Deflection Tests

[The_JV]

It won't. Any 13mm maple will squirt quite a bit with english.

Any shaft will induce some measurable amount of squirt, it doesn't matter what it's made out of. If someone is going to claim that a shaft is "zero" deflection, it's most likely because they're hitting close to the center of the CB...lol

I wasn't intenting to single you out. You just happened to make the most relevant post to my comment.

 

[hang-the-9]

I'm saying that the Bridge length you used could have been skewed against the other shafts and in favor of another. The only way to find that out is to vary the bridge length and redo the test.

Right but if you start adjust the test it's not longer a true comparison. The point of the whole backhand english and pivot length is to get the cueball curve when it spins to compensate some for the deflection. That does not tell you how much the shaft deflects in general, it just helps to compensate the aim for it. I'm not a robot, but I try to hit the same shot on all the tests the same way, and I shoot 3-4-5 times with each shaft to make sure the results average out to what I am seeing not just once when I may have hit harder or software or with more spin.

Scientific method, same test on same thing under same conditions. That is the only valid way to compare things unless you are trying to hide some results you don't like.

 

[buckshotshoey]

Right but if you start adjust the test it's not longer a true comparison. The point of the whole backhand english and pivot length is to get the cueball curve when it spins to compensate some for the deflection. That does not tell you how much the shaft deflects in general, it just helps to compensate the aim for it. I'm not a robot, but I try to hit the same shot on all the tests the same way, and I shoot 3-4-5 times with each shaft to make sure the results average out to what I am seeing not just once when I may have hit harder or software or with more spin.

Scientific method, same test on same thing under same conditions. That is the only valid way to compare things unless you are trying to hide some results you don't like.

I understand how it works. Let me explain what I'm trying to say in a different way...

You are testing shaft a, shaft B, and shaft C. Shaft A has a natural pivot point of 13 inches. You inadvertently or accidentally test all shadta at 13 in. Which shaft do you think is going to show the least deflection? As far as I'm concerned you have to test your shafts that many different fulcrum points. That's the only way to be truly scientific about it. You can't just pick one Pivot Point and say that the complete test.

Shaft Amy shine at 13 in. Move that Falcon Point to 10 in in shaft be may show less deflection. Shaft C May blow them all away at 15 in. Okay, it may be impractical to have a 15-inch Bridge length. It was just an example. And I am talking parallel English here. It is very possible. Even that Revo will show varying degrees of deflection if you vary the Bridge length.

Instead of calling it Pivot Point, let's call it the flex point of the shaft. You cannot change the flex point of a shaft and not expect a change in deflection, given the same speed.

 

[mikemosconi]

This is why a "better" "higher end" "LD" shaft or cue does not always mean the player will play better. One needs to pick a shaft that will work best with how the individual player plays. For new players that's easy, get an LD shaft so they don't need to learn to adjust nearly as much for spin. For players that have played for years, changing shafts has as much of a chance to making them play worse as same or better. And there are cases where an LD shaft can eventually help even an experienced player, but only after weeks or months of training to use the new shaft.

IMHO, unless a player is a top A player or a Pro and just can't get any better or would only see a few % points in improvement, there is absolutely no need to be stubborn and not try other ones. If you are Bustamante, then sticking with the shaft you used is great, if you are Jim Bob playing APA for 12 years as a SL 5-7 and maybe ran a 2 pack once a year, then swapping things around is fine.

Yes this makes perfect sense to me.

 

[9BallKY]

I’m probably in the minority here but I’ve play pool for years and I know nothing about deflection. I just pick up my cue and play. It’s like aiming methods. Aiming methods don’t matter if you can’t hit where you aim. Deflection doesn’t matter if you can hit where you aim. I play with a solid maple shaft. I’ve tried my sons cynergy shaft and I play ok with it. I just don’t like it enough to spend $400 on a cf shaft.

