It should be.
But, very cost prohibitive to market.
keilwood for suckers
- Thread starter whammo57
- Start date
But, very cost prohibitive to market.
Something has to move to the side upon impact, either the ball deflects or the shaft deflects. In order for the shaft to deflect, it has to flex.
Low end mass helps but so does flexible shaft.
This was the Predator theory when they came out and same with Meucci black dot shaft.
Low end mass helps but so does flexible shaft.
This was the Predator theory when they came out and same with Meucci black dot shaft.
billiards_watch
Well-known member
Just to clarify what I’ve said above.
The shaft doesn’t have to be whippy to be low deflection.
Only the front 6 inches of the shaft needs to be flexible.
That is part of the reason Predator cored the front end.
So the shaft itself can be and feel firm and stiff, the player can hardly feel that flex in the front end of the shaft.
There used to be slow motion videos that showed this.
This feels like a 25 years old discussion… I thought that by now we’d be over this
Last edited:
Paul_#_
Well-known member
Just a curious question that I have zero knowledge on. Does a open or closed bridge affect deflection, or a long or shorter bridge length affect it any way? I only ask this because the general thinking from all the replies that I have read is that basically is only the front end weight that has any bearing on it.
The length of the bridge will affect deflection.
The type of bridge does not matter
The general thinking doesn't match the empirical data from long ago. I played pool with a 11mm tipped sixty inch twelve ounce snooker cue for awhile. That was my introduction to low deflection in the eighties. The first time I used a lot of sidespin on a table length shot, on a bar table, I missed the object ball several inches! This was with a one piece "house cue" style four point cue. I wish I had one to test today, I am pretty sure it was lower deflection than anything on today's market.
While people argue only the front few inches, let's say eight, matter, early testing with a robot having a rigid bridge put the lie to that. When they used bubble wrap or similar to simulate a human bridge they got results closer to what was expected. There was a time when a very tight closed bridge with a bridge length of four to six inches wasn't unheard of. That would give different results than the very common long and loose bridge of today. The vast majority of people today would pocket more balls if they cut their bridge length in half but that wasn't the question.
Forget pool room physics and delve into real physics and all of a sudden things like axis location and inertia matter. How much things matter is a good question but judging by the superlight cue from long ago I would say the first few inch concept is not accurate. Every bit of a cue matters to some degree and the stiffer the cue the more the entire cue matters. Somebody can thread a shaft onto an inch and a quarter steel bar and test for themselves if deflection remains the same. I would bet dollars to donuts on the result but in today's market that would probably be asking for weight on the money!(grin)
Hu
When Meucci introduced their black dot LD shaft, they made a video testing it and comparing to other shafts with a robot they have built. If I'm not mistaken, they connected the shaft to a broom stick to show that the butt does not matter.
Can't find the video anymore, but then again that was like 20 years ago.
Then that eliminates carbon fiber as low cue ball squirt material . They do not flex easily
Meucci's " secret " was very light soft ferrule with a gap in the cap. It was infamous for cracking.
My old partner was a physicist and inventor holding over eighty patents. He has been dead a long time and his patents expired. I see things he invented being used now.
I suspect you would have a hard time persuading him the butt didn't matter. The seventy-five cent question is how much does it matter.
Joey, you might be just the man to answer this question. Did Bob use soft maple for some of his shafts? Never encountered another shaft that was as much of a noodle as my early eighties Meucci.
Hu
They do
He touted his super white maple which turned out to be bleached maple.
That long barrel taper plus thin joint size made for very whipped shaft.
All those pros must be suckers
The stock answer I get from the scientists is contact is too short to matter. The ball gets its microgram's worth and it's off. Off center hits from a pool shooting laser might shed some "light".
All it takes is a high speed video to see what's happening
That is what's happening. I think with the right laser, the impact of the hit could be graduated into more coherent results. I'm talking about the laser actually moving the ball.
I
I would assume that if the contact is too short to matter then all shafts should perform the same
I would think so but commonly expounded wisdom states end mass is THE factor. Could be right. Say a stiff CF shaft further braced against deflection in all direction is used. What happens? According to the science - same thing. Now take a nanogram off the ferrule. All of a sudden deflection is reduced. Bizarre stuff...
Hence, banging the ball with a high intensity laser.
There are slow-motion videos that show tip compression as it hits the CB, which suggest a longer contact time than what the scientists might think. This makes me think that hard tips will cause a shorter impact time and less CB deflection, yet nowadays most pros use soft tips...
Slow-motion videos of draw and jump shots show the vibration of the shaft. I didn't find such a video on side spin, but it should be similar.
Low-end mass is crucial, as on impact the larger mass object will deflect the lower mass object. The lower the mass of the shaft front end, the easier it is for the CB "to push" the shaft to the side and keep the original vector.
It only makes sense if the shaft is flexible; it'll help for the CB to push it to the side even more.
Of course there has to be a balance here; you can't shoot with a noodle.
Just saying that the only thing that matters is low-end mass without explaining or understanding why, is only half an answer.