Chalk Experiment Results, with Video

[gregcantrall]

This mirrors my experience.

On the subject of chalk wearing down a tip, it can and does indeed wear down a tip. Be it through chalking or a combination of chalking and play. I used to play moori tips, and when I was playing a lot 4-5 nights a week, I would get maybe 6-8 months out of a tip until it was down to less than a dimes thickness.
I had a kamui ss clear tip put on at the Billiard Shop/cheapcues.com nearby maybe 5-6 months ago. The tip that was on it was about half a dime on the side wall. Jim asked me how much I scuffed my tip, my reply was that I dont. The Moori that was on there had been installed by me before I left Alaska, it was shaped at the time it was installed and that was the last time any tool touched the tip.
Now, onto the kamui that was installed. It has already lost 2-3 layers through chalking and play. Zero scuffing/shaping has been done to this tip since the install. It was left tall when it was put on, and the pic below is where it is now. Again, this is 6 months or less of play, and thats only 1-2 nights a week with some weeks in there where. I didnt play at all.
Im not posting this to argue with anybody, but saying that chalk doesnt wear down a tip is false. And FWIW I chalk normally IMO, I dont the cue into the chalk. If you chalk very lightly and carefully the results might look different, dont know. But thats my experience with chalk and tips.

Chuck

When I was going through a tip in 3 months I was playing every day for 4-5 hours a day and only used a shaper for the initial instal. I used Le Pro or Triangle tips and Triangle and or Master chalk and kept my tip shaped with the chalk. I still chuckle at players that grab the tapper or scuffer and abuse their tip every time they miscue. I learned to take responsibility for my miscues and correct the malfunction in my stroke or delivery. Yes I still miscue on occasion but do not blame the tip or chalk. I look for what I did that caused the malfunction.

The majority of the wear would come when the chalk is doing its job. On contact with the cue ball.

As to the JB offer of $100 to recreate something that took 3 months, of actual play but using his prescribed method...... —used to describe an annoying person who tries to tell other people what to do
in a way that is not wanted or needed.

 

[JB Cases]

When I was going through a tip in 3 months I was playing every day for 4-5 hours a day and only used a shaper for the initial instal. I used Le Pro or Triangle tips and Triangle and or Master chalk and kept my tip shaped with the chalk. I still chuckle at players that grab the tapper or scuffer and abuse their tip every time they miscue. I learned to take responsibility for my miscues and correct the malfunction in my stroke or delivery. Yes I still miscue on occasion but do not blame the tip or chalk. I look for what I did that caused the malfunction.



As to the JB offer of $100 to recreate something that took 3 months, of actual play but using his prescribed method...... —used to describe an annoying person who tries to tell other people what to do
in a way that is not wanted or needed.

And I find it equally funny that you think I have no experience. I sold tips and studied them for a year. At one time I had a dozen shafts with the type of tip, the hardness and the install date written in tape on the shafts.

I merely offered you a way to prove your assertion that the chalk is what's taking the tip down. My experience did not mirror yours and back then I played nearly every day and my tips lasted far longer after I stopped scuffing (sanding) them.

In any event if I remember to do it I will see if I can get some lathe time and see if you and Chuck are right. If you are then I will say great and if you aren't I will post why I think you aren't.

 

[BRussell]

Dr. Dave - I'm not sure of the value of this video because the results completely show your human variation over the performance of the chalk.

Good points. I was thinking the same thing, especially because several of the more standardized tests that didn't depend as much on stroke - chalk marks visible, frozen ball throw - showed differences, whereas several of the tests that did depend heavily on stroke - miscue limit and max spin - showed no difference.

Dr. Dave did show that chalks differ in "stickiness." Anyone who has used these chalks has felt this difference. It seems reasonable that stickiness could affect english performance, and it could be that the failure to find differences there is that they depend so heavily on stoke, which is hard to keep consistent.

But two things make me believe the basic conclusion. First, Dave did find an advantage for the Kamui in preventing miscues. It lasted longer. If the stroke inconsistencies made the test unreliable, he wouldn't have found that difference.

Second, players have unreliable strokes too, which almost certainly makes a bigger difference than chalk in something like miscue limit. If you increase the consistency of the stroke to something beyond human capability, you're creating a less fair test, not a more fair one.

