Shafts with Pilots

[Sealegs50]

Many years ago John McChesney tested this theory with close to or over 100 players. He disguised the joints and asked the players to identify what it was. Almost all of them failed. Feel is just too subjective and being humans we are too subject to the power of suggestion.


Royce

A while back, Murray Tucker posted an article summarizing the results of the McChesney blind experiment from 1991. The link to Murray's post is provided. I believe these results are just below random guessing, but probably not significantly so.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=3286694&postcount=18

 

[skins]

A while back, Murray Tucker posted an article summarizing the results of the McChesney blind experiment from 1991. The link to Murray's post is provided. I believe these results are just below random guessing, but probably not significantly so.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpo...4&postcount=18

Even after everything that's been offered, I still believe I can tell the difference between a cue made with a 5/16 14 piloted joint using shafts with compression fit pilot and those without. Same maker for both cue and shafts of course... But that's me..

 

[RBC]

Sorry about the tone of the last post.

I think we are very much on common ground. I don't really believe that anyone can tell by hit how a cue is constructed and very much doubt that voids have much effect.

My experience comes from studying wave propagation in a graduate level class.

I call out things like this because I hate misinformation.

No offense intended to you personally, I think you are an asset to this forum and to our sport.

Frio

No worries!

I too think we're on the same page. Or at least in the same chapter. lol

Thanks for the kind words too. I like to see your posts. I do study them quite often hoping to pick up on some actual school knowledge.


Royce

 

[RBC]

Royce,

You didn't offend me and neither did anyone else. I like frank discussions and I'm only sharing my thoughts too.

When I say "supposed" LD shafts, it isn't directed to anyone or any company. I'm using the term "loosely", just like a lot of the shaft makers do when they are describing the LD properties of their shafts.

There is no exact "reference" point that each shaft must meet because not every shaft is tested before they are sold. I have 30+ year old solid-maple shafts that have "as little" deflection as some of the high-dollar LD shafts.

Should EVERY shaft be labeled as to what its deflection is? I think so...especially on custom cues where the maker makes the entire cue. There should be some sort of standard where it can be reliably measured.

I am not saying that any cue or shaft "plays better" than another because that is subjective, but all cues are DIFFERENT...even another cue of the same design by the same maker.

Wood is unique.

Hawaiian

No worries! It's all good. I'm glad we both like frank discussions.

As for LD shafts, I too agree that there are many shafts out there that are called LD when they really aren't very LD. It's unfortunate that we don't have any kind of industry organization that could provide some standardization. Believe me, it hurts me more than most, that's for sure. One thing that we (OB) are doing is shifting our product descriptions and advertising points away from just saying they are low cue ball squirt. What we are stating is that our newest shafts, the + line, has 13% reduced tip end mass in all models. We believe that this is the first step in a transition away from the term LD. It's pretty well known that tip end mass is the primary factor in cue ball deflection. It's also something that can be readily measured. In the future, you will see actual measured tip end mass numbers from those shafts that are claimed to be low cue ball squirt, but really aren't.

As to labeling each shaft with it's actual LD actual deflection numbers, I don't think it's really that necessary. While it's certainly likely that the deflection characteristics of our shafts does vary some from shaft to shaft, it doesn't vary by much. Our construction methods are just too consistent to allow for much variation, and the consistency of the maple is less critical than you might think. Besides, it would be far too expensive to be cost effective. I for one, don't want to have anything to do with any kind of measuring machine. There are just too many ways the results can be manipulated to show whatever you want. I really think the tip end mass measurements will become very popular. Even Predator has started down this road by stating that their new line of shafts has a 4% reduction in tip end mass.

Thanks again for great posts in a great thread. It's nice to be able to discuss things without everyone getting upset.


Royce

 

[Chrippa]

I believe that we can sense so small changes, waves etc that it´s mind-blowing.

For me to get a cue, from a cue maker that I like, and that I have spoken to, had a good experience with etc is every bit important as the cue itself.

A "good" cue from a cuemaker that has not met my expectations is not going to be played by me. Maybe if I didn´t have any options, but then I do:smile:.

Tight fit; I really love this, if I can tell the difference, I can surely feel the "change" when playing.
However that doesn´t tell the hole story for me, - to get a cue and put it together and feel that tight squeeze is great imo. Tells me that the maker have done his best to make it "perfect fit".
Mike Lambros cues comes to mind, Paul Daytons radial pin fit is ossum, Rick at Esoteric last turns has it also. There is of course many more but these guys I have had several cues to feel from.

