Predator shaft question
- Thread starter BigDaddyInc.
- Start date
Tap, tap, tap.shanesinnott said:
A few people said Predators had titanium insert too.rackem said:QUOTE]
Is that myth something that people actually believe?First I ever heard of that.
shanesinnott said:
It can be difficult to go back. I know I used Predator for over a year, and then I switched to a Rick Howard cue, at which point I swore if I was gonna spend so much on a cue, I'd at least make an honest attempt to play with the standard shafts (that, and after purchasing the RH cue, I had no money left for more shafts). Actually, I should say I switched to one of the shafts. I have one shaft which I'm guessing is around 12.5 mm (it's skinnier than 314), and it doesn't play much different than my 314 did, in terms of deflection. The other shaft is probably much closer to 13 mm; I can't play with that one. That one will get turned down at some point.
I guess if you're lucky enough, then you can find a standard maple shaft that plays like a 314. Actually, I guess it's not a matter of being lucky, it's just how skinny/light the shaft is.
"Going Back"
Sure you can go back. However, in doing so you have to realize you're making a trade-off. I played my first two years of trying to become a serious pool player with a predator shaft, and then recently switched back to the original shaft of my Joss (13.25mm, stiff taper) because I was in a slump and I thought the change would do me good.
I can't say going back to a higher deflection shaft has hurt my game, and I think it's because it's teaching me to play with less juice. My stroke improves over time, meaning I can move the cue ball forward and back more effectively now than I ever could before, and I'm discovering that sidespin gets me into trouble, low-deflection and high-deflection alike, and also that deflection only becomes a big deal with large tip offset and high-speed stroke. So I'm learning to play on the vertical axis of the ball, and when sidespin is needed, I'm learning not to go overboard.
Anyway, I think higher deflection is a reasonable price to pay for a shaft with a solid hit that feels good and allows you to deliver your most confident stroke, considering that taking great players' advice of using the center of the cue ball takes deflection mostly out of the game anyway.
-Andrew
Sure you can go back. However, in doing so you have to realize you're making a trade-off. I played my first two years of trying to become a serious pool player with a predator shaft, and then recently switched back to the original shaft of my Joss (13.25mm, stiff taper) because I was in a slump and I thought the change would do me good.
I can't say going back to a higher deflection shaft has hurt my game, and I think it's because it's teaching me to play with less juice. My stroke improves over time, meaning I can move the cue ball forward and back more effectively now than I ever could before, and I'm discovering that sidespin gets me into trouble, low-deflection and high-deflection alike, and also that deflection only becomes a big deal with large tip offset and high-speed stroke. So I'm learning to play on the vertical axis of the ball, and when sidespin is needed, I'm learning not to go overboard.
Anyway, I think higher deflection is a reasonable price to pay for a shaft with a solid hit that feels good and allows you to deliver your most confident stroke, considering that taking great players' advice of using the center of the cue ball takes deflection mostly out of the game anyway.
-Andrew
shanesinnott said:
Good summary.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with Varney, he's just confused about my original argument that his mods increase cueball deflection. Instead of being honest with his customers, ie "doing this would change the squirt characteristics of your predator shaft," he wants people to think that his modifications would provide a better hit with no compromise on cueball deflection...and that is simply incorrect.
Instead, he has set up some cockeyed bet that has nothing to do with what I'm saying, and then retardedly question my qualifications on making an obvious observation.
This, more than anything else absolutely pisses me off. No Kevin, I've never made a cue. I've never modified a predator shaft, and I've never changed tips for Allison Fisher. This doesn't change the fact that you're dodging the issue.
-Roger
Yes cornerman im one that does'nt mind the cb deflection i've been adjusting to it without a predator for 20 yrs and to try and change now i feel like no way even though i did try a predator for a year. It's just one of those deals where i think the predator makes more sense but i just don't like it i mean i would have to change my game completely just for this shaft. Maybe someday when i get to lazy to do it on my own i'll try a predator.
buddha162 said:
As I said before...lets wait & see what the testers have to say. Leaving 90% of the shaft end hollow, even with my mods...does NOT increase deflection. Ask member Tjlmbklr if his 314 deflects more now on his Josey...go ahead & send him a pm...he'll be honest.
I'm doing two for free & we'll have some unbiased feedback... lets stop now...until the facts are in. I stand behind my statement...my upgrades allow the 314 to "hit" much better...and absolutley does not hinder the low deflection quality Pred designed. We'll see soon enough.
Varney Cues said:
The increase can very well be unnoticable to your "test subjects." They might not care even if it is noticable. That's not the point. You really insist on being obtuse about this.
You increase end mass (adding wood tenon) and you WILL increase squirt. You may want to argue that the increase in squirt would be too small to make any difference, and that may be true but it doesn't change the fact that your modification INCREASES squirt. Why can't you just admit this?
This is a simple exercise: If the lowered end mass of a predator shaft is responsible for its low-squirt characteristics, increasing end mass will increase squirt. Do you agree with that statement? Does your wood tenon increase end mass? Will it then increase squirt?
And please, don't take my words out of context when you quote them. What pisses me off the most about you is your idiotic challenges on my qualifications to make these logical observations.
-Roger (please answer my specific questions in your response)
I know Dennis Orcullo and Ronnie Alcano have both stopped using 314 and they are playing pretty decent pool by any standard I would think. These are players who could call up Predator and get not only 314 shafts but cues, break cues, and cases for free any time.
They have both stopped using Predator BK, too. Ronnie is using the X breaker, and Dennis breaks with a Samsara.
It leads me to believe that there are more to a "good" shaft than "deflection" alone.
Of course, there are also players who have switched to 314 and played awesome.
In my opinion, a 314 shaft is just another shaft on the market. All it does is reducing the curve the cue ball makes when it approaches the object ball on off center hit. This does not make it the best shaft. It is just a shaft with a certain characteristic. I do not agree this benefit alone can make a shaft more "accurate."
There are many other factors such as stability, sensitivity, and durablility that the hollow front end design fails to improve over other one piece shafts.
I think the radial consistency claim is totally unfounded. I have seen many many 314 shafts with laminations consisted of woods of many different grain alignments, density, and so on. I have not yet seen one 314 shaft that is truly round in its cross section. It is simply impossible to offer radial consistency with these shafts.
Well, hit is subjective, and it is impossible to measure., I think the best way to measure it is to see if any really good pro player would use it in major tournaments without getting paid. But an absence of this endorsement does not mean the shaft is not good.
Look at OB1 shaft, I do not see any real good pro players (except Dee Adkin) using it, but it is still quite well received.
About deflection, I think we can only find that out by measuring it in a scienctific manner. Whether a certain player thinks it deflects more or less does not mean much.
But then, even if you switch from one 314 to another, you may notice a difference in the amount of "deflection" so why get so obsessed with this number?
About learning curve, I know lots of players from Asia such as Taiwan who play awesome world class pool, who have only been playing for about 10 years, who would absolutely refuse to play with a 314.
I am sure you all know Wu was 16 when he won the WPC, both Chang and Kuo have also been playing for around 10 years. There is another Wu who have won the World Junior 2 times, and then there is Hsia...
I think anyone would agree that to get from a total beginner to a world champion in about ten years is a pretty short learning curve. I mean, how much shorter of a learning curve can you really expect?
And I am not only offering one individual case as an example, there are many such cases such as that of Chang, Kuo, Hsia and so on.
I am not saying 314 cannot help someone, all I am saying is that 314 is obviously not necessarily the only or best shaft for a beginner to use so he/she can shorten his/her learning curve to becoming a better player.
Just my opinion.
Richard
They have both stopped using Predator BK, too. Ronnie is using the X breaker, and Dennis breaks with a Samsara.
It leads me to believe that there are more to a "good" shaft than "deflection" alone.
Of course, there are also players who have switched to 314 and played awesome.
In my opinion, a 314 shaft is just another shaft on the market. All it does is reducing the curve the cue ball makes when it approaches the object ball on off center hit. This does not make it the best shaft. It is just a shaft with a certain characteristic. I do not agree this benefit alone can make a shaft more "accurate."
There are many other factors such as stability, sensitivity, and durablility that the hollow front end design fails to improve over other one piece shafts.
I think the radial consistency claim is totally unfounded. I have seen many many 314 shafts with laminations consisted of woods of many different grain alignments, density, and so on. I have not yet seen one 314 shaft that is truly round in its cross section. It is simply impossible to offer radial consistency with these shafts.
Well, hit is subjective, and it is impossible to measure., I think the best way to measure it is to see if any really good pro player would use it in major tournaments without getting paid. But an absence of this endorsement does not mean the shaft is not good.
Look at OB1 shaft, I do not see any real good pro players (except Dee Adkin) using it, but it is still quite well received.
About deflection, I think we can only find that out by measuring it in a scienctific manner. Whether a certain player thinks it deflects more or less does not mean much.
But then, even if you switch from one 314 to another, you may notice a difference in the amount of "deflection" so why get so obsessed with this number?
About learning curve, I know lots of players from Asia such as Taiwan who play awesome world class pool, who have only been playing for about 10 years, who would absolutely refuse to play with a 314.
I am sure you all know Wu was 16 when he won the WPC, both Chang and Kuo have also been playing for around 10 years. There is another Wu who have won the World Junior 2 times, and then there is Hsia...
I think anyone would agree that to get from a total beginner to a world champion in about ten years is a pretty short learning curve. I mean, how much shorter of a learning curve can you really expect?
And I am not only offering one individual case as an example, there are many such cases such as that of Chang, Kuo, Hsia and so on.
I am not saying 314 cannot help someone, all I am saying is that 314 is obviously not necessarily the only or best shaft for a beginner to use so he/she can shorten his/her learning curve to becoming a better player.
Just my opinion.
Richard
Last edited:
buddha162 said:
This is my last comment on the subject...just wait for the testers to report back in.
I will give you this info though...I just weighed my tenon...it shows up ZERO on my digital ounce scale...it did register almost one gram though on the gram scale. So, now just how much "end mass" do you feel I'm adding? Swallow your pride & forget the blah, blah crap you believe...then you may actually learn something. Again I'll say once more...Buddha, I have better things to do than argue with your less than properly informed self...WAIT ON THE TESTERS FEEDBACK! Then we can put this to bed. Tjlmbklr has already stated that his 314 equipped Josey plays LOTS better since I upgraded it. So quit spouting nonsense...and lets wait on the test results.
Varney Cues said:
May I ask what material you are using? It is amazing if you have indeed found a material that weights zero. I would think it is physically impossible.
I could be wrong but I believe that the flexibility of the ferrule also has something to do with the amount of "deflection." So, changing the ferrule alone, without any tenon, should, in theory, changes the amount of "deflection." You are changing the ferrule and also inserting a tenon, even if it is a new innovative weightless material, it would make the front end stiffer, and that would, in theory, changes the amount of "deflection."
Varney Cues said:
I am very interested in your test data.
May I ask where did you send it to have it tested? Do you have data showing the margin or error, sample size, and so on of these tests?
If you can find a material that flexes similiar to the original 314 ferrule, and a material which is strong but weights "zero", then perhaps you can build a shaft with more or less the same deflection but a stiffer hit.
The challenge lies in finding such materials.
There are lots of guys out there doing this kind of conversion, but no one has yet been able to produce the same amount of "deflection" as a 314. There were reports that these shafts do play "better" but you need to understand that these are individual comments, not objective scientific observations.
About player's response, have you showed your shaft to any pro players out there who are now playing with 314? Is there anyone out there switching to your shaft?
Thank you.
Richard
BigDaddyInc. said:
I'm also one of those. I tried the Predator shaft for over a year. But, I didn't have many issues with using english, including the heavy inside power english shots before. So, for the Predator to improve my game, I'd have to have seen an obvious improvement. IMO, there wasn't much room to improve, so if there was any, I couldn't see it. I dont' want that to sound arrogant. I'm as bad as the next player, but I spent a lot of time previous to the low squirt cues in understanding "cueball deflection." If I knew little about it before, no doubt the Predator cue would have show improvement. But that wasn't the case.
And, unfortunately, swerve overruns squirt by a lot with a low squirt shaft. And those shots (slow with english) were worse for me than they ever had been because I wouldnt' adjust properly for swerve. And I just couldn't get used to that.
Maybe somebody will come up with an anti-swerve cue. I'd buy that.
Fred
nipponbilliards said:
I think it might be that it's "close enough," or the change might be really negligible. I think that's a very good possibility.
Thomas Wayne recommended using Yellow Cedar, I believe, as it has one of the highest strength to weight ratio. I'd think there are other non-wood materials as well that could/should be considered.
Fred
Varney Cues said:
If your scale is accurate, then you're adding one gram to the end mass of the shaft.
If you agree that end mass and squirt have a direct relationship, then you are increasing the squirt of the shaft.
I don't know how else to put forth this logical conclusion. All the free "repair" jobs you give away on this board won't change the fact that you're wrong and too pathetic to admit it.
-Roger
Theoretically if you increase the end mass you increase the deflection. What if the weight increase is so small that you can't even measure the increase in deflection? Do you say that deflection has increased just because the theory says it should even though for all practical purposes it has the same amount of deflections as before? Sometimes I think people on this board just like to argue for the hell of it when it doesn't even matter. Both of you could technically be right and it doesn't make any difference.
TellsItLikeItIs said:
This absolutely VOIDS the warranty on a Predator shaft. You cannot even change the ferrule with anything other than the original Predator ferrule without voiding the warranty. They will not let me upgrade first generation 314s to the Titan material without voiding the warranty. They are very clear on this.
Last edited: