Shaft Dia
- Thread starter Dawgie
- Start date
first year i played with a 13, then i went down to a 12.75 for about 5 years then down to a 12.5 for 6 months, then back up to a 12.75 for 4 more years, then I got a Tad with 13mm shafts and have been using 13mm shafts ever since, I did try a 13.25 once somewhere in the middle for a week-i couldnt make it work. I like 13mm but can play with 12,75.
I have one cue that has real skinny shafts i havent measured they are 11mm i would guess, i cant make a ball with that cue,
I have one cue that has real skinny shafts i havent measured they are 11mm i would guess, i cant make a ball with that cue,
i, as well as many others i'm sure, started with a 13mm stick ... then dropped down to a 12.75. I shot with the 12.75 for a very long time, and eventually bought a 10mm snooker cue that i shot snooker with all the time (seeing as how that is what i was brought up playing thru my dad) and started using it to play regular pool (8 and 9 ball as well). I've since (a year ago) bought a new "regular pool" shooting stick that had 13mm on them, and before i even used the damn thing i had the shaft turned down to a 12mm. I've started using this to shoot everything ... 8/9/10 ball, snooker, 3 cushion, etc. and I use the 12.75 as my break stick after putting on a very hard leather tip.
Its really what you like. Shaft diameter isn't a big deal but shaft taper changes how a cue feels. A more straight Pro taper has a softer feel while a conical taper stiffens up the hit.
I prefer a 13.25 shaft and a stiff taper but after 15 years mine are down to 13 mm. I'm use to it since the change was so slow. It works for me is all that really matters.
Rod
I prefer a 13.25 shaft and a stiff taper but after 15 years mine are down to 13 mm. I'm use to it since the change was so slow. It works for me is all that really matters.
Rod
rom said:you guys forgot that not all of us have the same hand sizea 13mm may feel big for me but fo you it's not
so we can't really tell which is better than the other sizes.
Good point. I have rather short and stubby fingers and I prefer shafts in the 12mm range... 11.5 to 12.3 or so.
Honestly, I wouldn't worry about what dia. shaft everyone else plays with. In this case, size doesn't matter.Dawgie said:
Everyone has different size hands, different size fingers and different styles. You have to find what works for you.
If you like the 12.5 the best, that works for you. I prefer a different size, but that is not important to you.
rom said:you guys forgot that not all of us have the same hand size
You guys play with two hands? No wonder why I can't run past 80 balls.
I like the long pro taper with a 13mm shaft when playing straight pool, and I like 12.75 for any ring games we may play.
I dont know the answer and would like to hear from some of the engineers on this one. It seems to me that the shaft will bounce off the CB on some shots and that a thinner shaft will have more bounce and thus limits the power and or follow through when English is used.
I have an 10 or 11 mm standard snooker cue and I like it but it is difficult to control. I usually play with a 12.7 mm (?) Predator Z and find it accurate because it requires less offset for english. I also have a 13 mm (1980s) Meucci that seems highly accurate but more difficult to control when English is required (needs more offset on the cb). The Mottey 12.7 mm original shaft has a little more deflection than the predator but is the best hitting of the bunch.
My question is, do thinner shafts have more of a tendency to bounce off the CB and thus yield less accuracy on some shots?
I have an 10 or 11 mm standard snooker cue and I like it but it is difficult to control. I usually play with a 12.7 mm (?) Predator Z and find it accurate because it requires less offset for english. I also have a 13 mm (1980s) Meucci that seems highly accurate but more difficult to control when English is required (needs more offset on the cb). The Mottey 12.7 mm original shaft has a little more deflection than the predator but is the best hitting of the bunch.
My question is, do thinner shafts have more of a tendency to bounce off the CB and thus yield less accuracy on some shots?
Last edited:
?My question is, do thinner shafts have more of a tendency to bounce of the CB and thus yield less accuracy on some shots??
