My take on the OB-1 shaft

[tedkaufman]

I received my raw OB-1 about a week ago and had Sheldon Lebow finish it to match my Southwest. I've only had two sessions with it because I'm in the midst of moving, but I'll relate my findings.

First the bad news. The shaft I received looks awful. I don't know if this is typical of OB-1 shafts, but mine literally looks like a piece of plywood. What I found most disconcerting was large radial sections were dramatically different in color and shade, as if sections of heartwood were mated with whiter wood. Had I been less rushed, I'd have returned it. Were I the manufacturer of this shaft, I'd never have let it out the door.

Okay, how does it play? The first thing I tried was a straight in long shot using a full tip of side English with a med hard stroke. I aimed full ball with no compensation. The shot went nearly straight into the pocket. Then I tried it on the opposite side. Same thing. The shaft requires almost no compensation for squirt or deflection. Unbelieveable!

Its feel is very solid and it is a firm shaft. Comparing it to my Southwest shafts, it is stiffer than the pro tapers and less stiff than my stiff taper. Stiffness wise, it feels just right to me. Very pleasing.

In terms of feel, it seems to dampen resonances I feel readily with my Southwest shafts. I certainly prefer the feel of my Southwest shafts. I think I can get used to its feel in time, but I really haven't had enough time with it to say.

As for performance, I don't find it provides more or less spin than any other shaft. It's fine. Draw, follow, side are about the same as my other shafts. If you are used to whippier shafts, you might find less action than you are used to. I find it just about perfect.

It will take some getting used to in terms of compensations for squirt/deflection. After 40 years of playing pool--15 with the same cue and shafts--and unconsciously compensating for them, the OB-1 is weird.

The first time I used it, I had to put it away. Too much to think about! Not compensating ... huh? The second time was much better and it began to grow on me. When you think of the huge number of unconscious compensations we make for various shots and consider that you remove nearly all compensations for deflection, but retain that for cueball path curvature, it gets complicated. I'll need a few more lengthy sessions before this shaft is ready for prime time.

And so, despite my caveats, I will say the OB-1 shaft is a remarkable product. It does everything I had heard it would. I've never owned a Predator 314 or X, but I've shot with enough to say I'd go with an OB-1 again, over either Predator, in a heartbeat.

Lastly, I strongly recommend to Royce, et al, they improve their quality control. To make a product that good, yet allow a sample like mine to go out, is penny wise.

 

[9BallWill]

Nice, thanks for the info. I've been looking at the line of no/minimal deflection shafts, I'm still diggin the predator stuff, but if push comes to shove I may have to settle on the OB-1 (next choice) or the tiger-x (choice 2).

Generally speaking, if the shaft isn't warped and is at least close to wood color, I don't care what it looks like.

 

[ShaneT58]

Okay, how does it play? The first thing I tried was a straight in long shot using a full tip of side English with a med hard stroke. I aimed full ball with no compensation. The shot went nearly straight into the pocket. Then I tried it on the opposite side. Same thing. The shaft requires almost no compensation for squirt or deflection. Unbelieveable!

Doesn't that just mean it deflected just enough that the english threw the ball into the pocket?

 

[Colin Colenso]

Doesn't that just mean it deflected just enough that the english threw the ball into the pocket?

I was thinking a similar thing.

No offense intended to Ted for his fine effort in reviewing the cue, but I have a few questions.

How did you align straight on for the shot?

If you aligned center ball and used BHE, then the result doesn't mean anything without knowledge of CB-OB separation and bridge length, or by comparing the effect with your standard cue.

If you aligned parallel, which I doubt, unless the balls were within 16 inches apart, it couldn't work. And, as you say, this is very weird compared to your normal cue, so if you don't regulaly practice lining up parallel, it's near impossible to know if you are actually lined up parallel or not.

Just some food for thought. I think the best was to determine the cue is with some BHE squirt testing.

