Low Deflection Shafts?

ENGLISH!:
To me the low squirt shafts only take away a shot where one wants to squirt the ball out & bring it back with swerve to come into an object ball from that different angle. It does not really take it away but one just can't get has much of change in the approach angle.
Click to expand...
It doesn't do either one.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
ENGLISH!:
Please explain.
Click to expand...
1. Any "swerve shot" can be reproduced with any amount of squirt - you can simply aim a little more or less off line to get the same initial CB path (just like you aim differently with different shafts to get the same initial CB path on any other shot).

2. For the same reason, any approach angle can be created with any kind of shaft.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
bdcues said:
PJ, do all 13.00mm one piece maple shafts have the same deflection values? 12.75? 12.50? No. If they did any one could quantify deflection or swerve to be expected.

Yes, some ferrules are a bit heavier but I just changed the material on mine and the difference is about 00.33grams, a third of a gram. Changes in tip height can amount to almost the same. I have also made shafts with relatively heavy ferrules and there is no appreciable difference in deflection or swerve. You guys are all convinced that only the last 4" of shaft make a difference. If so the variation between all one piece maple shafts of the same diameter would be very slight and this is not true. If it is not true than something else must factor in.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you're basing your conclusion on your impressions rather than any carefully controlled comparisons. All careful testing to date has supported the theory that end mass is the significant factor in squirt.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
1. Any "swerve shot" can be made in exactly the same way with any amount of squirt - you can simply aim a little more or less off line to get the same initial CB path (just like you aim differently with different shafts to get the same initial CB path on any other shot).

2. For the same reason, any approach angle can be created with any kind of shaft.
Click to expand...
I think this sort of confusion arises because sometime people don't always fully understand that when using sidespin, one must aim in a different direction if a shaft creates more or less squirt (CB deflection) than what they are used to.

If you aim and hit a shot the exact same way with an LD shaft as compared to a non-LD shaft (with the same CB speed and cue elevation); obviously, the CB will not head in the same direction. However, if the shot is aimed properly (along a different line) with each shaft to send the CB in the desired direction, the CB can obviously react the exact same way with each shaft.

Regards,
Dave
 
azsportpilot said:
Do these “Low Deflection” shafts make much of a difference, if so which of the commonly found production ones seem to work best?

McDermott has their “G-Core” on the mid-line models and the “i2/i3” on their high end models
Viking has their VIKORE included on their better cues and eXactShot as an upgrade
Pechauer offers an optional Performance Plus “P-Plus” LD shaft
Jacoby offers the “Edge Hybrid” LD shaft as an option

The guys at the local pool hall swear by OB and Predator LD shafts added to your favorite cue

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I have two LD shafts, Lucasi Hybrid and a Z2. Obviously, I have standard shafts as well, but no single piece that are advertised as low deflection. I saw a comparison of LD shafts that showed many of the LD single piece shafts that claim LD are not LD at all, but in some cases worse.

Personally, I really like them, with my Z2 as my go to stick. From time to time I will shoot with a standard shaft and quickly go back.

There are a few shots that I have personally noticed a HUGE difference. One is that short distance super thin cut shot off the rail next to the pocket where you want to spin the CB down table. With a standard shaft I would consistantly under cut the ball, or even worse, completely whiff on the OB. Now I just take aim and blast away.

In general, I've just noticed significanly less adjustment required, which I belive is a really good thing. I personally like the solid feel they exude, others don't.

I think A and B players that became that way using a standard shaft will not like the change.....because why would they? So they can learn something over again? Doesn't make sense of course when one already can make all the adjustments without even thinking.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
1. Any "swerve shot" can be reproduced with any amount of squirt - you can simply aim a little more or less off line to get the same initial CB path (just like you aim differently with different shafts to get the same initial CB path on any other shot).

2. For the same reason, any approach angle can be created with any kind of shaft.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

So... if I go right up to the miscue point with a regular high squirt shaft & then do the same with an extremely low squirt shaft & hit them both at the same speed & with the same cue elevation, you're saying the results will be exactly the same.

Again, a difference makes no difference in your book.

Sorry, by I don't play out of your book & I would suggest that no one else do either.

RJ
NO,La.
 
