The REVO is taking over pool

dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
one stroke said:
dr_dave said:
... or with a harder tip.

I’ve been playing with a Revo for while now. Here are the things I like:
- it is smooth and stays that way.
- it stays clean, and it is easy to clean.
- it doesn’t ding, and it doesn’t scratch very easily.
- it has the amount of CB deflection (squirt) that I like in a shaft (about the same as the Z2 that I played with for many years).
- it is straight and won’t warp over time.

The “hit” is a little stiff, but I really don’t care much about the feel or sound of a hit. The only feedback I need is seeing the CB do what it should for the aim, tip position, and stroke I used. Concerning the small difference in hit efficiency, that is also not a big factor for me. I adjust for this just like I adjust to cloth conditions. If I’m using a Revo with a hard tip playing on a fast cloth, I need stroke slower than when I use a Z2 with a soft tip playing on a slow cloth. This is something any decent player should be able to adjust to after a few shots.

I certainly can’t get more spin with Revo compared to other shafts. But there are some reasons why some people might think this, per the info here:

getting more spin with an LD shaft

Interesting thread,
Dave
Click to expand...
I'm probably the first one to ever put a acrylic pad on top of their pad I did it actually to break up the black however I have found the hit and the sound to be different it acts as a silencer I believe sounds more like a regular cue hit I really like it I would however question the spring back effect of wood as opposed to carbon fiber on a hit outside of center ball in golf you have different degrees of stiffness as I mentioned in fishing rods , I can't possibly see how there is no difference from one to another,, I don't believe the theory of the ball comes of the tip to fast for there to be a difference I'm more inclined to believe that there isn't a reliable source of measurement to prove otherwise
Click to expand...
There are several very reliable sources of measurement that prove the cue tip is in contact with the CB for only about 0.001 second (a little more with a softer tip, and a little less with a harder tip; and a little more at slower speed, and a little less at faster speed; but still extremely small in all cases). See cue tip contact time.

Concerning the effects of shaft flex, pool cue physics is radically different from fishing rod or golf club physics. With fishing rods and golf clubs, the shaft flexes sideways a substantial amount and over a very long swing, and the forces involves are mostly sideways (in the transverse or flex direction). With a pool cue, most (almost all) of the force is in the longitudinal direction (along the shaft), even for off-center hits. And all pool cues (wood or carbon fiber) are very strong and very stiff in this direction. The sideways flex is minimal and occurs mostly after the CB leaves the tip. For more info and demonstrations, see cue vibration.

A carbon fiber shaft can be stiffer than a typical wood shaft in both directions (longitudinal and transverse). The extra longitudinal stiffness might contribute to a slight increase in hit efficiency, but the tip choice has a big effect on this. The extra transverse stiffness can increase CB deflection (squirt), but the lightness of the carbon fiber shaft can more than compensate for this, resulting in lower CB deflection (assuming the end of the shaft close to the tip is kept light). For more info, see shaft endmass and stiffness effects and what causes squirt.

Regards,
Dave
 
Last edited:
danquixote

danquixote

DanQuixote
Silver Member
I purchased a BK Rush with the 12.9. I had a crappy old break cue and my game is good enough that a new break cue was in order. Did not get raped or robbed on the price, but it was hefty considering other offerings. My thinking was...people want it so much, if I don't like it I will be able to resell it with no problems....hell right now I could probably make a profit. Thing is ...I LOVE IT...I now have an enviable break that scatters balls across the table like a handful of pennies. Regular play is still with my trusty ole Schon and an ob shaft, but when the 12.4 comes on the market with a Schon pin, I am sure I will give it a try early....same mindset, if I don't like it....sell it.
 
Johnny Rosato

Johnny Rosato

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well folks, I'm a believer now that the Revo really does improve ones game. For nearly 30 years that I played one of my closest friends, I would average winning 7 or 8 out of 10 games. He sold all his cues cases, etc. and bought all new Predator equipment, case, break and playing cue, both with Revo shafts, and even a Predator glove and chalk. For the past year, my winning average with him has dropped to 6 or 7 games out of 10.
 
The Renfro

The Renfro

Outsville.com
Silver Member
dr_dave said:
There are several very reliable sources of measurement that prove the cue tip is in contact with the CB for only about 0.001 second (a little more with a softer tip, and a little less with a harder tip; and a little more at slower speed, and a little less at faster speed; but still extremely small in all cases). See cue tip contact time.

Concerning the effects of shaft flex, pool cue physics is radically different from fishing rod or golf club physics. With fishing rods and golf clubs, the shaft flexes sideways a substantial amount and over a very long swing, and the forces involves are mostly sideways (in the transverse or flex direction). With a pool cue, most (almost all) of the force is in the longitudinal direction (along the shaft), even for off-center hits. And all pool cues (wood or carbon fiber) are very strong and very stiff in this direction. The sideways flex is minimal and occurs mostly after the CB leaves the tip. For more info and demonstrations, see cue vibration.

