Does anyone know for sure which tip gets the most spin hard or soft I have herd it both ways, soft because it gets more grip, and hard because you get more power with less force. I actually changed from medium to hard tips long ago after hearing that, but have noticed alot of players useing and saying soft tips get the most spin. I prefer the feel of harder tips and firmer hitting cues so thats what I will always play with but I am very curious to know which really gets the most spin, I also wonder how much the difference is my guess is probably not to much.
Tips & Spin- Soft vs Hard who gots the most!?
- Thread starter kickshotkid
- Start date
spin
Personally the only difference to me is when i try to extreme powerdraw a cueball with a soft tip it goes aiborne. Seems like it just wont hold. With the harder ones i dont have that problem. Softer ones get alot of spin with a softer stroke imo. But when i reach a point where i need to rip one with draw it doesnt work. Not saying soft tips do not work, i actually have alot of control with them especially on a barbox. I just never seem happy with them when i want to juice the cb. Just my 2 cents. Just have to adjust your stroke a little for diff hardness i guess. Also a spfter tip can help to get alot of spin with a slow moving cueball as it absorbs some of the speed off of the cb
Personally the only difference to me is when i try to extreme powerdraw a cueball with a soft tip it goes aiborne. Seems like it just wont hold. With the harder ones i dont have that problem. Softer ones get alot of spin with a softer stroke imo. But when i reach a point where i need to rip one with draw it doesnt work. Not saying soft tips do not work, i actually have alot of control with them especially on a barbox. I just never seem happy with them when i want to juice the cb. Just my 2 cents. Just have to adjust your stroke a little for diff hardness i guess. Also a spfter tip can help to get alot of spin with a slow moving cueball as it absorbs some of the speed off of the cb
Last edited:
what a can of worms!!
Man did you just open a can of worms!!! This thread is going to be fun to watch!! Let's start this out with this. IMHO spin is determined by the amount of friction between the tip and the cue ball... that is produced by chalk, stroke and the amount of surface contact between the tip and cue ball. It is just my opinion from my own experience that there is very, very little difference between the amount of spin that is imparted by a proficient player using properly shaped, properly chalked soft tip and the amount of spin that is imparted by a proficient player using properly shaped, properly chalked hard tip. The biggest difference it the firmness of the tips is the feel (feedback) that the player receives. And that affects the most important part of the game... and that is the players attitude. So basically the best tip (Hard, Med, Soft) is the one that YOU like the best!! :thumbup:
Man did you just open a can of worms!!! This thread is going to be fun to watch!! Let's start this out with this. IMHO spin is determined by the amount of friction between the tip and the cue ball... that is produced by chalk, stroke and the amount of surface contact between the tip and cue ball. It is just my opinion from my own experience that there is very, very little difference between the amount of spin that is imparted by a proficient player using properly shaped, properly chalked soft tip and the amount of spin that is imparted by a proficient player using properly shaped, properly chalked hard tip. The biggest difference it the firmness of the tips is the feel (feedback) that the player receives. And that affects the most important part of the game... and that is the players attitude. So basically the best tip (Hard, Med, Soft) is the one that YOU like the best!! :thumbup:
This is actually a very complex subject, as is the study of "friction" in general.
Regarding tip/cue-ball interaction, I personally believe that duration of tip contact and coefficient of friction are the two determining factors. So a hard tip with lots of surface "grip" will out-spin a soft tip coated with Vaseline, but if both tips have similar coefficients of friction the tip that stays in contact with the ball longer will impart more spin (all other factors being "equal").
That said, it seems intuitive that a soft tip would always impart more spin because its compressible nature should mean more surface area contact and therefore more friction. However, "Amontons' Law" dictates that the force of friction is independent of the amount of surface area contact, since friction is a result of the relative "grip" between the tip and ball multiplied by the amount of force applied (IRRC). So a hard tip may impart enough greater force to outrun the (presumably) higher coefficient of friction that a soft tip may have.
