Low Deflection Shafts?

[ENGLISH!]

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

As I said it just takes too much for us to get on the same page.

If I were inclined to continue with you, I would ask that you provide my exact words in the form of a direct quote so as to accurately clear up what if any real confusion that there might be.

RJ
NO,La.

 

[bdcues]

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

Got it. Main point I was trying to get across was that I am aiming the cut angle not figuring out how much of the ball I have to aim at or how far away from the ball I have to aim.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I have a Predator 314 CAT, a McDermott i2, a OB Classic & 2 OB Pros.

The Predator has a bit of a whippy feeling but probably has the least squirt. I should mention that it was taken down to 12mm.

The McDermott i2 probably feels the most like a regular maple but has the most squirt. It's low, but compared to the others has a bit more squirt.

The OB Classic feels very much like the i2 & a regular maple but with considerable less squirt than the i2.

The OB Pros have nearly the least squirt but just a bit more squirt than the taken down 314 but they feel very much like a regular maple with very very little squirt & without that whippy feeling.

The I2 & OB Classic are 12.75 mm with pro tapers.

The OB Pros are 11.75 mm with a European Conical taper.

I really like the OBs & especially the Pro as I grew up with a European conical taper. The regular maple feel with the low low squirt is a great combination to me.

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. That type shot does not come up that often. So, it's an extremely small sacrifice to make for the many benefits of a low squirt shaft.

That's the statement that I made. It was not said in a class room setting but merely in a conversation type context. To make it clear, I should have said, with ALL else being equal. Which since the subject was comparing types of shafts, I would think most would understand that, but obviously, you have made it quite clear that there are some, or at least one, of which that is not the case.

I hope this clarifies it for YOU.

RJ
NO,La.

 

[xXGEARXx]

I have noticed the same shaft on different butts produces different amounts of deflection.

Absolutely true.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I have noticed the same shaft on different butts produces different amounts of deflection.

Bob Meucci's tests for his black dot shafts would indicate the same thing.

I've brought up the subject a few times here but it went nowhere.

The point being that it's not just the shaft, it's the cue in its totality.

I think those tests & what a Adam Balabushka butt did was the conception of Mr. Meucci's Power Piston Butt Technology.

It really is a shame that conversations about certain subjects just can't seem to be had here on a billiards forum due to the closed minds & immature uncivil actions of just a couple of handfuls of individuals.

 

[bdcues]

Bob Meucci's tests for his black dot shafts would indicate the same thing.

I've brought up the subject a few times here but it went nowhere.

The point being that it's not just the shaft, it's the cue in its totality.

The gospel has been set.
The tablets have been engraved.
It is only the last 4" that make a difference.
Any thing else is heresy.

Please... don't bring it up again as I would hate for others to learn something or for them to think you are a nut case. Just let them believe the world is flat.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The gospel has been set.
The tablets have been engraved.
It is only the last 4" that make a difference.
Any thing else is heresy.

Please... don't bring it up again as I would hate for others to learn something or for them to think you are a nut case. Just let them believe the world is flat.

It may be too late, Bob.

I added a couple of statements after you hit the quote button.

Probably not though.

Bigger things have been let slide & gone seemingly unnoticed.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

 

[bdcues]

It may be too late, Bob.

I added a couple of statements after you hit the quote button.

Probably not though.

Bigger things have been let slide & gone seemingly unnoticed.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

Not to worry, I kind of like it that way.

 

[AtLarge]

I hope I don't misrepresent his thinking, but Bob Meucci is a believer in the butt having an effect on cue-ball squirt.

Bob came to this position rather accidentally. One of the cues he built for his 97 Series (model 97-21) was constructed with a combination of plastics and wood (that is more flexible than an all-hardwood butt) for reasons having nothing to do with squirt. But when he tested the cue for squirt, he discovered that the construction had a beneficial effect. That led Bob to develop a whole bunch of cues constructed similarly, and he dubbed it his "Power Piston technology."

Yes, I fully realize that this is inconsistent with the science that says that nothing about the butt can affect squirt because the CB is gone from the tip before the transverse shock wave reaches the butt.

[Re-posted from a thread last year.]

 

[ENGLISH!]

