And another new hi-tech shaft on the market...
- Thread starter kaduku
- Start date
For me personally I prefer solid hitting maple shafts. It is what I learned with and feel most comfortable with. I have hit with alot of laminated shafts that are out there and for me did not like the feel of them. To me they feel "dead". Had I learned on a laminated shaft I probably would feel the oppisite. I have alot of requests for predator shafts when people order cues from me, I generally include a pair of regular maple shafts with the cue. If for no other reason than resale. I have had alot of customers call me and tell me just for fun they hit with the maple shafts and really liked them. Most of the local players that I see around town that shoot with my cues are using my regular maple shafts.
I have noticed most of my customers who play with predator or laminated of some sort shafts are younger or lesser skilled players. And, the ones who use plain hard maple shafts are generally older or higher skilled players. I am not saying all of them fall into these catagorys but I would say 70 - 80% do. I have been taking notice of this for a few years to see where the market is going. I noticed alot of the better players got laminated shafts and played with them for 6mo to a year and then switched back to plain maple. In the end it is all preference.
My personal take on all of the new shafts coming out is there is some sicence being developed that may help improve the game. I am all for using the best of everything out there. That being said, I think alot of people are making shafts of all sorts of construction types just so they can say they are doing something special and make all sorts of claims about their product. I am constantly expirmenting with shaft designs and materials. I think it is foolish not to try to make a better product. I will not be selling any of my expirmental shafts untill I come up with one I truly believe in.
Just my 2 cents Chris Byrne CB Custom Cues.
I have noticed most of my customers who play with predator or laminated of some sort shafts are younger or lesser skilled players. And, the ones who use plain hard maple shafts are generally older or higher skilled players. I am not saying all of them fall into these catagorys but I would say 70 - 80% do. I have been taking notice of this for a few years to see where the market is going. I noticed alot of the better players got laminated shafts and played with them for 6mo to a year and then switched back to plain maple. In the end it is all preference.
My personal take on all of the new shafts coming out is there is some sicence being developed that may help improve the game. I am all for using the best of everything out there. That being said, I think alot of people are making shafts of all sorts of construction types just so they can say they are doing something special and make all sorts of claims about their product. I am constantly expirmenting with shaft designs and materials. I think it is foolish not to try to make a better product. I will not be selling any of my expirmental shafts untill I come up with one I truly believe in.
Just my 2 cents Chris Byrne CB Custom Cues.
Where is Corey?
I have been Lurking in this thread waiting for Corey's take on all of this.
I was going to buy a Tiger X shaft last year for my Adams, but they did not have one in 5/16X18 with a Silver Ring. The same went for Predator, they both just offered a plain Black collar. I wanted the Rings to match.
(it's just a thing with me
) Anyway I wound up having a nice Maple shaft made for it, and it really has a good hit & feel to it.
I hope Corey has some input, when I spoke to him on the phone, he really knows his stuff when it comes to Shaft construction and material.
"CH"
I have been Lurking in this thread waiting for Corey's take on all of this.
I was going to buy a Tiger X shaft last year for my Adams, but they did not have one in 5/16X18 with a Silver Ring. The same went for Predator, they both just offered a plain Black collar. I wanted the Rings to match.
(it's just a thing with me
) Anyway I wound up having a nice Maple shaft made for it, and it really has a good hit & feel to it. I hope Corey has some input, when I spoke to him on the phone, he really knows his stuff when it comes to Shaft construction and material.
"CH"
You and the other posters might be right. A lower squirt shaft, however, does produce a higher spin/speed ratio. If you put the same speed on the cueball with two different cues, the lower squirt one will get you more spin. There is no question about this. A hypothetical zero-squirt cue could produce a nearly 12 percent increase in spin/speed ratio at large tip offsets over a normal one.suckershot said:
For the Predator line the increase isn't much, about 2-3 percent depending on which one you're looking at and using their figures for how much a normal shaft squirts. And you may not see any of this because their cues might not generate the same cueball speed at the same stick speed. They may or may not be as energy efficient.
Jim
Last edited:
Test equiptment
Wondering how many of you forum members actually went to the link above and read the entire page on those shafts.....
Interesting test equiptment........Wonder how reliable it truly is considering that the table is set on shag carpet.......And more importantly the two support legs for the TEST "MULE" MACHINE is placed on this same carpet......
Now deflection is the amount of deviation of the shaft upon impact with the cue ball.............The only true way of testing any deflection is by slow motion video which is capable of viewing actual shaft movement/deflection upon striking the cue ball............How much a ball deviates from the target line is not a true gauge of deflection it is a variable of physics..........................Variables such as tip "traction", cloth reaction to english, throw and many more things reflect this sites DEVIATION FROM TARGET LINE TEST
I have tried some of the laminated shafts out on the market today.......Own some of them...........But truly prefer to play with all natural rock hard maple shafts......
Wondering how many of you forum members actually went to the link above and read the entire page on those shafts.....
Interesting test equiptment........Wonder how reliable it truly is considering that the table is set on shag carpet.......And more importantly the two support legs for the TEST "MULE" MACHINE is placed on this same carpet......
Now deflection is the amount of deviation of the shaft upon impact with the cue ball.............The only true way of testing any deflection is by slow motion video which is capable of viewing actual shaft movement/deflection upon striking the cue ball............How much a ball deviates from the target line is not a true gauge of deflection it is a variable of physics..........................Variables such as tip "traction", cloth reaction to english, throw and many more things reflect this sites DEVIATION FROM TARGET LINE TEST
I have tried some of the laminated shafts out on the market today.......Own some of them...........But truly prefer to play with all natural rock hard maple shafts......
It would be quite an achievement if he managed to reduce squirt by the amount his numbers seem to indicate... miraculous actually. I'm not saying he hasn't, but it's highly doubtful.Snap9 said:
For one thing, his figures indicate that the Predator Z produces roughly 1/3 the amount of squirt of the 314. This is grossly, grossly different from Predator's own numbers, as well as Platinum Billiard's data which are consistent with Predator's. According to them, the Z shaft squirts about 93% as much as the 314 (first generation). This throws into question his test procedure.
I believe he's using "deflection" as a synonym for squirt. As you say, there are a few variables which his setup doesn't seem too dedicated to eliminating, namely swerve and throw. With enough cue speed, he can reduce the effects of swerve to essentially nill. But the tip offset he's using (3/16") is in a region where throw varies fairly rapidly with the angle of approach to the object ball. This may or may not explain the curious results he's getting. It's hard to tell without more details on his setup.Snap9 said:
Jim
I had two shafts of old-growth long-submerged timber made by Mike Capone for a cue he built for me. I played with them for about two years. The wood does, indeed, have distinctive and very pleasant properties.
Esthetically, those shafts were the finest I've ever owned. Their sound was sharper - more "tink" than "thud" - but easier on the ear than any I've ever heard. Their resonant frequency happened to be musical to humans. Their color - beige tinged faintly with salmon pink - was unusual and very pleasing to the eye.
Performance-wise, they were stiffer than similar shafts on other Capone cues I've handled. Their grain was tighter and the growth rings were more uniform in width than modern shafts. They played more consistently no matter how I oriented the grain of the wood, and in all climate conditions
Consistency, I believe, is the major virtue of laminated shafts. To the extent that a laminated shaft performs the same throughout its length and cross section, no matter how its "grain" is oriented, and under varying climate conditions, then it is helpful to the player.
I don't particularly care how much squirt a shaft has, as long as it's the same on similar shots. I can adapt to a characteristic that doesn't change on me.
A master cuemaker can make a shaft from well-chosen unmodified maple that's every bit as consistent as laminated or long-submerged wood. (It doesn't even have to be maple; I really want to try yew.) Less-experienced or mass-producing cuemakers may subsitute laminates for the sources, acumen, and technique of the master to achieve approximately the same consistency.
It's getting harder and harder to find high-quality unmodified wood, so alternatives like laminates are welcome. But paying twice as much for a laminated shaft goes against my religious beliefs. I believe I'll be damned if I do.
Esthetically, those shafts were the finest I've ever owned. Their sound was sharper - more "tink" than "thud" - but easier on the ear than any I've ever heard. Their resonant frequency happened to be musical to humans. Their color - beige tinged faintly with salmon pink - was unusual and very pleasing to the eye.
Performance-wise, they were stiffer than similar shafts on other Capone cues I've handled. Their grain was tighter and the growth rings were more uniform in width than modern shafts. They played more consistently no matter how I oriented the grain of the wood, and in all climate conditions
Consistency, I believe, is the major virtue of laminated shafts. To the extent that a laminated shaft performs the same throughout its length and cross section, no matter how its "grain" is oriented, and under varying climate conditions, then it is helpful to the player.
I don't particularly care how much squirt a shaft has, as long as it's the same on similar shots. I can adapt to a characteristic that doesn't change on me.
A master cuemaker can make a shaft from well-chosen unmodified maple that's every bit as consistent as laminated or long-submerged wood. (It doesn't even have to be maple; I really want to try yew.) Less-experienced or mass-producing cuemakers may subsitute laminates for the sources, acumen, and technique of the master to achieve approximately the same consistency.
It's getting harder and harder to find high-quality unmodified wood, so alternatives like laminates are welcome. But paying twice as much for a laminated shaft goes against my religious beliefs. I believe I'll be damned if I do.
Last edited:
I'm questioning it. I think the spin/speed ratio is based on tip offset and the force. The vector of the force would be determined at contact, not at separation. So, regardless of squirt values, given the same stick total mass and stick speed, the torque value should be the same.Jal said:
What parameters would lower squirt change in this collision?
Fred
Last edited:
Jal said:
Whether or not the low squirt shafts produce more spin, I don't know that it matters to me if the end result does not show me that there was more spin when I actually shoot the shot. What I know and what I can see with my eyes is that when I used the regular squirt shaft that came with my custom, when I moved toward the edge of the cue ball (equal to how I would with my Predator), I noticed wider angles off cushions and the ability to move whitey easier.
I suppose I was asking for it.Cornerman said:
The reason I felt pretty sure about the spin/speed (and still do) is that you don't have to know any of the details of the time evolving force. The cueball ends up going in some direction and that's the average direction of the force during the collision. The greater the squirt, the more this force is pointing toward the center of the cueball, and thus less torque.Cornerman said:
So all else being equal, a lower squirt cue should generate more spin. But the gain is so small given the amount of squirt reduction currently being achieved, that it's easily negated by a slight drop in tip/stick energy efficiency. As Feldz23 indicated above, I think the tip is the most important factor here. No?
Another thing which favors the lower squirt cue is that the force is also lined up more with the center of the shaft. This should help the cueball "see" more of the cue's mass. This doesn't affect the spin/speed ratio, but should boost the spin and speed together....slightly.
Please shed some light if you think I err.
Jim
Last edited:
I know I'm being a little rude in questioning your direct experience, but I don't think what you describe is possible, unless of course your regular cue squirts less than the Predator. In fact, the differences are so small, according to my understanding, that it would take a fairly precise test to detect the difference in the generated spin/speed ratio between them.suckershot said:
Jim
Jal said:
It is very possible since I witnessed it with my own two eyes on the table. I am making no claims about spin/speed ratio or whatever it is that you're talking about. I am simply making a claim about what unfolded on the table. No, the shaft does not squirt less than the Predator; in fact, it squirts quite a bit more. Again, on the table, there was a noticeable increase in the angles off cushions with said shaft, which suggests to me more spin.
No offense taken, btw. Just want to make it clear that what I'm saying is based on what I've seen in using the cue on the table. As far as the experience goes...no I'm not some fantastic player, but I'm putting in lots of hours trying to be better. I would say on average that I play about 20-25 hours a week (that's what free time for APA team captains will do for you).
