...

conetip

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hi Neil …. Can you explain the above that I edited out? In the first statement you say that the CF shaft has 5X the waves and the last statement says its not the material the shaft is made from. I don't understand. If its not the material, what is it?

Thanks!

Yeah, it is the frequency that shaft vibrates at after hitting a ball, or when it is struck on it's side. The late Dennis Dieckman showed me what he looked for in a cue. He would tap the cue on the side, and look at the frequency of vibration. If it was too fast, it would result on a cue ball being double hit. You can not have it too slow. This frequency of vibration of the shaft, is very different to the speed of sound in the shaft itself.
Hitting some cues on the side, can damage the joint area of cues. The cues I saw was a wood joint cue, not an insert joint cue. But that was what he made I guess. There may be a video of him doing this I don't know. He certainly did do a few videos of different things.
Neil
 

conetip

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Cuetec used fiberglass not carbon fiber on their shafts. I don't think they did it for any particular playability characteristic but I think to keep them from warping (or at least advertise that) and to sell to people that liked colors and fancy material names.

In 08, they were selling graphite coated cue shafts, as well as glass coated.
 

Catalin

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I am glad you brought up Dr.Dave's page, i like this text from his page:
"Cue construction (ferrule, joint, butt, and bumper) can also have an effect on both a cue's efficiency and hit/feel/feedback/playability.

A shaft that is very flexible (not very stiff), will tend to deform and vibrate more during a hit. This vibration represents lost energy because that energy remains in the cue and is not delivered to the CB."

So the way I see it Dr.Dave's words confirmed my thoughts. Happy reading
Marek, you are conveniently ignoring this part

"A cue's flex or vibration can't have much to do with the physics between the tip and CB during the extremely brief (approximately 0.001 second) impact time. Most of the flex and vibration occurs well after the CB is gone. For example, see:

HSV A.25 - Cue deflection and vibration due to firm stroke with english
and
HSV A.76a - close-up of tip during off-center hit"

which is backed up by video. I'm sure you realized it but the article is a collection of opinions and observations from different contributors, to me the videos that actually shows what happens at and after impact weight à lot more.



Julian
 

Catalin

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Evan in a wood cue shaft this is not correct. But if you look at many high speed videos of a cue contact with a cue ball, some wood shafts, seem to double hit the cue ball on some shots. Lots of things to consider. How ever, the wave frequency( speed of sound in a cue shaft) is very different in wood to a composite cue shaft.
Maple has a speed frequency of around 4100m/s the books show 4km/s to 5km/s,but from reading actual test numbers is closer to 4.1km/s . Carbon fibre composites are on the 20,000m/s to 25,000m/s range, or 20 to 25km/s
So even with a ball contact time of 1/1000 seconds, a 1m shaft will have 2 return waves in that time frame, and a carbon shaft will have 5x that number.
Testing I have done, has shown that a carbon shaft of the same mass as a wood shaft, does make the cue ball go further on the same velocity hit, with the same tip. The wood absorbs more of the total energy, than what a carbon shaft does.
Carbon cues have been around a very long time. The early carbon shafts did not play at all well, so changes were made, and the carbon was wrapped around a wood core. Like the Cuetech shafts as an example, or others used the carbon as a core in the cue shaft, like the I series cues from McDermott as another example.
Cue tips and ferrules play a big part in the millisecond of the cue ball hit, and so does the persons stroke. Which is why some prefer a particular tip on a cue than other people do. Even at 240 frame / second camera's can reveal a lot about the tip and cue reaction when trying to find the best combination to suite your stroke or play.
The frequency response of the shaft is far more important than the tip on the cue, and shaft frequency is not related to the material it is made from.
Neil
Buddy, I respect your right to an opinion, but you are making a bunch of wild statements, some contradictory, for which you offer no evidence. You mentioned many videos that prove your points, can you post them? I'm not gonna do your work for you

Julian
 

Catalin

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There is a simple test. Find 10 good players, have them shoot a draw shot with several shafts, they will tell you what works the easiest to get action on the cueball. I tried with many shafts, and of all of them the Revo is among the top few if not the top. One of the worst were shafts from two great cuemakers, Arthur and Samsara. I felt I lost a lot of power in the shot with their shafts. The guy that sold me the Arthur (which is the cue in my sig picture) even told me "I was tired or doing so much work for so little with the cue".