The answer to that question would have to be both yes and no. First let me replay your wording "bounce" with "deflect." I assume you're talking about when a cue ball deflects off the shaft when the cue ball is hit off center when applying spin? Seems to me, that todays general opinion on deflection goes to the basic idea that when two objects come into contact, one or both of the objects has to give (deflect) a little. Based on experimentation, the shafts that cause lesser cue ball deflection, do so because the shaft gives right of way (or deflects off of) the cue ball, instead of the cue ball giving right of way or deflecting off the shaft. And, it seems the main factor in construction that allows for a shaft to give way to the cue ball on impact is less weight in the shaft end. That is why low deflection shafts like Predator, and OB-1 use construction that reduces the weight at the end of their shafts.
Now, back to your question about "will a thinner shaft deflect less than a thicker shaft?" Well, the yes part of that question is because most likely, if your shaft is thinner, it's probably lighter. However, the no side of the question would have to mean that just because your shaft is thinner, it doesn't mean it's lighter in every case. It could have a heavier ferrule, or the wood alone could be more intense in density..................and heavier.
So, if you're trying to reduce deflection, your answer isn't exactly finding a thinner and more flexible shaft. The general idea is to use a shaft with a lighter end (tip, ferrule area).
dave
The answer to that question would have to be both yes and no. First let me replay your wording "bounce" with "deflect." I assume you're talking about when a cue ball deflects off the shaft when the cue ball is hit off center when applying spin? Seems to me, that todays general opinion on deflection goes to the basic idea that when two objects come into contact, one or both of the objects has to give (deflect) a little. Based on experimentation, the shafts that cause lesser cue ball deflection, do so because the shaft gives right of way (or deflects off of) the cue ball, instead of the cue ball giving right of way or deflecting off the shaft. And, it seems the main factor in construction that allows for a shaft to give way to the cue ball on impact is less weight in the shaft end. That is why low deflection shafts like Predator, and OB-1 use construction that reduces the weight at the end of their shafts.
Now, back to your question about "will a thinner shaft deflect less than a thicker shaft?" Well, the yes part of that question is because most likely, if your shaft is thinner, it's probably lighter. However, the no side of the question would have to mean that just because your shaft is thinner, it doesn't mean it's lighter in every case. It could have a heavier ferrule, or the wood alone could be more intense in density..................and heavier.
So, if you're trying to reduce deflection, your answer isn't exactly finding a thinner and more flexible shaft. The general idea is to use a shaft with a lighter end (tip, ferrule area).
dave
I hear you there man. I love about a 12.1.JimS said:
12.5 is what's on my Jackie Madden and my Coker
My wording might be wrong and I am trying to understand here, so bare with me please and correct as needed.
Deflection is what the CB does, it veers off the intended path. Deflection can be (is?) caused by a stiff hitting cue that literally pushes the CB too hard. That is the shaft does not give and the CB gives by changing direction, simple physics - right?
A shaft can be constructed in such a way for some optimum compromise between the contact time that will allow the English to take with the least amount of CB deflection.
My question involves the idea that smaller diameter shafts may not stay in contact for a sufficient amount of time for the English to take, while larger diameter shaft make stay in contact for too long a time causing the CB to veer off line more than is necessary.
I would suppose that much of this is in the player's ability to control the stick but it does seem that some diameters of shafts would play better than others.
If it were simply the construction and composition of the shaft then one cue should be substantially better than the others such as custom cues, OB1, Predator and Cuetec (all of whom use different techniques to make a shaft).
However, it seems to me that not only construction but shaft diameter is a major factor. Rather than the opinions of players I would think that some of the cue designers with the assistance of engineers have made a study of these variables and I wonder what results were obtained. Seems that one cue maker may have found that one diameter shaft works better with his cue relative to another cue maker using a different technique for shaft construction.
Deflection is what the CB does, it veers off the intended path. Deflection can be (is?) caused by a stiff hitting cue that literally pushes the CB too hard. That is the shaft does not give and the CB gives by changing direction, simple physics - right?
A shaft can be constructed in such a way for some optimum compromise between the contact time that will allow the English to take with the least amount of CB deflection.
