Low Deflection shafts

3andstop said:
... Now, if it (as I suspect) it alleviates a goodly portion of the squirt but still has you adjusting to some degree, then of course it would seem useless to me. It's after all no more effort to adjust a little or a little more. :) ...
Click to expand...

True; a low-squirt shaft is not a no-squirt shaft.
 
Masayoshi said:
...if the stroke arm is slightly off, the bridge wont force the cue to pivot on the bridge because there is a little bit of room for play in the bridge hand. In this case, a ld shaft will shoot the ball closer to the intended point than a standard shaft.
Click to expand...
A moving bridge hand can work either way, making the "effective bridge length" longer or shorter (depending on which way the hand moves).

pj
chgo
 
3andstop:
... It's after all no more effort to adjust a little or a little more.
Click to expand...
It's inherently more difficult (for anybody) to estimate a larger distance as precisely as a smaller one.

Maybe you mean the difference is within the acceptable margin of error...

pj
chgo
 
predator made the 314 first gen shaft. Then they added a cat under the 314. suppoedly the samei shaft, just with a kitty cat on it. Predator experimented with six- and 12 piece shafts and settled on ten piece. 1994-2001 were precat and most were 5/16-14 pin unless customized. standard tip was a water buffalo
 
...

If you need a really good LD Shaft with great feeling and stiffness........just take the Hybrid Pro II.......I play one and I´m really satisfied! Better than 314² or Z²......
 
Patrick Johnson said:
It's inherently more difficult (for anybody) to estimate a larger distance as precisely as a smaller one.

Maybe you mean the difference is within the acceptable margin of error...

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

So are you saying that it is easier for you to estimate a distance of 2 nanometers than it is to estimate a distance of 2 millimeters?

Just my opinion but I'd much rather have to guess at the 2 mm distance. Even easier for me would be 1/4 inch.
 
dr9ball said:
So are you saying that it is easier for you to estimate a distance of 2 nanometers than it is to estimate a distance of 2 millimeters?
Click to expand...
Yes, if you can see that finely. But to come back to reality: at the scale of squirt distances, it's easier to estimate a half inch correction accurately than a 1 inch correction.

I'd much rather have to guess at the 2 mm distance. Even easier for me would be 1/4 inch.
Click to expand...
Then I guess you're lucky we're not playing pool with electrons for balls.

pj
chgo
 
My experience with ld shafts, at least the laminated ones, has been bad. I've tried them and was not able to play with them. They are not for everyone. Try one on your cue before paying a bunch of money for one.
Now, I have ld shafts on my current playing cue but they are not laminated. They are cue-maker designed and do for me what the laminated shafts all said they could do and didn't.
Just my personal experience.
 
Pushout said:
My experience with ld shafts, at least the laminated ones, has been bad. I've tried them and was not able to play with them. They are not for everyone. Try one on your cue before paying a bunch of money for one.
Now, I have ld shafts on my current playing cue but they are not laminated. They are cue-maker designed and do for me what the laminated shafts all said they could do and didn't.
Just my personal experience.
Click to expand...
Laminating has nothing to do with LD.

pj
chgo
 
Low deflection in shafts has been around for some time even before the advent of the introduction of the HT technology . Rock hard canadian maple treated (10 yrs) has the same effect as all these new shafts . I have been using a 50 yr old shaft with med ivory ferrule and soft Kamui black tip and it plays as good if not better than all the new shafts i have tried . The older the wood being processed the harder it becomes . This is no trade secret . Old masters and cue custom artists knew this all along . But not every one has the time in their hands to wait . So now we have the new trend in shaft making .
 
buendia98 said:
Low deflection in shafts has been around for some time even before the advent of the introduction of the HT technology . Rock hard canadian maple treated (10 yrs) has the same effect as all these new shafts . I have been using a 50 yr old shaft with med ivory ferrule and soft Kamui black tip and it plays as good if not better than all the new shafts i have tried . The older the wood being processed the harder it becomes . This is no trade secret . Old masters and cue custom artists knew this all along . But not every one has the time in their hands to wait . So now we have the new trend in shaft making .
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the dimensions on your "Old wood" shaft, but I can assure you that from what you have described, it will not compare with the reduced cue ball squirt (aka deflection) of today's top of the line technology cue shafts.

Cue ball squirt, or deflection, is almost entirely a function of the tip end mass of the cue shaft as compared to the mass of the cue ball. Since the mass of the cue ball remains constant, then the only thing that can affect the cue ball squirt is the tip end mass of the cue shaft. The cue shaft that you described, regardless of how old the maple it was made with, will have a relatively high tip end mass which would result in more cue ball squirt (aka deflection).


If you find yourself at one of the larger events, where we will have a booth, come find me and I will be happy to demonstrate the differences I talk about. I've developed a few simple things that you can do with both your cue shaft and ours, that will demonstrate the difference to you.


I hope that helps!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top