A carbon fiber shaft can be stiffer than a typical wood shaft in both directions (longitudinal and transverse). The extra longitudinal stiffness might contribute to a slight increase in hit efficiency, but the tip choice has a big effect on this. The extra transverse stiffness can increase CB deflection (squirt), but the lightness of the carbon fiber shaft can more than compensate for this, resulting in lower CB deflection (assuming the end of the shaft close to the tip is kept light). For more info, see shaft endmass and stiffness effects and what causes squirt.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

You need to Review the Russian High Speed for you contact time area.. Per the videos >2MS was with a Moori Medium using a soft stroke and they had no videos with soft tips so I can only guess that the contact time will further increase as you go softer than a medium....

The only time I would say 1MS is accurate for the contact time for all leather tips is at break speed where any leather tip will be acting almost like a solid instead of a spring....

http://dbkcues.ru/2011/06/12/another-couple-of-hs-video-now-24-000-fps/?lang=en
 
Straightpool_99

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
The Renfro said:
You need to Review the Russian High Speed for you contact time area.. Per the videos >2MS was with a Moori Medium using a soft stroke and they had no videos with soft tips so I can only guess that the contact time will further increase as you go softer than a medium....

The only time I would say 1MS is accurate for the contact time for all leather tips is at break speed where any leather tip will be acting almost like a solid instead of a spring....

http://dbkcues.ru/2011/06/12/another-couple-of-hs-video-now-24-000-fps/?lang=en
Click to expand...

I remember reading about a guy making a tip out of a rubber superball (which quickly disintegrated) that had some interesting characteristics. He claimed he got huge deflection off it. It would be fun to see high speed footage of that. What would happen with a rubber/leather hybrid, I wonder?
 
HueblerHustler7

HueblerHustler7

AndrewActionG
Silver Member
Went Revo for while, went back to ld spliced shaft, went back to the REVO and now im back to solid great hitting old growth lake wood shaft, I still screw around with a revo here and there but deff can do more things with a solid maple shaft, to each is there own but It's hasn't taken me over to the dark side totally.
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
The Renfro said:
dr_dave said:
There are several very reliable sources of measurement that prove the cue tip is in contact with the CB for only about 0.001 second (a little more with a softer tip, and a little less with a harder tip; and a little more at slower speed, and a little less at faster speed; but still extremely small in all cases). See cue tip contact time.

Concerning the effects of shaft flex, pool cue physics is radically different from fishing rod or golf club physics. With fishing rods and golf clubs, the shaft flexes sideways a substantial amount and over a very long swing, and the forces involves are mostly sideways (in the transverse or flex direction). With a pool cue, most (almost all) of the force is in the longitudinal direction (along the shaft), even for off-center hits. And all pool cues (wood or carbon fiber) are very strong and very stiff in this direction. The sideways flex is minimal and occurs mostly after the CB leaves the tip. For more info and demonstrations, see cue vibration.

A carbon fiber shaft can be stiffer than a typical wood shaft in both directions (longitudinal and transverse). The extra longitudinal stiffness might contribute to a slight increase in hit efficiency, but the tip choice has a big effect on this. The extra transverse stiffness can increase CB deflection (squirt), but the lightness of the carbon fiber shaft can more than compensate for this, resulting in lower CB deflection (assuming the end of the shaft close to the tip is kept light). For more info, see shaft endmass and stiffness effects and what causes squirt.
Click to expand...
You need to Review the Russian High Speed for you contact time area.. Per the videos >2MS was with a Moori Medium using a soft stroke and they had no videos with soft tips so I can only guess that the contact time will further increase as you go softer than a medium...
Click to expand...
You are correct that tip contact time does vary with tip hardness and shot speed, but it still remains in the millisecond range (still extremely small). FYI, I've revised the summary bullets on the cue tip contact time resource page to read:

- most contact times (i.e., for most tips and most speeds) are in the millisecond range (about 0.001-0.002 sec).

- a soft tip at slow speed has a longer contact time (about 0.002-0.003 sec), but still extremely small.

- a very hard tip (e.g., phenolic) at fast speed has a shorter contact time (about 0.0008 sec).

- the contact time increases for slower speeds and decreases slightly for faster speeds, but not by much (still in the millisecond range).

Do you or others think these differences in tip contact times are of any practical importance concerning shot performance? The differences are certainly nothing that a human can come even close to perceiving.

Regards,
Dave
 
Last edited:
HueblerHustler7

HueblerHustler7

AndrewActionG
Silver Member
dr_dave said:
You are correct that tip contact time does vary with tip hardness and shot speed, but it still remains in the millisecond range (still extremely small). FYI, I've revised the summary bullets on the cue tip contact time resource page to read:

- most contact times (i.e., for most tips and most speeds) are in the millisecond range (about 0.001-0.002 sec).

