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

Bob Jewett said:
That's not how physics works these days. In fact Newton's theory of gravity was known to be not quite right by very precise observations of Mercury's orbit. Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity) explained the problem with Mercury. See below.

There are no "LAWS" of physics. There are only theories, and a theory is provisional until some observation cannot be explained by the theory. Even Einstein's theory of gravity is "just" a theory but it's used because no test or observation has shown it to be false or incomplete.

View attachment 843458
Click to expand...
That's not how physics works these days.....big problem, there absolutes in the world, these days are no different than days of the past, there are hard truths, some people accept them some don't, I don't believe that will ever change.
 
Where does sideways force come from which pushes a cue ball offline? Think of a diving board, if it's too rigid...then you don't get the force to jump high
 
SSP said:
All computer chips and F1 engines never fail? Really? I guess some of the tolerances they allow while building them are a little off then.....
Click to expand...
Failure rate doesn't correlate to the topic nor the 100% failure rate of scrimshawed chips and hand carved F1 motors.
 
SSP said:
You said
I think automation has the edge in reliability.
Failure rate does correlate to your statement of farce .
Click to expand...
Skewz me what are you saying? You trolling with baseless claims? Where does it say chips and motors don't fail? It's 50/50 this is how Kaci cleared space for his brother.
 
Anyone interested in the truth instead of parroting others, read through my replies and Dr Dave's and you will find it. The truth is we don't know how much flex affects deflection but likely more flex means more deflection. This makes intuitive sense and I also have practical experience supporting this
 
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...

In theory they have less deflection until you have to crank it up.
Then you have somewhat of a conundrum.
 
336Robin said:
In theory they have less deflection until you have to crank it up.
Then you have somewhat of a conundrum.
Click to expand...
Every cf shaft i've tried so far has less defl. than any solid wood shaft i've used. Some deflect less than others but i've yet to hit a cf shaft that i'd call normal/standard deflection. Even the cheap asian shafts are pretty low in deflection. BTW, deflection angle is the same regardless of speed. The initial start-line is the same, how long the cb stays on that line IS speed dependent.
 
garczar said:
Every cf shaft i've tried so far has less defl. than any solid wood shaft i've used. Some deflect less than others but i've yet to hit a cf shaft that i'd call normal/standard deflection. Even the cheap asian shafts are pretty low in deflection. BTW, deflection angle is the same regardless of speed. The initial start-line is the same, how long the cb stays on that line IS speed dependent.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine made me a cb shaft and put a really hard tip on it. I paid him for it and later sold it because someone wanted it.
With a softer tip I would have kept it but at the time I couldn't find anyone to tip the thing, so I let it go. I did not like the hard tip
and stiff shaft combo at all, but I liked the weight of the shaft. Very light.

This being said less is not always better. Understandable is better.
 
Last edited:
SSP said:
My friend, you are led to believe that science proves everything with tests, it doesn't, that's why there is the LAW of gravity but only the THEORY of electricity, to this day science has been unable to prove how electrons flow in an electrical circuit, yet we use it everyday, we know even less about magnetism yet we build electromagnets capable of lifting tons of steel, does this mean science is bad, no, all it means is it can't prove everything, in science you will have to look at variables, in our discussion that will include, speed of stroke, angle of stroke, tip hardness, weight of cue, weight of cue ball, weight of object ball, size of cue ball, size of object ball, type of cloth, I could go on but I think you get the point, I hope, the biggest thing is your brain is capable of making some of the hardest calculations on the fly, just finished reading the inner game of tennis, it's an amazing book on how your mind works, it's a great read that will do more for your game than the infantesimal differences in cue shaft deflection that your mind and body will adjust for, I have never heard Efren Reyes say one word about cue shaft deflection.......
Click to expand...
There's the law of gravity AND the THEORY of gravity. One, is the observable effect. The other is the attempt at the understanding of the WHY.
 
garczar said:
Every cf shaft i've tried so far has less defl. than any solid wood shaft i've used. Some deflect less than others but i've yet to hit a cf shaft that i'd call normal/standard deflection. Even the cheap asian shafts are pretty low in deflection. BTW, deflection angle is the same regardless of speed. The initial start-line is the same, how long the cb stays on that line IS speed dependent.
Click to expand...
Not even close, the majority of CF shafts out there are higher deflection. If you've only tried the becue and predator shafts, then I might believe it though. I've hit with several CF shafts that were higher deflection than LD wood shafts, and even non LD wood shafts for that matter. Most of the asian CF blanks that are out there are impossible to make lower deflection without drastic modification.
 
poolscholar said:
Anyone interested in the truth instead of parroting others, read through my replies and Dr Dave's and you will find it. The truth is we don't know how much flex affects deflection but likely more flex means more deflection. This makes intuitive sense and I also have practical experience supporting this
Click to expand...
You talk about science and then use your anecdote as evidence. lol. Plunk
 
fuggles said:
You talk about science and then use your anecdote as evidence. lol. Plunk
Click to expand...
I'm not the PhD in the forum. But I do have my own evidence. Just because I'm not doing science doesn't mean I can't judge the lack of science or understanding. There's obviously room to improve our knowledge of shaft physics but God only knows why everyone has their head in the sand
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top