My thoughts on conventional shaft vs. low deflection shaft

[RBC]

I completely understand the low tip end mass = lower deflection. What I was referring to with the conventional shaft and the laminated shaft was that there is no way to know because there is no way to accurately measure only part of the shaft, without cutting that section off & ruining the shaft. My point is that unless the difference between low deflection shafts and conventional shafts can be quantified by actual tests then it's a bogus argument. As far as I know, there are no mechanisms that offer unbiased testing of a shaft's deflective properties during play, and therefore no such thorough & unbiased tests have been executed. By thorough I mean testing hundreds of low deflection shafts and testing hundreds of conventional shafts, enough to give clear & unquestionable results. If such could be done, then we'd not be talking about it right now.

I completely agree that lamination has absolutely nothing to do with deflection. It's not even anything to mention except that it's a huge aspect of the marketing behind the low deflection shafts. I find that ironic. I think if the shafts actually had the awe inspiring accuracy that they are claimed to have, then there wouldn't have to be the huge reliance on baffling the public with so-called engineering accomplishments that increase the shaft's ability to pocket balls.

My concern is that people are painting such a bold line between conventional shafts and so-called low deflection shafts. Do I beleive they can hollow out the tip end to decrease deflection? Yes, I beleive you can decrease the deflection of any shaft by hollowing it out. Is is enough to make any difference? No, I don't beleive it is. The heavier the shaft, the more difference it will make. With a lightweight shaft it'll make very little difference as you are removing very little weight. Either way, the difference, IMO, is rediculously minute. Taper shape, diameter, ferrule material & ferrule install technique can have as much or more affect on deflection. It would be close minded to beleive every cuemaker worth an ounce of salt hasn't experimented with varying techniques of reducing deflection. A lot do it as a standard procedure with every shaft. If that shaft is solid maple & has a 1" ferrule, people would consider it "conventional" and think a "low deflection" laminated shaft would have less deflection, thus being a better shaft. The fact is, nobody knows if that's true or not because they haven't been thoroughly tested. That "conventional" shaft may very well have significantly less deflection than the laminated shaft. But nobody would beleive it without testing. That's my point.

Truth is, unless each shaft is tested individually, you have no idea what kind of deflective properties it has. It doesn't matter if it has a "conventional" look or if it's a super engineered laminated shaft. Either can be high deflection and either can be low deflection. Nobody knows. There are no definitive answers beyond understanding what deflection is & how it affects the game. We don't really know which shafts are low deflection & which are not. We only assume that the ones marketed as low deflection are actually low deflection because it's what we are told. And it's been that way for so long that now we assume a shaft that isn't laminated with a funky or short ferrule is going to be high deflection, and that's alarmingly wrong.

First let me say that I always enjoy your posts. Also, I have hit with a few of your cues and am very impressed, they do play well.

I find this post a little confusing. You comment that you agree that lamination doesn't really have anything to do with low cue ball squirt, but you continually go back to the differences between regular shafts and "laminated" shafts.

First, I would not recommend a complete "buy in" from test results provided by the cue or shaft maker himself. There are some results out there that are very questionable. Now then, I do recommend that you consult with Dr. Dave Alciator, and Mike Page. Both are experts in their fields that would apply very well to this discussion. Their findings all have a common denominator, and that is Tip End Mass. It's pretty safe to say that you can take the dimensions of each component in the tip end of the shaft and multiply it with the specific gravity of that material and determine its relative mass. You can then total up all the masses in the tip end of the shaft and compare one shaft to another.

Your construction methods are consistent with reducing the tip end mass. The difference is how far you go to do so. You reduce the amount of the ferrule material, which is the heaviest material on the tip end of the cue shaft, and replace it with Maple which has a much lower mass. Commonly known LD shafts, like our OB shafts and the Predator shafts just go a little further by hollowing out the tip end on the Predators, or using different materials like we do. Simple math can calculate the differences in mass to determine that one will be less than the other. I think Dr. Dave has done some tests that show how much the cue ball deflection changed based on a fixed weight that was added to the cue shaft. He even gradually moved the weight further from the tip and retested to determine the differences of where the weight is added or reduced.

You are right in that there is no real line where below is LD and above is HD. I am a believer in that the right shaft for you will inspire confidence in your game. Being "comfortable" with your equipment is more important than anything else. I also believe that there are many different tastes and likes out there. Actually we are always researching what people are looking for and if that means HD, then that means HD.

I hope you don't see any of my comments as disrespectful as I have certainly not meant them that way. By the way, your scallop designs are beautiful!


Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com

 

[DaveK]

..... My point is that unless the difference between low deflection shafts and conventional shafts can be quantified by actual tests then it's a bogus argument. As far as I know, there are no mechanisms that offer unbiased testing of a shaft's deflective properties during play, and therefore no such thorough & unbiased tests have been executed. By thorough I mean testing hundreds of low deflection shafts and testing hundreds of conventional shafts, enough to give clear & unquestionable results. If such could be done, then we'd not be talking about it right now.

Smart man, you are. Some day this will happen.

Dave

 

[RBC]

Smart man, you are. Some day this will happen.

Dave

Actually Dave, I think it has happened.

Dr. Dave Alciatore has done many tests to confirm that Tip End Mass has direct impact on cue ball squirt or deflection.

Now, not all shafts have been tested, and there will always be some variation even amongst engineered cue shafts, the ranges of variance are bound by the materials used.

I don't know off hand where Dr. Dave's test results are but I hope he might chip in here and keep me from having to look them up.

Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com

 

[LAMas]

...First, I would not recommend a complete "buy in" from test results provided by the cue or shaft maker himself. There are some results out there that are very questionable...
Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com

I saw Meucci demonstrate his machine which was a simple pendulum and have no doubt about what I saw - unless he had a hidden tweak mechanism. It convinced me that the 314 or the OB would squirt less and offer a closer to a center ball aim for cuts - which works for me.

Bottom line is that it helped to convince me that there is a difference when compared to a higher mass conventional shaft made of the same wood - maple with no core. I believe in the engineeering that goes into the OB shaft. I own a OB-1 and am planning to buy an OB-2 for a smaller diameter that I like.

I used to sand down my shafts toward 11 mm to help me aim and got used to LD as well. I noticed that Oscar Dominguez and his Father also shot with a small diameter shaft with great results. Oscar now shoots with a commercial LD shaft after he used my Z2 and said that it shot the same - perhaps a coincidence?

Years ago, A guy named Dutch had shaft that had a 6" copper rod hidden in the center behind the tip and would challenge people to shoot a spot shot with it - high mass, HD and mucho squirt.

I hope that Meucci's machine was not rigged as inferred by some. We didn't have hundreds of tests to get to the moon to get it right, but we did have good science.

Thanks for all that you do for Pool.

 

[starburst]

Here in Australia we love summer cos weather is nice (mostly)
we go out and have BBQ. Very often we are confused whether to pick up some steaks or beef patties for the buns. Some argue steak being naturally cut is supreme in taste since it's free from spices that may ruin the taste of good quality cut beef. In addition, beefpatties made from mince beef might not be 100% beef at all. Who knows what they put in it?

But beef patty lovers say that's crap. First, how, mince quality beef seasoned with spices plus herbs and bread crumbs, after all the effort making them into round shape, could not beat the taste of a chunky cut rump steak. Who cares if it is not 100% beef, kangoroo and possum have become pests anyway.

Everyone has different taste n preference, lets let them eat what they want

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Years ago, A guy named Dutch had shaft that had a 6" copper rod hidden in the center behind the tip and would challenge people to shoot a spot shot with it - high mass, HD and mucho squirt. ...

Jim Buss made up some shafts like this as demos. They are particularly effective on the break shot at 3-cushion which is normally played with a fair amount of inside english. It's amusing to see a good player completely miss the ball several times in a row until he sees that he has to aim on the wrong side of the ball to make a good hit.

 

[qbilder]

Royce, first of all, thank you for the compliments and taking the time to discuss this issue. What I mean by "laminated" shafts is that everybody associates lamination with low deflection. I wasn't wanting to use OB and Predator as an example every time I mention the "laminated" type of shaft. It was merely a reference of style that I thought people would understand.

I'm also very much not against what yourself and Predator are doing. I beleive any work towards the advancement of cues is desirable & I commend you for it. I am actually a fan of OB & feel you guys are on the right track. I especially like your new break shaft. My point was not to displace or discount low deflection shaft manufacturers. I was trying to point out that most people do not know the difference of deflection past the point of what the shaft looks like.

I assume you or Predator could build shafts of solid maple & long ferrules that acheive the same low deflection properties as your current products. But I doubt anybody would show much interest because they look so normal, so "conventional". We all know that conventional doesn't equate to revolutionary, and as such isn't the best approach to sales. I understand the purpose behind laminating and do indeed see "some" certain bennefits as well as "some" not so benneficial aspects. I feel your lamination is the best in the business.

Back to the point, I am not discounting low deflection shafts. In fact, I think if it helps a person feel more confident, then by all means it's great. If indeed it does aid in a person pocketing balls, then it's awesome. My point is that the shafts that yourself & Predator build are not the only low deflection shafts and there could very well be lower deflection shafts that look very much conventional, but the pool society doesn't accept it as such because it doesn't have laminations or a tricky looking ferrule. And if they most likely do exist, and they do because I have seen them & know builders who do it, then how much difference is there between the commonly known low deflection shafts and any other shaft if people using them cannot blindly tell the difference? Example, I build a shaft with an ultra thin wall ferrule & an 8" deep 5/16" bore. It'll look exactly like any other shaft while having the comparable tip end mass as a Predator or OB. Give it to a player who 100% bites off on this "low deflection" theory & he'll hate it, wanting to switch back to his Predator or OB. He'll swear the "conventional" shaft has more deflection.

That's the only point I was trying to make. I meant no disrespect towards the low deflection guys. It wasn't a comparison between conventional shafts and low deflection shafts. I was only pointing out that in many cases, preconceived perception is more powerful than actuality. And people argue it. They see a standard maple shaft & assume it's high deflection. They see a laminated shaft & assume it's low deflection. Even though they likely don't actually know, they'll argue as matter of fact.

Have a wonderful new year, Royce. Keep on keepin on. I'm a fan.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

LAMas:
The Meucci black dot shaft is like plywood and though I dont know what the relative mass is, I think that it is more "bendable" with the black dot up and achieves LD. Is this (ease of bending away from the cue ball) a component of LD as well as low mass?

Tests show some very whippy shafts are very high squirt and some very stiff shafts (like mine) are very low squirt - the opposite of what you'd expect. Shaft stiffness doesn't seem to matter for squirt; as far as we can tell it's all in the endmass.

pj
chgo

 

[qbilder]

Tests show some very whippy shafts are very high squirt and some very stiff shafts (like mine) are very low squirt - the opposite of what you'd expect. Shaft stiffness doesn't seem to matter for squirt; as far as we can tell it's all in the endmass.

pj
chgo

How much would the tightness of the grip and the tightness of a closed bridge affect deflection? I'd assume an open bridge would theoretically deflect more that a closed bridge. Another thing that is being ignored is flex point. If the flex point of the cue is closer to the tip, then it would deflect at a sharper angle than if the flex point were near the joint, if that makes sense. I'm not talking about the amount of cueball deflection, but the deflection angle of the actual cue, which will directly affect the angle the cueball will deflect from it. I know, it's all nonsense. The wheels are spinning in my head & I have lots of questions about lots of real life variables to the great deflection debate, beyond the science of tip end mass.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

qbilder:
Truth is, unless each shaft is tested individually, you have no idea what kind of deflective properties it has.

Each shaft is tested individually - by the player who shoots with it. You can immediately see the aiming difference between high-squirt and low-squirt shafts; it's not subtle. If you want to quantify the difference, there are simple test shots anybody can do that will show the amount of squirt any shaft produces. The aiming difference can be as much as a few inches for a table-length sidespin shot.

There's no mystery - anybody can test his own shaft for himself.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

qbilder:
I have lots of questions about lots of real life variables to the great deflection debate, beyond the science of tip end mass.

Squirt wasn't discovered yesterday. It has been investigated and tested extensively, and the only thing that seems to make any significant difference is endmass. It's probably the most discussed thing on ABZ - search for it.

pj
chgo

 

[qbilder]

Each shaft is tested individually - by the player who shoots with it. You can immediately see the aiming difference between high-squirt and low-squirt shafts; it's not subtle. If you want to quantify the difference, there are simple test shots anybody can do that will show the amount of squirt any shaft produces. The aiming difference can be as much as a few inches for a table-length sidespin shot.

There's no mystery - anybody can test his own shaft for himself.

pj
chgo

That was the point. The player will have to play with the shaft to know if it has the playability he/she is looking for. Solid players who know what to look for are more than likely to look for these things than the hundreds of thousands of other players who only know what they have been told or read. Go in to any bar or pool room & see how many people can tell you whether a cue has high deflection or low, and actually know what they are talking about.

I understand deflection. It's 8th grade physics, the chapter right after Newton. I didn't post to get a lesson on it.

 

[LAMas]

How much would the tightness of the grip and the tightness of a closed bridge affect deflection? I'd assume an open bridge would theoretically deflect more that a closed bridge. Another thing that is being ignored is flex point. If the flex point of the cue is closer to the tip, then it would deflect at a sharper angle than if the flex point were near the joint, if that makes sense. I'm not talking about the amount of cueball deflection, but the deflection angle of the actual cue, which will directly affect the angle the cueball will deflect from it. I know, it's all nonsense. The wheels are spinning in my head & I have lots of questions about lots of real life variables to the great deflection debate, beyond the science of tip end mass.

Thanks,
I concur.
Drilling out the shaft behind the tip will achieve low mass and will look conventional. The advantage of the pie shaped or similar lamination, is to me, that it eliminates the plywood aspect of some shafts that have noticible parallel grain structure - it averages out the grain making the hit the "same" regardless of how you rotate the shaft. I assume that this would not be the case if the shaft was made from the center portion of the "log".

I asked the same question about an open bridge vs closed; tight bridge vs. loose; bridging close to the cue ball v. farther back - I think that if the shaft moves away from the cue ball on impact that it might make a difference and that bridging closer or farther from the cue ball changes the effective mass.

Have a Prosperous New Year.:smile:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

qbilder:
The player will have to play with the shaft to know if it has the playability he/she is looking for. Solid players who know what to look for are more than likely to look for these things than the hundreds of thousands of other players who only know what they have been told or read. Go in to any bar or pool room & see how many people can tell you whether a cue has high deflection or low, and actually know what they are talking about.

Pool players like what they're familiar with, not what's "best". Inexperienced players aren't familiar with anything yet, so they don't prefer one thing or another - this means they actually have an advantage over "solid players" because they can choose a cue based on real objective playing characteristics (like low squirt) rather than on the cue's familiar "feel".

pj
chgo

 

[chin0]

I have personally never had a "good" maple shaft. The ones I have had were a schmelke and a GW, which both I could considered "good" or give much feel over my current OB2. I actually prefer my OB2 to those cheaper maple shafts. It could also be that I haven't developed the feel since I haven't played for a long time and I made the switch over to a LD shaft.

I have hit with a schick, and I could say that I like it. I don't know if it is the feel or whatever you call it, but it hits very solid. It is also very LD.

People all have their opinions and what not. People would prefer what they prefer, I don't rain on anyones parade if they prefer a maple over LD, because honestly, it is not my problem. My biggest concern is my personal game.

Another thought would be, if you are a good player, you are no matter a conventional or a LD shaft is in your hand. Take John Schmidt for example, he is a good player regardless of the OB shaft. (Sorry Royce, I don't mean to say your product is no good, I love my OB lol) but I am sure that most of us would agree that John is good with or without the OB

 

[RD3P]

I saw Meucci demonstrate his machine which was a simple pendulum and have no doubt about what I saw - unless he had a hidden tweak mechanism. It convinced me that the 314 or the OB would squirt less and offer a closer to a center ball aim for cuts - which works for me.

Bottom line is that it helped to convince me that there is a difference when compared to a higher mass conventional shaft made of the same wood - maple with no core. I believe in the engineeering that goes into the OB shaft. I own a OB-1 and am planning to buy an OB-2 for a smaller diameter that I like.

I used to sand down my shafts toward 11 mm to help me aim and got used to LD as well. I noticed that Oscar Dominguez and his Father also shot with a small diameter shaft with great results. Oscar now shoots with a commercial LD shaft after he used my Z2 and said that it shot the same - perhaps a coincidence?


I hope that Meucci's machine was not rigged as inferred by some. We didn't have hundreds of tests to get to the moon to get it right, but we did have good science.

.

i know what deflection is.... and i laugh at the mythbuster everytime i seen the video of it.

Because id never make a shot if cues deflected the cueball like in his vid.

i cannot recreate what bob meucci did with my schon....hell' id never make a shot if my cue deflected that much. nobody would because youd never beable to compensate for something like that.

i can hit a ball hard with extreme english and hit where i aim every time
when my stroke is on.....i dont understand what people are doing to create this 3 or 4 inches of deflection????

the only way i get 3 or 4 inches of deflection is if i miscue...and that can happen with any shaft....

there is no need for low deflection shafts really....but if thats what you like to use go ahead. whatever gives you confidence....

i dont compensate my aim for deflection ever....for THrow/swerve/masse yes ill adjust my aim to contact point but other than that. i dont ever account for deflection because i feel like its never an issue with me....
i think people just like to blame a missed shot on anything but themselves or the imput that they might of put into the cueball via stroke,

ive used a predator and i made/missed balls just the same as with a regular shaft....to me it was just another shaft...
hit fine played fine...definately not worth $220 tho

Robots/machines dont play pool...people do...shoot whatever you want....the only way to get better is practice...and dream about the game when your not practicing.

.

 

[DaveK]

Actually Dave, I think it has happened.

Dr. Dave Alciatore has done many tests to confirm that Tip End Mass has direct impact on cue ball squirt or deflection.

Now, not all shafts have been tested, and there will always be some variation even amongst engineered cue shafts, the ranges of variance are bound by the materials used.

I don't know off hand where Dr. Dave's test results are but I hope he might chip in here and keep me from having to look them up.

Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com

Yes, this is the type of pioneering work going on. Knowing that various cue parameters affect the cueball path, as Dr. Dave proves and nicely explains, is why we should have standardized testing with results that can be compared. It would be great to see a cuemaker test their shafts/cues, ALL their shafts/cues. We expect there to be differences in the deflection of shafts, but a way to measure and compare these phenomena between makers, materials, and designs would be beneficial. I'm not very good at adjusting to differences and would like to know that my new cue is close to my old one, or at least not a radical change (I know, buy an OB ). I'm also a measurement freak :boring2:

Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

RD3P:
i dont compensate my aim for deflection ever

Everybody adjusts for it, some consciously, some not. Whichever works best for you.

It can be proved that you adjust, but if you shoot best feeling you don't what would be the point?

pj
chgo

 

[greyghost]

you got to see it from a business and cuemaker point of view. By laminating the maple in different particular ways as shown by predator, ob1 etc.. you can get a pretty consistent product. This goes for hit as well as the overall quality of the stock wood.

Most good custom cue makers spend alot of time culling through the proper pieces of maple to turn down....even some of those don't make the final qc check. So you end up wasting.... With their manufacturing process they can produce more product faster, more consistently = happy consumer,make more money,waste less, good for environment bla bla bla.

Most are all a good product, but like we say its all in the stroke anyways. A player should be able to adjust to anything within decency given time.

I shoot with an 11mm tip and have been shooting with a new cue at 13mm just to try it out to see how I really feel about it. After adjusting to it over a few days it find the cue plays really great. I still prefer my 11mm but I would shoot with the other custom any time if thats what I had.

Same with the PFD its got ivory ferrules and forward balance, you get super sloppy english....its just too much for me so I like to just play a softer game with it, using more natural lines....its not the same so I adjust.

bad mechanics wont be fixed by any equipment, but most any equipment can do well with good mechanics

happy new year,
grey ghost

 

[qbilder]

It would be great to see a cuemaker test their shafts/cues, ALL their shafts/cues.

Dennis Searing does it. He tests the flex of his shafts & they have to fit within a tiny window of range or else he'll not use them. Combine this with weight matching and tone matching that other cuemakers utilize. I'd say most custom builders test each shaft to some extent. Personally, I check for tone & weight. The tone tells me how stiff the shaft will be and the memory of the flex, and the weight tells me about the window of deflection it's likely to have. My shafts play best with a high tone & 3.8-4.2oz. Deflection is but one aspect of how a shaft performs.