 

[dr_dave]

spin-generation and miscue-limit test

I think that the spin generation tests were inconclusive. People have long known that chalk at the contact point changes the result. This was often used to gaffe the balls for proposition shots.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. I carefully cleaned the CB (and rubbed the chalk marks off) in between every shot in every experiment (except the chalk-mark retention experiment).

And with the spin-generation/miscue-limit test, I did many, many shots with each chalk. The ones shots I included in the video were the ones that were the most consistent in terms of tip contact point on the ball (because I looked for the chalk mark on the Elephant Practice Ball after each shot). I also chose the shot (from many) from each chalk that had the largest tip offset (and most spin). And if you look carefully at the CB trajectories for each of the miscue-limit tests, you will see that they are very consistent from one chalk to the next. The miscue limits were also extremely close (too difficult to perceive or measure a difference) from one chalk to the next.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

marketing claims

Perhaps Dave you could point out just what marketing claims you were setting out to test?

I didn't set out to test any specific marketing claims. My goal was to test different brands of chalks as objectively and completely as possible, using clear performance-based measures.

Having said that, I think the video clearly demonstrates that many of the statements we often hear about chalks are probably wrong. Here are some examples:
- pre-flag Master plays better than flag Master.
- Kamui chalk lets you get more spin on the ball.
- Kamui chalk results in less squirt (CB deflection).
- Blue Diamond "plays better" than Master
- the brand of chalk makes a big difference

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Kamui ... also said they reduce deflection - something that wasn't proven in your test.

I didn't include squirt-measurement data in the video; however, I did record squirt measurements off the rail ruler template during my video editing for the "number of hits until miscue" test. The CB deflection averages (for shots of similar speeds, where swerve is similar for each shot) were very consistent from one chalk to the next. In other words, the type of chalk does not affect the amount of squirt. My previous video dealing with squirt testing also showed that the type and hardness of tip also make no practical difference concerning squirt. For those interested, here it is:

NV D.15 - Cue and Tip Testing for Cue Ball Deflection (Squirt)

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I also question the abrasiveness claim you made that chalking wears down the tip. In order to wear down the tip chalking would need to be so abrasive as to remove leather and I contend that this is not what happens. Scuffing removes leather by sanding with force applied.

I'm 99.99999% positive that the words he used were, "A possible advantage of the other chalks is that they might help keep the tip slightly scuffed..."

Which is not the same as claiming that chalking wears down the tip. I have no issue with the statements that he made in the video.

And like you, I think that I will start wiping the cue ball off every chance I get.

Exactly. I didn't measure this effect. I just stated that it was possible based on how it felt and sounded when applying chalk. All of the chalks tested except Kamui required force and made sound when swiping the chalk across the tip (using the generally-recommended chalking technique). This force and sound could be indicators that abrasion could be occurring (even if only slight). But again, I did not attempt to measure this possible effect.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

The advice to wipe off the cue ball every time possible is golden though and something I will definitely adopt as a habit after seeing the video. We don't think enough about the possibility of the chalk residue affecting the shots we take.

Amen to that.

I wipe the CB religiously every chance I get during and between games. I also look for and remove smudges and chalk marks on OBs if I see any when racking (which happens fairly often during league night at some of the places we play).

Regards,
Dave

 

[BasementDweller]

When I was going through a tip in 3 months I was playing every day for 4-5 hours a day and only used a shaper for the initial instal. I used Le Pro or Triangle tips and Triangle and or Master chalk and kept my tip shaped with the chalk. I still chuckle at players that grab the tapper or scuffer and abuse their tip every time they miscue. I learned to take responsibility for my miscues and correct the malfunction in my stroke or delivery. Yes I still miscue on occasion but do not blame the tip or chalk. I look for what I did that caused the malfunction.



As to the JB offer of $100 to recreate something that took 3 months, of actual play but using his prescribed method...... —used to describe an annoying person who tries to tell other people what to do
in a way that is not wanted or needed.

I'm with you on this Greg. I don't understand why people don't agree with the idea that chalk sands away the tip over time.