There is no direct comparison with pool, yet going from wood to composite materials made the items impart more power in all cases. Wood rackets to graphite and other material rackets to wider body ones. While how exactly they impart force to their balls in play is different in each case, the reason they do is the same. The most power will come from a wide stiff design, but at the expense of hit feel and touch. The best designs compromise both the least, thus the cost and engineering time in the equipment. If you throw something at a wooden wall, a concrete wall and a metal wall, I will guarantee you the rebound will be the most on the wall with the highest density and less deformity after the impact. That is what the carbon fiber shafts do, except in the case of pool, you are throwing the wall at the ball, but in physics, the results are the same. If you run into a car at 70mph or a car runs into you at the same speed, the damage will be the same.

The more the material deforms, by law of physics, the more energy transfer is lost to the object it contacts. If the impact is 1/1000th of a second or 1 second, it does not matter. It may matter to us, but not to the object. Here is something interesting about energy transfer, Newtons cradle, those hanging balls I'm sure we all played with at times. If you lift a ball and drop it, one ball at the other end bounces. If you raise two, then two balls will bounce. Now the fun part, if you raise one, then toss it at double the force, the other side balls still moves one ball but at double the distance, not two. How does it know that there is one ball at the other end moving twice as fast and not two at normal speed? So how does the cueball know there is force not lost even in the tiny contact, because it's not a human thinking about it, it just reacts in the only way it can, through laws of physics.
I feel you are applying a "if you can't beat them, confuse them" kind of tactic here Mixing skill, random sports and ill understood observations cannot possibly compare with hard scientifical facts. The mass of 1 ball is different than the mass of 2 balls in your experiment. The tennis racquet has a net that flexes and gives a sling effect and so on. The ball contacts walls of different materials, whereas we have the same tip of the same diameter and same hardness that contact the CB on both cues. Really, stop making stuff up!

Julian
 

conetip

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Buddy, I respect your right to an opinion, but you are making a bunch of wild statements, some contradictory, for which you offer no evidence. You mentioned many videos that prove your points, can you post them? I'm not gonna do your work for you

Julian

No, If you want to go through Dr Daves video's go for it. You can ask him for a copy of his work when testing my Carbon shaft back in 09. I don't care if you to believe what I posted or not. I have not posted anything contradictory either. I developed my carbon fibre cue shaft, and then low deflection Jump cue. I am not going to give away the things that make them work like they do, nor the makeup of the shafts themselves. A medical condition is preventing me from making and working on cues currently. No, I will not post to Youtube my video work and studies.
Neil
 

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I feel you are applying a "if you can't beat them, confuse them" kind of tactic here Mixing skill, random sports and ill understood observations cannot possibly compare with hard scientifical facts. The mass of 1 ball is different than the mass of 2 balls in your experiment. The tennis racquet has a net that flexes and gives a sling effect and so on. The ball contacts walls of different materials, whereas we have the same tip of the same diameter and same hardness that contact the CB on both cues. Really, stop making stuff up!

Julian

Well if you don't think physics has anything to do with the shafts, then practical experiments should do. I played with it, I get more action on the cueball with the same power. Tennis rackets have had nets forever, the difference is the frame. Why do widebody frames get more power than the narrow frames if not how that material reacts? I have played tennis for a long time, was on my high school team that made to state finals a few times, so I know that just changing the frame while using the exact same strings and tension makes a difference in how the ball reacts off the hit. I am not just guessing there. I have 4 rackets at home, and played with my son using an older but high end Prince Pro which is graphite and narrow and a newer wide-body, both same strings and same tension, but the wide body makes hitting the ball harder much easier, as well as having an easier time returning hard hits without jarring your arm as much. We have swapped back and forth during games and the difference is about as much as an average shaft vs using a Revo.

