Any pro plays with 13mm shaft?
- Thread starter brilliance
- Start date
We can see a human hair easily enough and these are roughly in the range of .001 to .007 of an inch.
But yes it is an amazing effect when in relation to a cue ball.
I think it is much the same type of optical illusion as the perceived full moon or sun size when on the horizon versus high in the sky.
Having read all of the comments I noticed couple of things not mentioned.
1) Cue elevation is different for everyone's stroke. People saying they get unwanted/not enough spin with smaller tips may not be taking into account the masse effect due to their standard stroke cue elevation when they apply English. In theory, their standard stroke will hit the cue ball at the same location regardless of tip dia and shaft dia. which leads me to something else (I believe this to be the essence of Patrick's argument)
2) A smaller shaft dia will deflect more (less squirt due to less mass). However, remember what is happening at the cue ball - cloth contact point when you hit more downward on the cue ball. The friction between cue ball and cloth is proportional to the force applied by the cue. A lower deflection (bigger diameter) shaft will create more friction, which would dampen the amount of spin generated on the cue ball. Which leads me to a related, third point (controversial and not rigorously tested by me)
3) I will posit that a low deflection cue shaft will generate less draw when using a consistent low elevation stroke then a high deflection shaft will. The reasoning is that a high deflection cue will lift the cue ball more off the cloth due to the lower deflection, thus reducing the friction between the cue ball - cloth and allowing the cue ball to retain the draw spin longer over the travel distance the shot. This is most likely negligible given other factors involved in an extreme draw shot, but would occur.
1) Cue elevation is different for everyone's stroke. People saying they get unwanted/not enough spin with smaller tips may not be taking into account the masse effect due to their standard stroke cue elevation when they apply English. In theory, their standard stroke will hit the cue ball at the same location regardless of tip dia and shaft dia. which leads me to something else (I believe this to be the essence of Patrick's argument)
2) A smaller shaft dia will deflect more (less squirt due to less mass). However, remember what is happening at the cue ball - cloth contact point when you hit more downward on the cue ball. The friction between cue ball and cloth is proportional to the force applied by the cue. A lower deflection (bigger diameter) shaft will create more friction, which would dampen the amount of spin generated on the cue ball. Which leads me to a related, third point (controversial and not rigorously tested by me)
3) I will posit that a low deflection cue shaft will generate less draw when using a consistent low elevation stroke then a high deflection shaft will. The reasoning is that a high deflection cue will lift the cue ball more off the cloth due to the lower deflection, thus reducing the friction between the cue ball - cloth and allowing the cue ball to retain the draw spin longer over the travel distance the shot. This is most likely negligible given other factors involved in an extreme draw shot, but would occur.
I believe this point is wrong. The main point is that as long as the tip does not slip on the cue ball, the actual coefficient of friction between the tip and the ball is irrelevant.
Further, your last point seems to ignore the fact that the friction force on the bottom of the ball is very small for all shafts relative to the tip-ball force. Small differences between small numbers lead to a very small total difference.
Point #2 - I am not saying the friction between the tip and the cue ball. I am saying the friction between the cue ball and the cloth, due to the increased downward force applied with a more elevated cue.
Point #3, again it is the cue ball to cloth friction that I am saying is reduced, because a "higher deflection" (more mass) cue shaft will impart a lift to the the cue ball off the table more than a low deflection cue will. The low deflection cue - less mass - will bounce away from the cue ball more. An assumption here is the tip to cue ball friction is the same in both cases. Negligible probably.
Last edited:
You're saying more cue mass = more force = more ball/cloth friction = less spin, right? But isn't the greater ball/cloth friction overcome by the greater force?
pj
chgo
With an elevated cue, there will be an increase in the vertical component of the force, which will increase the friction between the ball and the cloth which will dampen the spin. The horizontal force will also increase, and yes it eventually overcomes the friction, but it must be greater due to the increased friction. It could be it is a 1 to 1 result which cancels out between different cue shaft tip mass, but I am not sure about that right now.
Remember it is not overall cue mass - but the mass at the.tip and the resulting deflection.
Pros would be dumb to play with that huge shafts, as they have skill where the material becomes the limiting factor.
