LD shaft for one pocket?

[GetMeThere]

^^ Joe,

It's been explained before in the thread: squirt and swerve don't matter after balls make contact--and for the same CB-OB action, they have to contact in the same place, with the same spin. Therefore, the path the CB takes to the OB doesn't matter; so there is no difference in banking between shafts.

 

[poolplayer2093]

I appreciate everyones enthusiasm here, lol. So from what some say, LD doesnt change anything about one hole, whil others think it does change a few shots just a bit. Mikey brought up a great point about the banks. Would it be easier to get the cueball outta the way on a bank where the object ball is frozen to the rail with a LD shaft? Being how there is less swerve or whatever you wanna call it, would that make it easier, harder or about the same?


Joe

There's a difference all right. it's one of those do it for yourself to find out things though

 

[snipershot]

There's a difference all right. it's one of those do it for yourself to find out things though

Man it took me a couple months to get back to playing good when I switched back to a regular shaft from the LD. Im just a lil curious, but not so much that Im gonna change up my whole game, hehe.


Joe

 

[poolplayer2093]

Man it took me a couple months to get back to playing good when I switched back to a regular shaft for the LD. Im just a lil curious, but not so much that Im gonna change up my whole game, hehe.


Joe

i spent about 3 years playing with a LD shaft. it took me about 6 months to adjust to a standard maple shaft. i can use either now but it was a lot of work figuring everything out. if i could do it all over again i'd have never switched. 6 months of progress wasted basically!

 

[peter_gunn]

i spent about 3 years playing with a LD shaft. it took me about 6 months to adjust to a standard maple shaft. i can use either now but it was a lot of work figuring everything out. if i could do it all over again i'd have never switched. 6 months of progress wasted basically!

IMO u wasted 3 years,,, not 6 months

 

[snipershot]

i spent about 3 years playing with a LD shaft. it took me about 6 months to adjust to a standard maple shaft. i can use either now but it was a lot of work figuring everything out. if i could do it all over again i'd have never switched. 6 months of progress wasted basically!

Do you play one hole? I just keep thinkin I might be just a hair better with a LD shaft, but it might not be worth the time, effort, cost, and utter pissed-the-hell off frustration that will go with switching it up, lol.

Joe

 

[poolplayer2093]

Do you play one hole? I just keep thinkin I might be just a hair better with a LD shaft, but it might not be worth the time, effort, cost, and utter pissed-the-hell off frustration that will go with switching it up, lol.

Joe

i play it, but i don't play it well. imo it's not worth it.

 

[JimS]

If you are accustomed to a particular shaft or type of shaft then changing won't help your game but if you are relatively new and not accustomed to a particular shaft or type of shaft then it would be a good idea to make the switch to a ld shaft as they are more consistent and accurate and you won't have to worry about your shaft.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
The tip stays in contact with the CB about the same amount of time.

GetMeThere:
...From Dr.Dave I've read that contact lasts "about 1 ms. with leather tips and about 0.5 ms with phenolic."
...If one hit lasts 0.8 ms, and another lasts 1.2 ms, the second is a full FIFTY PERCENT longer--yet they're both "about" 1 ms.

We're talking about different shafts, not different tips.

It COULD be claimed, perhaps, that the elastic realities of phenolic (balls) and leather (tip) are such that no "interesting" information can pass between tip and CB in the microsecond time frame; i.e., it just wouldn't MATTER if contact time were, say, 0.8 ms vs 1.2 ms.

We already have lots of experience with phenolic vs. leather tips, with a contact time difference of 50% (I believe the difference is even greater if you take into account the softest leather tips). What interesting differences have we observed?

I think I have to agree with Ballistic Billiards on the issue of billiard physics still being incompletely understood.

Actually, he said it's "mysterious". We don't know everything about it, but we know a lot (probably everything that's very useful to a pool player) and everything we know is very sensible. Things are undoubtedly a little harder to understand and predict at the level of particle physics, but we don't play pool at that level.

pj
chgo

 

[Ballistic Billiards]

We're talking about different shafts, not different tips.


We already have lots of experience with phenolic vs. leather tips, with a contact time difference of 50% (I believe the difference is even greater if you take into account the softest leather tips). What interesting differences have we observed?

pj
chgo

I'll take a shot at this one.

A significant increase in contact time is shown based solely on the durometer
of the striking surface.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

We're talking about different shafts, not different tips.


We already have lots of experience with phenolic vs. leather tips, with a contact time difference of 50% (I believe the difference is even greater if you take into account the softest leather tips). What interesting differences have we observed?

pj
chgo

Ballistic:
I'll take a shot at this one.

A significant increase in contact time is shown based solely on the durometer
of the striking surface.

LOL. Yes, that's what we said (the unnecessary jargon didn't add anything).

What's interesting about that to a pool player?

pj
chgo

 

[Ballistic Billiards]

LOL. Yes, that's what we said (the unnecessary jargon didn't add anything).

What's interesting about that to a pool player?

pj
chgo

How does this variation affect which way the cue ball will go when I hit it?

 

[Big Perm]

All shafts and cues by different cuemakers are different....whether it's the wood, the design, or the weight, the play just a hair different.....and even different makers of different LD shafts play different.....that's why people have a preference.....from a consistency perspective, I like to use the same cue and shaft all the time.....that way the response of the cue off the shaft is the same.....

Recently converting to an OB shaft, I see definite benefits......the more I get used to it, the more I like it.....but ultimately it's preference....play what you like....