If that seems complicated, you ain't seen nothin' yet. There are many types of "friction", and what we're talking about here primarily involves two of those: "dry (or "static") friction" and "kinetic friction" - "dry" upon initial contact, and "kinetic" once that ball begins to rotate and the tip begins to slip sideways off the ball.
However, there's a bunch more to consider. The scientific study of friction has been ongoing since at least the 1500's, but in end the definitive answer to your question, "Soft vs Hard which gets the most spin?" is "It depends". Depends on surface friction of the tip and how hard you hit the ball... and how far off center-ball are you contacting and is your stroke aligned with the ball's direction of travel or do you pivot your cue, and do you pop your shot or stroke "through" the ball, and....
In the end only you can determine which type of tip (hard vs. soft) works best for your game, but I can tell you for sure that the singular qualities of "hard" or "soft" will not, by themselves, determine how much spin you get.
TW
Regarding tip/cue-ball interaction, I personally believe that duration of tip contact and coefficient of friction are the two determining factors. So a hard tip with lots of surface "grip" will out-spin a soft tip coated with Vaseline, but if both tips have similar coefficients of friction the tip that stays in contact with the ball longer will impart more spin (all other factors being "equal").
That said, it seems intuitive that a soft tip would always impart more spin because its compressible nature should mean more surface area contact and therefore more friction. However, "Amontons' Law" dictates that the force of friction is independent of the amount of surface area contact, since friction is a result of the relative "grip" between the tip and ball multiplied by the amount of force applied (IRRC). So a hard tip may impart enough greater force to outrun the (presumably) higher coefficient of friction that a soft tip may have.
If that seems complicated, you ain't seen nothin' yet. There are many types of "friction", and what we're talking about here primarily involves two of those: "dry (or "static") friction" and "kinetic friction" - "dry" upon initial contact, and "kinetic" once that ball begins to rotate and the tip begins to slip sideways off the ball.
However, there's a bunch more to consider. The scientific study of friction has been ongoing since at least the 1500's, but in end the definitive answer to your question, "Soft vs Hard which gets the most spin?" is "It depends". Depends on surface friction of the tip and how hard you hit the ball... and how far off center-ball are you contacting and is your stroke aligned with the ball's direction of travel or do you pivot your cue, and do you pop your shot or stroke "through" the ball, and....
In the end only you can determine which type of tip (hard vs. soft) works best for your game, but I can tell you for sure that the singular qualities of "hard" or "soft" will not, by themselves, determine how much spin you get.
TW
My experience is that the softer tips generally produce more side spin. But when it comes to draw and follow, medium tips produce more draw and follow when using the same stroke. But with a long follow through stroke a harder tip will produce more follow. So now you have just a few reasons people like different tips.
That is what I have noticed as well as far as medium or hard tips getting better draw and follow then soft which makes sense you get more side spin with a softer storke and more draw with a harder stroke(wonder why that is lol).
So basically it's just subjective, I was just hoping there was one of those tests for tips/spin like the platnium billiards did with break cues. I guess I will just have to get a couple shafts made as close to the same as possible with soft and hard tips and find out what I get more spin with. Funny thing is either way I prefer harder tips, but it's one of those things that I just gotta know.
Last edited:
I agree that there is funny!
JMPO the game you are playing can change everything. For my stroke in One Pocket I like to go soft as many shots I can not accelerate a great follow through on many of the shots and the softer tip helps me get the spin. 9 Ball I like to go Medium to hard as I have a firmer stroke to be able to use.
After playing the other night I learned I could lose with a soft or medium just as easy.
After playing the other night I learned I could lose with a soft or medium just as easy.
Oh I absolutely agree each tip has its +/-, actually last night playing bar table 8ball a soft tip would have done me some good being that I was over stroking every thing but the break. Of course having a better game and adapting from 9ft to 8ft tables would probably help too, maybe..
From what I've heard from other players, the tip they just had installed last night for oodles of dollars does more to the cue ball than any other tip they've had in their lives. Some folks say they don't even have to hit off center to get spin. (smhlol) I've always had good luck with any tip that would hold chalk, but I've had more luck with Chandivert Rocky tips than Kamui SS tips for oodles of draw. Backspin is the only spin that wears off going in a straight line, so that's the only one I really stress over.
