Great idea! Then, when somebody wanted to buy a new cue, they could be fairly certain that it would play and feel about the same as their current cue (with the same numbers in each category).
Hopefully, this will happen some day.
Good idea,
Dave
The BIG low deflection Hype Campaign.
- Thread starter Kel_82
- Start date
Hopefully, this will happen some day.
Good idea,
Dave
Nothing is starndardized as far as I know, though there have been tables floating around. That said, I could gauge the pivot point of your cue within an inch within a few shots.
Note, the pure pivot point, which takes out swerve is different to effective pivot points which result when swerve influences the hit. Also, we need to take into account THROW of the CB-OB collision whish is affected by speed and spin. Without taking all into account, Back Hand English methods are approximations with useful ranges.
It's worth pondering that pivot points for most snooker cues are similar to the lowest US cue deflection. Theirs being 9-10mm with 2 & 1/16th inch cue ball v 11-12mm tip with 2 & 1/4 inch cue ball. i.e. Around 12 inches pure pivot point and approx 16 inches effective pivot point for say a 3 foot shot at medium speed, which enables some swerve.
Edit: I believe there are enough tips on Dr Dave's link provided earlier in this thread for methods to determine the pivot point and other relevant matters on squirt.
Last edited:
You wouldn't want to use pivot point aiming on your test with a robot. Pivot point aiming is used to offset the deflection. Use only parallel for the deflection test.
Parallel aiming with a very low LD shaft works extremely well.
Colin,
It's good to see you posting again.
published squirt (CB deflection) data for different shafts
If people are curious how to do this, procedures (including the one you recommend) and video demonstrations can be found here:
cue natural pivot length resource page
Best regards,
Dave
It's good to see you posting again.
For those interested, all of the data I've seen is summarized here:
published squirt (CB deflection) data for different shafts
Agreed. And I bet you could easily get to within a 1/2 inch (or less) with 5-10 shots.
If people are curious how to do this, procedures (including the one you recommend) and video demonstrations can be found here:
cue natural pivot length resource page
Well stated.
Best regards,
Dave
It works with standard shafts as well as long as you utilize cue elevation to your advantage.
A couple of questions about your list.
First - weight? Overall weight of shafts varies considerably. It is wood and wood is not homogenous like plastic or metal. We currently sell finished shafts at between 3.6-3.7oz. But this is too heavy for some butts and to light for others. A 4+oz shaft, even it reworked at the tip end for less mass will still have more mass than a 3.2oz shaft of the same diameter.
Second - Vibratory dampening? What is this? Are you referring to the taper?
Third - Balance point. Balance point of the shaft is an irrelevant point in my opinion. Attach the shaft to the cue and find the balance point of the cue. Now take the shaft off the pin and attach the shaft at right angle to the joint using some tape (to be fair use the same amount of tape wrapped around the joint in the first test) and now find the balance point. Any difference?
Cheers Dave,
Nice to see you're still being generous with your knowledge and time
Kind regards,
Colin
Last edited:
You can utilize bridge length, shot speed, length of shot and height of hit on CB as other variables as well. It's handy to be familiar with all the tools for the various situations.
Edit: Add tuck & throw, which are the most commonly used adjustments. Not that I'm a big fan of these. Though I prefer them to trying to predict the effects of elevation, which uses swerve to cancel out the effects of squirt sometimes.
Last edited:
He knows more about shafts and how they relate to deflection than anyone
I traveled with an accomplished road player named "Doug Smith," many of you may know or have heard of him. He knows more about shafts and how they relate to deflection than any player I've ever met. The key he always emphasized to me was the tip size, shaft stiffness and joint material......even the ferrule material makes a difference. We've spent many hours "tuning in" different shafts.
I, personally can not play my best with ivory ferrules OR joints.....my Bludworth Cue had ivory to start with and I sent it back after one day - he changed the material, sent it back and I've played some of my best pool with that cue.....no way I could have with ivory.
