Low Deflection Shafts?

ENGLISH! said:

xXGEARXx said:

Ron Swanson said:

I have noticed the same shaft on different butts produces different amounts of deflection.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true.

Click to expand...

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Click to expand...

Rick,

If by "deflection," one means net or effective CB deflection (i.e., the combined effects of squirt and swerve, AKA squerve), then I agree completely. I explained this is a recent post. Here it is again:

ENGLISH! said:

if it's just in the front end mass of the shaft that makes the difference then why does a given shaft have different results when put on different butts. IMO that is one example of how incomplete the 'science' is when it comes to pool.

Click to expand...

Physics and careful testing clearly show that squirt (CB deflection) depends only on the effective endmass of the shaft. Therefore, the butt can have no effect on squirt (CB deflection). For more info, see what causes squirt (CB deflection).

However, for a given stroke speed and cue elevation, changing the butt can have an effect on CB swerve and therefore net or effective CB deflection (AKA squerve). For example, if the weight of the butt is different, the CB speed will be different (for a given stroke). CB speed does not affect squirt, but it does affect swerve. Also, the butt can affect the efficiency of the cue's hit, which can also change the CB speed and resulting swerve.

Swerve is a function of CB speed, cue elevation, and ball/cloth conditions. It has nothing to do with the properties of the shaft. That's why when shafts are tested for squirt (CB deflection), the machines should keep the cue horizontal so stroke speed and the butt will have no effect on the measurements of the shaft characteristics. Results from some squirt-testing machines (like Meucci's "Myth Creator" machine) can be misleading and seemingly in conflict with well understood and tested concepts. For more information, see the bullets on the squirt robot test results resource page.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave said:

Even if the hits are consistent and on the equator, if the cue is elevated (as it was in Meucci's tests), there will be swerve. Fast speed can minimize the effects of swerve, but this doesn't change the fact that cue elevation can corrupt squirt (CB deflection) test results. And if the CB is striking an OB (as it was in Meucci's tests), there will be throw, which can also corrupt squirt results. For detailed explanations for how swerve and throw can affect squirt (CB deflection) test results, see the bullets and supporting resources on the squirt robot test results resource page. I think this might help provide you (and others) with a better understanding of and appreciation for these well-understood, well-tested, and well-documented effects.


I couldn't agree more.


I've done countless careful experiments concerning squirt (CB deflection), both with humans and well-designed machines, all with careful testing procedures. Many of the results are documented in the articles, videos, and supporting resources here:

squirt robot test results resource page
"Squirt - Part II: experimental results" (BD, September, 2007)
"Squirt - Part VII: cue test machine results" (BD, February, 2008).
"Return of the squirt robot" (BD, August, 2008).
squirt, swerve, and throw effects resource page

Regards,
Dave

PS: Rick, if you haven't read through the material in the links in my original post quoted above, you should check them out. I and many others have put in countless years of careful study, thought, and testing into these resources and I think the explanations and demonstrations tell a fairly convincing story.

Click to expand...

Hi Dave,

I appreciate all of the time & effort that you & others have devoted. If everyone that has benefited from what you have made available would send you a dollar you would probably be a rather rich man.

I understand isolation. I also understand that isolation does not always give a good picture of 'reality' where such isolation does not exist.

As I said, we do not play in a vacuum.

Yes there are times, especially on a big tables, that the cue can get very very close if not even sometimes actually 'level', but that is not the norm.

There is such a thing as practicality testing.

If all else is equal, as in Mr. Meucci's robot set up, & equal weight & balanced point butts yield different results with the exact same shaft, what would be the logical conclusion?

I'm not saying that that is what was done.

But I have several butts that are extremely close in weight & balance points but are of different construction & I 'know' that they do not play any where near the same with the exact same shaft on them as it relates to squirt.

On a bit of a side note, but I guess not really. I missed a very easy shot with the ball basically in the pocket. I was using TOI & aiming for a bit more than a 1/4 ball hit. Naturally when I missed, I was shocked. I never like missing & not knowing why I missed. So I thought about it & then realized what I had done. I had hit the ball in a manner that I got the squirt but with 'no' swerve because my cue was so 'level' & I had hit very near the equator to maximize the effect for when the ball hit the rail. I very rarely hit very near the equator. I am usually above or below it.

I later set it up again & shot it several times & duplicated the miss. I made the hair adjustment to just lower my bridge a tad so as to hit just a bit lower & the ball pocketed. I had forgotten about the bit of swerve that I would need for that alignment with that shaft.

I understand the parameters.

Regards & Best 2 You & All,
Rick

ENGLISH! said:

Yes there are times, especially on a big tables, that the cue can get very very close if not even sometimes actually 'level', but that is not the norm. There is such a thing as practicality testing.

Click to expand...

Agreed, a cue can rarely be level when playing pool. However, when testing shafts (which is different from playing pool), if one is trying to compare the squirt characteristics of different shafts, one should eliminate as many unrelated and uncontrolled variables as possible (e.g., by eliminating swerve from the tests since it depends on cue elevation, CB speed, and ball/cloth conditions, none of which have anything to do with the shaft's squirt characteristics). As we have seen, poorly designed experiments that include too many uncontrolled variables can produce misleading results.

