Shaft Diameter and Deflection.

aquaurchin99

aquaurchin99

Let's Make A Deal
Silver Member
I know there has been indefinite amounts of.discussion about deflection but my friends and I were having this argument. I know that shaft diameter really doesn't make a crazy difference in deflection, but would a smaller diameter shaft create more or less deflection?
 
aquaurchin99 said:
I know there has been indefinite amounts of.discussion about deflection but my friends and I were having this argument. I know that shaft diameter really doesn't make a crazy difference in deflection, but would a smaller diameter shaft create more or less deflection?
Click to expand...


It creates less cause it makes it lighter... So if you got a 12mm shaft with a shorter ferrule that is uncapped it would hit like a precat 314 without the soft hit
 
Ok, so we don't go round and round arguing over a misunderstanding in terms, let's get back to definitions.

Balls squirt, shafts deflect.

In the abstract, all other things being equal, a thinner cylinder, even if conical, will have a lower bending moment to a cantilever lateral load than a thicker one. This means a thinner shaft will have more lateral deflection - in the tip of the shaft.

You probably are asking about squirt, and I agree with Lampshade. All other things being equal (this is an important caveat), cue ball squirt will be reduced with a thinner shaft.
 
Last edited:
Shaft said:
Ok, so we don't go round and round arguing over a misunderstanding in terms, let's get back to definitions.

Balls squirt, shafts deflect.

In the abstract, all other things being equal, a thinner cylinder, even if conical, will have a lower bending moment to a cantilever lateral load than a thicker one. This means a thinner shaft will have more lateral deflection - in the tip of the shaft.

You probably are asking about squirt, and I agree with Lampshade. All other things being equal (this is an important caveat), cue ball squirt will be reduced with a thinner shaft.
Click to expand...

Agree on (All other things being equal (this is an important caveat)) I have two 12.75 mm cues one causes CB to squirt more than other, so type of wood matters; this is i think main reason big cue manufacturers going after lamination of wood to minimize this issue.
 
What would be the cons of going to an 11.5mm shaft? Unintentional spin if your stroke isn't precise?
 
this is very confusing to me,as i play with a cue that has a very thick taper,no pro taper at all,it progresses from small at the tip on a consistent line to the joint

that said

i have found it to play better in every way for me,less sqirt,delection or what ever you call it

i look where i want to shoot and thats where the cue ball goes,it plays better forme in every way

people say that it should not,but it does

This is the taper I put on the old Deano cues made by John Nemic

Before you brush this aside,Tim Scruggs laughed at me and asked me to send the cue for his inspection,Tim was famous for making the best hitting cues in the world (or at least many thought so)

Funny thing happened

Tim found this shaft taper to play so good that he actually changed the taper on his cues.

The other day he brought this up in a phone conversation with me.(Tim is doing fine)

He told me several stories of old guys who bought one of his cues with this taper and these guys were playing the best pool of their life too.

Before you think this is a sales pitch,think again,I am not making or selling any cues now,other than a single here and there that I have been experimenting with

Think how many of you played your best pool with a house cue,be honest with yourself

the purpose of this thread was to discuss size of shaft with playability,it progress to include taper,it went on to include language and scientific theory that I don't understand.
But when scientific theory contradicts observable data,perhaps true science should yield its pre conceived hypothesis to the observable data,( i do have one of these cues available for testing or sale)

OK so I might have a sale in mind,what else could you expect?
 
deanoc said:
this is very confusing to me,as i play with a cue that has a very thick taper,no pro taper at all,it progresses from small at the tip on a consistent line to the joint

that said

i have found it to play better in every way for me,less sqirt,delection or what ever you call it

i look where i want to shoot and thats where the cue ball goes,it plays better forme in every way

people say that it should not,but it does

This is the taper I put on the old Deano cues made by John Nemic

Before you brush this aside,Tim Scruggs laughed at me and asked me to send the cue for his inspection,Tim was famous for making the best hitting cues in the world (or at least many thought so)

Funny thing happened

Tim found this shaft taper to play so good that he actually changed the taper on his cues.

The other day he brought this up in a phone conversation with me.(Tim is doing fine)

He told me several stories of old guys who bought one of his cues with this taper and these guys were playing the best pool of their life too.

Before you think this is a sales pitch,think again,I am not making or selling any cues now,other than a single here and there that I have been experimenting with

Think how many of you played your best pool with a house cue,be honest with yourself

the purpose of this thread was to discuss size of shaft with playability,it progress to include taper,it went on to include language and scientific theory that I don't understand.
But when scientific theory contradicts observable data,perhaps true science should yield its pre conceived hypothesis to the observable data,( i do have one of these cues available for testing or sale)

OK so I might have a sale in mind,what else could you expect?
Click to expand...

Dean,

-First, let me say that the science involved in the cue ball squirt, or deflection, -are is very well proven. So science does not necessarily need to yield to this "observable data". More appropriately, it should work to explain it. Which would either prove the science, or prove the "observable data".

I'm pretty familiar with this topic, as you might expect, and I'm confident that you and I could work this out to a common ground in a pretty short time. Since we are close to each other, we should meet at a pool room and work it out. You bring your cue with your special taper, and I'll bring one or two of our low deflection (really squirt) shafts.

One or both of us could walk away with some new understanding.

Call me at the shop, 972-578-9100. Sometimes I can be hard to get to the phone, but you know Doc, so ask for him and he can get us together.

Afterwards, we can come back to this thread and post our findings.
 
I have 3 cues.

- a 12.2mm tip, and a slight euro taper. About 13-14 inches down it is 13mm wide, but grows slightly, but consistently.
- a 13.2mm tip, pro taper.
- a 13mm euro taper, about 13-14 inches down it is 14+ mm wide.

I like the 12.2mm the best, its what I learned on. Compared to that, the 13.2mm pro taper squirts more, and the 13mm euro taper squirts the most. Adustment is about a quarter ball shift for a table length shot when using a firm stroke for ball movement.

When I can find a builder in my area, and have enough spare funds, I will turn all my shafts down below 13mm, and if possible retaper it to the 12.2mm-13mm euro taper. I didn't want to get into LD shafts because I break and play with the cue I have in hand. I do not quite trust laminated and or hollow types of shafts for this, but I could be wrong. I didn't spend any time to investigate that.
 
aquaurchin99 said:
I know there has been indefinite amounts of.discussion about deflection but my friends and I were having this argument. I know that shaft diameter really doesn't make a crazy difference in deflection, but would a smaller diameter shaft create more or less deflection?
Click to expand...
Shaft diameter does affect CB deflection (AKA "squirt"). Reducing the weight of the 6-8 inches of the shaft closest to the tip reduces squirt. Therefore, a smaller diameter shaft will have less squirt. For more info, see:

Regards,
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top