Dime shaped tip *is* better!

Gregg said:
pillage6 said:
....

My point is that one or both are fudging their results, or at the very least are setting up their testing equipment to favor toward their own equipment.

No, I can't believe that red-blooded American business men would do anything like that. :rolleyes:
 
BillYards said:
I have a hard time keeping that radius... anyone have a sweet shaper that they can recommend to me?
I like the 'Ultimate Tip Tool', but advise you to not use the fork-like end (for the burnising? trimming the mushroom?) coz I have seen too many scratched ferrules and torn off tips. The UTT has a nickle + dime shape, as well as a rough scuffer. They are on flea-bay...
Oh- crap- Dime shape? I can't make a ball like that!
 
catscradle:

I think it is the other way around: If you never shape your tip again after the initial installation, you will gradually change the way you shoot to correct for the gradual changes in the tip. I see no benefit or logic in letting the tip maintenance lapse or self-correct.

It is just not right! With that method... the tip would supposedly take on a rounder shape if your style required it or a flatter shape if your style dictated that. In general, I think a tip will graduate to a flatter shape just because of the constant striking with the cueball. I just find the notion of ignoring your tip shape crazy. It's like a soldier not sharpening his sword before going to battle.
 
BillYards said:
catscradle:

I think it is the other way around: If you never shape your tip again after the initial installation, you will gradually change the way you shoot to correct for the gradual changes in the tip. I see no benefit or logic in letting the tip maintenance lapse or self-correct.

It is just not right! With that method... the tip would supposedly take on a rounder shape if your style required it or a flatter shape if your style dictated that. In general, I think a tip will graduate to a flatter shape just because of the constant striking with the cueball. I just find the notion of ignoring your tip shape crazy. It's like a soldier not sharpening his sword before going to battle.

Good point! And what I frequently see happening is someone will get a new tip installed, then their game goes downhill with a quickness for awhile. And you can hear them saying those famous words... "I'll play better once I get used to this new tip!"

Well I always use the same brand, hardness, shape, and condition of tip. When I install a new tip, it is the same brand, hardness, shape, and condition. So it plays the same as my old tip.

I always keep my tips the same (a known) shape so I can give a new tip the same shape.

One of the best players around here recently installed a new tip. He went two and out in the first tournament he played after installing the new tip. You could hear him walking out the door muttering nasties about his new tip...

Well his new tip had a different shape and different surface condition. Messed up his normally very accurate position playing.
 
Gregg said:
BOTH Meucci and Predator have claims and "test" equipment that demonstrate that their shafts deflect 50% less than the other in comparison test between their 314 and Zs and Meucci laminate shaft (either a black or red dot don't remember what is what).

My point is that one or both are fudging their results, or at the very least are setting up their testing equipment to favor toward their own equipment.


Very true, so where is YOUR information that disputes anyone else's claim? It's easy to SAY that something works or doesn't work, but how about PROVING it? Obviously you aren't in business.
 
BillYards said:
catscradle:

I think it is the other way around: If you never shape your tip again after the initial installation, you will gradually change the way you shoot to correct for the gradual changes in the tip. I see no benefit or logic in letting the tip maintenance lapse or self-correct.

It is just not right! With that method... the tip would supposedly take on a rounder shape if your style required it or a flatter shape if your style dictated that. In general, I think a tip will graduate to a flatter shape just because of the constant striking with the cueball. I just find the notion of ignoring your tip shape crazy. It's like a soldier not sharpening his sword before going to battle.

The logic is simple. If you use a lot of side spin you strike on the outside of the tip more and the edge compresses more resulting in a tighter radius which is appropriate for a style with a lot of side spin. If you play centerball a lot the center compresses more giving a flater tip which is right for somebody who plays a lot of centerball.
Maybe Deno or Lou or both can chime in on this too please.
 
Well wouldn't it be better to use your cue and let the tip find its "natural" shape, and then have a "custom" shaping tool made to that shape?

Then when you installed a new tip, it could have "your" tip shape from the get go!

There's a new business idea for someone. Custom tip shaping tools. (Or a set of shaping tools which have all sorts of different shapes.)
 
BillYards said:
doesn't a whippy shaft deflect more upon contact with the cueball, thus making the tip slide off the side of the ball?

Even if the shaft deflects, slow motion video showed the tip stays on the ball and the shaft actually buckles. I.e., the shaft may deflect to the right, but the tip is going to the left. All shafts will do this, I believe.

I believe to the best of what has been presented, the tip doesn't slip. I think chalk prevents this.

Fred
 
BillYards said:
catscradle:

I think it is the other way around: If you never shape your tip again after the initial installation, you will gradually change the way you shoot to correct for the gradual changes in the tip. I see no benefit or logic in letting the tip maintenance lapse or self-correct.

It is just not right! With that method... the tip would supposedly take on a rounder shape if your style required it or a flatter shape if your style dictated that. In general, I think a tip will graduate to a flatter shape just because of the constant striking with the cueball. I just find the notion of ignoring your tip shape crazy. It's like a soldier not sharpening his sword before going to battle.

This is a case where reality trumps intuition. I never touch my tips, other than installing a new tip, and giving it it's initial shape and initial flaring. But, I normally compress a tip and then bounce it (after it's installed )a few hundred times . A tip will last me a couple of years on my shooting cue. The only time I'll change it is when I want to try something else for some odd reason.

All of my shooting tips are about the same curvature: arc shaped. Somewhere around a nickel, I suppose. Nowhere near a dime. I doubt anyone in my league would think I have any problem with spin or with centerball. In the past, I used to shape my tips often, but it would only take a few hours before it turned into the shape that I started with. It just made sense that the tip was trying to get to a natural state, due to my shooting.

Fred
 
This thread is quite funny....I shape my tips with a $2.00 tip sander, and can shape a tip to any profile I want....after I have what I want it pretty much stays the same all through its life....
________
 
Last edited:
Gregg said:
pillage6 said:
BOTH Meucci and Predator have claims and "test" equipment that demonstrate that their shafts deflect 50% less than the other in comparison test between their 314 and Zs and Meucci laminate shaft (either a black or red dot don't remember what is what).

My point is that one or both are fudging their results, or at the very least are setting up their testing equipment to favor toward their own equipment.
Their machines are different. At one point, the Predator robot (Iron Willie) had a flaw that was corrected during the Jacksonville Project. The grip was tighter than any human could muster.

The Meucci Myth Destroyer sort of has a flaw in the way it holds the cue. Bob has designed a cue that specifically will work with the Myth Destroyer. More specifically, he designed a ferrule system that will work best against the Myth Destroyer. But, the other shafts are being falsely measured. He may not realize this. He probably doesn't care to hear it either.

Fred
 
showboat said:
This thread is quite funny....I shape my tips with a $2.00 tip sander, and can shape a tip to any profile I want....after I have what I want it pretty much stays the same all through its life....


How do you check the profile? How do you know it's consistent? If it stays the same shape isn't it the tip not the shaping that is holding the shape?

Fred: Which do you think is more accurate, if either? Are there some things you like about either robot that you could put together to make a better one? It would be great if we would pool all of our resources to have a robot built to end all of this controversy and hype.
 
Cornerman said:
Even if the shaft deflects, slow motion video showed the tip stays on the ball and the shaft actually buckles. I.e., the shaft may deflect to the right, but the tip is going to the left. All shafts will do this, I believe.

I believe to the best of what has been presented, the tip doesn't slip. I think chalk prevents this.

Fred


Ok... that makes my point even stronger... since the shaft is buckling... the force exerted on the cueball is not in-line with the centerline of the cue (in its undeformed shape) any more. Regardless of the direction of buckling, this would result in less force straight through your contact point, resulting in less spin.