All cues squirt, it's just a matter of degree, and I believe even the least squirty cues squirt quite a lot more than most imaging. I think tests estimate over 1" over the length of the table. Thats 3mm over 1 foot. More than enough to make you miss a shot.

Of course, SIT comes into play and confuses the whole issue....

Anyway, some more info would shed some light

 

[twilight]

I too agree about the appearance of the OB-1. Some of the pieces are darker than the others and it just didn't look that good. It does play very well though. I have predator shafts and decided to give this one a try and I believe they are slightly better. I can say with my own tests I only noticed a slight improvement one cue ball squirt. The real test was observing the way I played. i.e. cut shots with outside seemed consistently to hit the object ball slighlty thin (and vice versa), regardless of distance or speed. I could only conclude that I was still compensating for the level of deflection my predators had. Naturally I aimed thinner with more outside english, thinking the deflection would make the cueball squirt closer. Is this a real test? Probably not. It just seemed this way, as my personal test could barely show improvement. I also want to say that all my cut shots only missed by small degrees, such as the object ball rattling. My personal OPINION is that the OB-1 shoots a tiny bit straighter than the 314 shaft, however it does have a lessy whippy feel.

 

[tedkaufman]

Doesn't that just mean it deflected just enough that the english threw the ball into the pocket?

No. I hit these shots hard, such that the english would have little or no effect on contact.

With a typical shaft, with this kind of shot, squirt/deflection would have a dramatic affect and throw almost nothing. On a soft shot the effects of deflection (less) and throw (more) could cancel out, but not the way I shot it.

 

[tedkaufman]

I was thinking a similar thing.

No offense intended to Ted for his fine effort in reviewing the cue, but I have a few questions.

How did you align straight on for the shot?

If you aligned center ball and used BHE, then the result doesn't mean anything without knowledge of CB-OB separation and bridge length, or by comparing the effect with your standard cue.

If you aligned parallel, which I doubt, unless the balls were within 16 inches apart, it couldn't work. And, as you say, this is very weird compared to your normal cue, so if you don't regulaly practice lining up parallel, it's near impossible to know if you are actually lined up parallel or not.

Just some food for thought. I think the best was to determine the cue is with some BHE squirt testing.

All cues squirt, it's just a matter of degree, and I believe even the least squirty cues squirt quite a lot more than most imaging. I think tests estimate over 1" over the length of the table. Thats 3mm over 1 foot. More than enough to make you miss a shot.

Of course, SIT comes into play and confuses the whole issue....

Anyway, some more info would shed some light

Colin, I made every effort NOT to use backhand compensation. As best I could, without drawing lines on the cue maker's table, I lined the shot up straight, shifted parallelly, and shot as if I were shooting a standard straight shot with a hard stroke.

If I had shot in this manner with my standard shafts, I'd have missed the shot by 1/2 a diamond. With the OB-1, the balls went in almost straight in the pocket. I tried it on both sides of the cueball, a full tip off center, and typically the amount of deflection was enough to move the object ball only about 1/2" or less from dead center of the pocket (the object ball moving the same direction as the side english--or typical squirt/deflection path).

The difference in using this shaft is strange indeed. If it seems impossible to you, rest assured, it did to me as well. The amount of compensation required is almost nothing, which is difficult to believe.

One last thing, the shots I've described were on a 7' bar type table with Simonis 860 and red circle cueball. The shots were set up with the cueball about 5' from the pocket and the object ball midway to the pocket. Obviously, on a 9' table, some compensation would be necessary on forcefully struck long shots, but the amount less is still amazing.

