A Closer look at L.D. Shafts

[alojz_ferluga]

Are the results already here?
If not, whe they will be posted?
I would like to see the results for top popular brands Predator (314/2, Z/2), OB (OB1, OB2, Classic), Tiger (Ultra X, Ultra PRO), Mezz (WD700, HP2, HP Alpha), Cuetec R360, Katana, Universal Smart LD,.. and also for top cuemasters shafts (Lambros, Adam, Barioni, Bob Danielson SS360, German Daves Cues, ...).

Another question for AZ players - I read here a lot of good things about Barioni cues (not a lot on the other way) - is there any known PRO using this cues?

 

[JB Cases]

No, it matters to the ball where the shaft hits it. What's the point in showing how much, or how little, the ball is deflected when hit in a spot that is used only 20% of the time? Plus, when hitting in that 20% spot, the difference between the highest deflecting shaft and the lowest deflecting shaft is only about 25% which means that you have to adjust for deflection with either shaft you use.

Why not conduct some tests that would demonstrate how little a concern deflection is when playing pool the normal way, whether you use a standard shaft, a "low-deflection" shaft, or the proverbial broom stick?

I think some of us already know the answer to that question.

Roger

Once upon a time we sponsored Rafael Martinez and I had him do a clinic for our local club in Germany. We had a great time and the students were allowed to ask any question. Rafael was asked if Predator shafts really made a difference and he said yes. At the time he got no money at all from Predator nor did he represent them nor did they claim to sponsor him. They simply handed out shafts to every pro they could and Rafael elected to use them with no compensation at all.

He said that when using a Predator he felt that the cue ball would go where he aimed without having to adjust for deflection. He proceed to shoot a lot of shots to demonstrate what he meant. This was an example of a professional player not influenced by marketing hype but instead choosing to play with the shaft because of it's performance.

What I got out it is that it's not based on the percentage of the time that you will use a particular offset but more on what you can expect the shaft to do every time. Rafael said simply that the cue ball goes where he aimed it. Now aiming can include the compensation for deflection whether conscious or unconscious. But what he meant is that for him the shaft was more point and shoot than what he had previously used. To me when a player chooses to use something that he is not being paid using then it's more powerful than being paid to endorse something. That said I highly doubt that any player will shoot with a cue that they absolutely do not think that they can win with.

I can tell you that Kelly Fisher was also handed Predator shafts when she arrived in the USA and she fell in love with them for the accuracy. Since then she has worked with Fury extensively to help them develop a low deflection and radially consistent shaft. What I specifically mean by this is that on here trips over here she would be handed 10 shafts or so marked with a number and she would shoot with them and pick the ones she liked best. They would do this with other players as well and out of this process they have come up with a low deflection shaft that is radially consistent and pleasing to the senses when striking the ball, or in other words has a nice "hit".

And with Kelly it's all about point and shoot with the least amount of adjustment as possible.

Your point though is valid. I hate to see hard numbers like this shaft deflects 2.5 inches with 1.5 tips because it is misleading in a sense to pick ONE number and say that this is the defining characteristic. What is the deflection with a half tip offset? At what distance? At what speed, on what cloth and ball condition?

It was explained to me that the tests done by Bob Meucci which appear to be substantially similar to those being done by Mr. Barioni could be gamed easily. I don't have the PM that was sent to me explaining this as it was several years ago but it was sent to me because I had found Meucci's tests to be fairly convincing. And frankly I still find them be convincing on the surface just like any well presented demonstration is convincing. But after having read how the tests could be skewed to show an advantage that might not actually be there I do understand that things are not always as they appear in what seems like an unbiased test. Especially if that test is being performed by one vendor and his products happen to have the best performance.

It would be much better if the testing were given to a local university with the understanding that they can publish their findings no matter what those findings are. But in the absence of that we will take what we can get I guess.

 

[Barioni Cues]

Testing and Study Complete!

