LD Shafts are bobo, I don't care what you say...

Sloppy Pockets said:
Does it ever occur to folks that it is very likely that every one of those splines has a different modulus of elasticity because they come from different boards, and probably even different trees?

The patent talks about achieving a 10% variation in stiffness between splines as if it is a good thing. A solid piece of high-quality hard maple usually has less than a 1% difference in stiffness in all directions. Why settle for a 10% variation when you can have 1% without doing anything special? :shrug:

The chief advantage of making a radially-laminated shaft is dimensional stability (i.e. resistance to warping due to uneven shrinkage/swelling at varying humidity levels). The chief disadvantages are loss of resonance and loss of beauty. A solid shaft of clear straight-grained maple is infinitely more beautiful to look at, and will probably sound and feel a heck of a lot better to most players as well.

I have no comment about the playability of LD shafts of any construction method, but if I was to order a custom cue I'd probably request a shorter ferrule (although I prefer the look of a longer ferrule) and a thinner shaft than 13mm. I'm not sure an LD shaft would help my game in the least, but I see no advantage to actually adding deflection to an otherwise well made shaft just to be traditional.
Click to expand...

Ray Schuler used to label his shafts by wood batch number. When you ordered a new shaft, he'd ask you for the batch number on your shaft and he'd match it. Simple and brilliant. Maybe there are others that do that today, but I never knew of any.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'll put in my nickel.

I switched to LD shafts about 5 years ago after playing regular for more then 40 yrs. & using english all of that time.

I would suggest that everyone at least try a few LD shafts & I would especially suggest that beginners & those relatively new to the game go to a LD shaft.

Why compensate for more than one has to?

I feel that I have lost only one type of shot by going LD & it is not really lost but just needs to be played differently & I would rather play that one type shot with a regular high squirt shaft.

I tried Predator, McDermott, & OB shafts.

I settled on OB as to me they feel very much like reg. with less squirt than McDermott. I did not like the feel of Predator even though the 12.5 mm sanded down to 12mm has the least squirt to the point that I would say that it has none if I did not know that that is scientifically impossible at this time.

That's my nickel.

PS I like a stiff shaft as I learned with a 13mm conical taper. I never did like a whippy shaft like some of those earlier Meuccis & some of the Predators.
 
FranCrimi said:
Ray Schuler used to label his shafts by wood batch number. When you ordered a new shaft, he'd ask you for the batch number on your shaft and he'd match it. Simple and brilliant. Maybe there are others that do that today, but I never knew of any.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. That's an idea I hardily endorse. I know from talking to Murray Tucker that he is obsessive about matching both shafts in each cue he makes, doing everything he can to get them as identical as possible. I'm pretty sure Eric Crisp of Sugartree cues feels the same way. After my conversation with Murray, I looked at my small bundle of high-quality but randomly selected cue shaft dowels I had recently purchased and decided I was in way over my head, and that I would be way happier just making a few cues for myself.

Even more fanatical was the late, great bamboo flyrod maker, Everett Garrison. All bamboo rods are made using laminate construction, usually six equilateral triangles that are split from a culm of bamboo, planed by hand on a special tapering form, then glued together with high-strength waterproof resin glues. Everett not only refused to use sections cut from different culms, he saved the extra pieces in case he ever had to fashion a new tip section to match a broken one.

Since he made over 1000 rods in his lifetime, that must have been some collection of bamboo scrap. His rods were so perfect and evenly stiff in all planes that he had difficulty determining a weaker flat upon which to mount the line guides. I have one of his nearly priceless rods, and it a great joy to own. Sadly, it is now way too valuable to even consider risking it on the river.

I used to save all the scraps from every instrument bow I made, labeled them with an ID#, and put them in an empty string package just in case I ever needed a piece for a future repair, but this was strictly for a cosmetic match, as a broken bow is universally considered to be unfixable. A fellow maker, however, used to only take one bow per board in case a player ever wanted another one that matched. At well over $100 for a single usable pernambuco bow blank, he's holding onto a whole hunk of change for a "just in case" situation.
 
yeah....

