Low deflection ferrule material for Carbon shafts.

Status
Not open for further replies.
shankster8 said:
FYI, DZ said my request was the first time he'd heard of hydex. Also indicated hydex was so much lighter than Tomahawk that he questioned its strength, durability and resistance to chalk (he meant less dense, not lighter, IMO), and said he might consider adding hydex if he got a sample and could verify its weight (he meant density IMO). Since he added hydex, perhaps someone sent a sample, maybe not. You're not doing yourself any favors, dave.
Click to expand...
Hydex/Isoplast is plenty strong enough for use as a ferrule. It is not far from Tomahawk in terms of tensile strength, and modulus rupture strength, if my memory serves me correctly. Hydex 202/Isoplast does have a miniscule weight advantage over Tomahawk while being a touch "weaker," which is probably a poor choice of words. The difference between the two materials is negligible.

As with a great deal of these materials, some of the material chosen is application dependent, and some of it just boils down to personal preference. As it stands, both Hydex and Tomahawk are excellent ferrule choices.
 
j2pac said:
Hydex/Isoplast is plenty strong enough for use as a ferrule. It is not far from Tomahawk in terms of tensile strength, and modulus rupture strength, if my memory serves me correctly. Hydex 202/Isoplast does have a miniscule weight advantage over Tomahawk while being a touch "weaker," which is probably a poor choice of words. The difference between the two materials is negligible.

As with a great deal of these materials, some of the material chosen is application dependent, and some of it just boils down to personal preference. As it stands, both Hydex and Tomahawk are excellent ferrule choices.
Click to expand...
Yup.
I make em threaded and double "shouldered ".
No cap.
A company makes them capped with dimples on the cap to make them lighter.
I use black paper micarta backer.
Different strokes for different folks.
 

Attachments

  • IMG020240217_234726.jpeg
    IMG020240217_234726.jpeg
    230.8 KB · Views: 138
j2pac said:
Hydex/Isoplast is plenty strong enough for use as a ferrule. It is not far from Tomahawk in terms of tensile strength, and modulus rupture strength, if my memory serves me correctly. Hydex 202/Isoplast does have a miniscule weight advantage over Tomahawk while being a touch "weaker," which is probably a poor choice of words. The difference between the two materials is negligible.

As with a great deal of these materials, some of the material chosen is application dependent, and some of it just boils down to personal preference. As it stands, both Hydex and Tomahawk are excellent ferrule choices.
Click to expand...
This thread discusses low deflection ferrule for carbon shaft. Looks like hydex and Tomahawk are good candidates for a low deflection ferrule. J2pac points out "Hydex/Isoplast is plenty strong enough for use as a ferrule. It is not far from Tomahawk in terms of tensile strength, and modulus rupture strength, if my memory serves me correctly. Hydex 202/Isoplast does have a miniscule weight advantage over Tomahawk while being a touch "weaker," which is probably a poor choice of words. The difference between the two materials is negligible." j2pac obviously has a technical understanding of the properties/chemistry of plastics, far exceeding mine, but the information presented here is mostly subjective. I'm trying to pin down the real world significance of the density difference between Tomahawk and Hydex, i.e. how that affects deflection. I previously read a thread on AZB where a poster explained the effect of a 1 gram change in weight in the first 1 inch of the shaft, expressed as a percentage change in deflection. He also discussed the effect of weight change further down the shaft. I can't find that thread this AM. I want to contact that AZB'r and learn where he got that info. It seems to me that info is key to unraveling the significance of differing ferrule material density. We know ferrule weight can vary significantly based on its composition and its geometry. If a ferrule is a thin walled slip on, like Predator ferrules, an x percentage change in the ferrule's density might effect such a small change in deflection it is insignificant. A thick walled, threaded ferrule like Joey's would contribute more deflection, and perhaps be significant, or maybe still be an insignificant contributor to deflection. That's what I'm trying to pin down. I hope someone can direct me to the thread discussing deflection vs ferrule weight, mentioned above.
 