Maybe my lack of knowledge along these lines is why I suck at the game. However the last tournament I played in I lost both sets hill hill to players with over 720 fargorate. Like I said I know nothing about backhand English, bridge lengths, swerve, or pivot points. I just play pool and have fun.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

The Revo has pretty much 0 deflection, it hit the cueball full in the face. To get any less it would go to the opposite side of the hit LOL

Interesting observation. I quit using the Revo because it had too much deflection. My doctored yo 314-3 has *WAY* less deflection than my 12.4 radial Revo. The only shaft I’ve ever tried that had less was an 11.75mm OB2+ shaft with a very hard tip. I had trouble making a ball with that one it was so low. The Z2 and Z3 both have noticeably less than the Revo. I’ve never experienced a shaft with zero deflection.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Of course all the tests were done with the name stroke I use for all my shots, otherwise it's not really a "test" if you change the variables for different shafts or shots. Same shot, different shafts is the only way to see how they react.

Not really. If you’re testing the performance of various cars and some have manual transmissions, and you just leave those in 3rd all the time, you’re really not testing the capabilities of that car.

Likewise, because different shafts have different natural pivot lengths, testing them all at the same length isn’t really testing the capabilities of some of the shafts.

You can get a rough idea about general tendencies if you use only parallel English to offset the tip from center, but that isn’t really how pool is played. (Well, anyway)

Food for thought.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I’ve never experienced a shaft with zero deflection.

Any shaft will induce some measurable amount of squirt

The lowest squirt shaft I've ever heard of is my 9.5mm hollow tip. It has a 20-inch pivot length, which means with maximum side spin, parallel shift and no swerve it would almost miss that ball on the end rail from 6 diamonds away.

pj
chgo

 

[hang-the-9]

Not really. If you’re testing the performance of various cars and some have manual transmissions, and you just leave those in 3rd all the time, you’re really not testing the capabilities of that car.

Likewise, because different shafts have different natural pivot lengths, testing them all at the same length isn’t really testing the capabilities of some of the shafts.

You can get a rough idea about general tendencies if you use only parallel English to offset the tip from center, but that isn’t really how pool is played. (Well, anyway)

Food for thought.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

But if I do that to ALL of the cars I'm testing, it's a fair test. How much the shaft deflects does not change, what the pivot point changes is how you adjust for that deflection to make the ball. If you keep adjusting things to get the same result as something else you are not testing it properly. It's like all those schools that mess with tests or what kids can get into what programs. Oh, we don't have enough kids in our advanced classes to let's make those advanced classes easier to get into. Same thing here, oh so this shaft deflects more in your test, well let's change the test so till it's closer or same as the other shaft.

The reason the pivot point is different is because all those shafts deflect in different ways. Without doing the same test for all of them you are not testing the right thing. All that pivot thing does is to try to offset the deflection of the cue with other things to bring it line more to a straight shot. It does not change any physical properties of the shaft, just adjusts for it.

 

[hang-the-9]

Interesting observation. I quit using the Revo because it had too much deflection. My doctored yo 314-3 has *WAY* less deflection than my 12.4 radial Revo. The only shaft I’ve ever tried that had less was an 11.75mm OB2+ shaft with a very hard tip. I had trouble making a ball with that one it was so low. The Z2 and Z3 both have noticeably less than the Revo. I’ve never experienced a shaft with zero deflection.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

Did you try this with your shafts? Setup the same shot, shoot it the same way each time, and see where you hit on the far ball.

 

[TexasShooter]

Not really. If you’re testing the performance of various cars and some have manual transmissions, and you just leave those in 3rd all the time, you’re really not testing the capabilities of that car.

Likewise, because different shafts have different natural pivot lengths, testing them all at the same length isn’t really testing the capabilities of some of the shafts.

You can get a rough idea about general tendencies if you use only parallel English to offset the tip from center, but that isn’t really how pool is played. (Well, anyway)

Food for thought.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

You would have to do the test by parallel shifting instead of pivoting. I‘m curious to know if the meucci deflection machine pivots or offsets the entire cue. If it pivots, he could easily set the pivot point to favor his shaft over others. My guess is, he shifts the entire shaft.

 

[hang-the-9]

I understand how it works. Let me explain what I'm trying to say in a different way...

