In cue discussions I don't recall the term 'energy transfer' used much if at all in the past, it seems to have only started coming up a lot lately with people describing the newer carbon fiber cue shafts. Is this a real benefit of carbon fiber or just some new marketing hype?
Cue Energy Transfer
- Thread starter slach
- Start date
It's been thrown around with the advent of a lot of technologies, particularly the phenolic break/jump tip.
It's hard to prove whether it's really affected much by the new wave of CF shafts. It might be real and relevant, it might be marketing and placebo; telling the difference would depend on having a real numerical measurement of different shafts, which we don't and won't anytime soon.
I'm no engineer, far from it actually, but when i test drove both Revos it was obvious that i was getting more ball movement with less stroke. Using what felt like my usual stroke the cue ball traveled further almost on every shot. Seemed real to me but hey, wtf do i know?
Some shaft/butt/tip combinations have less energy loss during the tip/ball collision. Here is a section on Dr. Dave's website that discusses this with a video comparing a bunch of sticks:
https://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#efficiency
With a more "efficient" stick, you don't have to move the stick as fast to achieve a given speed or spin.
This is very interesting but I’m curious how efficiency translates into break speed. Would the same percentages apply? Can a phenolic tip provide a measurable bump in speed? If so, how much of a bump?
“Energy Transfer” is a pretty common subject and term. I’m sure you just missed it.
I think the tip is probably more important than the cue construction. The phenolic tip seems to help a lot. I'm sure Predator has measurement data on the differences. You need to try multiple tips on one cue stick to get a proper tip comparison and Dr. Dave and I did not do that for the video. And, ideally, first you try several cue sticks with a good tip to find the one that gives you the highest numbers so it lets the tip be as good as it can be.
No offense to Predator’s data but it would be more convincing if it were an independent test. Personally, I’m not a fan of phenolic tips and think the loss of leather’s grippiness is more important than the increased speed but that’s a personal preference. It would still be nice to know how much speed I’m losing by having this opinion.
I don't like phenolic tips, either, mostly because they damage the cue ball. But here is a quote from the test results linked to above:
A phenolic tip can add about 17% more power or energy to a break as compared to a medium-hardness leather tip.
On the third hand, Corey Deuel rarely uses his break cue.
I don't like phenolic tips, either, mostly because they damage the cue ball. But here is a quote from the test results linked to above:
A phenolic tip can add about 17% more power or energy to a break as compared to a medium-hardness leather tip.
On the third hand, Corey Deuel rarely uses his break cue.
They also scratch up the cloth.
17% would translate to about 5 mph for me. Next time I get the chance, I’ll see if the break speed app can pick up the difference.
There’s a lot of hypotheses on this topic and a lot of anecdotes but very little testing. And the testing so far leaves much to be desired. I’d like to see more testing involving a cue hitting a cueball and measuring actual on-table results with controls in place like a robot arm.
Looking at Bob/Dave’s tests, I have no idea if the differences in efficiencies demonstrably mean a center ball hit in scenario X will make the cue ball travel 6” further or in scenario Y make the cueball draw 3” further or in scenario Z make an object ball rebound off the rail 5 degrees wider with sidespin. Or of those differences are wildly more pronounced or drastically more subtle.
My theory is that the tip hardness differences make a meaningful difference on the break butt shaft/butt efficiency differences less meaningful because they are all within the range of control of a pool players arm when playing naturally, e.g. you’ll need to crush the ball with a pure stroke before you even start to see an outcome you couldn’t recreate with other adjustments like hitting the ball only slightly harder. My theory is that you could pass the same stick around a dozen people and half will be amazed at how much better its energy transfer is and half will think it’s worse. And there may even be a placebo effect where people that expect the stick to help them might stroke more naturally in their delivery because they feel more at ease mentally.
But again, all we have is anecdotal experiences and on-paper experiments to go off of right now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Looking at Bob/Dave’s tests, I have no idea if the differences in efficiencies demonstrably mean a center ball hit in scenario X will make the cue ball travel 6” further or in scenario Y make the cueball draw 3” further or in scenario Z make an object ball rebound off the rail 5 degrees wider with sidespin. Or of those differences are wildly more pronounced or drastically more subtle.
My theory is that the tip hardness differences make a meaningful difference on the break butt shaft/butt efficiency differences less meaningful because they are all within the range of control of a pool players arm when playing naturally, e.g. you’ll need to crush the ball with a pure stroke before you even start to see an outcome you couldn’t recreate with other adjustments like hitting the ball only slightly harder. My theory is that you could pass the same stick around a dozen people and half will be amazed at how much better its energy transfer is and half will think it’s worse. And there may even be a placebo effect where people that expect the stick to help them might stroke more naturally in their delivery because they feel more at ease mentally.
But again, all we have is anecdotal experiences and on-paper experiments to go off of right now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Is there an official robot for testing billiard products? I’m no engineer but the concept doesn’t seem that hard. It would be great if we could get real information instead of marketing strategies.
There’s this old thing for testing deflection. I feel like something similar could be done with testing energy transfer.
https://youtu.be/ke_Dnfko_Vs
I assume the testing done today by the leading cue manufacturers might have advanced those techniques quite a bit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Energy transfer is something most Cuemakers love to talk about.
Like a Luthier loves to talk about it as sound waves.
Energy and sound waves travel best along the wood grain itself. When the grain runs off, so does part of the energy or sound.
Look for the best shafts ever produced, the Maple shaft with tight straight grain, mmm mmm good.
I know my Becue will "do more with less" and no pool scientist is going to convince me otherwise.
Every single person who has picked up my cue and hit a few balls with it will say the same thing, even though the cue may not be their "cup of tea".
I was breaking with it last night and the guy I was playing said, "that cue gets a lot of power". I was using my playing cue and doing better than he was with his fancy break cue and I wasn't going "all out". I'm kind of afraid of hitting as hard as I can with this 12mm shaft and no ferrule.
Every single person who has picked up my cue and hit a few balls with it will say the same thing, even though the cue may not be their "cup of tea".
I was breaking with it last night and the guy I was playing said, "that cue gets a lot of power". I was using my playing cue and doing better than he was with his fancy break cue and I wasn't going "all out". I'm kind of afraid of hitting as hard as I can with this 12mm shaft and no ferrule.
Last edited:
Prove me wrong, Mr. Scientist.
And not by just saying so.
Break out your fancy, dancy equipment and get your Nobel Prize.
Didn't you just say that no namby pamby science can change your manly mind?
Prove yourself right - and not just by saying so.
pj
chgo
WinnerBreaks
Registered
It's mostly negligible. Energy transfer will be lost dependent to the weakest link in the equation. In this case, the skin of your hand. Said 'material' acts as a giant pillow (of blood, ligaments, bone, water etc.) ultimately absorbing a portion of the impact. To think a shaft material would overcome the biggest energy transfer sucking variable sounds silly to me.
All marketing b.s. At least that's what my unscientifically tested opinion says.
All marketing b.s. At least that's what my unscientifically tested opinion says.
Last edited:
The soft skin of your hand does "give" on impact, but that means it's not part of the energy transfer equation.
pj
chgo