Why is the butt of a cue stick round?
- Thread starter JoeW
- Start date
I'd like to try the pistol-grip idea.JoeW said:
Snooker cues aren't round where many players grip them. They are beveled at the end of the butt. Snooker players may be puzzled by the use of wraps on pool cues since the wrap is not where most snooker players would grip the cue.
Some have offered the argument that the stick is round so the tip will wear evenly. I think those people are speaking from ignorance. I shoot with the cue in the same rotation on every shot, and I do not find my tip wearing unevenly. (But then I'm one of those who does not shape or need to shape his tip after the initial installation.) If you think about it for a minute, I think you will see why it is better to always have the stick turned the same way. Or, you can continue to be lazy.
A-ha. Your right Bob, I played lots of snooker in the 60s and 70s and those Dufferin snooker cues are beveled on the end. OK – that does it, I am going to get a cue from Wal-Mart and cut it down to see what happens. I think I will get another one and cut the “knife” grip to see what happens on the break. More later.
I'd still think that constantly-struck portion of the tip would pack a little harder than the rest but even ignoring that, what's the edge you get by rotating the cue to the same position on every shot?
Also, (to bob), your word choice is a little caustic there. I wouldn't bust out words like "ignorant" when describing people who make a (possibly correct?) educated guess that the tip might wear unevenly, or call them "lazy" if they don't worry about rotating the same way every shot (I doubt 1 in 1,000 bother with this).
I've thought about it for a minute as you've suggested and can see no advantage whatsover. Without one of your patented scientific explanations I can't help seeing it as superstition.
Also, (to bob), your word choice is a little caustic there. I wouldn't bust out words like "ignorant" when describing people who make a (possibly correct?) educated guess that the tip might wear unevenly, or call them "lazy" if they don't worry about rotating the same way every shot (I doubt 1 in 1,000 bother with this).
I've thought about it for a minute as you've suggested and can see no advantage whatsover. Without one of your patented scientific explanations I can't help seeing it as superstition.
JoeW said:
Really, you can not be serious about this "Twister" thing....................
The only reason leather is getting more rare in shoes, is cost. Your highest end shoes are still made almost exclusively in leather.
Asfar as cues, there are cues with the "Dooly" handle (Stealth Cues knurled handle) and Longoni has one with an octagonal handle.
Last edited:
While we're at it, what about a drop-tip cue? That way you could keep the part of the cue closest to the cue ball completely level (and/or maybe be able to shoot upwards) on most shots. Now I'm picturing a cue butt that has a handle like on a suitcase made to fit your hand to which is attached a thin titanium rod and a weight behind the handle to balance (adjustable, of course). Then the tip could be on section of the shaft that has an adjustable offset (with wing nuts or set screws to tighten) that rotates 360 degrees for shooting to the side or over an interfering ball.
And now, for my greatest pool invention, the collapsible/sliding mechanical bridge affixed to each rail that you can slide into position for any cue-ball-on-the-rail-shot. Of course, you will be able to adjust the distance for your preferred bridge length.
And now, for my greatest pool invention, the collapsible/sliding mechanical bridge affixed to each rail that you can slide into position for any cue-ball-on-the-rail-shot. Of course, you will be able to adjust the distance for your preferred bridge length.
From what I can see, some of the problems with this are:
I'm sure it could be done, it'd just be a lot of work.
Eric
- Manufacturability - a portion of this handle will have to be round to attach to either the shaft or another handle, like a jump break. I think the cue maker would need a cammed taper bar or something to do this flat to round transition.
- Cases - you can't just cut down both sides of a cue in the handle area, it will weaken it too much, therefore it has to get bigger in the direction of the flat surface, increasing section modulus. More than likely, it's not going to fit in any standard case
I'm sure it could be done, it'd just be a lot of work.
Eric
Hey bsmutz, those are some interesting ideas, though I don’t think I understand the rail bridge. The others need some work but they might be neat innovations. Kinda like the new tennis rackets and new poles for pole vaulting – improved the respective sports.