- a soft tip at slow speed has a longer contact time (about 0.002-0.003 sec), but still extremely small.

- a very hard tip (e.g., phenolic) at fast speed has a shorter contact time (about 0.0008 sec).

- the contact time increases for slower speeds and decreases slightly for faster speeds, but not by much (still in the millisecond range).

Do you or others think these differences in tip contact times are of any practical importance concerning shot performance? The differences are certainly nothing that a human can come even close to perceiving.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Great information, best explanation I have heard in awhile, with true evidence, some differences are so minuscule in the game that I think so much is actually created by doubt in ones head. The human brain seems to be the leading road block in a game that should be conceded anything but simple.
 
Straightpool_99

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
dr_dave said:
You are correct that tip contact time does vary with tip hardness and shot speed, but it still remains in the millisecond range (still extremely small). FYI, I've revised the summary bullets on the cue tip contact time resource page to read:

- most contact times (i.e., for most tips and most speeds) are in the millisecond range (about 0.001-0.002 sec).

- a soft tip at slow speed has a longer contact time (about 0.002-0.003 sec), but still extremely small.

- a very hard tip (e.g., phenolic) at fast speed has a shorter contact time (about 0.0008 sec).

- the contact time increases for slower speeds and decreases slightly for faster speeds, but not by much (still in the millisecond range).

Do you or others think these differences in tip contact times are of any practical importance concerning shot performance? The differences are certainly nothing that a human can come even close to perceiving.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

I believe so, yes. I have played many a rack of pool with a phenolic tip, and while it would be convenient to use a tip that last forever, that jumps the ball easily and can break thousands of racks without changing and gives more power for a given cue speed, there are good reasons why I don't. I mean it does seem like an open and shut case when you list the advantages like that, doesn't it?

I don't think I know any player, that can run racks, that prefers a phenolic tip. I wonder why that is?

Do I perceive the difference in contact time directly? I don't think so, but I observe differences in how I play. For instance, sometimes in straight pool you have a very tight draw shot, where you need to get maximum spin at slow speed (with speed control) in order to either avoid hitting balls or to hit them in a specific place. Those kinds of shots MAY be makeable with phenolic tips, but you sure need a better cue action than mine...Whenever someone plays a game where spin and speed contol is needed, you nearly never see phenolic tips. Phenolic carom tips? Phenolic snooker tips? NO.

According to you the difference between a phenolic tip and a hard leather tip is less than 0.2 ms. And the difference between a hard leather tip and a soft leather tip is 1 full ms. To me at least, the difference between a fairly hard leather tip like Zan Grip Hard and a phenolic tip is dramatic in playing terms. Yet you dismiss a factor that explains it as insignificant. Believe me, if there was ANY way I could play remotely the same with a phenolic tip, I'd change in an instant, for the jump advantage alone, not to mention leaving my break cue at home.
 
Last edited:
Straightpool_99

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
Just for kicks, I'm going to buy a phenolic tip for my Mezz WD 700 (I have two close to identical shafts for this cue) and compare with a Zan Grip hard. Directly and over time. I'll give it a shot and post back in a couple of weeks. Don't play a lot of American pool these days, but I'll try for runs in straight pool and see if there is a difference in the numbers and also if I can in fact play exactly the same shots.
 
Last edited:
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Straightpool_99 said:
I don't think I know any player, that can run racks, that prefers a phenolic tip. I wonder why that is?
Click to expand...
I think the biggest reason is the inferior miscue limit of phenolic tips compared to leather tips (which hold and embed chalk much better). I don't think it has anything to do with tip contact time.

Regards,
Dave
 
BRussell

BRussell

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
dr_dave said:
You are correct that tip contact time does vary with tip hardness and shot speed, but it still remains in the millisecond range (still extremely small). FYI, I've revised the summary bullets on the cue tip contact time resource page to read:

- most contact times (i.e., for most tips and most speeds) are in the millisecond range (about 0.001-0.002 sec).

- a soft tip at slow speed has a longer contact time (about 0.002-0.003 sec), but still extremely small.

- a very hard tip (e.g., phenolic) at fast speed has a shorter contact time (about 0.0008 sec).

- the contact time increases for slower speeds and decreases slightly for faster speeds, but not by much (still in the millisecond range).

Do you or others think these differences in tip contact times are of any practical importance concerning shot performance? The differences are certainly nothing that a human can come even close to perceiving.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
It’s a small amount of time, that’s for sure. On the other hand, it looks like it’s possible to double the length of contact, maybe even triple it. That sounds significant.
 