I don't think evolving force is a necessary study either. Just the initial force. Actually, for spin/speed ratio, the tip offset is the only parameter, as the force doesn't affect the ratio.Jal said:
The direction of the cueball, as you know, is due to squirt. And squirt is due to the lateral force, not the axial force. And I think spin is from the axial force, which should be the same in both cases.
I don't think this is true. THe force "forward" is based on the entire mass of the stick plus shooter's arm, regardless of squirt characteristics. I believe the ball sees as much mass as the speed of sound through the shaft sees during the tip/ball contact time, which is all of it.
Since I see mikepage viewing these, I'd like to hear his assessment, as well as Mr. Jewett's.
Fred
Cornerman said:
This is what I said o the issue in 1999. I think it is what JAL is saying.
*************
Is the range of spin-to-speed ratios larger for a low-squirt stick than
for a high squirt stick? I¹m thinking the answer is yes.
For a given hit eccentricity, is the spin-to-speed ratio larger for a
low-squirt stick than for a high squirt stick? I¹m thinking the answer to
that is yes also.
First let me give the qualitative argument. Imagine hitting a ball with
maximum right english and a very squirty (lead-weighted) stick. The ball
might squirt out 30 degrees or so as the heavy stick pushes back to avoid
being deflected sideways. The impulsive force of the collision, which
includes a forward component and a sideways component, can be thought of
as simultaneous hits from two hypothetical squirtless sticks. One of
these is directed just like the real stick and produces (if it acted
alone) a ball going in the direction of the real stick with a
spin-to-speed ratio (w/V) characteristic of the tip offset, b. The other
hypothetical squirtless stick is directed perpendicular to the first and
has the same contact point. It produces (if it acted alone) a
perpendicular-moving cueball with a spin-to-speed ratio characteristic of
it¹s tip offset (which is related to but different from the first one).
The two velocities add vectorally to produce the observed velocity, and
the two spins add vectorally to produce the observed spin. The key
point is this: because the two velocities are perpendicular to one
another, the magnitude of the resultant is always larger than the
magnitude of either component, and because the two spin vectors point in
opposite directions, the resultant spin magnitude is always smaller than
either component. Here¹s another way to look at it. While you¹re aiming
and hitting for maximum right english, the part of the stick-ball force
that is producing the squirt is also trying to give the cueball a little
left english. This is a small amount, but it¹s enough to cancel out some
of the desired right english.
So am I suggesting a low-squirt stick gives "superspin?" Well it depends
on what you mean by superspin. If you mean a spin-to-speed ratio larger
than w/V = b*M/I, then no. If it means the low-squirt stick gives more
spin than squirtier sticks give, then yes. What I¹m really suggesting is
that squirty sticks give a spin-to-speed ratio that is less than that
given by the above equation.
So how big an effect is this?
The above separation of forces is valid by the principle of superposition
of forces. Say you¹re aiming in the x direction, and you¹re hitting with
right spin with offset b. Then (this equation is from APAPP)
M * Vx = I * w / b.
And for the sideways direction,
M * Vy = I * w / b¹.
b¹ is related to b by
b¹**2 = R**2 * b**2
The sine of the squirt angle is Vy / Vx
Sin(t) = Vy / Vx = (w¹ * b) / (w * b¹)
The goal now is to get the total spin (wt) and divide it by the total
speed (Vt) to get the spin-to-speed ratio.
w¹ = b¹ * sin(t) * w / b = sqrt(R**2 * b**2) * w * sin(t) / b
wt = w * w¹ = w(1- sin(t) * sqrt(R**2 * b**2) / b)
Vt = Vx * sqrt[1 + (sin(t)**2)]
The next equation shows that the actual spin-to-speed ratio is the
hypothetical [ b * M / I] multiplied by a factor that is smaller than
unity.
wt/Vt = b* M/I * [1 *( sqrt ( R**2 * b**2))* sin(t) / b] / sqrt[1 +
(sin(t)**2)]
Now sin(t) can be replaced with b / pp, where pp is the squirt pivot
point, and sin(t)**2 can be neglected.
