LD shaft question

brechbt

brechbt

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It seems to be common knowledge that low deflection shafts achieve that benefit by reducing tip mass, through use of a thinner tip diameter, hollow shaft end, and shorter ferrule. My question is this: what difference does it make to use an engineered, spliced shaft on top of these other design details? Couldn't the same LD characteristics be obtained by using those same design attributes on a regular solid maple shaft? Why aren't cue makers going to shorter or no ferrules and hollowing out the last 3-4 inches of their shafts in order to get these LD benefits?
 
the reason they splice the shaft is for radial consistency, no matter which way u hold the cue it'll hit close to the same

cuemakers dont make those changes because of feel (and maybe legal issues if they copied a design) most custom made cues by respectable cuemakers aren't high deflection. The cue is well made and therefore will have the good solid hit and won't deflect much anyway. Losing the feel for a little less deflection isn't worth it.
 
Zivan1967 said:
the reason they splice the shaft is for radial consistency, no matter which way u hold the cue it'll hit close to the same

cuemakers dont make those changes because of feel (and maybe legal issues if they copied a design) most custom made cues by respectable cuemakers aren't high deflection. The cue is well made and therefore will have the good solid hit and won't deflect much anyway. Losing the feel for a little less deflection isn't worth it.[/QUOTE

Not quite sure I agree, just because it is well made and gives a solid hit, doesn't mean it won't deflect that much. I had a few customs, and unless they have some design characteristics to minimize deflection, it's not going to happen.

That's why you see so many guys out there that add a low deflection shaft afterwards.

But I could be wrong, anyone else care to comment?
Click to expand...
 
Bumping for insights from the daytime crowd. Not sure I agree with post #2 either. In fact, the dense shaft wood--high ring counts, lakewood stock, etc.--that seem to be favored by some reputable makers would seem to lead to higher tip mass, and therefore greater deflection. If you don't design for low deflection, it would seem that you are not going to get it. So why don't more cue makers design for it?
 
#1 - yes...the splicing is designed to promote radial consistency.

#2 - Check the board... Cuemakers are, and have been for some time, going to shorter ferrules & different ferrule materials to reduce end mass. Ferrule-less shafts are becoming increasingly popular. They've been around quite a while, but guys like Tony Scianella w/ Black Boar have advanced the state of the art enormously.
Ca$h cues is making a ferrule-less shaft of exceptionally high quality that is being widely well received because of the enhanced performance it provides, while retaining the conventional shaft hit feel. They are very good - I have two of them. My experience has been that they reduce deflection about 80% as well as OB1 - which I still use as a staple. I have no doubt that, with a committed period of minor adjustment re-learning, they would serve equally. They shoot very straight, as has been commented on by some very good players who play with very high end cues.

The heavier, more dense shafts can contribute to greater cue ball deflection (the term deflection has been bandied about as meaning various things depending on context, and in truth it does).
Lots of people have played with conventional shafts that are rather highly deflective for so long that their adjustments are unconsciously ingrained.
This is a subject that will always garner wide ranging opinion. In the end, can you hit where you aim with your equipment? If so, and you're satisfied, there may be no reason to look elsewhere. Some seem to imply that moving to LD equipment may belie a basic belief in snake oil, or a lack of ability. Many of the very best players in the world bring a different outlook to the table...
 
Last edited:
Laminations do allow for radial consistancy ... as well as allow for using more wood stock that might otherwise be discarded for imperfections. (Nothing wrong with that IMO.)

End mass clearly influences tip deflection and ball squirt. See Mike Page's video with the vice grip.

But what this sport REALLY needs is quantification (Measurement) of the performance parameters like LD, residual vibration, balance point, etc.

This would protect the players against unsubstantiated claims, foster innovation and quality control, and increase the competitive advantage in favor of the custom builders.
 
I have drilled six inches down into a standard maple shaft with a 3/16" bit, and also cut the ferrule down to 1/2" to reduce deflection/squirt. Is it as good as an "engineered" low-deflection shaft? Probably not, but it is an improvement. Bob Jewett has aced us all--at least twenty years ago he was ferrule-less on his 10.5mm Balabuska shaft.
 
Ld is not just low tip mass. I made a very light weight front shaft, and the deflection was about the same as a wooden shaft with twice the tipmass.
There are alot of other factors that come into play here and mass for the 1st 150 mm is just part of the overall picture.
Neil
 
conetip said:
Ld is not just low tip mass. I made a very light weight front shaft, and the deflection was about the same as a wooden shaft with twice the tipmass.
There are alot of other factors that come into play here and mass for the 1st 150 mm is just part of the overall picture.
Neil
Click to expand...
The "effective endmass" of a shaft can depend on stiffness also. For more info (with lots of links to additional resources), see:


Regards,
Dave

PS: Are we going to see your shafts and tips on the market anytime soon?
 
