SS vs Composite joints

[Deadon]

From a pure physics standpoint, I beleive there is a difference between the different joint materials. Any flat-face joint whether it be wood-to-wood, phonelic-to-wood, or some other type of resin, will transfer more energy to the cueball while providing the greatest amount of feedback. This is due to the fact that more surface area is created between the butt and shaft with a flat-faced joint. A piloted type joint, like SS although doesn't transfer as much energy offers other benefits such as strength and consistency. I also find that a SS joint will dampen the vibrations felt (which is why the feedback isn't as great).

Whether a flat-faced joint vs. SS piloted is better is a matter of personal preference. I find that a flat-faced joint suits my stroke best as I can apply draw/follow with ease. However, my main playing cue is a SS joint because I hit the balls more consistent with this cue.

Id also like to add that the joint material is only one of many variables that can effect a cues playability. The weight, balance point, and overall construction of a cue can drastically change a cues performace (especially the construction).

Although much of this is my opinion and not backed my equations, I do have an engineering background and had the pleasure of sitting through numerous physics and materials classes

-pip9ball

I don't think it can be argued that the transfer of vibration/sound/feel will not change as the density of the material that it passes through changes,(ivory, SS, wood, phenolic etc.), however the more accurate question would be does it change it enough that it can felt/heard/sensed etc ?

Mike

 

[Gerry]

I don't think it can be argued that the transfer of vibration/sound/feel will change as the density of the material that it passes through changes,(ivory, SS, wood, phenolic etc.), however the more accurate question would be does it change it enough that it can felt/heard/sensed etc ?

Mike

Well.... about 10 years ago I had a Black Boar with SS joint and ivory ferrule, perfect hit for me at the time. The cue got knocked over and the ferrule cracked. so, not having a lot of $$$ at the time, I put an Ivorine3 ferrule on, and HATED it. Next I tried Aegis (sp)....nasty! I sent the cue off to get an Ivory ferrule put on, and the guy that was working on it bought it from me!

You could not believe how much just the ferrule changed that cue, the tip in each instance was a LePro.

Gerry

 

[ScottR]

From a pure physics standpoint, I beleive there is a difference between the different joint materials. Any flat-face joint whether it be wood-to-wood, phonelic-to-wood, or some other type of resin, will transfer more energy to the cueball while providing the greatest amount of feedback. This is due to the fact that more surface area is created between the butt and shaft with a flat-faced joint. A piloted type joint, like SS although doesn't transfer as much energy offers other benefits such as strength and consistency. I also find that a SS joint will dampen the vibrations felt (which is why the feedback isn't as great).

Whether a flat-faced joint vs. SS piloted is better is a matter of personal preference. I find that a flat-faced joint suits my stroke best as I can apply draw/follow with ease. However, my main playing cue is a SS joint because I hit the balls more consistent with this cue.

Id also like to add that the joint material is only one of many variables that can effect a cues playability. The weight, balance point, and overall construction of a cue can drastically change a cues performace (especially the construction).

Although much of this is my opinion and not backed my equations, I do have an engineering background and had the pleasure of sitting through numerous physics and materials classes

-pip9ball

You might want to calculate that surface area thingy again . . .

 

[catscradle]

I get that "ping" sound from flat faced phenolic cues like the one I have built for my self....I never had heard that from a SS jointed cue myself...

One man's ping is another man's pong. Maybe you're both hearing entirely different sounds from entirely different sources and both calling the sound a ping. Just a thought.

 

[Cornerman]

I really don't think a joint does much for a cue.

A bad joint can certainly affect a cue.

May be that is why I have a Layani and a Lambros.

Great choices, from a joint study point of view.

Fred

 

[Cornerman]

You might want to calculate that surface area thingy again . . .

He's right, Scott. Unless a pilot joint has been specifically designed such that the pilot has guaranteed intimate contact (think Schuler, Layani and Lambros), then a pilot joint normally has less surface contact than a FF.

Even the old style wood pilots (Scruggs called it a 'nubbin') is for piloting, but is clearance without radial compression. A lot of modern pilots (think Joss Ltd) aren't anywhere near the amount of intimate contact.

Fred

 

[Snapshot9]

Just asking

He's right, Scott. Unless a pilot joint has been specifically designed such that the pilot has guaranteed intimate contact (think Schuler, Layani and Lambros), then a pilot joint normally has less surface contact than a FF.

Even the old style wood pilots (Scruggs called it a 'nubbin') is for piloting, but is clearance without radial compression. A lot of modern pilots (think Joss Ltd) aren't anywhere near the amount of intimate contact.

Fred

But has anyone approached this with a 'scientific' attitude and testing?
1) Measuring the amount of vibration traveling through different types of joints - before and after?
2) Possibly recorded the hit stroke for decibels and pitch of hitting the cue ball?
3) Other tests similiar that show actual scientific results?

And I have always preferred a piloted joint over a flat faced joint.