First let me start by apologizing for not being here to answer all the questions and posts. I need the help of all you AZers out there. A lot of you have great perspectives and questions. I would like to talk to some of you on the phone. I just spent 12 to 16 hours a day for three weeks doing tons of testing and making new machines and testing equipment. For this I am so behind on my production of cues so the time I have available to keep up on this post is lacking at best. But over time this post should serve most helpful. If I talk to some of you on the phone maybe, if you have the time, you can help me explain it. Also if you guys want me to test something to find out if it is myth or fact I would be glad to do so. This countless hours of testing was not all done by me. I have had a lot of help. Some from friends that have majored in physics, some that have played pool for ever and have tons of experience, and some that have the ability to think real deep for long periods of time. I am pretty sure we have tested everything but it might be possible we left something out that me be brought up and if so we can go back and test it. But like I said, I am almost certain we covered it all. I have a full understanding of what is going on and how it all works and all my answers can be proven in plain view so its not just hot air or assuming or guessing.
The problem in pool is there is just not enough money in this sport. There fore no one is really investing in study and development like you see in Golf, Baseball, Archery, Tennis, and so forth. At one time they all used wood. Pool cues are the only one left I can think of that still uses wood. Yes I am aware that their is some graphite and carbon fiber and fiberglass cues or parts but they all test like crap so far. The majority of cues today is still made of wood. My point is in this study, the wood itself has many variables. The stiffness, radial consistency, density, weight or mass, etc. We had to make a shaft stiffness tester for this study. Here are some pics. More to follow soon so stay posted.

 

[Barioni Cues]

Various shafts

I want to discuss the various shaft styles and tapers and some myths that go along with them. Some believe that a stiffer shaft has less cue-ball deflection and some believe that they produce more. First you have to determine what is causing the shaft to be stiff. Is it the diameter of the shaft, the taper, the density or amount of growth rings, etc. Also a shaft might be stiff in one area or section of a shaft and more flexible in another. So where the flexibility is in a shaft is also important. It also plays a big factor in the flexing or pivot point. Further more it is desirable to know if this pivot point is in front of your bridge hand or or behind it.

 

[Barioni Cues]

Pics of shaft styles

Here are a few pics. It is difficult for the actual shaft taper to photograph.
Also here are just a few different methods for changing shaft stiffness and at different locations. This was also used to experiment with different pivot points. Other methods were also used and many other shafts were made and tested. The single shaft pictured here has a 10.4mm tip and the taper is an extreme European tape.

 

[Barioni Cues]

Tip hardness and shape

We will also need to take a look at tip hardness and the shape or radius and what effects it produces. Some believe a nickle radius is better than a dime and vise versa. One thing I want to mention is the difference in contact points with the different radius and also with different tip hardness. In our experiments and study we measures the radius with a set of radius gauges. These are expensive gauges accurate to with in less than .oo1" and can be found in machinist suppliers catalogs.

 

[Barioni Cues]

Chalk and friction

We need to take a look at chalk and friction between the cue tip and ball and what effects this has on the outcome.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I look forward to your reports. One thing about testing, you can do all the testing in the world. But if you don't find an efficient way to present your observations and conclusions, then it's badically only in your head and not within the community knowledge base. I strongly suggest you use the "Scientific Method" to conduct your experiments. If you are working with a University Physics Major, he will know what this means inside and out.

Good luck!

