First cue-testing robot?
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
MLB Baseball Says Otherwise......
Why do baseballs struck with a heavier bat swung at the identical same speed & launch
angle as a bat weighing several ozs. less produce faster hit baseballs & longer distance?
There isn’t any bat weight limit in MLB, only length and barrel diameter are specified. Any
player can swing any weight bat they want but statistics prove exit velocity and distance are
best achieved with a heavy bat swung at the maximum speed. Roberto Clement swung a 38
oz. bat....Ruth used a 40 oz. bat in 1927 when he set the HR record. Modern day hitters swing
29, 30, 31, 32 & 33 oz bats. A lighter bat produces a faster swing. But the big guys use heavy
wood. Votto uses a 31 oz bat, Stanton 32, Judge 33 and Reggie Jackson 37 ozs.
IMO, the same principle applies to your pool stroke. The fact is that players attempting to
prove or disprove this do not have the equipment to analyze and document this in action.
It just makes sense that heavier swung faster produces max results. When we try to prove
this ourselves, we over stroke, do not make good contact, move our body, all the little things
that happen because we are stroking as hard as we can to prove a point. Perhaps the best
approach is to start breaking with heavier cues gradually increasing speed. I would not be
at all surprised to see there could be a sweet spot. Heavier swung less than as fast as you
can versus a lighter cue swung faster than the heavier cue’s speed might just equal out and
the breaks might be very similar. That’s something I’ll defer to Dr. Dave......Calling Dr. Dave!
Why do baseballs struck with a heavier bat swung at the identical same speed & launch
angle as a bat weighing several ozs. less produce faster hit baseballs & longer distance?
There isn’t any bat weight limit in MLB, only length and barrel diameter are specified. Any
player can swing any weight bat they want but statistics prove exit velocity and distance are
best achieved with a heavy bat swung at the maximum speed. Roberto Clement swung a 38
oz. bat....Ruth used a 40 oz. bat in 1927 when he set the HR record. Modern day hitters swing
29, 30, 31, 32 & 33 oz bats. A lighter bat produces a faster swing. But the big guys use heavy
wood. Votto uses a 31 oz bat, Stanton 32, Judge 33 and Reggie Jackson 37 ozs.
IMO, the same principle applies to your pool stroke. The fact is that players attempting to
prove or disprove this do not have the equipment to analyze and document this in action.
It just makes sense that heavier swung faster produces max results. When we try to prove
this ourselves, we over stroke, do not make good contact, move our body, all the little things
that happen because we are stroking as hard as we can to prove a point. Perhaps the best
approach is to start breaking with heavier cues gradually increasing speed. I would not be
at all surprised to see there could be a sweet spot. Heavier swung less than as fast as you
can versus a lighter cue swung faster than the heavier cue’s speed might just equal out and
the breaks might be very similar. That’s something I’ll defer to Dr. Dave......Calling Dr. Dave!
The speed of sound in maple is such that the pressure at the tip cannot even reach the joint boy the time the CB has already left.
Weight has nothing to do with it. It is based only on the speed that pressure (sound) travels down maple (wood).
It may be different with CF......
A bat is hit on its side so the pressure of contact is distributed (fairly evenly) and the weight of the bat is "seen" by the baseball. (4" thick)
A CB is hit with the tip of the cue and the pressure wave has to travel a significant distance (29" to the joint).
The pressure wave into the wooden baseball bat can travel the thickness of the bad (4") several times over in the time the ball is in contact with the bat--also note the baseball is not a solid object as seen by high speed pictures of baseball bat to baseball contacts.
The CB is significantly harder than the baseball
The length the pressure (sound) wave has to travel is a lot longer (4" versus 29")
And the time of contact is a lot shorter (1-2 ms versus ?dozen? milliseconds.)
So the physics is "enough different" that the analogy does not hold.
My understanding is that the wave's speed determines how much of the cue is "involved" in the collision physics - so the weight/mass of the "involved" part of the cue counts.
So whatever the percentage change in the weight/mass of the "involved" part of the cue also changes the cue's force into the CB by the same percentage (at the same cue speed).
I wonder if weight change changes the wave speed?
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I have two cues made by Steve. A three piece CF cue and a cored 12 piece diamond wood butt. I play Steve almost every time I’m in town. Call the Rack in Lavonia and ask if he’s around. He no longer has a cell phone
Dr. Dave...isn't most of the "work" in the break shot the product of moving the arm (it weighs much more and you have to overcome the "stiction" of the muscles, bones etc) . The cue is along for the ride so to speak and thus why we don't see a linear increase in velocity as a result of cue weight.
The muscles accelerate the mass of the arm and the cue. I think the resource page covers everything else.
Regards,
Dave
Iron Willie of course was named in homage to Iron Byron.Sorry for the golf interruption, Iron Byron was what first came to mind, invented in the 60's I think.
God Speed Byron Nelson
*edit : from the golf swing analysis -
Physiologists and sports consultants have found that instant tactile feedback for the desired bodily movement greatly speeds up the gaining of the new habit or new muscle memory or new movement. The brain utilizes the kinesthetic learning of tactile feedback to help develop the new muscle memory.
Carry on, back to the pool debate
Speed of sound through maple is 4 meters per millisecond. Do you have other data?
As Freddie has pointed out, the speed of sound in maple is plenty fast enough to let the whole cue participate in the hit, but the consequences of the statement above would be pretty obvious. First, the cue ball, if struck by only the first four ounces or so of the cue stick, would have much less speed. Also, the cue stick would not slow down nearly as much as is observed in several high speed videos that we have recently discussed. Finally, cue design would either have migrated to much, much lighter butts since the mass there would not be helping and only slowing your hand down, or much, much heavier shafts. Another possibility is that much softer tips would have been developed. We see none of those things happening.
Thank you for acknowledging boing coefficients.
I only read the first page so maybe my info is already shared. Predator made their "robot" first. It was made partly out of wood and when Meucci made his out of aluminum, with some precision bearings and such, he nicknamed Iron Willie as Wooden Willie. The Meucci swing arm "robot" was well made and Bob let everyone test their cues on it at the BCA trade shows. His cue beat almost all of the others tested. Once in a while someone would bring a cue that deflected the cue ball less. How fair was the test? My opinion is that if I wanted to let the world test their cues against one of my cues publicly at a trade show like Bob did, I would test many of my cues and put the best one up. I don't know if that was what was done or not, but Bob created a lot of interest with it. I remember Meucci had his device at the BCA show in 96 at Minneapolis. I think that was the first show I saw it at. But he may have had it the previous year at Vegas.
i remember believing in it as well, until i saw and tested the black dot. i never bought one for myself but i know many who did, and in hindsight the opinion is rather uniform..
See the long article starting on page 36 of the April 2019 issue.