Forget about carbon fiber and deflection. Carbon fiber and deflection issues have made millions for the shaft industry. Deflection is just as much a part of the carbon fiber myth as is for the maple shaft. Both shafts deflect and adjustment is necessary, whether it be half inch or one inch. Changing shafts is a psychological matter only.
How low can deflection go and still be a useable shaft?
- Thread starter Bob Callahan
- Start date
Also, shooting softer doesn’t reduce squirt - it increases swerve, which looks like reduced squirt but is harder to judge.
pj
chgo
But some deflect WAY less than others. My Mezz is what i call 'semi low deflection' and i like it a lot. Tried a friends Cynergy and it was a LOT less. Really liked the way that thing played. Probably not going to switch real soon, if ever, but could easily switch to one.
Let me repeat what I said in the first post of this thread:
"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....
Reply
Report Edit
Let me repeat what I said earlier in this thread:
"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."
Yeah I know but hitting softer reduces deflection.
As PJ said earlier less speed increases swerve more than it reduces squirt. Hitting softly is very often not an option if you have to play position.
I think it was Bob Jewett who years ago (10?) on here had a rough sketch of a tip mounted on wheels or other low friction surface, so it could more easily move sideways during the strike.
When I saw that idea I had thought of one way to possibly make it as a functional prototype. It would comprise of the ferrule split into two halves. The front half glued to the tip, and the back half glued to the shaft. Where the two halves met would be a concave surface on one half, and a convex surface on the other half. A spring in tension would connect the two halves together.
When striking a ball, the front half of the ferrule would slide sideways and reduce the CB squirt. After the shot, the spring tension would pull the front half backwards, and the concave/convex interface would cause the two ferrule halves to self center.
I never pursued making this prototype because I didn’t think it would hold up over time, and, most importantly, I didn’t feel like putting in the effort
When I saw that idea I had thought of one way to possibly make it as a functional prototype. It would comprise of the ferrule split into two halves. The front half glued to the tip, and the back half glued to the shaft. Where the two halves met would be a concave surface on one half, and a convex surface on the other half. A spring in tension would connect the two halves together.
When striking a ball, the front half of the ferrule would slide sideways and reduce the CB squirt. After the shot, the spring tension would pull the front half backwards, and the concave/convex interface would cause the two ferrule halves to self center.
I never pursued making this prototype because I didn’t think it would hold up over time, and, most importantly, I didn’t feel like putting in the effort
Last edited:
Yes, all shafts deflect. The question should be asked is uniformity of deflection. Which is why you see the plywood construction in Predator and OB shafts, to minimize variance,, meaning one side is less predictable than the other. Snooker answer is the notch on the end of the butt, so you will always hold the cue in the same orientation. The two different approaches to solving the same problem reminds me of the story about the development of the space pen. Millions were spent making a pressurized ink cartridge so the pen will write in any direction in zero gravity, while the Russians simply used pencil.
The current shift is to carbon fiber, because it can offer more precise tolerances in manufacturing than the plywood method. Carbon fiber has no inherent lower deflection quality.
Since stiffness doesn't seem to have much effect on squirt, I wonder if "radial consistency" really makes much difference. Do you know of any tests?
pj
chgo
I personally think radial consistency is a myth made popular by Meucci’s red dot shaft and Predator’s pie construction, both in the early 90’s from my recollection.
For “proof” the most radially inconsistent shaft possible IMO is a flat laminated shaft. Meucci had that as their black dot shaft. I’ve played with one, and it played the exact same to me regardless of which orientation the lamination was in.
I'm aware of the Iron Willie tests by Clawson cues, aka Predator conducted. You can search the forum, as it was extensively argued and discussed. This led to their first line of products, the 314 and Z. Z had the lowest deflection, but came at the cost of shaft diameter. 314 was closer in diameter to what people used, with noticeable lower deflection. Until the carbon fiber Revo came out, it was hard to mass produced a full diameter shaft with the same index as the Z2.
I see people make the same mistaken assumption now with carbon fiber as back then with lamination; assuming it, not the hollow space in the front of the shaft is responsible for lower deflecting quality. I roll my eyes and bite my tongue when some one shouts they're going to buy the next carbon fiber shaft, unseen. The power of marketing!
I see people make the same mistaken assumption now with carbon fiber as back then with lamination; assuming it, not the hollow space in the front of the shaft is responsible for lower deflecting quality. I roll my eyes and bite my tongue when some one shouts they're going to buy the next carbon fiber shaft, unseen. The power of marketing!
A first generation 314 was my third cue (after a Meucci and a Schon), back in 1995 or so. That cue infected me with the low squirt bug - my next (last) one was custom designed for ultra-low squirt.
pj
chgo
Well- the discussion about LD shafts is everywhere aware (ok, almost )
I m seeing so often students with 3 or more different shafts in their cases- amazing and scary at one time imo.
The fact is: stay with your material. Of course you can play with every shaft- but to change between shafts if you want to compete in tournaments or leagues is a planned suicide.
