How low can deflection go and still be a useable shaft?

Bob Callahan

Bob Callahan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A shaft made from aerogel would probably be very close to the mythical "zero deflection" shaft that's sometimes advertised, but I don't think any of us would use one. Looking at Dr. Dave Alciatore's video on squirt, the lowest "deflection" shaft he tested is a Revo, and it seems to cause about 3 inches of squirt. There are a lot of smart people on this forum...is this the lowest it can go, or is it possible to design a useful shaft that creates a two inches of squirt? One inch?

First, let's stave off some of the comments that usually happen in threads like this one:

"It's the Indian, not the arrow". If Native Americans had had modern compound bows during the European invasion, the outcome might have been a little different. It's the Indian and the arrow.

"All shafts deflect". True, but let's compare our addiction to another activity that requires accuracy: Olympic shooting. Don't see anybody goin' for the gold with Papa's ol' rimfire 22, do you....
 
You learn to adapt to any equipment available. Indians would have starved to death if their arrows could not be delivered straight and strong from long distances with their hand made bows to kill large, large animals such as Buffalo and elk/deer.

We would not have "legendary" pool players such as Greenleaf, Hoppe, Mosconi, Lassiter, Mizerak, Sigel, Varner, etc. if "ancient" pool cues were not, in the end, 100% effective in allowing a cue ball to be delivered on it's intended path.

Well, the way we are going, pool cues will evolve to having a cue ball "loaded" onto the cue stick and it will be fired like a rifle at the object ball, so that the 'underserved" pool players will not have to "burdened" by " systemic" cue ball deflection!

Get over it folks, enough already! Pool has a lot more to worry about than " how to reduce deflection" - As someone mentioned yesterday- Cornhole Competition was one of the ESPN featured shows this week!
 
boogieman said:
Deflection isn't a bug, it's a feature. Any usable material will have deflection. If your shaft is made of gel or another substance with no deflection, it also loses the ability to propel the ball forward.
Click to expand...
Implied in the title to this thread. The question is about the lowest useable.
 
mikemosconi said:
We would not have "legendary" pool players such as Greenleaf, Hoppe, Mosconi, Lassiter, Mizerak, Sigel, Varner, etc. if "ancient" pool cues were not, in the end, 100% effective in allowing a cue ball to be delivered on it's intended path.
Click to expand...
Sure, but look at the improvements in equipment in other activities that require accuracy: golf, shooting, etc. Those great players would've been happy to use today's best, most accurate gear, wouldn't they? They achieved greatness--not because of their gear--but in spite of it.

"You learn to adapt to any equipment available. Indians would have starved to death if their arrows could not be delivered straight and strong from long distances with their hand made bows to kill large, large animals such as Buffalo and elk/deer."

Maybe. https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-b...o-the-English-Welsh-warbow-of-the-Middle-Ages
 
Last edited:
Bob Callahan said:
Looking at Dr. Dave Alciatore's video on squirt, the lowest "deflection" shaft he tested is a Revo, and it seems to cause about 3 inches of squirt. ...is it possible to design a useful shaft that creates a two inches of squirt? One inch?
Click to expand...
That was 3 inches over a 6-diamond distance, right? My tiny-tipped hollowpoint cue squirts 2 inches over that distance. I don’t see why less would be impossible.

pj
chgo
 
Bob Callahan said:
A shaft made from aerogel would probably be very close to the mythical "zero deflection" shaft that's sometimes advertised, but I don't think any of us would use one. Looking at Dr. Dave Alciatore's video on squirt, the lowest "deflection" shaft he tested is a Revo, and it seems to cause about 3 inches of squirt. There are a lot of smart people on this forum...is this the lowest it can go, or is it possible to design a useful shaft that creates a two inches of squirt? One inch?

First, let's stave off some of the comments that usually happen in threads like this one:

"It's the Indian, not the arrow". If Native Americans had had modern compound bows during the European invasion, the outcome might have been a little different. It's the Indian and the arrow.

"All shafts deflect". True, but let's compare our addiction to another activity that requires accuracy: Olympic shooting. Don't see anybody goin' for the gold with Papa's ol' rimfire 22, do you....
Click to expand...
I don't recall his video but there are shafts that have less than any 3" of deflection. The Revo i tried on a 5' shot from center table to center of end rail only deflected about the width of a couple chalk cubes, maybe less. Some of the smaller diameter models are even less. The Revo i tried was a 12.9mm. I tried a 12.2 Mezz and it was less than the Revo. BTW, the Mezz Ignite is a fantastic shaft. I just wish they made a bigger version as I prefer 12.75.
 
