Deflection question, explain how a stiffer CF shaft has less deflection.

poolscholar said:
You admit flex affects deflection but nobody understands how much.

Posting old articles doesn't prove anything, nor does making one video or having a phd. We need carbon fiber shafts of various flexibility and a robot. Testing anything with a human shooting is suspect and definitely not science
Click to expand...

Science means having a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, showing the test data, forming a conclusion based on the test data, and then publishing it all so that others can repeat. Then repeating all of the above if necessary. Dr Dave and others have done all that. Using a robot is not a prerequisite to any of that.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Science means having a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, showing the test data, forming a conclusion based on the test data, and then publishing it all so that others can repeat. Then repeating all of the above if necessary. Dr Dave and others have done all that. Using a robot is not a prerequisite to any of that.
Click to expand...
Yes a robot is required for accurate testing. Dr Dave isn't even close to pro and even a pro isn't consistent
 
dr_dave said:
The "Beaver Cue" experiment was done by Mike Page. I also recreated it with careful measurements, as documented in this article:

“Return of the squirt robot” (BD, August, 2008)
​
The experimental results in this article might also be of interest:

“Squirt – Part VII: cue test machine results” (BD, February, 2008)​
Click to expand...

FYI, all these experiment were done with a cue-testing machine, not a person! Although, careful human testing can give accurate results, even if the shooter is not a pro.
 
Even with legit high end testing, you get high end data that may or not be suitable for suit proof marketing. And then it's back to the clueless, inept, humans to revel and/or complain in.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Science means having a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, showing the test data, forming a conclusion based on the test data, and then publishing it all so that others can repeat. Then repeating all of the above if necessary. Dr Dave and others have done all that. Using a robot is not a prerequisite to any of that.
Click to expand...
Nobody properly understands how shaft flexibility or lack of it affects deflection.

We're where golf was 20 years ago. If you're going to do human testing at least use more than 1 human 🤣

not to mention basic sample size issues... we're not in high school science fair are we
 
Last edited:
poolscholar said:
Do we have test data from a robot with carbon fiber shafts?
Click to expand...
No offense, but you sound like you want someone else to spend weeks/months planning an experiment and then performing it, to come up with answers that agree with your theory.

Do you know why in pool there might be 3 or 4 people in the past 20 years that have ever done experiments and published them? Because it's hard as hell, and time consuming as hell.

Edit to add, and hardly anyone makes the effort to read/understand the published results. So the tester says "why bother again?"
 
Think about it. I had 2 revos... One with a flexible shaft and one very stiff. Same diameter. Flexible one had drastically more deflection. Does anyone think that this dramatic difference is caused by a minor difference in end mass alone? The flexibility has a factor, potentially a large one. Golf has had lots of finding and advancement. Pool will have them too
 
poolscholar said:
You admit flex affects deflection but nobody understands how much.

Posting old articles doesn't prove anything, nor does making one video or having a phd. We need carbon fiber shafts of various flexibility and a robot. Testing anything with a human shooting is suspect and definitely not science
Click to expand...
Do you have any high speed video like this.
..... you may be a pool scholar but you are being schooled by the Dr of Pool.
 
straightline said:
I think automation has the edge in reliability.
Over scaled non bias for one.
Click to expand...
I think automation has the edge in reliability.....you think wrong then, 1) ALL machines are designed and built by human beings 2) ALL machines have parts that have tolerances, that means there is an acceptable amount of difference in the parts of the machine that humans decide what that acceptable difference is, there is no greater machine ever built than the human being, but look who built it, the creator of the entire universe 😉
 
SSP said:
I think automation has the edge in reliability.....you think wrong then, 1) ALL machines are designed and built by human beings 2) ALL machines have parts that have tolerances, that means there is an acceptable amount of difference in the parts of the machine that humans decide what that acceptable difference is, there is no greater machine ever built than the human being, but look who built it, the creator of the entire universe 😉
Click to expand...

Many things can also go wrong with machine testing of cues. See:

 
Shooter1 said:
I've played with wood shafts, OEM Schon in the early days, then Mezz WXC700's and Cat and Precat Predators for the last 45 years and am fine with them. I recently tried a friends Predator CF cue and it didn't do anything for me but granted I only hit about 3 racks.
As I understand it, a CF shaft is stiffer than a comparable diameter wood shaft and would/should therefore flex less when using R or L spin and therefore push the CB off line more, creating more deflection or squirt. Am I right in this assumption?

I understand end mass has something to do with it but if CF is stiffer than a comparable diameter wood shaft and the end mass is also comparable, it seems to me that a CF shaft could actually create more deflection/squirt than a wood shaft.

I've considered buying a CF shaft before I die but would like some opinions on whether my logic above is correct.

Thanks all.
Click to expand...
Put one on your cue and hit balls. I hit balls with 10 diff Cuetecs at last yrs US Open MR event..... Then, found one I liked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SSP
poolscholar said:
Think about it. I had 2 revos... One with a flexible shaft and one very stiff. Same diameter. Flexible one had drastically more deflection. Does anyone think that this dramatic difference is caused by a minor difference in end mass alone? The flexibility has a factor, potentially a large one. Golf has had lots of finding and advancement. Pool will have them too
Click to expand...

Technology

Becue was born with the specific purpose of putting technology at the service of billiards. Research and development are the pillars on which Becue is founded. We are specialists in materials, carbon and composite fibers in particular These “fabrics”, wisely used, allow us to develop infinite...
www.becueofficial.com www.becueofficial.com
 
I have personally generated way more deflection with 12.4 Revo than 12.9 which contradicts Dave's video. The reason is because the 12.9 is a stiffer shaft
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top