Another deflection thread. Does whip *increase* squirt?

StevenPWaldon

StevenPWaldon

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Was having a conversation with a friend at the poolhall the other day, and the topic of shafts came up.

My friend Mike used to work for Tim Padgett, and has a lot of experience both playing with and making cues. Mike is of the firm belief that a stiff shaft (regardless of endmass) reduced cue ball squirt, and that a flexible whippy shaft increases the amount of cueball squirt (again, regardless of endmasss).

He then tells me of a shaft Padgett was making that was gouged and pretty much useless. He decided to toy around with it, and reduced the tip to around 8 or 9 mm, with a super long taper. Needless to say, it was whippy as all hell -- but *also* caused a lot of cue ball squirt. The cue ball went everywhere but where you pointed it.

How can current theories of endmess-induced squirt be reconciled with the above-mentioned shaft? Seeing as how the tip was only 8 mm or so with a long taper, clearly the endmass was drastically reduced.

I've heard numerous people discredit shaft flexibility/whippiness as a factor that reduces cue ball squirt.... but this would be the first instance I've heard someone *attribute* it to squirt. In his words (not mine), shaft deflection leads to cue ball deflection. Mike's been playing for probably longer than I've been alive, and is of the rare breed that also has experience making the cues in addition to playing with them so I'd imagine he's got more insight than most people. Am I saying he's right? I don't know... that's why I'm posting here; to get your opinions and thoughts.

So again, how can the current theory that attributes endmass to squirt also explain the case of the super-thin, super-whippy, super-squirt shaft above?

Colin, you've posted a number of times on this topic and seem to have some unique insight (though also highly disputed). Thoughts?
 
All things being equal, imo the whippier the shaft and the farther the flexpoint is from the tip, the more cueball squirt.
 
Mike's test was very interesting...not sure what exact conclusions can be made from it.

If I were to speculate and guess based on my playing experience with various cues, which I must say is neither comprehensive or scientifically conducted, I would say that whippy cues squirt more.

My main reasoning, other than my feeling for trying a few whippy cues in the past, and having seen Mike's whippy (almost) shaft that squirts considerably is this:

The rotational force on the CB which pushes the cue away will be resisted by the cue tip moreso. First thought might be that this increases squirt. But I think it helps the tip to lock more tightly into the surface on the CB, hance allowing a greater proportion of the linear force to be converted into the CB.

Kind of speculation, but I do think we need to understand what is going on at the tip-CB interface to see more deeply into these problems rather than just assume everything is dependent on the tip end-mass.

I had a couple of articles I used to link to on this, but the website domain went down. I plan to update them and improve upon them soon in the instructional area of my blog (link below).

Colin
 
Last edited:
Glad to hear peoples' opinions on this. Seems like for a while people (including myself) were all on the "tip endmass" bandwagon to cure all our problems. Now it seems as if Mike Page's and my friend Mike's anecdotal experience would suggest flex points / whip as a factor in squirt.

I've got a few stiff shafts and a few whippy shafts, and was surprised to see how much squirt some of the whippy shafts had. It reasoned initially that due to the decrease in the end mass of the tip (they're reduced diameter), they should squirt less.
 
JoeyInCali said:
All things being equal, imo the whippier the shaft and the farther the flexpoint is from the tip, the more cueball squirt.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea JIC!

Though I'm not sure how a flex point could be defined, or if a such a point actually exists.

I think it would make more sense to talk about sideway's resistance. Surely endmass contributes partially to sideway's resistance, but I believe the shaft stiffness would also play a considerable role.

When it comes to Rotation Induced Deflection, that is, that the CB rotates and pushes on the cue, the effect is almost instantaneous. So I wonder, that if the cue tip is locked / geared well, then it would push the CB back such that it encounters a rotational force in the other direction...and back and forth several times, while the locking / gearing is taking place.

Hence the gearing of the balls may be much more significant than usually presumed, as my theory on Surface Property Induced Deflection (SPID) enquired.

Not all aimed at you Joey...you and a few beers just got me thinking:p
Colin
 
StevenPWaldon said:
Glad to hear peoples' opinions on this. Seems like for a while people (including myself) were all on the "tip endmass" bandwagon to cure all our problems. Now it seems as if Mike Page's and my friend Mike's anecdotal experience would suggest flex points / whip as a factor in squirt.

I've got a few stiff shafts and a few whippy shafts, and was surprised to see how much squirt some of the whippy shafts had. It reasoned initially that due to the decrease in the end mass of the tip (they're reduced diameter), they should squirt less.
Click to expand...

I think many have been dissatisfied with the tip-end-mass cause of deflection as a complete explanation. There's no doubt it contributes however.

I wrote a few threads about some tests for compensation for Back Hand English. After quite a lot of testing, I have found that speed of shot plays an even more significant role in squirt than I had imagined.

Further proof in my mind that the currently widely accepted theory is severely wanting.
 
More fuel to the fire:

Keeping with the idea of flex / whip, I'm sure many of us are familiar with Wanye Schmidt's super-ball-tip. If not, you can go to this page and read it: http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/billiards.htm

In using a rubber super ball for a tip, he got a tremendous increase in squirt! Needless to say, without changing tip endmass or the shaft's flex point he increased squirt dramatically.

This would seem to mesh well with Colin's assertion that a harder tip reduces squirt. And with the flex characteristics of the rubber super ball, I'm sure more can be deduced about how flex contributes to squirt.

Interesting.
 
StevenPWaldon said:
More fuel to the fire:

Keeping with the idea of flex / whip, I'm sure many of us are familiar with Wanye Schmidt's super-ball-tip. If not, you can go to this page and read it: http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/billiards.htm

In using a rubber super ball for a tip, he got a tremendous increase in squirt! Needless to say, without changing tip endmass or the shaft's flex point he increased squirt dramatically.

This would seem to mesh well with Colin's assertion that a harder tip reduces squirt. And with the flex characteristics of the rubber super ball, I'm sure more can be deduced about how flex contributes to squirt.

Interesting.
Click to expand...

Funny you should post that...shows I'm not the only looney:D

About 15 years ago I got excited enough to stay up all night shaping a rubber tip, similar to the one you linked to, thinking it would perform miracles...haha

The next day, with a small crowd gathered around I tested it out and could hardly hit the balls I was aiming at. How embaressment as you yanks say :p

Still not sure I can explain the exact reason, but I think it has a bit to do with the linear transference of force down the line of the cue, being interfered with by gripping / gearing. The rubber tip did give a very weak transfer of power as I recall.

Note: After that I did set upon a search for some firmer rubbers such as those used for climbing shoes, a rubber called C4, but found out that was a name of a plastic explosive so didn't follow that up as I thought the CIA would come after me :o

I remember there was a rubber/synthetic tip available a few years ago online that they claimed was better than leather and didn't require chalk....I didn't and still don't believe it, at least that product. Anything's possible I guess.
 
Last edited:
Colin Colenso said:
Note: After that I did set upon a search for some firmer rubbers such as those used for climbing shoes, a rubber called C4, but found out that was a name of a plastic explosive so didn't follow that up as I thought the CIA would come after me :o.
Click to expand...
I carved out a tip using C4 plastic and tried to hit a ball with it in the past. And believe me after hitting one ball, how much it squirted was furthest from my mind...KAABOOOM! :D
 
jsp said:
I carved out a tip using C4 plastic and tried to hit a ball with it in the past. And believe me after hitting one ball, how much it squirted was furthest from my mind...KAABOOOM! :D
Click to expand...

You need some trinitrotoluene (TNT) for abrasive!:D
lol
 
consider this possibility...

Ok, We know that endmass has an effect and we think that squirliness of the shaft has an effect too, I think that endmass directly effects the amount of squirliness and that affects the amount of squirt....

Ok, as the tip makes contact with the CB and starts to push it forward, the CB pushes back on the shaft. When using say left english, the majority of the mass of the CB is to the right of the tip, this should cause the shaft to flex to the left, but the tip maintains contact with the ball because of the abrasiveness of the chalk, so it would Bow to the left so long as you don't miscue.

Well because of this bowing action, the front of the shaft is now aiming to the right, which is the direction that the CB squirts to.

If Endmass is reduced and or the tip is softer and gives more, less of the force of the reacting mass of the CB will put pressure on the shaft and less bowing will occur keeping the shaft more on the original line, reducing squirt.
 
Jaden said:
Ok, We know that endmass has an effect and we think that squirliness of the shaft has an effect too, I think that endmass directly effects the amount of squirliness and that affects the amount of squirt....