 

[Barioni Cues]

First cues ever built

From the research I have done I learned that the first cues ever built had little thought in the design and had little engineering to say the least. They did not do any high speed photography, robotic testing, trial and error in performance and so forth. They seemed to have focused on trying to make a jointed cue. The research on this was from sources such as the Internet, The Billiard Encyclopedia, and the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Pool and Billiards to name a few. Most testing equipment like we have today was not even available when pool cue were first invented. Cue builders of that time copied one another but never had a solid reason for making the cue the way they did. Lets take a look at the average cue built today. Why is the butt tapered the way it is? Why did the first house cues have a conical taper from the tip to the rubber bumper. A lot of today's cues still have that conical taper. Not so much on the shaft as the butt's do. New cue makers at that time saw that was the design of the early 1900's and so they made theirs that way but had no idea why. They did not even know what the purpose for that taper was. A lot of cues are still made that way today. It is the end of 2012 but yet some cues are still built the way they were a hundred and twelve years ago with the same design. Technology has developed and progressed in just about every thing from , Cars, computers, Base ball bats, tennis rackets, golf clubs, bow and arrows, just to name a few. But how much has the butt of a pool cue changed over the last 100 years?

 

[AtLarge]

When, where, and in what form will you be presenting your results?

 

[Barioni Cues]

When, where, and in what form will you be presenting your results?

Well, I have the results now. So I guess as for when I would say now. I would like this to be a good resourceful thread to help others and used as a reference. I have set this thread up just to do that. I am going to try to spend quite a bit of time working on this thread with great hopes that it will turn into something. Before I give out all my answers I would like to hear some of the Azer's input and thoughts. I would like to hear the opinion's of what people think the answers are before I give them all out. Or would you guys think this thread would be more useful for me to just list the answers now. I was thinking that every one put their 2 cents in that others might learn better from this thread. They would hear a lot of ideas and get a lot of different views. Then the final answer will be in the form of pics, video, with an explanation so their is facts and proof to support the answers. Let me know what you guys want or what way you think would be best to help others. As far as where, right here on this thread and on my website. Answers will be posted here first so no need to go to my website unless you are looking for more info and details regarding the subject.
As for what form, I would say factual and scientific in a myth busters approach. Some of the headings in this thread are already set up. Pics and video to present proof and facts to support the answers. I am doing this for the good of pool and to give something back to pool and all who love this sport as much as I do. Hopefully this thread goes the way it is intended. I may need help from all of you to make that happen.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

One thing I want to mention is the difference in contact points with the different radius

I don't think this is a big enough difference to worry about. The difference in CB contact point between a nickel and a dime radius is only:

at 1/4 maximum sidespin = 1/4 mm = 1/100 in = 2% squirt difference
at 1/2 maximum sidespin = 1/2 mm = 1/50 in = 4% squirt difference
at 3/4 maximum sidespin = 3/4 mm = 1/34 in = 6% squirt difference
at maximum sidespin = 1 mm = 1/25 in = 8% squirt difference

pj
chgo

 

[alojz_ferluga]

1. So where are the results of deflection tests?

2. Why no top PRO-s play with Barioni ?

 

[Barioni Cues]

I don't think this is a big enough difference to worry about. The difference in CB contact point between a nickel and a dime radius is only:

at 1/4 maximum sidespin = 1/4 mm = 1/100 in = 2% squirt difference
at 1/2 maximum sidespin = 1/2 mm = 1/50 in = 4% squirt difference
at 3/4 maximum sidespin = 3/4 mm = 1/34 in = 6% squirt difference
at maximum sidespin = 1 mm = 1/25 in = 8% squirt difference

pj
chgo

Ya but don't forget to factor in a soft tip vs. a hard tip into the equation. When a soft tip with a nickel radius makes contact with the cue ball it compresses and forms to the cue ball thus stays in contact with the cue ball longer with increased friction which also carries the cub ball offline. Also factor in the tip wanting to spin around the cue ball thus changing the direction of the contact points. a thousandths of an inch does make a noticeable and measurable difference in the robot tester/ cue dyno. Also how do you arrive with this data? How does 1/4 maximum sidespin = 1/4 mm = 1/100 in = 2% squirt difference? Is this with a soft compressible tip or a non compressible hard tip? Thank you for your help and input.

