Cyclop Ball Sets BCAPL Nationals

Island Drive

Otto/Dads College Roommate/Cleveland Browns
Silver Member
Interested in others thoughts on the playability of these ball sets compared to traditional centennials or aramith sets. Is gearing as prevalent? Skidding? Do draw shots feel the same? ETC....
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Interested in others thoughts on the playability of these ball sets compared to traditional centennials or aramith sets. Is gearing as prevalent? Skidding? Do draw shots feel the same? ETC....

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=327579&highlight=cyclop

http://forums.azbilliards.com/search.php?searchid=11396757

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=328592&highlight=cyclop

CliffsNotes: they are a high precision set of balls that are a bit harder and with a more polished surface than other sets and some guys think they throw a bit more.

And oh yes, eventually they will be available in traditional colors.

Lou Figueroa
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=327579&highlight=cyclop

http://forums.azbilliards.com/search.php?searchid=11396757

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=328592&highlight=cyclop

CliffsNotes: they are a high precision set of balls that are a bit harder and with a more polished surface than other sets and some guys think they throw a bit more.

And oh yes, eventually they will be available in traditional colors.

Lou Figueroa

So far the only people saying they are higher precision, harder, and more polished are the people representing the company. No data proving any of this (that I have seen at least) has been published. Just food for thought.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So far the only people saying they are higher precision, harder, and more polished are the people representing the company. No data proving any of this (that I have seen at least) has been published. Just food for thought.


Here's something to think about too: it is all too easy (and too common nowadays here) to come on and say, "you have no proof" or even, "you lie." And so, all any of us can do is read who is posting what and assign whatever level of credibility we decide on, based upon whomever is doing the talking.

In this case, I have been personally told that the Cyclop balls have a higher resin content (85% v 57-58%), which makes then harder, and that they are polished to a finer finish, and that their weight tolerances coming out of the factory are tighter, by Mark Griffin of CSI and Paul Smith of Diamond Products, both of whom were involved in the development of these new balls.

Now personally, when guys like that, who have been involved with product development, and are respected members of the billiards industry, and who, presumably, would not risk putting out false information say something, well, I'm going to give guys like that the benefit of the doubt.

But that's just me.

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:

elvicash

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Sounds to me like they are harder and polished more to me. I have a lot of respect for both Mark and Paul
 

Kim Bye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Do billiard balls used in competition meet spesific criteria?
Ofcourse i understand they have to be 57,2mm and without chips in them.
But how tight does the tollerances have to be?
What about weight, is there a spesific weight for billiard balls?

Most sports seem to have reallly spesific regulations as og what kind of equipment is allowed.
But if the Cyclop balls are lighter than the more common Aramith balls, that must indeed affect play.
 

Island Drive

Otto/Dads College Roommate/Cleveland Browns
Silver Member
So far the only people saying they are higher precision, harder, and more polished are the people representing the company. No data proving any of this (that I have seen at least) has been published. Just food for thought.

Go to one pocket dot org Not sure which thread, be an easy search, and comments by Stroud are interesting, he's got a set at his house.
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Go to one pocket dot org Not sure which thread, be an easy search, and comments by Stroud are interesting, he's got a set at his house.

I read that thread (up to a couple weeks ago, didn't check it since) and he had no measurement data or anything else. Just his personal experiences on how often they skidded.

Edit, just caught up on that thread. Stroud also evaluated the Cyclop set using the Aramith red circle CB, not the CB that came with the set.
 
Last edited:

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Here's something to think about too: it is all too easy (and too common nowadays here) to come on and say, "you have no proof" or even, "you lie." And so, all any of us can do is read who is posting what and assign whatever level of credibility we decide on, based upon whomever is doing the talking.

In this case, I have been personally told that the Cyclop balls have a higher resin content (85% v 57-58%), which makes then harder, and that they are polished to a finer finish, and that their weight tolerances coming out of the factory are tighter, by Mark Griffin of CSI and Paul Smith of Diamond Products, both of whom were involved in the development of these new balls.

Now personally, when guys like that, who have been involved with product development, and are respected members of the billiards industry, and who, presumably, would not risk putting out false information say something, well, I'm going to give guys like that the benefit of the doubt.

But that's just me.

Lou Figueroa

Well, I agree those are good guys. But if they are going to say their tolerances are tighter, that means they measured many sets of new Aramith balls, with high precision equipment, (that means not calipers, but rather micrometers), expensive scales (not postal scales or food scales), and listed their data. Then they did the same with the Cyclop balls.

The guys are all A1 in my book, and I've talked with Paul a bit also, but without published data for others to scrutinize, its just marketing and advertisements.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Do billiard balls used in competition meet spesific criteria?
Ofcourse i understand they have to be 57,2mm and without chips in them.
But how tight does the tollerances have to be?
What about weight, is there a spesific weight for billiard balls?

Most sports seem to have reallly spesific regulations as og what kind of equipment is allowed.
But if the Cyclop balls are lighter than the more common Aramith balls, that must indeed affect play.


IIRC, WPA specs are 5.5 to 6.0 ounces, or 156 -170 grams.

Cyclop balls seem to come in a tad heavier than other sets. 20 Cyclop sets weighted and the balls came in at 169 grams +/- 1/2 gram. They play a bit different because they are harder due to them having a higher resin content. Because they are harder, they polish up real nice.

Reputedly, after Scott Frost practiced with them before the US Open One Pocket, he said they were the best balls he's played with -- they played truer and stayed cleaner -- and said he would not leave Vegas without his own set.

Lou Figueroa
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well, I agree those are good guys. But if they are going to say their tolerances are tighter, that means they measured many sets of new Aramith balls, with high precision equipment, (that means not calipers, but rather micrometers), expensive scales (not postal scales or food scales), and listed their data. Then they did the same with the Cyclop balls.

The guys are all A1 in my book, and I've talked with Paul a bit also, but without published data for others to scrutinize, its just marketing and advertisements.


I recall being told that they did do an in depth analysis of the competition and improved on the ball resin formula and tolerances. I suppose if they just said the Cyclop balls had more resin that'd be one thing. But they have been very specific: 85% resin in the Cyclop balls v 57-58% for the competition.

Lou Figueroa
 

bdorman

Dead money
Silver Member
Just a few curiosity questions:

Is it a fair assumption to say that a harder ball (higher resin content) is livelier (more "bounce")? i.e. more scatter on the break?

What is the non-resin portion? Clay-like filler?

Thanks.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Just a few curiosity questions:

Is it a fair assumption to say that a harder ball (higher resin content) is livelier (more "bounce")? i.e. more scatter on the break?

What is the non-resin portion? Clay-like filler?

Thanks.


We need a science guy (or two) to discuss the coefficient of restitution, or COR, characteristics of phenolic resin.

Lou Figueroa
a man's gotta know
his limitation
 
Top