For a little perspective - the difference between 13mm and 12.75mm is less than 1/100th of an inch.
It's amazing how small a difference makes such a big difference to us.
pj
chgo
I believe this point is wrong. The main point is that as long as the tip does not slip on the cue ball, the actual coefficient of friction between the tip and the ball is irrelevant.... 2) A smaller shaft dia will deflect more (less squirt due to less mass). However, remember what is happening at the cue ball - cloth contact point when you hit more downward on the cue ball. The friction between cue ball and cloth is proportional to the force applied by the cue. A lower deflection (bigger diameter) shaft will create more friction, which would dampen the amount of spin generated on the cue ball. ...
I believe this point is wrong. The main point is that as long as the tip does not slip on the cue ball, the actual coefficient of friction between the tip and the ball is irrelevant.
Further, your last point seems to ignore the fact that the friction force on the bottom of the ball is very small for all shafts relative to the tip-ball force. Small differences between small numbers lead to a very small total difference.
2) A smaller shaft dia will deflect more (less squirt due to less mass). However, remember what is happening at the cue ball - cloth contact point when you hit more downward on the cue ball. The friction between cue ball and cloth is proportional to the force applied by the cue. A lower deflection (bigger diameter) shaft will create more friction, which would dampen the amount of spin generated on the cue ball.
You're saying more cue mass = more force = more ball/cloth friction = less spin, right? But isn't the greater ball/cloth friction overcome by the greater force?Point #2 - I am not saying the friction between the tip and the cue ball. I am saying the friction between the cue ball and the cloth, due to the increased downward force applied with a more elevated cue.
You're saying more cue mass = more force = more ball/cloth friction = less spin, right? But isn't the greater ball/cloth friction overcome by the greater force?
pj
chgo
Then just HOW do SO many GREAT Asian players play SO well with the dark-age shafts they use? Small-diameter LD shafts are fine IF you like them but they are not the magic elixir so many make them out to be.Pros would be dumb to play with that huge shafts, as they have skill where the material becomes the limiting factor.
As recent games have shown it's increasingly about finesse and acuracy, and by far less about "power", as it might have been in the olden days.
Also strokes have improved greatly so that smaller shafts become more of an improvement and less of a risk (unwanted spin and all that).
Add to that the benefit of a shaft handling more situations (center ball all to extrem spin) within a smaller margin of diversity and you go material that helps winning without having to "feel" or "judge" too much.
Point, shoot and win.
Nobody would question an excellent weight balance, 4-wheel-drive, turbo engines, ceramic brakes and quick shifters on a rallye car anymore.
But you are wanting back rear wheel only drive cars (=old shafts) so badly back it's just ridiculous!
Then just HOW do SO many GREAT Asian players play SO well with the dark-age shafts they use? Small-diameter LD shafts are fine IF you like them but they are not the magic elixir so many make them out to be.
Years ago (pre-LD) most of us used steel-jointed cues with ivory ferrules and 13mm shafts. Did they squirt? Without a doubt i'm sure they did. Did we know, or much less, care? Probably not. You bought a cue and learned how to use it. Your eye/hand/brain computer figured out what we now call squirt/deflection and compensated. LD shafts are great but are in NO WAY required to play top class pool.Too true!
I'm not a pro, or Asian, lol, but I played great for years
with those "dark-age" shafts. Now I play great with a Mezz LD shaft. It would take some adjustment to go back and play with a regular shaft, about 15 minutes probably. My point is, it's not the equipment that separates better players from average players. Better players adapt quickly.
[brokenrecord]...strokes have improved greatly so that smaller shafts become more of an improvement and less of a risk (unwanted spin and all that).
Did it matter anyway? Probably yes.Years ago (pre-LD) most of us used steel-jointed cues with ivory ferrules and 13mm shafts. Did they squirt? Without a doubt i'm sure they did. Did we know, or much less, care? Probably not.
So, modern guns that shoot straighter aren't better because Annie Oakley didn't have one?You bought a cue and learned how to use it. Your eye/hand/brain computer figured out what we now call squirt/deflection and compensated. LD shafts are great but are in NO WAY required to play top class pool.
.
I'm always surprised when someone shoots like an APA handicap #4 can tell everyone
about shaft deflection and how a smaller diameter shaft is good for them.
Seems there should be a new thread started 'cause this thread sure did go off the subject.
.
Awww... sounds like some of these "pool scientists" hurt somebody's feelings. Try not to take it so personally - lots of pool players know even less than you (I'm guessing).Are you telling us some of these pool scientists have moved up to an APA 4?
Let me be one of the first to congratulate them.
They're moving on up.
Just like George: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L09qnRfZY-kAre you telling us some of these pool scientists have moved up to an APA 4?
Let me be one of the first to congratulate them.
They're moving on up.
So, modern guns that shoot straighter aren't better because Annie Oakley didn't have one?
pj
chgo
I don't think modern guns shoot any straighter than vintage guns.