How much does shaft weight effect the playability of a shaft !!!!!!

manwon

manwon

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Hello AZ, it seems today that most players prefer heavier shafts for their playing cues. I don't know when this started or why people started thinking this was important. Today it seems that many players would choose shafts that are at least 4 oz or more finished turned. Following I have a few questions that I would like anyone with idea's or knowledge of the subject to answer.

1) Is the weight of finished turned shaft directly due to the density of wood the shaft was made from?

2) What weight would you consider to be too heavy for a finish turned shaft?

3) What weight would you consider to be too light for a finish turned shaft?

4) How do shafts that weight 4 oz or more effect a shafts performance?

Thanks in advance for your answers, and please anyone with ideas or knowledge concerning these questions post your thoughts.

Take care
 
Large amount of variables ...............
If the shaft weighs 3.9 with an insert and 3.9 with a big pin thread which shaft is actually heavier? Taper also plays a huge part in the final weight. You can have two shafts that weigh the exact same with a conical taper .900-.550 and give them to two different builders and they can weigh two different final weights even if they both used the same type joint.

For myself....I don't use an insert and cut threads into the wood.
I don't like to go lighter than 3.5 and these are generally reserved for something that is a little butt heavy. The majority of my stuff seems to final out around 3.7-3.9............occasionally I'll find a pair at the 4.0 mark. But like I say...not using an insert will make these a rarity unless your final taper is broom handle size.

Personally, I don't think it makes too much difference as long as they have a nice a tone to them before you even start cutting.
 
Thanks very much for the information, but how much do you think that density itself effects weight. The reason I am asking is because recently I received a number of shafts from a gentalman I sell cues for. The ferrule material is a standard type, and the shafts have a standard black Phenolic Collar with a 15 thousands silver ring, they are also flat faced with 3/8-10 threads cut in them. The shafts are a standard 29 inches long, and they are .850 at the joint and slightly over sized at the ferrule about .516 or .517. Out of around 10 or 11 shafts received 80% were 4.3 oz plus with some being as much as 4.7.

The wood in these shafts is very clean, and the grain is very straight, do you think this is do to the growth rate of the individual trees this wood came from?

Thanks Craig
 
For me, I dont put alot of faith in density equally a better playing shaft. I do believe older, tighter ringed wood is more sound both in its stableness and in tone of the hit. I prefer as heavy a shaft as I can find for balance purposes. I like a VERY forward balance on the cue, and every little bit helps.
Chuck
 
1. Given the same volume the only way shafts can weigh different amounts is in varying density.
2. 4.3oz
3. 3.8oz
4. Don't know but they do effect balance.
As for your statement about most players preferring something about 4oz, seems that most Predators are in the 3. - 3.3oz range. Somehow you have to make up for lack of weight in the front of the cue - stainless joint, unilock pins and inserts, more weight in the A joint. Then you still have this lack of weight for the next 29" of the cue.
And lastly, are you interested in selling any of those shafts? Please email me if you are.
Bob Danielson
www.bdcuesandcomix.com
 
manwon said:
Thanks very much for the information, but how much do you think that density itself effects weight. The reason I am asking is because recently I received a number of shafts from a gentalman I sell cues for. The ferrule material is a standard type, and the shafts have a standard black Phenolic Collar with a 15 thousands silver ring, they are also flat faced with 3/8-10 threads cut in them. The shafts are a standard 29 inches long, and they are .850 at the joint and slightly over sized at the ferrule about .516 or .517. Out of around 10 or 11 shafts received 80% were 4.3 oz plus with some being as much as 4.7.

The wood in these shafts is very clean, and the grain is very straight, do you think this is do to the growth rate of the individual trees this wood came from?

Thanks Craig
Click to expand...

Volume of the blank will greatly affect the blanks weight. Just because two shafts have the same diameter at the joint and at the ferrule says nothing about the size in between. The taper you are used to may be much different than the taper on this shaft. Take one of the shafts and run it through your shaft machine putting on your normal taper and then see what it weighs. It may make a drastic change.

I have argued this point with people, who demand shafts over 4.0 oz., for years and many can't except the concept. There are many variables that determine a shafts final weight besides the number of growth rings.

Dick
 
manwon said:
Hello AZ, it seems today that most players prefer heavier shafts for their playing cues. I don't know when this started or why people started thinking this was important. Today it seems that many players would choose shafts that are at least 4 oz or more finished turned. Following I have a few questions that I would like anyone with idea's or knowledge of the subject to answer.

1) Is the weight of finished turned shaft directly due to the density of wood the shaft was made from?

2) What weight would you consider to be too heavy for a finish turned shaft?

3) What weight would you consider to be too light for a finish turned shaft?

4) How do shafts that weight 4 oz or more effect a shafts performance?

Thanks in advance for your answers, and please anyone with ideas or knowledge concerning these questions post your thoughts.

Take care
Click to expand...
You know, "Playability" can be more subjective then you would think. I actually don't use the same cue to play one pocket and straight pool as I do for 9-ball. I like a slightly heaver more front heavy cue for one pocket and straight pool, games I refer to as close up games. For 9-ball I like a very lively cue I can draw the cue ball the length of the table or whip it around with. Might sound nuts to some but it has served me well for many years. I remember when the Meucci cues became popular.. At first players thought they were too whippy with the long taper and lite plastic joint. But a lot of very good even top players became converts as they saw what they could do with the cues in regards to 9-ball. Not all those champs using them were paid to play with a Meucci, they liked them.
 
Last edited:
rhncue said:
There are many variables that determine a shafts final weight besides the number of growth rings.

Dick
Click to expand...


While you are on that subject, if people randomly chose 100 shaft dowels with 10 rings per inch and weighed them, then chose 100 shaft dowels with 15 rings per inch, weighed them, and then 100 shaft dowels with 20 rings per inch and weighed them and compared all 3 mean values, they might be surprised at the results.

Kelly
 
If I was not clear, I am sorry but the shafts in question are finished with tip installed ready for use. The unfinished dowels originally came from Canada Kiln dried and were hung and slowly tapered for more than 4 years. Like I said a couple of these shafts were 4.7 oz plus, I have never seen maple shafts like I described in my first post this heavy.

Thanks for everyones comments, and please keep them coming.

Take care
 
Denser wood is good as it will stand up to impact better because of increased mass ... As for forward weight , I prefer it as the cue seems to want to hit the ball as a butt heavy cue seems to have to be forced somewhat ... I've played with purple heart shafts that average 1 1/4 oz heavier than rock maple and love them ... You will see some used for break and jump ... I like denser shafts , especially the dark ones ... Don't worry as you have some great shafts , I think ...:cool:
 
manwon said:
Thanks very much for the information, but how much do you think that density itself effects weight.
Click to expand...

Well, regardless of playability or if more growth rings imply more density... Within the same volume (taper and width) more density implies more weight, and more weight implies more density. Physics fact, since density is weight/volume. :embarrassed2:

I am not sure if more growth rings imply more density and, therefore, more weight, or if it can be attributed to slower tree growth rate, more humid climate, etc. Nor sure even if more density is better to play with, it will definitely make the cue more forward balanced though, as a stiffer taper will too if the weight is kept constant.

Considering the exact same taper:
Are heavier shafts harder, stiffer and less "lively"?
Are lighter shafts softer, whippier and more "lively"?
Maybe it depends on the actual wood cell structure rather than the weight? :confused:
 
macguy said:
You know, "Playability" can be more subjective then you would think. I actually don't use the same cue to play one pocket and straight pool as I do for 9-ball. I like a slightly heaver more front heavy cue for one pocket and straight pool, games I refer to as close up games. For 9-ball I like a very lively cue I can draw the cue ball the length of the table or whip it around with. Might sound nuts to some but it has served me well for many years. I remember when the Meucci cues became popular.. At first players thought they were too whippy with the long taper and lite plastic joint. But a lot of very good even top players became converts as they saw what they could do with the cues in regards to 9-ball. Not all those champs using them were paid to play with a Meucci, they liked them.
Click to expand...

meucci's are garbage. i've seen a local guy lose a few sets because he had to stroke a ball with authority to get to the next shot and the entire cue buckled.
 
poolplayer2093 said:
meucci's are garbage. i've seen a local guy lose a few sets because he had to stroke a ball with authority to get to the next shot and the entire cue buckled.
Click to expand...

When they came out it was not long before everyone was using them. They played different and players came to love them. Scruggs told me he had to change his shafts to longer taper because that is what the players wanted. The influence of Bob Meucci design from the lite flat faced non metal joint to the long taper, lite ferrules and attention to deflection is still being felt. Bob Meucci changed the way cues were being built.
 
perspicaz said:
Well, regardless of playability or if more growth rings imply more density... Within the same volume (taper and width) more density implies more weight, and more weight implies more density. Physics fact, since density is weight/volume. :embarrassed2:

I am not sure if more growth rings imply more density and, therefore, more weight, or if it can be attributed to slower tree growth rate, more humid climate, etc. Nor sure even if more density is better to play with, it will definitely make the cue more forward balanced though, as a stiffer taper will too if the weight is kept constant.

