Deflection difference?

L.S. Dennis

L.S. Dennis

Well-known member
There's been a lot of talk lately about the JFlowers inexpensive cues/carbon fiber shafts lately especially now since Earl signed on with JFlowers to produce the 'legends' model. My question is, is there any difference in amount of deflection between these shafts as apposed to some of the higher end and more expensive carbon fiber shafts ex Revo, Ignite etc.? Dr. Dave once did a video on deflection difference between different shafts unfortunately he did not include these JFlower shafts in his experiment. Also is there any difference in the 'quality of the carbon fiber between these shafts or is all carbon fiber basically the same thing?

Any thoughts...
 
i have not played with a jflowers carbon fiber
but the deflection on a carbon fiber cuetec/revo/ned morris were all different
 
When I was looking into their break cue I found many videos reviewing their cues.
Have you watched any on YT? There may be a comparison vid on there already.
 
Wasn't Earl shooting with something like a 14mm shaft before this? If so, I guess any carbon fiber shaft would be less deflection compared to what he was used to.
 
muskyed said:
Wasn't Earl shooting with something like a 14mm shaft before this? If so, I guess any carbon fiber shaft would be less deflection compared to what he was used to.
Click to expand...
I remember years ago Earl used a black break cue (not carbon fiber for sure back then) and a white Cuetec playing cue most definitely the fiberglass mixture that Cuetec was making at the time. He did well with those two cues over the years.
 
3kushn said:
So we still need to pay attention and learn how to aim with all these shafts?
Shocking! I'm Shocked!
Click to expand...
Your sarcasm is palpable (icbw)
the difference is
the adjustment to “learn how to aim”
the adjustment is less
 
I bought the JFlowers CF cue a couple years ago. It was noticeably more deflection than my 314 shafts, but less than a traditional wood shaft. I ended up returning it because the aim was different. A year later, I bought the Revo line, and they were the same aim as the 314 line. This is based on my own shooting of spin shots for several racks.
 
iusedtoberich said:
I bought the JFlowers CF cue a couple years ago. It was noticeably more deflection than my 314 shafts, but less than a traditional wood shaft. I ended up returning it because the aim was different. A year later, I bought the Revo line, and they were the same aim as the 314 line. This is based on my own shooting of spin shots for several racks.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input
 
L.S. Dennis said:
I remember years ago Earl used a black break cue (not carbon fiber for sure back then) and a white Cuetec playing cue most definitely the fiberglass mixture that Cuetec was making at the time. He did well with those two cues over the years.
Click to expand...
Yes, Earl was sponsored by Cuetec for 17 years. Then when they fired him in 2007 he badmouthed the company's cues. Seems like Cuetec has recovered quite well from that.
 
L.S. Dennis said:
There's been a lot of talk lately about the JFlowers inexpensive cues/carbon fiber shafts lately especially now since Earl signed on with JFlowers to produce the 'legends' model. My question is, is there any difference in amount of deflection between these shafts as apposed to some of the higher end and more expensive carbon fiber shafts ex Revo, Ignite etc.? Dr. Dave once did a video on deflection difference between different shafts unfortunately he did not include these JFlower shafts in his experiment. Also is there any difference in the 'quality of the carbon fiber between these shafts or is all carbon fiber basically the same thing?

Any thoughts...
Click to expand...

Compared to a normal LD shaft, the J Flowers and Konllen shafts are pretty much normal house cue shafts. Not LD much at all. Revo is the lowest deflection shaft I played with, the 12.4 and 11.8 versions at least. It's even lower than the Predator Z which I think is the lowest deflection wood shaft out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
hang-the-9 said:
Compared to a normal LD shaft, the J Flowers and Konllen shafts are pretty much normal house cue shafts. Not LD much at all. Revo is the lowest deflection shaft I played with, the 12.4 and 11.8 versions at least. It's even lower than the Predator Z which I think is the lowest deflection wood shaft out there.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that
 
lfigueroa said:
Buy a cue (almost any cue).

Get used to it.

Learn to make whatever adjustments needed.

Player for life.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
Sure. But to play devil's advocate, low deflection may make a positive difference and there's no drawback (assuming you like the cue otherwise).

Theoretically, less deflection is easier to estimate accurately - maybe not enough to make a big difference, but maybe that depends on the player.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Sure. But to play devil's advocate, low deflection may make a positive difference and there's no drawback (assuming you like the cue otherwise).

Theoretically, less deflection is easier to estimate accurately - maybe not enough to make a big difference, but maybe that depends on the player.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Evidence please: "less deflection is easier to estimate accurately..."

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
Evidence please: "less deflection is easier to estimate accurately..."

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
  • With less CB deflection, you are less likely to miss short shots into big pockets if you don’t compensate your aim when using sidespin.
  • The CB will come off the cue tip closer to the aiming line when using sidespin. Therefore, not as much aim adjustment or compensation is required when using sidespin. For people who aren’t good at compensating for squirt, this can be very helpful. Also, with less compensation, there will be less error. For more info, see Diagram 2 and the surrounding discussion in “Squirt – Part V: low-squirt cues” (BD, December, 2007). A good analogy for squirt in pool is a crosswind in archery. Less is better for aiming over a wide range of distances. Another good analogy for greater error with larger adjustment is estimating a length to within a given accuracy. It is much easier to estimate an inch (or 2.5 cm) to within 1/8″ (3 mm) than it is to estimate a yard (meter) to within 1/8″ (3 mm)
source: https://billiards.colostate.edu/faq/cue/low-squirt/

To be honest, I don't consider the lowest possible deflection to be an advantage 100% of the time. If the pivot length of the cue matches your bridge length, compensation for squirt is basically automatic. And there are shots where the spin induced throw and, to a lesser extent, the swerve, more than cancel out the squirt, requiring me to actually compensate the opposite direction. That's actually quite strange for me, typically, with inside spin, I will have to aim slightly fatter, but on some shots, I have to aim thinner. So it's entirely possible for someone to be more comfortable with varying the compensation instead of switching between compensation and exaggeration.

As much as the game of pool can seem like a scientific experiment, with precision balls, level table, quality felt, and that the game seem built for physics and geometry examples, there's still a feel for the game and what's happening, no different than a baseball pitcher curving a ball into the strike zone. He may not know the rpms of the ball or the angle it leaves his hand, but he's thrown enough that he does those things properly to deliver the ball over the plate.
 
lfigueroa said:
Evidence please: "less deflection is easier to estimate accurately..."

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by evidence. The less you need to adjust the more accurate you will be. It's pretty much a blanket statement that would apply to anything. This does not mean that every player will be able to make balls with spin the same way using the same shafts, which is pretty much the only thing that people go on and on about if they are against low deflection shafts. There is a clear benefit to them for many players, but not for those used to aiming by adjusting for their specific shafts that can't adjust to not doing it.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't know of any tangible evidence (that's why I said "theoretically") - it just makes simple sense that smaller adjustments are easier to make accurately. An example is archery in the wind - would you rather have more or less wind?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Wind would be a bad analogy -- that's like asking if you rather have a a dry or humid table.

Lou Figueroa
or play outdoors, lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top