I for myself played for sure with everything available on the planet- for fun, for testing around. I m a curious old fart. The LD "feature" is a great thing. But.....- what is way more important are the results- and how you feel with the cue. IN the last few weeks i was able to play again a bit more myself and am playing with my "stuff" i played the longest time- and also learnt with- with a regular shaft, 12,7 mm. And even if i have played the last year ( roundabout) just with a carbon shaft, my game immediatley jumped up again- i felt immediatley comfortable again, wasn t questioning a single shot. Everything felt immediatley easier. Why? Well, the carbon shaft made some things easier (long distance shots with english etc.)- but the regular shaft gives me a so much higher amount of consistency-because i m used to it.
Every player should do himself a big favor, if he want to compete: To stay with his material- no matter what it is. it has to feel "right" for him- results/numbers don t lie also I gave just a student a week ago my cue to have a shot bc he asked- .....well- he wasn t able to hit a bus with it. So no question. His Z3 works best for him. he learnt with it right from beginning. Using it for years now. so it would make no sense to change to a full "old fart shaft" like i play
Use what you like- and stay with it- big key to give yourself the necessary self confidence.
)I m seeing so often students with 3 or more different shafts in their cases- amazing and scary at one time imo.
The fact is: stay with your material. Of course you can play with every shaft- but to change between shafts if you want to compete in tournaments or leagues is a planned suicide.
I for myself played for sure with everything available on the planet- for fun, for testing around. I m a curious old fart. The LD "feature" is a great thing. But.....- what is way more important are the results- and how you feel with the cue. IN the last few weeks i was able to play again a bit more myself and am playing with my "stuff" i played the longest time- and also learnt with- with a regular shaft, 12,7 mm. And even if i have played the last year ( roundabout) just with a carbon shaft, my game immediatley jumped up again- i felt immediatley comfortable again, wasn t questioning a single shot. Everything felt immediatley easier. Why? Well, the carbon shaft made some things easier (long distance shots with english etc.)- but the regular shaft gives me a so much higher amount of consistency-because i m used to it.
Every player should do himself a big favor, if he want to compete: To stay with his material- no matter what it is. it has to feel "right" for him- results/numbers don t lie also
I gave just a student a week ago my cue to have a shot bc he asked- .....well- he wasn t able to hit a bus with it. So no question. His Z3 works best for him. he learnt with it right from beginning. Using it for years now. so it would make no sense to change to a full "old fart shaft" like i play Use what you like- and stay with it- big key to give yourself the necessary self confidence.
David Alciatore did an experiment where he made a notched shaft to test this. I've forgotten where I saw it. Maybe he'll join in....
Since I first started this thread, I've had some time to think about theoretical shafts and squirt testing. It's too early to share some of the results, but here are a few of thoughts:
It'd be better to test squirt on bare slate to minimize swerve. So, anybody here about to cover a table and willing to experiment?
There's an easier way to test squirt than using the center of the table. Freeze the cue ball to a long rail and cue it so that the squirt goes away from the rail.
Densities in case you want to do some calculations:
carbon fiber 0.00155 g/mm^3
hard maple 0.000704812 g/mm^3
leather tips (laminated) 0.00106968 g/mm^3
If you're scientifically trained, feel free to cringe at how horribly I've abused significant digits....
The reason the Cuetec didn't do as well as the Revo in Dave Alciatore's video is probably due to ferrule construction. I haven't been able to find ferrule construction details for Jacoby, Meucci, or some of the other carbon fiber shafts and would be very interested in any information you might have.
It'd be better to test squirt on bare slate to minimize swerve. So, anybody here about to cover a table and willing to experiment?
There's an easier way to test squirt than using the center of the table. Freeze the cue ball to a long rail and cue it so that the squirt goes away from the rail.
Densities in case you want to do some calculations:
carbon fiber 0.00155 g/mm^3
hard maple 0.000704812 g/mm^3
leather tips (laminated) 0.00106968 g/mm^3
If you're scientifically trained, feel free to cringe at how horribly I've abused significant digits....
The reason the Cuetec didn't do as well as the Revo in Dave Alciatore's video is probably due to ferrule construction. I haven't been able to find ferrule construction details for Jacoby, Meucci, or some of the other carbon fiber shafts and would be very interested in any information you might have.
Attachments
Last edited:
What’s your end goal? Making a shaft for yourself? Starting a shaft business? Making a shaft testing machine/business? Forum discussion only?
No one is going to put in the time to help because it’s too much work and there is no reward at the end. On the other hand if there is something here you are passionate about, you can be the champion. But I fear if there is no end goal, even you yourself will lose interest.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. It’s the successful execution that takes the time, money, and effort.
No one is going to put in the time to help because it’s too much work and there is no reward at the end. On the other hand if there is something here you are passionate about, you can be the champion. But I fear if there is no end goal, even you yourself will lose interest.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. It’s the successful execution that takes the time, money, and effort.
I tried them both and in regular use the difference is tiny.
Knowledge is its own reward.