Help prove me right

[bbb]

or teach me im wrong
need written prove for this
i can copy your responces as "proof"
a descussition started in the pool room regarding
shaft size/deflection/and "action "on the cue ball

one camp said smaller shaft = more defection = more action on the cue ball
i said smaller shaft = more "action " on the cueball regardless of deflection

smaller shaft does not equal more defection
i know thats true since several low deflection shafts come in small sizes

i dont know if thats true for regular shafts


so


does smaller shaft size = more deflection for regular shafts??
does more deflection =more action on the cue ball
does smaller shaft size = more action independent of deflection
???

thanks for arbitrating this debate

 

[JoeyInCali]

No
No
Yes imo
People confuse flex for deflection often

 

[juspooln]

IMHO it just not that easy You could get the same action of the cue ball with a 12mm tip as 13 mm tip you might have to move your tip a half mm though

And if you want to agree end mass is the major causes deflection well size in this case doesn't matter (isn't the only factor)

 

[scdiveteam]

Hi,

Is it smarter to use less side english than more?

Pool players who tend to use less side english and rely on speed and angles to keep the ball on a string when ever possible miss less balls because there are less variables concerning the aim and hit point to deal with.

It is amazing how often a stop or stun, nip draw, and near follow can be used for gain table position instead of going to a rail with side spin english. I am not saying never use side spin but only that the less you use it the deflection issue becomes less of a factor to accommodate for.

With that being said a 13 mm shaft should flex less than a 12 mm one, and therefore produce more repeatable results as there is less mechanical variable issues to compensate for.

Once a person is tuned into center ball or vertical center shots they are more tuned into a consistent hit point and ball pocketing repeatability. When they do use just a little side english those type players tend to use it more conservatively unless the object ball is very near the pocket.

My good friend and great pool player Wendell Weir taught me this notion and he was capable of busting 150 ball racks back to back at any time in the day. It certainly worked with his simple and efficient stoke.

Sometimes less is more.

JMO,

Rick

 

[Chopdoc]

Hi,



Sometimes less is more.

JMO,

Rick

I'm with you. :thumbup:

 

[bbb]

Hi,

Is it smarter to use less side english than more?

Pool players who tend to use less side english and rely on speed and angles to keep the ball on a string when ever possible miss less balls because there are less variables concerning the aim and hit point to deal with.

It is amazing how often a stop or stun, nip draw, and near follow can be used for gain table position instead of going to a rail with side spin english. I am not saying never use side spin but only that the less you use it the deflection issue becomes less of a factor to accommodate for.

With that being said a 13 mm shaft should flex less than a 12 mm one, and therefore produce more repeatable results as there is less mechanical variable issues to compensate for.

Once a person is tuned into center ball or vertical center shots they are more tuned into a consistent hit point and ball pocketing repeatability. When they do use just a little side english those type players tend to use it more conservatively unless the object ball is very near the pocket.

My good friend and great pool player Wendell Weir taught me this notion and he was capable of busting 150 ball racks back to back at any time in the day. It certainly worked with his simple and efficient stoke.

Sometimes less is more.

JMO,

Rick

Rick
i agree with everything you said
and i try to play that way
center ball/ minimal english as much as possible
that being said
could you answer my question though please???

 

[ratcues]

The taper of the shaft is the major factor that contributes to the "action" of the shaft. A 14" taper, for example, will give more action than a 12" taper. The further the flex point is from the tip, the more action. (not the only factor, though)

Front end mass is one of the factors that contributes to deflection. A shaft of 12mm will have less deflection than a 13mm shaft, if all other factors are the same.

This is an overly simplified explaination but should be enough.

 

[scdiveteam]

Rick
i agree with everything you said
and i try to play that way
center ball/ minimal english as much as possible
that being said
could you answer my question though please???

Hi,

I think Ryan just answered it very nicely.

I am not a fan of Predator Shafts but I do agree that their engineering does work and is valid. When using a predator shaft and making a shot with side spin you definitely will have a different hit point on the object ball.

That is why I believe once you go with that type of equipment you can't go back and forth with a regular maple shaft in your case. It takes too much time to readjust.

Over and Out,

Rick

 

[rhncue]

Hi,

I think Ryan just answered it very nicely.

I am not a fan of Predator Shafts but I do agree that their engineering does work and is valid. When using a predator shaft and making a shot with side spin you definitely will have a different hit point on the object ball.

That is why I believe once you go with that type of equipment you can't go back and forth with a regular maple shaft in your case. It takes too much time to readjust.

