Low deflection shafts
- Thread starter gordml
- Start date
Most of the deflection depends on the distribution of mass in the first 6 inches or so of the cue stick. That's not going to change much with time. Maybe you are just more use to the squirt or you are starting to shoot farther from center.
A minor exception to "not change much".... I had a solid wood shaft I played with for about 15 years. I used sandpaper to clean it from time to time, usually after tip changes. It got less and less squirt over the years.
The adding of a tip that has a fiber pad might increase squirt. I’ve had a shaft that had too low squirt for me, and I ended up putting two fiber pads to get it where I wanted.
Low deflection shafts (at least the wood ones) require your bridge to be 4"-6" farther back (compared to std deflection wood shaft) to use back-hand-english with desired results.
Dr. Dave made a video about this.
Dr. Dave made a video about this.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
I'm still fine tuning it but I've found that, with my LD shafts, I use front hand English and then apply a little correction. With a conventional shaft, it was usually 70% back hand and then correct with the front hand.
I don't know if I'm not hitting as hard or using as much English, or if my aiming technique is cancelling it out, but I typically get less deflection than most of the demonstrations I've watched. On many shorter inside English shots, I add front hand English and then aim even thinner, The spin induced throw and cueball swerve are greater than the deflection.
yea and also you have to add the extra tip weight if you use that new fan dangled chalk that holds more on the tip. but then you also need to subtract the appropriate amount for what extra grab that it may have on the cueball. only then you can determine how much deflection has changed.
and if you dont, you will certainly continue to miss all shots you were going to miss.
and if you dont, you will certainly continue to miss all shots you were going to miss.
All the calculating is supposed to make it quicker and easier to get to (and maintain) that "automatic" feel, not replace it.
pj
chgo
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
I seem to miss those anyway.
No, probably your memory has deflected more over that time LOL
Or you got used to some other shafts and are not comparing this to those.
Actually, using the System for Aiming With Sidespin (SAWS), you can aim effectively using sidespin with any shaft and any bridge length. For more info, see the videos and links here:
no.
Maple LD shafts are, iirc, laminated. Have you checked for delamination?
Das Cue-Boot
Active member
Gordml asks a fair question about how the characteristics of the cue change over time. I know from experience in the high and dry area of Colorado where I live that wood will continue to dry and often wood joints fail over time, depending on how they were originally manufactured. If we are dealing with a second rate manufacturer they may try to use wood that hasn’t been properly dried, or you may see absorption and swelling if you are in a humid area. It may also be seasonal, dryer in the winter, wetter in summer.
Are there any builders out there who have seen these effects, or is this maybe just misperception that the shaft has changed? Is there something in the internal structure of a LD shaft that might change under some conditions?
Are there any builders out there who have seen these effects, or is this maybe just misperception that the shaft has changed? Is there something in the internal structure of a LD shaft that might change under some conditions?
Lamination has nothing to do with whether or not a shaft is LD. It’s just a way to use cheaper wood without warpage.
pj
chgo
i am no expert
but since most agree its "end mass" is the most important thing that determines degree of deflection
i dont see how the end mass would change over time whether wood or cabon
except as mentioned above change in fiber pad/ferrule/thickness tip etc
but since most agree its "end mass" is the most important thing that determines degree of deflection
i dont see how the end mass would change over time whether wood or cabon
except as mentioned above change in fiber pad/ferrule/thickness tip etc
Das Cue-Boot
Active member
What you are saying is very true about maple shafts, but too many people read too much into the mass reduction. The reason that is done for wood construction is that removing mass from the centerline of the cue is the only variable they can easily adjust without changing the stiffness or structural integrity of the shaft. Too much mass reduction and you approach the trivial solution—no mass, but no structure. You still need to have the shaft end stiff enough to not deflect excessively and strong enough to withstand normal play.
Little of that applies to carbon fiber construction. There you have an elasticity modulus that is 50 to 100 times that of maple, adjusted for density (carbon fiber is three times as dense as maple), it is still 15 to 30 times as stiff by weight. The carbon fiber can then concentrate on reducing the lateral deflection and still have lower mass than wood. By doing some clever engineering, like rifling or straking, they can make a lower
mass structure that will have far less deflection, far less mass, and build LD shafts that wood just can’t compete with on that measure. We will continue to compensate a la Dr Dave’s methods, but the next generation will likely not have such skill.
If it would improve cheaper wouldn't it also improve better wood?