DIY Predator BK knockoff.

LWW

LWW

MEMGO5
Silver Member
Being a half fast woodworker and tinkerer myself I bought a stiff euro taper shaft on e-bay then took the ferrule down to .5 inches in length, drilled out the center of the shaft for the 1st inch and capped it at the end, installed a phenolic tip, and this thing hits like a freight train now.

Other than the radial pie aspect of the shaft does anyone know of anything I missed compared to the BK in a fairly simple mod?

I'm not trying to sell these so don't ask.

LWW
 
A predator is drilled out a lot more than the first 1" , around 5 1/4" roughly (from memory) last time I modded a Z for someone !
 
lignum said:
A predator is drilled out a lot more than the first 1" , around 5 1/4" roughly (from memory) last time I modded a Z for someone !
Click to expand...
They are drilled roughly 5 inches deep with .250 drill.
 
LWW said:
Being a half fast woodworker and tinkerer myself I bought a stiff euro taper shaft on e-bay then took the ferrule down to .5 inches in length, drilled out the center of the shaft for the 1st inch and capped it at the end, installed a phenolic tip, and this thing hits like a freight train now.
LWW
Click to expand...

May I ask why you did these modifications? :confused:
 
pillage6 said:
Can someone say "patent infringement"?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a patent infringement if there are no damages to the patent owner, or the 2nd party is not marketing/selling a product taken from a design that is patented. Is it patent infringement to copy an idea for personal use?
Kelly
 
Kelly_Guy said:
I don't think there is a patent infringement if there are no damages to the patent owner, or the 2nd party is not marketing/selling a product taken from a design that is patented. Is it patent infringement to copy an idea for personal use?
Kelly
Click to expand...
First let me say, I think you got this right.

Now, here's a different twist. Say someone copied the design but in no way marketed his product as "low squirt". Is there still infringement?

What if it is not a 5" hole, but rather a conical bore? Would that constitute an infringement?

Tracy
 
RSB-Refugee said:
First let me say, I think you got this right.

Now, here's a different twist. Say someone copied the design but in no way marketed his product as "low squirt". Is there still infringement?

What if it is not a 5" hole, but rather a conical bore? Would that constitute an infringement?

Tracy
Click to expand...

Hey Tracy. That is a good question.

My thought is if the depth/ID of the hole was the same, you filled it with the same material, etc, even if you don't market it as low squirt you might get in trouble because it is an exact copy of a non standard ferrule design someone owns a patent for (whether you got in trouble depended on if Predator's lawyers thought Predator was suffering damages from your exact copy).

But, if you did not market it as low squirt, and the specifications are changed by some amount (I know in music there are actual numbers of sequential notes that have to be identical to violate a song copyright), then you are neither making an exact copy nor marketing a very close product as "low squirt" patterned after Predator, and you would probably be ok.

Don't nobody try this though, just what I think!

Wasn't predator going to go after Schuler before he passed away? That may have just been idle rumor I read.

Kelly
 
Snapshot9 said:
the drilling down into the shaft do for the shaft and the hit?
Click to expand...

I believe the theory is it lowers the end mass of the shaft creating a flex point closer to the business end reducing cueball deflection by increasing shaft deflection when shooting with left and right english.

Kelly
 
Kelly_Guy said:
I believe the theory is it lowers the end mass of the shaft creating a flex point closer to the business end reducing cueball deflection by increasing shaft deflection when shooting with left and right english.

Kelly
Click to expand...
You are half right. If you look at the "314", it is far more flexible than the "Z", yet the "Z" is lower in squirt. The hollow section does reduce end mass, which is directly related to cueball squirt. Flex is not directly related to squirt. Squirt and flex are effects of a common cause. It is true that a 12.25 pro taper will be more flexible and squirt less than a 13.25 pro taper. On the smaller pro taper there is naturally less end mass.

