RGC..100% perfect

realkingcobra said:
Yes, the cloth Mark installed was new, BUT the tables I've rebuilt in the past all still play perfect right up to the point that the cloth has to be replaced. You don't have to tell me the effects of new cloth, I AM aware of that, but I HAVE seen the same tables I've rebuilt over the years, when the cloth has been broke in, even worn out, and the rails still play consistent with the wear of the cloth, so trust me when I tell you your argument of new cloth is mute, as in doesn't apply!;) Proper alingment of the cushions behind the nose height will give you consistant results, reguardless of what tables it's on. This is NOT a Diamond thing, it's an ALL table problem!

Glen
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess thats why pool table rails are made wrong, somebody should start a thread like that

I never had an argument only a question, read it how you like
 
Last edited:
OTLB said:
Yeah, I guess thats why pool table rails are made wrong, somebody should start a thread like that
Click to expand...

It's NOT that they're made wrong John, it's that they're inconsistant in relation to the cushions and the alignment of the cushions. I can take a Diamond ProAm, a Brunswick GC...any of them, and a Gandy Big G, install the same cushions on each one of them, and they'd all turn out different in the play, OR I could modify the sub-rails, get them all to the same thickness, set the nose height to 1 29/64" and with the exception of the pockets...make everyone of them play exactly the same to each other in the open playing surface...now why do you think that is? It's because if A, the sub-rail thickness is exactly the same on all three tables, which is a consistent, and B the cushion nose height is all set the same, that becomes a consistent, then C which is the bevel of the sub-rail that the cushions mount to becomes a consistent, which is the result of A+B=C With the same cushions on all three tables, you'd end up with the same results no matter what. Yes, the sound effects would be different from table because of the changing of density of rail construction, yes the pockets would all be exactly the same, but would differ in play depending on the slate cut of the pocket, but believe me, every one of the tables would play exactly the same in the play of the playing surface.

Glen
 
thats not what I mean but yes of course if there are no variables there is consistency

Now I'm curious, how many times have changes been made to Diamonds rail liner bevels etc?
 
Last edited:
OTLB said:
thats not what I mean but yes of course if there are no variables there is consistency
Click to expand...

I know you're talking about a wider foot print of the rail on the table when it's bolted down, you've mentioned that before as that's why rails are built wrong, but that's incorrect really. A wider foot print has nothing to do with the relationship of how the rails are bolted in place, as in how tight the rails can be bolted down. All rails bolting down to slate have everything in the world to do with stress and compression, not a wider foot print that is going to have quite a bit of it removed anyway for the dado of the cloth relief, which also removes a portion of that foot print on the slate;)

Glen
 
not even close but keep trying

see what the other guy is asking now

oh well I have to go to the gym again today ttyl
 
Last edited:
This should be a good thread while im working ill keep checking in to so who's scoring points.

I'm almost ready to start doing tables again.

Craig
 
OTLB said:
not even close but keep trying

see what the other guy is asking now

oh well I have to go to the gym again today ttyl
Click to expand...

John, I'm not going here with you, as you have your idea as to why rails are built wrong, you've mentioned it before....but like normal....don't follow up with the "Why"! I know rails better than probably any living mechanic, past or present...and that's all I need to know;)

Glen
 
RKC, maybe you two should stop by my house and you can explain what is going on to OTLB, while you soup up the rails on my 7' proam:rolleyes:
 
CamposCues said:
RKC, maybe you two should stop by my house and you can explain what is going on to OTLB, while you soup up the rails on my 7' proam:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If any one was to search out the enet, they could find all kinds of information on nose height being correct, in correct, cushion manufacture recommendations for nose height...etc...BUT, no where will anyone find information about correct cushion ALIGNMENT behind that nose height, because the first time a cushion manufacture gave out the information as to how thick the sub-rail had to be in conjunction with cushion nose height to get the best performance from a particular set of cushions, they would at that moment be limiting their sales of cushions to only those rails manufactured with the correct "A" consistent rail thickness, therefore cutting the sale of cushions greatly. So, by NOT providing manufactures with this "Important" information, they have let everyone just manufacture rails with "whatever" sub-rail thickness, in order to continue on with the sale of cushions...to whom ever;)

Glen
 
Last edited:
perfectpocketz said:
...
Greg Sullivan at diamond cares a great deal, he is always trying to better his table.

That's why he's built one of the best tables ever. ...
Click to expand...

If that's the case why is it necessary to modify it? Maybe Diamond need to produce a barbox "gamblers" table. :grin:
I've asked twice in this thread about defining the "perfect table" without seeing a response.
 
realkingcobra said:
Proper alinement of the cushions will fix the playing conditions of ANY quality tables;)

Glen
Click to expand...

No argument on that.
Do you think the type of rail wood, steel-lined rails (another thread) or number of rail bolts has an impact on cushion response or simply the orientation (alignment) of the cushion?
 
Dartman said:
No argument on that.
Do you think the type of rail wood, steel-lined rails (another thread) or number of rail bolts has an impact on cushion response or simply the orientation (alignment) of the cushion?
Click to expand...

No, 99% of the play of the rails is in correct alignment of the cushions. Diamonds rails are made from Oak and Dymondwood, Brunswick's are made out of either Poplar or Mahogany, yet when testing the rebound of the cue ball length wise, the both only get 5 times the length of the table using the same cushions. Even the fact that Diamond uses 4 rail bolts per rail, whereas Brunswick only uses 3, there's still no overall difference in the rail design if the rails are bolted down correctly. I mean if you think about it, the cushions are much softer than the rails they're mounted on, no shot made on a table can crush the cushions, so it's not like the balls can be hit any harder on one table vs the other, so rail composition mostly have control over the sound effects of the balls slamming into the cushions. With soft shots, they all sound the same, until a ball has been pocketed.;)

Glen
 
I'm not a mechanic, but a player. I've stated before I hate Diamond tables because their rails are too fast. Every time I've stated this, the top mechanics, who I totally respect, say this is not a problem.

Now my question is to Glen, are you saying the Diamond rails are too fast straight from the factory? I'm not picking on you. In fact, I hope you say yes. Because if you have a fix for this, maybe Diamond will modify the design of their tables to your fix, and we won't have this discussion of why people hate Diamond tables and will refuse to gamble on them.

Now, another thing I think you need, is a cushion mesaurement device. I've brought this up before, and the idea has been shot down by you mechanics. I don't feel hitting the ball hard and seeing how many rails you get is a good test. A pendulum based test that measures the rebound of the rail is what will work best. This takes away any friction of cloth variables that occur with ramp testing, or "hitting hard testing".

Again, I'm not picking on anyone, or claiming to know tables as well as you guys. I'm speaking from the viewopoint of truely wanting a better table. And my biggest reason for a pendulum testing machine is the well known saying "you can't improve what you can't measure".

Thanks for your time, and thanks for your constant efforts improving the play and designs of tables.
 
Dartman said:
If that's the case why is it necessary to modify it? Maybe Diamond need to produce a barbox "gamblers" table. :grin:
I've asked twice in this thread about defining the "perfect table" without seeing a response.
Click to expand...


Dartman, I'm just using the poolroom lingo that when a player gambles on a table that he truly has his cue ball under total control while under a great deal of pressure for big cash, then the table to us is perfect. When you cut a ball down the rail at a certain speed you know just how far the cue ball will travel across the table. When that happens you know the table is right, a good player will tell you, this table plays perfect.

Now, as far as a perfect table, I don't believe we will ever see one in our day, or for that fact know what it would be.
The players love the way this table plays, I love the way it plays, and now DIAMOND is by far the best table, bar non! IMO

The table don't bank short, don't spring off the rails, and to me the table is awesome.
I'm not trying to start anything with anyone, just love the way the table plays.

!0 different players played on that table, and even the ones that lost all their cash said the table plays awesome.
Coming from a pool player that just lost his cash, and didn't blame the table, well that alone speaks for it's self.

The table really plays good, and I very happy to hear the players say for the first time, wow this DIAMOND table is awesome.
Trust me, these are not APA players, they are the real deal.

I'm not trying to say I'm the man, I fixed Diamonds table at all, just trying to make the players more comfortable playing on the Diamond table, and so far so good. 3 days of non stop action on the table, and no complaints so far.
Believe me, all pool players blame the tables, I've never missed a ball in my life, it was always the table.:smile: :smile:

Not knocking anyone or any table, I'm just saying this table is awesome.

Mark Gregory
 
Dartman said:
If that's the case why is it necessary to modify it? Maybe Diamond need to produce a barbox "gamblers" table. :grin:
I've asked twice in this thread about defining the "perfect table" without seeing a response.
Click to expand...

I think the notion of a "perfect table" is ridiculous. What's the "perfect" cue? Or car? Or guitar? Or food?

What's the perfect size pool table? Nine foot? Up until 1950 the major tournaments were all played on 5 x 10 tables.

We all have different styles of play and different expectations. While one player's style of play might lead him to dislike Diamonds because they bank short, another player who rarely banks balls, or does so at minimal speed might never have a problem with this...

Pool tables can't be perfect, they can only be uniform.
 
QuickEdward said:
I think the notion of a "perfect table" is ridiculous. What's the "perfect" cue? Or car? Or guitar? Or food?

What's the perfect size pool table? Nine foot? Up until 1950 the major tournaments were all played on 5 x 10 tables.

We all have different styles of play and different expectations. While one player's style of play might lead him to dislike Diamonds because they bank short, another player who rarely banks balls, or does so at minimal speed might never have a problem with this...

Pool tables can't be perfect, they can only be uniform.
Click to expand...

Uniformed playing tables is exactly what I'm after;) and THAT is what makes them perfect as far as I'm concerned:grin:
 
Stoked!!

I am amazed at the knowledge and ingenuity displayed in this thread.

I am so looking forward to when RKC makes my table PERFECT too!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top