Mass of 2 balls is different yes, but the power transmitted through the balls should be the same with 2 balls or one ball at double speed right? That really has nothing to do with cues, I just thought it was a fun thing about physics, it does not care about us, it will just do what it will do.

The tip is only part of the shaft, and is not the only thing that matters to the cueball otherwise there will be no difference in deflection or action you get on the cueball between any shaft with the same tip. If you say the tip is the only thing that contacts the cueball and construction of the shaft does not matter, then you think all shafts would be the same as long as they use the same tip? Meaning anyone that uses a Revo or thinks that different shafts get easier action on the cueball or have different deflection properties is just making things up?
 
Last edited:

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Marek, you are conveniently ignoring this part

"A cue's flex or vibration can't have much to do with the physics between the tip and CB during the extremely brief (approximately 0.001 second) impact time. Most of the flex and vibration occurs well after the CB is gone. For example, see:

HSV A.25 - Cue deflection and vibration due to firm stroke with english
and
HSV A.76a - close-up of tip during off-center hit"

which is backed up by video. I'm sure you realized it but the article is a collection of opinions and observations from different contributors, to me the videos that actually shows what happens at and after impact weight à lot more.

Julian
If people want to see the full context of the quotes from my pages in this thread, see:

cue "feel," "hit," "feedback," and "playability"

tip/shaft/cue efficiency

shaft flex and vibration after a hit

shaft "squirt," "deflection," and "stiffness"

Enjoy,
Dave
 

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The shaft has more foam than carbon fiber in volume, I believe.

I am pretty sure that foam is there for the hit feel not for anything having to do with how the cueball reacts off it or the stiffness. Maybe it's also there for some structural support so the wall material can't bend in as much as in a hollow tube. Just guessing here since I don't work in Predator RnD, just thinking about why foam on the inside instead of something more solid or nothing.
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member


I’m sifting through. Do you have any tests that measure the magnitude of energy transfer? And perhaps other tests that measure the amount of cue speed change needed to match that magnitude of change?

My hypothesis is that the difference in cue ball distance travelled due to different cue material (same mass & tip) is either
1) Only meaningful at break speeds, or
2) Equivalent to minor adjustments in cue speed typical of position play



Respectfully, Matt
(I don’t take myself too seriously. I hope you can return the favor.)
 

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
I’m sifting through. Do you have any tests that measure the magnitude of energy transfer?
Yes. See:

HSV B.42 - tip and cue efficiency

And perhaps other tests that measure the amount of cue speed change needed to match that magnitude of change?
I don't have tests for this, but I have lots of equations and graphs that characterize and "measure" all of the effects:

TP A.30 - The effects of cue tip offset, cue weight, and cue speed on cue ball speed and spin

TP B.22 - How peak tip contact force and contact patch size vary with shot speed, and drop tests

My hypothesis is that the difference in cue ball distance traveled due to different cue material (same mass & tip) is either
1) Only meaningful at break speeds, or
2) Equivalent to minor adjustments in cue speed typical of position play
I think this depends on the player. Some people are very fine-tuned to differences in tip and cue efficiency and to the stroke speed differences required with different tips, cue weights, and cue types.

Regards,
Dave
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yes. See:

...

I think this depends on the player. Some people are very fine-tuned to differences in tip and cue efficiency and to the stroke speed differences required with different tips, cue weights, and cue types.

Regards,
Dave

My takeaway is that the drop test is a measure of efficiency which should be what people consider with concepts like "energy transfer". It is acknowledged the contact time from cue to steel is longer than the contact time with a cue ball and no tests were conducted with a cue ball. That's relevant in this conversation because the shockwaves through the stick could cycle a different number of times in a cue ball test than a steel test and affect the efficiency outcome. With the limited information available, I might assume the efficiencies are still similar in relative difference between the test conducted (steel) and the hypothetical test not conducted (cue ball).

It's clear from a small sample that leather tips average near 73% efficiency and phenolic averages near 84% efficiency in the steel test. My gut says those are significant differences. The interesting thing is that the few tests with leather tips all ranged within 1% of each other. Players vs. Predator vs. Balabushka did not yield anywhere near as significant of an efficiency difference. But those are all maple. It's unfortunate we don't have some carbon fiber tests available.