I think I know a few of those guys lol.
That is a very good point, so does that mean you shoot with a mediun or hard tip since they draw more consistant?
I would call it a medium (what's on the cue I play with most). I believe it is a Porper Majestic. I've had lots of 'luck' with Triangle tips as well. Tips aside, I am of the opinion that it's more the Indian than the arrow.
Quoting TW: "the tip that stays in contact with the ball longer will impart more spin (all other factors being "equal").
I'm going to disagree with this statement if only for the purpose of having someone explain to me why it's correct.
My position is that the greater the time the tip stays in contact with the ball,
the greater the influence it will have on speed of rotation.
In other words, the speed of rotation is dictated by the the speed of the stroke and
will never be greater than the stroke speed (with a soft, long-contact tip) .
I have a tendency to first analyze problems in their extremes. It shows me the bigger picture if you will.
Imagine a Z shaft with a rock hard, abrasive tip.
The instant it contacts the ball, it ricochets off while imparting tremendous spin on the ball.
Kinda like a 357 Mag fired at a QB off center.
Now imagine a 14mm shaft with a marshmallow of a tip.
The tip compresses and the time it takes to do so is also increased ball contact-time.
Several things will happen in this scenario. The 'log of a shaft' does not flex, insuring additional contact-time,
the marshmallow tip is compressing and at the same time pushing the ball off line.
It's also telling the ball how fast to spin and because of it's contact-time, will not allow
the ball to spin any faster than the stroke speed.
These shafts with their corresponding tips will play worlds apart and would require extensive
re-training of the sub-conscious going from one to the other.
I can imagine going from a very soft tip to a very hard tip on the same shaft would be difficult at first in the re-learning curve.
I don't want to take Mr. Wayne's statement too far out of context because he does state "(all other factors being "equal")".
Obviously, my two shafts are totally different and were only used to illustrate the extremes.
My position though remains the opposite of his, longer contact-time results in reduced spin.
Anyway, I'm all ears, whatchya got???
I'm going to disagree with this statement if only for the purpose of having someone explain to me why it's correct.
My position is that the greater the time the tip stays in contact with the ball,
the greater the influence it will have on speed of rotation.
In other words, the speed of rotation is dictated by the the speed of the stroke and
will never be greater than the stroke speed (with a soft, long-contact tip) .
I have a tendency to first analyze problems in their extremes. It shows me the bigger picture if you will.
Imagine a Z shaft with a rock hard, abrasive tip.
The instant it contacts the ball, it ricochets off while imparting tremendous spin on the ball.
Kinda like a 357 Mag fired at a QB off center.
Now imagine a 14mm shaft with a marshmallow of a tip.
The tip compresses and the time it takes to do so is also increased ball contact-time.
Several things will happen in this scenario. The 'log of a shaft' does not flex, insuring additional contact-time,
the marshmallow tip is compressing and at the same time pushing the ball off line.
It's also telling the ball how fast to spin and because of it's contact-time, will not allow
the ball to spin any faster than the stroke speed.
These shafts with their corresponding tips will play worlds apart and would require extensive
re-training of the sub-conscious going from one to the other.
I can imagine going from a very soft tip to a very hard tip on the same shaft would be difficult at first in the re-learning curve.
I don't want to take Mr. Wayne's statement too far out of context because he does state "(all other factors being "equal")".
Obviously, my two shafts are totally different and were only used to illustrate the extremes.
My position though remains the opposite of his, longer contact-time results in reduced spin.
Anyway, I'm all ears, whatchya got???
That is a interesting position.
So a smaller tip delivers more spin then a larger one because it is transfering the energy to a more direct spot on the QB Right? If that is true it wouldn't that make a hard tip produce more spin for the same reason, since the soft tip will compress it would be spreading the energy to a wider spot on the QB.... If I'm talking outof my arse it wouldn't be the first time:wink:
Contact Bob Jewett. He probably has run tests on this subject and may actually have physical proof rather that opinion. http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/index.html , http://billiards.colostate.edu/physics/index.html , http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sports/billiards/faq/, :grin:
Here is a quote from an article I found there:
"hardness effects
"Does the tip hardness affect how much english can be applied, or the amount of squirt that results?
