Low Deflection shaft question and thoughts

[3andstop]

After reading the recent thread on LD shafts I had to post.

First, I want to qualify what I'm about to say by saying I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

I've been playing about 45 yrs or so not counting the 5 yrs in my basement as a kid with our Sears table. (LOL) Anyway, every time I read about this subject I get more confused and feel like its all hype.

I think if people found out Irving Crane carried a purple rabbit's foot to shoot better, ( he didn't that I know of) then half the people that tried carrying one would shoot better.

I'd like to explain why and get straightened out. ( I hope)

When I think of the term LD I think of the cue ball not moving off its intended path due to a hit off center horizontally by the cue stick.

I believe that at a given speed of the hit there is X amount of potential deflection.

Then I think, it's like a shock absorber on a car. The stiffer the shock the more your butt deflects off the seat in the car. ( With the shock being the cue stick and your butt being the cue ball.)

The more give the shock has the more of that X factor is taken up by the shock and the less your butt deflects off the seat.

Now, I ponder, how in the world can a shaft laminated with wood going in every direction be more forgiving ( less stiff) than a regular old maple shaft with a long 18" in taper at 12.5 mm.??

I dunno, I think it's contradictory.

I also feel like some of these comparisons are not taking into account the tips that are on each respective shaft.

I replaced my LePro tip with a Triangle (which I like) but it does deflect more than the LePro on the same shaft.

I think the tip is the deal here more than anything and I still feel like a laminated shaft ( like plywood grain going in different directions) has to be stiffer than a regular shaft and therefore absorb less shock and therefore transfer more shock to the cue ball which in my mind would make it deflect more.

 

[Jal]

....Anyway, every time I read about this subject I get more confused and feel like its all hype.

It's part hype. For one, the term "low deflection" should be "reduced deflection" - it's not as if squirt (cueball deflection) is diminished to a very low value (e.g., something like 10% of a standard cue). For another, claims that you can put significantly more spin on the cueball are false. If you can, it's just a hair more, and there are good reasons for believing that's not even true.

I think if people found out Irving Crane carried a purple rabbit's foot to shoot better, ( he didn't that I know of) then half the people that tried carrying one would shoot better.

It is hard to separate the placebo effect from any real benefit sometimes. But there is an advantage to reduced squirt: the potential error in compensating for it should be less.

I believe that at a given speed of the hit there is X amount of potential deflection.

Squirt is virtually independent of stick speed. This has been tested. However, swerve, which is the curved path the cueball traverses on the way to the object ball, is not. Swerve tends to "undo" the initial deflection of the cueball, but not in an exact manner (unless the shooter, by some means, e.g., experience, deliberately balances the two). The faster the shot, the less time cloth friction has to operate and re-direct the cueball, and so it appears that you get more squirt. The combined effects of squirt and swerve are sometimes called "squerve."

Then I think, it's like a shock absorber on a car. The stiffer the shock the more your butt deflects off the seat in the car. ( With the shock being the cue stick and your butt being the cue ball.)

The more give the shock has the more of that X factor is taken up by the shock and the less your butt deflects off the seat.

Now, I ponder, how in the world can a shaft laminated with wood going in every direction be more forgiving ( less stiff) than a regular old maple shaft with a long 18" in taper at 12.5 mm.??

I dunno, I think it's contradictory.

I also feel like some of these comparisons are not taking into account the tips that are on each respective shaft.

I replaced my LePro tip with a Triangle (which I like) but it does deflect more than the LePro on the same shaft.

I think the tip is the deal here more than anything and I still feel like a laminated shaft ( like plywood grain going in different directions) has to be stiffer than a regular shaft and therefore absorb less shock and therefore transfer more shock to the cue ball which in my mind would make it deflect more.

Overall, I think you're right - that stiffness should, in fact, increase squirt. But it's more complicated than that. These cues produce less squirt because they have less mass where it counts most, near the tip. It's usually referred to as "endmass", or maybe more appropriately "effective endmass." How much stiffness adds to it is not easy to derive in a quantitative way. I would thing that structural engineers have a pretty good idea, but no one's offered an equation on this forum, to my knowledge.

Another question might be, are these shafts really stiffer, particularly where they've been cored out (in the last few inches). This is the section that is pushed aside, for the most part, as the ball rotates during impact. The I-beam principle applies, since it's the center of the shaft that's been removed, but it's not necessarily true that they are in fact stiffer in this region.

