No amount of bridge tightness that still allows the cue to be stroked through it is tight enough for that.
Uh... OK.
Whatever it is, it's definitely not physics.
pj
chgo
The softer the tip, the more spin you can get? is this accurate.
- Thread starter asbani
- Start date
pj
chgo
Hold the stick by the butt end and drop it tip first onto the floor. If it was vertical, you get a vertical return. Incidentally, this is a good test for a cues linearity; evenly dressed tip presumed. A slightly angled drop gives you an angled return. This my friend is spring action. Further, the rebound force is strong enough to displace an object weighing well over a pound.
Poor cue ball hasn't a prayer. :grin-square:
First off, please bear in mind that it is an unwritten requirement to have at least one hundred posts here before you start posting. Intelligent posts require at least five hundred posts before you can post them!
About tip size, the vast majority of players aim with the center of their shaft, never mind what part of their tip is hitting the cue ball. As a result, most people do hit more accurately with a smaller tip. Too, the smaller shaft might be similar to smaller sights on a firearm. Assuming you can see them clearly, you can shoot more accurately with small precise sights than with big coarse sights.
Once you have been here longer you will realize we have about a half-dozen debates we have flogged to death long ago but we still drag them out for one more lap around the block now and then!
I have seen time of hit mentioned countless times, or seemingly countless times. Not once have I seen the results of quality of hit testing. What is the slip factor for various chalks, tips, tip shapes, and shafts? If all tips we play with all grab with less than ten percent slippage at some point in the stroke, then most of the things we are discussing don't matter a whole lot, we learn how to play with our favorite tip. Now suppose that the slip factor is more like fifty percent at the minimum rate of slippage for a tip. Now quality of hit and the time a tip stays on a cue ball matters a great deal more. I have seen testing comparing different components, I haven't seen any absolute tests. With no testing of this sort, we are all whistling in the wind. When we don't know things like slippage, we can't possibly calculate if 50% more time of contact between a tip and cue ball means anything or not.
Ultimately we go with whomever has the most credentials or who presents the best arguments in discussion. Years ago I clearly won a technical discussion. A week or two later I discovered that despite my brilliant debating abilities,(grin) I was wrong! I spent days trying to convince people I was wrong the first time and some never believed it!
These technical debates tend to leave out enough variables that we are all guessing or basing our beliefs on real world testing. One of the things I did in R&D was set up testing in the lab. Never once did calculations trump what happened in the lab!
Among other things you have to be more than a little obsessed to perform at the level Florian does. If he says soft tips spin more I would take it to the bank that for him they do.
Oh yeah, welcome to the forums if I haven't said that already. Anyone that can discuss things without resorting to fighting is always welcome, doesn't matter if they have a few posts or tens of thousands like some here. Not poking a finger at anyone in this discussion but some people that have been doing something for twenty years have twenty years of experience. Others have one year of experience repeated twenty times like a coworker I once had. Twenty years on the job and he still made rookie mistakes.
Come in, play nice, Welcome!!
Hu
Shooting arts, I understand your feelings, all too well. Look at my below situation that went, where??? In my Measles thread. Ironically, I've never weighed a cue ball or ANY object ball in my life. Weighed...some zzzzzzzzz' s in the 60's but never kept that scale.
Jtompilot just
said this in my measles thread. and I quote''''Sorry Bill but I don’t believe your story for one second providing we are talking about new cue balls all weighing 168 grams.''
If anyone read my thread, its obvious I did not say this, another poster said 168.
So why did he choose to say this???
Last edited:
Bill, also make sure you're using a cue ball that matches your ball set. Try a couple of different cue balls or different ball sets if you can. A cue and tip only goes so far, I have found the conditions and equipment affect this a lot more than the tip. Cue balls vary in their surface finishes and weight - this affects the shots a lot.
A lot of other things affect the ability to draw the cue ball. The ball itself, whether it's matched to the set, the condition and brand, the humidity, the condition and brand of the cloth. At home I am playing with the new Aramith Tournament Pro balls on new Simonis and it's a dream. I love the control and ease of draw shots. Once you break in the the cloth and wear off the slippery sheen, then it plays like it's supposed to. Then I go to the pool hall and their mismatched K Mart ball sets on junk cloth are nothing like my stuff, the ball draws half as much.
