Rankings for LD shafts

I have a new Jacoby Hybrid shaft and comparing it to my 314/2, it pockets balls well, but the deflection will have you missing if you aren't very cautious with your aim. The Jacoby has a very long 19" taper. The 314/2 in my opinion is a better choice for LD shaft.
 
naji said:
Had Platinum Billiards done deflection tests using same pivot points for each shaft brand; are there any data with this criteria. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what your mean. Are you claiming the distance from the CB to the robot tester "bridge" was different for different cues? Even if it were, it shouldn't make a difference (unless the "bridge" was very close to the CB, which I don't think was the case). For more info, see:


Now, what could make a difference is using tips of different size, weight, and hardness. For more info, see:


Also, if the robot grip was not flexible enough, cue weight would also have an effect. For more info, see:


Regards,
Dave
 
Dr Dave,

We don't know the specifics of the Platinum testing robot.

Did they changes the height of the bridge for different diameter shafts? If not, the thinner shafts would have imparted a lower hit, possibly adding swerve to the shot, and influencing the results.

Was the cuestick level to the table (end rail removed)? Was this adjusted for different diameter butts? Swerve would be the result.

We already know from their description of the robot, that it measured english offsets by the CL (centerline) of the CB to the CL of the shaft. We also know that they used the stock tips the shafts shipped with. So that right there implies that the actual contact point offset of the different shafts would be different, since they did not carefully match each tip radius before testing.

What is the repeatability of their robot? If they test the same shaft 2 hours later, will they get the same result? What about 2 months later?

This is why its important to have peer reviewable experimental details. We have a great list here, even though its old, but we have no idea if the results are to be trusted. Its not just this data, its almost any data put out by any company in this game.

This post is just a rant on the ignoring of scientific principles so common in the pool industry. I thank you for trying to change that on your part.

I know you did a lot of work with your students on robots. What type of problems did you have with them?
 
iusedtoberich said:
Dr Dave,

We don't know the specifics of the Platinum testing robot.

Did they changes the height of the bridge for different diameter shafts? If not, the thinner shafts would have imparted a lower hit, possibly adding swerve to the shot, and influencing the results.

Was the cuestick level to the table (end rail removed)? Was this adjusted for different diameter butts? Swerve would be the result.

We already know from their description of the robot, that it measured english offsets by the CL (centerline) of the CB to the CL of the shaft. We also know that they used the stock tips the shafts shipped with. So that right there implies that the actual contact point offset of the different shafts would be different, since they did not carefully match each tip radius before testing.

What is the repeatability of their robot? If they test the same shaft 2 hours later, will they get the same result? What about 2 months later?

This is why its important to have peer reviewable experimental details. We have a great list here, even though its old, but we have no idea if the results are to be trusted. Its not just this data, its almost any data put out by any company in this game.
Click to expand...
Excellent post, and excellent questions. I share and agree completely with your concerns.

iusedtoberich said:
This post is just a rant on the ignoring of scientific principles so common in the pool industry.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The pool industry does sometimes utilize too much "creative marketing" and not enough fact-based science.

iusedtoberich said:
I thank you for trying to change that on your part.
Click to expand...
You're welcome ... and thank you.

iusedtoberich said:
I know you did a lot of work with your students on robots. What type of problems did you have with them?
Click to expand...
We got rid of most of the problems by making sure the cue was always level. Both the "grip" and "bridge" heights were adjustable to accommodate any diameter shaft or butt. We also shaped each tip before doing a test to ensure the radius and tip contact point was consistent.

At first we had trouble with the grip not being flexible enough. This resulted in pushes and double hits that were not visually obvious (although, the squirt results were obviously bad and inconsistent). This was easy to fix by adding flexible rubber in the lining of the "grip" to make the robot grip more human like.

More info and results can be found here:

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
I'm not sure what your mean. Are you claiming the distance from the CB to the robot tester "bridge" was different for different cues? Even if it were, it shouldn't make a difference (unless the "bridge" was very close to the CB, which I don't think was the case). For more info, see:


Now, what could make a difference is using tips of different size, weight, and hardness. For more info, see:


Also, if the robot grip was not flexible enough, cue weight would also have an effect. For more info, see:


Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...