 

[Barioni Cues]

1. So where are the results of deflection tests?

2. Why no top PRO-s play with Barioni ?

Question #1 Answer: I have not posted all the results yet. The results are actually pages and pages for different senerios. Meaning a European taper with a soft tip and a nickle radius shape vs. a European taper with a hard tip and a nickle shape, and a European taper with a hard tip and a dime shape, and so on and so on with every variable we could think of. This was done with a 10" pro taper, a 12" pro taper a 14" pro taper all the way to a 23" pro taper. Then we started changing the flex point in 1" increments. In doing this we came up with a reverse taper shaft and tested it the same way.

Question #2 Answer: This has nothing to do with this thread. I don't want this thread to be about my cues. A lot of good players have and use one of my cues. No world pro's at this time. But that means nothing. Example: Earl Strickland is a World Pro. He used a Cuetec for many years. Does that mean because a world pro used a Cuetec that a Cuetec is the best or even a great cue. Fact is A Cuetec is the worst deflecting cue we ever tested. Pro Pool players make less than any other sport that I am aware of. They depend on sponsors and the income from those sponsors. Gina Cue is a great and well crafted cue. How many world pro's are playing with one today? Just trying to make a point. If this thread is going to be of use to any one I would like to keep it on a discussion regarding LD shafts and all the variables that are associated with them or compared to them.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Ya but don't forget to factor in a soft tip vs. a hard tip into the equation.

That shouldn't make any difference in the effect of one tip radius vs. another.

Also how do you arrive with this data?

Mainly by recognizing that when you offset from the center of a CB or the center of a tip to the same angle on their surfaces (say, 30 degrees for maximum sidespin), the offset distances differ in proportion to their different diameters.

pj
chgo

 

[Barioni Cues]

Some test result info!

Ok I can see that I am going to have to list some results so they can be commented on or discussed. So I need some specific questions or tests that you want the results for. As I stated earlier we spent hundreds of hours testing what seem like everything. From different shaft tapers, stiffness, tip diameter, tip hardness, flex points, growth rings and density, chalk, heavy cues vs. light cues just to name a few. Feel free to ask for further details or a more in depth discussion.
Here is some basic info to get this thread going:
We tested the difference between a small diameter shaft vs. a bigger diameter shaft. Example: a 10mm tip vs. a 14mm tip. We actually tested all in between this spectrum.
Answer: A smaller tip diameter produces less cue ball deflection. This is because of a lot of reasons. One is less mass. Another reason is a smaller tip has less of a contact patch. When aiming for the same spot on the cue ball, the smaller tip contacts the cue ball farther off center. Example. If you are aiming for a 3/16" off center hit a smaller diameter tip is contacting the cue ball farther off center than a bigger tip. How ever a bigger tip grips the cue ball more and can produce more spin. Along with the bigger tip comes more mass which equals more cue ball deflection but because the bigger tip is covering more center ball it compensates for some of that deflection. There are many things a cue maker can do to reduce the cue ball deflection in a bigger diameter shaft to compensate for the extra mass.

Which produces less cue ball deflection, a nickle radius or a dime radius?
Answer: A dime radius. There are a few reason why. But the answer is a dime radius produces less cue ball deflection and is more accurate using center ball.

 

[EagleMan]

There is a difference between product testing and scientific testing.

This is product testing in that all it shows is the difference's in performance of the different cues under the same test parameters. Product testing does not always reflect actual real world operating conditions. Such is the case in this testing.

Scientific testing would take into consideration all the variables that are encountered in the real world of shot making and not just one set of testing parameters.

Doing test at only one speed does not reflect what happens at various speeds that is used in shot making. In 14.1, slow rolls are key, yet, the testing here does not include these slow rolls.

What about bridge length? The distance from the bridge pivot and the cue ball. In this test, the same length is used unlike in the real world of shot making where the same bridge length can not always be used.

The result of this marketing is a person will buy a LD shaft thinking they need one, when in reality, they are just shooting too hard, are trying to do too much on a shot with a cue ball.

