As you get better should you use a harder tip?

[Patrick Johnson]

Finally experience is king.

It's been shown over and over again that "experience", even the experience of pros (and especially Earl), is an unreliable indicator of the facts. "Earl says so, so it must be true" is a pretty good indicator that you and the facts have a distant relationship.

pj
chgo

 

[poolguy4u]

It's been shown over and over again that "experience", even the experience of pros (and especially Earl), is an unreliable indicator of the facts. "Earl says so, so it must be true" is a pretty good indicator that you and the facts have a distant relationship.

pj
chgo

:scratchhead:


So now Earl doesn't know what he's talking about.

I believe it's about time to call the idiot police.


Not everyone agrees with you...someone that pretends to know everything.

Now go stalk one of the sheep that believes in you.




:yeah:




.

 

[SMG]

I'm getting a little better and the girlfriend says she enjoys the harder tip.

 

[JoeyA]

One of the top, top Taiwan players uses a soft tip and says that many of his fellow pros in Taiwan, use a soft tip.

I have used Super Soft, Soft, Medium and Hard tips to play with. For me, Hard tips are just too hard. I don't like the noise and they seem to glaze over too quickly and require more maintenance.

I have been using Medium tips for a while but am headed down to the softer layered tips for a try. We'll see how that goes.

I also notice that MANY, MANY, TOP PLAYERS like their tip to be VERY SHORT in height. Some remove half of the layers from their tips because "they like it that way".

The tip is the only thing that contacts the cue ball which we have control over so discussion on tips is a good thing for us and the tip manufacturers.

JoeyA

 

[BRussell]

I also notice that MANY, MANY, TOP PLAYERS like their tip to be VERY SHORT in height. Some remove half of the layers from their tips because "they like it that way".

I've heard lots of people say that too. If they're using a soft tip and letting it get down to the ferrule, they might as well just use a hard tip.

 

[supergreenman]

However, the *reasons* why he believes as he does may not be grounded in the physics of the tip, but in the metaphysics of Earl's mind lol. Tough to say for sure.

after talking about the metaphysics of Earls mind you ask the following?

EDIT: PJ, can you help me logic my way through this particular point?

Logic? You're really going to go there after talking about Earls mind?

 

[The Renfro]

I've heard lots of people say that too. If they're using a soft tip and letting it get down to the ferrule, they might as well just use a hard tip.

No... Cutting a soft tip down will not harden it it will only eliminate the towering effect that some tips have left at full height that might be causing a little loss in precision.....

 

[The Renfro]

As far as the science being decided it's not... The testing was done using a firm stroke.. More or less compressing all of the different hardness grades to solids and of course they performed the same at that speed and state...

Softer speeds there are no test results that I have seen so far aside from the Russian tests on tip contact times which contradicted that 1ms was all there was as a medium approached 3ms and a soft or super soft was not tested but should be even longer.....

I would not be discounting the pros and many long time cue makers quite yet on the effects of different hardness grades and english, spin to speed ratios and deflection/swerve properties....

 

[PoolBoy1]

One of the top, top Taiwan players uses a soft tip and says that many of his fellow pros in Taiwan, use a soft tip.

I have used Super Soft, Soft, Medium and Hard tips to play with. For me, Hard tips are just too hard. I don't like the noise and they seem to glaze over too quickly and require more maintenance.

I have been using Medium tips for a while but am headed down to the softer layered tips for a try. We'll see how that goes.

I also notice that MANY, MANY, TOP PLAYERS like their tip to be VERY SHORT in height. Some remove half of the layers from their tips because "they like it that way".

The tip is the only thing that contacts the cue ball which we have control over so discussion on tips is a good thing for us and the tip manufacturers.

JoeyA

It would seem if they were cutting their tips down they want a harder soft tip. It also would seem necessary to have a soft touch using soft tips as the cue ball would surprisingly run amuck. I like my hard Triangle, not as hard as some. I can control the softest touches easily if chalked and scuffed well.

 

[dr_dave]

As far as the science being decided it's not... The testing was done using a firm stroke.. More or less compressing all of the different hardness grades to solids and of course they performed the same at that speed and state...

Chris,

I'm not sure to which testing you are referring. When I did cue-tip contact-time tests many years ago with a high-speed camera, different tips and a wide range of speeds were used. The results are summarized on the cue tip contact time resource page.

It sounds like you might instead be referring to my recent video dealing with how squirt varies (or more accurately, doesn't vary) with the type and hardness of tip:
NV D.15 - Cue and Tip Testing for Cue Ball Deflection (Squirt)
Fast speed was used in that set of tests to minimize the effects of swerve. The goal was to measure the squirt characteristics of the shaft, not the swerve characteristics of the cloth (which can vary with shot speed, cue elevation, shot speed, shot distance, and conditions). For more information concerning how extreme care must be taken when doing shaft squirt (CB deflection) testing, see the bullets beneath the video on the robotic squirt testing resource page.

Other tests I have done in the past have showed that squirt does not seem to vary with shot speed (although, speed does affect swerve, and the combined effects of squirt and swerve, AKA "net CB deflection"). For more info, see the squirt speed effects resource page.

Softer speeds there are no test results that I have seen so far aside from the Russian tests on tip contact times which contradicted that 1ms was all there was as a medium approached 3ms and a soft or super soft was not tested but should be even longer....

The Russian tests did not contradict anything about the expected range of tip contact times. The results were very consistent with what I had measured in the past. What the Russian tests did show, in good detail, was how cue tip contact time can vary with shot speed. For the tip they tested (a "usual tip"), the contact time varied from about 1 ms for fast speed to about 2 ms for slow speed. Again, that was consistent with what I had found previously.

Regards,
Dave

 

[iusedtoberich]

As far as the science being decided it's not... The testing was done using a firm stroke.. More or less compressing all of the different hardness grades to solids and of course they performed the same at that speed and state...

Softer speeds there are no test results that I have seen so far aside from the Russian tests on tip contact times which contradicted that 1ms was all there was as a medium approached 3ms and a soft or super soft was not tested but should be even longer.....

I would not be discounting the pros and many long time cue makers quite yet on the effects of different hardness grades and english, spin to speed ratios and deflection/swerve properties....

I tested speed to spin ratios with a lag speed, using 5 or 6 different cues, that had from a soft tip, to a phenolic break tip. The result was exactly the same. No difference with any of the cues or the tips. If the tip struck the CB in the exact same place (I used the dart mark on a centennial object ball to compare the chalk mark with), then the CB would bank 1 cushion off the rail, and spin to the exact same place on the second cushion, and land right on the cushion.

This was something like 5 years ago, and I believe it was PJ who proposed this test. After doing the test, which anyone can do in 10 minutes, its pretty obvious the tip hardness (or shape, or cue weight, or cue taper, or anything else) do NOT have any affect on the speed to spin ratio.

 

[duckie]

What is a fast speed? What is a slow speed? What is a firm hit?

Since there are no answers to these subjective terms used to describe a hit, any test that use these subjective terms in testing are useless.

 

[dr_dave]

I tested speed to spin ratios with a lag speed, using 5 or 6 different cues, that had from a soft tip, to a phenolic break tip. The result was exactly the same. No difference with any of the cues or the tips. If the tip struck the CB in the exact same place (I used the dart mark on a centennial object ball to compare the chalk mark with), then the CB would bank 1 cushion off the rail, and spin to the exact same place on the second cushion, and land right on the cushion.

This was something like 5 years ago, and I believe it was PJ who proposed this test. After doing the test, which anyone can do in 10 minutes, its pretty obvious the tip hardness (or shape, or cue weight, or cue taper, or anything else) do NOT have any affect on the speed to spin ratio.

I found the same thing with the faster-speed tests in:
NV D.15 - Cue and Tip Testing for Cue Ball Deflection (Squirt)
The video also clearly explains and shows how others can do careful testing on their own.