ENGLISH! said:

If all else is equal, as in Mr. Meucci's robot set up, & equal weight & balanced point butts yield different results with the exact same shaft, what would be the logical conclusion?

Click to expand...

I've heard lots of anecdotes and hearsay about this, but I have not seen results from a carefully-done experiment that shows this effect. If an experiment did yield a result like this, I would suspect that it would be due to swerve resulting from cue elevation. As I pointed out before, if the joint or butt is changed (even if the butt weight is the same), this can change the hit efficiency of the cue. This will result in a different CB speed for the same stroke. And CB speed affects the amount of swerve, as does ball and cloth conditions.

Again, with an elevated cue (as is the case when playing at a table), net CB deflection (the combined effects of squirt and swerve) can be affected by the tip, shaft, joint, and butt. However, if one's goal is to compare different shafts, one should compare them based on squirt (CB deflection) alone, because swerve depends on too many other things that really have nothing to do with the shaft.

ENGLISH! said:

But I have several butts that are extremely close in weight & balance points but are of different construction & I 'know' that they do not play any where near the same with the exact same shaft on them as it relates to squirt.

Click to expand...

If you replace the word "squirt" by "net CB deflection," than I agree that this is possible, based on the explanations above and in my recent posts. However, if you really mean "squirt" here, then I disagree with your claim and I would need to see conclusive proof because the claim refutes the current well-tested and well-studied understanding of what causes squirt.

Regards,
Dave

PS: Did you read the bullets beneath the video on the squirt robot test results page yet? If not, that might be helpful.

dr_dave said:

Agreed, a cue can rarely be level when playing pool. However, when testing shafts (which is different from playing pool), if one is trying to compare the squirt characteristics of different shafts, one should eliminate as many unrelated and uncontrolled variables as possible (e.g., by eliminating swerve from the tests since it depends on cue elevation, CB speed, and ball/cloth conditions, none of which have anything to do with the shaft's squirt characteristics). As we have seen, poorly designed experiments that include too many uncontrolled variables can produce misleading results.

I've heard lots of anecdotes and hearsay about this, but I have not seen results from a carefully-done experiment that shows this effect. If an experiment did yield a result like this, I would suspect that it would be due to swerve resulting from cue elevation. As I pointed out before, if the joint or butt is changed (even if the butt weight is the same), this can change the hit efficiency of the cue. This will result in a different CB speed for the same stroke. And CB speed affects the amount of swerve, as does ball and cloth conditions.

Again, with an elevated cue (as is the case when playing at a table), net CB deflection (the combined effects of squirt and swerve) can be affected by the tip, shaft, joint, and butt. However, if one's goal is to compare different shafts, one should compare them based on squirt (CB deflection) alone, because swerve depends on too many other things that really have nothing to do with the shaft.

If you replace the word "squirt" by "net CB deflection," than I agree that this is possible, based on the explanations above and in my recent posts. However, if you really mean "squirt" here, then I disagree with your claim and I would need to see conclusive proof because the claim refutes the current well-tested and well-studied understanding of what causes squirt.

Regards,
Dave

PS: Did you read the bullets beneath the video on the squirt robot test results page yet? If not, that might be helpful.

Click to expand...

Dave,

I understand the different parameters & how they have an effect.

That is why in my 'hypothesis' & my experience, I said with the same shaft.

Your bullet points are basically in reference to comparing different shafts.

As I asked in my rhetorical question, how many times has science proven the findings of past science wrong?

Science should be an ongoing study with an open mind.

I understand your, prove it to me, mind set.

Perhaps that will happen at some time in the future, but given the lack of testing & study for the cue sports compared to golf, tennis, & even baseball, that may not be until much later in your lifetime.

Regards & Best Wishes 2 You & All,
Rick

PS Please note that I have not made any definitive statements & even put the word 'know' in single quotes as it relates to my experience with very nearly the same weight, balance point butts with different constructions. I realize that they are not exact & only different in their construction, but they are very very near to the same other than their construction. I am just not closed minded to the possibility that another component may have a contributing factor. Perhaps putting the possibility out there might spur someone to do some more in depth experimentation. AZB seems to have a very diverse membership & probably has an even more diverse non member readership.

ENGLISH! said:

I understand your, prove it to me, mind set.

Click to expand...

In case you or others really don't "understand my mind set,"

Whenever I make a claim or suspect something to be true, I am more than happy to carefully analyze and test the theory.

However, when somebody makes claims that are counter to all previous analysis, careful testing, and understanding, then I think the burden of proof is on the person making the non-conventional claims. I certainly am not interested in spending time trying to disprove something that is already well understood and has already been well tested. That would be silly.

Regards,
Dave

PS: BTW, a different butt on the same shaft can not only change the hit efficiency of a cue (which, with an elevated cue, can affect swerve and net CB deflection), it can also give a cue a different hit/feel/feedback/playability. This would not affect results of careful testing of squirt measurements, but it could affect how a person actually plays with the cue. Also, what a person perceives, interprets, or tries to explain based on what they see (or think they see) doesn't always agree with what actually happens.

dr_dave said:

In case you or others really don't "understand my mind set,"

Whenever I make a claim or suspect something to be true, I am more than happy to carefully analyze and test the theory.

