Does anyone have any documentation to show where to put the sight diamonds on the rail. The dimension Im looking for is the distance from the nose of the cushion to the center line of the diamond.
Thanks
Thanks
Layout Dimensions for the diamonds on the rail
- Thread starter John Novak
- Start date
3+11/16 ths
Where is the documentation of that number? 
Mitch I know the dimension, I was looking for some documention to show 3 11/16ths
thanks
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/WPA_Tournament_Table_Equipment_Specifications
6. Rail and Cushion
The rail width must be between 4 [10.16 cm] and 7 ½ inches [19.05 cm] including the rubber cushions. 18 sights (or 17 and a name plate) shall be attached flush on the rail cap with:
12 ½ inches [31.75 cm] from sight to sight on a 9-foot regulation table
11 ½ inches [29.20 cm] from sight to sight on a 8-foot regulation table.
The center of each sight should be located 3 11/16 (+ ) inches [93.6625 mm (+ 3.175 mm)] from the nose of the cushion. The sights may be round (between 7/16 [11.11 mm] and ½ inch [12.7 mm] in diameter) or diamond-shaped (between 1 x 7/16 [25.4 x 11.11 mm] and 1 ¼ x 5/8 inch [31.75 x 15.875 mm]). Any nameplates and score counters should be flush level with rail top. All rail bolts should be thus located that when properly torqued render a quiet and optimum rebound from any point of the cushion nose of the table.
Is that what you were looking for?
6. Rail and Cushion
The rail width must be between 4 [10.16 cm] and 7 ½ inches [19.05 cm] including the rubber cushions. 18 sights (or 17 and a name plate) shall be attached flush on the rail cap with:
12 ½ inches [31.75 cm] from sight to sight on a 9-foot regulation table
11 ½ inches [29.20 cm] from sight to sight on a 8-foot regulation table.
The center of each sight should be located 3 11/16 (+ ) inches [93.6625 mm (+ 3.175 mm)] from the nose of the cushion. The sights may be round (between 7/16 [11.11 mm] and ½ inch [12.7 mm] in diameter) or diamond-shaped (between 1 x 7/16 [25.4 x 11.11 mm] and 1 ¼ x 5/8 inch [31.75 x 15.875 mm]). Any nameplates and score counters should be flush level with rail top. All rail bolts should be thus located that when properly torqued render a quiet and optimum rebound from any point of the cushion nose of the table.
Is that what you were looking for?
I had not seen the specs before. I wonder how many tables now in use actually comply. Related to which, I recall seeing a carom table with 8 evenly spaced diamonds along the long rails.
7 is more like it, with 8 sites you wouldn't have a site in the center of the rails.
True and it looks really, really strange. On the other hand, You get get all 8 diamonds on a pool table long rail.7 is more like it, with 8 sites you wouldn't have a site in the center of the rails.
PhysicsGuyBrian
Registered
Actually there be 9 diamonds on the long rail matey. There are 6 marked diamonds, one virtual in each corner pocket and one virtual in the side pocket. This is nine "diamonds" that slice the long side playing dimension into 8 equal segments - rail nose to rail nose.
f(x)=A0+ k=1[Akcos(kx)+Bksin(kx)] =corner distance from diagonal pocket x .0257
Just went and measured my 9' Diamond Pro blue label - the center of each diamond is exactly 3 11/16" from cushion nose.
Doesn't matter where Gold Crown diamonds are located - can't see them from across the table anyway.
Note that the WPA spec is stated as "The center of each sight should be located 3 11/16 (+ ) inches [93.6625 mm (+ 3.175 mm)] from the nose of the cushion."
So it looks like there is a typo or mindo here in the omission of "1/8 inch" after the plus sign in the inches specification. (3.175 mm is 1/8".)
So I would think the spec, in inches, is actually anywhere from 3 11/16" to 3 13/16".
So it looks like there is a typo or mindo here in the omission of "1/8 inch" after the plus sign in the inches specification. (3.175 mm is 1/8".)
So I would think the spec, in inches, is actually anywhere from 3 11/16" to 3 13/16".
That typo has been there on all the wpa spec pages since I first saw those pages maybe 10 yrs ago. Throughout their documents the tolerance is messed up. It is 99%:
3 11/16" +/- 1/8"
Which gives a lower and upper limit of:
3 9/16" - 3 13/16"
If you read that entire document you can see many typos. None of the +/- tolerances came through properly, and they only came in as +. That is not intentional it's a typo.
3 11/16" +/- 1/8"
Which gives a lower and upper limit of:
3 9/16" - 3 13/16"
If you read that entire document you can see many typos. None of the +/- tolerances came through properly, and they only came in as +. That is not intentional it's a typo.
Last edited:
I just looked at some of the other specs, and I see what you mean. They state tolerances in several ways:
"between x and y"
"x minimum to y maximum"
"x to y"
"x (+z)"
For that last form, it sure looks like you are correct that they mean ± rather than just +.
For one spec, they even say it must be "a minimum of 4 to 4 ½ ..." Well, then, isn't the minimum 4?
I wonder why the ± thing and any other mistakes haven't been corrected after all this time. Could it actually have been ± in the original document, but then it became just + when the document got converted or translated?
Anyway, good find.