Stiffest Low Deflection Shafts

[Patrick Johnson]

Although the cueball does not move or flex, the tip does; enough so that it effects what parts of the tip are in contact with the cue ball.

OK, but that happens more or less equally with any tip, and my point is the same: what part contacts the cue ball doesn't change with a wider or narrower tip. A wider tip is just a narrower tip with some extra, unused material surrounding it.

pj
chgo

 

[shankster8]

Sorry, I don't understand your question, but I'll try to put my point another way:

A smaller tip is just a bigger tip with the outside layer removed, and that outside layer never gets used anyway - only the central part ever touches the cue ball. So both tips hit the cue ball in exactly the same way and in exactly the same places - the bigger tip just has some extra, unused material surrounding the part that is actually used.

pj
chgo

Pat, I have observed on several occasions that when someone shoots a long straight in with draw using the Z-2 shaft, they're very inconsistent and regularly miss several in a row. When they then go back to their conventional fatter shaft, they are way more consistent. I have always concluded that the Z-2 plays alot different, and if your stroke isn't accurate you send the cueball into left field when you miss your cueball contact point. My observations seem to contradict your statements that both shafts should play the same, since the extra diameter of the fatter shaft does not come into play. Perhaps I'm missing something

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What is the advantage/disadvantage of the dime radius versus the nickel radius?

None, really. There's at least one theoretical argument for both sides:

For the same tip width, a dime radius covers more arc than a nickel radius. That means a dime radius can theoretically hit farther from center on the cue ball before you're hitting on the edge of the tip. But you can only hit about 30 degrees from center on the cue ball no matter what kind of tip you have, because that's the miscue limit - and the smallest tips (like my 10mm tip) have 30 degrees of arc on both sides even with a nickel radius. So the dime shape really doesn't help.

On the other hand, a nickel shape, because it's slightly flatter, might be slightly more forgiving on unintentional offcenter hits, but I think that's negligible.

If you have a 13mm cue and a 10mm cue both with a nickel radius, won't the 13mm cue have more leather on the ball's surface?

No. The contact area between tip and ball is much smaller than the tip itself, and the two tips are identical in size and shape inside the central area where they actually contact the ball.

Wouldn't this extra surface area (which is not beyond the 30 degree max) reduce the possibility of a miscue?

Like I said, there isn't any extra contact area, but even if there was I don't think it would make any difference. Surprisingly enough, the size of the contact area doesn't affect the overall amount of friction between the two materials.

If shaft/tip diameter has no impact on the performace of the cueball why use anything but a standard 13mm tip?

Two reasons I use a smaller tip:

1. I can see more accurately where I hit the cue ball.

2. It reduces squirt.


Some common untrue myths about smaller tips:

- They do not produce more spin or make it harder to predict or control spin.

- They are not more sensitive to inaccurate hits on the cue ball.

- They do not miscue more.

- They are not a reflection of penis size (well, maybe for us white guys).

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Pat, I have observed on several occasions that when someone shoots a long straight in with draw using the Z-2 shaft, they're very inconsistent and regularly miss several in a row. When they then go back to their conventional fatter shaft, they are way more consistent. I have always concluded that the Z-2 plays alot different, and if your stroke isn't accurate you send the cueball into left field when you miss your cueball contact point. My observations seem to contradict your statements that both shafts should play the same, since the extra diameter of the fatter shaft does not come into play. Perhaps I'm missing something

Maybe I'm missing something too. My observations aren't the same as yours, but until we can replace our casual observations with measurements made under controlled conditions we can't really say for sure.

For now we only have the fact that there's no theoretical reason (that I've heard yet) for the two shafts to perform differently.

pj
chgo

 

[CueAndMe]

McChen, is the Cuetec shaft available for cues other than Cuetec? Does it have the same dead feel that people here are complaining about with the other low deflection shafts?
Thanks

 

[CueAndMe]

Two reasons I use a smaller tip:

1. I can see more accurately where I hit the cue ball.

2. It reduces squirt.

I think one of the reasons I had some trouble with going from 13mm to 12mm was that the edges of the shaft on the smaller shaft are harder to place equidistant from the edges of the cueball, resulting in a more difficult center ball alignment. I think I've gotten over this though.

Some common untrue myths about smaller tips:

- They do not miscue more.
pj
chgo

The smaller 12mm tip that I have has given me only about 3 miscues in 3 months. I don't fear them at all.

 

[poolplayer2093]

Based on what? What theoretical advantage might there be?




No - the smaller the radius of the tip's curvature the closer to the center of the shaft the strike will be, but that has nothing to do with tip diameter.