 

[scottycoyote]

man im prob gonna open up a huge can of worms with this but here it goes anyway. Talking about squirt of the cueball got me thinking about some pool lessons i had where the general jist was, side spin really doesnt cause a cb to leave its path, the analogy was you tip a chair, the top of the chair moves but then comes back to rest where it was (in other words the cueball spins but it still travels in a straight line). The rest of the analogy was bottom side spin does make the cueball leave its path, then he kicked the bottom of the chair and of course the whole chair slid (which would be the squirt). Now i didnt give this much thought until i was in another lesson and brought this up...and to prove it to me the instructor put 2 balls a little over a balls width apart at the footrail...........i took the cueball at the other end of the table.........and shot the ball with just side spin, aiming between the balls, moderate stroke.......and i hit in the middle everytime, just lining up parallel and shooting with side spin only (no bottom). Honestly ive never used much side spin, and i dont know whats right or wrong, not trying to convert anyone, i guess im just saying, it seems like one of these low deflection shafts wouldnt make much difference if im understanding this all correctly.

 

[StevenPWaldon]

You're not understanding correctly. You're talking about swerve. Everyone else is talking about squirt.

man im prob gonna open up a huge can of worms with this but here it goes anyway. Talking about squirt of the cueball got me thinking about some pool lessons i had where the general jist was, side spin really doesnt cause a cb to leave its path, the analogy was you tip a chair, the top of the chair moves but then comes back to rest where it was (in other words the cueball spins but it still travels in a straight line). The rest of the analogy was bottom side spin does make the cueball leave its path, then he kicked the bottom of the chair and of course the whole chair slid (which would be the squirt). Now i didnt give this much thought until i was in another lesson and brought this up...and to prove it to me the instructor put 2 balls a little over a balls width apart at the footrail...........i took the cueball at the other end of the table.........and shot the ball with just side spin, aiming between the balls, moderate stroke.......and i hit in the middle everytime, just lining up parallel and shooting with side spin only (no bottom). Honestly ive never used much side spin, and i dont know whats right or wrong, not trying to convert anyone, i guess im just saying, it seems like one of these low deflection shafts wouldnt make much difference if im understanding this all correctly.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, I made every effort NOT to use backhand compensation. As best I could, without drawing lines on the cue maker's table, I lined the shot up straight, shifted parallelly, and shot as if I were shooting a standard straight shot with a hard stroke.

If I had shot in this manner with my standard shafts, I'd have missed the shot by 1/2 a diamond. With the OB-1, the balls went in almost straight in the pocket. I tried it on both sides of the cueball, a full tip off center, and typically the amount of deflection was enough to move the object ball only about 1/2" or less from dead center of the pocket (the object ball moving the same direction as the side english--or typical squirt/deflection path).

The difference in using this shaft is strange indeed. If it seems impossible to you, rest assured, it did to me as well. The amount of compensation required is almost nothing, which is difficult to believe.

One last thing, the shots I've described were on a 7' bar type table with Simonis 860 and red circle cueball. The shots were set up with the cueball about 5' from the pocket and the object ball midway to the pocket. Obviously, on a 9' table, some compensation would be necessary on forcefully struck long shots, but the amount less is still amazing.

Hi Ted,
Thanks for the detailed feedback!
btw: I assume you meant 5" (inches) not 5' (feet)...so you were playing about a 7 foot shot with CB midway. This is a fair distance to check things over.

The fact that the line taken shocked you certainly makes me believe that the squirt was less than you are used to getting.

But from what I've read on tests and in my own testing, I think if you were really aligned parallel to that shot at 3.5' b/w CB and OB, and you hit hard, reducing the compensatory SIT to about 1-2 degrees and probably (some experts don't agree) increasing squirt due to speed, then I would expect the OB to travel at least a few inches off track due to the squirt.

What may contribute to your making the pot is the natural subconsious tendency to find the pocket...by:
1. Not quite going parallel. Even having the bridge position 1mm short of parallel could make the difference.
2. Sweeping slightly on the shot. Which I've found can negate squirt considerable.

Both these things could be done without noticing. Though the sweep can be corrected if you concentrate hard on it.

Don't mean to sound picky. You seem like a sharp guy who is quite aware of what is going on. Just trying to make some sense of it.

Colin>~ Not quite ready to believe in a wonder squirtless cue

 

[scottycoyote]

You're not understanding correctly. You're talking about swerve. Everyone else is talking about squirt.

well no i think im talking squirt. If by squirt you mean because you are hitting the ball to the left of center it makes the ball immediately go to the right ...........versus swerve being where you semi masse the ball so over the lenght of its travel it slowly swerves in the direction its spinning. If my terminology is right im talking squirt.. (wheres randyg when i need him)

 

[StevenPWaldon]

Ah, I see what you mean now. I was confused because you attributed squirt to spin/english, when in fact it's not the english that creates the squirt. Spin and squirt are a result of an off-center cue tip placement, so when you stated that the spin makes the cue go off trajectory I assumed you were talking about swerve.

Regardless, are you really debating whether squirt exists? I think you may need a few more lessons. Set up your same shot, and just hit the cue harder and you'll see plenty of squirt. Go ask 3-cushion players and they'll verify that the cue balls squirts, and they know cue control better than anyone out there.

I think when you heard that spin (around the cue's vertical axi) doesn't cause the cue to deviate from its path you misinterpreted this as applying to squirt. This statement applies to swerve (hence why swerve appears only when the spin is not around the cue's exact vertical axis). Squirt is not caused by spin, so the statement really doesn't apply.

well no i think im talking squirt. If by squirt you mean because you are hitting the ball to the left of center it makes the ball immediately go to the right ...........versus swerve being where you semi masse the ball so over the lenght of its travel it slowly swerves in the direction its spinning. If my terminology is right im talking squirt.. (wheres randyg when i need him)

 

[Colin Colenso]

man im prob gonna open up a huge can of worms with this but here it goes anyway. Talking about squirt of the cueball got me thinking about some pool lessons i had where the general jist was, side spin really doesnt cause a cb to leave its path, the analogy was you tip a chair, the top of the chair moves but then comes back to rest where it was (in other words the cueball spins but it still travels in a straight line). The rest of the analogy was bottom side spin does make the cueball leave its path, then he kicked the bottom of the chair and of course the whole chair slid (which would be the squirt). Now i didnt give this much thought until i was in another lesson and brought this up...and to prove it to me the instructor put 2 balls a little over a balls width apart at the footrail...........i took the cueball at the other end of the table.........and shot the ball with just side spin, aiming between the balls, moderate stroke.......and i hit in the middle everytime, just lining up parallel and shooting with side spin only (no bottom). Honestly ive never used much side spin, and i dont know whats right or wrong, not trying to convert anyone, i guess im just saying, it seems like one of these low deflection shafts wouldnt make much difference if im understanding this all correctly.

Hi Scott,
I think it's a little more complex than that...also not sure about the chair analogy. The CB wil swerve according to the degree to which the cue pointing downward, which it usually is even on many follow shots to a small degree.

Anyway, to eliminate swerve from the observation, you should try a test with more speed.

Hit from the head spot to the foot rail center spot. Line the cue tip almost 2 tips off center. Look exactly where the cue is pointing to the rail. Hit through to that spot in a straight line firm. If the CB goes straight, it should hit 2 tip widths from your aim point. Observe where it actually hits, you'll find it is considerably wider than 2 tip widths away, hence the CB does not travel parallel to the cue with side.

 

[scottycoyote]

ill try it out some when i get on the table tonight. Like i said i was quite surpised with the experiment, and true i wasnt hitting the ball hard, it was moderate speed shots, but more than enough speed to easily get around the table and then some, so does it really matter that i can make the cueball squirt when i hit it as hard as i can, when im never going to be making a shot where i hit it as hard as i can? lol
I hope im not incorrectly stating what was taught to me, maybe randyg or steve or cane will chime in here and set it straight if i am. Like i said, im no english expert, used it sparingly in the past, but ive been using it more and more as of late and I really dont make adjustments for squirt unless im using bottom and the balls seem to fall most of the time.