So what is the purpose of the radial lamination if not to create consistent stiffness.
Ld shafts - mfg science - help...
- Thread starter BarTableMan
- Start date
But that's not what you claimed.
Stiffness doesn't lower cueball squirt, which we have to assume that's what you're suggesting.
Last edited:
RBC
Deceased
Just what I have read, seen owned and been taught . How about you
It was less then a year ago when I heard the owner of a laminated shaft company make the comment that they are starting to use a better grade of maple, but it still wasn't A+ grade.
What does me knowing anything about maple have anything to do with what the owner says and does.?
MMike
I am an owner of OB Cues, a laminated shaft company. I can honestly say I have never purchased any maple that rated in such a manner. ie. A+, A-, B+ etc.
Here is a link to the most commonly used grades that I'm aware of:
http://www.ahec.org/hardwoods/pdfs/IllustratedGradingGuide.pdf
Your comments are a prime example of how miss-information is started.
You certainly don't know what grades of materials we buy, or what is available. You don't know how and where they are harvested, how they are chosen, cut from the log etc. I'm not just talking about veneer either. Oh, and we haven't even begun to talk about how it's dried, which is as important as anything else.
Please don't take this as an attack on you, but more of a request to not contribute to the miss-information that is running rampant.
Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com
Grading veneers
Do you use best veneers in your shafts ?
You can say everyone that makes laminated shafts uses the best grades of lumber.
You don't have to be a mechanic to figure out that some cars are a POS.
Normally all you have to do is close the door and listen to how it sounds.
As a consumer of some LD shafts that delaminated ,warped and warranty was denied. I am saying something about it.
Expert or not when you can stick a playing card in the crack of laminated shaft you don't need to be a expert to know that something is not right.
I have the upmost respect for the shafts you make.
I cannot say the same for all laminated shafts makers.
In a way its a shame that you have to be compared to some of the other laminated shaft makers.
And In away you should be happy because some of them make your product stand above most of you competition .
You might use the best but there is one or two in the business that doesn't
MMike
Do you use best veneers in your shafts ?
You can say everyone that makes laminated shafts uses the best grades of lumber.
You don't have to be a mechanic to figure out that some cars are a POS.
Normally all you have to do is close the door and listen to how it sounds.
As a consumer of some LD shafts that delaminated ,warped and warranty was denied. I am saying something about it.
Expert or not when you can stick a playing card in the crack of laminated shaft you don't need to be a expert to know that something is not right.
I have the upmost respect for the shafts you make.
I cannot say the same for all laminated shafts makers.
In a way its a shame that you have to be compared to some of the other laminated shaft makers.
And In away you should be happy because some of them make your product stand above most of you competition .
You might use the best but there is one or two in the business that doesn't
MMike
Just what I have read, seen owned and been taught . How about you
It was less then a year ago when I heard the owner of a laminated shaft company make the comment that they are starting to use a better grade of maple, but it still wasn't A+ grade.
What does me knowing anything about maple have anything to do with what the owner says and does.?
MMike
Just what I have read, seen, owned and been taught also, while selling wood to various trades for several years including the cue industry. Oh and making laminated shafts for about 17 years and laminated butts for about 12.
So maybe you could tell me what A+ grade Maple is? Somehow this grade does not appear in the link that Royce provided.
Your comment lumps all makers of laminated shafts into one group - those that use inferior wood. You might want to amend that.
RBC
Deceased
MMike
Thanks for the clarification.
When I read your statements about "laminated shafts manufacturers" I didn't realize that you weren't talking about all "laminated shaft manufacturers". I also think that most readers would interpret it the same way as I had.
I think this is the miss-information debacle that I'm talking about. In a public forum such as this, non industry people are sometimes taken as "experts in the field" based on what they say and how they say it. Everyone certainly has a right to his or her opinion, and one of the biggest reasons I participate in this forum is to see and hear those opinions. They really help me to develop our products and our company. However, in doing so, I sometimes struggle with the "rumor mill" and how things get all twisted up.
Thanks again for the clarification.
Shoot Well!
Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com
Nice Thread...
I played pool for many years before the arrival of LD shafts. Never once did I ever think, 'Man, I wish I had a shaft that produced less cue ball squirt.'