Laminations do allow for radial consistancy ... as well as allow for using more wood stock that might otherwise be discarded for imperfections. (Nothing wrong with that IMO.)
Click to expand...

I think the ability to use non-premium wood and waste less is much more important to a manufacturer. "Radial consistency" is just a credible sounding marketing hook.

...what this sport REALLY needs is quantification (Measurement) of the performance parameters like LD, residual vibration, balance point, etc.
Click to expand...

We'll be waiting a long time for that. The main problem is that there are no standards of measurement.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
I think the ability to use non-premium wood and waste less is much more important to a manufacturer.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. But what is your point about a manufacturer? When I spoke about custom builders, I was saying that they are more able to respond to customized performance specifications than a mass-producer is.

Patrick Johnson said:
"Radial consistency" is just a credible sounding marketing hook.
Click to expand...

Here I disagree. IF stiffness is a function of grain orientation (and I believe it is, but I am open minded to scientific measurements), then radial consistancy is not (necessarily) marketing BS. A non-laminated shaft could be stiffer in one orientation than another, making radial inconsistancy a factor in squirt.
 
It is interesting about radial consistancy. I got beat on Friday night, placed 3rd at a local bar comp. I noticed for some shots a 90 deg rotation on the shaft. He said that the cue played better spin on the ball when in that orientation.Also when he drew or put top on the ball, rotated the shaft. The cue is an English snooker cue made from ash and has the very prominent grain.
 
brechbt said:
It seems to be common knowledge that low deflection shafts achieve that benefit by reducing tip mass, through use of a thinner tip diameter, hollow shaft end, and shorter ferrule. My question is this: what difference does it make to use an engineered, spliced shaft on top of these other design details? Couldn't the same LD characteristics be obtained by using those same design attributes on a regular solid maple shaft? Why aren't cue makers going to shorter or no ferrules and hollowing out the last 3-4 inches of their shafts in order to get these LD benefits?
Click to expand...

You've asked two separate unrelated questions.

What does engineered splicing add to the equation? Nothing. If anything, the same idea of "splicing" or "laminating allows the use of smaller wood pieces to make the same or stronger shaft.

THe second question of why cue makers don't make their own LD shafts using conventional shaft material is that there's nothing to say that there's an advantage to having a low deflection shaft, regardless of the mass marketing out there.

Let's please not start that debate again.

Fred
 
you should try posing this question in the ask a cuemaker forum. I like the quesiton id just like to see more responses.
 
Fred:
there's nothing to say that there's an advantage to having a low deflection shaft,

...

Let's please not start that debate again.
Click to expand...

Seems to me you just did.

Of course there's something to say low squirt is an advantage: greater accuracy. Is there a conceivable advantage to having a rifle with its sights set farther off target?

pj
chgo
 
conetip said:
... He said that the cue played better spin on the ball when in that orientation.Also when he drew or put top on the ball, rotated the shaft. ...
Click to expand...

Neil, did you notice which way the grain lines were running (horizontally vs. vertically) when he felt he got better spin, better draw, better follow?
 
For the draw and follow the grain was flat and parralell to the table = ways.
For the side spin shot the grain was 90 to the draw and follow so was lll position.
 
???

AtLarge said:
Neil, did you notice which way the grain lines were running (horizontally vs. vertically) when he felt he got better spin, better draw, better follow?
Click to expand...


i dont use a hi tech shaft ....i have my regular schon shaft wich is pretty stiff taper wise....i shoot good with it...

and my other shaft that i like to use when im instroke and playing really good is 12mm or so salvaged lakewood shaft made by Diveney...ats a really dark deep colored maple with a reddsh tint with grain so tight that you cant even count....but i think what makes it play the way it does is the taper .... the taper on this shaft is different and its a thinner shaft so i get more spin on the ball...but when im not feeling my stroke that well it tends to get me in trouble, so i'll use the stiffer shaft and push the cueball around using angles and speed with little spin

never once have i worried about wich way the grain was facing on my shaft..(isnt that what meucci's selling point was with there Black and red dont shafts), or number of grain lines per inch(laminated shafts you cant even count grain lines) cracks me up hearing guys say a shaft is subpar because its got 6 grain lines per inch , or super white....

...ive never missed a shot because my shaft was turned the wrong way. the only way this would come into play is if your really slamming the balls hard otherwise the shaft doesnt flex much....

the last thing on my mind is wich way my shaft is turned when playing...dont even want to concern myself with it..

id say use what feels good....i dont even really understand what deflection is.....to me if your stroke is good/pure the ball goes where its suppsed to...
 
Last edited:
Shaft said:
Here I disagree. IF stiffness is a function of grain orientation (and I believe it is, but I am open minded to scientific measurements), then radial consistancy is not (necessarily) marketing BS. A non-laminated shaft could be stiffer in one orientation than another, making radial inconsistancy a factor in squirt.
Click to expand...

I'm with you completely ... and it's very easy to experience on a conventional shaft.

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