You misfonted Naysayers and Science Guys.It's important to put those NaySayers and Science Guys in their place periodically. :grin-square:
Best regards,
Dave
You're welcome,
pj
chgo
You misfonted Naysayers and Science Guys.It's important to put those NaySayers and Science Guys in their place periodically. :grin-square:
Best regards,
Dave
It's important to put those NaySayers and Science Guys in their place periodically. :grin-square:
Best regards,
Dave
As an aside, I think this same principle is how fractional aiming systems work - by breaking up the range of possible cut angles into smaller "marked" subranges to make estimating actual cut angles within them easier. Kinda like adding calibration markings to a blank gauge....a small distance can be estimated more accurately than a large one.
Without a robot doing the testing on lots of samples, I won't trust any of the subjective ratings very much.
Even the "same" cue by the same maker will have a range of variation. Some standard deviations will be larger than others.
Without a robot doing the testing on lots of samples, I won't trust any of the subjective ratings very much.
Even the "same" cue by the same maker will have a range of variation. Some standard deviations will be larger than others.
So, if you're shaft has been modified, or is smaller in diameter than when new, your personal observations of cue ball squirt will not be consistent with new products of the same make and model.
Royce
To be truthful (for a change), I think squerve is probably the better spelling, because it emphasizes swerve more and I think swerve is the more troublesome effect.
pj
chgo
You misfonted Naysayers and Science Guys.
You're welcome,
pj
chgo
It's important to put those NaySayers and Science Guys in their place periodically. :grin-square:
Best regards,
Dave
Today, 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson View Post
To be truthful (for a change), I think squerve is probably the better spelling, because it emphasizes swerve more and I think swerve is the more troublesome effect.
pj
chgo
Nice to see you cry "Uncle".
JoeyA
Myself and several others on this forum have been looking for reliable information on ld shaft characteristics. My hope is this thread might be a source for us to keep updated. I would like to use a 1-10 scale in describing only the deflection or squirt characteristics of particular shafts.
10 being high deflection, 1 being minimal deflection.
Hopefully we can list as many shafts as possible and use this thread as a reference.
The best relatively objective testing I am aware of would be pivot based stop shot with side spin. If someone knows a better method without robot testing please let me know.
*****This should not turn into a shaft bashing thread. High or low squirt / deflection does not mean good or bad shafts. This is only an attempt at helping those interested find the shafts most suited to the individual searching.
I will begin with shafts I am recently familiar with and we can adjust and update as needed.
1 = minimal squirt / deflection. 10 = high squirt / deflection
These #'s are subjective but with enough input we can give a fairly accurate comparison.
Scale # - Brand - Model - Diameter - pivot point"
2.6 - OB - 2+ 11.75mm - ?
2.7 - OB - Pro + 11.75mm - ?
2.8 - Predator - Z2 11.75mm - 14
2.8 - Mezz - Ex Pro 12.5mm - ?
3.1 - Mezz - WX 900 12mm - ?
3.2 - OB - Classic + 12.75mm - 13.25
3.2 - Mezz - Hybrid Pro II 12.5mm - ?
3.4 - Jacoby - Hybrid Edge 12.5mm - 12.75
3.5 - Predator - 314-2 12.75mm - 12.5
3.5 - Mezz - WD700 12.5mm - 12.5
3.9 - Players - HXT 12.75mm - 11.5
4.5 - Mezz - Hybrid Alpha 12.8mm - ?
6.0 - Tiger - Ultra X LD 12.75mm - 8
8.0 - Prather - 13mm reg. shaft - 7
**** the "?" For pivot point means we do not have the data, the shaft is listed based on best guess. We can update when data comes in.
Myself and several others on this forum have been looking for reliable information on ld shaft characteristics. My hope is this thread might be a source for us to keep updated. I would like to use a 1-10 scale in describing only the deflection or squirt characteristics of particular shafts.
10 being high deflection, 1 being minimal deflection.
Hopefully we can list as many shafts as possible and use this thread as a reference.
The best relatively objective testing I am aware of would be pivot based stop shot with side spin. If someone knows a better method without robot testing please let me know.
*****This should not turn into a shaft bashing thread. High or low squirt / deflection does not mean good or bad shafts. This is only an attempt at helping those interested find the shafts most suited to the individual searching.
I will begin with shafts I am recently familiar with and we can adjust and update as needed.
1 = minimal squirt / deflection. 10 = high squirt / deflection
These #'s are subjective but with enough input we can give a fairly accurate comparison.
Scale # - Brand - Model - Diameter - pivot point"
2.6 - OB - 2+ 11.75mm - ?
2.7 - OB - Pro + 11.75mm - ?
2.8 - Predator - Z2 11.75mm - 14
2.8 - Mezz - Ex Pro 12.5mm - ?
3.1 - Mezz - WX 900 12mm - ?
3.2 - OB - Classic + 12.75mm - 13.25
3.2 - Mezz - Hybrid Pro II 12.5mm - ?
3.4 - Jacoby - Hybrid Edge 12.5mm - 12.75
3.5 - Predator - 314-2 12.75mm - 12.5
3.5 - Mezz - WD700 12.5mm - 12.5
3.9 - Players - HXT 12.75mm - 11.5
4.5 - Mezz - Hybrid Alpha 12.8mm - ?
6.0 - Tiger - Ultra X LD 12.75mm - 8
8.0 - Prather - 13mm reg. shaft - 7
**** the "?" For pivot point means we do not have the data, the shaft is listed based on best guess. We can update when data comes in.
I have owned the wx900 and H P II along with several others and I can comfortably say that the Z2 and Wx900 are almost the exact same. Also Mezz has stated on their website that the Ex Pro and Hybrid Pro II have almost the same amount of deflection with the WX900 has the least out of all of them.
Also I just got a new 314-3 Shaft and its really close to the HP II.
Still like to see a comparison not only between LD shafts but also standard maple shafts. Since some say it is all hype.