There was no reference of the bridge hand (robot bridge hand) location, is it at pivot point of each cue or less, or more or fixed at say 10" , 12" for all. Was the test done as pivoted shaft or parallel to CB
 
naji said:
There was no reference of the bridge hand (robot bridge hand) location, is it at pivot point of each cue or less, or more or fixed at say 10" , 12" for all.
Click to expand...
When using "robots" to test cues, the "bridge" is usually at a fixed distance from the CB for all cues tested. However, the robot usually has an extremely straight stroke, so the bridge distance isn't really a factor (unless it were very short, which isn't usually the case for a cue-testing robot). For more info, see: squirt robot test results and squirt (cue ball deflection) bridge length effects.

Regards,
Dave
 
PaulieB said:
If a company takes an order for a shaft to "fit a G10" I would be very concerned. G10 is a type of material and can be made in any thread type. If you didn't also include that info on your shaft orders, you may want to call and confirm your pin thread type so there isn't any confusion.
Click to expand...


3/8 - 11 in my case.
 
BRussell said:
This is the same list that is always referred to, but I wish we had more of these. It's not very complete - it doesn't have OB-2 or my OB classic pro, for example, despite the popularity of OB cues and shafts. And it's only one tester. It would be nice to see more independent testers do this. Deflection is probably the most important shaft property, so why aren't there more lists like this one?
Click to expand...

if you want to see an some good stats on LD shafts get in contact with John Barioni. i've seen his set up and the testes he's done first hand. his info is on the money
 
Dr. Dave has out some great technical info on this topic, that's for dang sure. But it all boils down to you trying various products -- take advantage of the opportunity to do so at trade shows, e.g. Super Billiards Expo -- and keep a notebook of your experiences. Then, after a good trial of several products, make a decision.

I did just this, and to be honest, the ONLY LD shaft whose hit I liked, was the OB Classic and Classic Pro. The Predator products, to me, hit like a wet noodle -- that includes the 314^2 and Z^2. The OB-1 and OB-2 had just too "soft" a hit. The Tiger LD products had a weird sound in their hit (they hit well, but that sound -- that would take me a while to get used to).

The OB Classic and Classic Pro, on the other hand, hit just like a standard maple shaft *AND* weren't "overtly low-deflection." In other words, these two products stayed out of my way (aiming-wise) and quickly segued into my playing style. I chose the Classic Pro because of the modified European taper -- it feels like a 3-cushion cue, a feel which I like. (I prefer a more conical taper than a pro taper.)

Again, it all boils down to trying various products and keeping notes, instead of "blindly" purchasing a product based on other people's relayed experiences.

-Sean
 
they all bad

first of all you need to aim off center to apply english, which makes a low deflection shaft trivial. Plus youll never be able to play with anything but that model shaft, which is okay but if youre ever at a bar or something like that youll shoot terrible.
I learned the hard way that low deflection shafts are no good, so now I have to that I cant get rid of.
This topic is subjective so please don't respond with hateful and ignorant comments, this is just what ive experienced and its my personal opinion.
 
trinacria said:
first of all you need to aim off center to apply english, which makes a low deflection shaft trivial. Plus youll never be able to play with anything but that model shaft, which is okay but if youre ever at a bar or something like that youll shoot terrible.
I learned the hard way that low deflection shafts are no good, so now I have to that I cant get rid of.
This topic is subjective so please don't respond with hateful and ignorant comments, this is just what ive experienced and its my personal opinion.
Click to expand...

You probably never shot top right, or top left long very fast shots to appreciate what low squirt shafts (LS) are good for. (i assume you mean low CB squirt shaft when you say low deflection shaft)
 
iusedtoberich said:
I'm about 99% sure that all Tiger shafts from day 1 were low deflection (squirt) shafts. They have changed their design over the years, but were always marketed and designed as a low deflection shaft.
Click to expand...