You are testing shaft a, shaft B, and shaft C. Shaft A has a natural pivot point of 13 inches. You inadvertently or accidentally test all shadta at 13 in. Which shaft do you think is going to show the least deflection? As far as I'm concerned you have to test your shafts that many different fulcrum points. That's the only way to be truly scientific about it. You can't just pick one Pivot Point and say that the complete test.

Shaft Amy shine at 13 in. Move that Falcon Point to 10 in in shaft be may show less deflection. Shaft C May blow them all away at 15 in. Okay, it may be impractical to have a 15-inch Bridge length. It was just an example. And I am talking parallel English here. It is very possible. Even that Revo will show varying degrees of deflection if you vary the Bridge length.

Instead of calling it Pivot Point, let's call it the flex point of the shaft. You cannot change the flex point of a shaft and not expect a change in deflection, given the same speed.

Yes but I am not trying to get the test to come out even for all shafts, I am trying to see how they differ. Meaning how well they are designed for LD without having to mess around with adjusting the player shooting straight at the contact point. Find a comfortable bridge length, that you can use on a normal shot without obstructions in the way. Then shoot the same shot with different shafts. How can you compare things when you change the test for each one? When you are testing say aerodynamics of a car, you can't compare them at different air densities or wind conditions. You stick the different cars in the same wind tunnel under the same conditions and compare them. Just because one car is better when the wind is 5% to the side than another but not at 10% does not mean you adjust the conditions to 5% so it does better on the test.

I am not testing for the pivot point for aiming for a certain shot with a certain stroke, this is simply a straight parallel shot with spin at my normal bridge length. When I am shooting straight through the ball the pivot point should not matter at all, that only applies if you use backhand english and pivot the cue from the rear through the bridge.

 

[buckshotshoey]

Yes but I am not trying to get the test to come out even for all shafts, I am trying to see how they differ. Meaning how well they are designed for LD without having to mess around with adjusting the player shooting straight at the contact point. Find a comfortable bridge length, that you can use on a normal shot without obstructions in the way. Then shoot the same shot with different shafts. How can you compare things when you change the test for each one? When you are testing say aerodynamics of a car, you can't compare them at different air densities or wind conditions. You stick the different cars in the same wind tunnel under the same conditions and compare them. Just because one car is better when the wind is 5% to the side than another but not at 10% does not mean you adjust the conditions to 5% so it does better on the test.

I am not testing for the pivot point for aiming for a certain shot with a certain stroke, this is simply a straight parallel shot with spin at my normal bridge length. When I am shooting straight through the ball the pivot point should not matter at all, that only applies if you use backhand english and pivot the cue from the rear through the bridge.

You still don't get what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying change fulcrum point for each an individual shaft. I'm saying shoot with all shafts with a 9in fulcrum point. Then shoot with all shafts add a 12-inch fulcrum point, and then all shafts with a 15in fulcrum point. And yes, all shafts using parallel english. That will give you a better indication of what's going on.

I really shouldn't have used the term Pivot Point to begin with. I should have just said bridge length, or fulcrum Point. Varying that will change the flex point of the cue.

You're saying you're getting zero deflection shooting a 75% shot. I don't believe it. What's happening is you're not hitting hard enough to eliminate the swerve. It is absolutely impossible to have zero deflection. Dr. Dave already proved that.

 

[hang-the-9]

You still don't get what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying change fulcrum point for each an individual shaft. I'm saying shoot with all shafts with a 9in fulcrum point. Then shoot with all shafts add a 12-inch fulcrum point, and then all shafts with a 15in fulcrum point. That will give you a better indication of what's going on.

You're saying you're getting zero deflection shooting a 75% shot. I don't believe it. What's happening is you're not hitting hard enough to eliminate the swerve. It is absolutely impossible to have zero deflection. Dr. Dave already proved that.

Feel free to try this with your shafts and see what you get. I don't vary my bridge length by shaft but what is comfortable for the shot, and since I am not moving the cue at all, the bridge length should not matter. I am just shifting my cue straight to the left or right fully, not just pivoting it around the bridge hand, so the only thing that is measured is how much to the side the cueball gets pushed. Black line is the cue, blue is the aiming point exactly opposite to the object ball on the rail middle diamond. I just see how far to the right the cueball lands. With the Revo the hit is pretty much full ball and it goes progressively to the right till a standard shaft misses the ball completely. I am probably aiming half way between center and edge of the cueball so I can shoot comfortably straight through at a decent speed.

