Predator shaft question

[inthezone]

For Predator and other low squirt shafts, it has been suggested to use Front Hand English. That is, grab the cue at the pivot point with your grip hand, and move the tip to the desired english with your bridge hand. Shoot on that new line.

Fred

I think I can put this longstanding discrepancy to rest here.

Referring to Ron Shepard's paper on squirt: www.sfbilliards.com/shepard_squirt.pdf
page 6 shows a chart of PP's calculated from squirt angle at a 3/8 R or about 10.7mm offset.

Using Platinum's numbers for the 314 shaft and adding 19% for the increase in offset from 9mm to 10.7mm, the squirt angle works out to 1.87 degrees.

His chart then calculates a PP for this shaft to be at about 12.9" - subtracting the radius of the ball gives a PP from the tip of 11.8" which is precisely the number on PB's website.

If you do not believe Platinum's squirt numbers then I suggest again doing a PP test using a "gate" rather than an OB - two light pins (two bic lighters for ex.) work better than balls because you can tell which side you're missing on.

With a reasonably firm stroke and reasonably level cue, you will get numbers very close to Platinum's even if the gate is far away.

Note that any sweve will actually falsely LENGTHEN the PP.

Steve

 

[Cornerman]

I think I can put this longstanding discrepancy to rest here.

Referring to Ron Shepard's paper on squirt: www.sfbilliards.com/shepard_squirt.pdf
page 6 shows a chart of PP's calculated from squirt angle at a 3/8 R or about 10mm offset.

Using Platinum's numbers for the 314 shaft and adding 11% for the increase in offset from 9mm to 10mm, the squirt angle works out to 1.74 degrees.

His chart then calculates a PP for this shaft to be at about 13.9" - subtracting the radius of the ball gives a PP from the tip of 12.8" which is precisely the number on PB's website.

Discrepancy laid and rested, for the most part. Or I should say, I understand the Platinum Billiards numbers now, and agree they are correct. And I thank you for opening my eyes to that.

There's more to this story, but for now, I'm happy being corrected.

Fred

 

[Jal]

I think I can put this longstanding discrepancy to rest here.

Referring to Ron Shepard's paper on squirt: www.sfbilliards.com/shepard_squirt.pdf
page 6 shows a chart of PP's calculated from squirt angle at a 3/8 R or about 10mm offset.

Using Platinum's numbers for the 314 shaft and adding 11% for the increase in offset from 9mm to 10mm, the squirt angle works out to 1.74 degrees.

His chart then calculates a PP for this shaft to be at about 13.9" - subtracting the radius of the ball gives a PP from the tip of 12.8" which is precisely the number on PB's website.

Sorry Steve, but if you're refering to the discrepancy which you, Fred and I have been discussing in the last few posts, I don't think it resolves anything, or maybe I've missed the crux of your argument.

If it's the >30" pivot points that some have obtained with the pivot test versus the 12" PP's from the Platinum tests, I don't see how what you just said ends the mystery. It seems like you're assuming that the mass ratio (Mb/Mtip) lies in the 20 to 30 range, but if the >30" results are to be believed, then the ratio is around 75 and up. But maybe you're talking about something else?

If you do not believe Platinum's squirt numbers then I suggest again doing a PP test using a "gate" rather than an OB - two light pins (two bic lighters for ex.) work better than balls because you can tell which side you're missing on.

With a reasonably firm stroke and reasonably level cue, you will get numbers very close to Platinum's even if the gate is far away.

Note that any sweve will actually falsely LENGTHEN the PP.

My own cue's pivot point, which is not designed for low squirt, was measured at 18" using both the pivot test and another one which resembles yours (direct measurement of the squirt rather than relying on an intermediate ball). That makes it better than the Predator according to both Predator's and Platinum's data. Prior to doing the tests I expected something like this, based on the belief that 15-25" was typical for an average cue and >25" for a low squirt one. As I now think that the Predator/Platinum figures have more of a chance of being correct, I suspect that I simply got the numbers I was anticipating because of this bias. I'll be anxious to re-measure it using your test and the pivot method with a wetted contact area and oblivious to what the cueball does after impact.

Jim

 

[inthezone]

Actually Jal, I was ignoring the mass ratio and looking only at the third column; the squirt angle which he used to predict the PP.
I used PB's numbers for 314 shaft squirt at 50", computed the angle and used his chart to get the predicted PP.

BTW, by "discrepancy" I wasn't just referring to this thread but the many many times over several years I have read of wildly long PP's for low squirt shafts.

Steve

 

[Mystick Cue Fan]

Where is the review?????????

 

[Jal]

Actually Jal, I was ignoring the mass ratio and looking only at the third column; the squirt angle which he used to predict the PP.
I used PB's numbers for 314 shaft squirt at 50", computed the angle and used his chart to get the predicted PP.

BTW, by "discrepancy" I wasn't just referring to this thread but the many many times over several years I have read of wildly long PP's for low squirt shafts.

Steve

Do we agree then that it hasn't been resolved? (I don't mean to be a *****, but if you and Fred see something I don't, I'd appreciate some further explanation if you're willing.)

Jim

 

[Cornerman]

Do we agree then that it hasn't been resolved? (I don't mean to be a *****, but if you and Fred see something I don't, I'd appreciate some further explanation if you're willing.)

Jim

Sorry to confuse. Obviously, something else is happening to create the discrepancy between actual squirt "pivot points" vs Aim & Pivot Test Pivot Points. I've assumed all along that since there is such a big difference, that it must be Platinum that was wrong. I now don't think that.

But, there still is the matter of what makes the big difference. I'll stick with the Pivot Points I get with Aim & Pivot since they're effective and make sense to my body, as they seem to make sense to other people's body as well. To that point, I know that the Aim & Pivot method is the best squirt compensation technique that I've had the pleasure of trying.

For today, I'm happy just to understand where the Platinum Billiards numbers came from. How to connect the differing values is to be continued.

Fred

 

[inthezone]

Do we agree then that it hasn't been resolved? (I don't mean to be a *****, but if you and Fred see something I don't, I'd appreciate some further explanation if you're willing.)

Jim

Yeah, I see what you're saying - I guess all I showed was that Ron Shepard agrees that PP's can be calculated from a known squirt angle at a given offset and that his calculations agree with Platinum's.

The only "easy" way I know to confirm Platinum's squirt numbers is in reverse - to determine the PP using the "gate" method so as to completely remove the throw effect.

Steve

 

[Nick B]

Varney Convertion

Just Bumping this up. So do we have a review of the way it plays yet?

Nick

 

[ShaneT58]

Sorry I haven't put up my review yet. I've had a couple of tournaments to play in and haven't really played much with the Varney conversion since I didn’t want to change shafts right before playing in a tourney. I have played with it a little bit and I think it does have a better feel. But we all know feel is a matter of personal opinion. I plan on doing the test I described earlier on a couple different occasions and writing down my results to see how things turn out. I also plan on trying the aim and pivot test suggested by Cornerman. I’ll let you know the results of the tests as soon as I can but things are busy around the holidays. I’ll try not to keep everyone waiting too long.

 

[Mystick Cue Fan]

any word Shane????????

 

[ShaneT58]

I haven't forgotten about the review. I just got back from all the holiday traveling. I'm going to start playing with just the 314 varney converted and testing it against the other shafts I have. I'll post the results sometime towards the end of next week so that I'll have had a chance to do the tests a couple times to make sure it wasn't just something I was doing different on one day.

 

[ShaneT58]

My review:

…I'm going to try to test the deflection as best I can to compare the Varney modified 314 to the other shafts I have. I think setting up the shot as shown below using two stripped balls would help with aiming and consistent tip position. I thought I would aim the center of the cue tip through the right edge of the stripe on the 15 ball and also pick a spot to aim the center of the tip on the 11 ball (using the stripe on the 11 ball to help with aiming at different parts of the OB). I'll try to use a level cue and pretty firm speed on a fast table to help minimize swerve…

http://CueTable.com/P/?@0x3KOCk2OOHV2TOwQ3phpP1uAIV@

I've had a chance to play with the Varney converted 314. FWIW, I believe it does have a more solid feel than the 314 and 314^2. Could be do to the tip change also. The 314, 314^2, and OB-1 all have Moori III medium tips and the stock ferrules. The Varney modified 314 has a Saber T ferrule and Sniper tip. All tips are shaped to a dime radius. All of the shafts are also 30”.

I set up the shot I described above using to striped balls. To make the shot with the Varney modified 314 and the regular 314, I need to aim the center of the cue between the right edge of the stripe and the center of the object ball. To make the shot with the 314^2 and OB-1, I need to aim the center of the cue at the center of the object ball.

I tried the pivot and aim method to test the shafts but I don’t really think I’m good enough at that method to get any meaningful results. I had trouble holding the shaft still after pivoting and trying to slide my bridge hand up to a normal bridge length. It seemed like all the shafts were pretty close to each other. All of them had a pivot point somewhere around 3 to 4” behind the joint.

Playing with the Varney modified 314 seemed just the same as playing with the 314^2 that I had been using since they came out.

I believe that the deflection of the modified 314 is as far as I can tell is the same as the other 314 I have. I also believe that the modified 314 deflects slightly more than the 314^2 and OB-1. I think that I could play equally well with any of these shafts.

FWIW, I'm an APA 7 in 8ball and an APA 8 in 9ball after having a very bad session and moving down from an APA 9. Just started playing 14.1 a couple months ago and so far my high run is only 38 but I'm working on it.

 

[Varney Cues]

Your not even an APA 9? You sir are not qualified to do such scientific testing. Please send the shaft back to me for a plastic ferrule & elkmaster immediately.
Seriously Shane, glad you are happy. I can't tell any difference in deflection either. I do know it "hits" & "feels" better to me though. Plus now you don't have to worry about the thin plastic ferrule breaking on you at a crucial time. Nice to have a bulletproof 314.
Thank you very much for your time and effort. It was a pleasure doing business with you sir. If you ever need anything let me know. Oh...and for the new 314-2...I just upgraded one the other day for a forum member. The "new" 314 ferrule is also plastic...just white now instead of ivory color. They did fill the hollowness with more foam than they use to. The splices were nicely done on the new ricer models as well and the phen insert is a nice touch.
Again, thanks Shane for the information.

 

[Curdog]

314 Conversion

Just had Kevin upgrade my shaft to a Saber T and Sniper. Cue for sure hits better than before. Seems to hit very similar to my old Bludworth with wood to wood. I can see no change at all in terms of deflection. If there is a change, it's simply not important enough to argue about.

 

[X Breaker]

Kevin,
Why dont you build and promote your own line of shafts?
Regards,
Richard

 

[Varney Cues]

Kevin,
Why dont you build and promote your own line of shafts?
Regards,
Richard

I do...you get one when you buy a Varney cue.
They come raced up with the finest parts available and play very well...as do the shafts made by most all quality cuemakers. I just don't want to exhaust my supply of shaft wood by offering Varney shafts to everyone who feels unhappy with their current shaft. Yes, I often make shafts for other cues. But as everyone knows, as hard as it is to get quality wood these days I prefer to use it up on Varney's. I just see nothing wrong with offering an upgrade to the masses who use other shafts. Is my shaft wood superior to all others? No. Hardly not. There are quite a few makers that I'd trade wood with...Joe Gold comes to mind immediately.
I just make the most out of what I have...I think thats all anyone could ask. Richard if you have the means to splice up several thousand blanks of B grade wood...then we should talk...I have some ideas.

 

[Rasta]

I'd be more than willing to bet large on Mr. Varney's side as well if anyone would like.

How do you propose the testing be done for such a wager?

Good Rolls,
Rasta

 

[inthezone]

How do you propose the testing be done for such a wager?

Good Rolls,
Rasta

I haven't been able to find that post by No Illusions/KV...

What is the dispute?

 

[Rasta]

I haven't been able to find that post by No Illusions/KV...

What is the dispute?

I responded to post 35, which appears to be a response (or reference to) post 32. No Illusions offered to place a wager that KV's mods to a Predator shaft would not increase deflection over an otherwise identical stock Predator shaft.

Good Rolls,
Rasta