I've been playing a new player that got a LD shaft cue and is so proud of it. He can talk the lingo, but he is clueless about the real facts behind shot making. Instead of understanding the ins and outs of shot making, he bought into the hype of needing a LD shaft because of per marketing.
I find the biggest weakness of players is lack of knowing just how much speed is needed to do a shot. I notice most shoot harder than needed for the shot or not understanding how to make the CB work for you. So, they get a LD shaft thinking that's the answer and it might be for a short time only. No matter what shaft you use,until you master your speed control, you will only go so far.

And the only way to master speed control is table time and not equipment used.

Most on here will never get the level of feel needed to truly know what is going on between the CB and cue tip.

Hopefully, this post will not cause the thread to deteriorate into YET ANOTHER LD shaft debate.

But relative to your comment above...I can't imagine anything GOOD about squirt. Rather, I think it is a flaw that good players learn to anticipate and compensate for.

Therefore, to the extent that a particular shaft ACTUALLY results in less squirt over a broad range of shot speeds...tip offsets etc. vs. some other shaft, then for newer players or more experienced ones who feel that they have not "mastered" their current game and don't mind spending the TIME to adapt to a LD shaft, then there is no "hype" involved.

The only "hype" would be if the cue didn't actually produce the range of results that the manufacturer claims OR if the manufacturer CLAIMS that using their cue will somehow revolutionize your game.

Most make no such claims in my observation. The first paragraph in the Predator web site section on "Performance" states..."Enhancing your performance is what inspires us, drives our research and defines our mission."

"Enhancing" doesn't mean revolutionizing . (There may be hype elsewhere on the site. I've not read every page but if I was going to hype my product, I would do it on the first page). (-:

The LD debate has always reminded me of the trasition from persimmon drivers to metal. Unfortunately, I'm old enough to have been there at the time and I guarantee you that TONS of people disrespected "metal woods" and said things like..."If persimmon was good enough for Sneed, it's good enough for me."

So...IF...repeat...IF a purported LD shaft actually reduces squirt across a range normally used shots, it is just unfounded to refer to the promotion of such technology as being "hype."

(-:

EagleMan

 

[evanlockhart]

I find the biggest weakness of players is lack of knowing just how much speed is needed to do a shot.

Most on here will never get the level of feel needed to truly know what is going on between the CB and cue tip.

THIS.

A prime example of a pro player who shoots shots at near perfect speeds is Efren. If you want to learn how to use the proper speed on shots, watch him play. He's the master at pulling off a slow shot where most people (even top pros) would throw a lot of english and a big stroke to get the same results.

A lot of players will tell you that they didn't start getting good until they started to pay attention to what they were doing. I personally can't stress this enough...pay attention to where you're hitting, how you hit it, what changes happen with modifications in elevation/stroke/etc.

Like duckie said, most people won't get or even understand the level of feel they need to truly know what is going on. It takes a lot of practice, close observation and understanding.

 

[iusedtoberich]

My opinion is you should write a report for each test or series of tests that you did. Use the scientific method to format you report. Describe your hypothesis, experiment, test data, and conclusion. If you spent all this time making test equipment, and performing the actual tests, you need to close the loop and make coherent reports on your findings. Paragraphs after paragraphs in this thread will not do justice to the trouble you went through.

Its also important from a peer review standpoint, that we know what your thought process was. For example, in your reply above comparing small to large diameter tips, you say when aimed the same way, they hit different parts of the cue ball. What does this mean, specifically? (that is a rhetorical question). I personally find fault with a test method that keeps the centerline of the cue in the same spot, as opposed to the contact point. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right... that is not the point. The point again is for this to be "scientific" you have to be very specific in how you report your experiments. Again, I urge you to consult your physicist for the "scientific method".

I don't mean to discourage you in any way, I hope I'm not coming across that way. Its just its obvious you put in a ton of effort. You have to finish strong now.