Low Deflection Shaft

[bbb]

one more thing
in dr dave testing of shafts for deflection
the tip offset is parrallel from center not angled close to an unitintentional spin shot except he exagerates the offset
his results show the low deflection shafts hit closer to the aim target
what am i missing?
especially check the table towards the bottom of the link

Published Data for Shaft CB Deflections - Dr. Dave Pool Info

Answers to frequently-asked questions about published data for shaft squirt amounts in pool and billiards.

billiards.colostate.edu

 

[dr_dave]

For those interested, many of the questioned raised is this thread are answered in the “Should I use a shaft with a natural pivot length matched to my preferred bridge length?” section on the natural pivot length resource page. Check it out.

 

[bbb]

For those interested, many of the questioned raised is this thread are answered in the “Should I use a shaft with a natural pivot length matched to my preferred bridge length?” section on the natural pivot length resource page. Check it out.

dave you are misdirecting the question
close to noone who uses a low deflection shaft has a bridge length thats close to the shafts natural pivot point
so for the unusual circumstance that a solar eclipse occurs and some one does have a shaft where the pivot point matches their bridge length great for them
the issue is deflection from an off center hit whether applied english or unintended english
its less with a low deflection shaft
isnt that correct?

 

[dr_dave]

close to noone who uses a low deflection shaft has a bridge length thats close to the shafts natural pivot point

Agreed. Carefully read the “Should I use a shaft with a natural pivot length matched to my preferred bridge length?” section on the natural pivot length resource page.

so for the unusual circumstance that a solar eclipse occurs and some one does have a shaft where the pivot point matches their bridge length great for them

Actually, many people with solid maple shafts do have a pivot lengths close to their bridge length, but this is helpful only for shots of certain speeds and distances, and only for accurate center-ball aim with pure BHE or stroke swoop (intentional or not). Carefully read the “Should I use a shaft with a natural pivot length matched to my preferred bridge length?” section on the natural pivot length resource page.

the issue is deflection from an off center hit whether applied english or unintended english
its less with a low deflection shaft
isnt that correct?

Yes. CB deflection is less with an LD shaft, as is clear in the data and videos here. So if a lower-level player uses sidespin on purpose, with or without attempted aim compensation for CB deflection, or unintentionally due to poor tip alignment or stroke swoop, an LD shaft will generally result in less shot error over a wider range of shot speeds and distances. For more info, see the advantages of LD shafts resource page.

 

[bbb]

Agreed.
Yes. CB deflection is less with an LD shaft, as is clear in the data and videos here. So if a lower-level player uses sidespin on purpose, with or without attempted aim compensation for CB deflection, or unintentionally due to poor tip alignment or stroke swoop, an LD shaft will generally result in less shot error over a wider range of shot speeds and distances. For more info, see the advantages of LD shafts resource page.

thank you for your reply

 

[dr_dave]

thank you for your reply

You’re welcome. I literally aim to swerve!

 

[dr_dave]

If people don't want to click on any of the links above, at least watch this video:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

It still seems to me a slightly off center hit with a LD shaft should should stay closer to the aim line

You and most others too.

Ironically, it’s the LD itself that causes the greater error - the accidental cue angle is often too great for the small amount of squirt.

The opposite is true for HD shafts - the accidental cue angle is often too small for the larger amount of squirt.

From Dr. Dave’s webpage: “If you hit most shots close to the same speed and over close to the same distance, where BHE or stroke swoop error would exactly cancel the effects of squirt and swerve, then it would be best to have a shaft with an effective pivot length (for the given shot speed and distance) be well matched to your bridge length.”

pj
chgo

 

[Kim Bye]

I think @RD123 post is a pretty good observation. If you have adjusted to your equipment, that's the important part. The advantage of low deflection is overblown in my opinion. It's also a fairly vague definition, how much deflection equals low deflection? It's not the most scientific term..
Dr. Dave has really dug deep in the physics and we are all lucky to have him here. But there are also several factors that's not part of the equation that should be part of the big picture. Feel and feedback is certainly one of them. Some of the most popular shafts on the market has a distinctive hollow sound and muted feedback, personally I don't like that. Secondly it's the issue of build quality and if a product is built to last or not. I think that if you spend $300 on a shaft, it should last, the reality is that some products simply don't. This week alone I've done 5 ferrule changes on Z and 314 shafts and 2 ferrule changes on Cynergy shafts.. great for me as I make money that way, but i still feel it's possible to have a little more ferrule mass and still have a shaft that plays sporty, yet does not break.

