carbon fiber shafts

[KMRUNOUT]

Thanks.





I think a low-squirt Revo squirts less than a normal-squirt maple shaft. Not sure what bridge length has to do with it...?



pj

chgo

Patrick,

You brought up bridge length. You were saying that due the longer natural pivot point on an LD shaft, that when using a bridge of shorter length than that the shaft would actually be less forgiving to stroke errors. Assuming as you later said here that for essentially all bridge lengths the LD shaft will have lower squirt, can you pull that together with your previous comment about being less forgiving?

When I say "forgiving", I'm talking about the concept that if one accidentally hits slightly to the left or right of center by mistake when aiming for center, the resulting squirt on a standard shaft may be enough to miss the ball, whereas the reduced squirt on an LD shaft may keep the cueball closer to the intended target line and hence possibly still make the ball in spite of the curing error.

Thoughts?

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick,

You brought up bridge length. You were saying that due the longer natural pivot point on an LD shaft, that when using a bridge of shorter length than that the shaft would actually be less forgiving to stroke errors. Assuming as you later said here that for essentially all bridge lengths the LD shaft will have lower squirt, can you pull that together with your previous comment about being less forgiving?

When I say "forgiving", I'm talking about the concept that if one accidentally hits slightly to the left or right of center by mistake when aiming for center, the resulting squirt on a standard shaft may be enough to miss the ball, whereas the reduced squirt on an LD shaft may keep the cueball closer to the intended target line and hence possibly still make the ball in spite of the curing error.

Thoughts?

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

Oh, I see what you mean now...

When we accidentally hit the CB offcenter, the slight angle of the cue drives the CB offline and squirt “corrects” for that in the opposite direction. If our bridge is exactly the same length as our shaft’s pivot point, the correction is exactly the right amount (without swerve) - but if our bridge is a different length than our shaft’s pivot length, then the squirt will over- or under-correct, and the over/under-correction will be worse (greater) the farther apart they are.

Bridge length and pivot length are most likely to be closer together with a normal squirt cue (it will have a pivot length of 12” or less and a typical bridge length is also 12” or less), so a stroke error will cause the CB to go offline by an amount closer to the amount of correcting squirt - i.e., more “forgiving”.

It’s counterintuitive - we tend to think that squirt is the problem, but in this case it’s the “correction”, so less isn’t necessarily better.

pj
chgo

 

[MattPoland]

Oh, I see what you mean now...

When we accidentally hit the CB offcenter, the slight angle of the cue drives the CB offline and squirt “corrects” for that in the opposite direction...

Sorry for injecting. I just wanted to clarify terms. Isn’t the cue driving the CB offline the definition of squirt, AKA deflection?

I would have thought “throw” (or spin-induced-throw) would be the thing correcting for deflection/squirt.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Sorry for injecting. I just wanted to clarify terms. Isn’t the cue driving the CB offline the definition of squirt, AKA deflection?

That’s the usual mistake in visualizing it for this purpose.

The changed angle of the cue (pivoting around your bridge as you miss-hit) drives the CB offline and the squirt “forgives” that error by driving it back (more or less) online.

pj <- inject away
chgo

 

[MattPoland]

That’s the usual mistake in visualizing it for this purpose.

The changed angle of the cue (pivoting around your bridge as you miss-hit) drives the CB offline and the squirt “forgives” that error by driving it back (more or less) online.

pj <- inject away
chgo

Does that mean delivering the cue offline to the cueball is fundamentally adding back hand English. That in turn changes your shooting line and that is what the squirt compensates.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Does that mean delivering the cue offline to the cueball is fundamentally adding back hand English. That in turn changes your shooting line and that is what the squirt compensates.

Yep, and backhand English works best when the bridge length and pivot length are the same.

pj
chgo

 

[MattPoland]

Yep.



pj

chgo

Is that to say the spin (and subsequent OB throw) from that back hand English is completely negligible and not worth mentioning? Or is it to say the amount of spin delivered isn’t negligible but bridging at the natural pivot point actually balances out shooting line deviation, squirt AND throw.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Is that to say the spin (and subsequent OB throw) from that back hand English is completely negligible and not worth mentioning? Or is it to say the amount of spin delivered isn’t negligible but bridging at the natural pivot point actually balances out shooting line deviation, squirt AND throw.

Throw changes with fullness of hit (and other variables), not just with amount of spin, so it isn’t compensated for automatically with backhand English. It’s a separate thing that must be compensated for separately.

pj
chgo

 

[MattPoland]

Throw changes with fullness of hit (and other variables), not just with amount of spin, so it isn’t compensated for automatically with backhand English. It’s a separate thing that must be compensated for separately.



pj

chgo

I see your point with the fullness of the hit. I was thinking in terms of the accidental spin added by the accidental back hand english added while delivering a misshit within the tolerance allowed by bridging at the natural pivot point. You can’t compensate separately for an accident. So it must be negligible spin for this phenomenon to work.