Low Deflection Shaft Jacoby

Wednesday I had a chance to spend 30 minutes with a low deflection shaft made by Jacoby Cues.

The hit was a little stiff. It had a Kamui Super Soft with Clear ferrule and the squirt was very manageable. On around 2 diamonds of distance the adjustment was very very little and at 4 diamonds just a little more. I did get a lot more power transfer so you have to be careful but otherwise it was very easy to cope with and predictable. You just have to remember that its a low deflection shaft. It was about 12.75 I believe so it was easy to use.
 
ENGLISH! said:
So... if I go right up to the miscue point with a regular high squirt shaft & then do the same with an extremely low squirt shaft & hit them both at the same speed & with the same cue elevation, you're saying the results will be exactly the same.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention contact point, speed and elevation. I said the results can be reproduced with any shaft.

Are you trying to say that some masse curves can only be produced with certain shafts?

pj
chgo
 
bdcues said:
PJ can give his own explanation but I was thinking more about this last night after I posted the raise the butt response. Raising the butt puts a little masse on the cue effectively resulting in the same swerve you are talking about creating an angle in change. Problem is that angle in change happens every time you use a lot of English with standard one piece shafts (I will quantify this once by saying not all standard shafts have the same deflection values but for the sake of this discussion will say they do). So, you want to cut a ball to the left with a bunch of outside English. The cueball travels to the left and crosses to the right. Your angle into the ball has changed a slight bit causing the rebound angle to increase a bit... maybe about the same as putting a slight bit of draw on the ball. So to make the same shot with an LD shaft putting that slight bit of draw will do pretty much the same thing. Trouble with the standard shaft is you can not easily make the shot without the effect of widening the rebound angle. A bit of follow will help bu the angle out is still wider.

By the way, this is about the only sport I have seen where something that improves your odds of being successful is seen as a bad thing. Pretty funny.
Click to expand...

Hi Bob,

That's not the type shot that I had in mind.

Picture a very thin rather long cut shot, say very close to 90*, that you doubt that you can hit thin enough & make. So... you cue it with the most inside low, just short of the miscue point & squirt it out & bring it back with the swerve. The high squirt shaft will send it out farther & hence you can get a greater angle change from the different angle of approach.

But okay, yes you can still do it with a low squirt shaft but the parameters are going to be different as like you said, you will need to change the cue angle, elevation, etc. That is why I clarified after when I said that they don't really take them away.

I hope that explains what I thinking.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
It sounds like you're basing your conclusion on your impressions rather than any carefully controlled comparisons. All careful testing to date has supported the theory that end mass is the significant factor in squirt.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

sure, 20 some years of making LD shafts and all I have to go on is impressions. My impression is that you are greatly mistaken. By the way, most of that careful testing you declare as gospel (and included watching Meucci lie about which of two shafts had less deflection) has not even measured the effect different butts have on the same shaft. Or maybe you are one that believes there is no effect? And while end mass certainly is a large factor the effective end mass also determines squirt and can reduce squirt even though the end mass may be higher compared to another LD shaft with a different effective end mass.

Here's one for ya... Schuler had 8 different tapers including an LD shaft that I do not believe had a hole in the end. Think he did this for no reason? Think he did it because of impressions?
 
ENGLISH! said:
Hi Bob,

That's not the type shot that I had in mind.

Picture a very thin rather long cut shot, say very close to 90*, that you doubt that you can hit thin enough & make. So... you cue it with the most inside low, just short of the miscue point & squirt it out & bring it back with the swerve. The high squirt shaft will send it out farther & hence you can get a greater angle change from the different angle of approach.

But okay, yes you can still do it with a low squirt shaft but the parameters are going to be different as like you said, you will need to change the cue angle, elevation, etc. That is why I clarified after when I said that they don't really take them away.

I hope that explains what I thinking.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick
Click to expand...

Thanks.
I make that shot with extreme outside English and a little draw. Ball is going from left to right across the object ball but the spin allows you to cue the ball 90* pretty easy once you figure how much the nap effects the shot. I am aiming at the cut angle when shooting... not an inch or more to the inside of the ball that you would be using inside.
 
