Radial vs G-10 pin ? Which one best Joint?

[Tony_in_MD]

Yup.

The entire post from RSB has been posted on this forum also.

:thumbup:

It was an experiment done years ago. There was a link to it back in the days of RSB. That was exactly the point of the experiment. Some people said they could tell the difference in hit between different joint materials. A bunch of cues were assembled, and the joints were taped up so that the joint style couldn't be felt or seen. Now, this was done before the Uni-loc and Radial became as popular as they are today. But the results were conclusive in the fact that they were inconclusive. No one could tell joint type based on the hit of the cue. Some people have said stainless joints hit harder than phenolic, and vise versa. On the whole, no one could distinguish what joint type a cue had, consistently, based on just hitting with the cue.

I'll have to bug a few of the RSB guys to see if they have any idea where to find the post.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Which one best Joint pin ?
and serve great Hitting cue ?



Thank you

Radial is a *type* of screw. G10 is a material. You can have a G10 radial pin if you want. I personally love the feel of G10 as a joint screw. Radial makes a nice connection. Can't go wrong!

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

It's been proven. They taped the joints on several cues, and players who "knew" how certain joint pins hit were wrong. Best hitting joint ended up being a Viking sneaky pete with quick release 5/16-18 pin. Everyone swore it wasn't wood to wood. Most often, people think the joint pin affects the hit. Ferrule and tip - yes. Joint pin, no.

It has not been "proven". A small sample of people couldn't tell the difference. Guess what? If you took 100 random people off the street, I sincerely doubt many of them could tell the difference between Bach and Brahms. Just because the average (and I'd say the large majority of) people can't tell the difference, doesn't mean the difference isn't there, and also doesn't mean some people can't tell the difference. The test ignores the concept that people may be able to tell that there is a *difference*, but may not be able to quantify and categorize the differences, and hence can't tell which is which even though they can tell they are "different".

I mean, common sense tells us that different materials will propagate vibration and compression differently. The feel of a cue and its "hit" are essentially a measure of the way the vibration makes its way from the tip to your hand at the other end of the cue (and the other side of the joint), and the sound it makes in doing so.

Just because on average people don't know or can't tell the difference, does not mean that there is no difference. That science 101. Or is it Logic 101...idk but one of those lol.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Average people yes. This test was conducted at a 9 ball express tour stop. I would not classify those players as average people.

Do you know how many players participated?

As a HOF cue maker said, it does not matter what type of joint is on the cue, as long as it is done correctly. That says it all, at least to me.

It has not been "proven". A small sample of people couldn't tell the difference. Guess what? If you took 100 random people off the street, I sincerely doubt many of them could tell the difference between Bach and Brahms. Just because the average (and I'd say the large majority of) people can't tell the difference, doesn't mean the difference isn't there, and also doesn't mean some people can't tell the difference. The test ignores the concept that people may be able to tell that there is a *difference*, but may not be able to quantify and categorize the differences, and hence can't tell which is which even though they can tell they are "different".

I mean, common sense tells us that different materials will propagate vibration and compression differently. The feel of a cue and its "hit" are essentially a measure of the way the vibration makes its way from the tip to your hand at the other end of the cue (and the other side of the joint), and the sound it makes in doing so.

Just because on average people don't know or can't tell the difference, does not mean that there is no difference. That science 101. Or is it Logic 101...idk but one of those lol.

KMRUNOUT

 

[RRfireblade]

Average people yes. This test was conducted at a 9 ball express tour stop. I would not classify those players as average people.

Do you know how many players participated?

As a HOF cue maker said, it does not matter what type of joint is on the cue, as long as it is done correctly. That says it all, at least to me.

I'm not commenting on the question only stating that I remember that thread and it was about as far from "scientific" as one can get.

It basically amounted to players hitting a bunch of cues they have never hit before with masked joints, and a poll to guess the joint type and material of each cue.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether one could feel the different between identical cues with different joints/materials.

It's like if I handed you two painted cues and asked you to guess the wood used. Doesn't mean both cues hit exactly the same just because you guessed wrong.

 

[ceebee]

IMHO Guido Orlandi's new cue joint is the superior joint... It's great & many have said so, Frost, Platis, Abbott & many others. Soon it will be on lots of cues.

I had 3 great cues, they are sitting in a cue bag. Guido's cocobolo/maple cue with the new joint, 3/8 Radial pin, cork wrap & Kamui tip is my player now.

 

[fastone371]

I do not think humans will ever be able to tell the difference between joint materials or pin types. I have interchangeable shafts and butts and even cues with the same pin and joint materials hit different in different butt/shaft combos.

 

[cycopath]

I think the theory years ago was that a Radial pin profile had more contact surface area between the pin and the shaft.

Again, that profile can be cut into a stainless steel pin or G10.

For the record, Leonard Bludworth claimed his 3/8x11 stainless steel pin was the best profile.