ALL shafts cause deflection when struck off center, it's physics, some more than others, but not so much you won’t easily account for it when playing with it for awhile, there are enough things in playing billiards to worry about than that......
Pia Filler hates wood shafts
- Thread starter cueball2010
- Start date
vintagecollectibles831
Well-known member
The Power / Feedback was not in my head, I know that much. Found myself being able to draw the cue ball much easier, and the English felt much crazier too, if that makes any sense. It was not in my head, lol.
CF shafts do not MAKE more power, what they do is transfer the power of your stroke more efficiently, the difference being a CF shaft will not make a poor stroke more powerful, if you have a decent stroke you will see that your cue doesn't rob as much power from your stroke, draw, follow, stun, will all require less effort, golf clubs used to be made of wood, so did Tennis racquets, both are made of CF now, if they can enjoy the benefits of CF why can't Pool players?
Where did I say an extreme amount of power is needed for pool, I didn't, however it's far easier to stroke properly with less power, my teammate in league was watching my match and said "why are you hitting the balls so hard?" I said I'm not, after my first match was over he said " I can't believe your are getting that much action hitting the balls that soft, I thought you were hitting them hard but I saw you weren't " he has been playing decades longer than I have, I worked with him on his stroke and he was floored how much a proper stroke can move a cueball, the more energy your cue transmits to the cueball the less you need to "muscle" shots, the less you "muscle" shots the easier it is to be accurate in my opinion.
Just like any cue you learn your cue, if you don't like CF shafts don't use them, my cue is a total CF cue, even the butt is CF, it's the best hitting cue I have ever owned, Back in the day people would say "this cue hits a ton" that's what they meant, there are wood cues that can transfer the energy from YOUR stroke as well as a CF cue, Becue cues are full CF cues engineered to do that, I find that beneficial, maybe you don't, that's ok, everyone should use the cue that works best for them.
This has never been proven and even if it was somehow true, most people are playing with soft tips on their carbon shafts, anyway, negating whatever small effect could be discerned from the shaft.
You want a "more efficient" transfer of power, put on a rock hard tip. It will do more for the power of your stroke than any carbon shaft will. That is one of the reasons break cues have really hard tips (the other is wear). You could easily play with tips that are a lot harder than most people use, and still have no problem with miscues etc. I happen to prefer harder tips for playing, but not for reason of stroke efficiency. Hard tips just sound and feel better to me. I get more feedback from my stroke, which is the opposite of what a carbon shaft does, which is mask the impact of the hit. I once played with purple heart shaft for a couple of hours, and the effect is much the same as carbon. It just feels dead. Some people like that feel.
To me it's like wanting to give ones sweetheart a loving little pat on her behind, but someone shot ones arm up with novocaine and taped a huge pillow to ones hand. Not quite as nice.
Last edited:
I've tried about 10-12 different cf shafts and they all have better energy transfer than wood. Its easier to drive the cb forward with less effort. Everyone i've talked to has said similar things. I tried a soft tip on one and it sucked, still felt like a wad of gum. They don't mask impact either, the feedback/feel is generally really good on the cf's i've hit. They remind me of when i first got a cf fishing rod, you could almost feel a fish fart with it compared to glass rods. A couple of the real cheap cf's have been kinda numb but not on the better models. Just my take.
Last edited:
I use a Bulletproof Recoil Hard tip, all CF shafts are not created equal, Becue is CF shaft and Butt, their Prime II 12.0 shaft has lots of feedback, CF is being used in golf clubs, tennis racquets, bicycles, and even the space shuttle, the difference between wood and CF is CF can be engineered for specific purposes so you can get repeatable results, wood that is used in pool cues cannot be engineered, you will get varied results even from the same tree, if you value consistency CF is the way to go, I appreciate the artistry that goes into a custom wood cue but I like the consistency of CF in my playing cue, pretty don't help you win unless it's a beauty pageant.
wlycdgr
Member
I think you should play with what you like (barring compelling evidence that switching materials would give you some really extreme benefit worth like, I dunno, 50 Fargo). Personally I have a strong aesthetic preference for wood, so I play with that. Liking your cue (design, materials, color, weight, etc) and having it fit your overall style is very important - imo, more important than a few percent of technical superiority.
Last edited:
The implosion proved it is not feasible for deep dive.
I'm pretty sure the implosion was due to rejecting a spherical shape, along with ignoring safety protocols, not because composites were used.
any science to support that?
I watched a documentary on it a year or so ago. I don't recall the name, but there can't be too many. It would have been on (probably) HBOmax or (less likely) appleTV+. The CEO/President/whatever-his-official-title-was, I think his name was Rush, IIRC, wasn't fond of being told dives shouldn't take place due to safety reasons. Those who put safety first didn't last long with his company. I got the impression that the guy had the attitude of, "**ck it; if something bad happens I'll be dead and won't have to deal with any of it."
He basically had the same mentality as pre-Challenger NASA administrators, with less to worry about with respect to investigation after an incident.
The documentary probably mentioned the non-spherical design, but I'm not sure. That part's just physics. A sphere distributes forces evenly across its entire surface, and can more easily be made strong compared to other shapes. But it's harder to effectively utilize interior space in a small sphere compared to a capsule design. It's not as convenient if you're trying to sell passenger tickets.
Of course, the useful life of a composite hull on a submersible is going to be shorter than building it out of steel or titanium or whatever alloy they use, and composite hulls designed to withstand the pressures of the deep ocean bottom aren't going to be cheap to manufacture. I'm not quite sure what the benefit of the weight savings would even be on a submersible, maybe for easier ascending?
He basically had the same mentality as pre-Challenger NASA administrators, with less to worry about with respect to investigation after an incident.
The documentary probably mentioned the non-spherical design, but I'm not sure. That part's just physics. A sphere distributes forces evenly across its entire surface, and can more easily be made strong compared to other shapes. But it's harder to effectively utilize interior space in a small sphere compared to a capsule design. It's not as convenient if you're trying to sell passenger tickets.
Of course, the useful life of a composite hull on a submersible is going to be shorter than building it out of steel or titanium or whatever alloy they use, and composite hulls designed to withstand the pressures of the deep ocean bottom aren't going to be cheap to manufacture. I'm not quite sure what the benefit of the weight savings would even be on a submersible, maybe for easier ascending?