You're right, although I don't understand how they can convince themselves that this is a LD shaft. It has no LD technology. The only thing close is that they have figured out how to laminate the shaft together

It deflects more than a meucci.*

tigerxshaftfooter_1.jpg

tigerxshaftfooter_2.jpg


*strictly anecdotal, same as the marketing
 
naji said:
You probably never shot top right, or top left long very fast shots to appreciate what low squirt shafts (LS) are good for. (i assume you mean low CB squirt shaft when you say low deflection shaft)
Click to expand...

I get a completely different message from his post.
 
sfleinen said:
Dr. Dave has out some great technical info on this topic, that's for dang sure. But it all boils down to you trying various products -- take advantage of the opportunity to do so at trade shows, e.g. Super Billiards Expo -- and keep a notebook of your experiences. Then, after a good trial of several products, make a decision.

I did just this, and to be honest, the ONLY LD shaft whose hit I liked, was the OB Classic and Classic Pro. The Predator products, to me, hit like a wet noodle -- that includes the 314^2 and Z^2. The OB-1 and OB-2 had just too "soft" a hit. The Tiger LD products had a weird sound in their hit (they hit well, but that sound -- that would take me a while to get used to).

The OB Classic and Classic Pro, on the other hand, hit just like a standard maple shaft *AND* weren't "overtly low-deflection." In other words, these two products stayed out of my way (aiming-wise) and quickly segued into my playing style. I chose the Classic Pro because of the modified European taper -- it feels like a 3-cushion cue, a feel which I like. (I prefer a more conical taper than a pro taper.)

Again, it all boils down to trying various products and keeping notes, instead of "blindly" purchasing a product based on other people's relayed experiences.

-Sean
Click to expand...


I have tried them all too, well most anyway. I have a different preference, but that's not surprising. I agree with your post, Sean. Theres really no point knowing which shaft deflects less. Slight differences should not make anyone prefer one shaft over another. Once you decide on LD, it becomes a matter of what feels and plays the best for you.
Its a delicate decision, not something that any chart should decide. If anything, overall sales and player preference charts would carry more weight in my book.
 
Last edited:
Since much of what people "like" is what they have used or what they get used to playing with over time, I am happy to have the details on the lowest deflection shafts since I can get used to anything. I'm an engineer and a certified billiards instructor (SPF method) - you can do things the hard way or the easy way. The hard way can be just as effective but it takes a lot more work and there will always be more room for error. I don't want to spend years perfecting my adjustments to deflection on every shot I hit when I can go LD and ignore deflection on a large percentage of my shots.

Still some people will say they just hate the way they feel / play. I used to hate the smaller diameter shafts but I've learned to use them because I felt it was worth the effort since they have lower deflection and simplify my game... and now they feel completely normal to the point where a 13mm shaft seems overly large. If you have ever switched from regular coke to diet you know what i'm talking about - it sucks for the first month but after a while you actually like the diet version and even prefer it (maybe in this crowd I should have used a light beer analogy instead but beer is religion so I'll stay away from that one).

Of course the longer you have been playing the more difficult it may be to change. It also depends on where you are at in your game. If you are at the level you want to be then certainly there isn't any point in changing. If you are working hard to improve and putting in practice time etc then it can make a lot of sense to switch.

You could always extend this entire argument a la Reductio ad absurdum (I watch the Big Bang Theory).. so if deflection is so great lets make a shaft out of solid metal with no give and with a phenolic tip so every shot with even a tip of english requires you to aim completely off the object ball. For an extreme cut with a lot of english your aim point could be 3 or 4 balls off the target ball. How would that be? No one actually likes deflection.. people like status quo. No one ever made any progress sitting fat dumb and happy with the status quo.

Craig
*Come to the Dark Side - We Have Cookies*
 
JohnPT said:
If you're shooting a rifle would it be easier to adjust to a little wind or a lot of wind? Eitherway you have to adjust but it would be illogical to prefer shooting in strong wind if you want to hit your target right?
Click to expand...