ENGLISH! said:
I guess I'll put in my nickel.

I switched to LD shafts about 5 years ago after playing regular for more then 40 yrs. & using english all of that time.

I would suggest that everyone at least try a few LD shafts & I would especially suggest that beginners & those relatively new to the game go to a LD shaft.

Why compensate for more than one has to?

I feel that I have lost only one type of shot by going LD & it is not really lost but just needs to be played differently & I would rather play that one type shot with a regular high squirt shaft.

I tried Predator, McDermott, & OB shafts.

I settled on OB as to me they feel very much like reg. with less squirt than McDermott. I did not like the feel of Predator even though the 12.5 mm sanded down to 12mm has the least squirt to the point that I would say that it has none if I did not know that that is scientifically impossible at this time.

That's my nickel.

PS I like a stiff shaft as I learned with a 13mm conical taper. I never did like a whippy shaft like some of those earlier Meuccis & some of the Predators.
Click to expand...

Most people are under the mistaken impression that the advantage that ld shafts have is that it is easier to adjust for squirt...

The biggest advantage that LD shafts have is that because their pivot points are farther back, they have a greater margin for error..

IOW, their pivot points have a wider variance while still being accurate...

Their biggest disadvantage is their hollow feel and lack of feedback, but I've designed one that overcomes that while still having the low deflection/squirt properties.

Jaden
 
I've played with solid maple and laminated maple, liked some of each kind and didn't like others. I play mostly now with 314-2 and Mezz shafts. I have a Joss with a solid maple shaft that I love. I've owned an OB Classic + that I could not get along with and sold it. I've got an old McDermott with a solid shaft and a 314 original and like them both. I guess I'm not not in either camp, I like variety.
 
Sealegs50 said:
You obviously don't understand "mutually exclusive". These are independent properties.
Click to expand...

It was a clunky way of saying that a LD shaft can be either solid or spliced maple and a spliced shaft may or may not be LD.

Which is to say that the LD conversation is independent of the spliced construction conversation.
 
I am curious. How much do you think it costs for a "good" grade of solid Maple wood shaft? (Just the material cost for one shaft).

JoeyA


Dedeye1209 said:
Yes, I understand the mechanics of a low deflection shaft. What I am saying is that the developers of these products did it to make use of junk wood. In the cue making world, the materials used are basically scrap wood. Charging $250 for scrap lumber and glue is basically fancy marketing taking advantage of an extremely gullible and uneducated consumer base. Their innovation was productive and seems to work. My problem is that it has demeaned the skill of classic cue makers. The shafts from my 1979 Richard Black hit as good or better than any laminated or " low deflection shaft."

And yes, I am aware that this is an opinion, so you don't need to explain what an opinion is to me.
Click to expand...
 
Jaden said:
Most people are under the mistaken impression that the advantage that ld shafts have is that it is easier to adjust for squirt...

The biggest advantage that LD shafts have is that because their pivot points are farther back, they have a greater margin for error..

IOW, their pivot points have a wider variance while still being accurate...

Their biggest disadvantage is their hollow feel and lack of feedback, but I've designed one that overcomes that while still having the low deflection/squirt properties.

Jaden
Click to expand...

I hear you, Jaden.

I vary my bridge length so much that I would not say that I have a normal length. I like to bridge long especially for shots that are tight, but there are shots that for some reason I like to go short & have been perplexed as to why I seem to be missing more of those than I use to & your explanation could be a factor.

I found that the McDermott I2 felt the most like solid maple to me as it is but with a carbon fiber tube running down the full length center. I just found the OBs to be more LD & close enough especially when I got the OB Pro & they have the conical taper that I learned with in my youth.

You made a good point & IF I can remember (62 yrs. old) I think you may have increased my make percentage on those shots.

Best 2 Ya.
 
