Trying to decide on a LD shaft

Catalin

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Consider the IQ Infinity shaft as well, custom built to your specs e.g. tip diameter, joint collar, weight - and as stiff as they get.

Julian
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I agree a smaller shaft can mess with the visualization of applying spin in a way that may cause a player to address the cue ball further from the center than it normally looks on a thicker shaft. I think that’s an issue of alignment.

But regarding your comment on needing a laser straight stroke, I feel like any unwanted deviation in stroke will affect the cue ball in equivalent amounts of undesirable effects between a thin and thick shaft. It seems if my stick deviates 3mm then my tips point of contact moves 3mm also, no matter the size of shaft. I’d guess if anything affected that (minutely), it would be tip radius and not tip diameter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Be the first to admit i'm not a billiard scientist but all i know is i play like s^*t with a 11.75-12mm euro-taper shaft. Miss more balls(and position) than the law allows. Part of this,in all honesty, is the fact i have long thin fingers and i can't clamp down well on a small shaft. The combo of size, taper, and look just jack me up to no end. The best i played when younger was with a full 13mm, steel-joint, ivory ferruled Richard Black cue. Didn't know what deflection was back then. You just played pool.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
I agree a smaller shaft can mess with the visualization of applying spin in a way that may cause a player to address the cue ball further from the center than it normally looks on a thicker shaft. I think that’s an issue of alignment.
This doesn't compute for me. With a thinner shaft there's more visible space between centerball and the shaft for the same offset - which should cause the player to adjust more toward center, not farther away from it.

But regarding your comment on needing a laser straight stroke, I feel like any unwanted deviation in stroke will affect the cue ball in equivalent amounts of undesirable effects between a thin and thick shaft. It seems if my stick deviates 3mm then my tips point of contact moves 3mm also, no matter the size of shaft. I’d guess if anything affected that (minutely), it would be tip radius and not tip diameter.
Agree with this.

pj
chgo
 

336Robin

Multiverse Operative
Silver Member
So I am planning on purchasing a new Schon cue in the next couple of weeks and was wondering opinions on low deflection shafts. I am looking for one that has a stiff hit. I am currently mostly considering a Mezz WX900 or OB Pro+, but I would like to hear of any that might feel better.

I have enjoyed the Jacoby Edge but they have been improved. I haven't tried
the new version but I don't need to have two great shafts. If the new is improved you
can't go wrong. It is much less squirt to deal with in comparison to regular maple. I use
an Elkmaster Tip to give me a softer hit and like it but its almost too soft.
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This doesn't compute for me. With a thinner shaft there's more visible space between centerball and the shaft for the same offset - which should cause the player to adjust more toward center, not farther away from it.



pj

chgo


That’s the crux of it. How does the player visualize a given magnitude of spin and do they make adjustments when applying that magnitude with a thinner/thicker shaft?

My hypothetical is a player that visualizes the magnitude of spin based on the offset of “shaft center” from cueball center, thinner shaft means actual tip contact is further out with greater spin (assuming closer to tip edge contact) provided no adjustments are made.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
It seems if my stick deviates 3mm then my tips point of contact moves 3mm also, no matter the size of shaft. I’d guess if anything affected that (minutely), it would be tip radius and not tip diameter.

,,,based on the offset of “shaft center” from cueball center, thinner shaft means actual tip contact is further out with greater spin (assuming closer to tip edge contact) provided no adjustments are made.
Maybe I'm misreading you, but these two statements seem contradictory. As I said above, I agree with the first one:

Assuming their curvatures are the same, a thinner tip hits the CB in the same place as a fatter one, producing the same amount of spin.
...

Think of a thinner tip as being the same as the inner part of a fatter tip - the extra outer layer on the fatter tip only hits the CB on shots with near maximum spin. Otherwise it's as if they're the same tip.

pj
chgo
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Maybe I'm misreading you, but these two statements seem contradictory. As I said above, I agree with the first one:

pj
chgo

My one statement was about the magnitude of offset caused by stroke error. If you accidentally move the shaft 3mm, the tip contact point is also moved 3mm.