Considering the exact same taper:
Are heavier shafts harder, stiffer and less "lively"?
Are lighter shafts softer, whippier and more "lively"?
Maybe it depends on the actual wood cell structure rather than the weight? :confused:
Click to expand...

Not as forward balanced as you would think. There is so much more mass in the butt and lower portion of the shaft a shaft that weighs say an extra ounce will not move the balance point very much at all, maybe a 1/2 an inch. It s surprising when you do a balance test how the heaver shaft has such little effect. However, when you play with the cue the denser shaft changes the overall feel of the cue. To some degree giving an illusion of a very front heavy cue. You can test this by just taping some weight a few inches above the joint of the cue where the most mass of the shaft is and check it. The balance point hardly moves.
 
older wood

i agree with macguy as far as using a heaver shaft for one pocket and a lighter smaller diameter shaft for 9 ball. [ but, i will not go so far as to use a mucci ].
i do not know all the technical aspects of the woods, but i have found in the last couple years, when my customers are given a choice of the white or the older honey colored shafts, almost all are choosing the older shafts.
i do not know if i actually play any better but, i use a old tight grain almost brown, no ferrule shaft. and i think it makes me play better. so in my case its the correct shaft.
sounds like you got some great shaft material, good luck.
chuck starkey
 
macguy said:
When they came out it was not long before everyone was using them. They played different and players came to love them. Scruggs told me he had to change his shafts to longer taper because that is what the players wanted. The influence of Bob Meucci design from the lite flat faced non metal joint to the long taper, lite ferrules and attention to deflection is still being felt. Bob Meucci changed the way cues were being built.
Click to expand...

yeah he sure did. he made an awful cue (with the exception being the originals) but he had some innovative ideas!
 
Good subject, I think the shaft is the most important part of a cue. I watch a lot of professionals online or on ESPN and notice hardly any of the men or women are playing with the original shafts on their cues. You can tell by the non matching joint collars. When I first started building I tried some of the original laminated shafts. They were almost exactly 1 ounce heavier than an identical white maple equivalent which made it too hard to switch from one to the other IMO because of the balance of the butt. Another thing I noticed is I believe wood is like concrete, it has a curve of several years of being at its finished state before it reaches its true stiffness or hardness.:smile:
 
jtrombetta said:
Good subject, I think the shaft is the most important part of a cue. I watch a lot of professionals online or on ESPN and notice hardly any of the men or women are playing with the original shafts on their cues. You can tell by the non matching joint collars. When I first started building I tried some of the original laminated shafts. They were almost exactly 1 ounce heavier than an identical white maple equivalent which made it too hard to switch from one to the other IMO because of the balance of the butt. Another thing I noticed is I believe wood is like concrete, it has a curve of several years of being at its finished state before it reaches its true stiffness or hardness.:smile:
Click to expand...

Really? i'll have to keep an eye out for that now that you mentioned it
 
poolplayer2093 said:
yeah he sure did. he made an awful cue (with the exception being the originals) but he had some innovative ideas!
Click to expand...

I put on a tournament and Bob came with his cues. That was around 1975. We sold a bunch of cues at the tournament. The problem was, things began to break on them. The biggest problem was ferrules cracking. When I called Bob about it he said they would fix them no problem but he also said he had a different outlook about cue ferrules. He saw them as expendable and if they break so be it. His had a very thin wall and were drilled all the way through and weighed almost nothing. The fact was though, a ferrule like this may break. Most important though to Meucci was how the cue played. He would rather replace a ferrule then compromise the play of the cue. I feel the same way. It is very rare I have a ferrule break but I would never use a capped slug of a ferrule on any shaft I make. I like a thin walled uncapped ferrule. Technically Bob Meucci was right about most everything he did on his cues and time has proven him right. I have to say though, I never did get why the finish over the wrap.
 
Let's stir the pot a bit...I haven't used Nelsonite in years but how does that fit into this conversation? If you have a shaft that's been cooked to death in a kiln and is...let's say barely 3 oz, and is soaked in the tank...how much does Nelsonite add to the shafts weight? And is it now a keeper? How does it play now?

Mark Bear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top