Crown City Corey, I have never used a twister, though I am going to get one for the fun of it. No point in being anti-innovation, somebody just might have a better idea for controlling the cue ball. Seems some French guy thought up the leather tip and changed the game.
Emf123 I doubt the issue is manufacturing. If it works better than other systems and is legal, makers will find a way to make and store. Whatever it takes to get our money – right?
Crown City Corey, I have never used a twister, though I am going to get one for the fun of it. No point in being anti-innovation, somebody just might have a better idea for controlling the cue ball. Seems some French guy thought up the leather tip and changed the game.
Emf123 I doubt the issue is manufacturing. If it works better than other systems and is legal, makers will find a way to make and store. Whatever it takes to get our money – right?
If you are using side spin, does squirt affect the angle of the cue ball? Does squirt vary according to the rotation of the cue stick? If the answers to those two questions are yes -- and Bob Meucci's tests assure us that they are -- then if you don't know which way your stick is turned on a side spin shot, you can't be sure where the cue ball is going. Is the effect large enough to worry about? Not on 10-inch shots, maybe. On a snooker table, almost certainly.CreeDo said:
That's interesting. Prolly should be more commonly known if the difference in squirt is substantial. How definitive are these tests though? I don't know many players personally who would dare to claim that they can strike the cueball with sidespin the same way every time, the same distance from center every time, with the same shooting conditions every time, and reliably come up with exactly, say, 1.2 inches of deflection over a table length. So I am a bit skeptical that there's a visible, measurable difference based on how the cue is rotated. Is the difference due to the rotation? The player? Or maybe even some subtle thing along the lines of "the player thinks having the cue at an unfamiliar rotation will cause inconsistent deflection, and this subconsciously affects his stroke and it comes true"?
What element of manufacture in a standard stick or tip is not the same throughout all 360 degrees, that should cause these differences in deflection?
What element of manufacture in a standard stick or tip is not the same throughout all 360 degrees, that should cause these differences in deflection?
Picture a slot in the side of the rail below the edge of the table that runs the entire length of the rail. Set in this slot is a collapsible bridge that would fold out and up creating a bridge outside the dimensions of the table. You could move it in or out to get your favorite bridge length as well as swivel it to get the correct angle. You wouldn't need your bridge hand when using this device.JoeW said:
Well, now we get to the rest of the reasons. If the stick is not "rotationally symmetric" for any reason and in any way, then if you allow the stick to be in a random rotation, you are adding a random component to the shot. For example, if I'm stuck using a house cue, and the only cue in the house that has a decent tip is bent, I need to make sure that the bend hangs down when I'm down on the shot. In that position, the cue looks straight. I've been known to mark the up-side of house sticks when they don't have a conveniently placed stain.CreeDo said:
Suppose the tip you have is soft on one edge. If that edge is always on the left or down or wherever, but always in the same place, you have a chance to adjust to it subconsciously. If it's in a random place on each shot, I doubt that you can adjust to it, other than to keep your shots short and simple, which is always good strategy anyway.
Bob Jewett said:
First of all, as far as snooker tables are concerned...
You've heard of "Area Position"? On a snooker table I practice "Area Potting". I move the object ball in the general direction of the pocket, and let luck do the rest. It turns out that my chances of "lucking a ball in" are about the same as "lucking a ball out".
This seems like it's really putting a fine point on things, but I'll roll with the premise. If you are going to put a "top-dot" on your cue, it seems that it would make a lot of sense to know why you're putting the dot in a particular place. What would be a good way to find this magic "always-on-top" spot? Assuming a straight-rolling cue, would you hang a weight from the ferrule and measure the deflection every 11.25° around the cue's circumference? Which direction would you orient the point with the maximum deflection? I'm thinking down for better draw, but...
While I've got your attention, I remember hearing a few years ago that you play with a ferrule-less cue. What is the advantage to that? Any problems so far?
Ken
Wood cues have the grain running on one axis. That is the nature of wood. Unless you have a good size tree to cut the shaft across the diameter of the trunk the grain will be on one side. It makes sense that the amount of deflection due to the part of the shaft that hits the CB will vary based on the idea that “with the grain” puts more or less deflection than “against the grain.”