"Here are some relevant factors:
A hard tip holds its shape better over time, in general.
Tip hardness (within the typical range) should not have a significant or direct effect on the amount of english that can be applied.
The amount of english is limited by the tip offset that creates a miscue.
A tip not "treated" (e.g., scuffed) properly, will not hold chalk very well, and miscues will be more likely at smaller tip offsets. A harder tip might require more attention in this regard.
Soft tips seem to hold chalk better than hard tips, in general.
A soft tip will give the cue a softer "feel" (less impact in grip hand) and have a different sound than a hard tip. Some people prefer some sounds and "feels" more than others. For more info, see cue "hit," "feel" and "playability."
"Some people think that because a soft tip stays in contact with the CB slightly longer (see contact time), a soft tip can apply more english. However, see Bob Jewett's comments below. Also, the contact time is still extremely small with both a soft and hard tip: close to a thousandth of a second (0.001 sec). Assuming the CB speed is the same in all comparisons: even though the peak force will be different (more with the shorter contact time), the amount of momentum (linear and angular) transferred to the CB will still be the same (because the sum of force over contact time is the same in both cases). The CB doesn't move much (translation or spin) during the extremely small contact time, so the only significant factor is the tip contact point at impact.
"On a different note, a hard tip will create slightly more CB speed for a given cue speed (see tip efficiency). Some people also prefer a hard tip because they "feel" the force of the shot better (a softer tip dampens the impact a little).
"There are many factors related to tip hardness that could influence squirt, including: tip density/weight, tip efficiency, contact time, and effective endmass. "Return of the squirt robot" (BD, August, 2008) documents an experiment related to the effects of tip hardness on squirt. A softer tip did seem to create slightly more squirt, but the experiment was not very well controlled (see the article for more info). In general, if the contact time is longer (as is the case with a softer tip), the effective endmass and resulting squirt should be larger (see the rubber-super-ball-tip report as an example). Another set of more careful experiments documented in the Cue and Tip Testing for Cue Ball Deflection (Squirt) video seem to imply that tip type, hardness, and height have very little effect on shaft squirt. Among the wide range of tips tested in the video, the harder tips did result in slightly more squirt. This makes sense because the harder tips are denser and heavier, creating more "endmass." The shorter contact time seems to be less of a factor than the added weight.
"Another factor involved with a softer tip is that it might better absorb glue and adhere to the ferrule more strongly and making it less likely to come off with lots of use and/or abuse.
"from Mike Page:
"Here's one more. Even if soft and hard tips held chalk exactly the same, it's possible the soft tip might reduce the chance of miscue. For instance, suppose a miscue occurs when less than 50% of the contact patch has chalk. If the bald regions are small, then this standard may be violated more frequently for a hard tip with its small contact patch.
"from Bob Jewett:
"One issue is which harness of tip will allow the farther-from-center hit. Some believe that a soft tip takes chalk better so it can hit the ball farther from center.
"There is a counter theory, and that is because a softer tip will have a longer contact time than a hard tip. During contact, the tip rides around the side of the ball some, so the final eccentricity as the tip leaves the ball is larger than when the tip first hits the ball. A softer tip, with the longer contact time will be farther off center at the end than a harder tip with the same starting offset. If both tips can only hold to a certain point of offset, and you start your shot so the miscue point is barely reached at the end of contact, the average offset will be larger for the harder tip. This means that the harder tip can create more spin for a given ball speed.
"Which dominates? Holding chalk better or starting farther off-center? I don't know of any experiment that has tested this."
So I guess we are back to opinion :thumbup:
Here is a quote from an article I found there:
"hardness effects
"Does the tip hardness affect how much english can be applied, or the amount of squirt that results?
"Here are some relevant factors:
A hard tip holds its shape better over time, in general.
Tip hardness (within the typical range) should not have a significant or direct effect on the amount of english that can be applied.
