Should Cuemakers Mark Pivot Lengths On Their Shafts?

[dr_dave]

...that video is silent about exactly what I mentioned -- whether a given shaft would have exactly the same squirt characteristics if used on different butts.

I think the video speaks loudly and clearly about that. If vice grips have no effect after several inches, how can the butt have any effect?

If people are curious about this effect, Mike's video, along with several others, can be found, along with other supporting evidence and resources, here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#endmass​

Regards,
Dave

 

[Shaft]

I agree with PJ here. I bet if you asked a custom cue maker to do it, they would oblige, and they would have the best inks to make a small but indelible mark, or series of marks. These marks could be discreet and even attractive.

This question speaks to the larger issue of better measuring, quantifying and advertising the various playing characteristics of cues on the market.

I believe this feature would make custom cues more competitive in terms of desireability (not necessarily in terms of price).

"What are those marks on your shaft?"
"Pivot point references."
"I don't have those."
"Yeah, well they usually don't come on mass-produced shafts. Usually only custom shafts. You can get a shaft tailored to your preferences"

 

[AtLarge]

... It would make it possible to get one that's right for you: short PPs for Back Hand Englishmen and break cues; long ones for "conscious" shooters like me. ,,,

Pat -- For break cues, I think it's desirable to have a match between one's breaking bridge length and the shaft's pivot point. Then, an unintended off-center hit on the cue ball (BHE) is more likely to result in the cue ball going where intended. Some players actually use a longer-than-normal bridge length for the break shot. For them, a long pivot point might be better on the break cue. But I agree that a short pivot point should be better on break cues bridged at a normal (short) length.

 

[dr_dave]

Pat -- For break cues, I think it's desirable to have a match between one's breaking bridge length and the shaft's pivot point. Then, an unintended off-center hit on the cue ball (BHE) is more likely to result in the cue ball going where intended. Some players actually use a longer-than-normal bridge length for the break shot. For them, a long pivot point might be better on the break cue. But I agree that a short pivot point should be better on break cues bridged at a normal (short) length.

Good points. For people who want more information, this is illustrated and described at the end of my November '07 BD article and it is demonstrated in Shot #198 (ideal break-cue pivot length) on Disc II of the VEPS.

Regards,
Dave

 

[demonrho]

But how can the customer know before buying?

I'm for it - but it might mean having a national cue makers organization that regulates the accuracy of the pivot point information

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Pat -- For break cues, I think it's desirable to have a match between one's breaking bridge length and the shaft's pivot point. Then, an unintended off-center hit on the cue ball (BHE) is more likely to result in the cue ball going where intended. Some players actually use a longer-than-normal bridge length for the break shot. For them, a long pivot point might be better on the break cue. But I agree that a short pivot point should be better on break cues bridged at a normal (short) length.

Yes, an actual choice should be made on the basis of actual bridge length, not on the basis of generalities like my comments.

I wonder what changes might be caused by this if it caught on. Could there be a new aiming system that uses the PP mark to incorporate automatic squirt compensation? Of course the "PP" jokes would be rampant... it's how we roll.

pj
chgo

 

[Robert Raiford]

The best approach would be to have an independent testing Lab with a well-built squirt-testing robot of good design.

I agree. This would be the ideal voluntary free market solution - like UL before the government meddling.

The only technical problem I see is inconsistency within a given cuemaker's shafts. That may cause enough variation that simply testing representative models wouldn't be accurate enough, and individually testing every shaft could be prohibitively expensive.

Maybe the solution there is for the subset of cue buyers that care about deflection characteristics to create purchase agreements with cuemakers stipulating that pivot point test results fall within a given range as a condition of the sale. As this kind of testing would reasonably be paid by the prospective buyer, that also avoids forcing other buyers who don't care about it to share the testing costs that would otherwise be included in their prices if the cuemakers paid for general testing.

Robert

 

[Robert Raiford]

Nonsense. Not enough practice is everybody's problem, but I don't know anybody who practices less because of the "scientific crap".

pj
chgo

I definitely practice less because of the scientific crap. It's the only way I can maintain a high level of play with minimal table time. In an ideal world, of course, I would practice a lot as well as do the scientific crap, but I'll take science over sucking any day

Robert