Jim

 

[mdavis228]

If you'll look more deeply into it, you'll find that the over riding factor that reduces deflection in the LD shafts is the reduction of weight in the front end. The shaft provides impact for directionality & spin production, but with lesser weight opposing the mass of the cue ball, the ball is pushed off line less. The pie shaped, etc, laminations are primarily intended to provide radially consistency - ie, eliminate the "spine" effect that occurs in a conventional shaft as a matter of the nature of wood being stiffer in one direction than another.
There are always going to be those that consider it snake oil. I'm not among them. There're also always going to be those so used to making unconscious adjustments necessary to accomodate for cue ball deflection - due to many years & hours of playing time with conventional shafts, that they aren't comfortable with, or willing to, accept a re-learning period that really isn't needed for them to play well.
As for the, I believe undeniable, fact that reduction of front end mass will contribute to reduced deflection and aid in more controlled & consistent spin velocity generation, with less effort, due to keeping whitey more in line - I'll refer all to the work being done by, for instance, Black Boar & Cash Cues, as well as numerous other cuemakers who are finding success in experiments with front end mass reduction.
My own experience with ferrule-less shafts by Cash Cues, is that these shafts' design & material selection greatly reduce cue ball deflection, while producing excellent spin velocity - though not quite at the level achieved from OB shafts. The hit feel is a different, and personal, matter of course - as is the effect of various tips & tapers. The ferrule-less shafts do provide that meaty, "full" feeling of a conventional wood shaft while delivering on the increased performance features.
I still use OB1 shafts as a staple at this point, but I very much enjoy, and appreciate, the shafts Tommy made for me.

 

[Cue Guru]

This is a subject that I find interesting and I'd like to say that I believe a lot of the misunderstanding of the entire concept would be greatly reduced if it was specified as to WHAT deflection is reduced.

I play with a very stiff (and therefore) low deflection shaft. The SHAFT does not deflect (so the ball does). That is what "Low Deflection Shaft" means to me.

A 'whippy' shaft (for lack of a better term) deflects more, so it to is a low deflection shaft because it deflects the BALL less. As far as I understand this marketing package, THIS is what is intended. It would be more technically accurate (to me at least) if these 'new technology' shafts were called "high deflection shafts" but that doesn't sound like a 'better' shaft; hence the misnomer.

In a nut shell, something has to give at impact (or something will break at impact). Either the shaft gives way, or the ball does. There are now a lot of ways to make either happen.

For me, I'll stick with my fat, ugly, solid maple shafts with old-fashioned Ivory ferrules.

And I also agree with the 'placebo affect' as mentioned. That is worth quite a bit actually (and not just with cue shafts)...

 

[3andstop]

I play with a very stiff (and therefore) low deflection shaft. The SHAFT does not deflect (so the ball does). That is what "Low Deflection Shaft" means to me.

Your explanation certainly is confusing. If what you say is accurate, and by my thoughts it has to be, why would anyone want the ball to deflect more when the less deflecting whippy shaft is available?

BTW, I play with an older Meucci original. When I need a new shaft, I buy one for 40 bucks on ebay and I turn it down to a long 12.5mm taper so it too is whippy. And, as I mentioned, the Triangle tip has increased deflection from the LePro I had prior.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I play with a very stiff (and therefore) low deflection shaft. The SHAFT does not deflect (so the ball does). That is what "Low Deflection Shaft" means to me.

Me too, but then "low deflection shaft" doesn't mean anything useful because a shaft's high or low deflection doesn't significantly affect the amount of "squirt" (or anything else about the shot, to my knowledge).

A 'whippy' shaft (for lack of a better term) deflects more, so it to is a low deflection shaft because it deflects the BALL less.

As I said, shaft deflection doesn't significantly affect CB squirt. Tests have shown this.

... something has to give at impact (or something will break at impact). Either the shaft gives way, or the ball does.

They both do - the shaft deflects and the CB squirts. But the shaft's flexibility doesn't seem to affect either during the very brief time of contact. I assume this is because, given the flexibility of your bridge hand, there's enough room for the tip to move sideways that little bit without the shaft flexing.

pj
chgo

 

[3andstop]

As I said, shaft deflection doesn't significantly affect CB squirt. Tests have shown this.



