New low deflection shaft: Meucci Ultimate Weapon

Even if my ordinary shaft have more deflection, then UW can reverse the deflection more to the other side. What a word.....
 
jbcases-mike said:
I watched your video. I know almost nothing about pool. But I do understand a little about marketing.

The claim about the Meucci cue deflecting the least and always in the range of the pocket is powerful. But I think that this chart is misleading when compared to the video.

In the video the laser line is pointing at the center of the cue ball or near the center. One would assume in light of your marketing statement that this represents the center of the pocket. A 4.5 inch pocket would then have 2.25 inches to either side of center. With the ball being 2.25 inches in diameter that would mean that it has only 1.125 inches of clearance before it hits the rail. Thus using your test anything beyond 1.125 inches of object ball variance from center would be a miss.

The infograpghic is misleading because you have the laser line starting at the far left of the pocket. So yes, if you were aiming to hit the far left of the pocket the object ball path using the Meucci shaft would be in the pocket but aiming for the center of the pocket would result in a miss more than half the time based on the graphic.

I think that you need to rethink this particular tack and perhaps rewrite it. Also you cannot have 150% less of anything. Because saying that one quantity is 150% less means concretely that there is a negative balance. In terms of performance it is impossible to have a negative balance. In other words you cannot say that Carl Lewis ran 150% slower than Usain Bolt unless Carl Lewis started running backwards from the finish line.

Starting with a known quantity, say 100, you can only reduce it by up to 100% to get to zero. You can add more than 100% though and for example add 150 units to end up with 250 or 150% more than the initial quantity.

If Shaft A causes deflection of 8" and shaft B causes 4" then shaft B casues 50% less than shaft A not 100% less. The only two correct ways to describe the effect are Shaft A causes 100% MORE deflection than B or shaft B causes 50% less.

The videos seem to be fairly well done but not entirely conclusive. Were I a potential customer I would like to see such a test done with an actual pocket and with the laser pointed at the center of the pocket. Then I could see a much better representation of the real world performance of the shafts compared.

Also, Mr. Johnson is correct. The amount of cue ball deflection should not be measured in terms of where the object ball goes. Obviously the cueball deflection is less than 1.25" for every shaft tested because the object ball is struck every time. Unless we know that the exact contact point distance from zero on the object ball we can't know if the numbers presented correlate accurately to the results for the object ball path. Using the object ball as in this video certain results in bigger numbers which look more impressive but how accurate are they really? Assuming little to no friction between the balls there is little to no object ball deflection on an off center hit. The object ball is a stationary target. Thus the only think that is of importance is where the cue ball is going and how far off a dead center ball hit the cue produces.

It seems like there is a lot of potential to use Meucci's device to collect a lot of data. In the hands of a non-commercial entity I think that there is a lot that can be learned from such a set up.

(disclaimer I am not a pool player and have no idea about the actual performance of cues. I have a McDermott cue given to me years ago and it has not been in my hands for ten years)
Click to expand...

This may be off point, but the Muecci graph is somewhat misleading. If U note that the Balabuska 'stock' is the 3rd. best for the least cue ball squirt, but then shows it as 180 something % improvement with the black dot. Watch the video on Muecci's site Mr. Muecci is at first shocked & then credits the Adams Balabushka perfomance to the well made butt.
 
Last edited:
jbcases-mike said:
I watched your video. I know almost nothing about pool. But I do understand a little about marketing.

The claim about the Meucci cue deflecting the least and always in the range of the pocket is powerful. But I think that this chart is misleading when compared to the video.

In the video the laser line is pointing at the center of the cue ball or near the center. One would assume in light of your marketing statement that this represents the center of the pocket. A 4.5 inch pocket would then have 2.25 inches to either side of center. With the ball being 2.25 inches in diameter that would mean that it has only 1.125 inches of clearance before it hits the rail. Thus using your test anything beyond 1.125 inches of object ball variance from center would be a miss.

The infograpghic is misleading because you have the laser line starting at the far left of the pocket. So yes, if you were aiming to hit the far left of the pocket the object ball path using the Meucci shaft would be in the pocket but aiming for the center of the pocket would result in a miss more than half the time based on the graphic.

I think that you need to rethink this particular tack and perhaps rewrite it. Also you cannot have 150% less of anything. Because saying that one quantity is 150% less means concretely that there is a negative balance. In terms of performance it is impossible to have a negative balance. In other words you cannot say that Carl Lewis ran 150% slower than Usain Bolt unless Carl Lewis started running backwards from the finish line.

Starting with a known quantity, say 100, you can only reduce it by up to 100% to get to zero. You can add more than 100% though and for example add 150 units to end up with 250 or 150% more than the initial quantity.

If Shaft A causes deflection of 8" and shaft B causes 4" then shaft B casues 50% less than shaft A not 100% less. The only two correct ways to describe the effect are Shaft A causes 100% MORE deflection than B or shaft B causes 50% less.

The videos seem to be fairly well done but not entirely conclusive. Were I a potential customer I would like to see such a test done with an actual pocket and with the laser pointed at the center of the pocket. Then I could see a much better representation of the real world performance of the shafts compared.

Also, Mr. Johnson is correct. The amount of cue ball deflection should not be measured in terms of where the object ball goes. Obviously the cueball deflection is less than 1.25" for every shaft tested because the object ball is struck every time. Unless we know that the exact contact point distance from zero on the object ball we can't know if the numbers presented correlate accurately to the results for the object ball path. Using the object ball as in this video certain results in bigger numbers which look more impressive but how accurate are they really? Assuming little to no friction between the balls there is little to no object ball deflection on an off center hit. The object ball is a stationary target. Thus the only think that is of importance is where the cue ball is going and how far off a dead center ball hit the cue produces.

It seems like there is a lot of potential to use Meucci's device to collect a lot of data. In the hands of a non-commercial entity I think that there is a lot that can be learned from such a set up.

(disclaimer I am not a pool player and have no idea about the actual performance of cues. I have a McDermott cue given to me years ago and it has not been in my hands for ten years)
Click to expand...

This may be off point, but the Muecci graph is somewhat misleading. If U note that the Balabuska 'stock' is the 3rd. best for the least cue ball squirt, but then shows it as 180+ % improvement with the black dot. Watch the video on Muecci's site. Mr. Muecci is at first shocked & then credits the Adams Balabushka perfomance to the well made butt. The point being it improved from 3rd. to 2nd. place. at 180+% improvement. It is the butt that ALLOWS the most improvement. Some cues did not improve nearly as much. Does that mean that there shafts were that good? Not necessariy, maybe their butts are that bad. I hope I've relayed my point properly.
 
jbcases-mike:
The claim about the Meucci cue deflecting the least and always in the range of the pocket is powerful.
Click to expand...
But false.

As you pointed out, a 4.5-inch margin of error in one direction is twice as much as an actual pocket gives. On top of that, the amount of object ball error will change significantly with anything but a straight shot, so even the 4.5-inch claim is false in most cases.

The results advertised by Meucci are also false in other ways.

The test shows that Meucci's shaft squirts less than the others, but not by how much. To do that you'd have to measure the cue ball's deviation from a straight path, not the object ball's. Using the object ball makes the test sensitive to CB/OB distance and cut angle - change either of these and the results will change, maybe dramatically.

This means that all the measurements and percentages on Meucci's chart are meaningless except to show that Meucci squirts less than the others by some unknown amount.

Another problem with measuring squirt this way is that the robot bridges over the rail, which elevates the butt slightly and introduces swerve. So even if we take the object ball out of the picture and measure the cue ball's path directly, the results will be different at different distances, speeds and with different balls and cloth.

This test really only shows one thing clearly: either Meucci doesn't know how to test cue ball deflection (squirt), or its advertising is deliberately misleading.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top