This is not a fair comparission. Apples and oranges.
If all we ever needed to do was poackt a ball then okay, I buy your arguement.
This becomes an issue when you need to move the CB around the table.

IMO, it is much easier to move CB arond with a standard shaft.
However with that abilty to move the CB around comes the trade off on more deflection.

Try this: put the CB at the head line and an object ball... lets say 4 feet away. Use the same spot for each shaft.
You will notice that it take less force to draw a shot back to the bottom rail with a normal standard shaft as compared to a low defletion shaft.
 
TWAL - now that is an interesting point / argument.

Dave - this should be really easy to test. The crux of the argument TWAL is making is that an LD shaft transfers less energy to the cue ball than a normal shaft - which logically makes sense given that an LD shaft flexes more. With a robot it would be a simple as cue ball set up, hit with LD shaft, measure distance traveled then repeat with the same power settings with a standard shaft (run multiple times to allow for variation of course). Maybe you already have some data on this (cue power)?


Thanks for sharing that comment.
Craig
 
twal said:
Try this: put the CB at the head line and an object ball... lets say 4 feet away. Use the same spot for each shaft.
You will notice that it take less force to draw a shot back to the bottom rail with a normal standard shaft as compared to a low deflection shaft.
Click to expand...
If the tip is the same on both cues, and the weight is the same with both cues, and the tip contact point and cue elevation are the same with both cues, and the stroke is the same with both cues, then there should be very little difference in the amount of draw. If anything, the LD shaft should create slightly more draw. For more info, see: getting more spin with an LD shaft.

Although, if you are hitting close to the miscue limit, the LD shaft might produce slightly less draw. For more info, see: physics-based draw shot advice.

Regardless, the difference in draw should be very small if everything else is the same.

Now, if the tip size and shape are different, and one uses "tips of english" as a measure (consciously or not), perceived tip offset can be very different than actual offset, resulting in significant differences in the amount of spin. See the "tips" of english resource page for more illustrations and explanations.


cyork2 said:
Dave - this should be really easy to test. The crux of the argument TWAL is making is that an LD shaft transfers less energy to the cue ball than a normal shaft - which logically makes sense given that an LD shaft flexes more.
Click to expand...
This might make "logical sense" but it doesn't make much sense from a physics perspective. What could make a big difference is the hardness and efficiency of the tip.

cyork2 said:
Maybe you already have some data on this (cue power)?
Click to expand...
I haven't tested this specific shot with a robot, but I have done lots of squirt (CB deflection) testing and analysis, and I've analyzed the physics of draw very carefully and thoroughly. (And I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :wink:) For more info, see: squirt (CB deflection) resource page and draw shot resource page.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
If the tip is the same on both cues, and the weight is the same with both cues, and the tip contact point and cue elevation are the same with both cues, and the stroke is the same with both cues, then there should be very little difference in the amount of draw. If anything, the LD shaft should create slightly more draw. For more info, see: getting more spin with an LD shaft.

Although, if you are hitting close to the miscue limit, the LD shaft might produce slightly less draw. For more info, see: physics-based draw shot advice.

Regardless, the difference in draw should be very small if everything else is the same.

Now, if the tip size and shape are different, and one uses "tips of english" as a measure (consciously or not), perceived tip offset can be very different than actual offset, resulting in significant differences in the amount of spin. See the "tips" of english resource page for more illustrations and explanations.


This might make "logical sense" but it doesn't make much sense from a physics perspective. What could make a big difference is the hardness and efficiency of the tip.

I haven't tested this specific shot with a robot, but I have done lots of squirt (CB deflection) testing and analysis, and I've analyzed the physics of draw very carefully and thoroughly. (And I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :wink:) For more info, see: squirt (CB deflection) resource page and draw shot resource page.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

I have a question regarding the videos for meucci black dot using a robot. I noticed in every case, the object ball traveled a lot farther in the tests with the other shaft than it did when he used the black dot. Would hitting the black dot at a lower speed explain the extreme difference in their results?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top