Over and Out,

Rick

I agree with both you and Ryan on the merits and disadvantages of the low deflection shafts. I've found that probably half of players don't like the feel of L/D shafts so I don't recommend that they use them as a cue must feel good to a player to be a benefit. To those that the different feel does not bother them then the benefits can be utilized. The use of english can definitely be a benefit to a player for putting the cue ball where it needs to be for the next shot but deflection, swerve and squirt from the use of said english must be taken into consideration as what good are shapes if you miss the shot. This is the reason that you practice so that your sub-conscience can be trained to know the outcome of applying the various amounts of side, draw and follow especially when varying combinations are used.

The effects of side and top and bottom occur on all shafts, low deflection and standard, just at varying degrees. I've had many people, who aren't impressed with L/D shafts argue that since the L/D shafts still deflect, what good are they? I feel the effects are similar to shooting at a target at a distance. Which is easier to judge the amount of drop to hit the target? A 22-250 that would drop 3" at 600 yds or a 45-70 that might drop 8 feet.

Dick

 

[cueman]

or teach me im wrong
need written prove for this

so


does smaller shaft size = more deflection for regular shafts??
does more deflection =more action on the cue ball
does smaller shaft size = more action independent of deflection
???

thanks for arbitrating this debate

does smaller shaft size = more deflection for regular shafts??

Deflection can mean that the shaft deflects off of the cue ball and the cue ball goes straighter, or it can mean the cue ball deflects away from the shaft and does not travel as accurately toward the aiming point. Both have proven to be possibilities when reducing the diameter of the shaft. So there is no firm answer on this one. You both are right and wrong depending on the shaft. Each piece of wood responds slightly different, so going smaller can shoot straighter or less straight depending on the individual piece of wood.

does more deflection = more action on the cue ball??

More give in the shaft will normally produce more cue ball action. But there is a cross-over point where there is not enough mass left in the shaft to increase the snap back spring action and the shaft starts to perform with less action as it gets smaller. I have noticed this starts when going below about 11mm with long pro taper.

does smaller shaft size = more action independent of deflection??

The smaller the shaft the more it compresses in maple and the more it bends. The compression and bend snap back to increase cue ball action. But as mentioned above there is a line you can cross that the strength to snap back against the mass of the cue ball starts to decrease.

 

[dr_dave]

does smaller shaft size = more deflection for regular shafts??

First, you need to be more clear with terminology. By "more deflection," I assume you mean "more cue ball deflection" (i.e., "more squirt"). For more info, see my squirt/deflection/stiffness terminology page.

In general, a smaller-diameter shaft (assuming it is wood and solid) will create less squirt because it will have less end mass.

does more deflection =more action on the cue ball

Again, we need to be clear with terminology. By "more action," I assume you mean more spin, but you could also mean more speed. If you mean more spin, the answer is generally no. For more info, see getting more spin with a low squirt (LD) shaft. If you mean more speed, that is more a function of the tip than the shaft. For more info, see cue tip efficiency.

I hope that helps,
Dave

 

[jecues]

Does

Does anyone do spine checks? I just got some maple that was in lake superior for more than 90 years (they can only harvest ax cut logs). I have never seen this many rings in shaft wood. They are 4.3 oz finished to 12.25 mm.

 

[opiesbro]

So is this ok?

Deflection can mean that the shaft deflects off of the cue ball and the cue ball goes straighter, or it can mean the cue ball deflects away from the shaft and does not travel as accurately toward the aiming point. Both have proven to be possibilities when reducing the diameter of the shaft. So there is no firm answer on this one. You both are right and wrong depending on the shaft. Each piece of wood responds slightly different, so going smaller can shoot straighter or less straight depending on the individual piece of wood.


More give in the shaft will normally produce more cue ball action. But there is a cross-over point where there is not enough mass left in the shaft to increase the snap back spring action and the shaft starts to perform with less action as it gets smaller. I have noticed this starts when going below about 11mm with long pro taper.


The smaller the shaft the more it compresses in maple and the more it bends. The compression and bend snap back to increase cue ball action. But as mentioned above there is a line you can cross that the strength to snap back against the mass of the cue ball starts to decrease.

So on like a 29" shaft is 17" pro taper at 12.5mm a bad idea if lower deflection your object?

 

[cueman]

So on like a 29" shaft is 17" pro taper at 12.5mm a bad idea if lower deflection your object?

I played with a 12.5mm shaft for years and missed more balls than with my almost 13mm shaft. But I could get more draw on the cue ball with the thinner shaft. Neither shaft has a 17" pro taper. Maybe 12 to 13 inches. As mentioned earlier each piece of wood will react differently, so there is no hard steadfast run on this one.

