I suspect that would be tough, and maybe even impossible with a phenolic tip, but I will try. A masse cue is very different from a break cue with a phenolic tip, for several reasons.
Cue Tip Contact Myth-Busting Truths in Super Slow Motion
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
I suspect that would be tough, and maybe even impossible with a phenolic tip, but I will try. A masse cue is very different from a break cue with a phenolic tip, for several reasons.
Are we reaching the point of diminishing return?
Maybe, but I still want to try the break-cue-phenolic-tip power draw shot. I will post a video regardless of my results.
I didn’t make a video, but I tried this shot with two cues:
Playing cue, 11.8mm Pechauer carbon fiber shaft with Kamui soft tip
Break cue, BK rush with 12.9 carbon fiber shaft with standard Predator “BK hybrid” break tip (I think phenolic?)
I was surprised and found the break cue much easier to execute the shot. I tried it several times with my playing cue first and didn’t quite get the draw or missed the shot (and still didn’t get the right draw). I did it after 5 tries, and then tried it 2 more times and didn’t get it.
Admittedly I was warmed up before trying the break cue, but I did it on the first try and then 2 of the next 3 times I tried. Small sample for sure, but I wonder if the better energy transfer helped the draw. It felt better too. The soft tip (that I play with regularly!) felt mushy in comparison to the crisp hit of the break tip.
The tests derived to explain what’s going on completely fail to produce results that can bust the said myth. How is that hard to understand? The results are targeted to produce data that would indicate the myth is false. You can’t target the test to produce results, only to provide results.
For draw the important thing is RPMs on the CB when it’s stopped by the OB, so more force is good.
pj
chgo
Well, according to the findings/claims made in the video, assuming one does not miscue - the phenolic tip should draw better, because it is more efficient and generates more CB speed given the same stroke and contact point.
That's the disconnect I pointed out in my first reply. How can we have statements about some tips generating more CB speed, but this is decoupled from how much spin is imparted?
Seems contradictory.
Sorry, but you’re simply wrong. The things you call “targeting” are the very things that make the tests objectively valid.
Not recognizing that fundamental principle means you’re far from qualified to judge Dave’s or anybody’s tests or conclusions - and makes you look like the one with preconceived answers.
pj
chgo
What? In an argument on azb? Never. You can't diminish zero.
Let me try, @Hits 'em Hard. I think I speak a little PJ. He's what you call an idiot savant sans savant.
@Patrick Johnson, here's an illustrative example of @Hits 'em Hard's point:
Suppose you want to do an experiment to bust the myth that it is easier to catch butterflies with a butterfly net than it is with chopsticks. But you conduct your experiment at the north pole, south pole, sahara desert, and in the middle of the pacific ocean. You find that the number of butterflies caught by each method is zero. Ergo, myth busted. Everyone who believes that it's easier to catch those little bastards with a net than with chopsticks is simply an idiot who is anti-science.
Can you see the problem with that argument?
I don’t understand this. His test could go either way. I tried it and I got the same path off the rails with my phenolic break cue as my soft-tipped playing cue. If I got more angle off the rail with the soft tip than with the hard, it would have shown that soft tips get more english. Pretty straightforward.
There is much to learn below zero.
Less Then Zero is a interesting movie.
I believe shooting "straight" into a cushion and measuring where the cueball returns to as a measure of spin is going to be very unscientific due to too many variables.
It does zone it to pool relevance which is the default criteria. Otherwise, you'd have to detail the impact zone with the complete range of velocity past catastrophic failure as well as incidence per tip/ferrule/shaft and also surface (cloth in this case) effects.
kanzzo
hobby player
I'd love to see a 1000 fps video in slow motion of this accelerated stroke (or masse) and what happens. I think I heard it was done and shows multiple hits actually (cue with CB). So the smooth accelerated stroke that is so difficult to replicate would actually be a foul if watched in extreme slow motion
So what you are saying is he should have also included the results where the shot was hit too fast or too slow? That's exactly what you suggested. That in itself would cause corrupted data to be entered for the experiment.
If he didn't do the test correctly, why don't you post a video of doing it the "correct" way? Anyone else? PVC LOU? Never mind... I know the answer to that. Until you do, your lips are like a bedsheet on a cloths line flapping in the breeze.
If 3 times the shots went long while testing with the hard tip than with the soft tip it could be illustrative data, no?
And that's why he only included shots that landed in the same place, and eliminated those that were long or short.
It could also mean that nobody's stroke is absolutely perfect every time... Not yours, not mine, not doctor Dave's, or not even Shane Van Boning's or Fedor Gorst's.
Not even a robot Is 100% absolutely perfect every time.
It might illustrate that while the same spin rates are possible with hard or soft tips it's much easier to achieve the desired spin and distance with one or the other.