Shaf Drop Bouncing

One thing I've always noticed with wooden cues, are the sounds of the hit.
The feel/sound of a well made cue seemed to do more with less.
I was quite intrigued as a kid, with the first 1964 Rambow I saw a rich kid buy.
$80 four points and inlays one shaft.
That cues sound was quite different than my $20 Rocket cue/brass joint.
Also, I distinctly remember the sounds of a Lobby??? cue, but forgot about it's history.
Feel/sound were important in the 60's cues.
 
Because it wasn't necessary to test something doesn't make it false. I bought a measle cue ball, the real deal thirty dollar one. Shooting a three or four rail shot it rolled two feet further or a bit more than the red circle ball I competed with. Several more people wanted to try the measle ball and came to the same conclusion. We were looking at where the rubber met the road, we didn't need to do months of testing to reach the same conclusion.

I was practicing with my wooden cue and shaft. JoeyA came in with a REVO. From the first time I hit with it I could tell it was moving the cue ball with less effort. No reason for involved testing to demonstrate the basic fact. If there was reason to measure exactly the effect then testing would be required.

I could go on and on but some things require involved testing to prove, some are obvious.

Hu
 
Bob Jewett said:
Some people actually study that stuff and find it useful. You're not one of those people.

Wood can be "lively" or "dead" along the grain. If it's dead, it absorbs energy and a given speed of stick won't propel the cue ball as fast. You have to hit the ball harder for a given shot than with a "lively" shaft. Many people feel it's better to have a cue that doesn't waste energy.
Click to expand...
Many people feel it's better to have a cue that doesn't waste energy..... isn't that what CF shafts claim to do?
 
ShootingArts said:
Because it wasn't necessary to test something doesn't make it false. I bought a measle cue ball, the real deal thirty dollar one. Shooting a three or four rail shot it rolled two feet further or a bit more than the red circle ball I competed with. Several more people wanted to try the measle ball and came to the same conclusion. We were looking at where the rubber met the road, we didn't need to do months of testing to reach the same conclusion.

I was practicing with my wooden cue and shaft. JoeyA came in with a REVO. From the first time I hit with it I could tell it was moving the cue ball with less effort. No reason for involved testing to demonstrate the basic fact. If there was reason to measure exactly the effect then testing would be required.

I could go on and on but some things require involved testing to prove, some are obvious.

Hu
Click to expand...
Maybe the reason so many people have moved to CF shafts and in the case of Becue complete CF cues.
 
ShootingArts said:
Because it wasn't necessary to test something doesn't make it false. I bought a measle cue ball, the real deal thirty dollar one. Shooting a three or four rail shot it rolled two feet further or a bit more than the red circle ball I competed with. Several more people wanted to try the measle ball and came to the same conclusion. We were looking at where the rubber met the road, we didn't need to do months of testing to reach the same conclusion.

I was practicing with my wooden cue and shaft. JoeyA came in with a REVO. From the first time I hit with it I could tell it was moving the cue ball with less effort. No reason for involved testing to demonstrate the basic fact. If there was reason to measure exactly the effect then testing would be required.

I could go on and on but some things require involved testing to prove, some are obvious.

Hu
Click to expand...
I'd much prefer a swing speed of lets say 4 mph to get 4' of draw than 5mph.... all day long.
 
Fore Rail said:
I get what you are saying Bob, I was asking in terms of numbers. Like in golf - higher COR yields real world gains in ball speed and distance. So what I am asking - is there really a significant measurable gain from a "lively" shaft vs a "dead" one?
Click to expand...
In the video posted above, the efficiency of the various sticks tested was from 71% to 85%. Those numbers are probably accurate within a percent or so. The most efficient cues were break sticks. The playing sticks didn't vary a lot but only a few were tested. The test was for full sticks, not just shaft blanks, but you play with the full stick. The tip, ferrule, shaft, joint and butt all get into the act when you test full sticks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SSP
When one is more efficient than another, what makes it More Efficient? WIth more efficiency is one able to swing at a slower speed and obtain the same results?
 
Last edited:
Paul_#_ said:
If you are seeking video of just the shaft bouncing (and not post#7 video of shaft & butt), find that on YouTube at links at end of this post.

One of the YouTube videos is more of a lark but both show McDermott's Defy shaft differing from others in it not bouncing off a pool table. This helps explain McDermott's and players claim that Defy has a softer hit and different sound than other carbon fiber shafts (Revo). See AZers' comment below and at https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/defy-shaft-and-a-little-science-question.546306/

McDermott lauds Defy's shock absorbing powers (from a Seybert's description):
The Defy Shaft is equipped with the new SmacWrap technology previously designed for the aerospace industry. SmartWrap technology consumes vibration and softens the noise resulting in a confident, clean hit with excellent player feel and quiet sound.​


View attachment 860823
Click to expand...

With less transfer?
 
Island Drive said:
When one is more efficient than another, what makes it More Efficient?
Click to expand...
straightline said:
With less transfer?
Click to expand...
See post#16 for how McDermott made the Defy shaft less efficient energy transfer but with benefits of better hit and sound:
Paul_#_ said:
The Defy Shaft is equipped with the new SmacWrap technology previously designed for the aerospace industry. SmartWrap technology consumes vibration and softens the noise resulting in a confident, clean hit with excellent player feel and quiet sound.
Click to expand...
 
straightline said:
What is the point if transfer energy is scrubbed off?
Click to expand...
McDermott's marketing, players' reviews, and bounce tests indicate Defy trades energy transfer power for a different hit and sound than Revo type carbon-fiber shafts---many players claim a better hit and sound.

I favor Bob Jewett's opinion about Defy not bouncing at https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/non-low-deflection-carbon-shaft-maker.576226/#post-8144878

Bob Jewett said:
That's a really bad shaft for most purposes. No bounce means a lot of energy is lost in the tip/shaft. It also means that the tip will probably drag on the cue ball for some spin shots -- the ball will not be driven off the tip by the tip rebound
Click to expand...
 
Bob Jewett said:
<In regards to what gains a pool player can expect with a more "lively" stick...> You don't have to hit the ball as hard for each shot. You have a higher comfortable high end speed. One example would be long distance draw or stop shots.
Click to expand...
On the flip side, there is an argument to be made that a more efficient shaft in effect magnifies your speed control errors, and a less efficient shaft in effect reduces your speed control errors.

I'm making no argument as to which of the differing inherent benefits/drawbacks between higher and lower efficiency shafts are better on net, and perhaps there is even room for it to sometimes vary by player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top