However, when somebody makes claims that are counter to all previous analysis, careful testing, and understanding, then I think the burden of proof is on the person making the non-conventional claims. I certainly am not interested in spending time trying to disprove something that is already well understood and has already been well tested. That would be silly.

Regards,
Dave

PS: BTW, a different butt on the same shaft can not only change the hit efficiency of a cue (which, with an elevated cue, can affect swerve and net CB deflection), it can also give a cue a different hit/feel/feedback/playability. This would not affect results of careful testing of squirt measurements, but it could affect how a person actually plays with the cue. Also, what a person perceives, interprets, or tries to explain based on what they see (or think they see) doesn't always agree with what actually happens.

Click to expand...

Dave,

I understand you & can certainly understand your position.

Just to clarify, I am not making & have not made any claim. I am just open to what has sort of been suggested by others, as I have made some 'observations' of my own that have made me wonder & I am open to the possibilities.

Regards & Best 2 You,
Rick

Patrick Johnson said:

LD shafts do what they're supposed to do - reduce CB deflection ("squirt"). Whether or not you want that probably depends on how you like to compensate for squirt when aiming. If you do that by simply aiming a little "off line" when you use spin, then an LD shaft can make that easier and more accurate. If you compensate by pivoting (moving your back hand sideways) to create side spin, then you might prefer a higher squirt cue that works better with that technique.

The trend these days is toward low squirt shafts, but it's still a choice.

I recommend reading up on the choices and reasons at Dr. Dave's website: http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

PJ, this is a great post and I think a player should use what works best for them. I used to buy and sell cues and I was always switching cues and that is not a good idea since each shaft has its own characteristics when it comes to deflection. Once you get used to a cue and its shaft you know how to aim with it, but if you switch cues often like I used to do then you have to figure out how to aim with each cue and some shaft/cue combos deflect a lot more than others.

After playing with many different cues and shafts I've settled on a Predator 314 with my Mottey cue. I've played with it long enough until I know what it's going to do when I put side spin on the cue ball. I still have to allow a little for deflection, but not as much as I'd have to if I was using a solid maple shaft. I think it comes down to what you get used to playing with. I like my set up and the next guy might hate it. It works for me and that's all that matters.

This is the most recent thread I could find to bump...

I played with an LD shaft for the first time tonight after taking a flyer on the Predator 314-2 deal posted here a few days ago. Five or six strokes was all it took to know that I'm not going back. There is no comparison. It is so much easier to make shots - just point and shoot. It almost feels like magic juicing up the cue ball yet seeing it travel straight at the target with almost no squirt or swerve.

Obviously there are going to be situations where the extra swerve would come in handy - just like it's nice to have the feel and workability of blade or muscleback irons. But I ditched those irons years ago.

I've hit Predator cues before, but never owned one. I was impressed. Recently, though, I've noticed I can make a shot with a stock Adams shaft on my GB-2 and there's no squirt at all. I don't know if that's designed to be an LD shaft or not.

I'm also very impressed with my boring Tiger LD shaft. It's very light, well-made and besides Predator and OB just about the only LD shaft I could get in a reasonable amount of time (and money) in Germany.

In my latest Carom training session I was able to play maximum english with practically no aiming adjustment. Also I could control the speed very well - always was having problems with hitting too hard/fast. I knew as soon as I hit if something was going wrong.

Mind you, I'm a pool newbie and I like heavy cues (20oz) and the training is done on 7" Gabriels with fast cloth and fast exact rails. Lots can go wrong here

I don't really know what people mean when they talk about the "sound" (and why they think this is important) of a shaft/hit - most probably mine is wrong here because it's rather quiet.
Contrary I've never liked the hit/sound of solid 1pc cues :embarrassed2:

Cheers,
M

LD Shaft

Patrick Johnson said:

LD shafts do what they're supposed to do - reduce CB deflection ("squirt"). Whether or not you want that probably depends on how you like to compensate for squirt when aiming. If you do that by simply aiming a little "off line" when you use spin, then an LD shaft can make that easier and more accurate. If you compensate by pivoting (moving your back hand sideways) to create side spin, then you might prefer a higher squirt cue that works better with that technique.

The trend these days is toward low squirt shafts, but it's still a choice.

I recommend reading up on the choices and reasons at Dr. Dave's website: http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

I view LD shafts the same as PJ does. I have 2, an old Predator 314 and a Lucasi Hybrid. Both play and fell about the same for me. Shaft preference is much like most subjects in pool, what works for one person may not for another. Personally I like a LD shaft.

I just bought 2 Predator shafts from Seyberts when they were on sale for $150 each. One for my Schon, one for my Pechauer, both 314-2. Played a little with each so far. I liked the Schon/Predator combo. The Pechauer/Predator combo...not so much. I was using a Pechauer P+ shaft before, not their stock maple. I'm going to try these out for a while and see if my initial impressions hold up.