Last edited:
What would lead you to believe that significant slippage is a thing? Particularly for shots at any speed at all, it seems to me that as soon as slippage starts to occur it results in a miscue, so you have either have essentially no slippage, or you have a miscue, but not much in between. Curious to hear why you believe that two round high speed (in relation to each other) objects colliding with each other (and with one of them being extremely hard and smooth) would have significant slippage (you even mention 50% slippage) that doesn't result in a miscue?
painfullyslow
Registered
Hi Hu and thank you for the informative response. I was unaware of the posting requirements so I will try to limit my first 500 posts to 'I could beat you blindfolded', 'back in my day the cue ball was made of rock, new players have it so easy', and the ever popular 'you suck hurhurhurhur'. My apologies for the breach in forum etiquette :grin:
I believe that Hu was throwing that 50% number out as an extreme example to bring a point across as part of an intelligent debate...he is allowed as he has over 500 posts.
Now tip slippage is a very interesting point to consider and Hu makes some very valid points. I am of the opinion that the time of contact between tip and cue is measured in fractions of a second...I have no hard evidence of this, just my basic understanding of the physics of colliding objects coupled with a few decades of pool experience. If someone would like to send me a 4000 frame per second video camera, I will gladly conduct the exercise to prove this out.
There will always be some loss of energy between two colliding objects, especially when one of them is smooth and round. The great equalizer here is chalk. This minimizes the loss...'slippage' as we are calling it here. A chalked tip transfers more of its energy to the cue ball which I hope we can all agree on. If you doubt this, wipe off all the chalk and try an extreme draw shot...let me know how that goes.
Since there is a layer of chalk between the tip and the cue, tip softness *should* have minimal impact on the amount of energy transferred UNLESS it is being struck hard enough to cause the tip to significantly deform, thus increasing the contact patch between tip and cue. Note that I said 'minimal' and not 'none'.
I would say that the reason Florian prefers a soft tip is because the majority of his shots ARE hit hard enough to cause this deformation, thus transferring more spin however for those of us trying to pocket balls instead of launching them off a table in a stunt shot, we should almost never be hitting this hard. Frankly, if you do, you really should focus more on playing better position...I consider myself to be something of an expert on this phenomenon, and will gladly offer evidence if needed.
Anyway, this brings my back around to my original statement that the tip shape and size is far more relevant than tip firmness.
I realize that this is a lot of that 'pesky' science stuff for some people so I will end with the following statement: I can draw a hell of a lot more with an 11.5mm tip than I can with my usual 12.5 which supports this theory. I sacrifice control however so I have settled on 12.5 as what works for me, giving the best combination of both cue ball action and control.
However, even more important than all of the above is the ability to deliver a smooth, confident stroke. That is the magic of shooting pool...the stroke. The evidence to support this theory is all over this thread. We have people who shoot with super-soft to super hard tips, from flat to dime shaped...and all shoot well enough to be posting on a billiards forum. This should clue all of us in that ALL of the above offerings work. In the end, it comes down to whatever gives you the confidence needed to improve your stroke.
Dammit Hu, I have done it again and for that I apologize. In recompense I offer this off-topic and vaguely demeaning image for the 'Earth is flat' crowd.
Thank you, NASA.
Last edited:
Thx for your thoughts....but a measles ball is a measles ball, and the matching up part, I'm not understanding that comment. I want a cue ball they use allot, and don't think of the matching cue ball from the new set as a concern, this next week I'll be playing in a small event with the belguim red circle cue ball, been awhile, but I know that cue ball well.
Everything is new on the 62 GC I, rail cushions, Aramith balls, Measles, cloth, the exact same conditions as the pros. The table guy is David Isaccs outta Ft. Collins a Diamond Table mechanic for about 10 yrs now. I had to wait about 5 mths due to his work load. He also replaced the wood below the top rails....told me he had fun doing it, he prefers working on GC's was his comment. The wood below the top rails was replaced, due to excessive stapling/recovering of this players table in Denver at the Family Fun Center. FFC was the oldest pool room in Denver down the street from Elitches Amusememt Park, now it's no longer there, like Balukus's place. Omaha Fats used to live there in that room, as did Medina when he finally changed from bar tables to the nine footers.
The cloth is pulled Tight, when I did my table vacuuming, with a new portable good suction, the cloth never lifted, or did it move when I wet ragged it. Maybe in time it will loosen and I will get more draw, as I think is beginning to happen. Tried 4 different tips now, getting/going to try a dud on my second ld shaft from Fach Garcia, he's also making a ''dart'' jump cue for me. Allowing my 6'6'' frame to stand Over and inline with the shot I'm jumping. Thought about that design/my own for many years, when I stopped playing, after the divorce. I'm outta here.
That's because the cloth was slower than hell. I played a lot of pool pre-Simonis and you had to have some power to play on it. We had fairly new Centennials where i played and they never used car wax/polish on them. Current auto waxes/polishes use a small amount of silicone mostly to make them easier to apply. If these are used on pool balls they won't have a big effect on how they play. Plus it will come off pretty quick after a few hits.