I think you simply adjust accordingly and play on with out any problems. The LD properties of these newer laminated shafts, in my opinion, do not provide any advantage in playability. They simply play differently.
When I made the transition, and I'll get into why in a moment, my game suffered greatly for over a month. It was a real adjustment for sure. But now all is well. Certainly a new player, who starts with an LD shaft will be able to avoid having to readjust to a very different playing shaft, and I highly recommend that newer players take this course.
The reason I made the switch was for the radial consistency that laminated shafts offer.
Back in the day we used to dab a small dot of paint on the shaft, just above the collar, so you could always shoot with the shaft in the same radial position -- this is how radial consistency was achieved -- before every shot you would look down and spin your cue so that spot was looking right back at you.
I enjoy not having to do that any more ... and that is why I made the switch to an LD shaft.
The most unpleasant aspect of all LD shafts, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that they are much lighter at the tip end of the shaft.
LD shafts are lighter, and they are lacking mass at the extreme end of the shaft where it effects the balance of your cue the most.
In recent years we have heard a lot of talk about forward weighted cues. There are many players who recently say a lighter butt makes for a better playing cue.
The truth of the matter is that it's not about the weight of the cue but the balance or the cue. I suspect that these folks, perhaps unknowingly, are trying to balance their cue with a low mass tip end shaft.
I find one more unpleasant characteristic of the LD shafts, and again it is directly related to the tip end being light, hollow in fact. These shafts do not provide that crisp solid hit of a solid maple shaft. They hit softer and with far less feel and feedback. This is something I really miss.
Perhaps the ultimate shaft would be comprised of laminated construction, yet solid all the way through?
That's my two cents.
I played pool for many years before the arrival of LD shafts. Never once did I ever think, 'Man, I wish I had a shaft that produced less cue ball squirt.'
I think you simply adjust accordingly and play on with out any problems. The LD properties of these newer laminated shafts, in my opinion, do not provide any advantage in playability. They simply play differently.
When I made the transition, and I'll get into why in a moment, my game suffered greatly for over a month. It was a real adjustment for sure. But now all is well. Certainly a new player, who starts with an LD shaft will be able to avoid having to readjust to a very different playing shaft, and I highly recommend that newer players take this course.
The reason I made the switch was for the radial consistency that laminated shafts offer.
Back in the day we used to dab a small dot of paint on the shaft, just above the collar, so you could always shoot with the shaft in the same radial position -- this is how radial consistency was achieved -- before every shot you would look down and spin your cue so that spot was looking right back at you.
I enjoy not having to do that any more ... and that is why I made the switch to an LD shaft.
The most unpleasant aspect of all LD shafts, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that they are much lighter at the tip end of the shaft.
LD shafts are lighter, and they are lacking mass at the extreme end of the shaft where it effects the balance of your cue the most.
In recent years we have heard a lot of talk about forward weighted cues. There are many players who recently say a lighter butt makes for a better playing cue.
The truth of the matter is that it's not about the weight of the cue but the balance or the cue. I suspect that these folks, perhaps unknowingly, are trying to balance their cue with a low mass tip end shaft.
I find one more unpleasant characteristic of the LD shafts, and again it is directly related to the tip end being light, hollow in fact. These shafts do not provide that crisp solid hit of a solid maple shaft. They hit softer and with far less feel and feedback. This is something I really miss.
Perhaps the ultimate shaft would be comprised of laminated construction, yet solid all the way through?
That's my two cents.
MY grammer
My writing skills are not very good and will make a point of trying to improve .
The cue I bought with a laminated LD shafts fell apart in 6 months, it wasn't a OB shaft.
Straight up , I felt ripped off, and (still) do .
I feel point blank lied too............................................
Doesn't give me the right to insult you, please forgive me.
Sorry to say this doesn't change the fact that some of the Laminated LD shaft are made by some companies as cheap as possible and then they will not warranty their product. And its to bad more owners do not chime in like you.
MMike
My writing skills are not very good and will make a point of trying to improve .
The cue I bought with a laminated LD shafts fell apart in 6 months, it wasn't a OB shaft.
Straight up , I felt ripped off, and (still) do .
I feel point blank lied too............................................
Doesn't give me the right to insult you, please forgive me.
Sorry to say this doesn't change the fact that some of the Laminated LD shaft are made by some companies as cheap as possible and then they will not warranty their product. And its to bad more owners do not chime in like you.
MMike
They're not full splice.
They're radial lamination.
In shaft technology, there is front end mass, front shaft frequency,the rigidity of the shaft.
All these are very important aspects on a shaft.
The ferrule type and construction also plays it's part. Of course with a ferrule-less shaft that aspect is taken away.
Then there is the technology in making composite cue shafts, which has a totally different dynamic to it.
Neil
All these are very important aspects on a shaft.
The ferrule type and construction also plays it's part. Of course with a ferrule-less shaft that aspect is taken away.
Then there is the technology in making composite cue shafts, which has a totally different dynamic to it.
Neil
A little bit of History on Low Deflection term
As I personally remember it, the very first time I heard anyone talking about shaft deflection, it was Bob Meucci, and I believe he coined that "Low D" term. The time period was the early part of 83 or 84, and it was in regards to how he stated his flat faced joint caused the shaft to have less deflection with the cue-ball at impact. Thus begins the sad commentary on how many shaft manufacturers of today have fallen prey to the subtle, but incorrect, analysis of what is actually going on with this technology. I've actually had one of the LD shaft company owners tell me he would go broke if he correctly described this phenomenon to his patronizing public!
"Now tell me, "does that seem RIGHT???".
As I personally remember it, the very first time I heard anyone talking about shaft deflection, it was Bob Meucci, and I believe he coined that "Low D" term. The time period was the early part of 83 or 84, and it was in regards to how he stated his flat faced joint caused the shaft to have less deflection with the cue-ball at impact. Thus begins the sad commentary on how many shaft manufacturers of today have fallen prey to the subtle, but incorrect, analysis of what is actually going on with this technology. I've actually had one of the LD shaft company owners tell me he would go broke if he correctly described this phenomenon to his patronizing public!
"Now tell me, "does that seem RIGHT???".
Last edited:
All I can say is if my competitor markets a low deflection shaft and I market a low squirt shaft I would be at a competitive disadvantage in the pool world as it is mainly masculine driven and the boy in most of us never truly grows up.....
He said squirt.... heheheheheh
Add to that that physics dictates equal and opposite why does deflection have to be about the shaft and squirt about the balls. Shouldn't they inerchanerrrrr HAHAHAHA see what I did there????
As long as we all know what is meant I have no issue... And since ALL major manufacturers of low end mass shafts refer to the technology as Low Deflection I don't see anyone jumping on the bandwagon to change soon... Wonder how many pages of ads and print media would have to be amended...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/...Words-That-Have-Changed-Their-Meaning-Part-1#
I vote to change the definitions of the offending words... Squirt now has to do with the shaft and deflection has to do with the balls and the angle of the dangle must be proportional to the mass of the HAHAHAAHA... ohhh man I hope I never grow up.....
Chris
He said squirt.... heheheheheh
Add to that that physics dictates equal and opposite why does deflection have to be about the shaft and squirt about the balls. Shouldn't they inerchanerrrrr HAHAHAHA see what I did there????
As long as we all know what is meant I have no issue... And since ALL major manufacturers of low end mass shafts refer to the technology as Low Deflection I don't see anyone jumping on the bandwagon to change soon... Wonder how many pages of ads and print media would have to be amended...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/...Words-That-Have-Changed-Their-Meaning-Part-1#
I vote to change the definitions of the offending words... Squirt now has to do with the shaft and deflection has to do with the balls and the angle of the dangle must be proportional to the mass of the HAHAHAAHA... ohhh man I hope I never grow up.....
Chris
As I personally remember it, the very first time I heard anyone talking about shaft deflection, it was Bob Meucci, and I believe he coined that "Low D" term. The time period was the early part of 83 or 84, and it was in regards to how he stated his flat faced joint caused the shaft to have less deflection with the cue-ball at impact. Thus begins the sad commentary on how many shaft manufacturers of today have fallen prey to the subtle, but incorrect, analysis of what is actually going on with this technology. I've actually had one of the LD shaft company owners tell me he would go broke if he correctly described this phenomenon to his patronizing public!
"Now tell me, "does that seem RIGHT???".