My question involves the idea that smaller diameter shafts may not stay in contact for a sufficient amount of time for the English to take, while larger diameter shaft make stay in contact for too long a time causing the CB to veer off line more than is necessary.
I would suppose that much of this is in the player's ability to control the stick but it does seem that some diameters of shafts would play better than others.
If it were simply the construction and composition of the shaft then one cue should be substantially better than the others such as custom cues, OB1, Predator and Cuetec (all of whom use different techniques to make a shaft).
However, it seems to me that not only construction but shaft diameter is a major factor. Rather than the opinions of players I would think that some of the cue designers with the assistance of engineers have made a study of these variables and I wonder what results were obtained. Seems that one cue maker may have found that one diameter shaft works better with his cue relative to another cue maker using a different technique for shaft construction.
Last edited:
Dawgie said:
I have customers who request diameters from 12.5 to 13.2 (average requests). Most are 12.8 to 13.
Got ym capone last March and it was at 13. I went to his shop/house on Satuday and had him turn it down to 12.7
I really didnt think it could play any better then it did before, but I was wrong.
Mike's cues rock.
I really didnt think it could play any better then it did before, but I was wrong.
Mike's cues rock.
I started with a basic Joss which is supposed to be 13.25 mm. I thought the tip and the taper are too thick and make it harder to aim visually. I went to measure it and found that it is in fact 13 mm. Wow.
Now I use an OB-1 (which is supposed to be 12.75 mm, haven't measured it).
I am still experimenting whenever there is an opportunity. Probably12.5 - 12.75mm fits me.
Now I use an OB-1 (which is supposed to be 12.75 mm, haven't measured it).
I am still experimenting whenever there is an opportunity. Probably12.5 - 12.75mm fits me.
I think it's clearer to use "deflection" to describe what the stick does and "squirt" to describe what the ball does, but I get your meaning.
I don't think stiffness has been shown to make much difference in the amount of squirt (deflection). But a thicker shaft has more mass, so it squirts more - maybe that's where the idea comes from.
I don't believe any of this is real. If there's any difference in the amount of contact time for larger vs. smaller tips, it's so small it's irrelevant. Furthermore, there's no reason to believe that longer contact time would increase spin or "give it time to take" or increase squirt or have any effect at all.
I don't think the player can "control the stick" to increase contact time, increase spin or reduce squirt - I think our "control" is limited to hitting the cue ball where we want to in the right direction and at the right speed. Tip/cueball contact happens so quickly that we're physically incapable of affecting it beyond that.
I use a 10mm tip for pool, both because it's low squirt (especially hollowed out like it is) and because I can see more accurately where I'm hitting the cue ball. I don't think it has any other effect, positive or negative.
pj
chgo
Thanks PJ. Your terms are what I was searching my head for - and obviousy could not find in the midst of all that junk up there.
Apparently then the hardness of the tip is the only real concern. It does seem that with a softer tip, I get more spin or at least more control of the spin.
I was pleased to learn that small diameter shafts can be used with no specific detriment. Of all the cues I have, I like my old Dufferin snooker cue with a 10mm tip better than any other. The Predator Z2 is second and that is because it is similar to the Dufferin.
Apparently then the hardness of the tip is the only real concern. It does seem that with a softer tip, I get more spin or at least more control of the spin.
I was pleased to learn that small diameter shafts can be used with no specific detriment. Of all the cues I have, I like my old Dufferin snooker cue with a 10mm tip better than any other. The Predator Z2 is second and that is because it is similar to the Dufferin.
The only caveat I have is that you might want a straighter taper with a smaller tip to increase stiffness, although that may just be a personal preference thing. A straight taper means losing less mass in the tip area, so it's a tradeoff.
pj
chgo
Actually your Predator shaft probably does the most "bouncing" as you call it. It is basically hollow the last 4 inches of the shaft to create less "END MASS" therefore reducing deflection. But wait, in physics so to speak, deflection happens when one mass hits another...so if the cue ball is not deflecting as much, what is??? Ever have that Predator "skip out" when bridging off the rail or over another ball and you thought you miscued??? What really happened is the shaft deflected out of your shot.