Pro's and con's of very small diameter shafts?

[Chopdoc]

I am not buying it, at least as I understand what is being stated.

Tip diameter preference is a function of shaft diameter preference, not a function of accuracy nor does it contribute to or detract from accuracy.

Thin shafts flex more. We have seen the advent of thinner shafts with the emergence of LD. Switching to a thinner shaft requires less compensation for cue ball deflection and I believe that is why we see people miss more or lose accuracy when switching to thinner shafts. It isn't a function of the tip diameter so much as a change in the flexibility of the shaft and hence a change in deflection.

All else being equal IMHO the consistency and accuracy of the stroke necessary is the same, in practical terms, regardless of tip diameter.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I am not buying it, at least as I understand what is being stated.

Tip diameter preference is a function of shaft diameter preference, not a function of accuracy nor does it contribute to or detract from accuracy.

Thin shafts flex more. We have seen the advent of thinner shafts with the emergence of LD. Switching to a thinner shaft requires less compensation for cue ball deflection and I believe that is why we see people miss more or lose accuracy when switching to thinner shafts. It isn't a function of the tip diameter so much as a change in the flexibility of the shaft and hence a change in deflection.

All else being equal IMHO the consistency and accuracy of the stroke necessary is the same, in practical terms, regardless of tip diameter.

I agree with your conclusion but not with the detail highlighted in blue. Lower squirt isn't caused by greater flexibility, but by reduced end mass. My shaft is 9.5mm at the tip, but grows immediately from there and is very stiff yet very low squirt.

pj
chgo

 

[nobcitypool]

I agree with your conclusion but not with the detail highlighted in blue. Lower squirt isn't caused by greater flexibility, but by reduced end mass. My shaft is 9.5mm at the tip, but grows immediately from there and is very stiff yet very low squirt.

pj
chgo

Is that really true? I'm more asking than questioning. I don't know the factual reason but purely from an instinctual point of view, it would seem like deflection goes back to a law of physics, i.e., two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Something has to give, either the shaft or the ball. With that thought in mind, it would seem like a shaft that will "flex" or deflect itself would allow the cb to stay on path. The trick, it would seem, is where the point of diminishing returns is.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Is that really true? I'm more asking than questioning. I don't know the factual reason but purely from an instinctual point of view, it would seem like deflection goes back to a law of physics, i.e., two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Something has to give, either the shaft or the ball. With that thought in mind, it would seem like a shaft that will "flex" or deflect itself would allow the cb to stay on path. The trick, it would seem, is where the point of diminishing returns is.

Yes, it's counterintuitive but proven by testing: shaft flexibility has a negligible effect on squirt compared with end mass. We even know how much of the end mass matters: less than a foot of the shaft's length (at the tip end, of course).

I think the reason for all this lies in the "speed of transverse wave propagation" through maple (or something like that) - which I only partly understand but trust the multiple knowledgable sources who say so.

pj
chgo

 

[Jal]

Yes, it's counterintuitive but proven by testing: shaft flexibility has a negligible effect on squirt compared with end mass....

I have to disagree (somewhat) in that endmass is a function of both the linear density of the shaft (mass per unit length) and its stiffness. The stiffer it is, the more mass is brought into play downstream from the tip. You can imagine two extremes: an unusually flexible tip-ferrule such that only a very short segment from the tip onward is put into motion, and a perfectly rigid cue which remains straight as the tip is deflected sideways. Even if both cues have identical mass distributions, you're going to see very different squirt characteristics.

But, it's true that if you core out a shaft, you're mainly reducing its mass and not so much its stiffness (preserving the outer shell tends to maintain it). In that case, it's the mass that counts.

I'm mentioning this because our intuitions aren't wrong. If it takes more force to bend a shaft a certain amount, and the reason is totally due to its stiffness, then that shaft will produce more squirt.

Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...endmass is a function of both the linear density of the shaft (mass per unit length) and its stiffness.

In what ratio?

pj
chgo

 

[Chopdoc]

I agree with your conclusion but not with the detail highlighted in blue. Lower squirt isn't caused by greater flexibility, but by reduced end mass. My shaft is 9.5mm at the tip, but grows immediately from there and is very stiff yet very low squirt.

pj
chgo

Deflection is indeed in greatest proportion a factor of mass, I never contradicted that. But a very stiff shaft can't get out of the way no matter how light it is at the ferrule. Thinner shafts tend to be more flexible and hence can take advantage of lower mass at the ferrule. That is precisely why LD shafts tend to be thinner.


EDIT:
Also, I have to be more clear since I was mixing terminology in my earlier post. There is cue ball deflection (which is what people seem to usually mean when saying deflection) and cue shaft deflection, both different matters yet overlapping. I mixed the two in my earlier post without being clear.

Reducing mass by reducing diameter is merely one method, clearly various other combinations of materials and methods have been engineered to reduce mass. In the end the tendency has been for smaller diameters in LD shafts anyway. I do not believe this is a matter of accuracy. Both accuracy and precision are independent of tip diameter IMHO. This is true solely because of human compensation for the characteristics of the equipment of course.

.

 

[thefonz]

Smaller shafts (given the ferrules are kept the same), will have less deflection. I prefer smaller shafts, but if the shaft weight is too low, I find the cue plays weak. A great smaller shaft to me would be around 12.2 but over 4oz.

 

[nobcitypool]

Yes, it's counterintuitive but proven by testing: shaft flexibility has a negligible effect on squirt compared with end mass. We even know how much of the end mass matters: less than a foot of the shaft's length (at the tip end, of course).