shankster8 said:
This thread discusses low deflection ferrule for carbon shaft. Looks like hydex and Tomahawk are good candidates for a low deflection ferrule. J2pac points out "Hydex/Isoplast is plenty strong enough for use as a ferrule. It is not far from Tomahawk in terms of tensile strength, and modulus rupture strength, if my memory serves me correctly. Hydex 202/Isoplast does have a miniscule weight advantage over Tomahawk while being a touch "weaker," which is probably a poor choice of words. The difference between the two materials is negligible." j2pac obviously has a technical understanding of the properties/chemistry of plastics, far exceeding mine, but the information presented here is mostly subjective. I'm trying to pin down the real world significance of the density difference between Tomahawk and Hydex, i.e. how that affects deflection. I previously read a thread on AZB where a poster explained the effect of a 1 gram change in weight in the first 1 inch of the shaft, expressed as a percentage change in deflection. He also discussed the effect of weight change further down the shaft. I can't find that thread this AM. I want to contact that AZB'r and learn where he got that info. It seems to me that info is key to unraveling the significance of differing ferrule material density. We know ferrule weight can vary significantly based on its composition and its geometry. If a ferrule is a thin walled slip on, like Predator ferrules, an x percentage change in the ferrule's density might effect such a small change in deflection it is insignificant. A thick walled, threaded ferrule like Joey's would contribute more deflection, and perhaps be significant, or maybe still be an insignificant contributor to deflection. That's what I'm trying to pin down. I hope someone can direct me to the thread discussing deflection vs ferrule weight, mentioned above.
Click to expand...
The information I provided is not subjective. I've seen the physical characteristic sheets from the manufacturers of both materials.
Carry on.
 
j2pac said:
The information I provided is not subjective. I've seen the physical characteristic sheets from the manufacturers of both materials.
Carry on.
Click to expand...
Perhaps subjective is not the proper word, I don't doubt the truth of your statements, I'm just looking for hard numbers. I think I found some which will simplify our low deflection calculations. I found the post I mentioned above, here's its content:

"This is important numbers for the construction of ld shafts.
1g weight reduction in the first inch = 7,7% (7,7×1) lower cueball deflection, second inch 6%, third inch 4,7%, fourth inch 3,9%...
7,7% + 6% + 4,7% + 3,9% = 22,3% in total.
This is the math based on hard core facts and science and real life testing."

If the above is valid, we can simply weigh two ferrules and determine how much more deflection the heavier ferrule will produce than the lighter, as a percentage. For example, if there is a 1 gram difference in the weights, the heavier ferrule will produce 7.7% more deflection (since that weight difference occurs in the first inch of the shaft). Though it's not clearly stated, hopefully the post means - for each one gram weight reduction in the first inch . . .
Not sure why he adds up the percentages, but that would apply if you're hollowing out the first four inches of a shaft, like Predator did.
I sent a PM to the poster asking about the source of that info.
 
shankster8 said:
Perhaps subjective is not the proper word, I don't doubt the truth of your statements, I'm just looking for hard numbers. I think I found some which will simplify our low deflection calculations. I found the post I mentioned above, here's its content:

"This is important numbers for the construction of ld shafts.
1g weight reduction in the first inch = 7,7% (7,7×1) lower cueball deflection, second inch 6%, third inch 4,7%, fourth inch 3,9%...
7,7% + 6% + 4,7% + 3,9% = 22,3% in total.
This is the math based on hard core facts and science and real life testing."

If the above is valid, we can simply weigh two ferrules and determine how much more deflection the heavier ferrule will produce than the lighter, as a percentage. For example, if there is a 1 gram difference in the weights, the heavier ferrule will produce 7.7% more deflection (since that weight difference occurs in the first inch of the shaft). Though it's not clearly stated, hopefully the post means - for each one gram weight reduction in the first inch . . .
Not sure why he adds up the percentages, but that would apply if you're hollowing out the first four inches of a shaft, like Predator did.
I sent a PM to the poster asking about the source of that info.
Click to expand...
The weight of the ferrule isn't the only factor in determining shaft/cue ball deflection. You would likely also need to account for shaft taper, cue ball type, weight, and likely another several factors after that.
Good luck.
👍
 
j2pac said:
The weight of the ferrule isn't the only factor in determining shaft/cue ball deflection. You would likely also need to account for shaft taper, cue ball type, weight, and likely another several factors after that.
Good luck.
👍
Click to expand...
I didn't say other factors don't contribute to deflection, but those other factors aren't relevant in this context. Let me explain. Say a combination of deflection inducing variables (like those you mentioned) produces x amount of deflection. The post quoted says that if you reduce the weight of the first one inch of that shaft by 1 gram, you reduce that x amount of deflection by 7.7%. I've heard that shaft end mass is a determinant of deflection, but I've not seen hard numbers like this before. They allow clear focus on ferrule weight as a contributor to deflection. The op replied to me and provided the source of this information, which I've linked below. The hard numbers are clearly stated in that link.

