Pivot points and cue angles are exaggerated for clarity and pic size - the pic accurately illustrates the principle.
It's not nonsense. It's completely logical. Are you unable to refute it? For that matter why refute truth?
The maker of unusual claims has the obligation to support them (and my pic above actually does refute your claim - you just can't seem to understand it).
That's where the disagreement is. I just was out playing a couple sets with a 314. I've had that for a couple weeks. Mostly played with solid maples for a lot of years. It swerves pretty good, just have to not count on the deflection.
Yeah, the 314 gave really good results for me on swerve shots. I don't know if the flexibility of the shaft is a factor, but the ball just seemed to know where to go. I'm sure any shaft could do the same thing but my mental idea of how to aim and the reality of how to aim were very close.
I have read and heard from people with Revos that it's difficult to be delicate and that they tend to get away from you. Is that what you mean?
The wall cue with its in fact normal deflection, is zoned for the backcut shot. The LD shaft has to be shot closer to the DEFLECTED line and will require more masswerve to bring the cue ball into spec. IOW your immutable swerve is insufficient to bring the cue ball into spec for the shot. especially going further along the wrong side of the shot.
This, of course, happens no matter the amount of deflection. That extra friction from shooting downward (and when a bouncing ball hits the cloth) is also why you don't really reduce friction as much as you might think by hopping the CB.
And (to give this horse's corpse one more whack) there's no difference in the sharpness of curve either shaft can produce.
As I illustrated above, both shafts can produce the identical force (direction, angle, and speed) through the same spot on the CB, simply by being slightly angled from each other (and maybe stroked a little harder/softer). Since that single, identical force is everything that's transmitted to the CB, it can produce identical results from any cue.
Yes but you see I'm talking about a specific situation where maximum deflection and swerve are desirable if not requisite. In this situation, the LD shaft has to "fake" the deflection and can't possible bring the cue ball into spec without faking the swerve as well. ie actual masse. And in trying to get the arc of the ball correct, more and more of the speed required to propel the object ball will be unavailable.
That's still just a picture of the ideal. I'm not arguing any of that however generalized. Can you diagram the dynamics of the shot itself throughout its range? Frankly just twiddling my thumbs waiting for Dr. Dave's backcut video.
I think it you stroke the ball on the ld shaft as if you're trying to masse only aiming to adjust for the lack of deflection you'd get the same results. I think deflection effects the starting direction, not the spin.
Not my gig.
Probably, but there's no reason to, since (as I've said and illustrated) any cue can perfectly duplicate the dynamics.
I agree that any cue is capable of producing the same curve but for whatever reason, when I shoot with the CF shaft, the ball seems to grip and roll a bit instead of slipping and squirting out the other side. It could be that I am placing the cue differently because of the appearance of a black shaft with a smaller diameter versus a slightly larger diameter maple shaft. The extra stiffness of CF could be a factor. These are all low deflection shafts so I don't think the small differences in deflection explain the differences in my results. Apparently the characteristics of maple low deflection shafts are more suited to my current technique and skill.
That's what it's all about. A particular player may struggle to produce identical forces with different cues. The cues are capable, the player needs to understand the dynamics of that cue to create the required forces.
That's as good a theory as I can come up with. If the CF is delivering more power it could be driving the CB into the cloth harder, creating more masse friction...? But it would be a tiny difference unless you're hitting the ball differently.
You have diagrammed the merits of the LD and called that the crux of the argument. In actuality, the HD hit depicted is less a glancing bow than a direct application of english. The dynamics of shooting the shot are indeed different between the two types.