Last edited:
Bob Callahan said:
A shaft made from aerogel would probably be very close to the mythical "zero deflection" shaft that's sometimes advertised, but I don't think any of us would use one. Looking at Dr. Dave Alciatore's video on squirt, the lowest "deflection" shaft he tested is a Revo, and it seems to cause about 3 inches of squirt. There are a lot of smart people on this forum...is this the lowest it can go, or is it possible to design a useful shaft that creates a two inches of squirt? One inch?

First, let's stave off some of the comments that usually happen in threads like this one:

"It's the Indian, not the arrow". If Native Americans had had modern compound bows during the European invasion, the outcome might have been a little different. It's the Indian and the arrow.

"All shafts deflect". True, but let's compare our addiction to another activity that requires accuracy: Olympic shooting. Don't see anybody goin' for the gold with Papa's ol' rimfire 22, do you....
Click to expand...

Less CB deflection isn't necessarily better, especially for firm-speed shots (e.g., a break cue), where you want the natural pivot length of the shaft (infinite for a zero-CB-deflection shaft) well matched to your bridge length. For more info, see:

 
dr_dave said:
Less CB deflection isn't necessarily better, especially for firm-speed shots (e.g., a break cue), where you want the natural pivot length of the shaft (infinite for a zero-CB-deflection shaft) well matched to your bridge length. For more info, see:

Click to expand...
Thanks. I've seen this, as well as many of the other wonderful things you share gratis. And I bought your book long ago.

Any thoughts on lowest useable low-squirt shafts for normal play?
 
garczar said:
I don't recall his video but there are shafts that have less than any 3" of deflection. The Revo i tried on a 5' shot from center table to center of end rail only deflected about the width of a couple chalk cubes, maybe less. Some of the smaller diameter models are even less. The Revo i tried was a 12.9mm. I tried a 12.2 Mezz and it was less than the Revo. BTW, the Mezz Ignite is a fantastic shaft. I just wish they made a bigger version as I prefer 12.75.
Click to expand...

 
Bob Callahan said:
Thanks. I've seen this, as well as many of the other wonderful things you share gratis. And I bought your book long ago.

Any thoughts on lowest useable low-squirt shafts for normal play?
Click to expand...

Any amount of CB deflection is useable. In general, there are advantages to having less CB deflection, but they don't apply to all players and all shot types. For more information, see the natural pivot length resource page, especially the answer to the "Should I use a shaft with a natural pivot length matched to my preferred bridge length?" question.

Enjoy!
 
Why keep saying 'useable'?? No shaft will ever be zero deflect. and all are playable/usable. Test a few and pick one that suits you. Its not rocket science. The least deflect. shaft i've ever tried was a first generation PredatorZ. I did not like the tip size or the conical taper but the deflect. was as close to nothing i've hit. Close behind was the OB conical taper with the wood ferrule.
 
Last edited:
Your shaft must be rigid to transfer energy and light weight. What's the material we have which does both? CF. There are lighter materials but they lack rigidity and durability. Deflection isn't the only factor in a pool cue. I'm not saying it's not possible, but CF is probably the best product for such a shaft that currently exists.
 
Hey Bob. You might want to restate your question because you're going to get other types of responses when you introduce the concept of "usable" here.

So if I understand the question, you're not asking should it exist, or necessarily what additional problems it would create. Instead:

From an engineering perspective, what is the lowest deflection shaft that can be made? (And I would be curious to know what material would be used to do so.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Bob Callahan said:
Thanks. I've included "useable" because it's possible to make a shaft that would cause very low squirt, but at the expense of other things that would make it unuseable. Aerogel, cotton, etc.

P.S.: https://english.stackexchange.com/q...-regions-or-just-an-alternate-spelling-of-usa
Click to expand...
If its un-useable then WHY even talk about it? All this 'what if' is a waste of time. You could possibly use aerogel in the front-end as replacement for the foam-like stuff currently used. Shaft might cost 10grand but who cares when you're dreaming.
 
Manufactures use woven carbon fiber to make cues. This has a Young's modulus similar to aluminum

If, instead they used structural carbon fiber laid out in parallel fibers and alternating long wise and diametrically, Young's modulus of structural carbon fiber is 2.0×-to-2.5× stiffer than the woven stuff. So, in theory, you could make the shaft ½ the weight and it will retain all the stiffness.

This would do similarly to the deflection (DIV 2-2.5) and the weight (DIV 2-2.5)...

It would also cost over $3000 per shaft........ so only race cars, airplanes, space, and military gear can afford these kinds of costs.
 
garczar said:
You could possibly use aerogel in the front-end as replacement for the foam-like stuff currently used.
Click to expand...

No need. Leave it hollow like Cuetec does.
 

Attachments

  • 20-CT-CYN-118-TAPER-TECH.jpg
    20-CT-CYN-118-TAPER-TECH.jpg
    80.7 KB · Views: 138
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top