I agree with the low squirt terminology here, although from a marketing pov, "squirt" doesn't sound ask that great
I'm still sore after googling "pov squirt" ... :embarrassed2:
History behind LD shafts
- Thread starter Kimmo H.
- Start date
I'm still sore after googling "pov squirt" ... :embarrassed2:
I happened to eat breakfast with Allan McCarty the first year he introduced "Iron Willie" at the SBE in Valley Forge. As it was just the two of us I got to listen intently to his explanation of why this new engineering would help pool players. I found it to be easily understood and have been playing with their shafts ever since. They do what they say they will do.
nope, it folks like you that just don't know any better and just can't wrap their brain around the fact there are performance shafts out there that does exactly what it says it will do.
You might want to read Bill Stroud's post on the subject matter, because it's getting old that folks without all the facts on subject keep chirping about LD shafts.
Yes, you like maple, bully for you. I know guys that like wood baseball bats, but most of us play with "metal". It's a choice, they both do something different. But in baseball, even the "wood" guys know they are giving up a little "power", but they like the feel and price of the wood bats. But at least the "woody's" as they are playfully called are NOT in denial on the subject !!!
Last edited:
Actually, I was channeling a combination of George Santayana and Donald Rumsfeld. George said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," while Don said,
Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. ...
It is reported that Donald got his phrase pre-turned from NASA. I don't know where George stole his.
IIRC, I think my first real understanding of how squirt happens came after viewing a high-speed video that Bob Meucci made of cue tip/cue ball contact. Until then I didn't think about the sideways motion of the tip and ferrule while they were in contact with the cue ball. (In my defense, neither did Coriolis.) Once you see that action, and rub on a little Newton, the analysis is pretty obvious and you will start reducing mass if you want to reduce squirt. Or clamp vise-grips onto your ferrule if you want to increase squirt .
Until that time, most of the public hypothesizing about squirt was around stuff like taper and stiffness.
.Until that time, most of the public hypothesizing about squirt was around stuff like taper and stiffness.
I think the first complete analysis of squirt was by Ron Shepard. Here is a copy of his paper from 2001 on the subject: http://www.sfbilliards.com/Misc/Shepard_squirt.pdf
Don't be put off by the equations -- there is a non-technical summary of lots of important points at the end. For those who want just a brief summary, here it is: http://www.sfbilliards.com/Misc/sqrt.htm
I think most if not all of the conclusions are still valid.
Don't be put off by the equations -- there is a non-technical summary of lots of important points at the end. For those who want just a brief summary, here it is: http://www.sfbilliards.com/Misc/sqrt.htm
I think most if not all of the conclusions are still valid.
No, they're not. CB deflection (squirt) isn't reduced by making the shaft more flexible - it's reduced by reducing the shaft's end mass, which can be done even while making it less flexible.
pj
chgo
You'd have to be nuts to do that....clamp vise-grips onto your ferrule if you want to increase squirt
pj - or a theoretical chemistry professor, whatever the hell that is
chgo
Exactly - I have often encouraged shaft makers to use a stiffer taper, which in my opinion, gives a player better spin control. There is a perception with some that a more flexible shaft bends away from the cue ball. My experience is that a shaft can be made both reasonably stiff and low squirt.
I think Bob Meucci came up with the term Deflection and Predator along with a couple of early experimenters made the modern pie shaped shafts and promoted them as low deflection. They built a wooded swing arm robot to prove they had the cats meow. Then Bob made a more precision aluminum swing arm robot to prove his new design on shafts had the lowest deflection and invited all comers to bring their cues and test them against his cue at the trade shows.
Ever since then the shaft market has primarily focused on one thing and that is which shoots the straightest when putting a little English on the cue ball. What they have not done effectively is come up with a robot that checks feel and draw. So even though one particular shaft may shoot straighter than others it may not draw the ball as well or feel as natural to you as another. So in the end it is still up to the player to decides what is best for their over all game.
In other words if you can't play shape with the shaft it won't keep you in the game very long just because you miss a few less balls with it.
That is my take on Low Deflection shafts.
Ever since then the shaft market has primarily focused on one thing and that is which shoots the straightest when putting a little English on the cue ball. What they have not done effectively is come up with a robot that checks feel and draw. So even though one particular shaft may shoot straighter than others it may not draw the ball as well or feel as natural to you as another. So in the end it is still up to the player to decides what is best for their over all game.
In other words if you can't play shape with the shaft it won't keep you in the game very long just because you miss a few less balls with it.
That is my take on Low Deflection shafts.
Been playing with a 12mm 'caromish' tapered shaft since '78.
I've made a lot of flippers sick by buying some great cues, having the ivory ferrule cut
right off, and pointing the shaft to 12mm.
I wouldn't buy any shaft with a long pro taper....I found, for me, that Meuccis squirt a lot.
I feel that PJ has taken this to the extreme, but I would rather borrow his cue than anybody's
13mm, especially if it had an ivory ferrule.
That was the idea. I've been thinking lately that I might want to try the smallest production tip - would that be Predator's 11.75mm Z2?
pj
chgo
Yeah, the Z2 has the conical taper ( carom, to me)....I like the feed back....
....pro tapers feel mushy and weak.
That's what I would like to know....I have only found them by empirical experience.
....don't know how to order them.
...maybe it's what part of the forest the wood grew in.
Aloha
Please correct me if my line of thinking is wrong. But it would seem that one would see more miscues from a LD shaft. If the tip of the cue is forced off the cue ball when hitting extreme English, or deflected(for lack of a better term.) Then it would stand to reason that one could not hit out on the cue ball without experiencing more miscues.
Couldn't this also make it harder to draw or follow with extreme English? Seems logical, but a regular shaft may have more squirt, but be able to hit further outside on the cue ball.
Send me some insite, as the physics seem to work in my pee brain.
Aloha
Please correct me if my line of thinking is wrong. But it would seem that one would see more miscues from a LD shaft. If the tip of the cue is forced off the cue ball when hitting extreme English, or deflected(for lack of a better term.) Then it would stand to reason that one could not hit out on the cue ball without experiencing more miscues.
Couldn't this also make it harder to draw or follow with extreme English? Seems logical, but a regular shaft may have more squirt, but be able to hit further outside on the cue ball.
Send me some insite, as the physics seem to work in my pee brain.
Aloha
PJ, Joey is talking about the shaft itself. When someone claims that the properties of "Low Deflection" pertain to a shaft, it's a misnomer. A shaft that deflects less will result in greater CB squirt. Stiffness is not a variable he's talking about. For example, a broomstick has lower "deflection" than say, a pencil. This is because the Broomstick itself has a higher tip end mass and will not deflect away from the ball, a pencil has less mass and therefore will deflect away from the ball to a higher degree. So a Predator is really a higher deflection shaft that creates lower cueball squirt.
I think this is what Joey, TW, et al, are saying.
If I'm not mistaken it's the other way around - low-squirt shafts might be able to hit (very slightly) farther out on the CB. But the difference would be so slight it would make no practical difference in play.
pj
chgo
Maybe, but that's also an inaccurate way to visualize what happens. They're both pushed aside ("deflect") the same distance while on the CB - the difference is in their end mass.
pj
chgo