I think the reason for all this lies in the "speed of transverse wave propagation" through maple (or something like that) - which I only partly understand but trust the multiple knowledgable sources who say so.

pj
chgo

I can see how that makes sense. Either the tip or the cb have to give, right (back to the two objects can't occupy the same space at the same time)? If I'm understanding what you're saying, the ld shaft will be more likely to give (versus the cb) since it has less mass.

Forgive my ignorance in this matter but why hasn't graphite shafts been developed that would provide superior playing characteristics?

 

[scottyr44]

I have a question Patrick,

Assuming a player is able to consistently line up on the center of the QB using only backhand english.. (depending on bridge length) will this change the miscue limit? Basically is there a theoretical and an actual miscue limit?

To me it seems like under certain circumstances like that of a smaller diameter shaft with a dime radius and a short bridge you could effectively bring the miscue limit in closer to the center of the ball.

 

[Jal]

I said "...endmass is a function of both the linear density of the shaft (mass per unit length) and its stiffness".

Patrick asked "In what ratio?"

I don't think it's a question of how much of this versus how much of that. They're different ingredients and only when combined do you have endmass. You might think of the tip-shaft as a series of thin disks bonded together. The stronger the bonds (as well as the larger the cross sectional area), the stiffer the shaft and the more the disks tend to move "as one" so to speak.

But I think maybe your question is in the spirit of "if you alter a shaft's diameter, how does its mass change compared to its stiffnesss?" I don't know the answer in the dynamic case. In the static case (you mount a weight on the end of the shaft and measure the amount of deflection), its stiffness (the ratio of load over deflection) is proportional to the fourth power of its radius, while its mass is proportional to the square of the radius (area). Thus, an increase in radius of 10% would produce an increase in stiffness of about 46% (1.1^4) and a 21% increase in mass (1.1^2). But the dynamic case is far more involved and I couldn't, in good conscience, suggest that any of the above applies.

Jim

 

[DrOnePocket]

A smaller tip does not cause more miscues or put more spin on the ball necessarily. What matters most in those two cases is the shape or radius of your tip. I have played with a 12mm or smaller tip for years and never have problems. It is actually a big advantage to use a smaller tip because of aiming.

Make sure your tip has a dime radius. If you are putting unwanted spin on the ball or miss-cuing often, it's your stroke or other fundamentals, not the cue

 

[ignomirello]

I'm sorry but I disagree

1. Squirt and deflection usually mean the same thing: cue ball going off line on a sidespin shot. Deflection can also mean flexing of the shaft - flexing of the shaft has little or nothing to do with the cue ball going off line.

2. Thin tips are not less forgiving of unintended offcenter hits, and they don't produce any more spin than thicker shafts.

3. The only objective practical effect of thinner shafts is that they allow you to see more accurately where you hit the cue ball. Everything else is personal preference.

I've played with a 10mm tip for years.

pj
chgo

I'm sorry but I disagree with #2
If you were able to hit a ball with a broom stick
& hit a ball with a needle you would see that a
broom stick CAN NOT give you the spin a needle stick can.

Just my opinion Don't kill me for it

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If you were able to hit a ball with a broom stick & hit a ball with a needle you would see that a broom stick CAN NOT give you the spin a needle stick can.

If neither of the two sticks slips on the surface of the CB, then it only matters how far from center ball they hit. What makes you think otherwise?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I have a question Patrick,

Assuming a player is able to consistently line up on the center of the QB using only backhand english..(depending on bridge length) will this change the miscue limit?

I'm not sure I follow this question, but I can tell you a couple of things:

1. The result of backhand english is no different from any other method of compensating for squirt; they all hit the CB at the same angle from the CB's path.

2. No matter at what angle you hit the CB to compensate for squirt (a bigger angle for high-squirt cues, a smaller angle for low-squirt cues) the miscue limit remains the same: about 1/2 radius from CB center when viewed along the CB's path. It doesn't change with the stick's angle because the force applied to the CB (combination of stick's direction of travel and squirt) is always as if you applied "parallel english" (a misnomer), i.e., always in the direction of CB travel. Here's a graphic explanation of what I mean:

Basically is there a theoretical and an actual miscue limit?

Not to my knowledge.

To me it seems like under certain circumstances like that of a smaller diameter shaft with a dime radius and a short bridge you could effectively bring the miscue limit in closer to the center of the ball.

I don't see how. What's your reasoning?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I said "...endmass is a function of both the linear density of the shaft (mass per unit length) and its stiffness".

Patrick asked "In what ratio?"

I don't think it's a question of how much of this versus how much of that. They're different ingredients and only when combined do you have endmass.

One can be changed without changing the other (for example, Mike Page's experiment with a weight clamped to an existing shaft, or a difference in taper like with my very low squirt, very stiff shaft). My understanding has always been that squirt tests have indicated a much stronger correlation between squirt and end mass than between squirt and stiffness, to the degree that stiffness is considered of little consequence (at least within the range of normal cues). What have I been missing?

pj
chgo

 

[Jal]

I'm not sure I follow this question, but I can tell you a couple of things:

1. The result of backhand english is no different from any other method of compensating for squirt; they all hit the CB at the same angle from the CB's path.

2. No matter at what angle you hit the CB to compensate for squirt (a bigger angle for high-squirt cues, a smaller angle for low-squirt cues) the miscue limit remains the same: about 1/2 radius from CB center when viewed along the CB's path. It doesn't change with the stick's angle because the force applied to the CB (combination of stick's direction of travel and squirt) is always as if you applied "parallel english" (a misnomer), i.e., always in the direction of CB travel. Here's a graphic explanation of what I mean:

View attachment 227979

Beautiful!

Jim