Cuetec Avid: fiberglass still?!

[tomker]

...
If your friend is looking for a nice cue for a very inexpensive price then I would really suggest he try the Cuetec Avid line. Have him try the different diameter shafts and see what he likes. The 11.75 felt too small and delicate for me. I think the recently introduced 12.25mm would be really nice.

I'm impressed that you live somewhere where you can try out all these cues.

I don't think I have convenient access to anything like that. Even at the vendor booths at the larger tournaments around me. (PNW)

Sounds like the rebranding from "fiberglass" to "glass composite" was probably appropriate.

 

[JPB2]

Sounds good, thanks, I will definitely try one when I get the opportunity.

I guess the advertised advantages of the coating are that it transfers more power and it makes the shaft strong enough that the front end can be bored out deeper (i.e., lower deflection). And I suppose it's probably as easy to clean as a CF shaft.

So pretty similar to a CF shaft but I guess much cheaper? Huh. Hard to argue with I suppose.

It has a different feel from the cynergy. I like the cynergy as well. To me the Avid feels softer with a harder tip. The cynergy has a softer tip standard but feels firmer to me. I like the hit of the Avid with the flat face joint, shaft and tip combo. But I don’t dislike the cynergy. You do want to treat it like cf. no abrasives - clean with an alcohol wipe is all.

In another post you said you were in PNW. If you ever get to or through Boise there is a place that will let you hit with them. They carry CueTec but not predator.

 

[SSP]

I friend of mine is looking for a starter cue, and I almost recommended a Cuetec Avid. Skyler Woodward plays with one and people say they're good value for money online.

So I look them up and the shafts have a "glass composite" coating? Uhh, that's fiberglass. Are they still doing fiberglass coatings on their shafts? I thought nobody liked that. No wonder they're marketing it with different terminology now.

Looks like Allison Fisher and Earl Strickland used to play with Cuetec fiberglass shafts but a poster here said they had the fiberglass coatings sanded off. Sounds about right. Can't believe Cuetec is still selling this stuff.

Oh... Cuetec also claims that the coating increases the shaft's stiffness (or "dynamic stiffness," whatever that is). Which is the opposite of what you want for a low-deflection shaft. Great.

A low deflection shaft by it's definition has deflection, no matter what cue you are playing with if you hit the cue ball off center you will have to account for the deflection, does it help to account for less deflection? I think most people would say yes, IMHO I think it's more important to find a cue that feels right for you and play with that cue all the time, you will get used to the deflection THAT cue has and become more consistent with THAT cue, I use a CF cue for that reason, wood is affected by temp, humidity, CF is not, I like the consistency , I hate that I can't blame my misses on my cue anymore.

 

[tomker]

A low deflection shaft by it's definition has deflection, no matter what cue you are playing with if you hit the cue ball off center you will have to account for the deflection, does it help to account for less deflection? I think most people would say yes, IMHO I think it's more important to find a cue that feels right for you and play with that cue all the time, you will get used to the deflection THAT cue has and become more consistent with THAT cue, I use a CF cue for that reason, wood is affected by temp, humidity, CF is not, I like the consistency , I hate that I can't blame my misses on my cue anymore.

Yeah I wish there was another term for "low deflection" because it's super confusing.

Does it mean cue deflection or cue BALL deflection? It's ambiguous.

Intuitively, a "low deflection cue" would mean that the cue itself doesn't deflect much, i.e., one that's super rigid. Like a steel rod. Or, well, a carbon fiber rod. That's what many/most people think "low deflection" means and I can't blame them. Even cue manufacturers (like Cuetec) will advertise their shafts as being really rigid/stiff.

But of course low deflection means low cue BALL deflection, which is inversely related (a bit) to cue deflection. But that's hard to explain to people without linking to Dr. Dave.

You're right that all cues will impart some deflection and you'll have to account for that... but it is nice when the cue ball goes in a direction that's closer to what you would intuitively expect.

Interestingly (to me), most snooker cues are made of ash rather than maple or CF and I think snooker players generally agree that it's because ash is a softer wood and is therefore lower deflection. Deflection is a huge deal with snooker because the tables are that much bigger.

 

[SSP]

Yeah I wish there was another term for "low deflection" because it's super confusing.

Does it mean cue deflection or cue BALL deflection? It's ambiguous.

Intuitively, a "low deflection cue" would mean that the cue itself doesn't deflect much, i.e., one that's super rigid. Like a steel rod. Or, well, a carbon fiber rod. That's what many/most people think "low deflection" means and I can't blame them. Even cue manufacturers (like Cuetec) will advertise their shafts as being really rigid/stiff.

But of course low deflection means low cue BALL deflection, which is inversely related (a bit) to cue deflection. But that's hard to explain to people without linking to Dr. Dave.