Meucci may well have coined the phase first. As for shaft makers not understanding what is going on I would disagree. That they all, including myself, use the term as described by Predator, yes and as Renfro states any one that tried to market a shaft using the correct references would be at a considerable disadvantage unless they had a few hundred thousand dollars to throw at advertizing in the first year or two.
Fallacious Logic=The Term Squirt( a Strawman Arguement)
The term "squirt" has it's origin with the same Bob Meucci. Now Bob was"trying" to correctly identify the more accurate term "swerve" describing the cue-ball path after impact. It's a formula that include's, the friction co-efficient of the cloth, the mass of the ball (both of these are constants), the velocity of the cue at impact with the ball, and the amount of angular momentum imparted to the ball as spin (these are the solvable variables in the cue-balls path after impact). All in for the cue-ball at impact the rest of it's path is more accurately described as a swerving path, or cue-ball "swerve."
Now the term Squirt, was another feeble attempt at describing something that is a cue-ball only event and is better properly described as stated above with the term "swerve." [Renfro's strawman arguement is just that, a bunny trail of B.S. (by the way, if you knew Chris you'd get that!!!)]
The term low deflection tries to combine the inaccurate description of the cue-balls path with the vibration of the shaft at impact, and it doesn't work! Deflection takes place with the shaft only (if you tried to measure deflection on the cue-ball, you'd need an electron microscope)!!!
And, by the way, who decided that High deflection is a bad term for a shaft's performance? If we're talking about the actual characteristics of how the shaft reacts at impact with the cue-ball and "NOT" trying to tie this event together with a phony description that labels the cue-balls path with the shafts vibration characteristics, high deflection is just that, a description of what is actually going on with one portion of this event, the shafts part in the event. In Renfro's description it would be a low-end mass, low swerve, shaft. (Low squirt DOES evoke images of the runs, and not the high runs at the table either). Hey that's interesting High Runs, what pool player doesn't want to have those at the table???
So, as far as advertising goes, if you miss label your product, but the public buys the gimic it's O.K.? I'd bet "ALL" the cheese, that's how come people think this technology is bogus!!!!
The term "squirt" has it's origin with the same Bob Meucci. Now Bob was"trying" to correctly identify the more accurate term "swerve" describing the cue-ball path after impact. It's a formula that include's, the friction co-efficient of the cloth, the mass of the ball (both of these are constants), the velocity of the cue at impact with the ball, and the amount of angular momentum imparted to the ball as spin (these are the solvable variables in the cue-balls path after impact). All in for the cue-ball at impact the rest of it's path is more accurately described as a swerving path, or cue-ball "swerve."
Now the term Squirt, was another feeble attempt at describing something that is a cue-ball only event and is better properly described as stated above with the term "swerve." [Renfro's strawman arguement is just that, a bunny trail of B.S. (by the way, if you knew Chris you'd get that!!!)]
The term low deflection tries to combine the inaccurate description of the cue-balls path with the vibration of the shaft at impact, and it doesn't work! Deflection takes place with the shaft only (if you tried to measure deflection on the cue-ball, you'd need an electron microscope)!!!
And, by the way, who decided that High deflection is a bad term for a shaft's performance? If we're talking about the actual characteristics of how the shaft reacts at impact with the cue-ball and "NOT" trying to tie this event together with a phony description that labels the cue-balls path with the shafts vibration characteristics, high deflection is just that, a description of what is actually going on with one portion of this event, the shafts part in the event. In Renfro's description it would be a low-end mass, low swerve, shaft. (Low squirt DOES evoke images of the runs, and not the high runs at the table either). Hey that's interesting High Runs, what pool player doesn't want to have those at the table???
So, as far as advertising goes, if you miss label your product, but the public buys the gimic it's O.K.? I'd bet "ALL" the cheese, that's how come people think this technology is bogus!!!!
RBC
Deceased
Unfortunately, a "Few Hundred Thousand" wouldn't do it. Not even close!
I don't know if any amount of money would do it. The thing about marketing in the pool industry is that it's slow. Real slow. Sure, there are the few like us who really pay attention that would see it right away, but for every one of us, there are thousands that currently play pool but have no idea what's current. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, " Earl is sponsored by CueTec", when he hasn't been with them for years.
Royce