I keep watching that wondering if it will too the ball one of these times and it doesn’t. Boy is that thing consistent.
When Allan McCarty designed their first break cue...he shipped me an early one...
BK First Edition
..we were on the phone for a while....something that amazed him...he said..
“When I started to design the break cue, I was sure it would have a stainless steel joint...
...but Iron Willie showed us that the speed of the cue ball coming off the tip was 7 to 12 %
quicker with a wood to wood joint.”....I told him that explains why I never found a snooker
cue with a metal joint that I liked...in snooker you need that extra power,
Wonder why (besides errant testing) that is.
I don’t think the test results were wrong....I never found a metal joint snooker cue that
I could make a good power draw with from the length of a 6x12.
Even my Szamboti with a good snooker shaft hit weak....and it was a powerful cue at pool.
Mostly cue speed, but cue weight plays a substantial role: force = mass x speed squared.If I remember correctly, it is cue speed and not cue weight that also produced the best rack breaking results when analyzed.
I am not a physics expert by any means but I would think that if you have two cues pass through a cue ball with the same purity of draw stroke as could be recreated by a robot ; that the cue with a metal joint, because of the extra weight at that end of the cue (from the middle on up) might be passing through the cue at a somewhat slower speed.
If I remember correctly, it is cue speed and not cue weight that also produced the best rack breaking results when analyzed.
Mostly cue speed, but cue weight plays a substantial role: force = mass x speed squared.
pj
chgo
LiveScience.com begs to differ:All weight does in a cue is stabilize your stroke and slow you down. Speed of the stroke determines the rate of speed of the CB.
LiveScience.com begs to differ:
“When we double the mass, we double the energy; however, when we double the velocity, energy increases by a factor of four.”
There’s even a pic to show it applies to pool:
View attachment 553888
pj
chgo
LiveScience.com begs to differ:
“When we double the mass, we double the energy; however, when we double the velocity, energy increases by a factor of four.”
There’s even a pic to show it applies to pool:
View attachment 553888
pj
chgo
I've owned cues with every joint their is. Any difference in power is so tiny you can't tell when playing. The 'lighter is faster' deal is one of the big reasons modern golf drivers deliver so much more distance. They're also longer and made of titanium and that adds to overall speed but the weight is a lot less than what we used in 70's-80's.Thank god they included the diagram, otherwise I never would have grasped that arcane mathematical explanation.
Anyway, regarding the joint affecting the cue speed, I highly doubt that any test showing that result rigorously controlled all the other variables. For instance, it's hard to swap the joint type of a cue in between tests, especially without affecting the weight, so I'm sure they used two entirely different cues, with probably non-identical weights, and almost certainly non-identical tips (leather tips vary a lot within the same batch), and who knows how many other relevant differences.
If every other variable were the same, the joint should not affect CB speed at all. What it mostly affects is what you feel in your grip hand, and even that I think is mostly in the player's imagination.