They both do - the shaft deflects and the CB squirts. But the shaft's flexibility doesn't seem to affect either during the very brief time of contact. I assume this is because, given the flexibility of your bridge hand, there's enough room for the tip to move sideways that little bit without the shaft flexing.

pj
chgo

Now I know why I'm always confused when I read LD threads. :thud:

 

[JoeW]

I agree that there is a lot of hype. “And yet,” I thought to myself, “There might be something to it.” So I bought a Predator Z shaft. Now I have to admit that I like a thin, snooker type shaft for my relatively small hands. So the thin shaft was my primary reason for buying – and – to try the new technology cause I am a little bit of a technology buff.
I am old enough that I don’t really give a darn what most people say or think anymore. I simply want to know if it makes my game better --- How to tell?

Well, I designed my own test and probably re-invented somebody’s wheel. I placed an object ball 3 inches off the foot rail on the diamond and shot with the cue ball from the other end of the table. I used my regular shaft that came with my cue stick (worth a couple a grand) until I felt comfortable that I was hitting the OB dead center for four or five shots. I could tell it was dead center because the OB came back and kicked the CB back on the same line.

OK, I was ready. To run the test I hit center ball with one tip of left then right English for five runs. I noted the amount of off center hit on the OB by noting the OB angle of return from the rail.

Then I switched cues shafts and used the Z shaft noting the angle of departure for this run. (I kept a chart of my findings).

The Z shaft produced less deflection as measured by the magnitude of the return angle of the OB.

The low deflection shaft was better and I had been playing with the original expensive shaft for probably 10 years.

Well, I still did not like the idea of bastardizing my high grade equipment so I ran the test two or three more times, not sure exactly how many times as it was a while ago. But there are definitely three separate test runs of this type. I had to conclude that the Z was a better tool and I have now been playing with it alone for about two years.

There is a little bit of a hitch to this story. I would really rather play with the original equipment: The purity thing and all that involves comes into play here. But the Z shaft is simply a better tool, so it is what I use. I now rationalize (rational lie) that I can save the original shafts (there are two of them) for my grandchildren and they can make a buck when I am gone.

Theory, hype and all the jawing in the world would not have converted me and I am a reluctant user of the Z shaft because it works.


"And that is all I have to say about that." Forest Gump.

"We become scientists because we do not know and we love our state of ignornance" Me, Several times over many years.

PS, Before anyone jumps, I did take into consideration the differences in shaft diameters and the distance from center ball, etc, etc.

 

[dabarbr]

I agree that there is a lot of hype. “And yet,” I thought to myself, “There might be something to it.” So I bought a Predator Z shaft. Now I have to admit that I like a thin, snooker type shaft for my relatively small hands. So the thin shaft was my primary reason for buying – and – to try the new technology cause I am a little bit of a technology buff.
I am old enough that I don’t really give a darn what most people say or think anymore. I simply want to know if it makes my game better --- How to tell?

Well, I designed my own test and probably re-invented somebody’s wheel. I placed an object ball 1 inch off the foot rail on the diamond and shot with the cue ball from the other end of the table. I used my regular shaft that came with my cue stick (worth a couple a grand) until I felt comfortable that I was hitting the OB dead center for four or five shots. I could tell it was dead center because the OB came back and kicked the CB back on the same line.

OK, I was ready. To run the test I hit center ball with one tip of left then right English for five runs. I noted the amount of off center hit on the OB by noting the OB angle of return from the rail.

Then I switched cues shafts and used the Z shaft noting the angle of departure for this run. (I kept a chart of my findings).

The Z shaft produced less deflection as measured by the magnitude of the return angle of the OB.

The low deflection shaft was better and I had been playing with the original expensive shaft for probably 10 years.

Well, I still did not like the idea of bastardizing my high grade equipment so I ran the test two or three more times, not sure exactly how many times as it was a while ago. But there are definitely three separate test runs of this type. I had to conclude that the Z was a better tool and I have now been playing with it alone for about two years.

There is a little bit of a hitch to this story. I would really rather play with the original equipment: The purity thing and all that involves comes into play here. But the Z shaft is simply a better tool, so it is what I use. I now rationalize (rational lie) that I can save the original shafts (there are two of them) for my grandchildren and they can make a buck when I am gone.

Theory, hype and all the jawing in the world would not have converted me and I am a reluctant user of the Z shaft because it works.


