Barioni Cues

[sfleinen]

How about in engines? You don't want all that vibration in engines do you? I guess that is why most all engines have a harmonic balancer.
In racing engines or performance engines they high tech harmonic balancers like the Fluid Dampener. You don't want all that vibration in the crank and I certainly don't want it in my shaft. That is energy that can be used in the cue ball. That is why you can get more juice on the ball with different shafts. Some shafts apply the energy to the cue ball while others are applying it to vibrating through out the shaft. Seem like a waste of energy to me! Besides I don't need the feedback from my cue in the form of vibration. (Or mores code for that matter) I can see with my eyes what is going on.

Mr. Barioni:

A couple things:

1. I was actually making a case *FOR* a certain level of vibration dampening. In your fervor to defend yourself, you didn't catch that? But, while a certain level of vibration dampening ("certain level" being the key operative words) is good -- e.g. the rubber bumper in the butt that minimizes sympathetic vibrations from rebounding up and down the cue -- "full" vibration dampening is not. You don't want to kill the feedback that the cue is giving you. If you did, why build the cue out of a resonant material like wood at all? Why not build it out of a material that is just as light, but not nearly as resonant (e.g. titanium or some kind of light-but-dense plastic)? You know the answer to that one.

2. Your analogy with engines is flawed for a couple of reasons. One, I don't get the point you're trying to make comparing vibration dampening in engines with increasing power (or "juice" as you call it) in cues. Second, an engine is neither a striking implement nor do you hold an engine in your hand. There is no direct human-to-machine contact with an engine running under a hood. A cue *is* a striking implement, and you *do* hold a cue in your hand, however; so there is direct human-to-device contact. In the cue's case (unlike in the engine's case), you directly feel what the cue is doing at the time of application to the cue ball. Here the question of some level of vibration dampening or allowance is necessary.

Summary: you don't want to kill "all" vibration or resonance in the cue. If you did, they wouldn't be made of wood in the first place.

Just wanted to clarify,
-Sean

 

[AtLarge]

... I also tried playing with those rubber 'Future' tips. I didn't mind them, but I could never get them to stay on my cue very long. They were 'springy' as heck though.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Scott -- The "Future" tip was made from polyurethane, not rubber. They were real hard and noisy. I used them for quite a while and liked them, but I never met anyone else who did!

 

[cuesmith]

Scott -- The "Future" tip was made from polyurethane, not rubber. They were real hard and noisy. I used them for quite a while and liked them, but I never met anyone else who did!

Actually they made a soft, medium, hard ,and extra hard. My partner at one of my pool rooms bought a bunch of them thinking they would be good for our house cues. I too had trouble getting them to stay on the house cues. I just sold off the last of the ones I had over 13 mm to a friend of an apprentice of mine. I was glad to recoup the money my partner had spent on them after all that time. BTW the soft ones were about like a hard WB tip in hardness. None of the ones we had were anywhere near springy and my partner bought about 100 various sized and hardness. He was an easy mark for just about any salesmen who came in the door or called on the phone!

 

[AtLarge]

Actually they made a soft, medium, hard ,and extra hard. My partner at one of my pool rooms bought a bunch of them thinking they would be good for our house cues. I too had trouble getting them to stay on the house cues. I just sold off the last of the ones I had over 13 mm to a friend of an apprentice of mine. I was glad to recoup the money my partner had spent on them after all that time. BTW the soft ones were about like a hard WB tip in hardness. None of the ones we had were anywhere near springy and my partner bought about 100 various sized and hardness. He was an easy mark for just about any salesmen who came in the door or called on the phone!

My playing experience with the Future tip probably was with the "hard" variety, and they certainly were hard. But from what you say, my previous characterization of "hard and noisy" may have applied to all hardnesses! And you're right -- no springiness or rubberiness; they just played like a very hard leather tip. And, once shaped, they needed no further maintenance (other than careful chalking).

In the early 1990's I was ignorant of equipment specifications, but now I wonder if they were even legal then!

 

[jaywheel]

Damn, those Boriano's are good looking cuze.

 

[pip9ball]

John - Please post pictures of your so called robot you built to test shafts. I've played with several LD shafts and while some do offer less deflection, compensation is still needed. The feedback I get when playing with a LD shaft is horrible or "dead". I'd rather play with a good maple shaft and learn to compensate. Whether I have to compensate a little or a lot....I still have to learn how much...so why not play with shaft that provides great feedback vs a dead hit?

I also have a physics background and can assure you its impossible for you to make the tip stay in contact with the cueball for a longer period of time...at least for us humans it is.

-P

 

[Cornerman]

Old post from a few years ago. I talked to John Barioni back then.

 

[ELBeau]

Thanks for the complement! If what you are saying is true, Why is it such an advantage that they banned it from baseball. If it is truly less power, the addition of more swing speed would only compensate for the loss of power. At this point nothing would be gained. I tested this with my cues and I got a substantial amount of power after the procedure was done. The study was done by not just me but also advanced, semi pro pool players and a physicists majors as well. He stated that it is the added power of the bow or boing. That extra energy. He used the analogy of a pole vault. A flexible pole will propel a person higher than a stiff pole that does not flex. I am not completely sure how it all works because I am not a physicist but I do know what it does for my cues. Every one that plays or hit with my cues also knows. Thanks again for the complements and your input on this matter.

I'm all for tuning shafts to the cue and player, but calling your shafts "corked" may not be the best thing. There are a number of studies that have shown that corked bats do not have more power- they are just easier to control due to having less mass.
But don't take my word for it-
Mythbusters- corked bats
Physics of baseball bats by a Ph.D.
Cornell University on Corked Bats
Machine shatters baseball myths