Ok, as the tip makes contact with the CB and starts to push it forward, the CB pushes back on the shaft. When using say left english, the majority of the mass of the CB is to the right of the tip, this should cause the shaft to flex to the left, but the tip maintains contact with the ball because of the abrasiveness of the chalk, so it would Bow to the left so long as you don't miscue.

Well because of this bowing action, the front of the shaft is now aiming to the right, which is the direction that the CB squirts to.

If Endmass is reduced and or the tip is softer and gives more, less of the force of the reacting mass of the CB will put pressure on the shaft and less bowing will occur keeping the shaft more on the original line, reducing squirt.
Click to expand...

If you've seen the predator animations, they claim that the whippy shaft helps the cue bend away from the force applied from the CB, hence reducing the action - reaction of the weight of the tip-end-mass.

Re-reading your words. You mention that the cue (for left english) would deflect left a touch and grip again, or establish grip after the original contact, hence pushing the CB slightly opposite the direction of squirt which is to the right.

This is not how it is normally looked at, but if it were possible, it would mean a whippy / bendy shaft should have less deflection. Unless of course there is a critical mass type point between the variables of grip and flex to achieve this tranfered angle gripping or second gripping.

But I don't think we need to look that deeply. The effect you mention would happen to a degree I believe, but I think it would be very minor. The change in shaft angle during contact would be less than 0.2 degrees just guessing. High speed video could confirm this. Whereas squirt can be over a degree.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't meaning to infer a second gripping or loosing of the original grip. What I was meaning is that without the grip that the chalk provides the mass of the CB would tend to push the front of the shaft to the left, but with it(the grip provided by the chalk), it causes the shaft to bow to the left instead changing the angle of the shaft in relation to the CB and the original aimline.

In addition to this their would be a limited amount of slip as the CB comes away from the tip that would also change the angle some. Your idea on the chalk might help reduce this slip.
 
So a quick conclusion: a good low-squirt shaft would be a stiff shaft with low end mass. A hard, roung tip may help minimally as well.

Predators definitely have low(ered) endmass, and most people describe the hit as stiff. What's always confused me is their animation that shows the shaft bending away from the cue, when anyone who has hit with a Predator (the lovers *and* the haters) says that the shaft is quite stiff and not as Meucci-like whippy as the animation would suggest. The animation could actually be wrong... propaganda, even.

Interesting.
 
Jaden said:
I wasn't meaning to infer a second gripping or loosing of the original grip. What I was meaning is that without the grip that the chalk provides the mass of the CB would tend to push the front of the shaft to the left, but with it(the grip provided by the chalk), it causes the shaft to bow to the left instead changing the angle of the shaft in relation to the CB and the original aimline.

In addition to this their would be a limited amount of slip as the CB comes away from the tip that would also change the angle some. Your idea on the chalk might help reduce this slip.
Click to expand...

I can't see a difference between pushing the shaft left and bowing it to the left.

Struggling with the image.:(
 
StevenPWaldon said:
So a quick conclusion: a good low-squirt shaft would be a stiff shaft with low end mass. A hard, roung tip may help minimally as well.

Predators definitely have low(ered) endmass, and most people describe the hit as stiff. What's always confused me is their animation that shows the shaft bending away from the cue, when anyone who has hit with a Predator (the lovers *and* the haters) says that the shaft is quite stiff and not as Meucci-like whippy as the animation would suggest. The animation could actually be wrong... propaganda, even.

Interesting.
Click to expand...
Yes,propoganda, and I doubt it helps them any showing a shaft bending away off the line of the shot. Though that idea does confirm to what tip-end-mass theorists would tend to assume is advantageous.

Just doesn't look right intuitively,...like who would want to watch a razor bouncing along one's face:D

Why the conical segments if they wanted a whippy shaft? I think they would do better to concentrate just on their low tip-end-mass and relatively stiff shaft, for the given diameter.
 
You can achieve very low deflection in any AA hard rock maple one piece shaft by using a hard tip, a soft ferrule and a slightly stronger than normal pro taper that begins at 11.5mm and then gets thicker slightly. The taper is so important and most of the key to it. A stiff cue deflects more than a whipper Moochie. I dont play with a MOOCHIE but it is a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top