My other statement was about how you approach addressing the cueball with spin. IF your approach is based on shaft center, your tip contact point MAY be further out with a thinner shaft if you don't make any other adjustments visually/mentally (see picture). The effect of this is dependent on how you visualize addressing the cue ball. And the effect is greater the further from center you are. But if you're close to center, then there's likely no difference.
 

Attachments

  • Tip Contact Point.png
    Tip Contact Point.png
    37.8 KB · Views: 382
Last edited:

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
IF your approach is based on shaft center, your tip contact point MAY be further out with a thinner shaft if you don't make any other adjustments visually/mentally (see picture). The effect of this is dependent on how you visualize addressing the cue ball. And the effect is greater the further from center you are. But if you're close to center, then there's likely no difference.
This is the part I disagree with. As I said earlier, the difference between thinner and fatter tips (with the same curvature) is only the tiny outer layer that fatter tips have and thinner ones don't. The rest of the tips are identical - and that outer layer only comes into contact with the CB on extreme spin shots. For all other amounts of spin the contact points are identical - there's no "greater effect the further from center you are" until you get to that outer layer, i.e., at maximum spin. And even then the difference is only that the fatter tip may be able to hit slightly farther from center before miscuing.

pj
chgo

P.S. Your illustration shows this pretty well (except the difference is exaggerated).

Here's an illustration I did years ago about this - the tip widths and curvatures are to scale, 10mm vs. 12.75mm widths and nickel vs. dime radii. Notice that, even comparing with a tiny 10mm tip (about like a snooker tip) and a nickel curvature, the extra width doesn't come into play until right at the miscue limit.

View attachment 31381
 

Attachments

  • Tips Shafts & Miscue Limits.jpg
    Tips Shafts & Miscue Limits.jpg
    47.1 KB · Views: 355
Last edited:

Pete

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I shoot with a Webb LD Shaft. Haven't looked elsewhere. Though would try a Revo if it had my joint...
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This is the part I disagree with. As I said earlier, the difference between thinner and fatter tips (with the same curvature) is only the tiny outer layer that fatter tips have and thinner ones don't. The rest of the tips are identical - and that outer layer only comes into contact with the CB on extreme spin shots. For all other amounts of spin the contact points are identical - there's no "greater effect the further from center you are" until you get to that outer layer, i.e., at maximum spin. And even then the difference is only that the fatter tip may be able to hit slightly farther from center before miscuing.

pj
chgo

P.S. Your illustration shows this pretty well (except the difference is exaggerated).

Here's an illustration I did years ago about this - the tip widths and curvatures are to scale, 10mm vs. 12.75mm widths and nickel vs. dime radii. Notice that, even comparing with a tiny 10mm tip (about like a snooker tip) and a nickel curvature, the extra width doesn't come into play until right at the miscue limit.

View attachment 31381


I’m tracking with you now. I stand corrected.

It’s funny. My first foray into a smaller shaft was also my switch from nickel to dime. So that may have polluted my takeaways. I remember the visualization of addressing the tip to the cue ball was very foreign with a thinner shaft. I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion but the premise is still there that you need to adapt to how different it looks visually before it’ll get comfortable and start to fit your game. Depending on the adjustments you do or don’t make, your results may not feel natural for a while.

And that won’t demand anything different from your stroke itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
It’s funny. My first foray into a smaller shaft was also my switch from nickel to dime. So that may have polluted my takeaways. I remember the visualization of addressing the tip to the cue ball was very foreign with a thinner shaft. I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion but the premise is still there that you need to adapt to how different it looks visually before it’ll get comfortable and start to fit your game. Depending on the adjustments you do or don’t make, your results may not feel natural for a while.
Yeah, it's a different visual for sure, and takes some adjustment. I've been playing with my 10mm tip for about 15 years now - on the odd occasion I try to play with a fatter tip it looks like a baseball bat to me - and it's less than 1/8" wider!

pj
chgo
 

THam

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Perhaps I will consider going up to a 12.5mm shaft.

