PDA

View Full Version : OB-1 v. 314 v. Z


HomerB
10-15-2007, 04:58 PM
How do these shafts compare -- OB-1 v. 314 v. Z?

Gregg
10-15-2007, 05:01 PM
I've pleaded for the mods to post a sticky of this formula;

OB-1>314^2

These vs. posts are becomming new daily threads.

It has to stop

Tim5000
10-15-2007, 06:43 PM
There was a LONG thread the other day about these particular models. I found it to be pretty informative. I would suggest searching the threads for it.

vin
10-15-2007, 07:43 PM
Search Button > OB1,314,Z :D

Greg9Ball
10-17-2007, 12:01 PM
Call me at your convenience.

I will be happy to go over the differences between the OB-1, 314-2 and Z-2 shaft. I have all three in stock and have played extensively with all three.

Jude Rosenstock
10-17-2007, 12:04 PM
NO, DON'T DELETE THIS THREAD! WE HAVEN'T HAD ONE ABOUT OB-1 AND 314 ALL DAY!


I like 314 because the OB-1s look stupid.

worriedbeef
10-17-2007, 12:05 PM
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=76642

ob-1 for me as you can see.

Shawn Armstrong
10-17-2007, 12:05 PM
Here's my view:

OB-1 - HYPE
314 - HYPE
Z - HYPE

How about someone investing $150 in practicing, lessons, or buy videotapes of the great pro players that play the game right? Naw, that would require WORK. Let's just buy our skill instead of learning it.

Imagine how many balls Sigel or Mosconi would have run if they had all these shafts to choose from. The record would be 1000, I bet.

noRulez
10-17-2007, 12:17 PM
This thread is useless if we don't also compare Godzilla as well as has been previously discussed. Throw in Vanilla Ice and we have ourselves an original thread (I think). :D

Shawn Armstrong
10-17-2007, 12:17 PM
One final rant:

The reason why the pool manufacturers love laminated shafts is a) hype and b) reduces the time of manufacturing.

For a one piece maple shaft to be seasoned properly, it takes time. Not a few months, but a few years, give or take. Of all the one piece shaft wood that is harvested, most goes in the can due to warpage or poor quality. When laminating came along, Predator could buy oodles of bad wood (cosmetically), slice it up, splice it, turn it and sell it. What do you think the production time is for a Predator shaft or an OB-1 is? They get their wood from their dealer or manufacturer. They run it through their machine, glue it, and have a blank in a day or two, maybe even hours. They turn it down, not over the next few months, but the next few hours or days. So, from start of process to finished shaft is days or weeks, not years. One major enemy of the cuemaker is time. It takes time to turn shafts, to build up an inventory of wood that is seasoned properly.

All that good wood out there, and people prefer to play with plywood. The secret to the shaft's low deflection has nothing to do with the lamination. Mike Massey had a low squirt shaft made by Ray Schuler. It was drilled out. Thomas Wayne did the same thing when the Predator came out to show it wasn't the "magical" splicing that made it better. I can hardly wait until the patent for the hole in the shaft expires. EVERYONE's cues will be low deflection.

Jude Rosenstock
10-17-2007, 12:18 PM
This thread is useless if we don't also compare Godzilla as well as has been previously discussed. Throw in Vanilla Ice and we have ourselves an original thread (I think). :D


GODZILLA RULEZ

despotic931
10-17-2007, 12:27 PM
GODZILLA RULEZ

Na, Ice Ice Baby!

worriedbeef
10-17-2007, 01:31 PM
Here's my view:

OB-1 - HYPE
314 - HYPE
Z - HYPE

How about someone investing $150 in practicing, lessons, or buy videotapes of the great pro players that play the game right? Naw, that would require WORK. Let's just buy our skill instead of learning it.

Imagine how many balls Sigel or Mosconi would have run if they had all these shafts to choose from. The record would be 1000, I bet.

Rubbish.

where is anybody saying they want to buy more skill?????

at the end of the day, the above shafts play great. different to traditional shafts yes, but they play well. and they offer something new. being able to cut the amount of squirt right down drastically.

obviously most people learn the game with a traditional shaft, so they will need to adjust. naturally for some people the adjustment wont suit them. nothing wrong with that. and there's nothing wrong with playing with the low squirt ones either!!

you need to chill out a bit and try an ob-1!

Jude Rosenstock
10-17-2007, 01:32 PM
you need to chill out a bit and try an ob-1!


but they're ugly.

Burtus
10-17-2007, 01:46 PM
Definitly call Greg above in this thread. He has always supplied me with accurate and detailed advice and has good pricing and excellent service as well.

Burt

shinobi
10-17-2007, 01:53 PM
The secret to the shaft's low deflection has nothing to do with the lamination.

You're right about this, but I thought that Predator stopped touting the lamination as having anything to do with the low deflection properties a few years back. I recall a post by a Predator representative stating as much.

Certainly all the more recent literature I've seen from Predator and OBCues indicates that low TEM (tip end mass) is the reason for lower deflection.

So again, you are absolutely correct. But, unless some people are still out there bragging that the lamination is the reason for reduced deflection, I don't know if it's still worthy of a rant. You're probably right that some people with old knowledge are still preaching it as gospel, though. Happens in all circles.

KMRUNOUT
10-17-2007, 04:02 PM
The benefit of the radial lamination definitely DOES have to do with deflection. Not the amount of deflection, however. It is about consistency. The Predator claim is that the shaft will offer the SAME AMOUNT of deflection no matter which way you rotate it. A standard maple shaft has grain lines that run a particular direction. This produces an effect where the shaft will deflect a certain amount one way, but a different amount if you rotate the shaft 90 degrees. This means in theory that you would be missing shots that you figured you aimed properly. By providing consitency radially, the Predator claims to eliminate this particular problem. Couple that with the *reduction* in deflection all around, and there can be a significalnt performance benefit.

Or something like that...

KMRUNOUT

Edit: based on this concept, the same would be true for the OB1

DaveFagan
10-17-2007, 05:30 PM
So was Mabel, but she had redeeming social qualities and a great arse.

Jude Rosenstock
10-17-2007, 05:34 PM
So was Mabel, but she had redeeming social qualities and a great arse.


Mabel has radial lamination or she's ugly?