Rare to see such dedication to making one's self look foolish. Congrats sir.
CF shafts and spin
- Thread starter dendweller
- Start date
hahahhaahahaha............ look in the mirror
You're the one that ignores facts. Almost every single thing you've stated on here regarding lo-deflect. shafts is utter bullshit. Don't take my(or others here) words for it, contact Predator and talk to them. The hows/whys of lo-deflect. shafts have been clearly demonstrated not only in testing but in actual play. Just curious, did you even watch the video of the cf shaft getting out of the way after contact? Pretty clear evidence that even a fairly stiff shaft with a light enough front end can be low-deflection.
Last edited:
There are some reasons people might think this, but it is not true in general. For more info, see:
Carbon fiber shafts do offer advantages, per the info and demonstrations here:
Don't own a cf shaft but i've tried most of them. I've never seen this 'double hit' you mention. I've gone way out on the cb and still didn't see it. Totally agree on deflection properties of various cf shafts. All were less deflect. than solid wood but some are waaay less, especially the smaller(12mm and less) diameter models. The 11.8 Cynergy is the closest i've seen to no deflection which of course is not possible.
Last edited:
I have not seen this either with any current commercially-available CF shafts, but I have also not tested for it carefully. The next time I have access to a good high-speed camera, I'll do some tests with the CF shafts I have. Regardless, if the effect did occur (with a really stiff CF shaft), it would occur only with shots very close to the miscue limit.
?...............?
If there is something on the pages you don’t agree with, or if you have a question, please let me know.
Just trying to understand that statement.
''it's not true in general''.
So when ''is it true''?
''it's not true in general''.
So when ''is it true''?
If you really want to know the “technicalities,“ see the getting more spin with an LD shaft resource page. It discusses all the subtle reasons why it might be true.
Nothing wrong with 12.9 Revo. The amount of control over the CF weave, versus wood manufacturing makes it possible for manufacturers to dial in more precisely the wall taper need for lower deflection index. In the past, you had to go to sub 12mm, like the z shaft. Dr. Dave in one of his Revo test videos showed it had Z level of LD.
I see too many people make the assumption any made from CF is naturally lower deflection and passing misinformation. I remember when 314 and OB1 came out, many on AZ mistakenly assumed the lamination was the reason for LD, not the hollowed out shaft that Clawson patented.
Thx....Just trying to understand the ''details'' of this reality of rotation increase with these new instruments.
The Good Devil in round objects '' is Always in the details''.
Mustanglee
Member
I bought my new Predator with the revo from the Predator group. They said I had 30 days to decide if I wanted to keep the Revo or go to the 314-3. During that 30 days I also had the Cenergy carbon fiber shaft on my other Predator so for 30 days I switches back and forth between the two shafts. I like the Cenergy much better. It has a better looking finish and the short white Ferrell. The Revo finish looks rough and the shaft is noisy when using a lot of english. I ecpermented with deflection. The Revo had a little less deflection but not enough to really make a difference. Maybe you can find someone that will let you try theirs. Other advantages is no nicks and it's always smooth. As far as moving around the table it takes less effort but the 314-3 isn't far behind the Carbon fiber shafts and way ahead of a standard maple shaft. Personally if I didn't have the Cenergy, I would rather play with the 314-3 than the Revo.
hahahaha.............
Who told you they aren't? Nobody who has actually tested them (I even gave you a link to the one who has tested them the most).
Why do you try so hard to stay uninformed?
Duh.
pj
chgo