You're right that all cues will impart some deflection and you'll have to account for that... but it is nice when the cue ball goes in a direction that's closer to what you would intuitively expect.

Interestingly (to me), most snooker cues are made of ash rather than maple or CF and I think snooker players generally agree that it's because ash is a softer wood and is therefore lower deflection. Deflection is a huge deal with snooker because the tables are that much bigger.

I find that CF shafts don't play much different than wood shafts, at least the Becue shafts I'm using don't except for the consistency, super smooth especially with a glove, (I used a glove with wood shafts too) the tone it makes when hitting the cue ball, I find my CF shaft is low deflection, I don't need to compensate much when using sidespin but I do have to compensate, you can have a great wood shaft and if it's damaged the replacement will be very different, there are Pro's using both wood and CF so I say use what works best for you, for me that is Becue cues.

 

[tomker]

I find that CF shafts don't play much different than wood shafts, at least the Becue shafts I'm using don't except for the consistency, super smooth especially with a glove, (I used a glove with wood shafts too) the tone it makes when hitting the cue ball, I find my CF shaft is low deflection, I don't need to compensate much when using sidespin but I do have to compensate, you can have a great wood shaft and if it's damaged the replacement will be very different, there are Pro's using both wood and CF so I say use what works best for you, for me that is Becue cues.

Yeah. All CF cues have very lightweight front ends, but they're also all stiffer than wood cues, so for a lot of CF cues it's a wash. I've seen a lot of people complaining online about how their new CF cue actually "has" more deflection (deflects the cue ball more) than e.g. their old Predator shaft.

But no doubt you can get a CF cue that's low deflection. The Revo for example. I'm sure Predator uses super-thin CF and the front ends are literally hollow, which is probably why a lot of people say that Revos have a "tinny" hit. But they are no doubt low deflection.

 

[SSP]

Yeah. All CF cues have very lightweight front ends, but they're also all stiffer than wood cues, so for a lot of CF cues it's a wash. I've seen a lot of people complaining online about how their new CF cue actually "has" more deflection (deflects the cue ball more) than e.g. their old Predator shaft.

But no doubt you can get a CF cue that's low deflection. The Revo for example. I'm sure Predator uses super-thin CF and the front ends are literally hollow, which is probably why a lot of people say that Revos have a "tinny" hit. But they are no doubt low deflection.

Becue uses what they call the Aurora front end, it's a company whose owner's are pool players who wanted to bring modern materials to Pool, you can google them and learn more if you are interested, let Alessandro know I sent you if you decide to give them a try, I'll probably never need it but I am going to order another shaft in case a tip pops off during a match, if you know anyone who has one try it out, I swore I would never go CF, I don't mind eating a little crow on this one.

 

[tomker]

Becue uses what they call the Aurora front end, it's a company whose owner's are pool players who wanted to bring modern materials to Pool, you can google them and learn more if you are interested, let Alessandro know I sent you if you decide to give them a try, I'll probably never need it but I am going to order another shaft in case a tip pops off during a match, if you know anyone who has one try it out, I swore I would never go CF, I don't mind eating a little crow on this one.

Thanks for the tip, I actually know a guy who shoots with one, I'll ask to try it out next time I see him.

I've been meaning to switch to CF for a while now but haven't pulled the trigger, happy enough with my current wood shaft...

 

[snookered_again]

sometimes in an old building I will put my hand on a handrail where millions of people have passed, It's been finished likely with an oil finish and handled lots, the result is a beautiful finish that's soft to the touch and somehow just feels nice in your hands. in woodworking this is called a "below the surface finish"

You'll find similar if you pick up a hammer or similar that's just very well used. It has a much nicer feel than a plastic handle. this has a lot to do with porosity. if you run your hand along a older cue you can probably feel some texture because the grain shrinks and the surface is not mirror smooth, It has a more natural feel to it.

I like to touch such surfaces and carbon fiber, fiberglass or epoxy coatings are not the same.
next compare to how your hand slides down a glass handrail, what happens, your hand sticks to it, because glass has no porosity.

Does the nice feel that wood has, affect your game? I dont know but I'd rather have a wood cue. Use what you like I just prefer touching wood. many like wearing gloves to reduce the problem of the cue sticking because it has no porosity. It is a way to deal with the problem and I'm sure many feel its best to. Maybe I'm not so serious or experienced as others, I don't choose to wear a glove. Its a personal preference I guess.