I think that you could find the varying amounts of deflection by shooting from the head spot to the foot rail with 1 cue tip off center. Using carbon paper sandwiched between two sheets of typing paper would yield "good" measurments. Repeating this x times for each of four different positions on the shaft is an empirical problem. The answer lies in how much deflection difference is found. If it is significant then it would be worthwhile to mark the side with least deflection.
I wonder if different cues such as production versus custom made have different levels of stress tolerance before they cause deflection?
Now about my Z2 shaft ???
Hey -- how do they test the Predator shaft against other shafts?
I think that you could find the varying amounts of deflection by shooting from the head spot to the foot rail with 1 cue tip off center. Using carbon paper sandwiched between two sheets of typing paper would yield "good" measurments. Repeating this x times for each of four different positions on the shaft is an empirical problem. The answer lies in how much deflection difference is found. If it is significant then it would be worthwhile to mark the side with least deflection.
I wonder if different cues such as production versus custom made have different levels of stress tolerance before they cause deflection?
Now about my Z2 shaft ???
Hey -- how do they test the Predator shaft against other shafts?
If the cue is straight, put the dot so the "bubbles" in the shaft wood are up and down. Assuming that any strangeness in the wood is with/against the rings, this will make low-right as much like low-left (etc.) as possible.Slider said:
As for the no-ferrule thing, the shaft has a lot less squirt without a ferrule. The major problems are that you have to be more careful when chalking; if you don't use a pad, the wood can split; and an over-zealous retipper might give you a new ferrule that you didn't really want (yes, that happened to me). Also, you might not want to lose an inch of cue length if you are modifying an existing shaft.
I used a different method. Cue on the head spot the 1-Ball on the foot rail position with the numeral center and facing me. Use #2 power (sufficient to roll the CB two length of the table, or lag speed). Hit center ball one tip left or right alternating for four shots.
I have been playing with a Paul Mottey cue for about 15 years so I am used to it. I recently bought the Z2 shaft to see if it is better than the 314 on another cue I had to return to a friend (it is in my opinion). I have been playing with the Z2 on a Mottey butt regularly for about one month.
The standard (Mottey) shaft has little swirls on two sides I assume these lines are from cutting across the grain on a lathe.
I found that shooting across the grain there is about ½” deflection. Shooting with the grain there is about ¼” deflection. Therefore, it is wise (for me) to mark the Mottey shaft. These are estimates the carbon paer test would be better and yield more definitive results.
Shooting with the Predator Z2 there was no noticeable deflection. I like the Predator Z2 because it is similar to a snooker cue. However, when I get tired (after about four hours of play) I shift to the Mottey shaft because it has a 13mm tip and is less demanding.
Before anyone starts complaining, I really like my Mottey and would never give it up. I also like Paul, he is a nice guy. And I have felt “guilty” about replacing his shaft with the Predator. Now I feel worse because the Predator played better in this test. If anything I would have preferred for Mottey’s shaft to have done better.
Just one guy's empirical observations and they support Bob's position. It would appear that we could use several more observations from others to determine if this is indeed true. There is all sorts of room for observer bias and this is starting to sound like a scientific journal articles so I will shut up. Further research is needed.
footnote
Just read Bob's post, something is wrong here, I got more deflection with the bubbles up. Maybe I wrote it wrong now I'll have to go try it again -- or is it observer bias and my attempt to justify spend $250.00 on a Z2 Hmmm
I have been playing with a Paul Mottey cue for about 15 years so I am used to it. I recently bought the Z2 shaft to see if it is better than the 314 on another cue I had to return to a friend (it is in my opinion). I have been playing with the Z2 on a Mottey butt regularly for about one month.
The standard (Mottey) shaft has little swirls on two sides I assume these lines are from cutting across the grain on a lathe.
I found that shooting across the grain there is about ½” deflection. Shooting with the grain there is about ¼” deflection. Therefore, it is wise (for me) to mark the Mottey shaft. These are estimates the carbon paer test would be better and yield more definitive results.