ENGLISH! said:
But okay, yes you can still do it with a low squirt shaft but the parameters are going to be different as like you said, you will need to change the cue angle, elevation, etc. That is why I clarified after when I said that they don't really take them away.
Click to expand...
You also said in your "clarification": "one just can't get has much of change in the approach angle". That's incorrect - the same initial direction, masse curve and approach angle to the OB can be reproduced with any normal cue.

pj
chgo
 
hang-the-9 said:
Well we all know non-American's have no idea how to play pool or judge a cue, so I guess it's OK if you think that way.

Not sure what that has to do with anything LOL, just because OB shafts are made in the US had nothing to do with my thoughts about them. I just think they have a much better feel than Predator, although still behind the custom shafts from Mike Webb I tried for the same price, and I like the Players HXT shafts that are almost 1/2 price just as much, just the Players shaft no longer works with how I'm aiming and hitting the ball, while the OB shaft I am using does.
Click to expand...

Because, outside of azb la-la land, nobody rates, cares or plays with OB.

Yet predator still sell by the bucket load, and are the pros cue of choice.
 
bdcues said:
PJ can give his own explanation but I was thinking more about this last night after I posted the raise the butt response. Raising the butt puts a little masse on the cue effectively resulting in the same swerve you are talking about creating an angle in change. Problem is that angle in change happens every time you use a lot of English with standard one piece shafts (I will quantify this once by saying not all standard shafts have the same deflection values but for the sake of this discussion will say they do). So, you want to cut a ball to the left with a bunch of outside English. The cueball travels to the left and crosses to the right. Your angle into the ball has changed a slight bit causing the rebound angle to increase a bit... maybe about the same as putting a slight bit of draw on the ball. So to make the same shot with an LD shaft putting that slight bit of draw will do pretty much the same thing. Trouble with the standard shaft is you can not easily make the shot without the effect of widening the rebound angle. A bit of follow will help bu the angle out is still wider.

By the way, this is about the only sport I have seen where something that improves your odds of being successful is seen as a bad thing. Pretty funny.
Click to expand...

And it's the only sport where people that cannot do something tell people who can do it what they can't do.
 
bdcues said:
sure, 20 some years of making LD shafts and all I have to go on is impressions. My impression is that you are greatly mistaken. By the way, most of that careful testing you declare as gospel (and included watching Meucci lie about which of two shafts had less deflection) has not even measured the effect different butts have on the same shaft. Or maybe you are one that believes there is no effect? And while end mass certainly is a large factor the effective end mass also determines squirt and can reduce squirt even though the end mass may be higher compared to another LD shaft with a different effective end mass.

Here's one for ya... Schuler had 8 different tapers including an LD shaft that I do not believe had a hole in the end. Think he did this for no reason? Think he did it because of impressions?
Click to expand...

I have noticed the same shaft on different butts produces different amounts of deflection.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I didn't mention contact point, speed and elevation. I said the results can be reproduced with any shaft.

Are you trying to say that some masse curves can only be produced with certain shafts?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Patrick,

I'm not inclined to discuss it any further with you. It just takes too much for us to get close to being on the same page. IMO your responses are too short & it's sort of like interrogating a criminal that does not want to say anything that might be used against him.

No, obviously I am not saying that the same shot can not be had by two different shafts but with different squirt shafts the specific levels of the parameters would have to vary.

If one were to objectively look at how you proceed one might think...well, I guess I'll just leave that for those objective individuals to make their own determinations.

RJ
NO,La,
 
Last edited:
bdcues said:
Thanks.
I make that shot with extreme outside English and a little draw. Ball is going from left to right across the object ball but the spin allows you to cue the ball 90* pretty easy once you figure how much the nap effects the shot. I am aiming at the cut angle when shooting... not an inch or more to the inside of the ball that you would be using inside.
Click to expand...

Bob,

I've shot with outside & inside english for nearly my whole playing life.

You're coming in from one side while my example is coming in from the other.

Let's use the straight line shot as a reference.

There are reasons that I would shoot it your way & reasons I would shoot it the way I described.

One reason I would shoot it how I described is if a ball 1/2 way between was blocking your method & as I say for CB position to change the angle of approach & subsequent tangent line that the CB would naturally take.

We have options but sometimes something takes one out of consideration.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top