If you close your eyes and touch a bunch of wood objects and compare the substances that are man made and non porous, you can easily note the difference in how it feels in your hands. I think it has a lot to do with how the perspiration and oils are either absorbed by the object, or not. also wood rarely has a real pianno finish, it naturally changes and there are normally high and low spots caused by the wood movement. the softer parts of the grain shrink and the other parts dont so there is a natural consistency and unless it is completely sealed up, it is not a mirror finish.

wood can take on and give off moisture and true most are so sealed up with an epoxy resin or similar ( an above the surface finish) that you cant' actually touch the wood with your hand. It still has a "plastic" feel to it.
I think real wood as a certain charm that is hard to replace even though man made substances may stay straighter end react less because they do not have any ability to absorb. wood always has imperfections, its a natural product. I think it also has a certain natural feel to it.



slightly different topic but:

A thing I just began doing, which appears quite idiotic is just to take a cue and bump it against my own head. Its surprising how you can hear it "ring" every cue has a different ring to it too.

Its because the sound vibrations travel better through solids ( like my noggin ;-) than they do through air. Sometimes I'll note a bad ring, often a loose ferrule or the stick is loose or has a crack or something on it is loose.

the effect is quite noticeable , sometimes I'll be building with lumber and pick up a cracked board, I can feel the crack through the wood's resonation , or lack of resonation sometimes. Another place this applies is when mounting a grind stone. it is often suggested to take the stone and suspend it by a wire or put a nail through the hole and tap it with something. a cracked wheel will not ring normally, it will have more of a "thud" than a true ring, as expected. this is done to prevent a newly mounted stone from exploding in your face.

although it looks a bit funny to watch, just tapping your cue against our skull can actually be an easy way to detect and issue. I think it's an interesting thing you can compare as you check out cues. If you try this with a few cues I bet you can hear differences.

any object has a natural frequency so what you are doing here is sensing the natural frequency of a particular cue. pretty much any modification will affect it's natural frequency.










.

 

[Texdance]

<snip> NONE are what i would remotely call 'flexible' except for maybe an old 70's Meucci and even that wasn't really all that whippy just a little bit softer compared to the old-school stiff ass shafts of the time.

Just a couple of 70s anecdotes: The guy who operated the BCA league in the 70s had a Meucci when they were just showing up. He was proud of its flexible shaft. It was more than whippy: he would press the end on a table and cause the shaft to bend to an incredible degree, far beyond what would have snapped the 12.5 - 13mm pro-taper maple shafts of the day. This was before low-def cues, before much cue-to-ball science was widely available. The best young up-and-coming player loved to show off his 13.5mm shaft. Custom cues with names revered today built with moderate inlays and a second shaft sold for well under $200. A hundred bucks would bought me a used stiff-as-heck stainless joint Tad with two shafts and a leather top-load Brunswick case. Joss and others advertised their cue line using 4x6 photographs circulated around poolhalls, with prices $100 - $275, often with two shafts. IIRC, sometime in that 70s era Meucci had his mechanical cue-stroke machine and began showing how great his black dot cues were compared to others. I never liked the one Meucci I owned; it was a little bit flexible, not too much, but with its Implex joint and narrow shaft all the weight was in the butt and the balance felt odd to me.

 

[tomker]

Just a couple of 70s anecdotes: ...

Before my time but reminds me of how you could get Omega Speedmasters for under $200 in the 60s.

 

[riedmich]

So hmm... thinking about this more... what could Cuetec have possibly changed to make their new fiberglass coating feel different vs. their old fiberglass coating.

Isn't fiberglass fiberglass?

Then it occurred to me that "carbon fiber" is really just a plastic resin with carbon fibers in it, the same way that fiberglass is a plastic resin with glass fibers in it. I imagine the feel of a shaft mostly depends on the feel of that plastic resin, so there's no reason why a fiberglass shaft would necessarily feel different from a CF shaft?

Maybe the new Avid shafts are kinda like the cheap "fake" carbon fiber shafts you can get which are just maple shafts with a carbon fiber wrap on the outside.

I ow one Avid cue, and I know also about the traditional way Cuetec was sealing the shafts. There is a difference in the texture. The old shafts from Cuetec, sealed with epoxy and glass fibers, were very smooth with no visible or haptical texture, whereas the new Avid shaft surface has a visible texture, and it also feels not such super smooth like the old one. Maybe this prevents from having a too sticky shaft.

Played with gloves abolutely no problem, but also without gloves the Avid can be used nicely, as long as it is not some kind of fatty or sticky by the dirt of the hands. In comparison the old shafts were not so nicely to play without gloves.

In total to me the Avid shaft surface is a practical solution that works much easier and better than the old shafts from Cuetec.

 

[riedmich]

I know you're half-joking but, again, CF shafts are stiff and can be LD. It's just that they're more light than they are stiff.

Have you ever handled a CF blank?

They're like a piece of paper. Well, several pieces, but still...