It´s like tasting a dish, a recipe if something is missing you add to it until you "feel" that it´s good. You don´t need to explain why, just feel it. "go with the flow".

Regards

Chrippa

 

[galipeau]

A while back, Murray Tucker posted an article summarizing the results of the McChesney blind experiment from 1991. The link to Murray's post is provided. I believe these results are just below random guessing, but probably not significantly so.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=3286694&postcount=18

I love how everyone thought the Scruggs and Huebler sneakies were the best playing cues!

 

[cueman]

Aloha,

I notice that a lot of shafts (particularly 5-16/14) are sold with a metal pilot that protrudes from the base of shaft and extends into the joint of the cue.

All my custom cues have wooden pilots that are compression fit and fit inside the joint tightly.

What is the purpose of a pilot on an "after-market" shaft if the pilot is just "floating" inside the joint and touching nothing inside the joint?

One aspect of the piloted joint on a shaft that may not have been mentioned is that you can face the shaft off between centers and not have to chuck up on the joint. This made it much easier for cuemakers with minimal modifications to their lathes to be able to face off the shafts. It has always been a pain to set a metal lathe up to face a shaft through the headstock and the pilot solved that problem. A collet in the back of the lathe would hold a butt because it is tapered, but a shaft being straight on the tip end is hard to hold in a plug type of collet since there is no taper.

 

[RBC]

One aspect of the piloted joint on a shaft that may not have been mentioned is that you can face the shaft off between centers and not have to chuck up on the joint. This made it much easier for cuemakers with minimal modifications to their lathes to be able to face off the shafts. It has always been a pain to set a metal lathe up to face a shaft through the headstock and the pilot solved that problem. A collet in the back of the lathe would hold a butt because it is tapered, but a shaft being straight on the tip end is hard to hold in a plug type of collet since there is no taper.

Chris

Thats avery good point, but there is a little caveat with this.

Many inserts are countersunk with the standard 82 degree countersink, and not the 60 degree taper that would match the normal tailstock live center.

On all the inserts that we make, we use the 60. This way we can easily spin them against a live center and they won't be off center.


Royce

 

[HDR10]

I've played over 30 years and have had them every way...never could tell the difference....even on old cues

 

[JoeyInCali]

I love how everyone thought the Scruggs and Huebler sneakies were the best playing cues!

The TS had no collar and had a 5/16 14 screw on a piloted brass insert.
The Huebler had a flat face and nylon insert.
Imagine that.

 

[WildWing]

I've been wrestling with this one for awhile, deciding whether a compression shaft fit makes a difference. I've decided the only way to really tell is to use the same butt with both types of shafts. Fortunately, I could do that. I've taken a Jerry -R- butt, with his shafts, both compression fit at the tongue of the joint, and compared them with couple shafts that is close in weight, and the same tip, Moori 2nd generation mediums, with a slimmer brass insert. They fit good and flat with the -R- joint face, but don't compress. They happen to be Tim Scruggs shafts, but good comparison, weight, thickness, etc.

Bottom line, I can hear a slight difference in the hit, a slight more sound dampening with the compression shaft that presses the interior of the joint. It's subtle, but I think the only way to experiment is with one butt and various shafts, as other entire cues with different tips will give different results. Obviously, not scientific, but the best I can do. My view is that filling the void tightly between the shaft insert and the joint interior does give a bit more dampening, but it's subtle. It's good to have many cues and shafts to test this, and your results may be different. However, this is what I have found.

All the best,
WW

 

[galipeau]

More likely explanation is the difference you are hearing or feeling are variations in shaft density, taper, tips, or ferrules. Even having a tip diameter variation of +- .5mm can possibly result in a different tone. And that's with the same tip and ferrule combo and taper. I think a more reliable test (which you were close to doing) would be to have one shaft with a compression fit and have a bunch of people in a blind test group hit some balls, record observations, etc. Then take the pilot down and have the group test again, but don't let them know which was compression, and which was not.

 

[WildWing]

Shaft density, taper, tips, and ferrules are the same in my example, as I stated.

As I said, this is subtle, and your feel may vary. I only have 43 years at this hobby. There are some with more.

 

[Sheldon]

Shaft density, taper, tips, and ferrules are the same in my example, as I stated.

