My thoughts on conventional shaft vs. low deflection shaft

Patrick Johnson said:
I balk at confusing what we know with what we theorize, because it misleads Joe Cueshopper, who wants to know what definitely matters in cues available today. And I must assume that Joe Cueshopper outnumbers cuebuilders and technogeeks like you and me by a wide margin on AZB.

So I don't mind talking about what technicalities might affect squirt, but we should keep in mind that the vast majority of readers here can't sort the known factors from the theoretical ones or the significant ones from the insignificant ones, so we have to be clear about the differences. The message that matters most to most readers here is that, despite lots of testing of lots of different cues, the only thing we know today that significantly affects squirt in today's cues is end mass.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Again, all well and good. However, the person whom I was addressing was Eric Crisp of Sugartree Cues. He was asking in a way much more expansive then Joe Cueshopper or Joe ForumReader. If it wasn't a cuemaker asking for what seemed like more in depth answers (which he clearly was), then maybe I don't pipe up at all. He also knows that if he wants to talk to me personally about it, he's got it anytime. I think if a person asks, answering is the right thing.

Back in the day when you knew very little as to what caused squirt and what was significant, I was one of the few that helped set you straight.

Once again, I'm surprised since you delve into more techno speak than most readers could care two bits about, yet you're balking when I'm doing it? Odd indeed.

Fred
 
Last edited:
Once again, I'm surprised since you delve into more techno speak than most readers could care two bits about, yet you're balking when I'm doing it? Odd indeed.

Fred
Click to expand...

Looking back at what you said I guess I did misunderstand you, Fred. Here it is again with the part I think I misunderstood highlighted:

...when people say "it's the tip end mass," they either only say that to keep it as layman as possible or they don't fully understand the theory.
Click to expand...

For some reason when I saw that the first time I thought you were criticizing those who say "it's the tip end mass", but (if I read it correctly now) you were actually saying that's a legitimate reason to say it that way - pretty much what I've been saying.

Sorry for confusing things - I should read more carefully sometimes.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Looking back at what you said I guess I did misunderstand you, Fred. Here it is again with the part I think I misunderstood highlighted:



For some reason when I saw that the first time I thought you were criticizing those who say "it's the tip end mass", but (if I read it correctly now) you were actually saying that's a legitimate reason to say it that way - pretty much what I've been saying.

Sorry for confusing things - I should read more carefully sometimes.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Thank you Pat. I was looking at the same thing wondering if you realized you circled around to what I said in the firstl place.

Happy New Year.

Fred
 
Cornerman said:
I don't think hundreds of shafts need to be tested to quantify shaft squirt characteristics. Tests have been done. Theory has been done. Tests agree with theory.



I'm confused at your concern here. As an unbiased end user and one of the long time posters who (in my not so humble opinion) have helped over the last 10 years the entire internet community on the understanding the how's and what's of squirt, there is no doubt there is a bold line. It's certainly not subtle.

Also, I know you were being a bit tongue-in-cheek saying that squirt is 8th grade Physics, but I dont' think most people realize that it's not first year Physics. IMO, the study is a pretty advanced branch of collision analysis. It's a pretty unique analysis. Here's a hint: when people say "it's the tip end mass," they either only say that to keep it as layman as possible or they don't fully understand the theory. My guess is half the people or more simply don't understand the theory, but they understand that changing the tip end mass makes a difference.

Fred
Click to expand...



I don't think hundreds of shafts need to be tested to quantify shaft squirt characteristics. Tests have been done. Theory has been done. Tests agree with theory.


But, one thing you can't control is the manfacturing process and the Human factor, with that considered at a minimum tests should never stop, and each batch produced should have shafts tested!!

JIMHO
 
Nick B said:
Ahhhhhhh you guys hugged it out! That's a good way to end a entertaining thread. I was beginning to wonder when you two were going to realize you were both on the same side.
Click to expand...

Egad! Pat and I may be on the same page as far as understanding squirt, but we're not on the same side of the conventional vs. low deflection original post.