The point I was arguing before is that the shaft does make a difference... not just the tip.
 
catscradle said:
The logic is simple. If you use a lot of side spin you strike on the outside of the tip more and the edge compresses more resulting in a tighter radius which is appropriate for a style with a lot of side spin. If you play centerball a lot the center compresses more giving a flater tip which is right for somebody who plays a lot of centerball.
Maybe Deno or Lou or both can chime in on this too please.

Ok... let me try to answer that... Yes, I will grant that your tips will gradually change shape based upon your shooting style... my point is that this shape may not be the most advantageous to you from a shot-making, miscue, and spin perspective.

As an example, my cue shafts gravitate towards a messy state, due to my shooting style, but I maintain the shafts and clean them to optimize the performance of the equipment. A dirty shaft may not change my accuracy too much, but well maintained equipment will give a consistent performance.

Your car tires will reach a 'natural' shape, but that is not necessarily what will grip the road best or what is safest... So you rotate (maintain) them.


Also... a guy that uses centerball a lot that gets a flat tip might be at a disadvantage when trying to get the occasional spin that he wants...

Maybe the argument just doesn't matter. Maybe, refuting the premise of this topic, tip shape is just not that critical in the whole scheme of pocketing balls.
 
pillage6 said:
How do you check the profile? How do you know it's consistent? If it stays the same shape isn't it the tip not the shaping that is holding the shape?

I use a dime held up to the backside of the tip and eyeball the profile of the tip compared to the dime...I prefer a profile a little flatter than a dime....I shape it once and just give an occasional scuffing after that...

I don't what you mean by shaping!?!?!
________
 
Last edited:
BillYards said:
... Maybe the argument just doesn't matter. Maybe, refuting the premise of this topic, tip shape is just not that critical in the whole scheme of pocketing balls.

That very well might be the bottom line. I think many things we talk about on this and other forums aren't all that critical to playing the game, but, on the other hand, you can never have too much knowledge however mundane that knowledge might be.
 
pillage6 said:
Fred: Which do you think is more accurate, if either? Are there some things you like about either robot that you could put together to make a better one? It would be great if we would pool all of our resources to have a robot built to end all of this controversy and hype.

I think Iron Willie and Predator are doing everything they can to have the robot resemble human shooting. So, I think the Iron Willie is providing results that are more meaningful.

There is a substance that they use in the special effects world that supposedly is as close to human skin as possible, and as close to the density of human muscle as possible. Whatever grips the cue (butt and shaft)should be made/covered in something like that.

If I had unlimited time, I'd build a servo robot so that I could control the stroke speed.

Fred <~~~ automation and robotic engineer
 
pillage6 said:
Very true, so where is YOUR information that disputes anyone else's claim? It's easy to SAY that something works or doesn't work, but how about PROVING it? Obviously you aren't in business.

Look, I am not coming at you or anyone with an agenda, or insinuating that I have all of the answers. I am a typical league shooter, and most of the guys on my TAP team are much better shooters than I am.

All I am saying is that one of the two manufactures want you to believe tests that are conflicting in results, by a margin of 50%! One of the two is being a little bit less than truthful, or they are setting up tests that benefit their own equipment.

And I never claimed to be in business, or to be able to prove anything correct when it comes to billards.
 
Last edited:
SnakePool said:
Platinum Billiards has tighter results than Predator's.
Platinum Billiards
Our OB-1 Shaft tested right above the 314.


Ah, sweet, what do you mean by tighter?

Gregg: I understand what you are saying, but that rule applies to everything that anyone wants to sell. It bothers me to no end that people will knock other people but not say anything constructive to help an argument. It's just "this is bad, that is bad", not "maybe if we tried this or that it might be better".

It's very easy to say something is "bad", okay then, what makes it so bad? In your case you said don't believe everything they say, so what have they told you that you have PROVEN is wrong? Innocent until proven guilty right? Or is it just slander?
 
Back
Top