The OB-2+ and OB Pro+ are also 11.75mm.
History behind LD shafts
- Thread starter Kimmo H.
- Start date
The OB-2+ and OB Pro+ are also 11.75mm.
Universal Cues..
So, on this topic.. if the business end of the cue was the only part that makes the CB "Squirt" less, and the shaft construction "pie" method didn't enhance this effect significantly, what was the point of the piezoelectric fabric inside the Universal Smart Shaft LS Shafts?
I was lead to believe that energy passing through the shaft, upon reaching this fabric, would be converted "deadened" and released by other means there by reducing vibration which was a component causing squirt? (or something like that...)
So, on this topic.. if the business end of the cue was the only part that makes the CB "Squirt" less, and the shaft construction "pie" method didn't enhance this effect significantly, what was the point of the piezoelectric fabric inside the Universal Smart Shaft LS Shafts?
I was lead to believe that energy passing through the shaft, upon reaching this fabric, would be converted "deadened" and released by other means there by reducing vibration which was a component causing squirt? (or something like that...)
Last edited:
When we jump, do we jump up or push the earth down? Is it a fast car or a fast engine? If we mess too much with words do we just confuse people?
I don't see any issues with calling a low deflection shaft a low deflection shaft, just like I can say a car is fast when really it's the engine alone that produces the power to push the car forward at speed.
I think the Z shaft is smaller than 11.75, but that is going by a several year old memory from when I played a few racks with one.
BTW, the Z shaft is probably the only Predator shaft I tried that did not feel too light and hollow to me.
There was a guy from Pittsburgh making cues in the late 40's. His cue shafts had a hole drilled in the front end for about 4 inches. His ferrules went inside the shaft hole a little and then was a thin sleeve on the outer. I did not get all the ferrule construction or any details on the inner hole size. The owner of the cue said that the hole and a center was done as part of the shafts construction and the makers way of making shafts.
My interpretation is that the hole was used to have the shaft slide over a mandrel that supported tip end while tapering the shafts.
Anyway they played real well, but he said you could not break with them. If you did the shafts were prone to breaking at the end of the drilled. I am not sure how many were made and can't recall the makers name.
Neil
My interpretation is that the hole was used to have the shaft slide over a mandrel that supported tip end while tapering the shafts.
Anyway they played real well, but he said you could not break with them. If you did the shafts were prone to breaking at the end of the drilled. I am not sure how many were made and can't recall the makers name.
Neil
Patrick, can you explain what you mean by less flexible or more flexible? I may have a mental block because Dr. Dave seems to agree with you that, up to a point, stiffness doesn't matter all that much for wooden shafts.
What I'm getting at is that (to me) a stiffer shaft, by definition, means that it will take more force to move the tip off to the side. I see that at as inexorably causing more squirt. Thus (to me), stiffer equates to more endmass getting set into motion . If this is not true, I can't see why?
Jim.
From the Predator website:
Z-3 11.85mm, Conical-Hybrid taper
Z-2 11.75mm, Conical taper
Vantage 11.43mm, ProV taper
Last edited:
So if I took a piece of re-bar and stuck a leather tip on it, then took a really long pencil, and put a tip on it as well, then hit a cueball with each using left hand english... according to you, both the re-bar and pencil would deflect the same amount off the cueball? I'm no science whiz, but from the basic principles that I have come to understand, the re-bar would transfer more energy than the pencil, and would not deflect off of the cueball as much as the pencil... If there are numbers out there to quantify this, I'm all ears. I just don't see how this is inaccurate. It may be exaggerated, but not inaccurate.
Thanks for the friendly banter PJ.
Last edited:
From page one of Ron Shepard's study,
''Here is a simple physical explanation of squirt. As the tip
strikes the cue ball with sidespin, two things occur, the ball is set into linear motion, and
the ball acquires spin about its center of mass along the vertical axis. On a normal shot,
the cue tip does not slip on the ball, and the tip is in contact with the ball for only a very
short time (about 0.001 second). The spinning ball pushes itself away from the tip and
sets into sideways motion both the tip and the ball during this short contact period.
Conservation of momentum in the sideways direction means that as the ball moves to the
side in one direction, the tip must move to the side in the opposite direction. The speed at
which the ball and tip move to the side depends on the relative masses of the two objects.
If the ball is very heavy compared to the tip, then it will end up moving slowly to the side
and the tip will be pushed quickly to the side; if the ball is very light compared to the tip,
then the stick will be pushed very little, and the ball will push itself away quickly. The
squirt angle is determined by the ratio of the sideways speed to the forward speed of the
cue ball.''
''Here is a simple physical explanation of squirt. As the tip
strikes the cue ball with sidespin, two things occur, the ball is set into linear motion, and
the ball acquires spin about its center of mass along the vertical axis. On a normal shot,
the cue tip does not slip on the ball, and the tip is in contact with the ball for only a very
short time (about 0.001 second). The spinning ball pushes itself away from the tip and
sets into sideways motion both the tip and the ball during this short contact period.
Conservation of momentum in the sideways direction means that as the ball moves to the
side in one direction, the tip must move to the side in the opposite direction. The speed at
which the ball and tip move to the side depends on the relative masses of the two objects.
If the ball is very heavy compared to the tip, then it will end up moving slowly to the side
and the tip will be pushed quickly to the side; if the ball is very light compared to the tip,
then the stick will be pushed very little, and the ball will push itself away quickly. The
squirt angle is determined by the ratio of the sideways speed to the forward speed of the
cue ball.''
No, but Chuck Norris does.
Let's talk about pool cue shafts so we're comparing realistic things in pool.
I said both shafts would be pushed aside the same distance while on the CB - this is the only "shaft deflection" that matters to squirt.