The amount of energy lost in the tip is somewhere around 10%. Harder tips lose less energy in general which is why break tips are sometimes phenolic.
I made no reference to anything to do with soft verses hard tips so I will ignore those bits as it is a slightly different topic (albeit the orignial topic, just not the one I posed the question about). I am simply talking about the very existence of significant "slippage" for any shot of any significant speed.
I saw where you essentially argued that almost no slippage can and does happen. I saw where you essentially argued that a miscue (almost total slippage) can and does happen. I didn't see where you provided any argument for why you would believe something in between these, like 50% slippage (or even 25% slippage if you like), can and does happen, although it seems that you may be inferring that you have this belief.
If you or Hu or anyone else is of the belief that significant slippage exists for shots that are not hit super soft, I am simply asking what leads you to have that belief? For these purposes let's define "significant" as being above 5-10%, and let's define "slippage" as a partial miscue, where the tip is to at least some extent sliding across the surface of the cue ball as opposed to either fully staying on a fixed spot on the cue ball, or where the cue ball and cue tip are rolling across each other like gears without slippage.
This is true only insofar as it provides consistency in being able to hit the cue ball on the spot you intended, at the speed you intended, and at the angle you intended, because (for any given set of equipment) these are the only things that have any significant effect on what the cue ball does.
Last edited:
painfullyslow
Registered
Sorry, I should have followed that thought out to its logical conclusion. The fact is that I have no idea how much slippage takes place between the tip and cue ball and my point was that it does not really matter. Whatever the amount actually is, chalk makes this number a constant regardless of tip composition. A properly chalked soft tip should have the same amount of slippage as a properly chalked hard tip if all other factors are equal (same diameter tip, same shape of the tip, same tip placement on cue ball, same stroke speed and delivery) UNLESS the aforementioned hard hit causes deformation of the tip to make the contact patch larger between tip and cue ball.
I did not say that I believe there is a significant amount of slippage, I merely mentioned that it was an interesting factor to consider....in fact I really don't care either way because of what I posted above. Obviously there must be SOME slip between tip and cue ball, but as long as it is a chalked tip, it really shouldn't matter one way or the other. I am sorry if that was not clear in my original response.
Absolutely agree! In the end, the shooter must execute properly which is why I am an advocate of finding a cue/tip/whatever you like and sticking with it. Consistency breeds accuracy. Accuracy breeds confidence.
Oh, and Bob Jewett, I would put forth that we are discussing two different things. A tip slipping along the outer edges of a cue ball is not the same as the potential energy lost when striking a cue ball dead center...two different animals, I think :grin:
I do agree with what you said though, I break with a Phenolic tip and it hits like a truck. Although it is a different topic, I would actually have thought that the percentage of loss in this case would be a lot higher...when I accidentally break with my regular cue, I get significantly less action on the rack.
Last edited:
What exactly do you mean by this, including how much and when? Why do you think it is obvious?
I'm trying to learn what leads some people to believe there is without doubt significant slippage, or to suspect that there is significant slippage, and there seem to be a number of people of one or the other view and you seem to be among them.
Last edited:
I believe that both parts of that sentence are false. Why do you believe they are correct?
painfullyslow
Registered
Let me be clear, twice now. I never said 'significant', you did. I said there is 'some' loss. There has to be. Almost nothing in physics retains 100% of transferred mechanical energy.
As for the how/why? The simple nature of two objects colliding at an angle where the coefficient of friction of the tip must attempt to overcome the moment of inertia of the cue ball to set it in rotational motion, since you asked. Any time two spherical objects collide at anything other than a pure center-to-center hit, there is loss (and even in center to center, there is loss, it is just more pronounced with a 'glancing' strike such as a tip striking off-center on a cue ball).This is basic physics which I am far too lazy to quote here. Google 'elastic collisions of spherical objects on a two dimensional plane' if you would like some light reading material. Don't take my word for it, do your own research.
I already said I do not know how much loss there is, just that there must be 'some'. Again, basic physics. I am not certain why you feel that an exact percentage is relevant to this discussion? In billiards terms, it either mis-cues or it doesn't.
Read above...
Let me be clear, twice now. As with the last post, I am again asking you why you believe it to be the case that some slippage has to occur, and why you feel that "fact" is obvious. I am also asking you how much you think there is (your hypothesis, or best guess, or minimum and maximum amounts you feel are possible).
The argument you provided did absolutely nothing to address why there could be, should be, or would have to be some slippage as you contend there is. Please explain why you feel there is slippage, not why energy cannot be transferred with 100% efficiency or anything else, but why there has to be (according to you) slippage.