The point galipeau was making, is that the subtle differences between ANY two shafts no matter how hard you try to make them identical, will likely over ride anything caused by the pilot being snug or not.

 

[ronscuba]

I have 2 cues from the same manufacturer. Same shaft, same tip, different joints.

I like both. They both feel tight. Maybe it is my imagination, but I can feel a difference. The difference might be due to weighting, the pin, the female thread, the pilot, the female insert, whatever. If someone can feel a difference, then maybe they also have a preference.

 

[WildWing]

The point galipeau was making, is that the subtle differences between ANY two shafts no matter how hard you try to make them identical, will likely over ride anything caused by the pilot being snug or not.

No, I believe the point he was making was that I had not taken into account the variations in the shaft density, taper, tip, and ferrules, when I had taken those variables into account. Obviously it's up to the individual to tell a difference with compression fit or not. If you can't, it's ok, nobody is criticizing.

 

[ideologist]

No, I believe the point he was making was that I had not taken into account the variations in the shaft density, taper, tip, and ferrules, when I had taken those variables into account. Obviously it's up to the individual to tell a difference with compression fit or not. If you can't, it's ok, nobody is criticizing.

Unless you used the same shaft, you didn't take that into account.

The same board can produce wildly different maple.

Just because 2 shafts have the same mass, does not mean the mass is in the same places.

I am trying to come to Derby and I guarantee I will not lose the $100 bet I make against any 50 guys who say they can tell which shaft is compression fit and which is not.

It is so ludicrous to say it is possible.

The difference in shock delivered to the end of the shaft by a few thousandths of maple existing or not is so much less than the human hand or brain can detect.

I do have the math to support this and will post it in detail when I'm not half asleep and cranky.

Sorry if I come off as a jerk, but the lack of education that abounds in pool players is just silly - what I mean by that is: superstition and marketing have supplanted science - and it kills me.

"Compression fit" was coined by a cuemaker trying to sell cues.

Just like the fullsplice maker who says it is a "structural improvement" to absolutely cram the forearm into the butt, when it is so far from the truth it borders on criminal fraud.

Whatever, don't post when tired. Sorry.

 

[ideologist]

I have 2 cues from the same manufacturer. Same shaft, same tip, different joints.

I like both. They both feel tight. Maybe it is my imagination, but I can feel a difference. The difference might be due to weighting, the pin, the female thread, the pilot, the female insert, whatever. If someone can feel a difference, then maybe they also have a preference.

That is a big pin into wood vs. A pin mated into a steel insert.

Huge size difference.

The difference I am arguing is a few thousandths of maple, surrounded by steel and brass.

Absolutely imperceptible to humans. Maybe Efren can tell, since he is a deity.

 

[WildWing]

Originally Posted by ideologist View Post
"Steve Mizerak's Balabushka cue has an ivory ring above the handle"

Gentlemanly discussions are always desirable. But when you call me uneducated, beware of previous posts you have made that were obviously wrong. That goes for everyone, of course. Let's keep it civil, and not say anyone is uneducated, etc. There are varying opinions with this subject, that's all. Trust me, I am not uneducated when it comes to the cue hobby.

 

[ideologist]

Originally Posted by ideologist View Post
"Steve Mizerak's Balabushka cue has an ivory ring above the handle"

Gentlemanly discussions are always desirable. But when you call me uneducated, beware of previous posts you have made that were obviously wrong. That goes for everyone, of course. Let's keep it civil, and not say anyone is uneducated, etc. There are varying opinions with this subject, that's all. Trust me, I am not uneducated when it comes to the cue hobby.

Pete's LOA corrected my perspective from a low-resolution photo. I'm glad you took the time to shop through my posts. How many back was that?

I'm not talking about the figurative dick-measuring that goes into cue collecting, though.

I'm sure you're a smart guy, and likely more educated than I am in a vast number of areas. I wasn't singling you out, but it really is impossible to say identical conditions are met with two organic rods of tree guts.

I only quoted you because you were the last to post.

However, the voodoo of "feel" is so obscured by marketing hype that cue buyers are not educated on what they are buying, from a scientific standpoint.

There is very real science that debunks this "X matters, and is 'better than' Y" silliness. I did not mean to come off as less-than-civil, but so many folks claim that a compression fit matters, and is superior in playability, that it is worth pursuing.

I will post numbers on Shock, and how a compression fit does so little to effect it, that it should be put to bed.

However, you and I both know that won't ever happen. I guess that's part of the fun.