Your prayers have been answered!
- Thread starter tim913
- Start date
Lotta hype that video. I like that you can have all the positives of carbon AND high deflection.
xX-Wizard-Xx
Well-known member
I am sort of weary of the majority of YouTube channels ... Cess pool of ad revenue ... say what ever it takes ...
I saw this a week or two ago. Sent the builder an e-mail last week, no response yet. There are a good many questions that need answering. I'm somewhat interested but not interested enough to buy a pig in a poke. The builder does have a fairly decent website.
Carbon fiber is going to open doors for a lot of innovation. Not sure if this is innovation or a dead end. Players will decide.
Hu
Carbon fiber is going to open doors for a lot of innovation. Not sure if this is innovation or a dead end. Players will decide.
Hu
1. I am curious on how the weight of the shaft affects the smoothness of the stroke on your bridge hand
2. I always thought that stability/straightness of the stroke was better achieved with a heavier weight on the rear end as this is where the error in straighness of the stroke would come from.
3. if you need to rely on the cue to fix your stroke, then might as well fix that issue first, rather than relying on the cue to fix it.
2. I always thought that stability/straightness of the stroke was better achieved with a heavier weight on the rear end as this is where the error in straighness of the stroke would come from.
3. if you need to rely on the cue to fix your stroke, then might as well fix that issue first, rather than relying on the cue to fix it.
I'm curious to see how the right balance is achieved.with the weights being that equal. But that much weight in the shaft, it won't be for everybody.. Forward balance is not a new thing. I have a couple built to replicate an old Brunswick I liked using,which is incredibly forward balanced. With a 4 oz plus shaft the only way,I could achieve, the balance I wanted, was to go heavier. You just have more control.and you let they cue do the work
Which was well over 21oz. But it doesn't feel heavy To me. It's a very subjective. But For this new concept, To keep the weight down, this is probably the only way they could it.
Which was well over 21oz. But it doesn't feel heavy To me. It's a very subjective. But For this new concept, To keep the weight down, this is probably the only way they could it.
DeeDeeCues
Well-known member
Archimedes is weeping.
I have been adding lead weight to the joint end of my playing shafts for more than 20 years.
It works.
It works.
DeeDeeCues
Well-known member
It works for what? It does not work to straighten the cue path as the video claims, here's why:
If the bridge is considered to be a fixed point, any deviation of the path of the cue must be rotating about that point. If the center of mass of the rotating object is moved closer to the rotation point, the system moment of inertia is decreased, causing more instability--the exact opposite of the claim in the video.
If the bridge isn't a fixed point, all bets are off and the player should address the issue instead of looking for snake oil.
The forward weight may have effects that are beneficial to the stroke, but it isn't what was claimed.
I'd guess that adding weight to the total must work differently from just shifting some of the existing weight forward...?
pj
chgo
DeeDeeCues
Well-known member
Sure, the system moment of inertia is equal to the sum of the individual moments of inertia. But adding weight effectively makes the entire cue different than just changing the center of mass of a cue of given weight.
So, adding lead in a shaft changes the weight of the cue, but it also changes the center of mass.
Adding a very dense weight also changes the axial and transverse wave characteristics of the cue. How much this affects anything would require very in depth analysis that could probably be the subject of a masters thesis.
It still all boils down to the same problem with most cue sports equipment claims--too much emotion and little or no scientific testing. Similar to the placebo effect, when a person attempts something (like putting a ton of weight in a shaft), to test a theory (like believing a bunch of weight in the shaft will, 'drive' the cue straight), they are emotionally prone to skew the results to 'prove' their theory. When someone like that tells people what they are going to experience, the expectation and observation are skewing the players reaction. At the minimum, tests should be double blind.
I think the main advantage is that it keeps the cue down on an open bridge and when elevated.
Pat Fleming invented and sold (still sells?) a weight that slips onto the shaft for situations where you want the weight forward.
DeeDeeCues
Well-known member
Valid. If the video had said only that, I'd still think there is a mechanics problem, but it's impossible to refute.
It seems like this would be the most important thing for them to mention but I didn't notice it in the part of the video I could stand to watch. (I don't like sales pitches. They're too disconnected from reality.)
I know Joey would know this better, but I'm pretty sure.that cue was also forward balanced
That shaft came from old bowling alley wood.