds their difficulty to learn but how do you fit a beginner to begin with? It’s the chicken/egg dilemma.
Jason
1 year agoThis is fascinating. Unfortunately as far as I know, ENSO is not available to the masses. I have contacted Fujikura, willing to make the drive to their facility, and they don’t open their doors to average joes. Unless your a tour pro, media guy writing an article, or a VIP, ENSO is only to be dreamt about.
Keith Randall
1 year agoChris, this is a great article. Although there are extremely complex engineering facets to this technology, you are able to present it in a way that is clear without loosing or “over simplifying” what the technology can is providing and how. This sounds like the “Next Big Thing” for the average golfer! In my opinion, fittings are a bit subjective unless you can afford to go to the top end fitters who understand the engineering behind the shafts. But this technology is quantitative and objective. Keep these articles coming!!
Vern
1 year agoAnother great article Chris. Deep down I have always felt that the shaft makes a ton of difference but I wasn’t sure exactly why. This article puts it out very succinctly! I just wish I could, at my advance age justify the premium price. Keep the good articles coming Chris.
Doug
1 year agoGreat article on a technology application that would seem to benefit anyone. The kicker is availability and cost. Any indication on who and where the fitting is available and rough estimates of cost. Interesting technology but if available only to pros who typically don’t foot their own bill and those who don’t care what the expense is then just an academic treat.
Chris Nickel
1 year agoDoug – ENSO is fundamentally an R&D tool, so it’s not something that is accessible to the masses…yet. It would be cost and time aversive for every fitter to invest $500K+ to have such a system in house.
The chief benefit to all golfers at this point is:
1) Trickle down information that leads to more efficient shaft fitting options and 2) continued learnings that might allow Fujikura to create shafts that more ideally fit golfers based on specific swing characteristics.