The butt diameter thread seemed to fizzle into a FEEL GOOD discussion. So i was curious at what point diameters turn into a power concern? Some of the builders are excellent players as well, and understand that it's difficult to push a 2 1/4'' ball around with a pencil. With so many combinations of wood and other components, there is no one size fits all. My experiance has been that most people are influenced by the thin feel. And i try to push that feel... even though i would be concidered, to the fat side. But i have a certain diameter limit, and if i go .020 under, i will most surely end up with a buggy whip that has a significant power loss. Although certain shaft tapers will help some, .020 is alot over 29''. Some thin, light cues and especially with long tapers... i swear, it feels more like the ball is hitting the cue instead of vice versa. Good feed back should not include getting your elbow knocked out of socket. I will not mention any specific diameters... in an attempt not to ruffle any sensitive feathers. But what is your secret? How do you maintain a good solid hit with the thinner diameters?
Cue Diameter/Powerloss?
- Thread starter fugdbdt
- Start date
How do you maintain a good solid hit with the thinner diameters?
Trade secrets.
Trade secrets.
Ok, fiberglass coating?Sheldon said:
fugdbdt said:
I researched your other posts & it appears that you are a new cuemaker or at least a wannabee. Remember that there are a LOT of experienced Qmakers here & that if you want to ask a specific question, then just ask it. Your ramblings about pencils pushing something or other make little or no sense to real craftsmam. AS to the question of whether the diameter of either the butt or shaft diameter affect the POWER of the cue to the cueball.....NO...JER
BLACKHEARTCUES said:
Amen Jerry. I started to make a response to this thread and then just let it slide. Lately I've been making, maybe, to many responses that are more opinions than proven facts and starting a number of arguments so I've been letting some stuff ride that normally I would make a snide comment on. this was one of them.
Dick
BLACKHEARTCUES said:
Your research is accurate. I am a humble wannabee. And my post should have been to the point. After looking at the post again i understand what your saying. Im embarassed to say, that is plain english where i hang out. Obviously im having trouble when i cut away too much backbone from my cue and i was looking for a more constructive answer. With all of the solid construction discussion, the word HIT seems to be fairly illusive. And in my opinion the two arent that condusive. A solid built cue can hit rather poorly as we hear occaisionally. I would be happy to get my deminsions down to a more comfortable feel without going to the extream that cuetec did and still maintain good power. Im a discriminating player and have won many team city championships and notice subtle changes in cues. I have never been quite content with one of my cues. Speaking as a player i hope i stay that way. Before quiting in 97, i made a couple hundred cues... 4 and 5 points, 6 and 8 points staggered with veneers. And fairly decent stitch ring work and windows but never had a way for inlay work. I just enjoy learning all i can, like some here. Hopefully i have managed to side step any pool room jibberish again. My intent was to prompt discussion about the energy of a cue and its ability to project the ball the most effortlessly. Dimentions being the most critical factor in that for me so far. Hopefully there was no problem with what i said, but rather the way that i said it. Once again... my humble apology to the craftsman here. bob
Why not grab a caliper and measure? Measure the collar size, bottom of the forearm and bottom of the buttsleeve of your favorite cue.fugdbdt said:
I for one think 20 thousandths of an inch changes the hit a lot.
Can of worms but that's my 2 cents.
fugdbdt said:
.020" is only 1/2 of a millimeter in diameter. I myself have short fingers & feel comfortable with a 12 1/2 mm tip. That doesn't mean that the shaft is whippy. My taper grows slightly, from the tip through the stroking area & then grows more quickly, with several tapers, to the joint .The smaller tip area, doesn't effect the the solidness of the hit. My playing Q is 20-1/4 oz. Because the tip is smaller, should not make much of a difference in the solidness of the hit. A thin tapered shaft, with the combination of a light weight Q, may have the less than solid hit, you are talking about. Hope this helps...JER
JoeyInCali said:
Are you sitting down? 1.295... 1.030 ... .865 My shaft taper sounds like Jer's except 13mm. Im used to a really powerful cue but i think i could be stuck in a different time warp. Untill the early 90's, most everyone locally was breaking with their shooting cue. At that time, the big coin op cue ball was used in all tournaments on the indian reservation and BCA as well as bar room. So alot more was demanded from a cue. Most of the production cue's would not draw that big ball over a couple of feet. My cues and joss east would handle that ball pretty well. Im sure there were lots of others. Im old school... maybe i shouldnt buck change so much.
The next cue i build is going to be cone tapered all the way to the tip.
I did find a thread Jer started called (60'' cue). It started as a balance topic and ended in a power discussion. That added 2'' really showed up as an issue. The last reply was most interesting. The builder keept his butt dia. the same and tapered only .010 or .020 less to the joint and it made all the difference. The worse cue i ever made was a 60''. bob
I have a sneaky pete made by Mike Bender that has a joint @ 0.780". Mike's original shaft's spine lines up perfectly with the spine in the maple forearm and plays great. I also ordered a long tapered shaft from Ed Young, but due to circumstances it wound up being made by DPK, with very tight grain and ivory ferrule @ 12.5mm. There is no loss of power with this setup and, in fact, it does some pretty amazing things.
Last edited: