Barioni Cues

[Barioni Cues]

I agree with this - but I think it's the only way any shaft can have less cue ball deflection.


By making it skinnier (thereby reducing end mass)?

Dr. Dave knows more about this than I do - here's what he has to say about end mass and stiffness.

pj
chgo

Patrick, I never said by making it skinnier. There are more ways to make a shaft more flexible. I get guys all the time that want me to decrease the squirt or cue ball deflection in their shaft but they don't want to change the diameter. They are used to the taper and tip size and don't want to change or modify it. Also You can make a shaft more flexible in one area and stiffer in another. This is beneficial if you want the flexibility but want a more solid feel. Where the shaft flexes or begins to flex also plays a big part in its performance. I have testing equipment to test shaft flexibility over all and at different points of the shaft. Oh, and I have talk to Dr. Dave. He is a wealth of knowledge.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick, I never said by making it skinnier.

What other way (if you don't mind saying)?

pj
chgo

 

[fastone371]

Here's an example:
"...bending or flexing of the shaft allows the cue ball to go straighter decreasing cue ball deflection."

This has been shown to not be true. Flexible shafts can create more squirt than stiffer ones, although that's not a rule either (it really just depends on end mass).

This doesn't affect the quality or value of your cues, or mean that they're not really low deflection - you seem to do the right things to make them low deflection, even if you got a few of the details wrong in your explanation.

pj
chgo

P.S. Here's that old thread (linked in a post above): http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=200527

I think logic says that the cue shaft must deflect so that it minimizes the amount the shaft pushes the cue ball off line. (squirt) It also makes sense that end mass must be reduced in addition to increased shaft deflection to create an LD shaft. If you had an extremely light weight but extremely stiff carbon fiber shaft I would think you would have massive cue ball squirt even though you would have very little end mass. I do not have a good analogy for this, but even with a very flexible shaft but with much end mass the cue ball would be too light relative to the shaft to make the shaft flex out of the way so the cue ball does not get pushed off line.. When you hit the cue with side spin something (the shaft) must move aside so as not to push the cue ball off line.(squirt) If not for the shaft bending out of the way on cue ball contact the only other way to have the effect of low deflection would be if the whole cue twist when looking at from above. For example, the front of the tip moving left and the butt going right on cue ball contact to force the shaft off line to minimize squirt. So it would be the combination of low end mass and increased shaft deflection that creates a low squirt (LD) shaft. LD is such a bad name for them because they are not low deflection shafts but rather high deflection shafts. So they should be called either Low Squirt or High Deflection shafts.

 

[Barioni Cues]

I just read the link you posted regarding Dr. Dave. The picture of a cut a way LD shaft is there. The wood that is being drilled out does not weigh a whole lot. If his theory is correct then when I drill out a shaft 8 inches deep and test it in the robot and then drill it out another 8 inches deeper and test it in the robot, the results should test the same right? I have had this conversation with Dr. Dave and I did not want to argue with him. The phone conversation ended in good terms and we both decided to disagree. Any ways, the deeper I drill the shaft the less it squirts. After about 16-18 inches, drilling it deeper does not seem to change the robot reading of squirt and cue ball deflection. How ever the deeper you drill it the more flexible it gets. All the way to a point where it feels spongy and powerless. I have tested 2 different shafts with the same taper and diameter. One had about 20 growth rings per inch and the other had 4. The taper was identical as they both came off my taper bar at the same time with the exact dial reading. I installed the same leather tip that I made from the same hide. Both tips were weighed and durometered for hardness and were exactly the same. I did not use a ferrule for this experiment because I did not want to factor in another variable, so the tips were installed right to the end of the shafts. Ferrule-less.The shaft with 4 growth rings had about half the deflection of the shaft with 20 growth rings. When I measured the flexibility, the shaft with 4 growth rings was way more flexible than the shaft with 20 growth rings. I know the end mass of the 20 growth ring shaft is a bit heavier because the shaft weighed more and was more dense. Butt if you think that could end up to half the amount of squirt, your wrong. I thought it might be possible so I drilled the 20 growth ring shaft to lighten the end mass and then weighed the ends of both shafts with a $6800 paint mixing scale. It took a few times of drilling and weighing before I got the end mass to measure equal. I then retested both shafts in the robot. Drilling the 20 growth ring shaft reduced the squirt about 3/16". The 4 growth ring shaft still had about 1/2" less squirt. Believe what you want but I will once again put my money where my mouth is if any one wants to bet. Not trying to be a know it all or come across cocky, just wanting to clarify some of the false myths here. I have a deep respect for science but some physic majors may find out they left a thing or two out of the equation. A friendly bet never hurt any one and at the end the truth gets heard and a myth gets solved.

 

[Barioni Cues]

I think logic says that the cue shaft must deflect so that it minimizes the amount the shaft pushes the cue ball off line. (squirt) It also makes sense that end mass must be reduced in addition to increased shaft deflection to create an LD shaft. If you had an extremely light weight but extremely stiff carbon fiber shaft I would think you would have massive cue ball squirt even though you would have very little end mass. I do not have a good analogy for this, but even with a very flexible shaft but with much end mass the cue ball would be too light relative to the shaft to make the shaft flex out of the way so the cue ball does not get pushed off line.. When you hit the cue with side spin something (the shaft) must move aside so as not to push the cue ball off line.(squirt) If not for the shaft bending out of the way on cue ball contact the only other way to have the effect of low deflection would be if the whole cue twist when looking at from above. For example, the front of the tip moving left and the butt going right on cue ball contact to force the shaft off line to minimize squirt. So it would be the combination of low end mass and increased shaft deflection that creates a low squirt (LD) shaft. LD is such a bad name for them because they are not low deflection shafts but rather high deflection shafts. So they should be called either Low Squirt or High Deflection shafts.