That's the magic of this debate. Would a carbon fiber test be equivalent (73%), possibly lower (?!?), marginally higher (75%), or significantly higher (80%+)? If someone says they can put 20% more action on the ball, are they implying a 20% improvement in efficiency? Like a 93% efficiency? I would find that far-fetched. My gut says shaft material has grossly less impact on energy transfer than tip hardness.

I agree that players may be tuned to minor differences in the hit and efficiency of the stick. The question is whether that means one stick is superior in efficiency (you can do things better/easier) or whether one stick is merely different in efficiency (you just need to adapt to drawing 37" instead of 36").
 

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
I am pretty sure that foam is there for the hit feel not for anything having to do with how the cueball reacts off it or the stiffness. Maybe it's also there for some structural support so the wall material can't bend in as much as in a hollow tube. Just guessing here since I don't work in Predator RnD, just thinking about why foam on the inside instead of something more solid or nothing.

It's there to fill up the empty space and adding as little weight as possible .
 

SavageGamez

New member
I personally own a Jacoby JCB05 that I got from Alamo Billiards an online billiard supplier in Texas. Then I got the BeeCue shaft from Hillbilly Bryant and that thing hits like a dream IMO. I mean that shaft is zero defection. I can hit the cue ball to the far end middle diamond and have it come straight back to the tip of my cue. That got my attention really quick. I've messed with other carbon fiber shafts. The BeeCue is my fav right now. This Jacoby along with that shaft I'd put up there with a Runde made Schon cue. No kidding. Just my two cents...
 

Texas Carom Club

9ball did to billiards what hiphop did to america
Silver Member
Just got my jacoby black monday
My first cf shaft giving it ago
Not setting the table on fire just yet
 

trinacria

in efren we trust
Silver Member
It seems youre forced to wear a glove. not a fan of gloves. and me personally like a dirty wood shaft, not caked with chalk and grease but stained from use and a little grainy feel to it. im in the minority on that one but I know of people who are the same, even a couple of pros.but I do like that its a warp resistent material, so at least if I were forced to buy a shaft ide probably go for that, but thank god for cuetec, best cue for the money, I sold my custom cues, my schon and cases, bought a cuetec cue with a 360 shaft, leave it in the trunk of the car and don't think twice about it bc they don't warp. I have a schmelke being made that ill use as my break cue back up cue. but if you can afford it and don't mind wearing a glove, its progress. and in pool, progress is far in-between.
 

Franky4Eyes

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If you can afford one, buy it.
It's not going to make your skill level increase whatsoever. Not even slightly. To suggest as much is ridiculous. Nothing bought can replace practice and developing solid fundamentals.
I have some nice cues, but most often find myself shooting with a $90 J&J sneaky Pete, that for whatever reason seems to hit just like some very high end cues. I'll spare names to avoid insulting anyone.
It's a distasteful notion, but very true.
If you want a carbon shaft because it's tough and durable, then it's definitely a good idea.
 

CocoboloCowboy

Cowboys are my hero's
Silver Member
Being old, liking "Old School", I play with standard wood. IMHO CF or Carbon Fibre is like the new latest greatest new got to have hype Pool accessory.

First there was wood, then old wood, then old GROTH Wood, timeless timber, then lake wood, then Predator, then OB something, then a couple of more. Now the new kid on the block is CF = Carbon Fibre. SCREEM LOUD, got to havre it, it will make me a Pro.

So name a Pro who playing with CF, ask the question. Is he or she getting paid to use, play with it to endorse, or advertise product?

Did he or she actually buy the product at full retail with no strings attached.

I would rather have the skill or a great Hunter, then a great gun, and no skill. Great Hunter eats well, poor Hunter is Vegeritian or Vegan.

Sideshows, and carvinasls use to sell snake oil to cure all, make you taller, grown hair, cure you I'll, and make you a super dumper-------------fill in blank. Sellers made money, buyer most got bottle of nothing special.:eek:
 
Last edited:
Top