Here's a handy memory-jogging acronym: Angle Spot Speed (ASS).
pj <- try to forget it now
chgo
painfullyslow
Registered
I literally did address it in my previous response. Did you google that physics exercise? Of course not. The fact that you do not understand it does not make it any less relevant.
In any case, I am done here. Believe whatever it is that you need to believe to allow yourself to sleep at night.
Would not that slight additional tip offset be more than made up for by the lowered energy transfer? I’m sure we’ve been in this conversation many times before. Seems softer allows a better spin to speed ratio, and a harder tip allows more maximum rpms.
KMRUNOUT
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
damn, I have seen this dog and pony show before!(grin)
My words are getting pretty wildly twisted particularly by a player. I'll quote my favoritest expert, me!
I have seen time of hit mentioned countless times, or seemingly countless times. Not once have I seen the results of quality of hit testing. What is the slip factor for various chalks, tips, tip shapes, and shafts? If all tips we play with all grab with less than ten percent slippage at some point in the stroke, then most of the things we are discussing don't matter a whole lot, we learn how to play with our favorite tip. Now suppose that the slip factor is more like fifty percent at the minimum rate of slippage for a tip. Now quality of hit and the time a tip stays on a cue ball matters a great deal more. I have seen testing comparing different components, I haven't seen any absolute tests. With no testing of this sort, we are all whistling in the wind. When we don't know things like slippage, we can't possibly calculate if 50% more time of contact between a tip and cue ball means anything or not.
Note I speculated about slippage factors of less than ten percent and as high as fifty percent. There is a lot of difference between speculation clearly described as such and stating something is fact. Painfullyslow, if you go to dave's black hole you can probably find both high speed photography and video of a tip hitting a cue ball. I think the amount of distortion will surprise you.
A soft tip does distort a lot with a medium firm hit, not a monster blow by any means. It gives more surface area than a hard tip at some point. Does it ever give as firm a surface as a hard tip? Is the wider area of a soft tip more important than the more solid contact of a hard tip? Any reasonably intelligent person can make good arguments for either position but as far as I know they remain unproven by testing. Snooker players spin the ball as much as anybody when they take a notion and generally favor soft tips. Pool players generally follow the hard tip trend. They can spin the ball quite well too.
There is slippage with any off center hit to the cue ball. How much is just one of the unknowns we deal with. One fun theory is that a soft tip holds the cue ball a bit as it moves out after initial contact and you can effectively hit further out with a soft tip getting greater spin.
We could indulge in speculation with a handful of unknowns. It is much easier to put a tip on a stick and go hit a ball.
Hu
My words are getting pretty wildly twisted particularly by a player. I'll quote my favoritest expert, me!
I have seen time of hit mentioned countless times, or seemingly countless times. Not once have I seen the results of quality of hit testing. What is the slip factor for various chalks, tips, tip shapes, and shafts? If all tips we play with all grab with less than ten percent slippage at some point in the stroke, then most of the things we are discussing don't matter a whole lot, we learn how to play with our favorite tip. Now suppose that the slip factor is more like fifty percent at the minimum rate of slippage for a tip. Now quality of hit and the time a tip stays on a cue ball matters a great deal more. I have seen testing comparing different components, I haven't seen any absolute tests. With no testing of this sort, we are all whistling in the wind. When we don't know things like slippage, we can't possibly calculate if 50% more time of contact between a tip and cue ball means anything or not.
Note I speculated about slippage factors of less than ten percent and as high as fifty percent. There is a lot of difference between speculation clearly described as such and stating something is fact. Painfullyslow, if you go to dave's black hole you can probably find both high speed photography and video of a tip hitting a cue ball. I think the amount of distortion will surprise you.
A soft tip does distort a lot with a medium firm hit, not a monster blow by any means. It gives more surface area than a hard tip at some point. Does it ever give as firm a surface as a hard tip? Is the wider area of a soft tip more important than the more solid contact of a hard tip? Any reasonably intelligent person can make good arguments for either position but as far as I know they remain unproven by testing. Snooker players spin the ball as much as anybody when they take a notion and generally favor soft tips. Pool players generally follow the hard tip trend. They can spin the ball quite well too.
There is slippage with any off center hit to the cue ball. How much is just one of the unknowns we deal with. One fun theory is that a soft tip holds the cue ball a bit as it moves out after initial contact and you can effectively hit further out with a soft tip getting greater spin.
We could indulge in speculation with a handful of unknowns. It is much easier to put a tip on a stick and go hit a ball.
Hu