Regards,
Dave

 

[supergreenman]

What is a fast speed? What is a slow speed? What is a firm hit?

Since there are no answers to these subjective terms used to describe a hit, any test that use these subjective terms in testing are useless.

How fast does your fast hit hit? How about your slow hit? unless you've measured, just knowing there is a difference is about all you need.

 

[peppersauce]

..............

 

[duckie]

Think is terms of traction. Like a car tire to the ground.

What has more traction....a tire with soft rubber or a tire with hard rubber?

What has more traction.....a under inflated tire or a over inflated tire?

 

[The Renfro]

I tested speed to spin ratios with a lag speed, using 5 or 6 different cues, that had from a soft tip, to a phenolic break tip. The result was exactly the same. No difference with any of the cues or the tips. If the tip struck the CB in the exact same place (I used the dart mark on a centennial object ball to compare the chalk mark with), then the CB would bank 1 cushion off the rail, and spin to the exact same place on the second cushion, and land right on the cushion.

This was something like 5 years ago, and I believe it was PJ who proposed this test. After doing the test, which anyone can do in 10 minutes, its pretty obvious the tip hardness (or shape, or cue weight, or cue taper, or anything else) do NOT have any affect on the speed to spin ratio.

COR/Hardness has a bunch todo with linear speed so there would have to be different spin/speed ratios for the same stroke speed... but trying to get the cueball and not the stroke to the same speed this test might work in a pinch... lets say starting close enough to the rail that friction doesn't take any english off and lagging it to a spot on the side rail or just into the side pocket and not to the other end rail...

 

[iusedtoberich]

COR/Hardness has a bunch todo with linear speed so there would have to be different spin/speed ratios for the same stroke speed... but trying to get the cueball and not the stroke to the same speed this test might work in a pinch... lets say starting close enough to the rail that friction doesn't take any english off and lagging it to a spot on the side rail or just into the side pocket and not to the other end rail...

All the cues were different. The test only counted shots where the chalk mark coincided with the dart on the centennial ball. And only counted a shot where the CB came to rest on the rail or within a ball width off of the rail (the return rail). Also, an interfering ball was placed on the rail the CB was banked off of to account for any deflection differences. Any shot that missed all these criteria was thrown out.

What the test showed, was that when the speed of stroke, and aim, were adjusted for each cue stick/tip combination, AND the CB was hit in the same spot, the end result for the resting place on the spun ball was exactly the same.

This is what the science guys have been saying for years. If you hit the CB in the same place (verified by chalk mark, not stick to CB overlap), and you adjust your angle of attack on the stick to account for the squirt characteristics of your stick, and you adjust your speed of hand stroke to account for any energy transfer differences between sticks, then the outcome of the shot will be the same.

Thats why Efren can do anything with an elk master that Pro xyz can do with a water buffalo, and vice versa.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I tested speed to spin ratios with a lag speed, using 5 or 6 different cues, that had from a soft tip, to a phenolic break tip. The result was exactly the same. No difference with any of the cues or the tips. If the tip struck the CB in the exact same place (I used the dart mark on a centennial object ball to compare the chalk mark with), then the CB would bank 1 cushion off the rail, and spin to the exact same place on the second cushion, and land right on the cushion.

This was something like 5 years ago, and I believe it was PJ who proposed this test. After doing the test, which anyone can do in 10 minutes, its pretty obvious the tip hardness (or shape, or cue weight, or cue taper, or anything else) do NOT have any affect on the speed to spin ratio.

Yes, I've done that test many times, always with the same results no matter what cue, tip or speed.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Think is terms of traction. Like a car tire to the ground.

What has more traction....a tire with soft rubber or a tire with hard rubber?

What has more traction.....a under inflated tire or a over inflated tire?

Why not think in terms of what actually happens? Softer vs. harder pieces of leather that act primarily as carriers of the chalk that produces virtually all of the actual "traction" on the cue ball.

pj
chgo