Has anyone tested....

[Grilled Cheese]

Has anyone done any objective, semi-scientific testing of modern shafts in terms of spin / speed & deflection in recent times using mechanical means? If so where are the results?

The last I remember was the fellow from Platinum Billiards many years ago who tested and put up a chart.

Wondering if the same has been done with some kind of stroke machine to be as consistent and accurate as possible. Seen a lot of Youtube stuff with people stroking the shot - but that can be radically inconsistent.

Bob Meucci does not count...his machine looks ok, but his methodology is awful.


A lot of new shafts have been designed and sold since the old Platinum charts..and curious to know how they perform.


Thanks!

 

[garczar]

Has anyone done any objective, semi-scientific testing of modern shafts in terms of spin / speed & deflection in recent times using mechanical means? If so where are the results?

The last I remember was the fellow from Platinum Billiards many years ago who tested and put up a chart.

Wondering if the same has been done with some kind of stroke machine to be as consistent and accurate as possible. Seen a lot of Youtube stuff with people stroking the shot - but that can be radically inconsistent.

Bob Meucci does not count...his machine looks ok, but his methodology is awful.


A lot of new shafts have been designed and sold since the old Platinum charts..and curious to know how they perform.


Thanks!

Just curious as to why Meucci's way of testing is bad? Watching his videos its pretty obvious which shafts have most squirt. BTW, methodology is an awfully big word for me so please keep that in mind if you respond.

 

[dr_dave]

Has anyone done any objective, semi-scientific testing of modern shafts in terms of spin / speed & deflection in recent times using mechanical means? If so where are the results?

The last I remember was the fellow from Platinum Billiards many years ago who tested and put up a chart.

Wondering if the same has been done with some kind of stroke machine to be as consistent and accurate as possible. Seen a lot of Youtube stuff with people stroking the shot - but that can be radically inconsistent.

Bob Meucci does not count...his machine looks ok, but his methodology is awful.


A lot of new shafts have been designed and sold since the old Platinum charts..and curious to know how they perform.

All of the data I am aware of (new and old) is available here:

published CB deflection data

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Just curious as to why Meucci's way of testing is bad?

See the comments about the Meucci "Myth Creator" here:

CB deflection machine test results

Many things can go wrong when using machines to measure CB deflection. For more info, see:

Rules of Machine CB Deflection Testing

Regards,
Dave

 

[garczar]

See the comments about the Meucci "Myth Creator" here:

CB deflection machine test results

Many things can go wrong when using machines to measure CB deflection. For more info, see:

Rules of Machine CB Testing

Regards,
Dave

No offense but i'm not reading thru all that. What rules did Meucci violate? Just curious. Since his machine treated each cue the same why would his results be invalid? Also, no one has done any testing on available shafts in TEN years? Lot has changed in that time.

 

[dr_dave]

See the comments about the Meucci "Myth Creator" here:

CB deflection machine test results

Many things can go wrong when using machines to measure CB deflection. For more info, see:

Rules of Machine CB Deflection Testing

Regards,
Dave

No offense but i'm not reading thru all that. What rules did Meucci violate? Just curious. Since his machine treated each cue the same why would his results be invalid? Also, no one has done any testing on available shafts in TEN years? Lot has changed in that time.

Just look at the short list of the 7 Rules of Machine CD Deflection Testing. Meucci violated pretty much every one of the 7 rules!!!

Regards,
Dave

 

[garczar]

Just look at the short list of the 7 Rules of Machine CD Deflection Testing. Meucci violated pretty much every one of the 7 rules!!!

Regards,
Dave

His testing may have not pleased you engineers but since he was consistent in his tests its still pretty obvious which shafts squirt the most. I don't think shooting at a ball is that big a deal considering how close the dist. from CB to OB was. I'd love to see a test that makes engineers all warm-n-fuzzy but guess what? This is the only video shaft tests i've ever seen. Are there others that are available? If so, gotta link?

 

[dr_dave]

His testing may have not pleased you engineers but since he was consistent in his tests its still pretty obvious which shafts squirt the most. I don't think shooting at a ball is that big a deal considering how close the dist. from CB to OB was. I'd love to see a test that makes engineers all warm-n-fuzzy but guess what? This is the only video shaft tests i've ever seen. Are there others that are available? If so, gotta link?

Here you go:

NV J.12 - How to Select a Pool Cue, Cue Ball Deflection, Carbon Fiber, Revo vs. Cuetec

NV D.15 - Cue and Tip Testing for Cue Ball Deflection (Squirt)

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[garczar]

Here you go:

NV J.12 - How to Select a Pool Cue, Cue Ball Deflection, Carbon Fiber, Revo vs. Cuetec

NV D.15 - Cue and Tip Testing for Cue Ball Deflection (Squirt)

Enjoy,
Dave

Wait a minute. Seriously? You're doing these tests by hand? You're actually going to tell me that you can deliver a cue precisely the same every time? I might go for these tests if some truly repeatable machine was doing it. Meucci violated all your rules but you're not? Whatever.

 

[dr_dave]

Wait a minute. Seriously? You're doing these tests by hand? You're actually going to tell me that you can deliver a cue precisely the same every time? I might go for these tests if some truly repeatable machine was doing it. Meucci violated all your rules but you're not? Whatever.

If one is careful and does a large number of shots with each test, and only shows the "average shot" for each test in the final video, the results are valid and meaningful, especially for the "natural pivot length" tests that anybody can easily duplicate and validate on their own.

I have done machine testing in the past (sorry no videos are available since it was for a sponsor who did not want publicity), and the results were not very good due to the many problems created by a non-human grip and the other things described on my resource page. In my experience, carefully done human testing can provide good and consistent results.

Regards,
Dave

 

[garczar]

If one is careful and does a large number of shots with each test, and only shows the "average shot" for each test in the final video, the results are valid and meaningful, especially for the "natural pivot length" tests that anybody can easily duplicate and validate on their own.

I have done machine testing in the past (sorry no videos are available since it was for a sponsor who did not want publicity), and the results were not very good due to the many problems created by a non-human grip and the other things described on my resource page. In my experience, carefully done human testing can provide good and consistent results.

Regards,
Dave

You didn't help design the Corvair or the Maverick did you?

 

[Cornerman]

Wait a minute. Seriously? You're doing these tests by hand? You're actually going to tell me that you can deliver a cue precisely the same every time? I might go for these tests if some truly repeatable machine was doing it. Meucci violated all your rules but you're not? Whatever.

There's some oddity in your posts, so I'll try to humbly quell the confusion.

I wrote about why Meucci Myth Destroyer violated the rules of squirt testing a million years ago. Meucci tests were too tight a grip. So mechanical repeatability with a mechanism that puts a huge amount of noise on the very thing it's supposed to test is simply unacceptable. There was more, but that's certainly enough.

I'm both an automation & robotic engineer as well as process developer. I have to field these questions quite often when a layman believes that because it's automated, it must be better. It's not always the case, and it's often not the case (e.g., I have to ask for larger tolerances just for automation to be repeatable quite often).

In Dave's case, yes he introduces human error, but he isn't introducing a false mechanical error that confuse and dupe non-engineers.


Freddie

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Has anyone done any objective, semi-scientific testing of modern shafts in terms of spin / speed & deflection in recent times using mechanical means? If so where are the results?

The last I remember was the fellow from Platinum Billiards many years ago who tested and put up a chart.

Wondering if the same has been done with some kind of stroke machine to be as consistent and accurate as possible. Seen a lot of Youtube stuff with people stroking the shot - but that can be radically inconsistent.

Bob Meucci does not count...his machine looks ok, but his methodology is awful.


A lot of new shafts have been designed and sold since the old Platinum charts..and curious to know how they perform.


Thanks!

Good post. I'd definitely like to see some modern testing.

KMRUNOUT

 

[garczar]

There's some oddity in your posts, so I'll try to humbly quell the confusion.

I wrote about why Meucci Myth Destroyer violated the rules of squirt testing a million years ago. Meucci tests were too tight a grip. So mechanical repeatability with a mechanism that puts a huge amount of noise on the very thing it's supposed to test is simply unacceptable. There was more, but that's certainly enough.

I'm both an automation & robotic engineer as well as process developer. I have to field these questions quite often when a layman believes that because it's automated, it must be better. It's not always the case, and it's often not the case (e.g., I have to ask for larger tolerances just for automation to be repeatable quite often).

In Dave's case, yes he introduces human error, but he isn't introducing a false mechanical error that confuse and dupe non-engineers.