 

[fastone371]

There’s no realized advantage you can’t get with a wooden shaft besides the no dings and higher quality control/waste I’m sure since it’s a man made product.

If I owned a large production company I’d only make either a splices design or a carbon if I were keen enough to be able to build one.

I see the future being quickly gown high quality shaftwoood in labs like they can grow meat and such.....

I’d like to see some of those Kielwood shafts and how they perform as torrification does weaken the modulus of rupture and modulus of elasticity, tho it does harden the surface quite a bit.

The tech developed for baseball bats using liquid nitrogen to freeze wood to absolute zero and a special thawing process that remove the internal stresses of the wood.

Carbon ain’t the answer......wood is so much more connected at the cellular level, carbon will always lack some feel.

That’s probably why they actually basically made the revo hollow so it would have an echo chamber like structure on the inside to induce more feel to the hit.....because carbon is dead, same thing in bikes they ride like a dead body.

I can’t be the only one who noticed and could hear my stroke pretty loud when using one....not condemning just recognizing the oddity


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I noticed right away that the carbon shaft really has no feedback and feels dead compared to my cue. My cue makes like a "pink" sound when hitting the cue ball, almost like a much quieter sound of someone teeing off with a driver at a golf contest. The harder and more centered the hit on the cue ball the louder it is and I can also feel it in terms of feedback in my hand. I like the feedback I get from my cue, its the reason I use it, it stands out from the others I have. Until I find a cue that actually make me shoot better this is the biggest reason I have for being partial to my cue.

 

[Cornerman]

Sorry for injecting. I just wanted to clarify terms. Isn’t the cue driving the CB offline the definition of squirt, AKA deflection?

I would have thought “throw” (or spin-induced-throw) would be the thing correcting for deflection/squirt.

This is why I’ve always use the terms effective squirt and effective pivot point. Combining the two important pieces: squirt and spin-induced throw for that particular set of balls and conditions. That’s what’s truly important.

Anyway, with that in mind, bridging at the effective pivot point allows slight flaws in stroke (like in firmer shots ) to be pseudo self-correcting.

 

[wibo]

I am from Germany and I have a BeCue with 5.1 Shaft for 6 months.
I ordered it with the option to send it back if I do not like it. I still have an Exceed but only play with the BeCue. I have removed the paint from the shaft and it is extremely slippery, more than a wood shaft can ever be.

sorry for my english

 

[HawaiianEye]

I am from Germany and I have a BeCue with 5.1 Shaft for 6 months.
I ordered it with the option to send it back if I do not like it. I still have an Exceed but only play with the BeCue. I have removed the paint from the shaft and it is extremely slippery, more than a wood shaft can ever be.

sorry for my english

How did you remove the paint?

Is it black when the paint is removed?

Please post a picture if you can.

Thank you.

Aloha.

 

[greyghost]

I am from Germany and I have a BeCue with 5.1 Shaft for 6 months.

I ordered it with the option to send it back if I do not like it. I still have an Exceed but only play with the BeCue. I have removed the paint from the shaft and it is extremely slippery, more than a wood shaft can ever be.



sorry for my english

That’s just your opinion and personal skill level speaking, I can get a wooden shaft as slippery as anything else, that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be indefinite but that’s besides the point, as it can just be cleaned/reburnished etc etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wibo]

Hi, I removed it with sandpaper on a lathe and yes, it is black. I'll take pictures this evening.
surely you can make wood very smooth with the appropriate effort. I've been playing billiards for 40 years and have not seen any wood-shaft that was so smooth. I occasionally wipe the BeCue shaft with a classes-cloth, that's all.

 

[JayKidd]

I have removed the paint from the shaft

Interesting, how thick is the layer of paint you removed? would it create a visible diameter drop near the ferrule?

 

[wibo]

unfortunately, I have failed to measure before and after but I estimate the thickness to about 0.1mm - 0.15mm, I will measure it today
here the photos, the measurement is 11.85mm

 

[Cardigan Kid]

Hi, I removed it with sandpaper on a lathe and yes, it is black. I'll take pictures this evening.
surely you can make wood very smooth with the appropriate effort. I've been playing billiards for 40 years and have not seen any wood-shaft that was so smooth. I occasionally wipe the BeCue shaft with a classes-cloth, that's all.

When ordering, it's possible to just get a bare BeCue shaft without paint. They just deliver it without sending it to the paint department. I'm not so sure they want to make this commonplace, but Alessandro is incredibly customer oriented and will do whatever is possible to give you what you want.

On that note, on the old 5.1 shaft with the original paint scheme (that had a slight texture) I took a green pad to it, then a burnishing pad and got it extremely slick and slippery. There is enough paint on there to adjust to what your preference is.

The new shafts have a smoother paint finish and I still took a burnishing pad to it...still do on long sessions at the table...this may just be OCD but its nice to get a carbon fiber shaft that is white, as slick as wood since I don't wear a glove.

 

[GoldCrown]

Carbon fiber shafts make a good CueHorn.