For those of us that DO NOT shape our tips after the initial install what else could be the cause of the tip disappearing? There's only two possibilites that I can think of -- chalking your tip, or hitting the cue ball, or I suppose a combination of the two.

I just use LePros and I am pretty certain the chalking is what sands my tip down. It's either that or the Tip Fairy.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

So your conclusion is......unless you stroke arm is robotic, it doesn't matter which chalk you use. No one person is accurate enough to see any substantial difference in the chalk. Is that a fair assessment?

One thing that can be proven for sure, Kamui chalk certainly isn't worth the money they want for it. No chalk will improve your game no matter how much it costs.

If that's what you extrapolated out of my post, I suggest you read it a few more times.


Cliff Notes:

* The purpose of the test is "chalk performance" -- the performance would be gauged as a "factor," a constant if you would.

* It's impossible to determine that constant with a person shooting.

* Chalk performance might be measured in tolerances that might be too fine to measure on 8 strokes, but could definitely show up in more strokes.

**** Chalk performance in offset could be measured in millimeters, which is a BIG deal in general, but can't be measured when the guy doing the test can't deliver his tip to that degree of accuracy. Most can't, but that does NOT mean that the chalks are equal. Just like most can't experience the difference in performance between a Pinnacle golf ball and a ProV1 golf ball, that does NOT mean the two are equal and that's was the claim of these tests... in a nutshell. It's like having a golfer who shoots 100 hit both and say, "Yup-- they both went 120 yards and neither stopped on the green -- so both are the same."

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Its not my chalk. Master chalk is just fine. Its my stroke I trust. And I still haven't found the reference to deflection you mentioned. Except in the conclusion where he said there was no noticeable deflection between different chalks.

By the way, I agree with this statement. I want to be clear I could give a shit about chalk in general, but am highly interested in performance factors of each... but this test didn't deliver that. Just wanted to be up-front that I'm not a chalk chirper of any one brand, but Masters performs well for my level of ability.

 

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave - I'm not sure of the value of this video because the results completely show your human variation over the performance of the chalk.

I agree that robotic testing with an extremely well-built machine and careful experimental procedures concerning ball cleaning, ball positioning, and tip maintenance would provide better consistency in results. Having said that, one must be very careful when using machines to characterize response with human players. Some insight on this matter based on past experience can be found here (in the bullets beneath the embedded video):

robotic squirt testing results and warnings

Data can be just as misleading with robotic testing machines as it can be with poorly designed experiments with human shooters.

Concerning my tests, for the things I was trying to measure where stroke accuracy and consistency were very important (e.g., the miscue-limit tests), I did a large number of trials with each chalk and only included in the video the shots that demonstrated the best or most-consistent shots achieved with each chalk type. That's the best way to deal with human inconsistency ... do lots of trials and throw out the "outliers" and mistakes.

Regards,
Dave

PS: I'll reply to your other points after I teach class.

 

[dr_dave]

1) Your throw test:

The throw factor for each chalk will be a constant, not a variable, given the same angle / stroke speed. You kept showing where the OB was hitting the rail, but a huge % of those results were based on how you chose to hit that particular shot. To have any real scientific value (i.e. to show true chalk performance), you must remove yourself from the experiment and find a way to deliver the cue exactly the same every time, similar to a robotic arm. Otherwise, you're adding huge amounts of human variation into something that should be demonstrating a constant on a per-brand basis.

Ideally, I should have done a lot more trials for each chalk, but the amount of time I put in was already much more than I intended.

I did try to select the shots that had the most consistent speed. Also, the frozen-ball combo practically eliminated the effects of any slight inaccuracy with CB direction. The frozen combo always created the same cut angle (practically speaking).

Concerning expected consistency of the results, I wouldn't expect there to be perfect consistency with chalk-mark-induced cling tests, even with the most perfect machine tester possible. The conditions of the chalk mark are not totally consistent at all spots within the chalk mark. Also, ball surfaces can vary slightly from one spot to the next and during a set of tests. Therefore, I would expect inconsistency from one cling-test shot to the next even with a perfect machine and careful procedures.

Now, what would I would expect is for average values for multiple trials (with bad shots and outliers discarded) to clearly show any differences among the different chalk types. I am confident my results are sufficiently accurate in that regard. Although, I would welcome and encourage others to do similar tests using the procedures I demonstrated. It's not that difficult. It would be interesting to see if others get similar results or not.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

2) # of Shots to Miscue:

Once again, this test really didn't show anything other than adding your stroke imperfections and stroke variations into a test that should be netting something very close to a constant, assuming the exact same stroke plane, stroke speed, amount of chalk applied and tip offset. For example, you were testing both sides of the ball which wasn't required for this test. You were miscuing faster on one side than the other, which has nothing to do with the chalk performance, that had to do with variation in your own setup and cue delivery. All you had to do was test on one side of the ball and at the equator in order to derive a performance factor, which once again should be a very close to a constant under a controlled experiment using a robotic arm.

This is one test where a robotic arm and accurate ball-placing mechanism would be very helpful.

Regardless, by testing both sides with multiple sets of trials and choosing the best set on each side for each chalk, and by averaging, I feel fairly confident that my results are meaningful. Again, it would be interesting to see if others do a similar test and report if their results are similar or not. That's one reason why I created the video ... so others (who don't have "conflicts of interest" due to commercial product involvement) can use the exact same procedures to validate or refute the results. That's how "science" works.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

3) Miscue limit:

Without a cue on a robotic pendulum or robotic arm, your stroke plays too large of a role in order to extrapolate a meaningful data, which also should equate to a constant.

I don't think you fully understand the details of this test.

I took a large number of shots with each chalk and I observed the location of the chalk mark on the Elephant ball after each shot, and I pushed the miscue limit many times with each chalk with multiple attempts. I was also careful to clean and rub the chalk mark off the CB before each shot. I also chalked completely and carefully before each shot and scuffed and re-chalked the tip after each miscue.

On the video, I included only three shots with similar tip offsets for each chalk. One of the three for each chalk was the best (largest tip offset) shot achieved with each chalk. Therefore, I am confident that the shots shown on the video adequately represent each chalk's performance concerning miscue limit, regardless of how inconsistent my stroke might be.

Honestly, I was very surprised by the results of this particular experiment. I expected to see at least some difference in miscue limit among the radically different chalks I tested, but I found no measurable or noticeable difference.

That's why we do experiments ... because what we think or believe isn't always right.

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

My thanks for this review. To think...all this time I thought it was me who was weird, not being able to tell much difference in chalks. Now I feel a bit better...

I still suck, but I now know it's not the fault of my using plain ol' Master blue...

I'm glad my video might help you sleep better at nights. :grin-square:

If you chalk the tip before any shot requiring an off-center hit, pre- or post-flag Master seems to be just as good as any other.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Dave, thank you for testing and showing us the results, as well as all the other research and videos you have done. I do have a methodology question...

Perhaps this is getting into the weeds, but I wonder about the method for applying chalk to the tip for each test (each brand) of chalk. Did you chalk using the same method for each brand, to the best of your ability? Or did you receive guidance from the manufacturers on how they recommend the chalk be applied (if they even have a recommendation)?

I am assuming it's the former, and I'm not confident the latter would make a difference. I'm also guessing that for the purposes of your test application the methodology should probably be constant. I am just curious how you did it, and any thoughts you may have on it, if any.

I chalked the tip the same way with each brand of chalk, using the cue-turning and chalk-swiping method (while looking at the tip to ensure proper and full coverage) demonstrated on the video.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I want to thank everybody for the questions, input, and discussion.

These experiments and the video production took a lot of time and work, but I'm now glad that I did them.

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[The Renfro]

I have gone back and watched the video again several times....

In going back I realized that while Dave didn't test for exactly what some of us were howling about ( ok mainly me )... The set of experiments are valid proving what HE was more interested in and could test......

1)Kamui causes the most skid of the chalks tested and even after the mark was wiped off enough chalk had transferred into the rough surface of the ball to continue to create enough friction for a skid... The other chalks also did this but to lesser extents...

I think we all knew every chalk could cause a skid... I would not have thought about there being much of a difference after the cueball was wiped off... That is food for thought... Should we be wiping down the cueball with Purell between games at the big tournaments?? 2 years ago the US Open was the SKID Open and I saw at least 10 skids on the TV table.. I am now wondering if it was a cueball that had been loaded with Kamui on day one and it was not the new Aramith Duramith Tourney set's fault.... Thanks for that... We will continue to wipe down the Object balls but I will have 2 Cueballs for the TV table and Swap them at the dinner break and run them thru the polisher each night......

Another nugget here is that the Kamui did indeed grab better which translates to a better grip at contact.. This better grip/stronger contact may indeed make for a more consistent and higher spin/speed ratio to the lowest skid chalks where slippage could be occuring...


2) You can go longer between chalking with better chalk...

We all hear the claims that you can shoot 32 spin shots in a row etc etc..... Dave shows what you should expect which is you will eventually miss cue regardless of your chalk if you don't chalk up often..... This is a function of the size and amount of abrasives found in each formula...

Kamui won here but Balabushka may have beat it simply because the micron sizes in Balabushka are larger... Consider this... In the tip and ball colision the hardness of the cueball is not what breaks the chalk down... It is the layering of the abrasives on top of each other and at impact pressure they cause the ones on top or under them to rupture which creates new cutting edges...

IF you start out with more and larger abrasives by the 15th rupturing you still may have good cutting edges where the cheaper chalk has turned to dust many ruptures prior..... On the lesser chalks you may get more or less than what Dave got simply because there are more binders and fillers than abrasives because the abrasives are the expensive item in them... In some of the premium brands the abrasives are the cheaper of the chemicals even if they are higher grade so you are going to get more of them in the ratios....

3) The miss cue limit is still the miss cue limit.. It's chalk not super glue....

OK here is what I got today.... I cranked up the volume and listened to the sound at impact.... It sounds like the Lava chalk slipped on 2 out of 3 before it got to the miss cue limit.... Blue Diamond slipped the shot before the miss cue shot... I heard no slip on the Kamui until miss cue and Masters seemed to have a higher impact sound on all the shots but I really need to download a sound wave editor to look at the waveforms on the impacts... I may do that over the weekend....

IF this is the case the effective area of use will be different between chalks, even if the ciritical failure points are the same, because of slippage... Who wants to go further out on the cueball to get less english because of slip? Kamui may let you get away with dancing on the limits but how often should you really be out there on the razor blade anyway?
LOL I end up in trouble more than the normal good player and tend to shoot cirvus shots so I tend to live out there... I don't intend to have Masters as my road partner or Lava.....


4) Kamui sticks to the cueball like a Cliff Joyner to a backer..... And Blue Diamond doesn't mind hanging around either....

Transfer photos here https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.736404133062856.1073741830.364829366887003&type=1

or here http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=367974

More transfer should lead to it staying on the ball longer... Would have been nice to have had predator in Dave's tests but I am still thankful he took the time to test the 4 he did.....



Conclusion... All chalk works... If you choose to use cheaper chalks chalk up OFTEN.... It's a good habit to have in your PSR anyway....

Better chalk grabs better and sticks better... Clean your cueball often and properly if you are going to use the good stuff... Wiping the cueball down may not be enough so take a good look at it for imbedded transfer marks....

I conclude that the better the chalk the better the connection to the cueball but that will only matter if you chooses to move out into the danger zones of the miss cue limit.... Listen to your shots and start watching the quality of your english... Sometimes it's going to be your stroke and sometimes it may be your chalk...

IF you like english it matters if you play flat and use lots of center ball it may not....

Until there is a spin/speed ratio type test done this is just my conclusion... I could see doing this with a strobe gun and I think I can lay my hands on one but I think you guys already are used to the fact that I tend to have more pans than burners and many items get moved on and off my stove....

Chris


Big THANK YOU Dr. DAVE

 

[dr_dave]

I have gone back and watched the video again several times....

In going back I realized that while Dave didn't test for exactly what some of us were howling about ( ok mainly me )... The set of experiments are valid proving what HE was more interested in and could test......

1)Kamui causes the most skid of the chalks tested and even after the mark was wiped off enough chalk had transferred into the rough surface of the ball to continue to create enough friction for a skid... The other chalks also did this but to lesser extents...

