Low Deflection Shafts?

SWN99 said:
If you like hollow feeling hits and resonance LD shafts are for you. If you are using a LD shaft, regular shaft or the but of a bridge the aiming us what counts. The only benefit is you can get a small shaft11.75 -12 mm with less flexing.
Click to expand...

The only shafts that feel like that from the 4-5 brands of LD shafts I tried were Predator. The cheap Players HXT/PureX shafts feel solid, so do the custom makers LD shafts. I played with a few from Mike Webb and all felt like regular shafts but deflected like Predators. The player that used it used to use a Predator 2, he went to the Mike Webb shaft with no adjustments.

OB does not kill the feel of the hit like Predators either of the major shaft makers.
 
Jacoby LD shafts

hang-the-9 said:
The only shafts that feel like that from the 4-5 brands of LD shafts I tried were Predator. The cheap Players HXT/PureX shafts feel solid, so do the custom makers LD shafts. I played with a few from Mike Webb and all felt like regular shafts but deflected like Predators. The player that used it used to use a Predator 2, he went to the Mike Webb shaft with no adjustments.

OB does not kill the feel of the hit like Predators either of the major shaft makers.
Click to expand...

Yesterday I played some with a Jacoby LD shaft. It was very predictable and I started hitting shots very well with it and many of them with a lot of spin. I felt it a little stiff not soft hitting, It had a Kamui supersoft and clear tip pad on it.
 
nancewayne said:
I agree, the new OB + shafts are much more like hitting a hard rock maple Schon shaft, but without much squirt ! (the best of both worlds IMHO)
Click to expand...


I like my school shaft just fine :)

Played with an OB shaft for a bit, hollow *TONK* hit, no thanks (both shafts had a chammy medium tip).
 
hang-the-9 said:
The only shafts that feel like that from the 4-5 brands of LD shafts I tried were Predator. The cheap Players HXT/PureX shafts feel solid, so do the custom makers LD shafts. I played with a few from Mike Webb and all felt like regular shafts but deflected like Predators. The player that used it used to use a Predator 2, he went to the Mike Webb shaft with no adjustments.

OB does not kill the feel of the hit like Predators either of the major shaft makers.
Click to expand...

OB 1 & 2 have a terrible hit.

Then again, I'm not an american.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
RBC said:
Dave

Actually, I don't think it's really that hard.

I know that, using solid modeling, I can draw up the actual dimensions of the shaft in question including all ferrules, hardware, inside machining, etc., and calculate the end mass of any section or length I choose. This would be more representative of the average than of a specific item, but it would be pretty close. The biggest variable would be the density of the maple itself.

Also, it's not too hard buy shafts, section them off at an accurately measured 6" from the tip, and weight them. Then shorten it to 5" from the tip, and weigh it again. Then 4" and so on. Of course, you'd probably want to do this to several of each one so you can get an average number. It would be expensive, but I think paying for it would be the toughest part.

Royce
Click to expand...

What Dave is talking about is his conception of effective end mass. This is much different than end mass and end mass alone is not the whole truth about high (LD) shafts. Just weighing the last 4" of any shaft will not tell you how much the shaft deflects otherwise you could calculate the results based on simple calculations like your modeling. Why do some shafts with higher end mass have the same deflection values as some shafts with lower end mass? Must be because there is more to the calculation than just end mass.
 
ENGLISH! said:
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.
Click to expand...

It can also be overcome by elevating the butt of the cue.
 
bdcues said:
It can also be overcome by elevating the butt of the cue.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

One can elevate the butt of a regular maple shaft cue too. The shafts are not the same & will play differently.

I would guess there is a misunderstanding here somewhere.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick
 
Ron Swanson said:
OB 1 & 2 have a terrible hit.

Then again, I'm not an american.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with that. I tried both and I couldn't believe how much the object ball would throw applying English with the cue ball. A little bit goes a long way, at least I thought so. Jacoby Hybrid seems to be my favorite so far. I love the taper too. The tip is ok, but I end up with one of Jeff's milk dud tips when due for changing.
 
Ron Swanson said:
OB 1 & 2 have a terrible hit.

Then again, I'm not an american.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Since when did it become a bad thing in the pool world to have to compensate for English?
A: After the invention of low deflection shafts.

I mean.....shaft makers even have graphs to "prove" that theirs is just a tad bit less deflection than the competitors.
Oh, and if you put an ultra hard tip and make the shaft so thin that it feels like a needle you just might get 1/1000th of an inch less deflection, long as you hit the ball at break speed and have a 30' pool table.

Manufacturers have tried hard to convince the pool world that we need this and that these are somehow "better" shafts.
This is total bs.
But they have succeeded because of the proven marketing fact that we, the consumers, are always more than happy to spend money on anything we thing can improve us. No matter what the field is. Pool, poker, bridge, chess, diet, abs, playing guitar.......

Since there is no shaft where you do not have to compensate anyway, no such thing as zero deflection, I believe one may as well go with good crisp feel and not that numbed up feel that LD's give.

This is what I choose, and I have tried all the top LD shafts out there.
I mean this literally.
After years of experimenting I have truly come a full circle.
FOR ME the shaft I can play a decent game with is a 314-2 shaft, still have that one, but this shaft is still a joke compared to a solid maple shaft.

I was never happier or played a better game than when after years of trying LD's that I went back to the shaft that came with my 97 Richard Black cue that I play so much.
Last one I tried, just a month ago - on that same cue - was an OB + Classic.
LD's just don't do it for me.

And to the sensitive fragile minded AZers.
YES.......all this is just my opinion and should mean nothing to anyone.
Just sharing my experience and what works for me.
 
9Ballr said:
I was never happier or played a better game than when after years of trying LD's that I went back to the shaft that came with my 97 Richard Black cue that I play so much.
Click to expand...

Best hitting cue and shaft I EVER had was made for me by Richard Black in 1978 and I was stupid and sold it when he made me another cue in 1981. I sold the first cue because there was a guy bugging me to buy it and I thought the second cue would hit just as good. It didn't, so I found a McDermott that hit better and got rid of that Black too.

It shows that if you EVER get a shaft that hits GOOD you should quit look for new crap and stay with what you got.

In edit: I forgot to mention that Richard Black knew about deflection back in 1978 too. When you bought a cue from him, he included a little home-made brochure called something like "The Care and Feeding of a Fine Pool Cue". It gave some tips on wiping down the cue with a damp cloth, etc. and it mentioned some cues deflected more than others. Nobody had really tried to figure it out at that time, but I guess cue makers were discussing it. I wish I still had the little brochure. Maybe somebody can upload one if they have on...it was about two pages.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
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
 
Patrick Johnson said:
It doesn't do either one.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
It must be great to act like you know so much technically. All you did was some YouTube videos and read who-knows-what from who-knows-who. I could tell you don't know jack about physics and I really doubt you are very educated to begin with.

Some of what you are reading is real experiences from real people. My goodness, the factors that go into that! Could be their stroke, poor alignment (or great?), materials used and the variability (in the shaft, butt, whatever), the tips and chalk used, human error in what they perceive, etc. I could go on. For you just to take a wide brush over what people have to say and share is a joke at best.

And no, I am not going to answer your dumbass questions again like the last thread. Literally, what you were asking is what a child would ask. "Where does it come from Dad?" "Well, ok, where does THAT come from then?" LOL.

You are pretty glamorous to yourself. What people have to share probably has merit to what they have experienced for some reason-whether it is perception or reality.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
What makes you think they do? How have you measured end mass to compare?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

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.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Please explain.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top