Actual Low Deflection Testing

FeelDaShot said:

With all of these low deflection shafts on the market, why hasn't anyone done a full 100% accurate deflection test?

Click to expand...

I think a fairly accurate test that anybody can do on their own, with no need for special equipment, is the natural pivot length test demonstrated at the 4:22 point in the following video:

NV J.12 - How to Select a Pool Cue, Cue Ball Deflection, Carbon Fiber, Revo vs. Cuetec

Anybody doing this test carefully should get very close to the same number for a given shaft.

In SAWS, I demonstrate improvements to the test. For example, I show how you can slide your bridge hand forward after the pivot when testing an LD shaft with a really long natural pivot length.

Regards,
Dave

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke_Dnfko_Vs
The Original Meucci Testing Video of the Black Dot Pool Cue Shaft - 2006

FeelDaShot said:

dr_dave said:

I think a fairly accurate test that anybody can do on their own, with no need for special equipment, is the natural pivot length test demonstrated at the 4:22 point in the following video:

NV J.12 - How to Select a Pool Cue, Cue Ball Deflection, Carbon Fiber, Revo vs. Cuetec

Anybody doing this test carefully should get very close to the same number for a given shaft.

In SAWS, I demonstrate improvements to the test. For example, I show how you can slide your bridge hand forward after the pivot when testing an LD shaft with a really long natural pivot length.

Click to expand...

Thanks but why settle for "fairly accurate" when a manufacturer can produce 100% accurate test results for undisputed comparison?

Click to expand...

Many testing machines have been built over the years, but the results aren't always trustworthy. Even with machines, one must be careful with testing procedures. For more info, see:

CB deflection testing machines

I think the natural pivot length test is plenty accurate enough for comparison purposes, and anybody can do it to verify or contest data reported by others.

Regards,
Dave

FeelDaShot said:

Dave - Even if the testing results are questionable, they would still be good for marketing products. Better than just making statements on the deflection such as “our most accurate shaft”. How about an actual measurement of how much better?

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Every cue maker can easily do their own test and report the natural pivot length. That way when somebody wanted to buy a new cue that had a pivot length similar to what they are used to, they can make an informed purchase, and they won't need to change how they aim with sidespin when they get the new cue.

Regards,
Dave

I had a couple visits with a major production cue maker for some business discussions. Got a nice tour of the factory and all the exotic woods, lathes, CNCs, finishing areas, etc. They also make low-d wood shafts and come up with the latest/greatest high-tech shaft innovations every couple years which are x% BETTER than the old. They didn't have any kind of testing machine for their shaft claims other than the pool table in the showroom. I was naively surprised.

As someone who is a scientist in their day job, yes the results have to repeatable and also the testing conditions have to be similar to every day playing. People have mentioned a test, I think by Meucci, that shoots the cue ball at pretty much break speed. and measures the distance the cue ball deflects. I question that test. I don't really question the results but how many shots do you take a break speed? 1 You normally shoot at a soft to medium speed. My visual test for that is to line the cue ball up on the center line and shoot over the spot with center ball first. Then line the cue ball up and aim over the spot but parallel shift over to maximum side spin and then shoot. Some shafts will squirt the cue ball to the left of the spot where some will go right over the spot. To me that makes more sense because you are shooting at the speeds you normally shoot at.

I will have to check out your video Dave.

briankenobi said:

As someone who is a scientist in their day job, yes the results have to repeatable and also the testing conditions have to be similar to every day playing. People have mentioned a test, I think by Meucci, that shoots the cue ball at pretty much break speed. and measures the distance the cue ball deflects. I question that test. I don't really question the results but how many shots do you take a break speed? 1 You normally shoot at a soft to medium speed. My visual test for that is to line the cue ball up on the center line and shoot over the spot with center ball first. Then line the cue ball up and aim over the spot but parallel shift over to maximum side spin and then shoot. Some shafts will squirt the cue ball to the left of the spot where some will go right over the spot. To me that makes more sense because you are shooting at the speeds you normally shoot at.

Click to expand...

If your goal is to measure just the CB deflection (squirt) characteristics of a shaft, the natural pivot length is the best measurement. And to get the most accuracy for this measurement, one should use fast speed over a short distance with the cue as level as possible (ideally perfectly level, for example with a machine that doesn't need to reach over a rail). Otherwise, the results of the test will vary too much with shot speed, shot distance, cue elevation, and cloth conditions. Then people could not directly compare measured values.

For more info, see:

Rules of CB Deflection (Squirt) Testing

Again, the goal of a test should be to measure just the cue's characteristics, not how the cue produces different results at a table for different shots by different people under different conditions. That's what SAWS is for.

briankenobi said:

I will have to check out your video Dave.

Click to expand...

Yes, you will.

Regards,
Dave

FeelDaShot said:

Thanks guys. There’s lot of good stuff here I was unaware of.

Dave - Even if the testing results are questionable, they would still be good for marketing products. Better than just making statements on the deflection such as “our most accurate shaft”. How about an actual measurement of how much better?

Click to expand...