"And that is all I have to say about that." Forest Gump.

"We become scientists because we do not know and we love our state of ignornance" Me, Several times over many years.

PS, Before anyone jumps, I did take into consideration the differences in shaft diameters and the distance from center ball, etc, etc.

Nice post and well said. Like the saying says "the truth is in the pudding".

 

[Roadkill]

In my opinion, you guys are over analyzing this topic BIGTIME. Our subconscious mind can and will compensate. The best thing to do is avoid sidespin and run out as much as possible. IMO.

 

[Jal]

Now I know why I'm always confused when I read LD threads. :thud:

Deflection is a generic term that can be applied to either the cueball or the shaft. In order to avoid confusion, it's better to use the term "squirt" when referring to the cueball, and "deflection" when referring to the shaft. You seemed to use "low deflection" as synonymous with "low squirt" in your original post, and I went along with it, since sometimes others use it similarly. But the other posters in this thread are using "deflection" in the more conventional (careful) way, i.e., referring to the tip/shaft.

With that hopefully cleared up, a more flexible shaft will, in principle, produce less squirt. An absolutely rigid cue - one that didn't bend at all, from the tip to the bumper - would produce more squirt than a conventional cue. It would do this because, obviously, more "endmass" would have to be set into sideways motion to maintain non-sliding tip/ball contact as the ball rotated. In the real world, as far as the geometry of the bend is concerned, the difference between "flexible" and "stiff" apparently isn't much.

Jim

 

[Jal]

--- Duplicate deleted. ----

 

[enzo]

After reading the recent thread on LD shafts I had to post.

First, I want to qualify what I'm about to say by saying I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

I've been playing about 45 yrs or so not counting the 5 yrs in my basement as a kid with our Sears table. (LOL) Anyway, every time I read about this subject I get more confused and feel like its all hype.

I think if people found out Irving Crane carried a purple rabbit's foot to shoot better, ( he didn't that I know of) then half the people that tried carrying one would shoot better.

I'd like to explain why and get straightened out. ( I hope)

When I think of the term LD I think of the cue ball not moving off its intended path due to a hit off center horizontally by the cue stick.

I believe that at a given speed of the hit there is X amount of potential deflection.

Then I think, it's like a shock absorber on a car. The stiffer the shock the more your butt deflects off the seat in the car. ( With the shock being the cue stick and your butt being the cue ball.)

The more give the shock has the more of that X factor is taken up by the shock and the less your butt deflects off the seat.

Now, I ponder, how in the world can a shaft laminated with wood going in every direction be more forgiving ( less stiff) than a regular old maple shaft with a long 18" in taper at 12.5 mm.??

I dunno, I think it's contradictory.

I also feel like some of these comparisons are not taking into account the tips that are on each respective shaft.

I replaced my LePro tip with a Triangle (which I like) but it does deflect more than the LePro on the same shaft.

I think the tip is the deal here more than anything and I still feel like a laminated shaft ( like plywood grain going in different directions) has to be stiffer than a regular shaft and therefore absorb less shock and therefore transfer more shock to the cue ball which in my mind would make it deflect more.

i thought about all this before i went to low deflection- and i had some of the same concerns as you do, and here is what i came up with.

about the shock absorber in the car example..... see, the reason these shafts are so revolutionary (and they really are), is that the overall weight of the cue does not change, and when you consider it in more of a physical sense, a cue with a given weight will have a certain momentum through impact, and that overall weight is more important than shaft weight when considering this effect of the butt swinging out as you mention. what they have done in effect is more strategically place the weight in a cue to where you wont get as much deflection, and you also wont suffer any deleterious "lateral" effects as you were thinking may exist. now, does the changing of the weight placement in a cue change its overall hit or feel, well, this is more arguable. what i dont think is arguable is the fact that ld shafts give less deflection and really dont give you any real world playing ill effects.

ive thought about all this tip stuff too. hit and deflection is very dependant on the tip. here is where you may have strayed off course, in my estimation.... tips deflect more yet put more spin on the ball when they are very small or down close to the ferrule. high tips deflect less, play "softer" and put less spin on the ball. im not sure when you went from le pro to triangle what the dynamic was exactly, but i know from experience that triangle are better, more consistent tips. le pros should just be avoided nowadays unless you find a 30 year old box of them in your attic.