I just thought this deserved a second viewing.
Last edited:
Max Spin... and tip hardness
- Thread starter nineballsafety8
- Start date
I just thought this deserved a second viewing.
take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard and regroup your thoughts and the discussion :thumbup:
The slower CB speed resulting from a softer tip could easily cause increased swerve, resulting in CJ's perception of over-cutting the OB.
Hey my brain worked faster than I can type & I just left out a whole word. I fixed it.
Last edited:
To which Renfro/Chris, a tip manufacturer replied... (please see next post)
Last edited:
Anyone reading this thread can take what they want from both sides of the discussion & make their own determinations or do their own experiments.
If they're not using english that much it probably does not make much difference to them either way.
Thanks to almost everyone for your civil 'debate'.
To ALL,
Best Wishes,
Rick
If they're not using english that much it probably does not make much difference to them either way.
Thanks to almost everyone for your civil 'debate'.
To ALL,
Best Wishes,
Rick
Well as far as maximum spin goes, I agree. But when it comes to the spin/speed ratio at slow speeds, there clearly is a difference between soft layered and single layer tips. Lots of players in my pool hall switched to Kamui SS when it first came out, but none of the top guys stuck with it. Too much incidental spin and "grab", difficult to control. That's what they told me, anyway, and that too was my experience. I use medium Mooris but I sometimes use milkduds and Sniper tips. The performance of the Moori always bring me back, though.
If you put an elkmaster and a Kamui SS on identical shafts and play a bit with both, I'd be higly surprised if you did not notice any difference in spin, especially on the soft shots. But it depends on your playing style of course. In bowling they have "crankers" "strokers" and "tweeners" which describes playing styles. There are no similar categories in pool vocabulary, but it doesn't mean they do not exist. If you shoot mostly medium/medium high speed stun shots, a soft tip will probably not do much good for you. If you soft stroke and use spin to carry the cue ball around then obviously it is a different story.
There was so much 'grab' with the Kamui SS on an OB Classic Shaft that I picked up that it felt like the Cue Ball was sticking to it. I had to take about 6 layers off of it to make it 'playable' for me & I've used Elk Masters for more than 4 decades.
Best Wishes,
Rick
Well I didn't do that. I had him shoot three shots with one cue, then three with the other, then back to the first one, etc. Later I just handed him a cue randomly for each shot, and he didn't know what he had. Those are the circled results.
Marks more to the left are the good ones. Zero is the best. When I average the results, I get 9.2 (inches) for S (Kamui Super Soft) and 9.3 for H (Kamui hard). So on average, for all these attempts for maximum "action," the two tips performed the same.
But I noticed two things.
(1) 6 of the 7 "best" outcomes were from the soft tip, including the best three "blind" outcomes.
(2) I wish in retrospect I counted miscues for each tip. My perception is there were MANY more miscues for the hard tip, even though we chalked carefully and scruffed the tips frequently.
he was trying for the limit, and overall I'd say he miscued about one in three times (which is what we want).
In the second half of the experiment, the blind half, I gave him a random cue after a miscue. So even if he was a little shy following a miscue, it should affect the results equally.
These results are preliminary, but they suggest the miscue limit may be tighter for a hard tip.
So the preliminary conclusion is hard tips and soft tips appear to give the same spin-to-speed ratio, and the miscue limit may be more liberal for a soft tip.
I'll try to get some more results, making them all blind next time and recording the miscues for each tip.
Once again, I used identical cues (brand, length, weight, markings) both with new Kamui tips (Super Soft and Hard) cut down to the same size and both shaped with the nickle on a cue cube.
Attachments
I've come to the conclusion that if I put up a post that said "I believe I play better after eating asparagus" that Dr. Dave would immediately reply with a link to his studies and slow motion videos of the "affects of eating asparagus on pool play".
This isn't a knock, you have a reply for everything, which is great!
This isn't a knock, you have a reply for everything, which is great!
Question for Dr_dave.
A hard tip transfers more energy.
A soft tip compresses more, but grab the CB better, wich also must affect spin.
Is there equations for this? It seems to me that, knowing how energy transfer and grab affects the CB, it should be fairly easy to design a optimal cue tip.
One more thing; does tip diameter have measurable effect at all on spin?
A hard tip transfers more energy.
A soft tip compresses more, but grab the CB better, wich also must affect spin.
Is there equations for this? It seems to me that, knowing how energy transfer and grab affects the CB, it should be fairly easy to design a optimal cue tip.
One more thing; does tip diameter have measurable effect at all on spin?
Hu...Hey I love ya man, but that is flat out wrong...according to the super fast video provided in the Jacksonville Experiment. Dwell time between tip and CB is appx. 1/1000th of a second (1/4 of an eye blink) for normal to hard tips. Bob Jewett (one of the principals in the JE) himself said a soft tip would perhaps double the dwell time (2/1000th's of a second...statistically insignificant difference). The size of the contact patch, though, remains the same, at appx. 1/8" or 3mm, even with tip compression. Larger chalk marks are not indicative of a larger contact patch, but merely chalk dust blow-back from the tip.
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Scott,
I have watched the video, examined the stills, and examined the accelerometer graphs. I made my living studying such things as a Mechanical Designer for an R&D company, VP of an R&D corporation, and in the Design Engineering department of a nuclear plant. Pretty sure I have a handle on what is shown in the pool information.
Some of what is shown is ignored because it doesn't coincide with long held pool "truths". You can't accept some things and throw others out. Either testing is valid or it isn't. Go back and study the same things again. Then we will talk about things like tip deflection, contact patch, dwell time, grip, and arm position at contact.
When you can tell me what 2 + 2 + A + B + C equals with A,B, and C left undefined I will be impressed with the current state of pool testing. Until then some are stumbling around in the dark, some are stumbling around in the dark with a tiny candle. The candle may show a little bit but it leaves a lot hidden too.
Hu
This may be true more often than not, but it doesn't NEED to be true. It's really about the efficiency of the collision, i.e, whether energy is lost. It's possible to have soft tips that transfer energy well, and hard tips that don't.
I don't know what people mean when they say a soft tip "grabs more." Assuming there is no miscue, then a soft tip and a hard tip "grab" the same.
[...]
No.
This question needs to be qualified. Are you keeping the center of the shaft in the same position relative to the center of the cue ball for both diameters of tip? For example, imagine a 60mm nearly flat tip. with the center of the shaft at the edge of the cue ball -- where a normal shaft would surely miscue -- the monster tip would hit almost center-ball. (This is also an argument for a flat break tip.)
If instead you mean that the tip will contact the cue ball the same distance from center, then there is very little change in the spin/speed ratio.
One way to think of this is that the distance from center that the tip contacts gives you a certain lever arm for applying torque to the cue ball. A longer lever arm gets you more torque for the amount of forward force which gets you proportionally more spin for the speed.