What are some opinions about getting an OB Classic+ and turning it down? Or should I just try a WX700 or ExPro (I don't think I can find one to try out).
 

BigBoof

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Do they make the ExPro for 5/16 x 14?
I have the ex pro with the united joint, which is basically a much better version of a 5/16-14 joint. I use it on a Schon. One knock is they are pretty expensive, if you can find one. Last I saw was $415. The cuetec carbon fiber shaft might be a better option.

Sent from my BLN-L24 using Tapatalk
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So I am planning on purchasing a new Schon cue in the next couple of weeks and was wondering opinions on low deflection shafts. I am looking for one that has a stiff hit. I am currently mostly considering a Mezz WX900 or OB Pro+, but I would like to hear of any that might feel better.
If you are a good enough player to handle a 12mm shaft, I'd strongly recommend the Mezz WX900 shaft with the conical taper. I've just recently switched from a Mezz EXPro 12.5mm wavy joint shaft on my Mezz Exceed butt to a Mezz WX900 12mm wavy joint shaft and there is a huge difference in deflection - virtually almost no deflection with the WX900, even though the EXPro is advertised as a very advanced low deflection shaft. The hit/feel is extremely stiff, even with the Kamui soft tip which came on it, which I'm not a big fan of. I may switch to a Zan soft or Zan medium tip soon. I tried a Revo 12.9mm for a number of months and the Mezz WX900 deflects significantly less then the Revo, and with far better feel. If you are looking to almost entirely eliminate needing to compensate for deflection in your aiming process when loading up with spin, I highly recommend this shaft.
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You don't need to be "good enough" to use a 12mm shaft. It works like any other shaft.

pj
chgo
I guess there are differing opinions on that. My theory is the smaller the shaft thickness, the harder it is to hit dead center on the cue ball and the easier it is to unintentionally hit just off dead center which applies unwanted spin / swerve / deflection, which can be the cause of misses.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
My theory is the smaller the shaft thickness, the harder it is to hit dead center on the cue ball and the easier it is to unintentionally hit just off dead center which applies unwanted spin / swerve / deflection, which can be the cause of misses.
It's a common belief, but mistaken. With an offcenter stroke you hit the same offcenter spot on the CB with any tip, no matter how large or small.

pj
chgo

P.S. To be perfectly accurate, there's a tiny difference with a dime vs. a nickel tip curvature, but for any size tip with the same curvature it's all the same.
 

S.Vaskovskyi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So I am planning on purchasing a new Schon cue in the next couple of weeks and was wondering opinions on low deflection shafts. I am looking for one that has a stiff hit. I am currently mostly considering a Mezz WX900 or OB Pro+, but I would like to hear of any that might feel better.
If you like the stiff hit of the shaft than first of all it depends on materials and construction used and secondly the taper of the shaft. When it comes to me I prefer solid wood shafts build out of some special old, hard and stiff maple. I've built one for myself (ferrule less 31") with carbon fiber core at the joint end and c.f. tube at the tip end. It is 12,5 mm at the tip and let's say modified taper I ended up with after turning down and trying till I was happy with the result. At the end it turned out fairly stiff bearing in mind it is 31". I've experienced only Revo 12.9 was stiffer than mine. I've heard a lot of good reviews about Mezz shafts. They have a lot to offer you but if you look for the stiffest of them than consider Hybrid Pro2 and WX900. If you don't mind the pricey c.f. shafts than as I mentioned Revo 12.9 is the stiffest I've tried.
Here are some videos of me testing my current playing 62" cue.:thumbup:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qXZmIz5t74w
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9lANZ-olbHM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oXIIAAdIgm0
 

Attachments

  • rps20190318_005330.jpg
    rps20190318_005330.jpg
    120.1 KB · Views: 223
Top