Fred
 
My apology to Fred and Pat. I never meant to stir anything. Fred, you are correct that I do have many in-depth questions about the physics behind deflection. I am not satisfied with the simple answer of, "tip end mass". I believe it's much more complex than that & I am confident that it's safe for me to assume so. I'm also not only concerned with deflection/squirt, but much more broad minded about the entire cue as a unit.

My posts were a bit facetious and i'm sorry if I ruffled anybody's feathers. It's more humorous for me than educational to debate the deflection issue on a public forum because I am not looking through the same glass as most of the posters. I wouldn't dare pretend that I know deflection theory more than anybody else, just that I see things from a builder's point of view & that clearly is a different view than the majority of other posters. Basically, I read ideas & theories here online, then go out to the shop & put them to the test. I know all too well what is hypothetical and what is actual, and the two are not exactly meeting on the same plane. It's clear to me that more work and research needs to go into this "low deflection" theory than simply stamping it with tip end mass. Yes, tip end mass is a factor, but I can tell you from my own research and experimentation it is not the deciding end all factor. There are seemingly endless variables to consider going even to the extreme polar end of the cue, the bumper. There's something for an argument, huh? :eek: But that's not my intention. I'd just like to get to the bottom of the issue so that I can build a better cue.

My hat goes off to OB. I'm a fan. I think those guys are on to something and I enjoy seeing them progress towards the goal of an ultimate cue. Fred, I think you likely have as strong a grasp on deflection as anybody, and have much to offer. Hopefully I can pick your brain & tap some of that understanding. Happy holidays, fellas.
 
qblider,
Thanks for your and other's contribution to this thread. The quest is to perfect the art toward a shaft that will produce the lowest "squirt" so that when one applies English, the shooter can aim closer to a center ball aim.

I am a proponent of learning how to shoot all shots by aiming center ball first. Applying English is hard enough to master without squirt getting in the way - so to speak.

This I believe can accelerate the learning process for the entry level pool shooter to achieve positive results to sustain his desire to master the art of pool.

The quest for an optimum low squirt shaft or cue is a noble persuit and is what pool desires and will invest in.

We here know the pleasure of shooting well and the frustration of shooting bad - bad can cause one to quit prematurely.

Back in the day, there were few teachers and we all shot with the equivalent of "house" cues with high squirt. Then again we didn't want to teach the art - "don't feed the fish".

Today, we benefit by teachers and high tech equipment to accelerate the process and to expand sustained interest in pool.

My take away from this thread is that tip mass is important and that there needs to be more study forwarded about the virtues of a whippy shaft, soft or hard tip, compliant ferrule etc. in the persuit of a low squirt shaft and cue - to promote the art that we "love".

Kudos:smile:
 
shoot witha lucasi and 314-2, also have a schuler with schuler shaft. really not much difference in derflectio bewtween the 2. but schuler plays hella better.
 
manwon said:
I don't think hundreds of shafts need to be tested to quantify shaft squirt characteristics. Tests have been done. Theory has been done. Tests agree with theory.


But, one thing you can't control is the manfacturing process and the Human factor, with that considered at a minimum tests should never stop, and each batch produced should have shafts tested!!

JIMHO
Click to expand...
No doubt, which is a good reason for the consumer to learn how to do the Aim & Pivot Test so that they can have some kind of relative analysis on the squirt properties of the cue they've got in their hand.

Also add the nature factor and the non-consistent materials. That's probably why top makers examine, test and cull their stockpile: to get as a consistent result as possible in terms of materials into their cue.

Fred
 
I think people get a little too concerned with "deflection" and the aftermarket shafts. I used to play with the LD shafts. However, I noticed that I lost certain shots that I could play before. I have two cues that I play with right now - a Rick Howard and a Samsara. Both cues have solid maple shafts, no gimmicks. The Samsara is a stiff taper, and the Howard has a parabolic taper. Both cues deflect a little more than a Predator or an OB, but the number of quality shots I get from them is much higher. The feedback and feel, however, are worth the tradeoff.

