As my avatar shows I have an English snooker table and before this I had a Brunswick. In a discussion with someone on another form we were talking about rebound and I had stated that my 60+ year old Brunswick would yield 3 1/2 lengths when a ball was forecefully rolled from the D end to the black ball spot end. The table had new Strachan 6811 and no real humidity control; just a room air concditioner( I thought this was pretty good and was satisfied with it):grin:
The remark that I got back was:
"the brunswicks rubber being triangle shape rather than the L shape rubber of an english billiards table . My experience tells me that the triangle american rubber is no match for Good northern L shape rubber ( made in Retford nottinghamshire )when it comes to rebound , also the Brunswick may be the bolt upwards attachment rather than the Bolt into from the side attachment of the Riley , again I think a better rebound is given from the bolt into the slate from sidways rather than from under like the american pool table .
side ways movement of the cushion is more restricted as it it is anchored from the side and kinetic energy is not lost too much , the Brunswick can loose a lot of the kinetic energy of the ball as it is anchored from under the slate"
I would like to know if the horizontal attachment of table rails is superior to vertically attached rails. My thought is that Brunswick must have thought it was just as good or better otherwise they would still be attaching them that way.
Whatever I learn here is for MY knowledge as I DO NOT INTEND TO POST IT IN Pi$$i8g Match
The remark that I got back was:
"the brunswicks rubber being triangle shape rather than the L shape rubber of an english billiards table . My experience tells me that the triangle american rubber is no match for Good northern L shape rubber ( made in Retford nottinghamshire )when it comes to rebound , also the Brunswick may be the bolt upwards attachment rather than the Bolt into from the side attachment of the Riley , again I think a better rebound is given from the bolt into the slate from sidways rather than from under like the american pool table .
side ways movement of the cushion is more restricted as it it is anchored from the side and kinetic energy is not lost too much , the Brunswick can loose a lot of the kinetic energy of the ball as it is anchored from under the slate"
I would like to know if the horizontal attachment of table rails is superior to vertically attached rails. My thought is that Brunswick must have thought it was just as good or better otherwise they would still be attaching them that way.
Whatever I learn here is for MY knowledge as I DO NOT INTEND TO POST IT IN Pi$$i8g Match