The amount of english is limited by the tip offset that creates a miscue.
A tip not "treated" (e.g., scuffed) properly, will not hold chalk very well, and miscues will be more likely at smaller tip offsets. A harder tip might require more attention in this regard.
Soft tips seem to hold chalk better than hard tips, in general.
A soft tip will give the cue a softer "feel" (less impact in grip hand) and have a different sound than a hard tip. Some people prefer some sounds and "feels" more than others. For more info, see cue "hit," "feel" and "playability."
"Some people think that because a soft tip stays in contact with the CB slightly longer (see contact time), a soft tip can apply more english. However, see Bob Jewett's comments below. Also, the contact time is still extremely small with both a soft and hard tip: close to a thousandth of a second (0.001 sec). Assuming the CB speed is the same in all comparisons: even though the peak force will be different (more with the shorter contact time), the amount of momentum (linear and angular) transferred to the CB will still be the same (because the sum of force over contact time is the same in both cases). The CB doesn't move much (translation or spin) during the extremely small contact time, so the only significant factor is the tip contact point at impact.
"On a different note, a hard tip will create slightly more CB speed for a given cue speed (see tip efficiency). Some people also prefer a hard tip because they "feel" the force of the shot better (a softer tip dampens the impact a little).
"There are many factors related to tip hardness that could influence squirt, including: tip density/weight, tip efficiency, contact time, and effective endmass. "Return of the squirt robot" (BD, August, 2008) documents an experiment related to the effects of tip hardness on squirt. A softer tip did seem to create slightly more squirt, but the experiment was not very well controlled (see the article for more info). In general, if the contact time is longer (as is the case with a softer tip), the effective endmass and resulting squirt should be larger (see the rubber-super-ball-tip report as an example). Another set of more careful experiments documented in the Cue and Tip Testing for Cue Ball Deflection (Squirt) video seem to imply that tip type, hardness, and height have very little effect on shaft squirt. Among the wide range of tips tested in the video, the harder tips did result in slightly more squirt. This makes sense because the harder tips are denser and heavier, creating more "endmass." The shorter contact time seems to be less of a factor than the added weight.
"Another factor involved with a softer tip is that it might better absorb glue and adhere to the ferrule more strongly and making it less likely to come off with lots of use and/or abuse.
"from Mike Page:
"Here's one more. Even if soft and hard tips held chalk exactly the same, it's possible the soft tip might reduce the chance of miscue. For instance, suppose a miscue occurs when less than 50% of the contact patch has chalk. If the bald regions are small, then this standard may be violated more frequently for a hard tip with its small contact patch.
"from Bob Jewett:
"One issue is which harness of tip will allow the farther-from-center hit. Some believe that a soft tip takes chalk better so it can hit the ball farther from center.
"There is a counter theory, and that is because a softer tip will have a longer contact time than a hard tip. During contact, the tip rides around the side of the ball some, so the final eccentricity as the tip leaves the ball is larger than when the tip first hits the ball. A softer tip, with the longer contact time will be farther off center at the end than a harder tip with the same starting offset. If both tips can only hold to a certain point of offset, and you start your shot so the miscue point is barely reached at the end of contact, the average offset will be larger for the harder tip. This means that the harder tip can create more spin for a given ball speed.
"Which dominates? Holding chalk better or starting farther off-center? I don't know of any experiment that has tested this."
So I guess we are back to opinion :thumbup:
Last edited:
Absolutely great info tsp&b thanks. I will contact Bob Jewett.
facts are just someone's opinion of preceived events right :thumbup:
Actually they are not perceived events. In the late 90's or early 2000's Bob Jewett, Ron Stewart and 3 other physicists and cue sports officiatoes and predator cues rented a high speed camera from Kodak to check cue ball deflection. During their tests they discovered that harder tips actually applied a slight more amount of spin than the softer tips as the harder tip released the cue ball quicker than a softer tip. At the time they sold VHS tapes of their experiments.