 

[buckshotshoey]

Feel free to try this with your shafts and see what you get. I don't vary my bridge length by shaft but what is comfortable for the shot, and since I am not moving the cue at all, the bridge length should not matter. I am just shifting my cue straight to the left or right fully, not just pivoting it around the bridge hand, so the only thing that is measured is how much to the side the cueball gets pushed. Black line is the cue, blue is the aiming point exactly opposite to the object ball on the rail middle diamond. I just see how far to the right the cueball lands. With the Revo the hit is pretty much full ball and it goes progressively to the right till a standard shaft misses the ball completely. I am probably aiming half way between center and edge of the cueball so I can shoot comfortably straight through at a decent speed.

View attachment 598821

I was editing my post as you were posting yours. Re-read it so we're on the same page.

 

[Chili Palmer]

The last two or three times I went to Hopkin's Super Billiard Expo, I hung around one of the cue company booths for an hour or so where they had low squirt (low cue ball deflection, LD) shafts available to try out for as long as the customer wanted. I'd say that at least half the people who came up and tried and eventually bought one of these fancy, new, accurate, expensive "LD" shafts never hit a shot with side spin during the test shots. They didn't actually understand what all the commotion was about, but they knew they had to have one. I think it's possible that some of them never, ever used side spin.

In Vegas a couple of years ago I tried an LD shaft and couldn't make a ball when using side spin. Shot about 15 balls and put the stick back on the rack and said "I'll stick with maple" and have not considered an LD shaft since. If I was trying to play at my absolute highest level I would consider one but knowing what it would take to get used to it and what I want out of the game just didn't coincide with each other.

 

[Chili Palmer]

So is one shaft better than another for having your cue ball hit the OB where you want it to hit, regardless of speed, distance, and spin? I think the answer is that if you know from experience where your present preferred shaft, factoring in a straight and proper stroke, will deliver the CB, then that would be the better shaft for that person. For a beginner, it would appear that the least deflective shaft will significantly shorten the learning curve as to where to aim.
I have never switched off my maple shafts that come with my custom cues. I might be stubborn, or some may say foolish, but I always think about Greenleaf, Mosconi, Lassiter, and company and then I just say to myself- good enough for them- good enough for me too

I recently played in a tournament and some of these guys had 5 cues lined up for the match- different size jump cues, break cues, playing cues, extensions galore, carbon fiber this and that- you name it-- Not knocking it- but they needed a golf bag more than a cue case

Man, I remember when the best guy in the room would come in at night with a leather envelope case, one cue with one shaft, no pockets on the case for any accessories at all, just a cue and house chalk and he would shoot the lights out- I still love that image!

One of the best players in Omaha back in the 80's and 90's would find a house cue he liked and store it in the backroom. He was a 3M pad guy and was always sanding the shaft. I'm guessing he got about 6 months out of a cue before the shaft was too thin for him so he'd just put it back on the rack and find another one he liked. I don't know if he even owned a cue.

 

[buckshotshoey]

Dr Dave video. How do you get such low deflection with a Revo when he gets so much? 1:50 mark.

 

[hang-the-9]

Dr Dave video. How do you get such low deflection with a Revo when he gets so much? 1:50 mark.

All I know is what I saw happen when I shot it, and also how I aim with the Revo with spin, which is just about dead at the normal aiming spot.

If the Revo deflected to where you missed the full ball, you would have to compensate 2.5 inches to make a ball when aiming with spin which is crazy. Bustie does not do that much with his stroke and shaft.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Dr Dave video. How do you get such low deflection with a Revo when he gets so much? 1:50 mark.

Dave's test shows about 3"-3.75" of squirt over that 6-diamond shot, which equates to pivot lengths of about 14"-11", which is pretty much what you'd expect from cues at the lower end of the squirt spectrum. He knows what he's doing and his tests are about as controlled as possible - what looks like less squirt from the same type of shafts is definitely more swerve.

pj
chgo