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2006124382A1/en
 
JoeyInCali said:
Good Lord.
Click to expand...
Great post, joey, you seem to understand the significance of what I said (not!) Regardless of whether you grasp this, we can quantitatively assess the significance of ferrule weight to deflection. In a matter of minutes we can compare the weights of two ferrules, and assess in hard numbers the additional deflection produced by the heavier ferrule. This is enormous. No more fantasy, no more subjectivity, just hard numbers. Intuitively we know that a bulky, threaded ferrule will produce more deflection than a thin walled slip on ferrule like predator's. Now we can quickly pin down that difference. Good Lord.
 
Last edited:
shankster8 said:
No more fantasy, no more subjectivity, just hard numbers.
Click to expand...
Given it's already been mentioned how much the density of maple can vary, and that it's been a well known fact that a big heavy ferrule deflected more than a thin walled ferrule, I think the kind of detail you're referring to here is kind of a fun fact.
 
shankster8 said:
Great post, joey, you seem to understand the significance of what I said (not!) Regardless of whether you grasp this, we can quantitatively assess the significance of ferrule weight to deflection. In a matter of minutes we can compare the weights of two ferrules, and assess in hard numbers the additional deflection produced by the heavier ferrule. This is enormous. No more fantasy, no more subjectivity, just hard numbers. Intuitively we know that a bulky, threaded ferrule will produce more deflection than a thin walled slip on ferrule like predator's. Now we can quickly pin down that difference. Good Lord.
Click to expand...
By the was, I saw a documentary on the growth of predator where they talk about the testing they did and what they found was explained. Can't find it on youtube anymore but they have some on Facebook that may be it. I don't do factbook so I can't be sure. This info really hasn't been private for a long time.
 
bbb said:
dzcues is using maple as his 1.00000
not sure hydex is using that as their reference point
?????
Click to expand...
You have to restract 24% to get the right numbers. That works out 98% to my own meassurments of the Tomahawk and Juma. Hydex 202 actually meassured 1,16, Elforyn 1,5, Elforyn Super Tusk 1,2, XTC 1,45, Tomahawk 1,35...
 
Ssonerai said:
It is interesting how defensive some experts get when they are asked technical questions that they don't know how to determine the answer to.
Sure, it might well not be a necessary part of their bag of tricks and expertise to actually make a cue. We all have various means in many fields to determine empirically what works best for ourselves. It is part of our art. OTOH, asking a technical question in any sort of maker forum should never be cause for vitriol. If you don't know, don't bother addressing the question rather than use an ad hominem attack to belittle someone. Faith based science, which is what it amounts to, is an oxymoron.

FWIW, on Mr. Dzuricky's site https://dzcues.com/ferrules_4.html

He lists Elforyn at 1.9245
Since Elforyn itself lists the density as 1.200 g/cc we can determine Mr Dzuricky's multiplier as 1.60375.

ABS has a published density of 1.04 - 1.07 g/cc
So it "should" land on the chart at 1.6679 to 1.7160

FWIW, natural elephant stuff is 1.72 "ish" g/cc so should land on the chart at 2.7585
More dense even than Ivorine 4

I personally have very large blocks of ABS here as well as rods for general purpose machined plastic parts. I do agree that for whatever personal faith-based prejudice, it has not compelled me to consider it as ferule material. :)

I have mentioned wanting to try Ultem, though it would fall above 2.03 on Mr Dzuricky's chart.
Sometimes (including the ABS guy) you just have to try it and see.

smt
Click to expand...
Elforyn Super Tusk meassures 1,2.
Elforyn meassures 1,5.
Hydex 202 actually meassures 1,16.
Tomahawk meassures 1,34.
Juma meassures 1,57
Done it myself.
Bob's meassurments are correct if you take 24% off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top