Shaft end mass, deflection and snooker cues: Calling Science Guys

Just to get the ball rolling as I am no science guy,

Yes there is certainly less deflection. I've played pool with my parris cue a couple of times and each time I was pocketing with ease while cueing terribly. If I was on a snooker table, I wouldn't have been potting anything.

But I was getting far more spin than I was use to and over hitting everything. My position play was way off. But I don't see that as being a draw back so much since I am not used to play pool with my parris. I'm sure if I switched exclusively to a snooker cue I would get used to it.

I'm sure there has to be a reason as to why pool cues still have larger tips. I'm curious to hear from some cue makers.

Snooker cue shafts are made of ash which is a much more rigid wood, so they wouldn't really be low deflection at all. Yes, tip end mass has a lot to do with it, but there are other factors.

If you hit a cueball with English (or side) with a very light shaft of titanium, do you think it would deflect , or squirt, the cue ball or not? If the shaft cannot bend out of the way during contact, then there would be a much higher deflection.

Therefore, NO, snooker shafts are not low deflection shafts at all. They would be much worse, however, if they were thicker.

Donkey Puncher said:

Snooker cue shafts are made of ash which is a much more rigid wood, so they wouldn't really be low deflection at all. Yes, tip end mass has a lot to do with it, but there are other factors.

If you hit a cueball with English (or side) with a very light shaft of titanium, do you think it would deflect , or squirt, the cue ball or not? If the shaft cannot bend out of the way during contact, then there would be a much higher deflection.

Therefore, NO, snooker shafts are not low deflection shafts at all. They would be much worse, however, if they were thicker.

Click to expand...

I don't think the shaft bends, it just gets knocked to the side. So I do think a very low end-mass titanium cue would be low deflection. But I'm not sure.

I also don't think the snooker guys use much sidespin on long shots, where deflection is really important. It's hard enough just making the shot - when they make a long straight in shot, the audience claps.

I hope to be educated on both these subjects.

Snooker cue shafts are made of ash which is a much more rigid wood, so they wouldn't really be low deflection at all.

Click to expand...

The rigidity of the shaft doesn't seem to matter. Tests have shown that flexible shafts can be high-squirt and rigid shafts can be low-squirt. The only thing that seems to matter much is end mass.

pj
chgo

...shouldn't snooker shafts be low deflection? Or does the brass ferrule make it heavier?

Click to expand...

Yes and yes.

Snooker shafts are lower deflection, but not as low as they could be without the brass ferrules.

pj
chgo

most of the english snooker cues have brass ferrules, but i've seen a lot of canadian one made with phenolic ferrules. that would cut down on the deflection some

mnorwood said:

It is a well established fact that deflection depends on the mass of the end of the shaft on any given cue.

Snooker shafts have smaller diameters which would logically mean that the end mass is lighter.

So the question is shouldn't snooker shafts be low deflection? Or does the brass ferrule make it heavier?

Click to expand...

Ditto to what PJ said.

If the shaft is low deflection what are the drawbacks for hitting pool balls with snooker cues?

Click to expand...

No draw back, IMO.

Fred

Yes, but the balls are also smaller (lighter?) too. It's not just endmass, it's endmass vs. the object you are hitting. So who knows, maybe it just evens out?

mnorwood said:

It is a well established fact that deflection depends on the mass of the end of the shaft on any given cue.

Snooker shafts have smaller diameters which would logically mean that the end mass is lighter.

So the question is shouldn't snooker shafts be low deflection? Or does the brass ferrule make it heavier?

If the shaft is low deflection what are the drawbacks for hitting pool balls with snooker cues?

Click to expand...

Without reading all the responses this may have been answered already. The cues are lower deflection....for a 2-1/4" ball (pool) but they are designed for 2-1/8" ball (Snooker) so the ratio of the smaller shaft is made for the smaller balls.

As I read in one of the replies yes they are usually made stiffer too which may result in more deflection then say a standard pool playing cue but they are only made to move a lighter ball so it works out good.

So the final answer is yes for pool they may have less deflection but the amount might not make it worth it to use a Snooker cue for pool although I know Steve Davis used to or maybe still does. But he is also a Snooker player and it prolly felt more comfortable to him.

Hope this helps.

I am not a Scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday inn Express last night! :thumbup:

Patrick Johnson said:

The rigidity of the shaft doesn't seem to matter. Tests have shown that flexible shafts can be high-squirt and rigid shafts can be low-squirt. The only thing that seems to matter much is end mass.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

I saw Patrick Johnson's tests on Youtube. He empirically showed deflection is really affected by end mass. I always felt that the shaft taper would have an effect but his tests blew that theory out of water. Props to you Patrick Johnson.

tjlmbklr said:

Without reading all the responses this may have been answered already. The cues are lower deflection....for a 2-1/4" ball (pool) but they are designed for 2-1/8" ball (Snooker) so the ratio of the smaller shaft is made for the smaller balls.