Sure, galipeau, thanks to you too.
pj
chgo
I know that. I just wanted to chime in on the evolution of todays LD shafts, wich are mostly laminated, low front end mass constructions.
MalibuMike
Banned
The Tiger Pro-X is 11.75mm, and is the Only shaft that can claim No Squirt!
I have tried every LD shaft out there, and the top two are the Tiger Pro-X and BD360-2, followed by Mezz Hybrid II and Jacoby Hybrid Edge.
Both Predator and OB have fallen way behind by spending all their money on advertizing rather the quality control and good wood. I tried the new OB "Plus" and although it has the same dimentions and taper as the Tiger-Pro-X and has even tried to copy them by getting rid of their hollowed out front end, it is still no where in the ball park with the above mentioned cues. Predators where swell 8 years ago, but now I wouldn't even consider owning one. Fury makes a better LD Shaft! Thats a fact! the ES II.
Check out the shafts in my profile Pics!
For Break Cues:
1. The Mezz Deep Impact Pro (ash) is awesome
2. Tiger Icebreaker
I think OB Cues agrees with you
I have tried every LD shaft out there, and the top two are the Tiger Pro-X and BD360-2, followed by Mezz Hybrid II and Jacoby Hybrid Edge.
Both Predator and OB have fallen way behind by spending all their money on advertizing rather the quality control and good wood. I tried the new OB "Plus" and although it has the same dimentions and taper as the Tiger-Pro-X and has even tried to copy them by getting rid of their hollowed out front end, it is still no where in the ball park with the above mentioned cues. Predators where swell 8 years ago, but now I wouldn't even consider owning one. Fury makes a better LD Shaft! Thats a fact! the ES II.
Check out the shafts in my profile Pics!
For Break Cues:
1. The Mezz Deep Impact Pro (ash) is awesome
2. Tiger Icebreaker
ElCorazonFrio
Banned
"It is immoral to let a sucker keep his money." 'Canada' Bill Jones
As I understand it, the shaft's flexibility doesn't have time to come substantially into play (because of transverse wave propagation speed or some such) so mass and inertia create the bulk of the effect.
Besides that reasonable theory there's lots of observational stuff, including my own very low squirt shaft that's stiffer than most higher squirt cues because of its conical taper.
pj
chgo
MalibuMike
Banned
Why has no one mentioned radial consistancy?
That's the real benefit with the laminated shaft, more and more "LD" shafts are going away from the hollowed out front end's like OB’s (new and improved “we really mean it this time folks” “PLUS Shafts”) Tiger never hollowed their shafts. With Good Wood, evenly placed laminations and a conical taper and a lighter front-end, you will get less squirt. If we could all afford awesome wood from a 1,000 year old tree's that has been cut and drying flat for the last 100 years, we would achieve the same thing. The lamination process does this artificially, and provides a more consistent hit as the strength of the shaft is evenly dispersed across the sides, face and center of the shaft. Also the aging process can be speeded up by vibration, finding the woods resonant frequency and doing a sine dwell there. Fender does this with some of their guitars, that’s why an older Les Paul plays better then a new one. To my knowledge no cue-makers have tried vibrating their wood to age it, it might not matter as much with a pool shaft as with a Stradivarius. And yes the shorter light weight ferules and “Front-end Technology” gives you low squirt. I have two shafts with holes in them that I do like, the Mezz Hybrid Pro II (their hollowed out part is filled with carbon for a more radial consistent hit. And the BDSS360-2 made by Bob Danielson, and I think it hits so well because of the high quality wood he uses. The Tiger Pro-X is the shaft I keep going back too!
That's the real benefit with the laminated shaft, more and more "LD" shafts are going away from the hollowed out front end's like OB’s (new and improved “we really mean it this time folks” “PLUS Shafts”) Tiger never hollowed their shafts. With Good Wood, evenly placed laminations and a conical taper and a lighter front-end, you will get less squirt. If we could all afford awesome wood from a 1,000 year old tree's that has been cut and drying flat for the last 100 years, we would achieve the same thing. The lamination process does this artificially, and provides a more consistent hit as the strength of the shaft is evenly dispersed across the sides, face and center of the shaft. Also the aging process can be speeded up by vibration, finding the woods resonant frequency and doing a sine dwell there. Fender does this with some of their guitars, that’s why an older Les Paul plays better then a new one. To my knowledge no cue-makers have tried vibrating their wood to age it, it might not matter as much with a pool shaft as with a Stradivarius. And yes the shorter light weight ferules and “Front-end Technology” gives you low squirt. I have two shafts with holes in them that I do like, the Mezz Hybrid Pro II (their hollowed out part is filled with carbon for a more radial consistent hit. And the BDSS360-2 made by Bob Danielson, and I think it hits so well because of the high quality wood he uses. The Tiger Pro-X is the shaft I keep going back too!
But I doubt that a transverse wave has much to do with it. When you, say, bend a beam downward, the top undergoes extension while the bottom undergoes compression. These are longitudinal strains which travel very fast. If you remove material, as in coring out the center, there is less material to oppose the extension/compression and the beam becomes more flexible (concomitantly with losing mass). Rightly or wrongly, I'm still seeing stiffnes/endmass as different aspects of the same thing.
I'm wondering what you mean by stiffer, though. I'm thinking that the last few inches near the tip are in fact more flexible than a normal shaft, while it quickly becomes stiffer as you move toward the joint because of the taper. That may provide an overall sensation of stiffness (I guess in the way the cue responds to appled english?) but is still more flexible where it counts most: near the tip.
I'm not married to my conceptions (or misconceptions) here, but am looking for something like a definitive argument or example to nail it down either way.
Can something be stiffer, yet easier to bend?
Jim