LD wood vs Carbon Fiber?

[Sedog]

Looking for a better understanding of low deflection wood shafts versus carbon fiber.
As I understand it, LD wood shafts have a lower end mass allowing the shaft to deflect more and the object ball to deflect less.
Now the Carbon Fiber shaft is lighter with a low end mass but it’s very stiff and does not deflect much if any. As
I understand it this would allow the object ball to deflect more. So, how can both be called Low Deflection?
It seems to me that that the Carbon Fiber shaft would play more like an old fat wood shaft, if my understanding is correct.
Where am I going wrong?
Thanks in advance.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Looking for a better understanding of low deflection wood shafts versus carbon fiber.
As I understand it, LD wood shafts have a lower end mass allowing the shaft to deflect more and the object ball to deflect less.
Now the Carbon Fiber shaft is lighter with a low end mass but it’s very stiff and does not deflect much if any. As
I understand it this would allow the object ball to deflect more. So, how can both be called Low Deflection?
It seems to me that that the Carbon Fiber shaft would play more like an old fat wood shaft, if my understanding is correct.
Where am I going wrong?
Thanks in advance.

All shafts “deflect” the same amount while in contact with the CB (the distance the CB rotates during contact) - they might differ in the amount of deflection they exhibit after contact... but, of course, that doesn’t affect the CB.

Shaft stiffness has a small effect during tip/ball contact, but the main difference for squirt is how much “end mass” (weight near the tip) the CB must move sideways during contact.

pj
chgo

 

[middleofnowhere]

Im going by an old memory but I remember Bob Meucci explaining to me his long taper. He claimed that the tip stayed on a more straight line rather then deflect from the cue ball so much due to the shaft actually buckling. In other words the shaft compressed and bent. I remember doing the experiment with Bobs cue with a huge amount of inside English on a follow shot. You had to not compensate but aim exactly at the spot on the ball you wanted to hit.

After a few tries it was amazing it worked. The object ball went in and the cue ball came spinning around the table. The hardest part was making yourself aim as your subconscious was telling you to aim differently. I don't know if the lack of deflection was due to what Bob described with the shaft buckling, but the effect was in fact real. I wasn't the only one to try the experiment, we all tried it and it worked.
We need Dr. Dave to put this to rest, if he already hasn't, with some high speed photography.

Just as an added thought, I wonder if an open hand bridge may also assist in the cue moving aside and decreasing the deflection.
I'm using the term deflection, I don't know what term is correct deflection or squirt but you know what I am referring to.

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

Dont want to throw a sub question but, why do people pay extra for Lakewood, or Old Wood shafts. Like from old bowling alleys?

Then because of density, and less side ti side movement. Because of grain structure.

 

[garczar]

Im going by an old memory but I remember Bob Meucci explaining to me his long taper. He claimed that the tip stayed on a more straight line rather then deflect from the cue ball so much due to the shaft actually buckling. In other words the shaft compressed and bent. I remember doing the experiment with Bobs cue with a huge amount of inside English on a follow shot. You had to not compensate but aim exactly at the spot on the ball you wanted to hit.

After a few tries it was amazing it worked. The object ball went in and the cue ball came spinning around the table. The hardest part was making yourself aim as your subconscious was telling you to aim differently. I don't know if the lack of deflection was due to what Bob described with the shaft buckling, but the effect was in fact real. I wasn't the only one to try the experiment, we all tried it and it worked.
We need Dr. Dave to put this to rest, if he already hasn't, with some high speed photography.

Just as an added thought, I wonder if an open hand bridge may also assist in the cue moving aside and decreasing the deflection.
I'm using the term deflection, I don't know what term is correct deflection or squirt but you know what I am referring to.

He also used lighter ferrule that helped. They were somewhat LD but not as much as the Predators that followed.

 

[hang-the-9]

Looking for a better understanding of low deflection wood shafts versus carbon fiber.
As I understand it, LD wood shafts have a lower end mass allowing the shaft to deflect more and the object ball to deflect less.
Now the Carbon Fiber shaft is lighter with a low end mass but it’s very stiff and does not deflect much if any. As
I understand it this would allow the object ball to deflect more. So, how can both be called Low Deflection?
It seems to me that that the Carbon Fiber shaft would play more like an old fat wood shaft, if my understanding is correct.
Where am I going wrong?
Thanks in advance.