I hope I don't misrepresent his thinking, but Bob Meucci is a believer in the butt having an effect on cue-ball squirt.

Bob came to this position rather accidentally. One of the cues he built for his 97 Series (model 97-21) was constructed with a combination of plastics and wood (that is more flexible than an all-hardwood butt) for reasons having nothing to do with squirt. But when he tested the cue for squirt, he discovered that the construction had a beneficial effect. That led Bob to develop a whole bunch of cues constructed similarly, and he dubbed it his "Power Piston technology."

Yes, I fully realize that this is inconsistent with the science that says that nothing about the butt can affect squirt because the CB is gone from the tip before the transverse shock wave reaches the butt.

[Re-posted from a thread last year.]

When Mr. Meucci was doing the comparisons of cues with their stock shafts vs his Black Dot shaft, he put an Adam Balabushka cue made by Helmstetter on the machine & it hit with the least squirt of any other cue & better than most even with the Meucci Black Dot shaft on them.

When it did, he immediately commented that it must be a very well made butt. When he put his Black Dot shaft on the butt it had the least amount of improvement of all of the other cues & the reason was because it hit the best in the first place even with the stock regular maple shaft.

That was a full spliced butt made by Helmstetter.

I'm not sure, but I think that that is what made Mr. Meucci 'play around' with how he made that butt to which you're referring.

I'm sorry to say it, but compared to golf, tennis, baseball, etc. there is almost no real significant scientific study that has been done with regards to pool.

Like someone here has already asked, if it's just in the front end mass of the shaft that makes the difference then why does a given shaft have different results when put on different butts. IMO that is one example of how incomplete the 'science' is when it comes to pool.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

 

[dr_dave]

if it's just in the front end mass of the shaft that makes the difference then why does a given shaft have different results when put on different butts. IMO that is one example of how incomplete the 'science' is when it comes to pool.

Physics and careful testing clearly show that squirt (CB deflection) depends only on the effective endmass of the shaft. Therefore, the butt can have no effect on squirt (CB deflection). For more info, see what causes squirt (CB deflection).

However, for a given stroke speed and cue elevation, changing the butt can have an effect on CB swerve and therefore net or effective CB deflection (AKA squerve). For example, if the weight of the butt is different, the CB speed will be different (for a given stroke). CB speed does not affect squirt, but it does affect swerve. Also, the butt can affect the efficiency of the cue's hit, which can also change the CB speed and resulting swerve.

Swerve is a function of CB speed, cue elevation, and ball/cloth conditions. It has nothing to do with the properties of the shaft. That's why when shafts are tested for squirt (CB deflection), the machines should keep the cue horizontal so stroke speed and the butt will have no effect on the measurements of the shaft characteristics. Results from some squirt-testing machines (like Meucci's "Myth Creator" machine) can be misleading and seemingly in conflict with well understood and tested concepts. For more information, see the bullets on the squirt robot test results resource page.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...if it's just in the front end mass of the shaft that makes the difference then why does a given shaft have different results when put on different butts.

Who says that happens? Where are the controlled tests supporting it?

IMO that is one example of how incomplete the 'science' is when it comes to pool.

That's an(other) example of your lack of knowledge and understanding of the science. The fact that you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't known.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

I saw both of the previous two posts coming but I thought there might be a few posts before they both arrived.

IMO Mr. Meuccis's test shots were consistent hits & on the equator so that the spin was on a flat axis & with enough speed to take out the effect of swerve.

Any individual that is truly interested will have to make their own determination & perhaps do their own testing.

We do not play pool in the isolation of a vacuum.

I seriously doubt that Mr. Muecci placed a different Black Dot Shaft on all of the different butts that had the same joint.

Dave,

Why has no one, including yourself, done the tests 'appropriately' as you outlined that they should be done. Or have they? If so, where are the results of those tests. Also, if no appropriate testing has been done, then how can any appropriate conclusion be formed by you or anyone else.

How many scientific tests have been done in other areas where the outcome was different than what past science would indicate that they should be. That is what science is. Ongoing study.

As is usually the case with certain subjects I have already received 2 PMs, one from a cue builder & one from one that is well verse in science. Both are in agreement with what I posted but would not make, nor want to make their comments in these public forums.

