Predator shaft question

Kevin,

I know this is getting a heated debate...but I have a question. Im not trying to be an a$$.

What benefits do you see with a mod. 314 over one of your straight grain shafts that have the same tenon/ferrule combo as put on the upgraded 314? From what I can tell the only difference would be the radial lamination...or am i missing something?

Thanks in advance,
Ian
 
I think what Kevin is trying to say is that you still benefit from the last 4-5 inches of the 314 shaft, which is part of the 314 technology that helps lower deflection. It isn't just the feerrule that effects the deflection.

I play with a stock 314-2 and love it but I can understand someone having an issue with the hit and while I do agree that his conversion is going to cause the 314 to deflect more than stock it will still deflect less than a non 314 shaft so for many that may be the balance they are looking for.

I'd be interested in trying one that had the conversion done one day, perhaps christmas time I'll treat myself lol.
 
xianmacx said:
Kevin,



What benefits do you see with a mod. 314 over one of your straight grain shafts that have the same tenon/ferrule combo as put on the upgraded 314? From what I can tell the only difference would be the radial lamination...or am i missing something?

Thanks in advance,
Ian
Click to expand...


You are correct. You get the benefit of a radial lam shaft with the hollow front end...just upgraded to hit/play better. The upgrade causes no added "squirt". We'll see when the two testers report back.
KV
 
Varney Cues said:
You are correct. You get the benefit of a radial lam shaft with the hollow front end...just upgraded to hit/play better. The upgrade causes no added "squirt". We'll see when the two testers report back.
KV
Click to expand...
Hell, I'm gonna pizz off Pred.
Buy a radial blank, drill a funnel shaped hole, cutoff a Saber rod piece about 3MM thick and use that as tip backer ( NO FERRULE ) then install Kamui tip.
There you go.
Radial lam, lightweight front but a hard backer ( more feel )and a nice spin crazy tip.
OK, I hope I don't get sued.
 
JoeyInCali said:
Hell, I'm gonna pizz off Pred.
Buy a radial blank, drill a funnel shaped hole, cutoff a Saber rod piece about 3MM thick and use that as tip backer ( NO FERRULE ) then install Kamui tip.
There you go.
Radial lam, lightweight front but a hard backer ( more feel )and a nice spin crazy tip.
OK, I hope I don't get sued.
Click to expand...
Get em Joey...maybe MikeG:rolleyes: can help you with the patent.:D
 
ok you have all explained in very good detail and i appreciate it. Now i say why would'nt meucci be the cue of choice because they are very whippy and flexible would'nt a meucci have way less cueball deflection. And Mr. Varney if i ever need any cue work done i'll send it your way i appreciate your professionalism and honesty.
 
BigDaddyInc. said:
ok you have all explained in very good detail and i appreciate it. Now i say why would'nt meucci be the cue of choice because they are very whippy and flexible would'nt a meucci have way less cueball deflection. And Mr. Varney if i ever need any cue work done i'll send it your way i appreciate your professionalism and honesty.
Click to expand...

Low deflection is not just how whippy or flexible the shaft is, it has a lot to do with reducing the front end mass, which is why predators are hollow in the front.

I have played with a predator shaft that had a steel pin set into the shaft just below the ferrule. It had so much cue ball deflection that you couldn't even hit the object ball if any english at all was used. The guy that owned it would bet people that they couldn't make a ball hanging in the jaws from the other side of 9' table using his shaft. Even if you knew the shaft was rigged, it was still a huge challenge because it is much harder to hit exact center of the cue ball than most people think.
 
Varney Cues said:
bogey54311...
For the best possible hit...I'd suggest skipping the ivory. You'll be much happier with Saber T or Ivorine 4. The Saber T is very clean and totally chalk resistant. The Ivorine 4 is more like traditional linen ferrule...except its the most bulletproof option. I use the Iv4 on my j/b when someone wants my canvas tip threaded into a white ferrule insteard of the 1pc tip/ferrule combo. Either option is wonderful...the Iv4 will "hit" slightly harder.
Click to expand...

Do you both thread the tennon into the cue and also thread the ferrule?
 
Varney Cues said:
Then you send it to say Ted Yost or Bill Wilson...and what you get back is smoother & shoots better than it ever did new.;)
Lets just want for the jury (ShaneT58) verdict....:D
Can we make a friendly wager?
Click to expand...

A wager on what? If your modified predator shafts hit better?!?

You're missing the point. Again.

If we were to wager, this would be the premise:

1.) measure cueball squirt of a stock predator shaft.

2.) perform your famous modification on that same predator shaft.

3.) measure modified 314's cue ball squirt.

I would wager every cent I have that after modification the shaft will SQUIRT MORE. Whether this increase in squirt is important to the player is not the issue. Whether the player prefers the hit of a stock 314 or a modified one is also not the issue. The only contention I made was this: that what you do to a predator shaft (and btw, plenty of cuemakers/repairman do this) INCREASES SQUIRT!

Please, please make an effort to understand what was just written before you respond again.

-Roger
 
Varney Cues said:
Again I ask...are you a cuemaker & how many 314's have you worked on?
Click to expand...

And again I ask you: wtf does this have to do with anything? I know how predator shafts work, I know how they're constructed, and I know that adding your little tenon will increase cue ball squirt.

Period. End of story.

-Roger
 
BigDaddyInc. said:
Now i say why would'nt meucci be the cue of choice because they are very whippy and flexible would'nt a meucci have way less cueball deflection.
Click to expand...

This is sort of a mindfield full of a question. The latest and greatest understanding of cueball deflection is that the mass at the tip end of the shaft (first 6" or so) is the major contributer. Not flex or whip.

The other thing is there really is no reason to think that less cueball deflection is desirable. Some people think that it would be intuitive to want less cueball deflection. Too many people have tried the low squirt shafts and returned to a normal squirt shaft, so that proves at least empirically that less cueball deflection isn't always desirable.

Fred
 
Cornerman said:
This is sort of a mindfield full of a question. The latest and greatest understanding of cueball deflection is that the mass at the tip end of the shaft (first 6" or so) is the major contributer. Not flex or whip.

The other thing is there really is no reason to think that less cueball deflection is desirable. Some people think that it would be intuitive to want less cueball deflection. Too many people have tried the low squirt shafts and returned to a normal squirt shaft, so that proves at least empirically that less cueball deflection isn't always desirable.

Fred
Click to expand...
I very correct observation Fred.:)
 
The other thing is there really is no reason to think that less cueball deflection is desirable. Some people think that it would be intuitive to want less cueball deflection. Too many people have tried the low squirt shafts and returned to a normal squirt shaft, so that proves at least empirically that less cueball deflection isn't always desirable.
Click to expand...

I don't think that statement is totally true.

It may not be totally desirable to someone who has been playing seriously for a long time using the same cue for a long time who has had that particular shafts deflection and squirt programmed into their brain.

Now I am not saying this as an ad for predator, I don't care if someone uses a ob1, predator or whatever low deflection shaft.

But I'd have to say that someone who is a newer player or someone who is just now becoming more serious about the game and is just entering the stage where they even are worrying about making adjustments for squirt and deflection to begin with that a low deflection shaft most certainly would be something that is desirable. It's going to be alot easier for someone to learn to adjust for squirt over a smaller range than a larger one, that's just simple logic. It's going to be easier for them, as a less seasoned player, to not be punished as much by the low squirt and deflection on slightly offcenter hits that were meant to be center hits.

To people playing consistent and a high ranking I would say, no, don't switch but just simple because there is no reason to change what they are used ti. To people who are new and just entering the game or are perhaps struggling with consistency or a lower ranking, I'd say go out and find the lowest deflection shaft you can get your hands on.
 
buddha162 said:
A wager on what? If your modified predator shafts hit better?!?

You're missing the point. Again.

If we were to wager, this would be the premise:

1.) measure cueball squirt of a stock predator shaft.

2.) perform your famous modification on that same predator shaft.

3.) measure modified 314's cue ball squirt.

I would wager every cent I have that after modification the shaft will SQUIRT MORE. Whether this increase in squirt is important to the player is not the issue. Whether the player prefers the hit of a stock 314 or a modified one is also not the issue. The only contention I made was this: that what you do to a predator shaft (and btw, plenty of cuemakers/repairman do this) INCREASES SQUIRT!

Please, please make an effort to understand what was just written before you respond again.

-Roger
Click to expand...

I agree with Roger. The modifications that Kevin described that he does will increase the amount of cueball deflection produced by the 314.

Will the shaft 'hit' better? 'Hit' is subjective but IMO it probably would 'hit' better. In this case, I agree with Kevin and his claims that his modification will most likely 'hit' better but maybe he should include a disclaimer that it will also change the amount of cueball deflection produced.
 
GTeye said:
I don't think that statement is totally true.

It may not be totally desirable to someone who has been playing seriously for a long time using the same cue for a long time who has had that particular shafts deflection and squirt programmed into their brain..
Click to expand...
Since what you wrote exactly is in agreement with what I said, then doesn't that make my statement totally true?

I said: so that proves at least empirically that less cueball deflection isn't always desirable.

And you gave an example of how that's true.

Fred <~~~ pretty sure I said the same thing
 
Last edited:
talk to predator first!

Ask the man at predator what they think of modifications to their product. This follows the adage pool players will buy anything. I heard this after playing with Predator you can't go back. Here's another after 2-3 years they lose their deflection advantage and become like a normal shaft ? :confused:
 
fish on said:
Ask the man at predator what they think of modifications to their product. This follows the adage pool players will buy anything. I heard this after playing with Predator you can't go back. Here's another after 2-3 years they lose their deflection advantage and become like a normal shaft ? :confused:
Click to expand...

Predator would not approve of the modifications but that does not mean that the modifications are a bad thing. As Kevin pointed out, he has many happy customers.

If you play with a Predator you can 'go back' but it is not usually something that most Predator owners do and it is more difficult for most to 'go back' but it can be done.

Predators would only lose their deflection advantage after 2-3 years if the front end mass of the shaft somehow increased by itself! This is a myth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top