Perhaps an internet etiquette breach, replying to self.My logic tells me that a soft tip of equal radious will spend longer time and larger contact patch than a hard one. The difference might be extremely small when it comes to a leather cue tip vs phenolic. Extremely small is relative and in this case a small difference can yield a large difference in the result.
Google said:coefficient of friction, ratio of the frictional force resisting the motion of two surfaces in contact to the normal force pressing the two surfaces together
Couldn't of said it better! Also taper Plays a huge part in this, and now with carbon you can use a smaller diameter tip/ thinner shaft without it getting to light weight or to whippy. Play with anything long enough and you can adjust and adapt.False.
Mostly traditional nonsense - but there's some merit to smaller tips no matter what game: they allow you to see more precisely where you're hitting the CB, no matter what the game.
I've used a 9..5-10mm tip playing pool for more than 30 years.
pj
chgo
The facts work for you - you’re able to use the equipment you like because they all work the same.So save your breath PJ, I've already made up my mind, your facts won't work on me![]()
You're right, if you ignore the parameters of what I was describing then yes the same amount of movement will create the same amount of english regardless of tip diameter.PJ is correct, if the tip dome radius is the same, you move the same amount regardless of the tip diameter.
This is a good test that I’ve done many times - and you apparently haven’t. If you check the chalk marks to be sure you really hit the same CB spot, there’s no difference.It's an easy test to do, take a large and small diameter shaft and hit the same point on the cue ball while aiming at a specific point on the rail with side spin using the same speed. You will notice the smaller shafts causes the cue ball to go more left or right when it hits the rail.
Stu
Scarbro
It’s not an oversight. You’re talking about bringing up a debate that’s been discussed on the internet for 30 years.Perhaps an internet etiquette breach, replying to self.Mrs Smith my grade school teacher said it's the best way to have an intelligent discussion.
Perhaps the......
....is an important oversight in my equation.
So with the friction coefficient and the size and duration of the contact.....a numbers guy would probably need a force number to get the ball rolling.
Pretty sure I learned something important about numbers watching cartoons.
Got it.It just gets distributed differently.
So much misinformation floating around here. Shaft/tip diameter will not effect spin. You can draw it out with a piece of paper pretty easy.
I agree with this, except of course it's "affect"...
You made the right choice for the right reason. I like to remember that the CB can only "feel" three things when hit by a cue: where it's hit, from what angle, and how hard. All of those are determined by the player's stroke; the cue/tip is just the messenger.I settled on the 12.4 the simply because I like how it goes through a closed bridge.
That's what it came to for me.
I am a fairly smart and decently educated individual, I’ve looked up the proper use of affect/effect and I still can never remember. I’ve given up and pretty much just use effect even though I know it’ll be wrong sometimes, haha
My guess would be that the shaft sizes are proportional to the respective ball sizes. I haven't done the math, but I suspect that if you compared each shaft size to its respective ball size, you would find that the percentages are close. If you find that to be the case, then the shaft sizes are actually more alike than different. It's customary to normalize data that way to make sure you are comparing apples to apples. When we talk about $100 in 1975, we have to use a multiplier to get a feel for what that would be worth in today's economy.I thought I understood why a snooker player would have a smaller shaft diameter (typically 8.5-9.5mm) than American pool players (typically 11.75-13). But when thinking about it more, why wouldn't a snooker-sized shaft work for pool? What is actually gained, in either direction?
More perplexingly to me is that apparently 10.5mm is the preferred size for Chinese 8-ball, which uses the same sized balls and same sized table as American pool. Why wouldn't the desired shafts be the same size? And, since Chinese 8-ball is a more recent development, what lead to this "new' shaft size? (Just marketing??)
I watched the below "what's in the bag" video with Chris Melling who seems to play everything, and even he uses smaller shafts for Snooker/English pool than for American pool, and then talks about concerns with the 10.5 shaft (vs the 11.8) starting at about the 6:54 mark, eventually saying "if the shaft's thinner, then you've got to be more accurate."
So are the differences in shaft sizes between the games just traditional wisdom, or is there actual merit to it all?
100% right, I have asked some of the tip-top players, and not many can give a reason beyond 'It feels good' and that 'good' feeling stems from familiarity not some tech mumbo jumbo.This was asked before I think, maybe not here. Many Chinese 8 ball players grew up with snooker or UK 8 ball where they use the thinner shafts, so the smaller shaft diameter in that game is 90% likely simply from player preference rather than some technical "better" shaft size for the game. A thin shaft for normal pool games to me feels very fragile and hard to control with any power.
A snooker ball is 33/16" in diameter. A pool ball is 36/16". So a pool ball is 12/11 the diameter. That is just over 9% bigger by that measure. What that means is that by cross-sectional area a pool ball is about 19% bigger, and by volume (and, presumably, mass) a pool ball is just under 30% bigger.M
My guess would be that the shaft sizes are proportional to the respective ball sizes. I haven't done the math, but I suspect that if you compared each shaft size to its respective ball size, you would find that the percentages are close. If you find that to be the case, then the shaft sizes are actually more alike than different. It's customary to normalize data that way to make sure you are comparing apples to apples. When we talk about $100 in 1975, we have to use a multiplier to get a feel for what that would be worth in today's economy.