I think people get into this discussion over what is needed. The way to see if a shaft is LD is to aim straight an a point several feet away with side spin and see where the cueball contacts. If it's close to the area, say an inch or two, the shaft is what I would call LD. Why or how, it's up to the cuemaker to decide and physics to just do.

There is no need to talk much about why it should or should not work, if it works it works. It's like gravity, you don't need to know how it works or explain what it is, or even believe in it like the flat earthers don't, it will still work the same way regardless. What is seems to you and what it does are different here, and what it does would certainly win out.

I don't think that how stiff or hard of a material for the shaft is really matters much to how the cueball deflects, I think it's all in the endmass of the cue. If the first 10 inches of a wood shaft are 2 oz and the first 10 inches of a CF shaft are 2 oz, they should deflect the same. The flexing of the shaft away from the hit probably has very little to do with deflection and the hit is certainty too fast for the shaft to try to rebound back in line by the time the hit is over to shove the cueball away with that action, like when you bend a tree branch to whack someone in the face that's behind you.

 

[Nyquil]

I wouldn't worry about the deflection differences. The benefit to carbon fiber to me is how much slicker the surface area is, ease of keeping it clean, being more resistant to knicks/dings, and being very warp resistant.

 

[Thunder Thighs]

Dont want to throw a sub question but, why...

You just did

 

[MattPoland]

A CF shaft is stiff but it’s not steel and your bridge is not iron. A CF shaft isn’t bendy but it deflects plenty. Just like an arrow shot at a bowling ball, it gets out of the way enough. When the CB pushes laterally against the shaft, it doesn’t push back by much.

Therefore the cueball deflects less.

 

[iusedtoberich]

The affect of stiffness is negligible. Only the end mass has an affect. (ps, should this usage be effect or affect?) Lots of experiments have been done to prove this, and lots of equations have been derived to prove it. They are all on Dr Dave's site.

BTW, I believe CF has a higher density than maple. So for a given cross section, CF would actually be heavier. This means a CF shaft must have a thinner wall than a maple shaft in order to deflect the CB less.

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

I never understand this LD shaft stuff. I like to learn about them though.

 

[pw98]

The affect of stiffness is negligible. Only the end mass has an affect. (ps, should this usage be effect or affect?) Lots of experiments have been done to prove this, and lots of equations have been derived to prove it. They are all on Dr Dave's site.

BTW, I believe CF has a higher density than maple. So for a given cross section, CF would actually be heavier. This means a CF shaft must have a thinner wall than a maple shaft in order to deflect the CB less.

Effect

 

[td873]

I shot with a predator 314-3 and then switched to cynergy 12.5. No noticeable difference in playability. Plug and play for me. The real differences - 1) CF stays smooth longer + easier to clean. (2) you can rake the balls with CF without dinging your shaft. Actually - no dings is probably the #1 benefit to me. I’ve dropped it probably a dozen times and good as new. I guess I’m clumsy. Lol.

-td

 

[garczar]

The sub-12mm cf shafts have insanely low deflection. I don't like shafts that small but they are amazing technology.

 

[dr_dave]

The affect of stiffness is negligible. Only the end mass has an affect. (ps, should this usage be effect or affect?) Lots of experiments have been done to prove this, and lots of equations have been derived to prove it. They are all on Dr Dave's site.

Everything can be found here:

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Squirt (CB Deflection)​

Of particular interest might be:

what causes squirt?

endmass and stiffness effects​

 

[Woodshaft]

I went from 35 years with a standard maple shaft, to the predator vantage for about a year, then tried the revo 12.9, also for about a year, finally settling on the vantage now. I'm 55 yo and, for me, it's easier to aim/sight with the light color of the wood shaft vs. the black revo-- especially in poorly lit bars. Basically, I shoot more accurately with the wood vantage. The revo is definitely nice too though-- same ld as the vantage imo.

 

[NathanDetroit]

I went from 35 years with a standard maple shaft, to the predator vantage for about a year, then tried the revo 12.9, also for about a year, finally settling on the vantage now. I'm 55 yo and, for me, it's easier to aim/sight with the light color of the wood shaft vs. the black revo-- especially in poorly lit bars. Basically, I shoot more accurately with the wood vantage. The revo is definitely nice too though-- same ld as the vantage imo.

At 70, I find light is a major factor. The bowling alley in which my league plays is dark on the non-bowling side.

I have improved my game by putting in my own lights. $22 for 8 led 100w replacement bulbs.