Tracy
 
My understanding is they could sue me, but only for the amount they would be damaged...which in this case would be $0.00 as I already have a 314 and a Z, my goal was more curiousity more than anything. Worst case is they could get me for duping a BK at $300.00 retail, their cosy MAYBE half that...and NO I'm not trying to sell them.

BTW I am 1" past the ferrule so 1.5" total, I may pop the tip and go a little deeper, and I may not. In any event it hits pretty good for a $15.00 shaft. I also turned it down from 13MM to 12.75MM.

LWW
 
RSB-Refugee said:
You are half right. If you look at the "314", it is far more flexible than the "Z", yet the "Z" is lower in squirt. The hollow section does reduce end mass, which is directly related to cueball squirt. Flex is not directly related to squirt. Squirt and flex are effects of a common cause. It is true that a 12.25 pro taper will be more flexible and squirt less than a 13.25 pro taper. On the smaller pro taper there is naturally less end mass.

Tracy
Click to expand...

I thought the LOCATION of the flex point played a role. Lowering the end mass in the 314 creates the flex point closer to the tip, and the z shaft, while not as flexible as the 314, has its flex point closer to the tip due to the smaller diameter? That is why I thought deflection wasn't terrible with snooker shafts, they have a straight taper, but the diameters are small enough the flex point is close to impact.

You agree that lowering the end mass is directly related to lowering squirt, but why? And I thought the why was because it lowers the flex point closer to impact.

Kelly
 
Kelly_Guy said:
I thought the LOCATION of the flex point played a role. Lowering the end mass in the 314 creates the flex point closer to the tip, and the z shaft, while not as flexible as the 314, has its flex point closer to the tip due to the smaller diameter? That is why I thought deflection wasn't terrible with snooker shafts, they have a straight taper, but the diameters are small enough the flex point is close to impact.

You agree that lowering the end mass is directly related to lowering squirt, but why? And I thought the why was because it lowers the flex point closer to impact.

Kelly
Click to expand...
I do not think flex has anything to do with it. You could ask some of the physics buffs. I may be wrong, but I have heard that it is only end mass that matters.

Tracy
 
RSB-Refugee said:
I do not think flex has anything to do with it. You could ask some of the physics buffs. I may be wrong, but I have heard that it is only end mass that matters.

Tracy
Click to expand...

I certainly am open to being wrong as well, but having a degree in math and having sat through quite a few physics courses myself, there has to be a reason why lowering the end mass makes a difference, and lowering the end mass makes the flex point closer to the tip. It isn't the amount of flex, but the location of the flex allowing the end of the shaft to be deflected lowering the cueball deflection. A flimsy cue with lots of flex still might not be low deflection becase the flex point might be happening higher up on the shaft at the point of extreme taper away from the tip, so the tip is not flexing off of the cueball with left or right enligsh, so the cueball squirts instead.

who knows..maybe Shepard will read this and respond..

Kelly
 
Flex point is important, but with lower end mass there is more mass behind the contact point, relative to a none hollowed shaft, causes the closer flex point to flex sooner and faster.

Similar to a crumple zone in a car, the hollow portion absorbs the cue portion of the hit while the balance of the mass is still moving...except the energy is dissipated to the side rather than crumpling.

The radial part of the design allows for this force to be more uniform in any direction than a one piece shaft so finding a sweet spot will be more important.

Ultimately I want to see if I can make some better house cues for my basement.

LWW
 
Kelly_Guy said:
I believe the theory is it lowers the end mass of the shaft creating a flex point closer to the business end reducing cueball deflection by increasing shaft deflection when shooting with left and right english.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is a "flex point" as such. I think that if the end of the shaft were very flexible, less of the front would participate in the sideways force of the hit, and there would be less squirt. This has not been directly observed so far as I know. It is difficult to vary flexibility without also varying other parameters. (By contrast, it is easy to vary end mass by wrapping some lead wire around the ferrule.) This problem really needs good mechanical engineering computer models.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top