Carbon shaft are both: stiff and pretty heavy, it's not true that the carbon shaft are stiff + light. One of the mostly known examples is the cynergy shaft from cuetec. I have a cynergy standard length with the 3/8x11 thread and the weight is 107 gr., and this is absololutely not light weight. Also the static balance point of the cyergy is pretty far to the front, and by this you a more front balanced yue with the cynergy than with most other carbon shafts same lenght and weight.

Theoretically the stiffnes of the shaft would increase the deflection from a superficial point of view, but the reality is much more complex. The entire cue is a frequenting system, and the way how the entire cuestick reacts be its given frequency behavior has a huge impact on the resulting deflection. End mass is only one of a couple of other factors influencing deflection, the problem is just that it is not possible to fully put all factors into mathematical equations or other terms.

 

[SSP]

Carbon shaft are both: stiff and pretty heavy, it's not true that the carbon shaft are stiff + light. One of the mostly known examples is the cynergy shaft from cuetec. I have a cynergy standard length with the 3/8x11 thread and the weight is 107 gr., and this is absololutely not light weight. Also the static balance point of the cyergy is pretty far to the front, and by this you a more front balanced yue with the cynergy than with most other carbon shafts same lenght and weight.

Theoretically the stiffnes of the shaft would increase the deflection from a superficial point of view, but the reality is much more complex. The entire cue is a frequenting system, and the way how the entire cuestick reacts be its given frequency behavior has a huge impact on the resulting deflection. End mass is only one of a couple of other factors influencing deflection, the problem is just that it is not possible to fully put all factors into mathematical equations or other terms.

Same with my Becue, I always liked forward weighted cues, all cues will impart deflection on a cue ball when stuck off center, damn physics thing, there is no one cue that is right for everyone, IMHO the best thing you can do is find a cue that YOU like, learn how much YOUR cue deflects and play with that cue, I'm really happy with my Becue, I plan on playing with it until I am unable to play pool any longer which hopefully will be the rest of my life.

 

[tomker]

Carbon shaft are both: stiff and pretty heavy, it's not true that the carbon shaft are stiff + light. One of the mostly known examples is the cynergy shaft from cuetec. I have a cynergy standard length with the 3/8x11 thread and the weight is 107 gr., and this is absololutely not light weight.

I meant that the part towards the front is very lightweight (endmass).

I'm sure the cue manufacturers adjust the foam composition towards the middle and back to make the overall weight and balance point similar to what people expect from regular wood cues.

If the Cynergy has more endmass than other CF cues, though, it wouldn't be a big surprise to me. There are a ton of posts online about how the Cynergy is not especially low-deflection.

 

[riedmich]

I meant that the part towards the front is very lightweight (endmass).

I'm sure the cue manufacturers adjust the foam composition towards the middle and back to make the overall weight and balance point similar to what people expect from regular wood cues.

If the Cynergy has more endmass than other CF cues, though, it wouldn't be a big surprise to me. There are a ton of posts online about how the Cynergy is not especially low-deflection.

Well, the cynergy deflects very little, definitly less than 314/3. I played it for more than two years. But Revo and Ignite deflect a bit less than the cynergy.

What I wanted to say is: The weight that you can measure and the balance point are in no way related to deflection, just to be clear about.. And the deflection is not only an issue of the shaft, it is something that is related to the entire cue also.

 

[SSP]

The Cue/Shaft cause the Cue ball to deflect when struck off center, ALL cues cause the cue ball to deflect when struck off center, some more than others, if this is not accounted for while aiming you will miss the shot, IMHO this is why playing with a bunch of different cues is not a good idea, it's also why buying the latest and greatest "low deflection" shaft is not the answer, use your greatest weapon in the game, your brain, find out the amount of deflection your cue imparts at different speeds and distances off center and watch your game improve, practice with purpose.

 

[hang-the-9]

I friend of mine is looking for a starter cue, and I almost recommended a Cuetec Avid. Skyler Woodward plays with one and people say they're good value for money online.

So I look them up and the shafts have a "glass composite" coating? Uhh, that's fiberglass. Are they still doing fiberglass coatings on their shafts? I thought nobody liked that. No wonder they're marketing it with different terminology now.

Looks like Allison Fisher and Earl Strickland used to play with Cuetec fiberglass shafts but a poster here said they had the fiberglass coatings sanded off. Sounds about right. Can't believe Cuetec is still selling this stuff.

Oh... Cuetec also claims that the coating increases the shaft's stiffness (or "dynamic stiffness," whatever that is). Which is the opposite of what you want for a low-deflection shaft. Great.

I played with an Avid, don't know the exact construction is but I liked how it hit and the deflection of it. Good cue for the price.