Jaden said:
The biggest advantage that LD shafts have is that because their pivot points are farther back, they have a greater margin for error..
Click to expand...
If you mean they're more forgiving of stroke errors (missing your tip/CB target), you have it backwards. Low squirt shafts are actually less forgiving of stroke errors because their pivot length is usually farther from the player's bridge length than a higher squirt shaft's would be (the closer they are to each other the better for "backhand English" correction).

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
JoeyA said:
I am curious. How much do you think it costs for a "good" grade of solid Maple wood shaft? (Just the material cost for one shaft).

JoeyA
Click to expand...

Joey, I bought a bundle of 25 beautiful tight-grain and dense shaft dowels from an established cuemaker for only $15/dowel. I'm sure big companies like Predator, Mezz, and Lucasi can get the same grade wood by the truckload for a lot less, so I'd find it hard to believe that saving money on materials is the motivation behind their construction methods.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
If you mean they're more forgiving of stroke errors (missing your tip/CB target), you have it backwards. Low squirt shafts are actually less forgiving of stroke errors because their pivot length is usually farther from the player's bridge length than a higher squirt shaft's would be (the closer they are to each other the better for "backhand English" correction).

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

This really isn't true, it depends on a persons bridge length as to which is going to be more accurate. You can find a list of shafts and pivots points here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html

Varying from 8"-14", different shafts could be better or worse depending on a players preferred bridge length. I tend to bridge around 11", so the extremes are about equal for me and something that falls in the middle will obviously be best.
 
You are right of course. There is no big savings in the cost of LD shaft material versus traditional maple dowels.

Some laminated LD shafts even have much higher labor costs than traditional maple shafts.

JoeyA

Sloppy Pockets said:
Joey, I bought a bundle of 25 beautiful tight-grain and dense shaft dowels from an established cuemaker for only $15/dowel. I'm sure big companies like Predator, Mezz, and Lucasi can get the same grade wood by the truckload for a lot less, so I'd find it hard to believe that saving money on materials is the motivation behind their construction methods.
Click to expand...
 
Nice analogy scrap wood and glue, but don't forget the marketing, add some charts and diagrams to.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Low squirt shafts are actually less forgiving of stroke errors because their pivot length is usually farther from the player's bridge length than a higher squirt shaft's would be (the closer they are to each other the better for "backhand English" correction).
Click to expand...
slide13:
...it depends on a persons bridge length
Click to expand...
Yes, as I said, it depends on how close the pivot point and bridge are to each other - the closer the better.

You can find a list of shafts and pivots points here:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm familiar with the Platinum chart - I think it underestimates the low squirt pivot lengths, as both Dr. Dave and Ron Shepard also say based on their own tests.

And the pivot lengths reported measure only "pure" squirt without swerve. But swerve is present in almost every side spin shot, and it lengthens the "effective pivot point" for most shots even beyond what Dr. Dave and Ron Shepard measured.

So a low squirt cue's actual "play action" pivot length (with swerve taken into account) is longer than most bridge lengths for most shots - and dramatically so in lots of cases. My very low squirt shaft, for instance, has a "pure" pivot length of 20" - longer when swerve is accounted for (on just about every shot).

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
no you misunderstand me..

Patrick Johnson said:
If you mean they're more forgiving of stroke errors (missing your tip/CB target), you have it backwards. Low squirt shafts are actually less forgiving of stroke errors because their pivot length is usually farther from the player's bridge length than a higher squirt shaft's would be (the closer they are to each other the better for "backhand English" correction).

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I use bhe with my LD shaft, I just bridge farther back...

No, what I am saying is that for a standard shaft for BHE to be accurate, you have to pivot from a variance on the shaft of about 1/4".

With an LD shaft, you can pivot within 1.5-2" from the pivot point and still be accurate...

There's no magic involved in that, it just has to do with the deviation of angle.

Because you are pivoting from farther back, the deviation angle from center is less, so the pivot point is more variable because you can pivot from more area without changing the angle of deviation more.

Jaden
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top