 

[opiesbro]

I played with a 12.5mm shaft for years and missed more balls than with my almost 13mm shaft. But I could get more draw on the cue ball with the thinner shaft. Neither shaft has a 17" pro taper. Maybe 12 to 13 inches. As mentioned earlier each piece of wood will react differently, so there is no hard steadfast run on this one.

Thanks Chris. I also read in this and have been told by a champion player lowering the front end mass will cause less deflection. I thought yesterday I saw a post that said to just drill a hole in the front of the shaft to achieve this but I didn't see it this morning. Royce posted once that there were limitations to just drilling a hole in the front of a shaft because of Predators Patent rights. What is the limitations? Does this mean anyone that just drills a hole in the front of the shaft is infringing on them?

Thanks in advance.

 

[pooln8r]

With all this said...about drilling a hole to cut back on end mass therefore giving less deflection then;

What about shafts with ferrules that are attached by a metal tenon(think it might be aluminum in most cases)? i.e. Spain, Palmer and Hercek

Does that mean that a maker who does this is adding more deflection? or is the aluminum lighter than a maple tenon?

Thanks in advance for your answers,

Kevin

 

[scdiveteam]

Does anyone do spine checks? I just got some maple that was in lake superior for more than 90 years (they can only harvest ax cut logs). I have never seen this many rings in shaft wood. They are 4.3 oz finished to 12.25 mm.

What you have there is solid gold IMO,

Rick

 

[cueman]

Thanks Chris. I also read in this and have been told by a champion player lowering the front end mass will cause less deflection. I thought yesterday I saw a post that said to just drill a hole in the front of the shaft to achieve this but I didn't see it this morning. Royce posted once that there were limitations to just drilling a hole in the front of a shaft because of Predators Patent rights. What is the limitations? Does this mean anyone that just drills a hole in the front of the shaft is infringing on them?

Thanks in advance.

I am unsure of the patent implications. Alot of what people are trying to do with softening up the hit and such to reduce the cue ball squirt and increase cue ball action could be acomplished by putting a softer higher action ferrule on the shaft. To prove this just look at the early to mid 80's Meucci cues. They had larger standard 13.25mm shafts with 13 inch pro taper and they could draw and spin the cue-ball better than any other production cue. Now everything we know about shaft tapers says it certainly wasn't the shaft diameter helping out. So it was the ferrule and softer material in the joint giving it the spring action. They were also the straightest shooting cues.
I am not saying this is the best way to build cues as they were also famous for cracked ferrules. There was a joke among us cue repairman that we hoped Meucci never changes their thin walled soft ferrule as it was keeping us in business.

 

[bbb]

I am unsure of the patent implications. Alot of what people are trying to do with softening up the hit and such to reduce the cue ball squirt and increase cue ball action could be acomplished by putting a softer higher action ferrule on the shaft. To prove this just look at the early to mid 80's Meucci cues. They had larger standard 13.25mm shafts with 13 inch pro taper and they could draw and spin the cue-ball better than any other production cue. Now everything we know about shaft tapers says it certainly wasn't the shaft diameter helping out. So it was the ferrule and softer material in the joint giving it the spring action. They were also the straightest shooting cues.
I am not saying this is the best way to build cues as they were also famous for cracked ferrules. There was a joke among us cue repairman that we hoped Meucci never changes their thin walled soft ferrule as it was keeping us in business.

could you give an example(s) of "softer higher action" ferrules please??

 

[carguy]

hollow shafts

As I understand it, patents cover commercial applications only.

I find no advantage to a hollow shaft front over a solid ferrule-less one, BUT.....

If I build a shaft, bore a hole in the front and sell it to you, perhaps I have infringed on a patent. It may be infringement as soon as I sell it.

If I build a shaft, sell it to you and YOU bore a hole in the front, and use the shaft yourself, there is no possibility of infringement since it's not a commercial application. So do it yourself tinkerers are safe.

HOWEVER....I would love to see this tested in court, since the idea of drilling a hole in something to make it lighter is surely "previous art" and hence not protected.

Old time car guys, aircraft guys and many others have been drilling holes in things for a very long time in efforts to make them lighter.

If no claim of reduced deflection is made I don't see where the problem lies.

Having said that, I would not want to be the one to go up against what is surely a huge battery of lawyers, hired expressly to defend these particular patents.

I'm sure there has been plenty of saber rattling, but have these patents been tested in court by someone with resources? Just curious.

Sorry if I'm hijacking. It seemed to fit in.

Robin