This gives, as a working equation,
wt / Vt = b * M / I * [1 * (R/ pp )* sqrt( 1 * (b/R)**2)]
If we suppose that maximum offset is b/R = 0.5, then this equation gives
the following spin-to-speed ratios (as percentages of the theoretical
maximum) for sticks of various pivot points:
pp (in) spin-to-speed ratio
6 84
10 90
12 92
16 94
24 96
50 98
The bottom line is that a 40-inch pivot point stick can give about 5% more
spin than an (about average ?) 14 inch pivot point stick.
Is this significant? I think so. If it's right [
], then it bolstersthe less-squirt-is-better position. Since spin-to-speed ratio is hard to
measure, I think the way to test this relation is to go from average
squirt to lots of squirt. Perhaps clamp a moveable weight to the shaft of
a house cue and measure maximum spin-to-speed as the weight is moved
forward toward the tip.
****
mike page
fargo
blueballs said:
I stand by what I said. Do a search on here for timeless timber. Just as many cuemakers think they are overrated and have a dead hit as there are cuemakers who like their experiences with them, maybe more. Anyone that wants to argue is really arguing with those cuemakers.
My original point in what I said was skins was saying all of the new fad shafts can only go so far in improving one's game, and some of them are hype. I agreed with that. He then pointed to timeless timber as a standard pool cue shaft. That is what I felt was a weak argument over the use of the new fad shafts. The value of timeless timber is it was largely old growth logs with high ring counts. Dickie had some to test out, and they were 40-45 rings per inch. But, he didn't like his experiences with it. It was great quality wood to begin with, but a hundred years of water preservation doesn't necessarily make a good shaft.
There are many woods used in musical instruments and command high prices, they don't all make good pool cue shafts.
Kelly
We partly agree here but I'm not sure why you're making a distinction between the "initial force" and what comes after that. The cueball's speed and spin is determined by the entire time integral of the force over the contact period. We don't need to know the details, though, just what the force's average direction is. And the cueball's direction (squirt angle) gives us this.Cornerman said:
Here is a comparison of the effective tip offset for a high squirt cue (red) and a low squirt cue (blue), greatly exaggerated for illustration purposes. You want to send the cueball in the direction indicated by the velocity vector v, and we're assuming perfect squirt compensation in the stick angle. Both cue's are hitting at the same apparent offset b.
The effective offsets are shown as b' and the F vectors show the average direction of the force for each cue. The torque on the cueball is b'F in each case. The red and blue F's will likely not be exactly the same, but this is irrelevant as you said. We're only interested in the effective offset b' since this is what determines the spin/speed ratio. It's easily determined from the squirt angle gamma, as shown below:
The spin/speed ratio w/v is found by dividing b'FT/FT = Iw/mv, where T is the contact time. To be a little more accurate, we should consider the additional offset produced by the rotation of the ball during impact. Before rotation, the tip offset angle is shown as theta in the above diagram. If we call the amount of rotation during impact "d_theta", the increase in theta for the purpose of figuring the average offset can be shown to be about (.27) d_theta. Then from theta + (.27)d_theta we subtract the squirt angle gamma to get the final effective tip offset b'.
I believe you're probably right here and I'm wrong (except for the shooter's arm part). While I'm not completely comfortable with the treatment, the conservation laws do show the cueball with more speed for a higher squirt stick. But I'll add the caveat that it's hard to account for all of the energy. For one thing, some of the stick's pre-impact energy gets taken up as potential energy with the bending of the stick.Cornerman said:
Jim
lmfao at the test equipment in the shag carpeted basement
Kelly_Guy said:
HuH????? where did you read i said this??? you aren't reading my post's very well or are interpreting them way off. i've said these shafts make no increase in better play period. my exact sentence was, "the truth, at least my truth, is the type of shaft itself does not "guarantee" better shot performance nor an advance in game play." go back and read my posts again.