Patrick Johnson

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
dr_dave said:
I think the biggest reason is the inferior miscue limit of phenolic tips compared to leather tips (which hold and embed chalk much better). I don't think it has anything to do with tip contact time.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
I agree - and it seems to me the less-embedded chalk could reduce a range of spins (not just the miscue limit) because of "slippage" less than a full miscue...?

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
BRussell said:
It’s a small amount of time, that’s for sure. On the other hand, it looks like it’s possible to double the length of contact, maybe even triple it. That sounds significant.
Click to expand...
I agree it sounds significant, but to my knowledge nobody has ever demonstrated a significant effect from it, and I think the theoretical effect of it might be more likely negative than positive (if I remember correctly what I read about it).

pj
chgo
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Patrick Johnson said:
BRussell said:
dr_dave said:
You are correct that tip contact time does vary with tip hardness and shot speed, but it still remains in the millisecond range (still extremely small). FYI, I've revised the summary bullets on the cue tip contact time resource page to read:

- most contact times (i.e., for most tips and most speeds) are in the millisecond range (about 0.001-0.002 sec).

- a soft tip at slow speed has a longer contact time (about 0.002-0.003 sec), but still extremely small.

- a very hard tip (e.g., phenolic) at fast speed has a shorter contact time (about 0.0008 sec).

- the contact time increases for slower speeds and decreases slightly for faster speeds, but not by much (still in the millisecond range).

Do you or others think these differences in tip contact times are of any practical importance concerning shot performance? The differences are certainly nothing that a human can come even close to perceiving.
Click to expand...
It’s a small amount of time, that’s for sure. On the other hand, it looks like it’s possible to double the length of contact, maybe even triple it. That sounds significant.
Click to expand...
I agree it sounds significant, but to my knowledge nobody has ever demonstrated a significant effect from it, and I think the theoretical effect of it might be more likely negative than positive (if I remember correctly what I read about it).
Click to expand...
That is correct. Added contact time can result in more squirt and could result in a greater chance to miscue at large tip offsets. Although, I was not able to measure these effects over a wide range of tip types and hardnesses in the following video:

NV D.15 - Cue and Tip Testing for Cue Ball Deflection (Squirt)

Although, we should be careful assuming center-ball hit contact times extrapolate to off-center hits, especially with various tip hardnesses and for shots of different speeds. We don’t have much reliable data for off-center hits.

Regards,
Dave
 
Last edited:
Bavafongoul

Bavafongoul

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Dr. Dave,

I've got a question and it relates to what the cue tip sits upon.

What about ferrules? From your experience, Are there any discernible differences
in the type of ferrule a cue-maker uses or doesn't, such as as ferruleless versions?

I happen to prefer ivory and essentially because of its look, cleanliness and acoustics
in contrast to all of the different ferrule materials on cues I've used dating back to 1960.

I'd appreciate learning if you've considered this aspect of pool cue anatomy in any of your research efforts?

Matt B.
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
The choice of ferrule definitely has an effect on CB deflection (squirt).

In general, since ferrule materials are typically denser than shaft material (maple or carbon fiber), a smaller (or no) ferrule results in less CB deflection.

For more info, see: shaft endmass effects.

Regards,
Dave


Bavafongoul said:
Dr. Dave,

I've got a question and it relates to what the cue tip sits upon.

What about ferrules? From your experience, Are there any discernible differences
in the type of ferrule a cue-maker uses or doesn't, such as as ferruleless versions?

I happen to prefer ivory and essentially because of its look, cleanliness and acoustics
in contrast to all of the different ferrule materials on cues I've used dating back to 1960.

I'd appreciate learning if you've considered this aspect of pool cue anatomy in any of your research efforts?

Matt B.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
B

Bca8ball

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
hang-the-9 said:
I have to say that none of those things is why I am using a Revo right now. The main reason is that I can get more action on the cueball easier than with my other shafts.
Click to expand...

My reasoning for the Revo is even more simplistic, I have always hated the cleaning process. The only thing worse than being OCD about having a clean shaft would be dealing with any sort of dent/ding in the stroke area.
The Revo as solved both of the pet peeves for me without any negatives.

I shoot some everyday and league 3 nights a week in various environments... every time I hear a cue hit a chair, table, floor, or light, I think about the inevitable dent/ding that user will have.

As far as the cost goes:
Sure, I paid my for what equates to two shafts at $250; I still consider it a good move.
I wish more things were as simply as throwing some money at them; I would gladly pay twice as much for tires if the new ones didn't wear.
A vehicle paint that doesn't fade or a windshield that doesn't get rock chips...what's that worth?
 
S

speedi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
phenolic tip

dr_dave said:
I think the biggest reason is the inferior miscue limit of phenolic tips compared to leather tips (which hold and embed chalk much better). I don't think it has anything to do with tip contact time.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
(
Maybe it's time for some pool enthusiast (engineer/designer) to invent a substance that gives a phenolic tip the same kind of performance characteristics as chalk does to leather?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top