Shooting with the Predator Z2 there was no noticeable deflection. I like the Predator Z2 because it is similar to a snooker cue. However, when I get tired (after about four hours of play) I shift to the Mottey shaft because it has a 13mm tip and is less demanding.
Before anyone starts complaining, I really like my Mottey and would never give it up. I also like Paul, he is a nice guy. And I have felt “guilty” about replacing his shaft with the Predator. Now I feel worse because the Predator played better in this test. If anything I would have preferred for Mottey’s shaft to have done better.
Just one guy's empirical observations and they support Bob's position. It would appear that we could use several more observations from others to determine if this is indeed true. There is all sorts of room for observer bias and this is starting to sound like a scientific journal articles so I will shut up. Further research is needed.
footnote
Just read Bob's post, something is wrong here, I got more deflection with the bubbles up. Maybe I wrote it wrong now I'll have to go try it again -- or is it observer bias and my attempt to justify spend $250.00 on a Z2 Hmmm
Last edited:
I tried playing today with the cue rotated the same way every shot. I couldn't speak towards deflection as I didn't experiment and stayed in line throughout my sets, but I did shoot well, maybe a bit better than usual.
The downside though is that fishing for the rotation prior to each shot was driving me nuts, and I'm not sure if I proved anything, I chose an arbitrary rotational position to work with and stuck to it, but maybe the one I chose happens to be the worst and most-deflecting one.
I'm still skeptical about deflection testing because nobody hits the same speed every time, even if their aim and stroke are rock solid, and speed's a real factor. Lag speed in particular seems deceptive because it's just slow enough that there's time for the sidespin to gently curve the path of the ball back towards the aiming point. I find where deflection matters most is those really firm sidespin hits, like maybe ... dunno how to describe it, but at least 1.5*lag speed? The kind of shot where you have to use high inside on a long rail cut to make the cueball travel 3 cushions back towards you.
I probably should shut up about it and just try it myself. 1/4 inch is a lot of difference, relatively speaking. Maybe such a difference will jump out at me when I do some experiments.
Do they make a machine that can do this? I'd be pretty handy for testing and training purposes. The smartass answer would be "yes, his name is efren."
The downside though is that fishing for the rotation prior to each shot was driving me nuts, and I'm not sure if I proved anything, I chose an arbitrary rotational position to work with and stuck to it, but maybe the one I chose happens to be the worst and most-deflecting one.
I'm still skeptical about deflection testing because nobody hits the same speed every time, even if their aim and stroke are rock solid, and speed's a real factor. Lag speed in particular seems deceptive because it's just slow enough that there's time for the sidespin to gently curve the path of the ball back towards the aiming point. I find where deflection matters most is those really firm sidespin hits, like maybe ... dunno how to describe it, but at least 1.5*lag speed? The kind of shot where you have to use high inside on a long rail cut to make the cueball travel 3 cushions back towards you.
I probably should shut up about it and just try it myself. 1/4 inch is a lot of difference, relatively speaking. Maybe such a difference will jump out at me when I do some experiments.
Do they make a machine that can do this? I'd be pretty handy for testing and training purposes. The smartass answer would be "yes, his name is efren."
I am not sure but I think that it was on the Predator site that I saw a robot used for testing deflection. From the appearances it did not seem too difficult to make. Basically a swinfg arm. The setup might take a bit of work.
I wonder if we can move this discussion to a new thread as it is quite interesting. Any one know how to do that, with out going through a lot of trouble? If not perhaps I can just cut and paste one big quote with a survey.
I wonder if we can move this discussion to a new thread as it is quite interesting. Any one know how to do that, with out going through a lot of trouble? If not perhaps I can just cut and paste one big quote with a survey.
Snapshot9 said:they knew you already had prior experience with round object prior to taking up Pool .....
I believe those who stand before a urinal, should surmise the gist of your statement, Snapshot........
Both Predator and Meucci have cue-swinging robots. Bob Meucci made his about ten years ago. They've been discussed extensively over at rec.sport.billiard and in the pool mags. The Predator robot has changed a lot since 1998 or so.JoeW said: