Pro's and con's of very small diameter shafts?

[Patrick Johnson]

What are you unhappy with your current shaft that you want your next one to have no ferrule? No ferrule reduces weight, which reduces squirt, I assume, but are there any other advantages? Are there any drawbacks?

The ferrules I have are the "sleeve" type, which I worry about cracking (even though it has only happened once in more than ten years).

Bob Jewett hasn't replied to this yet, but why do you think a pad might be better?

The "sleeve" ferrules I have now limit the diameter of the hollow core (because some wood "wall" needs to be left to glue the ferrule to). Also, I think it might help prevent the wood from mushrooming without a sleeve ferrule.

How large is the hollowing in your current 10mm shaft (diameter and depth)? Would you also do this with the ferrule less cue to further reduce squirt?

It's only about 3/16 inch in diameter - I think it could be a little bigger without the "sleeve" ferrule.

Would you go any smaller than 10mm? I assume it's still just preference, but is there a limit at which small is too small to play pool with?

My shafts are actually 9.5mm - I feel they could be even smaller without risking damage from just playing. There's probably a limit but I don't know what it is.

Yu said you don't break with these shafts (I would assume out of risk of damage), what is the smallest diameter shaft you could hit the hardest non-break/jump/masse shot in pool without risk of damage in your mind? Bob mentioned seeing a 6mm shaft -- is that too small?

I jump and masse with my 9.5mm tips - no problem (except I jump like a white guy). I don't know how small is too small.

pj
chgo

 

[ronscuba]

....
Despite some rumors, the small tip doesn't really produce any more spin than a larger one, and it doesn't punish stroke errors more. It just lowers squirt and gives me a better view of tip placement.

pj
chgo

Is this generally accepted and agreed by most ? It kind of goes against what you would think. I am just a beginner so forgive my ignorance.

 

[seelesscacti]

It's only about 3/16 inch in diameter - I think it could be a little bigger without the "sleeve" ferrule.

Thanks for the responses.

What is the depth of the hollow? I understand the hollow is used to reduce weight near the tip to reduce squirt -- what do you think the limits are before it doesn't reduce it any more and just sacrifices the structural integrity?

Have you compared the deflection your shafts have compared with a Z2 or 314-2, which has more deflection?

You mentioned you jump and masse with your 9.5mm shaft. I've been shooting with a 314-2 for the last couple years when I picked pool up again, but I don't feel like I can masse as well with a low-deflection shaft as I could with a more conventional shaft awhile back. Are there physics that back this up, or am I imagining this? Any greater or lesser jump effects relating to a small diameter shaft versus a thicker one?

 

[atthecat]

Does anyone know what diameter shaft Efren, Busty and SVB use?

SVB uses 12mm or did on his old Schon/Joss combo.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Despite some rumors, the small tip doesn't really produce any more spin than a larger one, and it doesn't punish stroke errors more. It just lowers squirt and gives me a better view of tip placement.

pj
chgo

seelesscacti:
Is this generally accepted and agreed by most ? It kind of goes against what you would think.

It doesn't go against what I would think. The amount of spin depends only on how far from center you hit the CB. You can't hit any farther from center with a small tip.

Some people believe a small tip makes you hit a little farther from center for the same amount of shaft movement, but this isn't really true either - it depends on the tip's curvature, not its size.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What is the depth of the hollow?

6-8 inches. Not sure exactly.

I understand the hollow is used to reduce weight near the tip to reduce squirt -- what do you think the limits are before it doesn't reduce it any more and just sacrifices the structural integrity?

This has been tested. It doesn't matter much after about 8 inches.

Have you compared the deflection your shafts have compared with a Z2 or 314-2, which has more deflection?

I haven't compared them in any systematic way, but I've hit with all of them and think mine is lower squirt.

You mentioned you jump and masse with your 9.5mm shaft. I've been shooting with a 314-2 for the last couple years when I picked pool up again, but I don't feel like I can masse as well with a low-deflection shaft as I could with a more conventional shaft awhile back. Are there physics that back this up, or am I imagining this? Any greater or lesser jump effects relating to a small diameter shaft versus a thicker one?

I find it harder to jump with any low-squirt shaft, including mine. I don't know why that is.

I don't have any trouble with masse.

pj
chgo

 

[Celophanewrap]

I have been playing with an original Predator 314 (Pre-Cat, from back when they were American made) since the mid 90's. I have also purchased the 314-2 and quite recently the Predator Z-2. I didn't care as much for the 314-2, it, just like the original 314 is a bit under 12.5, but the original 314 is such a superior shaft to the 2 that I didn't think I'd ever use anything else. I found the Z to be very similar to the original 314. Switching to the smaller size Z (11.75) has taken some getting used to but the transition has been getting smoother and for me the Z has been what I'd call Hyper-accurate, but my experience is that it is a bit less forgiving. All 3 of those shafts have the Kamui Black SS. I have also found that the Katana shaft and tip are very similar to the original 314 and the Z with the KB SS. To me the Katana hits like the Z and the O-314 but it is a also a 12.5 and I'd love to have a few more of those Katana tips but I was told by Tiger that they were produced only for the Katana. A little less to my liking was the OB classic, it to me just seems stiffer. The Dominiak D3 is also a great shaft, it is just somehow different. I imagine any switch will just take some getting used to.

 

[ronscuba]

It doesn't go against what I would think. The amount of spin depends only on how far from center you hit the CB. You can't hit any farther from center with a small tip.

Some people believe a small tip makes you hit a little farther from center for the same amount of shaft movement, but this isn't really true either - it depends on the tip's curvature, not its size.

pj
chgo

Maybe what people are experiencing is the shaft diameter and taper affecting their stroke ? Is it possible a smaller diameter shaft is more difficult to stroke straight making a larger diameter shaft play more forgiving ?

Or maybe if your stroke is consistently off by x degrees will a smaller diameter shaft or tip curve result in more off center CB hit compared to a larger diameter shaft or flat tip ?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Maybe what people are experiencing is the shaft diameter and taper affecting their stroke ? Is it possible a smaller diameter shaft is more difficult to stroke straight making a larger diameter shaft play more forgiving ?

That's a new explanation. Maybe...

Or maybe if your stroke is consistently off by x degrees will a smaller diameter shaft or tip curve result in more off center CB hit compared to a larger diameter shaft or flat tip ?

A smaller curvature might increase the error, but only a tiny amount.

A smaller diameter wouldn't make any difference by itself. With the same curvatures the tip contact point is the same distance from the tip's center, and well within the width of even the smallest tips (at least until you get near the miscue limit on the CB).

pj
chgo

P.S. Here's a diagram I've posted before that might help see what I'm saying - it shows larger and smaller tips with both nickel and dime curvatures. You can see that even with a flatter nickel curvature (on the left) the small diameter tip (on the bottom) still doesn't reach its edge until it's right at the miscue limit (30 degrees from center ball).

 

[seelesscacti]

That's a new explanation. Maybe...


A smaller curvature might increase the error, but only a tiny amount.

A smaller diameter wouldn't make any difference by itself. With the same curvatures the tip contact point is the same distance from the tip's center, and well within the width of even the smallest tips (at least until you get near the miscue limit on the CB).

pj
chgo

P.S. Here's a diagram I've posted before that might help see what I'm saying - it shows larger and smaller tips with both nickel and dime curvatures. You can see that even with a flatter nickel curvature (on the left) the small diameter tip (on the bottom) still doesn't reach its edge until it's right at the miscue limit (30 degrees from center ball).

View attachment 227642

Hmm... So, that diagram appears to be using parallel English... if a player is used to shooting with some pivoting backhand English (consciously or subconsciously), the smaller diameter, flatter tip would approach the miscue limit sooner than the wider diameter tip.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Hmm... So, that diagram appears to be using parallel English... if a player is used to shooting with some pivoting backhand English (consciously or subconsciously), the smaller diameter, flatter tip would approach the miscue limit sooner than the wider diameter tip.

You have to visualize that from the viewpoint of looking along the length of the cue (not from the unpivoted viewpoint of the shooter). From the cue's viewpoint the miscue limit is the same 30 degrees from center ball and the same 30 degrees from the center of each tip's curvature.

If you imagine that the CB's direction of travel is a couple of degrees off from where the cues are pointed, my diagram is accurate including squirt correction.

pj
chgo

P.S. Viewing tip offset from the viewpoint of the cue's direction also answers the question of whether or not backhand english produces "extra" spin - it doesn't.

 

[seelesscacti]

Ah, I think I misunderstood what your diagrams were demonstrating originally.

I think for me the diagrams just concreted that with a smaller diameter shaft the point on the cue ball at which I aim the center of the tip for maximum english will be slightly closer to center than with a larger diameter shaft. And I think the angle of pivot further accentuates that.

I hear your points that shaft diameter doesn't cause more spin, but I think I better understand why the fallacy exists. As well as why people feel that smaller diameter shafts punish a poor stroke more.

 

[LAlouie]

Except that it's not true. You don't have to strike the cueball any more accurately with a thin tip than you do with a thicker one.

The reason you can strike the cueball more accurately is just because you can see it better.

pj
chgo

Patrick you're very knowledgeable, but next time watch a mediocre player who's been playing with a 13, try to play with a 12. And watch him miss all his shots by a mile until he starts to focus more on correcting his stroke and making sure he hits the cb where he's aiming.

Johnny Archer was on record as saying the biggest reason why players miss a shot is because they don't hit the cb where they intended. a 13 allows for some error. a 12 dictates that you strike more perfectly because if you're off it becomes magnified.

 

[LAlouie]

Except that it's not true. You don't have to strike the cueball any more accurately with a thin tip than you do with a thicker one.

The reason you can strike the cueball more accurately is just because you can see it better.

pj
chgo

Patrick you're very knowledgeable, but next time watch a mediocre player who's been playing with a 13, try to play with a 12. And watch him miss all his shots by a mile until he starts to focus more on correcting his stroke and making sure he hits the cb where he's aiming.

Johnny Archer was on record as saying the biggest reason why players miss a shot is because they don't hit the cb where they intended. a 13 allows for some error. a 12 dictates that you strike more perfectly because if you're off it becomes magnified. It is no mere coincidence that you'll never see a mediocre player settling on a 12.

Besides, "The reason you can strike the cueball more accurately is just because you can see it better." you're basically saying the same thing from a different point of view

 

[Fatboy]

Oscar had a 8mm shaft of his Prewitt a couple years ago. I didnt read this thread so it may have been mentioned.

I was not convinced it was a good move that thin, i never saw that thin of a shaft on a pool cue ever, even most proper snooker cues have fatter shafts at the tip, 9mm-9.5mm.

Oscar was nice enough to let me hit a few balls with it, he was warming up at the US Open 3-4 years ago. I was watching and we got to talking it was early in the tournment and he has time. I played for 5-7 minutes with it and wow it was great. He had a very hard piece of shaft wood-or so it seemed to me. the cue wasnt whippy and had good "backbone". What was nice is I could see very good exactly where I was hitting the CB, I was in stroke at the time and that made a big difference. It was how Oscar explained it.

 

[fathomblue]

I'm glad this has sparked a great discussion.

I'm definitely going to talk to my cuemaker and see what he is willing to do for me and his theories on the subject.

I know I can get a shaft from him for a very reasonable price, so I think some experimentation is worth the effort and dollars.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...a 13 allows for some error. a 12 dictates that you strike more perfectly because if you're off it becomes magnified.

Think of this:

You could make a 12mm tip/shaft into a 13mm one by adding 1/2mm layer of additional shaft/ferrule/tip material all around. The 12mm tip still exists within the 13mm tip - it's simply the inside part of it, excluding the added outside layer.

And when you hit the CB with a 13mm tip you're actually hitting it with the 12mm tip inside. That outermost 1/2mm layer doesn't come into contact with the CB except when applying extreme maximum english. So on the vast majority of shots either size tip is exactly the same as the other.

pj
chgo

 

[LAlouie]

Think of this:

You could make a 12mm tip/shaft into a 13mm one by adding 1/2mm layer of additional shaft/ferrule/tip material all around. The 12mm tip still exists within the 13mm tip - it's simply the inside part of it, excluding the added outside layer.

When you hit the CB with the 13mm tip you hit it with the inside part of the tip - the outside 1/2mm layer doesn't come into contact with the CB except when applying extreme maximum english. So with either size tip you're hitting the CB with exactly the same part of the tip - whether you hit the CB on the intended spot or not.

pj
chgo

Logic says you are right, but practically, I've seen others (and me too btw) missed in the most unfathomable ways when switching to thin shafts. I had to bear down and focus on striking true, which by the way, ultimately help retrain my stroke.

 

[fathomblue]

Logic says you are right, but practically, I've seen others (and me too btw) missed in the most unfathomable ways when switching to thin shafts. I had to bear down and focus on striking true, which by the way, ultimately help retrain my stroke.

LAlouie, would you say that it honestly "forced" you to develop a better stroke?

I'm not trying to asking a baiting type of question. Just curious.

 

[LAlouie]

LAlouie, would you say that it honestly "forced" you to develop a better stroke?

I'm not trying to asking a baiting type of question. Just curious.

In the sense that I couldn't take my stroke for granted else I would NOT be able to strike the cb where I wanted to.....yes