Does the rhino deflect a lot?
Cause whatever the rhino does that’s what I want
Cause whatever the rhino does that’s what I want
I tested the 12.5 Rhino against my Cuetec Cynergy 12.5. Both are LD, and the Rhino is slightly lower (15” pivot point vs 14” for the Cynergy).Does the rhino deflect a lot?
Cause whatever the rhino does that’s what I want
Predator break shafts aren’t as LD as their playing shafts, and bridge length is typically longer for break shots, so I’d guess even if he does play a Predator break that his bridge is pretty close to the PP.
Ever done any tests on the older 314s?I tested the 12.5 Rhino against my Cuetec Cynergy 12.5. Both are LD, and the Rhino is slightly lower (15” pivot point vs 14” for the Cynergy).
What I found with the revo experiment is that you would definitely be rebuilding your game to some degree to accommodate the deflection and swerve. Whether it would help in that regard in the long run is anyone's guess.Thinking that low deflection wil boost your game is a fallacy imo. In the real world how much a shaft deflects is pretty unimportant. You the player know your equipment and it's something you have adjusted to over time. Buying a low deflection shaft and thinking it's like getting a bigger engine or a turbo in your car is just wrong. Btw: what makes a shaft "ultra low deflection"? That sounds a whole lot like a marketing term to me..
"Low-Deflection" is a VERY general term. LD shafts range from 'not much' to 'really damn low' deflection. So while 'ultraLD' does sound a tad gimmicky it actually describes those shafts that exhibit quite low deflect. Don't like them don't use them but they do exist.Thinking that low deflection wil boost your game is a fallacy imo. In the real world how much a shaft deflects is pretty unimportant. You the player know your equipment and it's something you have adjusted to over time. Buying a low deflection shaft and thinking it's like getting a bigger engine or a turbo in your car is just wrong. Btw: what makes a shaft "ultra low deflection"? That sounds a whole lot like a marketing term to me..
So when is a low deflection shaft a ultra low deflection shaft? I think you get what I'm saying. This is marketing more than anything else. "low deflection" is being touted left and right in a way where it's intentionally vague and somewhat misleading. I have customers all the time buying their first real cue and the only thing they ask about is if it's low deflection. It's totally missing the mark and it confuses players, especially beginners."Low-Deflection" is a VERY general term. LD shafts range from 'not much' to 'really damn low' deflection. So while 'ultraLD' does sound a tad gimmicky it actually describes those shafts that exhibit quite low deflect. Don't like them don't use them but they do exist.
I don't think its misleading just they're 'mis-tested' for lack of a better term. There is no testing standard when it comes to these so each maker touts them at his pleasure. Some are insanely low and others aren't much less than a good maple shaft with a light ferrule. I also agree of CF shafts having a bit more power, i'm going to soft tip(RARE for me) to slow the cb some. With a firm tip i just get too much cb 'jump'. I tried a friend's with a soft and it was just right.So when is a low deflection shaft a ultra low deflection shaft? I think you get what I'm saying. This is marketing more than anything else. "low deflection" is being touted left and right in a way where it's intentionally vague and somewhat misleading. I have customers all the time buying their first real cue and the only thing they ask about is if it's low deflection. It's totally missing the mark and it confuses players, especially beginners.
I agree with @dendweller that carbon fibre shafts generally seems to move the ball a bit more effortlessly due to their stiffer construction
Yes, it's a vague term and there's no system to rank shafts, like tips on a shore scale. Also removing front end mass does alter the hit and especially on wooden shafts it can greatly affect the durability of the shafts, so there's more things to consider than just how much the shaft deflects.I don't think its misleading just they're 'mis-tested' for lack of a better term. There is no testing standard when it comes to these so each maker touts them at his pleasure. Some are insanely low and others aren't much less than a good maple shaft with a light ferrule. I also agree of CF shafts having a bit more power, i'm going to soft tip(RARE for me) to slow the cb some. With a firm tip i just get too much cb 'jump'. I tried a friend's with a soft and it was just right.
It’s trivial to rank shafts by deflection amount, and many folks have done it and published results. It’s done by finding the shaft’s natural pivot point by using a short, firm, straight-in shot with right and left BHE at various bridge lengths. Takes about 3-4 minutes. That PP length (from CB to bridge) is directly correlated with how much a shaft deflects the CB.Yes, it's a vague term and there's no system to rank shafts, like tips on a shore scale. Also removing front end mass does alter the hit and especially on wooden shafts it can greatly affect the durability of the shafts, so there's more things to consider than just how much the shaft deflects.
Many customrs who played with Medium tips on their wood shaft is going back to Soft or a Medium tip on the Soft side like KO Brothers, just as you have experienced.