As recent games have shown it's increasingly about finesse and acuracy, and by far less about "power", as it might have been in the olden days.
Also strokes have improved greatly so that smaller shafts become more of an improvement and less of a risk (unwanted spin and all that).
Add to that the benefit of a shaft handling more situations (center ball all to extrem spin) within a smaller margin of diversity and you go material that helps winning without having to "feel" or "judge" too much.
Point, shoot and win.
Nobody would question an excellent weight balance, 4-wheel-drive, turbo engines, ceramic brakes and quick shifters on a rallye car anymore.
But you are wanting back rear wheel only drive cars (=old shafts) so badly back it's just ridiculous!
As recent games have shown it's increasingly about finesse and acuracy, and by far less about "power", as it might have been in the olden days.
Also strokes have improved greatly so that smaller shafts become more of an improvement and less of a risk (unwanted spin and all that).
Add to that the benefit of a shaft handling more situations (center ball all to extrem spin) within a smaller margin of diversity and you go material that helps winning without having to "feel" or "judge" too much.
Point, shoot and win.
Nobody would question an excellent weight balance, 4-wheel-drive, turbo engines, ceramic brakes and quick shifters on a rallye car anymore.
But you are wanting back rear wheel only drive cars (=old shafts) so badly back it's just ridiculous!
Then just HOW do SO many GREAT Asian players play SO well with the dark-age shafts they use? Small-diameter LD shafts are fine IF you like them but they are not the magic elixir so many make them out to be.
Too true!
I'm not a pro, or Asian, lol, but I played great for years
with those "dark-age" shafts. Now I play great with a Mezz LD shaft. It would take some adjustment to go back and play with a regular shaft, about 15 minutes probably. My point is, it's not the equipment that separates better players from average players. Better players adapt quickly.
Years ago (pre-LD) most of us used steel-jointed cues with ivory ferrules and 13mm shafts. Did they squirt? Without a doubt i'm sure they did. Did we know, or much less, care? Probably not. You bought a cue and learned how to use it. Your eye/hand/brain computer figured out what we now call squirt/deflection and compensated. LD shafts are great but are in NO WAY required to play top class pool.
[brokenrecord]
Smaller shafts are not a greater risk of unwanted spin.
[/brokenrecord]
pj
chgo
Did it matter anyway? Probably yes.
So, modern guns that shoot straighter aren't better because Annie Oakley didn't have one?
pj
chgo
.
I'm always surprised when someone shoots like an APA handicap #4 can tell everyone
about shaft deflection and how a smaller diameter shaft is good for them.
Seems there should be a new thread started 'cause this thread sure did go off the subject.
.
I'm always surprised when someone shoots like an APA handicap #4 can tell everyone
about shaft deflection and how a smaller diameter shaft is good for them.
Seems there should be a new thread started 'cause this thread sure did go off the subject.
.
Are you telling us some of these pool scientists have moved up to an APA 4?
Let me be one of the first to congratulate them.
They're moving on up.
Awww... sounds like some of these "pool scientists" hurt somebody's feelings. Try not to take it so personally - lots of pool players know even less than you (I'm guessing).
pj
chgo
I don't think modern guns shoot any straighter than vintage guns. Besides cheaper, more cost-effective materials, the main difference between Annie Oakley's favorite rifle back in the day and any modern rifle you can buy nowadays is the superior ammo. Today's ammo shoots at greater distances than what was available in the 1800's.
I get your point though. But it all depends on what you are used to I suppose. Annie Oakley was considered worldclass with a rifle, any rifle, cheap or expensive. So if she were around today it wouldn't matter if she used an 1869 model rifle or a 2019 model -- she'd prove it's her, not the gun, that makes her so damn good.
With that said, any player that struggles to pocket balls when using english should probably try a low deflection shaft, which will be thinner in diameter than the traditional 13 or 14mm size.
:boring2:I think you missed a couple of iterations of improvement there, esp. for specialized guns.
There's also a reason why Snooker pros have changed cues (for example, Acurate) and also changed sighting and aiming (O'Sullivan had a small interview about that, I guess).
Because some new things actually work much better.