It’s probably easier to convince people that the new product is better than it is to prove it’s better. Why prove a $350-$500 shaft is better if people are buying it for that price without the proof.

briankenobi said:

As someone who is a scientist in their day job, yes the results have to repeatable and also the testing conditions have to be similar to every day playing. People have mentioned a test, I think by Meucci, that shoots the cue ball at pretty much break speed. and measures the distance the cue ball deflects. I question that test. I don't really question the results but how many shots do you take a break speed? 1 You normally shoot at a soft to medium speed. My visual test for that is to line the cue ball up on the center line and shoot over the spot with center ball first. Then line the cue ball up and aim over the spot but parallel shift over to maximum side spin and then shoot. Some shafts will squirt the cue ball to the left of the spot where some will go right over the spot. To me that makes more sense because you are shooting at the speeds you normally shoot at.

I will have to check out your video Dave.

Click to expand...

With all the variables affecting "normal" shots (speed, butt elevation, ball/cloth conditions, etc.) how do you compare results from shaft to shaft?

The "natural pivot length" test reduces the measurement to just the squirt, so it can be compared apples-to-apples between shafts.

pj
chgo

briankenobi said:

As someone who is a scientist in their day job, yes the results have to repeatable and also the testing conditions have to be similar to every day playing.

Click to expand...

Aren’t most scientific experiments very artificial?

BRussell said:

Aren’t most scientific experiments very artificial?

Click to expand...

I'd say they are. The most important shots on the table occur from 1/4 to 3
diamonds distance between the cue ball and the object ball where small differences in
squirt/swerve are almost meaningless between different LD's. So what is the big deal if
one shaft squirts a touch more at 7 diamonds of distance to rail if you like the way it hits
and plays? It's fodder for conversation and probably more important at 4 diamonds of
distance separation if you need to spin the ball. Nothing wrong with knowing how your
shaft plays but the small differences at the most used distances is negligible.

I guess I get confused on this. If no matter what type of shaft your using with the proper pivot point and you can aim the same. While using FHE or BHE depending on the speed of the shot. What truly makes LD shafts LD? Is it that without using the correct pivot point, the LD shaft will compensate better?

jburkm002 said:

I guess I get confused on this. If no matter what type of shaft your using with the proper pivot point and you can aim the same. While using FHE or BHE depending on the speed of the shot. What truly makes LD shafts LD? Is it that without using the correct pivot point, the LD shaft will compensate better?

Click to expand...

Pretty much. If you use parallel english using an LD shaft should result in less cb squirt. Of shafts i've used/owned/tried the 12.9 REVO had least amount of squirt. The Z was close but i just have never liked that taper style.

jburkm002 said:

What truly makes LD shafts LD?

Click to expand...

That they deflect the CB less.

Is it that without using the correct pivot point, the LD shaft will compensate better?

Click to expand...

It doesn’t “compensate better” - it errs a little less (but probably still enough to miss shots). This is not “what makes it LD”; it’s just a minor side benefit of using an LD shaft - the main benefit is needing less squirt compensation generally.

pj
chgo

jburkm002 said:

What truly makes LD shafts LD?

Click to expand...

An LD shaft produces less CB deflection than a non-LD shaft.

jburkm002 said:

Is it that without using the correct pivot point, the LD shaft will compensate better?

Click to expand...

With less CB deflection, the amount you need to adjust your aim is less.

For more info, see advantages of LD shafts.

Regards,
Dave

Low -d

336robin said:

i'd say they are. The most important shots on the table occur from 1/4 to 3
diamonds distance between the cue ball and the object ball where small differences in
squirt/swerve are almost meaningless between different ld's. So what is the big deal if
one shaft squirts a touch more at 7 diamonds of distance to rail if you like the way it hits
and plays? It's fodder for conversation and probably more important at 4 diamonds of
distance separation if you need to spin the ball. Nothing wrong with knowing how your
shaft plays but the small differences at the most used distances is negligible.

Click to expand...

nuff said---thank you robin

Dr_Dave said:

If your goal is to measure just the CB deflection (squirt) characteristics of a shaft, the natural pivot length is the best measurement. And to get the most accuracy for this measurement, one should use fast speed over a short distance

Click to expand...

There is where I disagree a bit. For people to accurately test the shaft on how it will effect their game, they have to test it under the conditions that they play. Again, people don't hit hard for every shot. So for someone to see the squirt or deflection from a test hitting hard, thats fine and dandy but that doesn't show them how the shaft squirts on shots that they hit.

The test I outlined is just a basic "here's the difference between a maple shaft and a LD shaft." It is something easy that people can see and relate too.

BRussel said:

Aren’t most scientific experiments very artificial?

Click to expand...

Most of them aren't but they can be. You just have to look at the testing conditions to see if it really makes sense. For example, the artificial sweetener tests. You will see studies that say artificial sweeteners cause cancer. What people won't talk about is are the testing conditions. The amount that the lab rats ingested that gave them cancer vs the amount people normally take in is the difference between the high of a person vs the height of the empire state building. The study was correct under the conditions that it was tested. However, those conditions aren't real word. That was the basis of my comment. Test real word conditions. See how shafts react under normal playing conditions vs testing it hitting really hard.