I think we all knew every chalk could cause a skid... I would not have thought about there being much of a difference after the cueball was wiped off... That is food for thought... Should we be wiping down the cueball with Purell between games at the big tournaments?? 2 years ago the US Open was the SKID Open and I saw at least 10 skids on the TV table.. I am now wondering if it was a cueball that had been loaded with Kamui on day one and it was not the new Aramith Duramith Tourney set's fault.... Thanks for that... We will continue to wipe down the Object balls but I will have 2 Cueballs for the TV table and Swap them at the dinner break and run them thru the polisher each night......

Another nugget here is that the Kamui did indeed grab better which translates to a better grip at contact.. This better grip/stronger contact may indeed make for a more consistent and higher spin/speed ratio to the lowest skid chalks where slippage could be occuring...


2) You can go longer between chalking with better chalk...

We all hear the claims that you can shoot 32 spin shots in a row etc etc..... Dave shows what you should expect which is you will eventually miss cue regardless of your chalk if you don't chalk up often..... This is a function of the size and amount of abrasives found in each formula...

Kamui won here but Balabushka may have beat it simply because the micron sizes in Balabushka are larger... Consider this... In the tip and ball colision the hardness of the cueball is not what breaks the chalk down... It is the layering of the abrasives on top of each other and at impact pressure they cause the ones on top or under them to rupture which creates new cutting edges...

IF you start out with more and larger abrasives by the 15th rupturing you still may have good cutting edges where the cheaper chalk has turned to dust many ruptures prior..... On the lesser chalks you may get more or less than what Dave got simply because there are more binders and fillers than abrasives because the abrasives are the expensive item in them... In some of the premium brands the abrasives are the cheaper of the chemicals even if they are higher grade so you are going to get more of them in the ratios....

3) The miss cue limit is still the miss cue limit.. It's chalk not super glue....

OK here is what I got today.... I cranked up the volume and listened to the sound at impact.... It sounds like the Lava chalk slipped on 2 out of 3 before it got to the miss cue limit.... Blue Diamond slipped the shot before the miss cue shot... I heard no slip on the Kamui until miss cue and Masters seemed to have a higher impact sound on all the shots but I really need to download a sound wave editor to look at the waveforms on the impacts... I may do that over the weekend....

IF this is the case the effective area of use will be different between chalks, even if the ciritical failure points are the same, because of slippage... Who wants to go further out on the cueball to get less english because of slip? Kamui may let you get away with dancing on the limits but how often should you really be out there on the razor blade anyway?
LOL I end up in trouble more than the normal good player and tend to shoot cirvus shots so I tend to live out there... I don't intend to have Masters as my road partner or Lava.....


4) Kamui sticks to the cueball like a Cliff Joyner to a backer..... And Blue Diamond doesn't mind hanging around either....

Transfer photos here https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.736404133062856.1073741830.364829366887003&type=1

or here http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=367974

More transfer should lead to it staying on the ball longer... Would have been nice to have had predator in Dave's tests but I am still thankful he took the time to test the 4 he did.....



Conclusion... All chalk works... If you choose to use cheaper chalks chalk up OFTEN.... It's a good habit to have in your PSR anyway....

Better chalk grabs better and sticks better... Clean your cueball often and properly if you are going to use the good stuff... Wiping the cueball down may not be enough so take a good look at it for imbedded transfer marks....

I conclude that the better the chalk the better the connection to the cueball but that will only matter if you chooses to move out into the danger zones of the miss cue limit.... Listen to your shots and start watching the quality of your english... Sometimes it's going to be your stroke and sometimes it may be your chalk...

IF you like english it matters if you play flat and use lots of center ball it may not....

Until there is a spin/speed ratio type test done this is just my conclusion... I could see doing this with a strobe gun and I think I can lay my hands on one but I think you guys already are used to the fact that I tend to have more pans than burners and many items get moved on and off my stove....

Chris

Chris,

Excellent summary. The only thing I potentially disagree with, depending on what you are implying, is: "Better chalk grabs better"

My video shows that Blue Diamond and Kamui stick to the CB more, and this can result in larger and more frequent cling/skid/kick. In other words, these chalks helps the CB "grab" the OB more (by creating more friction between the balls). However, there is no evidence in my video that Blue Diamond and Kamui help the tip grab the CB any better than the other chalks.

Regards,
Dave