 

[The_JV]

If you have adjusted to your equipment, that's the important part. The advantage of low deflection is overblown in my opinion.

Yes and no.... While I'm completely on the "learn and stick with your equipment" team. To discount the advantages of LD is just being short sighted imo. "Overblown" may be accurate depending on who making the sales pitch, but there are definitive and measurable advantages that players can reap if they choose to.

It's also a fairly vague definition, how much deflection equals low deflection? It's not the most scientific term..

Would you prefer LDTATSMS...? (Less Deflection Than A Typical Standard Maple Shaft)

I guess you would need to set a threshold to quantify what LD is for it not to be vague. What are the odds that all the manufacturers will pool together and set an industry standard...?

To LD or not LD really shouldn't be a conversation imo. The tech exists, it's readily available, and it does make the game easier to play. While those who have been swinging with standard maple for decades have an argument to be on the fence. Those entering the game are doing themselves a disservice by not adopting the tech right out of the gate imo.

Now buying into LD wood vs LD carbon is a viable debate. I have yet to find a CF advantage beyond having the luxury of whacking my cue off the table with reckless abandon.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I think @RD123 post is a pretty good observation. If you have adjusted to your equipment, that's the important part. The advantage of low deflection is overblown in my opinion. It's also a fairly vague definition, how much deflection equals low deflection? It's not the most scientific term..
Dr. Dave has really dug deep in the physics and we are all lucky to have him here. But there are also several factors that's not part of the equation that should be part of the big picture. Feel and feedback is certainly one of them. Some of the most popular shafts on the market has a distinctive hollow sound and muted feedback, personally I don't like that. Secondly it's the issue of build quality and if a product is built to last or not. I think that if you spend $300 on a shaft, it should last, the reality is that some products simply don't. This week alone I've done 5 ferrule changes on Z and 314 shafts and 2 ferrule changes on Cynergy shafts.. great for me as I make money that way, but i still feel it's possible to have a little more ferrule mass and still have a shaft that plays sporty, yet does not break.

Great post from somebody on your side of the cue and doing what needs to be done when they fail.

From my side which is just MY opinion, is the weight and balance of the cue produced. "Feel" is an overused word when it comes to aiming which really translates to doubt and guesswork with how the balls need to be overlapped or what the cue is pointing to. Kind of like drawing a pistol but not using the front sight and back sight properly for aiming/alignment. You just "feel" or sense where the barrel is pointing.

Feel in pool for me is what I FEEL in my stroking hand from takeaway, transition, and stroke. And I can't FEEL the weight and balance with a light front-end shaft unless it's a very light butt, neither of which is good for my FEEL. If I'm on the table for a few hours by myself, it can work out over time. However, if I'm playing against someone and for something, the nerves fire differently and want to speed things up and end up hitting the CB harder or offline.

But that's just me, my story, and I'm sticking to it. The same thing happens with a very light weight wood shaft or lightweight low deflection wood shaft like the McDermott i3 shafts, OB1, or some really older Meucci shafts. All of
which I own.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

"Feel" is an overused word when it comes to aiming which really translates to doubt and guesswork with how the balls need to be overlapped or what the cue is pointing to.

"Feel" in pool is a figure of speech that just means "practiced recognition". Aiming "systems" use formulaic approximations (for instance, fractional overlaps) to get close to the final aim line (which is helpful, but not complete), then use "feel" (often unconsciously) to recognize the final aim line from there. In other words, every player using any system/method also uses "feel". This is obvious from the simple fact that no aiming system/method clearly defines nearly enough different aiming solutions to make every shot that comes up.

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

... "Overblown" may be accurate depending on who is making the sales pitch, but there are definitive and measurable advantages that players can reap if they choose to. ...

It also depends on the buyer, by which I mean...

