Cognoscenti cues
Cognoscenti Cues, Tad Cues, Josswest Cues, Southwest Cues, Schon Cues, Joss Cues, Gilbert Cues, Nitti Cues, Mezz Cues, Espiritu Cues, AC Cues.
jjcue.com
How low can deflection go and still be a useable shaft?
- Thread starter Bob Callahan
- Start date
Of course it's possible to make a shaft with less squirt, or "near" zero squirt, but how much would you be willing to pay and what benefits would it have? Anything is possible with enough money. As PJ said a shaft with a hollow tip and small shaft diameter, this can already be achieved (meaning less deflection than a Revo). You could make a spring loaded flex joint in the shaft which could aide with "getting the cue out of the way" so that deflection stays next to nil.
However, having a zero deflection shaft would be a hindernace to your game, in my opinion, that is unless you can play good enough to have a level cue on all shot and never need to swerve the cue ball. If a shaft could be point and shoot, it would likely get banned.
However, having a zero deflection shaft would be a hindernace to your game, in my opinion, that is unless you can play good enough to have a level cue on all shot and never need to swerve the cue ball. If a shaft could be point and shoot, it would likely get banned.
Wouldn't that suggest that low deflection cues transmit less power than high deflection cues? I haven't heard that's true...
pj
chgo
When I was just starting to play, I borrowed a friend's cue (Brunswick Masterstroke?) that he wasn't using. Unknown to me, it had huge squirt. I ended up in a pool hall where I had to use a house stick. That stick seemed to shoot the cue ball over to the side of the english -- negative squirt. Of course it had positive squirt but I was used to twice or three times the "normal" amount.
Fast forward to about 2018 and I've played with a low squirt stick for over thirty years and was playing with a Revo at the time. A manufacturer showed me a prototype stick they were working on and again the stick seemed to have negative squirt. I don't know how low it was, but I assume it was still positive. Whether I could get used to playing with it I don't know.
Fast forward to about 2018 and I've played with a low squirt stick for over thirty years and was playing with a Revo at the time. A manufacturer showed me a prototype stick they were working on and again the stick seemed to have negative squirt. I don't know how low it was, but I assume it was still positive. Whether I could get used to playing with it I don't know.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Re-read, I didn't say low deflection, I said zero deflection.
Yes, I got that - my question is: if zero deflection = no transmitted force, wouldn't less deflection = less transmitted force?Re-read, I didn't say low deflection, I said zero deflection.
pj
chgo
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
I have no idea.
If you have no deflection/squirt...
...then you have a massé problem.
The first time I tried a Z shaft...
... four diamonds away on a half ball cut, pocket weight with inside
I hit the wrong side of the ball.
The perfect shaft has a balance between the two that suits YOU.
...then you have a massé problem.
The first time I tried a Z shaft...
... four diamonds away on a half ball cut, pocket weight with inside
I hit the wrong side of the ball.
The perfect shaft has a balance between the two that suits YOU.
Any shaft even approaching a zero deflection (true zero would be impossible) would be God awful to use. I doubt even a hollow 9mm cue, like Mr. Johnson is using would feel very good or inspire confidence on the power shots. I've played enough pool with a snooker cue to know that smaller isn't better and that it could be risky to boot. I've seen several such cues wrecked by power shots.
If you doubt me, you can try using a super light ski-pole (with a joint and a ferrule jury rigged onto it) as a shaft. It could be aluminium or carbon, you could probably find one at goodwill if you're up north, but you have to do some modding to it yourself. I've tried using such poles for jump shots. They're light as feathers, and unsurprisingly require a ton of effort to move the ball at all, though you can jump very close. The thinner the walls of the shaft, the more pronounced the hollow feeling gets. So cue manufacturers fill their carbon shafts with foam, which kills the feel almost entirely.
You're allready paying a monstrous 500 dollars + for a shaft. I suspect hunting for even less deflection is going to drive the prices sky high for very little reward and increasing lack of feel and structural integrity. But if that's what you're into, go right ahead.
If you doubt me, you can try using a super light ski-pole (with a joint and a ferrule jury rigged onto it) as a shaft. It could be aluminium or carbon, you could probably find one at goodwill if you're up north, but you have to do some modding to it yourself. I've tried using such poles for jump shots. They're light as feathers, and unsurprisingly require a ton of effort to move the ball at all, though you can jump very close. The thinner the walls of the shaft, the more pronounced the hollow feeling gets. So cue manufacturers fill their carbon shafts with foam, which kills the feel almost entirely.
You're allready paying a monstrous 500 dollars + for a shaft. I suspect hunting for even less deflection is going to drive the prices sky high for very little reward and increasing lack of feel and structural integrity. But if that's what you're into, go right ahead.
Last edited:
True. And those play great.
This is interesting. I thought I remembered you playing with something similar to what Patrick Johnson uses. What made you change?
Last edited:
Sort of. The laws of physics impose a limit. But cost isn't really what this thread is about. It's about the theoretical limit of what can be done with a playable shaft. Cost, "feel", etc don't matter.
Last edited:
It's good to see a fellow experimenter. I've tried fishing poles, aluminum rod, etc. I even tried super ball material as a tip to see if I could increase the miscue limit. It was horrible.
Last edited:
I have another potential winner. I remembered that Oscar Dominguez used to play with a very small shaft. I don't know what he plays with now, but he sometimes used an 8mm shaft as shown in the attached link from 12 years ago. How low the squirt was would depend on the ferrule material, it's construction, etc.
Last edited:
At 8mm ferrule material wouldn't make a lot of difference.
I spent some time studying this from a laymans perspective. When the squirt and deflection get to the point that our LD shafts have it today
then the problems are so minimized in comparison to the issues with a natural shaft that it is indeed helpful to have less allowances to deal with.
The question becomes more what hit you like and that is subject to shaft and tip.
At a point the small differences in already small amounts of squirt and deflection are so small its hard to worry about it.
For quite a while I was playing with a cue without a ferrule (except for the fiber pad on the tip). When the "new fangled" low-squirt cues came along, they hit the ball pretty much like my favorite shaft so I had almost no adjustment to make to use them.
That is the one thing I haven't done is a regular shaft with no ferrule. If I did it I am guessing I would go long pro taper and no ferrule with a 12.80/12.75 shaft.
Bob what kind of taper and thickness of shaft were your favorite shafts set up like this?