As I read in one of the replies yes they are usually made stiffer too which may result in more deflection then say a standard pool playing cue but they are only made to move a lighter ball so it works out good.

So the final answer is yes for pool they may have less deflection but the amount might not make it worth it to use a Snooker cue for pool although I know Steve Davis used to or maybe still does. But he is also a Snooker player and it prolly felt more comfortable to him.

Hope this helps.

I am not a Scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday inn Express last night! :thumbup:

Click to expand...

proper snooker balls are 2 1/16"

It can work

mnorwood said:

Thanks for the responses so far. I have really been leaning towards shooting with a John Parris for snooker and pool.

Click to expand...

Not sure of her current status but Karen Corr has shot pool with her snooker cue at a very high level and has went back to her snooker cue again according to fairly recent reports.

I shot pool with a 12oz snooker cue made by Brunswick for several years. This was a cheap house cue with a plastic ferule. I changed the tip to a milk dud, no other changes. This was indeed a low deflection cue and a monster to get used to playing with, both because of the cue ball taking new paths and because of having to use entirely different force hitting the cue ball than the cue I had been playing with that weighed half again as much. Once I mastered this cue I had a level of cue ball control that was nothing short of ridiculous however. Tough to say how much was due to the weight of the cue and how much was deflection changes, all I can say is the overall result was little short of miraculous.

Note the new OB-2 shaft. I have only secondhand reports but the tip is small and the taper is much like a snooker cue's from what I have been told. I think one of the 314's is similar with a smallish tip and faster taper than the typical "pro taper" shaft. The cue ball doesn't know if you are using a snooker cue or a pool cue with the shaft cut much like a snooker cues.

I don't know of any reason that your snooker cue can't work on a pool table particularly with the fast cloth used on today's tables. There may be a fairly tough transition period if you are using a pro taper shaft now. Some pro taper shafts have very undesirable flex characteristics in my opinion. The snooker shaft taper has much more desirable flex characteristics, again in my opinion. Regardless, there is a huge change when going between the two and adjustment takes awhile.

An edit to make clear that "pro taper" is loosely applied to many slightly different tapers. Some have no flex issues, some do. The ones without flex issues will still flex differently than a snooker shaft and require some adjustment but it won't be the huge adjustment required once you have learned to shoot with a shaft that has most of the flex well back from the tip on the shaft.

Hu

hjs032570 said:

I saw Patrick Johnson's tests on Youtube. He empirically showed deflection is really affected by end mass. I always felt that the shaft taper would have an effect but his tests blew that theory out of water. Props to you Patrick Johnson.

Click to expand...

Where are these youtubes? I'd love to see them, especially if accompanied by the pj wit.

Patrick Johnson said:

The rigidity of the shaft doesn't seem to matter. Tests have shown that flexible shafts can be high-squirt and rigid shafts can be low-squirt. The only thing that seems to matter much is end mass.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

Patrick,

As a practical matter, I guess the data supports your conclusions. (Dr. Dave did some tests with notched "Beaver" shafts which even seem to indicate slightly more squirt when operated in the most flexible orientation?) But strictly speaking, the amount of endmass that gets shoved aside does depend on the rigidity of the shaft. Rigidity is an integral part of effective endmass. You have a bunch of little masses connected to each other, and they each get set into motion. How much sideways velocity each one picks up is characterized by the shape of the shaft as it bends. Equations exist for a statically loaded cylindrical cantilever, and these can be modified without too much trouble for a conical cantilever. I've also seen them for a vibrating cylindrical cantilever. But while they may exist, I've yet to come across any for a dynamically loaded cantilever, which is what you have during impact. So it isn't all that easy to put numbers on it.

I'm wondering if your experience of rigid vs flexible comes primarily from comparisons of tapered vs cylindrical shafts? Tapered shafts may give the impression of being more rigid, because they are, overall. But in the last few inches where it really counts, and where they become thinner than "pro tapers", they should be more flexible. What to make out of all of this...

Jim

Jal said:

Patrick,

But in the last few inches where it really counts, and where they become thinner than "pro tapers", they should be more flexible.

Jim

Click to expand...

All very interesting. How far from the tip do mass variations become insignificant to a player experiencing squirt? And how quickly does the effect fall away with distance?

BTW, to muddy the waters even further in the snooker cue / pool cue comparison, snooker ferules are usually dense (brass) but the effect will be mitigated by the fact that they are also much shorter than pool ferules.

Rich93 said:

Where are these youtubes? I'd love to see them, especially if accompanied by the pj wit.

Click to expand...

I have to find the thread, he had posted them when he started the thread.

Fatboy said:

proper snooker balls are 2 1/16"

Click to expand...

Wouldn't doubt that since I was only told they were 2-1/8" but they always seem smaller then 1/8" than a standard pool ball.