If anyone uses ivory and has trouble I'd recommend switching right away......from my experience a wood to wood joint and 12-12.5 mm shaft is idea for big tables....of course the joint material is a personal preference, I just like the way the wood feels.
I traveled with an accomplished road player named "Doug Smith," many of you may know or have heard of him. He knows more about shafts and how they relate to deflection than any player I've ever met. The key he always emphasized to me was the tip size, shaft stiffness and joint material......even the ferrule material makes a difference. We've spent many hours "tuning in" different shafts.
I, personally can not play my best with ivory ferrules OR joints.....my Bludworth Cue had ivory to start with and I sent it back after one day - he changed the material, sent it back and I've played some of my best pool with that cue.....no way I could have with ivory.
If anyone uses ivory and has trouble I'd recommend switching right away......from my experience a wood to wood joint and 12-12.5 mm shaft is idea for big tables....of course the joint material is a personal preference, I just like the way the wood feels.
How about the old Muecci "robot test"?
Bob Meucci is the all time deflection expert..
Bob Meucci is the all time deflection expert.....no one knows more about this subject than him....we had an incredible conversation last time I was at his factory.....he understands TOI and how it works better than even the advanced players.
Bob Meucci is the all time deflection expert.....no one knows more about this subject than him....we had an incredible conversation last time I was at his factory.....he understands TOI and how it works better than even the advanced players.
He probably says "All my shafts are LD always have been" lol
I am not sure I understand your point, because shots at that distance don't require adjustment with a standard shaft either. The cue ball squirts when you apply side spin and you have to adjust for it, no matter what shaft you use. It is a measurable phenomenon, and people have measured it. Kind of hard to deny. The point I was trying to make is that the difference is less than a lot of people think it is.
If you really look at the video I was talking about, and actually think about the results, you can see that a shot at maximum cue ball to object ball distance and maximum tip offset showed a difference of a half ball width between the different types of shafts. As you pointed out, squirt becomes less of a factor at when you shorten these distances, or use less english. That suggests to me that there is probably not much practical difference between these shafts for around 70% of possible shots.
I don't have any problem admitting that LD shafts work as advertised, but I am not ready to attribute any magical properties to them.
Did you have problems using with inside english b/c of the throw?
Well, I agree with you. However, as soon as any of them produce numbers, then those numbers will be disputed.
And in fact as far as that goes there are numbers out there - Meucci did tests showing their methods...Barioni did tests....Dr. Dave has done tests....Predator has done tests....
So if anyone cared to collate and compare as best they could then there are some numbers out there.
Nothing is preventing you from forming a shaft testing setup and putting all shafts to the test. Barioni did that I think, check youtube.
Like I tried to point out to him already, in order to establish a baseline for what is low deflection, you have to define deflection, and high deflection. The only way to do that is to test every single possible set-up of allowed shafts/ferrules/tips during regulation play. We're looking at a minimum 1 million shots done to get a base to define deflection and what is low->high. Add in all the other factors that could affect deflection, bridge length, cue elevation, and you're left with an absurd amount of testing to be done, over 500 million tests. There is no way these tests can be done by just one person, let alone be afforded to be done by one person. It'll be over many years of testing and a few million dollars of investment to establish the numbers he dreams of. Kel_82 is obviously not educated enough in scientific methods to understand why what he demands is impossible to deliver.
Let's make it easier.
Make a contraption with a fixed weight in the back that would send the cueball 3 rails.
One tip of inside english ( parallel ) , spot shot.
Ball goes in=low deflection.
Ball is overcut, not low deflection.
Banks
Banned
I think so. I began using it(LD) a couple of years into playing, I think. It took me a little bit to get used to it, but then I really did enjoy it. Spinning the CB on a straight line was pretty easy, but, yes, I think the problem that I had was that between the Kamui tip and the LD shaft, I was getting too much throw too easily. There is more give in the variance of using a standard shaft, imo. When I started playing more often with the Valley, it became more and more difficult to go back to the Z2 - things just seemed off. The hit/feel of the Valley is much better to me than that of the other, too.