There is another deflection test of SMO and is done by the same Philly Fingers that hosted the YouTube video of the secret JFlowers’ deflection test (post #5 above). He tested JFlowers SMO, JFlowers Classic, Cuetec Cynergy, and Predator Revo for deflection. Although a well-designed test, his conclusions were vague and he presented no data. He posted the video in November 2023.
The test corrected AZers’ complaints of the JFlowers’ test by doing the following: i) all cues had a Taom cue tip; ii) all shafts were 12.5mm except Revo's 12.4mm; iii) all shafts had radial pins; iv) all shafts used the same butt; and v) the speed was normal because he did not use a robot (Gustav noted, however, that high speeds are better for detecting deflection differences). Philly Fingers did not measure deflection but instead tested aiming the cue ball between closely spaced balls at the other end of the pool table. There was little deflection if the cue ball would bounce to the left due to the left spin applied and if the other ball was not hit.
His results were that the
“the SMO definitely is an upgrade over the Original Classic, but that said, it also performed extremely well against the Revo and the Cuetec Cynergy. Since they all performed equally well, you can't go wrong with any.”
This result may be right that the SMO, Cynergy and Revo all performed equally well at that speed. Its contradictory claiming that the SMO is “definitely an upgrade of the Original Classic” but that “they all performed equally well”. A disappointing experiment since there is no video of the Classic bouncing the 1 or 4 ball or the percentages of each shaft not hitting the 4 ball.
From the transcript of Philly Fingers video:
I'll be performing a deflection test on four different carbon fiber shafts starting with the JFlowers brand new Smo. I'll also be testing the classic JFlowers original carbon fiber shaft as well as the Predator Revo and, finally, the Cuetec Cynergy.
In order to make the test fairest possible and keep the conditions as close as possible, all the shafts are 12.5 mm except for the Revo at 12.4. Also, all the shafts have brand new Taom tips. I removed all the originals. And finally all the shafts are radial pins which enables me to swap them in and out utilizing the exact same but.
The deflection test I like to use is the one where I take two object balls place them on the short rail of a 9 foot table. I put them close enough to where only a cue ball can fit in between the two leaving just a little bit of space. I then go to the opposite rail and I try to shoot the ball all the way down, first, center ball to make sure my alignment and my stroke is correct. If done correctly I should not make any contact with the one or the four ball. I should perfectly come right back to the tip of my cue.
Once I've completed that I then start the actual deflection test which is the exact same thing except now I will be striking aiming off center. In these examples I am going to always be striking to the left given extreme left spin on the cue ball. If done correctly I should be able to fit the cue ball in between that gap---in between that space that I left open. And have enough spin where [the ball] would then hit the rail and only contact the one ball. [It] should not move the four ball at all.
After 10 attempts for each shaft, it was clear to me that the SMO definitely is an upgrade over the Original Classic, but that said, it also performed extremely well against the Revo and the Cuetec Cynergy. Since they all performed equally well, you can't go wrong with any.
Now that said, it's now a matter of preference whether it's the aesthetics, the look, the silver trim that the SMO has, the white ferrule. You can't go wrong with either one but the next thing I look at is price. And for me that's where the SMO wins hands down above the others. You get a quality shaft that can compete with the other brands but at a lower price.
, but think they can by Skill with New Cue, or Club.