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Ballistic:
A significant increase in contact time is shown based solely on the durometer
of the striking surface. [Translation: softer tip = longer contact]

Me:
What's interesting about that to a pool player?

Ballistic:
How does this variation affect which way the cue ball will go when I hit it?

That question has been asked (extensively), and Dr. Dave has even done some robotic tests to answer it (see http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2008/aug08.pdf). The answer seems to be that tip hardness has a very small effect on the amount of squirt.

Not much "mystery" there.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Recently converting to an OB shaft, I see definite benefits......the more I get used to it, the more I like it.....but ultimately it's preference....play what you like....

As you illustrate, your preference changes as you adapt. If you can adapt, then the "ultimate" (and desirable) choice is to reap the objective benefits.

pj
chgo

 

[GetMeThere]

We're talking about different shafts, not different tips.

Actually, you're misunderstanding my post: I wasn't talking about EITHER. I was only noting that (as far as I'm aware) not much is known about how variations in contact time play out in the subsequent action of the CB. I was also noting, in my quote from Dr.Dave (which, btw, isn't NECESSARILY a quote--I just...sorta...recall reading something like that there) that there apparently isn't much data at all available regarding HOW and WHY contact time varies (other than the easy assumptions that it depends at least partially on the elasticity characteristics of ball and tip, the force of the hit, the angle of the hit, and the friction characteristics of the surfaces).

So... (AFAIK), we don't have a very much data on
1) How much contact time varies.
2) What causes those variations.
3) What the effects of the variations are on the CB.

It's fair, IMO, to say that there remains some "mystery" (not the ideal term, perhaps) about the finer points of the physics of pool.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

GetMeThere:
(AFAIK), we don't have a very much data on
1) How much contact time varies.
2) What causes those variations.
3) What the effects of the variations are on the CB.

I think we have considerably more data on these things than you think.

It's fair, IMO, to say that there remains some "mystery" (not the ideal term, perhaps) about the finer points of the physics of pool.

I don't believe there's any remaining mystery that's important to playing pool.

Of course we don't know everything about anything, but that's meaningless without specifics. What specifically don't we know about stick/ball interaction that's likely to be meaningful to playing pool?

pj
chgo

 

[Dead Crab]

I think we have considerably more data on these things than you think.


I don't believe there's any remaining mystery that's important to playing pool.

Of course we don't know everything about anything, but that's meaningless without specifics. What specifically don't we know about stick/ball interaction that's likely to be meaningful to playing pool?

pj
chgo

1. When spin is dealt with in billiard physics is assumes point contact. However, when you look at the chalk print on the CB, it is distributed over a large area. What are the effects of this large area distribution relative to the ideal "point" contact? Specifically, what is the optimal distribution of this area of contact, and what is the correct tip shape and aim point of the tip to optimize the tip-CB interaction so that it best approximates a point impact?

2. Given what is known about squirt, BHE, and combined BHE+FHE, what possible advantage is there to using an LD shaft, assuming that the user of the cue is skilled in judging the amount of FHE/BHE to be used for a particular shot?

I look forward to your proof of the first, and many LD shaft manufacturers look forward to your proof of the second.

 

[GetMeThere]

What specifically don't we know about stick/ball interaction that's likely to be meaningful to playing pool?

Quite candidly:

When I began playing at age 18 (39 years ago) I was quickly taken in by "stroke magic"--generally typified by people who could get extreme amounts of draw. Right now, in fact, there's a new thread discussing "who has the most draw," which implies that monster draw is a possession of certain players. I posted in that thread and made the point that amount of draw depends only on CB contact point and speed of the stick at the point of the hit (and also angle of the hit, which I didn't mention).

But I WOULD very dearly like to prove that experimentally beyond any doubt. I'd like to show that a machine--or a totally inexperienced player--could achieve as much draw as the most dramatic draw shot you might see in a video (Mike Massey, Corey Deuel, for example), simply by hitting the CB near the miscue limit with a lot of speed (without regard to loose wrists, magically hand-built cues, or ideal grips).

I'm aware that all reasonable theory supports that there's no "magic" in stroking. I'd like to actually demonstrate it empirically. After that, for me, all the questions of pool physics would be settled.

I do think the subject of squirt is well understood (which doesn't mean that new technological approaches might not make major improvements).

 

[Patrick Johnson]

1. When spin is dealt with in billiard physics is assumes point contact. However, when you look at the chalk print on the CB, it is distributed over a large area. What are the effects of this large area distribution relative to the ideal "point" contact? Specifically, what is the optimal distribution of this area of contact, and what is the correct tip shape and aim point of the tip to optimize the tip-CB interaction so that it best approximates a point impact?

What potential advantage for a pool player is there to learning these things?

2. Given what is known about squirt, BHE, and combined BHE+FHE, what possible advantage is there to using an LD shaft, assuming that the user of the cue is skilled in judging the amount of FHE/BHE to be used for a particular shot?

We already know that the only significant effect of an LD shaft is low deflection. More physics won't tell us how to weigh the advantages of this.

I look forward to your proof of the first, and many LD shaft manufacturers look forward to your proof of the second.

I look forward to your "proof" (or even credible speculation) that any of this is potentially meaningful to a pool player.

I think what's being overlooked is that millions of pool players using scores of available stick/tip configurations have already pretty thoroughly mapped the range of potential effects, and they're pretty small.

pj
chgo