I like to hang out at cue makers' booths at expos. You get to catch up on gossip and sometimes they give you free stuff. Anyway, I spent several hours at one booth where they were selling low squirt/deflection shafts. The had a table to try out the shafts and the customers would usually try some shots before purchasing. I never saw a customer use side spin when trying the special LD shafts. It was very puzzling.

 

[mr3cushion]

"Feel" in pool is a figure of speech that just means "practiced recognition". Aiming "systems" use formulaic approximations (for instance, fractional overlaps) to get close to the final aim line (which is helpful, but not complete), then use "feel" (often unconsciously) to recognize the final aim line from there. In other words, every player using any system/method also uses "feel". This is obvious from the simple fact that no aiming system/method clearly defines nearly enough different aiming solutions to make every shot that comes up.

pj
chgo

So, according to the text in Bold Red posted by You, No System/method is 100% accurate. If a player has an 'Half Ball' shot only 5' away they can Not rely on "Aiming the center of the tip at the edge of the OB to produce a True 1/2 ball contact?"

Whether LD, CF or standard shaft?

 

[dr_dave]

I have yet to find a CF advantage beyond having the luxury of whacking my cue off the table with reckless abandon.

See:

carbon fiber shaft advantages​

 

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave has really dug deep in the physics and we are all lucky to have him here. But there are also several factors that's not part of the equation that should be part of the big picture. Feel and feedback is certainly one of them.

Some people care about the “feel” and feedback of a cue. Others just care that the CB goes in the direction and with the speed they expect.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

That's too literal.

"Feel" in pool is a figure of speech that just means "practiced recognition"

It's more like an inward impression, state of mind, or physical condition. More intuitive than anything. None of which are specific. Practiced recognition sounds nice but it's not in any definition for "feel" in any dictionary. Besides, you have all levels of players from hacks to pro's to everything in-between and all might "feel" like they're on line to make a shot but results will be all over the place. Pool aiming is specifically visual with very little if any room for error. 2 or 3 mm
in erroneous impact between CB to OB either by stroke error or aiming error with cause a miss.

But let's say OK about practiced recognition. What is being recognized and how is it done that's most accurate and successful?

Aiming "systems" use formulaic approximations (for instance, fractional overlaps) to get close to the final aim line (which is helpful, but not complete), then use "feel" their vision/eyes (often unconsciously) consciously to recognize the final aim line from there. In other words, every player using any system/method also uses "feel". Their eyes (vision)

Using the eyes properly on specific exact parts of the CB and OB that produce high accuracy results over and over isn't done by "feel". It's done by a locked in tried and true method that can do it over and over again without searching as if you're seeing the shot for the first time and reinventing the connection. Being a quarter to one half the width of your foot in either direction as well as the specific eye alignment and head position by an inch throws it all off.
You don't or shouldn't do any of it by "feel". It needs to be disciplined and practiced visual alignment to known spots from any position on the table. No guessing games. The eyes lead and the body follows.
See mr3cushion post above.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

So, according to the text in Bold Red posted by You, No System/method is 100% accurate. If a player has an 'Half Ball' shot only 5' away they can Not rely on "Aiming the center of the tip at the edge of the OB to produce a True 1/2 ball contact?"

That objective alignment is accurate for that one shot. What's the objective alignment for the shot just to the left or right of that one?

That's why I said "no aiming system/method clearly defines nearly enough different aiming solutions to make every shot that comes up". Actually not even a majority of them.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Using the eyes properly on specific exact parts of the CB and OB that produce high accuracy results over and over isn't done by "feel".

Describe some "exact parts of the CB and OB" defined by a system. For instance, describe some exact alignments between the few exact fractional alignments we're familiar with.

P.S. Figures of speech don't usually have dictionary definitions. That's why they're called that.

pj
chgo

 

[mr3cushion]

That objective alignment is accurate for that one shot. What's the objective alignment for the shot just to the left or right of that one?

That's why I said "no aiming system/method clearly defines nearly enough different aiming solutions to make every shot that comes up". Actually not even a majority of them.

pj
chgo

I knew this would be Your reply! Real Simple, for 3/4 ball, "Aim the tip between the center of the OB and the edge." "For 2/3 ball in between 3/4 ball and the edge."...