Best 2 All,
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

_________________________

 

[ENGLISH!]

i have noticed the same shaft on different butts produces different amounts of deflection.

absolutely true.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

 

[Texdance]

The shafts discussed bring forth so many subjective opinions. No one even agrees on what would constitute a baseline scientific test procedure to compare different LD shafts and to compare those LD shafts to different solid maple shafts. And then we could get the snooker pros involved, since most of them use ash shafts with a short taper.

So it all goes back to feel - does it hit a ton or not?

I know few on AZB talk about cues other than custom or a few semi-custom builders. As for me, I have been using McDermott cues since the early 80s, when I bought one to replace my cues then. I sold off my Tad stainless joint BEM cue, which had terrible rear-ward balance and a hit like a brick. I also got rid of an early Heubler implex-joint sneaky pete which also balanced way back like a sack of potatoes such that there was little connection between my stroke and the tip.

In more recent years I bought a couple of the McDermott I2 shafts, one to fit their QR stainless joint, another to fit 3/8x10 pins which are usually some sort of plastic joint on McD cues. Right now I prefer the 3/8x10 I2 shaft, though I have to attach it to a newer butt since the older 80s McD 3/8x10 specs called for a less fat pin - and this newest pin it too tight a fit to use on the shafts that were original to older McD cues like my 1984-era D4.

I would like to try the new G-Core McD shafts to see if their claims hold true in my shooting, but since I am satisfied with the I2 shafts there is no hurry to buy something different, maybe I'll get lucky and win one of their monthly drawings for a free cue.

I already know the McDermott I2 shafts are fine, reducing deflection by reducing tip mass. As usual, IMHO and YMMV and all that.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The shafts discussed bring forth so many subjective opinions. No one even agrees on what would constitute a baseline scientific test procedure to compare different LD shafts and to compare those LD shafts to different solid maple shafts. And then we could get the snooker pros involved, since most of them use ash shafts with a short taper.

So it all goes back to feel - does it hit a ton or not?

I know few on AZB talk about cues other than custom or a few semi-custom builders. As for me, I have been using McDermott cues since the early 80s, when I bought one to replace my cues then. I sold off my Tad stainless joint BEM cue, which had terrible rear-ward balance and a hit like a brick. I also got rid of an early Heubler implex-joint sneaky pete which also balanced way back like a sack of potatoes such that there was little connection between my stroke and the tip.

In more recent years I bought a couple of the McDermott I2 shafts, one to fit their QR stainless joint, another to fit 3/8x10 pins which are usually some sort of plastic joint on McD cues. Right now I prefer the 3/8x10 I2 shaft, though I have to attach it to a newer butt since the older 80s McD 3/8x10 specs called for a less fat pin - and this newest pin it too tight a fit to use on the shafts that were original to older McD cues like my 1984-era D4.

I would like to try the new G-Core McD shafts to see if their claims hold true in my shooting, but since I am satisfied with the I2 shafts there is no hurry to buy something different, maybe I'll get lucky and win one of their monthly drawings for a free cue.

I already know the McDermott I2 shafts are fine, reducing deflection by reducing tip mass. As usual, IMHO and YMMV and all that.

Hi 'Tex',

The G-Core has a carbon fiber tube only in the front 7 or 9", while the i2 has it for the 'full' length of the shaft. One of the hall owners that I frequent was really big on McDermott. He went from the G-Core to the i2 to the i3. He really liked my OB Classic, but has since changed to a Z2.

I got an i2 & an OB Classic at the same time with the intention on deciding which one I liked best & to sell the other.

I liked the OB Classic best but kept the i2 as a backup. They hit similar but the OB has less QB squirt & a bit more of a solid feel.

I then got an OB Pro & really liked it. I then picked up another so as to have a backup but it is 30" vs the 29" of the first. I really like the bit more forward balance that it added to my steel jointed cue.

I am now using the i2 as a break shaft.

I just thought you might find my comparisons interesting.

Best to You & All,
Rick

 

[HawaiianEye]

Rubio promising a new LD shaft for everyone if he gets elected. Bush snickering in the background thinking, "What a dumbass. We give them the shaft after we get elected, we don't build them one. There is no such thing as a LD shaft. Just another lying upstart politician."