A soft tip will give more juice to a player with a poor stroke as they are more forgiving than a harder tip. With a soft tip you can go a little beyond the radius for a stroke with no mis-cue. If you will watch players who keep complaining that they can't draw the cue you will see that it makes no difference how low they are stroking the cue, when they complete the shot their tip comes up and hits center ball. They have mis-cued so often that their subconscious prevents them completing the stroke as intended. With the use of a softer tip there are less mis-cues so the subconscious allows the use of a lower stroke.
Dick
With all due respect, your imaginary scenario is a textbook example of "begging the question" - as that phrase is formally defined, rather than the way it is commonly (though mistakenly) used. Here is an easily understood article explaining what that means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_questionhttp://
A simple, if transparent example of begging the question might be: "People who steal are bad people because stealing is bad so only bad people ever steal. This proves that people who steal are bad people."
In the instant case you've posited that duration of tip/ball contact is irrelevant to how much spin is imparted, and your supporting evidence contains statements such as "The instant it contacts the ball, it ricochets off while imparting tremendous spin" and "...It's also telling the ball how fast to spin and because of it's contact-time, will not allow the ball to spin any faster than the stroke speed." Neither of these evidentiary claims is supported by any "proof" (within your argument), and both are intrinsically included in your primary [implied] assertion that tip/ball contact duration is irrelevant to the amount of spin created.
Cue ball spin is directly related to friction, and the scientific study of friction - with all it's attending physics - is almost absurdly complex. From what tiny little kernels of that science I "understand" I stand by my assertion that there is a causal relationship between the duration of tip/ball contact and the amount of ball spin produced - however, as I qualified (and you acknowledge) earlier, "all other things being equal". Unfortunately it's pretty much impossible to set up testing conditions in which all other things would be equal between two shafts... relegating the entire issue to being little more than a "thought experiment".
In the real world, a possible test of my statement would be to experiment with only ONE shaft and tip, find a way to chalk it identically between test shots, and device a machine that could precisely vary tip-contact duration by some known or measurable amount. THEN we would need to witness and measure that contact duration and resulting ball spin, probably using ultra-high-speed photography. I would bet against that happening any time soon - especially since that which is considered known physics (of friction) supports my contention.
However, if you want a real-world example of my argument - greater contact time = greater spin - we need only go to the racetrack, where it's already known that a given car/tire combination will accelerate faster and longer if the tires DON"T "burn out" against the pavement - the equivalent of the cue tip losing contact with the ball.
TW
(PS: nothing I've said claims (or implies) that a soft tip will impart more spin than a hard tip; my assertion is that any particular tip will impart more spin if it remains in contact with the ball longer - tip speed, contact point, and a butt-load of other variables being identical.)
Last edited:
One thing I've notice with tips is that the the miscue limit on the cue ball gets smaller with a hard tip. I believe it's the Rempe practice ball which has 5 lines from center outward showing tip offsets to the miscue line. The only time I've been able to reach the true miscue line was with a soft tip. Never could get beyond the third line with a phenolic tip. Both having nickel radius. But that didn't stop me from being able to get max spin. The other thing I noticed was how big a mark the tip left on the ball.
The soft tip, an Elkmaster in this case, left behind about a 50% bigger chalk mark on the ball. The impact spot on the tip was about 50% bigger as well. When I compared the spots to the distance between the lines on the Rempe ball, the soft tip had a better match than the phenolic did. This is also where the CoR of the tip comes into play.
Can we, on a theoretical level, create two tips that both have the same friction on the surface, but different CoR's? It is my opinion that we cannot. A harder tip must always strike the cue ball firmly or it's surface friction won't hold, and we'll miscue. The same isn't said for a soft tip. A soft tip virtually never miscues due to its ability to deform and get more contact. A hard tip can never really deform. That's why a hard tip doesn't need to strike the cue ball very far from center to get action.
Hypothesis: As a tip goes from soft to hard, the contact point becomes smaller. As the contact point shrinks, so does the miscue limit. Extrapolation of these points concludes that when attempting to get the same action out of two different tips, the contact points won't be the same.
Conclusion: Unless a tip has the same surface friction and same CoR, you won't be striking the cue ball in the same spot to get the same action.