Freddie

I am easy to confuse and fairly "dupe-able" and i also know when someone's blowing smoke up my a**. I don't think that Meucci's tests are any less valid than Dr. "The Touch" Dave's. And i haven't been playing a million years either so i guessed i missed your "Destroyer destruction."

 

[Cornerman]

I am easy to confuse and fairly "dupe-able" and i also know when someone's blowing smoke up my a**. I don't think that Meucci's tests are any less valid than Dr. "The Touch" Dave's. And i haven't been playing a million years either so i guessed i missed your "Destroyer destruction."

I could go all Physics-speak, if you'd like.

Meucci's system starts with a false condition: too tight a grip, a grip that human couldn't possibly have, so when it strokes the cueball, the cuestick tip and cueball are in longer contact than the 0.001s measured contact time of a human stroke.

Contact time x speed of transverse wave propagation down the shaft = length of shaft "in effect" of the collision.

A normal human stroke will have something in the order of 6" of the front end of the shaft "in effect;" the Myth destroyer, due to its overly tight grip, has a much longer length of shaft "in effect."

More shaft length in effect = more mass in effect = more squirt.

Meucci's ferrule design was mean to partially delay or de-couple the ferrule from the shaft (there's some space between the top of the ferrule to the top of the tenon), so it does well for the Myth Destroyer. Predator's design is significantly reducing the overall mass in the first 6", and it wasn't mean to beat a non-real robot situation. So Predator does worse on the Myth Destroyer (because the Myth Destroyer wants to add mass that's beyond the 6" if the ferrule isn't decoupled).

And that's just the robot grip problem.


Freddie <~~~ no smoke, and certainly no ass

 

[Bob Jewett]

... too tight a grip, a grip that human couldn't possibly have, ...

The original "Iron Willie" of Predator also had an issue with too tight a grip. Unfortunately many of the Jacksonville Experiment tests were affected by that to some extent. The major features were OK, but extreme spin had issues and that was very evident for the early prototype carbon fiber shaft (that was 1998). We did do some testing towards the end of the week with bubble wrap between the vise-like grip and the butt.

I believe Predator is on their third revision of the robot now and I think the main changes have been to make the robot more like a human.

 

[garczar]

I could go all Physics-speak, if you'd like.

Meucci's system starts with a false condition: too tight a grip, a grip that human couldn't possibly have, so when it strokes the cueball, the cuestick tip and cueball are in longer contact than the 0.001s measured contact time of a human stroke.

Contact time x speed of transverse wave propagation down the shaft = length of shaft "in effect" of the collision.

A normal human stroke will have something in the order of 6" of the front end of the shaft "in effect;" the Myth destroyer, due to its overly tight grip, has a much longer length of shaft "in effect."

More shaft length in effect = more mass in effect = more squirt.

Meucci's ferrule design was mean to partially delay or de-couple the ferrule from the shaft (there's some space between the top of the ferrule to the top of the tenon), so it does well for the Myth Destroyer. Predator's design is significantly reducing the overall mass in the first 6", and it wasn't mean to beat a non-real robot situation. So Predator does worse on the Myth Destroyer (because the Myth Destroyer wants to add mass that's beyond the 6" if the ferrule isn't decoupled).

And that's just the robot grip problem.


Freddie <~~~ no smoke, and certainly no ass

This ferrule:https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=399466&page=3 ?(post 35) Supposed to get out of the way on contact?

 

[Cornerman]

This ferrule:https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=399466&page=3 ? Supposed to get out of the way on contact?

Not get out of the way, but just delay some of the ferrule to tenon interaction. The delay just means that excess time of the transverse wave going down the shaft during tip/cueball contact is less than with a normal tennon/ferrule, which would decrease squirt.

Bob Jewett theorized a tip concept that moved laterally, as if on tiny roller bearings, which would also delay that transverse wave from starting. At least two people who fiddle with tips have come up with a flexible tip component (core or pad) that might do similar... delay or decouple that tip strike from that transverse wave.

Freddie

 

[desi2960]

I was abducted by aliens

And discussed the idea of testing spin and shaft defelection. They kicked me off the spaceship, and left the galaxy.

 

[Bob Jewett]

This ferrule:https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=399466&page=3 ?(post 35) Supposed to get out of the way on contact?

Here's post 35 with the cut-away of the ferrule: https://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5203241&postcount=35

The "power piston" design with the air gap between the ferrule and tenon was supposed to do that. What I don't understand is why the end of the tenon is in there at all if is is not connected to the ferrule.