If I was just spinning the crap out of the cueball all day, then LD is a great choice. However, once I surpassed the ranking of 5 in the APA/CPA, I realized that there's more to pool than spinning the cueball. If I'm playing in the centre of the ball, then Pred vs broomstick doesn't matter. If I have to play the odd spin shot, that's fine. I try to stay on the vertical plane of the cueball for 80% of my shots. One thing I find about players who use LD shafts - they will ALWAYS have to play with LD shafts. Instead of having the cue compensate for deflection, I choose to compensate for it myself. This way, I can't get sloppy and have the cue mask errors in my aim or stroke.

The shots I lose with an LD shaft - the long shot where I have to roll through one ball rotation. The jump shot with my playing shaft. The bounceback draw shot, where I only need to pull the ball back 4-5". I also lose the ability to "cheat" certain shots, like overcutting a ball by adding a touch of inside english.

Plus, "feel" and "low deflection" are mutually exclusive events. I have yet to find an LD shaft with feel anywhere close to a one piece shaft.
 
KMRUNOUT said:
Interesting post. You make your point, then proceed to destroy it. The fact is that when a robot strikes the cueball off center (with its fixed bridge, fixed pivot point, etc.) it *absolutely does* deflect quite a bit. You saw it. I saw it in person. I've tried it myself with all kinds of cues and shafts. This is a simple fact of physics, like it or not. Understand it or not.

However, you then go on to say that robots don't play pool, people do. Well there is your answer. *That* is how you are able to make a ball with a cue that deflects so much. You unconsciously aim to compensate for it (robots can't do this...yet). You already know that you can also compensate for it with your stroke, the way you grip the cue, the way you adjust your bridge, and many other ways. You do all those things because you are a human being and you can.

So there you have it: yes, the cue does deflect like you saw. yes, you are able to compensate for it. That's it.

KMRUNOUT
Click to expand...

point taken.

but id lay a bet that anyone that shoots decent pool can take "shaft a" that say deflects when using "mythbuster" 1.5 inches over the distance of a table run a rack...switch to "shaft b" that deflects 3.25 inches...run the rack ....

even myself....am i that good at ompensating for deflection that i can switch shafts and imediately run the rack.....because honestly ive never thought about deflection while in the middle of a game...never....ive never missed a shot and thought to my self it was because of deflection.

im not the only one.....
if people can compensate for deflection subconciously so easily...then whats the point of a "low deflection" shaft?????
 
Last edited:
Shawn Armstrong said:
I noticed that I lost certain shots that I could play before.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. But that's an entirely different tangent of conversation. I didn't mention it because I simply didn't want to go there. But i'm glad to see i'm not the only one who sees it. The cues are only ideal if they rest in a happy medium. One extreme or the other is actually a disadvantage. Been saying it for years but some people see it differently I guess.
 
RD3P said:
point taken.

but id lay a bet that anyone that shoots decent pool can take "shaft a" that say deflects when using "mythbuster" 1.5 inches over the distance of a table run a rack...switch to "shaft b" that deflects 3.25 inches...run the rack ....

even myself....am i that good at ompensating for deflection that i can switch shafts and imediately run the rack.....because honestly ive never thought about deflection while in the middle of a game...never....ive never missed a shot and thought to my self it was because of deflection.

im not the only one.....
if people can compensate for deflection subconciously so easily...then whats the point of a "low deflection" shaft?????
Click to expand...

I have read all the posts about this topic, there is a couple of areas that have not been covered however. For instance if your competing or practicing in a wet environement with old cloth then yes the nose heavy hard ferruled shaft will not show up too much. Try playing with a cue that say has an ivory ferrule and is nose heavy on new cloth with polished balls (center ball becomes smaller.) I think you will see then that the lower the deflection the better. I am not a cue maker but have visited with many top cue mechanics in the game. There is one other point I might mention, I once had a great cue maker from Oklahoma put two Predator blanks on the but he built for me. I tested them both for deflection and one had a great deal more squirt than that of the other.

Later on I figured out what I think was a huge factor in determining as to why, Ted Harris (Harris Custom cues) helped out in this quandry. What I am about to explain only pertains to two piece cues which is as far as my knowledge goes. He placed the cue (fully screwed together) up on the rail, while the but of the cue rolled along the bed of the table most of the shaft should be suspended in mid air. You then roll the cue watching for any movement in the tip of the cue - the joint should be near the rail to see this correctly. I noticed that one shaft had a wobble and the other looked like a one pice cue, the one with the wobble deflected a little more than the other. Ted said this has to do with how well the cue is built, having this been said, I have many cues some conventional shafts and others not. I prefer to have a predator or OB-2 as it just seems to make my stroke better, the woodworth and Olney cues however are great for wet conditions and old cloth.
 
Last edited:
Danny Harriman said:
I have read all the posts about this topic, there is a couple of areas that have not been covered however. For instance if your competing or practicing in a wet environement with old cloth then yes the nose heavy hard ferruled shaft will not show up too much. Try playing with a cue that say has an ivory ferrule and is nose heavy on new cloth with polished balls, I think you will see then that the lower the deflection the better. I am not a cue maker but have visited with many top cue mechanics in the game. There is one other point I might mention, I once had a great cue maker from Oklahoma put two Predator blanks on the but he built for me. I tested them both for deflection and one had a great deal more squirt than that of the other.

Later on I figured out what I think was a huge factor in determining as to why, Ted Harris (Harris Custom cues) helped out in this quandry. What I am about to explain only pertains to two piece cues which is as far as my knowledge goes. He placed the cue (fully screwed together) up on the rail, while the but of the cue rolled along the bed of the table most of the shaft should be suspended in mid air. You then roll the cue watching for any movement in the tip of the cue - the joint should be near the rail to see this correctly. I noticed that one shaft had a wobble and the other looked like a one pice cue, the one with the wobble deflected a little more than the other. Ted said this has to do with how well the cue is built, having this been said, I have many cues some conventional shafts and others not. I prefer to have a predator or OB-2 as it just seems to make my stroke better, the woodworth cue however is great for wet conditions and old cloth.
Click to expand...

its 20 degrees or so out in the middle of winter....there is no humidity.(and when there is i use a dehumidifier in the reck room.)
i have championship tour edition stretched to the maxx on a 8 foot brunswick ...its not the fastest table in the world but, noone has ever called it slow.

i dont know i guess its all in my head....it just isnt an isssue for me.
 
Last edited:
Shawn Armstrong said:
The shots I lose with an LD shaft - the long shot where I have to roll through one ball rotation. The jump shot with my playing shaft. The bounceback draw shot, where I only need to pull the ball back 4-5". I also lose the ability to "cheat" certain shots, like overcutting a ball by adding a touch of inside english.

Plus, "feel" and "low deflection" are mutually exclusive events. I have yet to find an LD shaft with feel anywhere close to a one piece shaft.
Click to expand...

Feel and low deflection don't have to be and aren't exclusive events. There is lots of normal maple shafts out there that feel like 2x4's.
As for loosing certain shots all except the jump shot are possible with the first one you mention being difficult but possible.
Lots of pros use LD and they would be most sensitive to feel yet they do seem to think that LD characteristics give them better results.
Life is easier with LD.
 
agree with you on that...

why cant he shoot a long shot and roll the cueball forward one rotation after contact???? its not the shafts fault, but user malfunction.
the idea that certain shots are lost because of a certain shaft is crazy....adjust your stroke.

.....how many pros use predator and are not sponsored???
 
Last edited:
RD3P said:
agree with you on that...

why cant he shoot a long shot and roll the cueball forward one rotation after contact???? its not the shafts fault, but user malfunction.
the idea that certain shots are lost because of a certain shaft is crazy....adjust your stroke.

.....how many pros use predator and are not sponsored???
Click to expand...

IMO. LD shafts Predator and OB are very sensitive, small changes in weight and tip placement seem to be magnified. With a normal shaft there is a bigger window for human error.

One of my favorite shots to see is the replacement the OB ball with CB with a slide. I find this is easier done with a normal shaft.

........and I have no idea why drawing a ball a few inches with LD would be difficult

I don't have those stats but I thought there was a thread on that a while back.
 
you ever shoot a follow shot with low english???? try that. its easier than skid. basically its a stop shot where the ball releases forward roll right before contact....also good for shots where you want to roll forward 3 or 4 inches...

its not really necessary but fun to play around with a different stroke....but it can be usefull
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top