Deflection as relating to tip size

[garczar]

Layered tip has nothing to with the outcome on a shot like this. LD shaft MAYBE but not the tip.

 

[Texas Carom Club]

These players you speak of are usually the slow play guys. Takes an hour to finish a set in a tournament and all the players are staring and waiting.

I’m old school. Never learned how to play pool from a book like most people. I glanced at a book once and gave it back and went to shoot. Lol

In regards to old timers who taught me shots and no longer here? They were really good players and they never once spoke to me about deflection. I believe it exists but not to the extent people speak of it.

in general you don’t miss a shot because of deflection. You missed it badly. The pool cue is a fine tuned instrument. It’s actually amazing what it does and built by man from scratch. So we shouldn’t really give this much attention to deflection.

Who do you think you are exactly
“ I didn’t learn to play pool form a book like most people” lmao

What book did most people learn from? I guarantee you don’t know everything, maybe there’s something you can learn in it .

We already know you don’t know about cnc

 

[Patrick Johnson]

This is the test me and my friend did, hit with low right and spin down the table to see how close to the corner pocket we got. For both of us, we got the cueball further down table with a LD shaft with a layered tip. This was three different LD shafts, not just one. We had at least two shafts of each type, normal shaft with one piece tip, normal shaft with layered tip, LD shaft with one piece tip, LD shaft with layered tip. And the spin we got out of the shot from least to most was in that order. We both took 5 shots each with each shaft to account for our stroke differences and variables. But they were all consistent between us, the LD shaft with a layered tip took the cueball further down the table, to position B, and even to the pocket sometimes, the normal shaft was at position A.

Too many variables for that "test" to be reliable. For instance, how full you hit the 9 ball, exactly where you hit the CB, how hard you hit it, etc. Those variables are what the steps in my test (post #27) control.

pj
chgo

 

[irspow]

Too many variables for that "test" to be reliable. For instance, how full you hit the 9 ball, exactly where you hit the CB, how hard you hit it, etc. Those variables are what the steps in my test (post #27) control.

pj
chgo

I did your test and always got 2.5 diamonds deviation with both my old cue regular shaft medium tip and my hard tip low deflection shaft. I tried the other test shown and it randomly varied from third and second diamond from corner pocket. It seemed like it wasn’t the different cues that made the variation but rather the ratio of low to right tip placement (and perhaps exact contact point) from shot to shot.

I’ve been thinking that maybe some people perceive (and might experience) different amounts of deflection when using smaller sized tips because of the amount of true offset that they apply. Striking a quarter of the cue ball with the inside edge of the tip (for maximum spin) requires more shift from center when using a larger tip. For example, a 13mm tip needs to shift 2mm more than an 11mm tip when referencing the center of cue ball. I also think that this is the reason why beginners using 13mm tips often have trouble getting maximum draw. An 11mm tip will have about 3.29mm clearance from bottom of tip to the felt while a 13mm tip will only have about about 1.29mm. Visually, using a bigger tip can be intimidating getting low enough while a smaller tip has a more comfortable amount of clearance.

Essentially, when some people switch from a big tip to a smaller one they are more visually comfortable shifting more towards the miscue limit. And when they do this they experience more deflection, not because the tip is smaller, but rather their offset has increased. That’s my current theory, but I am by no means credible.

 

[dr_dave]

I did your test and always got 2.5 diamonds deviation with both my old cue regular shaft medium tip and my hard tip low deflection shaft. I tried the other test shown and it randomly varied from third and second diamond from corner pocket. It seemed like it wasn’t the different cues that made the variation but rather the ratio of low to right tip placement (and perhaps exact contact point) from shot to shot.

I’ve been thinking that maybe some people perceive (and might experience) different amounts of deflection when using smaller sized tips because of the amount of true offset that they apply. Striking a quarter of the cue ball with the inside edge of the tip (for maximum spin) requires more shift from center when using a larger tip. For example, a 13mm tip needs to shift 2mm more than an 11mm tip when referencing the center of cue ball. I also think that this is the reason why beginners using 13mm tips often have trouble getting maximum draw. An 11mm tip will have about 3.29mm clearance from bottom of tip to the felt while a 13mm tip will only have about about 1.29mm. Visually, using a bigger tip can be intimidating getting low enough while a smaller tip has a more comfortable amount of clearance.

Essentially, when some people switch from a big tip to a smaller one they are more visually comfortable shifting more towards the miscue limit. And when they do this they experience more deflection, not because the tip is smaller, but rather their offset has increased. That’s my current theory, but I am by no means credible.

Good post. For those interested, I cover this topic in detail here:

"Tips" of English

cue tip shape and size effects​

 

[hang-the-9]

Too many variables for that "test" to be reliable. For instance, how full you hit the 9 ball, exactly where you hit the CB, how hard you hit it, etc. Those variables are what the steps in my test (post #27) control.

pj
chgo

That's why we both shot the same shot 5 times with each shaft to get rid of those variables and get an average of the results (so 10 shots each). He was a bit better player than me, and was getting the same results from the shafts, his spin was just going down the table a bit more than mine, but consistent between the shafts from least to most spin. Out of the 10 shots we took, and it may have been more because I'm pretty sure after we did all of them, we circled back to the start to make sure), it was a consistent grouping of the shafts. For example, in the 10 shots, the normal shaft with a standard tip not once made it past the diamond. The LD shaft with the layered tip was always near the corner pocket in 10 shots. It was too much of a difference between the shafts to be just luck. The two best shafts we got action out of were consistent to the corner pocket, the others were around a diamond further up.

One thing we also need to keep in mind here, is that it's not only the shaft and tip that will cause a certain result, but also how comfortable the player is with using it and stroking the shot well. For example, if my tip is hard or the shaft is under say 11.7 mm, I am more hesitant in my stroke since it feels like the tip is about to miscue or slide off the ball, and the narrow shaft just looks and feels unstable, like I am shooting with a straw. So, while there may not be any technical difference between two shafts or tips with how they spin the cueball, how comfortable the player is with it will affect the shot results anyway so there is a practical difference. Having said that, the results I got with my friend were not due to this, I liked all the shafts we used, and there were two of us to get a more accurate result.