I don't know who you are but you are 100% correct on every thing you stated. I could not have explained it better. Just about every thing you stated is written in books for golf and archery but the sport I love (pool) seems like the last to get any technology. I am sure it is because there is no money in pool as opposed to all the other sports. Any ways, I can prove every thing you just said is correct and true..

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think logic says that the cue shaft must deflect so that it minimizes the amount the shaft pushes the cue ball off line.

I agree it seems that way, but...

Tests show that flexibility has minimal if any effect and end mass has major effect. This means that the shaft's mass, not its stiffness, is what's resisting being pushed aside - and that makes perfect sense. Imagine you're on roller skates next to a wrecking ball hanging from a cable - the cable is extremely flexible, yet if you push against the wrecking ball it will hardly move and you'll move ("squirt) a lot. Everything with mass resists being moved, flexible or not.

If not for the shaft bending out of the way on cue ball contact the only other way to have the effect of low deflection would be if the whole cue twist when looking at from above.

Or less end mass.

pj
chgo

 

[JoeyInCali]

I agree it seems that way, but...

Tests show that flexibility has minimal if any effect and end mass has major effect. This means that the shaft's mass, not its stiffness, is what's resisting being pushed aside - and that makes perfect sense. Imagine you're on roller skates next to a wrecking ball hanging from a cable - the cable is extremely flexible, yet if you push against the wrecking ball it will hardly move and you'll move ("squirt) a lot. Everything with mass resists being moved, flexible or not.


Or less end mass.

pj
chgo

Z2 is stiffer than 314.
But, has a smaller tip.
And has less cue ball squirt.
Debate over.

 

[galipeau]

Z2 is stiffer than 314.
But, has a smaller tip.
And has less cue ball squirt.
Debate over.

Why'd you have to go and ruin all the fun with your logic, science, facts, and stuff??

 

[Barioni Cues]

I agree it seems that way, but...

Tests show that flexibility has minimal if any effect and end mass has major effect. This means that the shaft's mass, not its stiffness, is what's resisting being pushed aside - and that makes perfect sense. Imagine you're on roller skates next to a wrecking ball hanging from a cable - the cable is extremely flexible, yet if you push against the wrecking ball it will hardly move and you'll move ("squirt) a lot. Everything with mass resists being moved, flexible or not.


Or less end mass.

pj
chgo

I am not sure what tests you are referring to or who did the tests. But compared to the tests I did, they are flawed. Shaft flexibility almost has as much effect as end mass. I would say if end mass is worth 45% then shaft flexibility is worth some where between 35% to 40%. Again this is not me guessing here. This is what I see day in and day out. This is why the shaft taper has been so important all these years.

 

[Barioni Cues]

Z2 is stiffer than 314.
But, has a smaller tip.
And has less cue ball squirt.
Debate over.

First not all Z2 shafts test better than 314. Some do and some don't. Where dealing with production here and all those shafts do not test the same. The Z2 or the 314. End mass has a lot to do with squirt, but so does the shaft flexibility. Just not as much. There was not a debate about which was greater but if flexibility played a part at all. Some physic experts say that shaft flexibility has very little if any to do with squirt. I can prove it has a lot to do with it. I can take the Z2 shaft and make it more flexible and decrease the squirt even more.

 

[9Ballr]

Ok, so I don't claim to know everything and hell no one can. I just came across this guy/company/cue maker today for the first time, sooooo.

Do any of you guys have their stuff or know anything about them? I've never heard them mentioned or at least can remember.

Isn't he the one with the straight butt?

If so, I have played one of his cues and it is, one word: Awesome!

I played one a couple of years ago and have always wanted
one since but that's also because I have never actually liked
these tapered butts so his philosophy matches mine perfectly.
However I can see how some wouldn't like it.
Many radical ideas are criticized to no end when they're first
introduced then later people wonder how they did without it.

But yes, I loved the cue I played. Absolutely and utterly.
If you can afford one I can not for the life of me imagine you
being disappointed with it.

His basic cues come at a steep price but - in my opinion -
they're worth every penny.

 

[fastone371]

I don't know who you are but you are 100% correct on every thing you stated. I could not have explained it better. Just about every thing you stated is written in books for golf and archery but the sport I love (pool) seems like the last to get any technology. I am sure it is because there is no money in pool as opposed to all the other sports. Any ways, I can prove every thing you just said is correct and true..

I am just a regular high school educated pool player

 

[fastone371]

I agree it seems that way, but...

Tests show that flexibility has minimal if any effect and end mass has major effect. This means that the shaft's mass, not its stiffness, is what's resisting being pushed aside - and that makes perfect sense. Imagine you're on roller skates next to a wrecking ball hanging from a cable - the cable is extremely flexible, yet if you push against the wrecking ball it will hardly move and you'll move ("squirt) a lot. Everything with mass resists being moved, flexible or not.


Or less end mass.

pj
chgo

You are referencing friction as much as mass in your analogy. By the same token I can make something to support the wrecking ball that has much less mass than the wrecking ball. The point is is that no matter how light the end mass is if the shaft is too stiff it cannot flex out of the way of the cue ball. It takes a combination of reduced end mass and increased shaft flexibility to create an LD shaft. Low end mass on its own will not do that. I am pretty sure that I could prove that by fabricating an aluminum tube shaft.