 

[dr_dave]

Physics and careful testing clearly show that squirt (CB deflection) depends only on the effective endmass of the shaft. Therefore, the butt can have no effect on squirt (CB deflection). For more info, see what causes squirt (CB deflection).

However, for a given stroke speed and cue elevation, changing the butt can have an effect on CB swerve and therefore net or effective CB deflection (AKA squerve). For example, if the weight of the butt is different, the CB speed will be different (for a given stroke). CB speed does not affect squirt, but it does affect swerve. Also, the butt can affect the efficiency of the cue's hit, which can also change the CB speed and resulting swerve.

Swerve is a function of CB speed, cue elevation, and ball/cloth conditions. It has nothing to do with the properties of the shaft. That's why when shafts are tested for squirt (CB deflection), the machines should keep the cue horizontal so stroke speed and the butt will have no effect on the measurements of the shaft characteristics. Results from some squirt-testing machines (like Meucci's "Myth Creator" machine) can be misleading and seemingly in conflict with well understood and tested concepts. For more information, see the bullets on the squirt robot test results resource page.

IMO Mr. Meuccis's test shots were consistent hits & on the equator so that the spin was on a flat axis & with enough speed to take out the effect of swerve.

Even if the hits are consistent and on the equator, if the cue is elevated (as it was in Meucci's tests), there will be swerve. Fast speed can minimize the effects of swerve, but this doesn't change the fact that cue elevation can corrupt squirt (CB deflection) test results. And if the CB is striking an OB (as it was in Meucci's tests), there will be throw, which can also corrupt squirt results. For detailed explanations for how swerve and throw can affect squirt (CB deflection) test results, see the bullets and supporting resources on the squirt robot test results resource page. I think this might help provide you (and others) with a better understanding of and appreciation for these well-understood, well-tested, and well-documented effects.

Any individual that is truly interested will have to make their own determination & perhaps do their own testing.

I couldn't agree more.

Why has no one, including yourself, done the tests 'appropriately' as you outlined that they should be done. Or have they? If so, where are the results of those tests.

I've done countless careful experiments concerning squirt (CB deflection), both with humans and well-designed machines, all with careful testing procedures. Many of the results are documented in the articles, videos, and supporting resources here:

squirt robot test results resource page
"Squirt - Part II: experimental results" (BD, September, 2007)
"Squirt - Part VII: cue test machine results" (BD, February, 2008).
"Return of the squirt robot" (BD, August, 2008).
squirt, swerve, and throw effects resource page

Regards,
Dave

PS: Rick, if you haven't read through the material in the links in my original post quoted above, you should check them out. I and many others have put in countless years of careful study, thought, and testing into these resources and I think the explanations and demonstrations tell a fairly convincing story.

 

[jb1911]

The shafts discussed bring forth so many subjective opinions. No one even agrees on what would constitute a baseline scientific test procedure to compare different LD shafts and to compare those LD shafts to different solid maple shafts. And then we could get the snooker pros involved, since most of them use ash shafts with a short taper.

So it all goes back to feel - does it hit a ton or not?

I know few on AZB talk about cues other than custom or a few semi-custom builders. As for me, I have been using McDermott cues since the early 80s, when I bought one to replace my cues then. I sold off my Tad stainless joint BEM cue, which had terrible rear-ward balance and a hit like a brick. I also got rid of an early Heubler implex-joint sneaky pete which also balanced way back like a sack of potatoes such that there was little connection between my stroke and the tip.

In more recent years I bought a couple of the McDermott I2 shafts, one to fit their QR stainless joint, another to fit 3/8x10 pins which are usually some sort of plastic joint on McD cues. Right now I prefer the 3/8x10 I2 shaft, though I have to attach it to a newer butt since the older 80s McD 3/8x10 specs called for a less fat pin - and this newest pin it too tight a fit to use on the shafts that were original to older McD cues like my 1984-era D4.

I would like to try the new G-Core McD shafts to see if their claims hold true in my shooting, but since I am satisfied with the I2 shafts there is no hurry to buy something different, maybe I'll get lucky and win one of their monthly drawings for a free cue.

I already know the McDermott I2 shafts are fine, reducing deflection by reducing tip mass. As usual, IMHO and YMMV and all that.

OK, given all that, who is that in your avatar?