Here's a drawing that might help to visualize why:

View attachment 76642

This drawing shows which part of the tip hits the cue ball at the the miscue limit (30 degrees from centerball). When the tip and cue ball touch 30 degrees from the cue ball's center, they're also touching 30 degrees from the tip's center - it's the only way two curved surfaces can touch (just like a cue ball and object ball). And if two tips are the same curvature, then the point on their surfaces that's 30 degrees from center is exactly the same distance from center for each. It doesn't matter how wide the two tips are overall, as long at both are wide enough to have at least 30 degrees of arc per side (the miscue limit on a cue ball). You can see from this drawing that even my teenytiny 10mm tip has 30 degrees per side.

Any "extra" tip (beyond 30 degrees from center) is wasted tip width, because it will never touch the cue ball except on a miscue - so any tip over about 10mm wide is wider than you need for pool (unless the shaft's structural differences matter to you). Wide tips and narrow tips both hit the balls with the same part of the tip (the middle) and the bigger one doesn't use the "extra" part of the tip at all - in effect, we all play with the 10mm tips that are contained within our wider tips.

pj
chgo

sure your theory sounds good if you only apply it to using english. but bigger tips just make pocketing balls easier (at least for me and a few others that i've asked)

that's not really taking into account that you have to be pretty precise if you're going to be using a 10mm tip because being off a little will add unwanted english

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...bigger tips just make pocketing balls easier (at least for me and a few others that i've asked)

This is one of those untrue myths. Smaller tips are not more sensitive to aim or stroke errors than bigger tips. The part that hits the cue ball is identical on both tips. Maybe there's a psychological effect...?

... you have to be pretty precise if you're going to be using a 10mm tip because being off a little will add unwanted english

This is another one of those untrue myths. Smaller tips add no more unwanted english than bigger tips. The part that hits the cue ball is identical on both tips.

pj
chgo

 

[poolplayer2093]

This is one of those untrue myths. Smaller tips are not more sensitive to aim or stroke errors than bigger tips. The part that hits the cue ball is identical on both tips. Maybe there's a psychological effect...?



This is another one of those untrue myths. Smaller tips add no more unwanted english than bigger tips. The part that hits the cue ball is identical on both tips.

pj
chgo

i don't buy it!

maybe it's psychological but i don't think so. maybe it's because the smaller tip usually comes with a thinner shaft which is harder to keep steady with your bridge hand. i don't know the ins or outs of all of it. you can prove it scientificaly all you want but if you put a room full of players together and ask them what they think i'm sure they'll agree that bigger tips are easier to pocket balls with.

from what i understand when 14.1 was more popular more people seemed to use bigger tips 13mm ish. but now that more 9-10 ball is being played people seem to be using smaller tips 12.75 ish or less. i think that is because it's easier to move the cueball around with a smaller tip

 

[Patrick Johnson]

i don't buy it!

What part?

...if you put a room full of players together and ask them what they think i'm sure they'll agree that bigger tips are easier to pocket balls with.

I doubt it, but even if they did agree I'd ask them what kind of comparison they've done - or do they just have a feeling about it like you? That feeling can come from simply trying something you're not familiar with.

I've played for years with both kinds of tip. I don't think bigger tips are easier, and I don't know of a logical reason to think so. Do you?

...it's easier to move the cueball around with a smaller tip

Why would that be true?

pj
chgo

 

[McChen]

McChen, is the Cuetec shaft available for cues other than Cuetec? Does it have the same dead feel that people here are complaining about with the other low deflection shafts?
Thanks

so far i've only seen them available for cuetec threads. though i've seen some european shops carrying R360 partials, don't know if the US will get them too.

the feel of the r360 is somewhat similar to other LD shafts. the ferrule itself has a hollow section, in between the tip and where the shaft tenon begins, so that gives the hit kind of a tinny feel. the shaft is stiffer than the 314 or ob-1, feels more like a z in terms of stiffness, but with a long ob-1 type pro taper. changing the tip helped a lot, the one that came with it was awful. i put on a pressed triangle and that made things a lot better. the predators to me have more of a dull thud feel, the r360 isn't quite as dull, but both have a hollow feel. the best feeling LD shaft i've tried is the ob-1, provided you put a very hard tip on it. that one doesn't have the hollow feel, but does have a soft hit, which is why I put a hard tip on it. i like sumo's on mine. the uss also have a very solid hit, like a traditional shaft, but it is not as low deflection as the ob-1, r360, or predators, but still noticeably lower than a maple shaft.

 

[hard english]

I have a D2 and predators and OB-1's and the D2 is nowhere near the predator in terms of deflection. The D2 plays pretty much like a standard shaft, with just a tiny, tiny bit less deflection. But not anywhere in the ultra low deflection category like the ob-1 or predators. My Universal Smart Shaft also has noticeably less deflection than the D2, and the USS is not as low as the predators. You can only get the deflection so low with a solid maple shaft. It is a nice shaft though, feels good, but I wouldn't call it low deflection. I don't really like the taper, it is very conical, I got mine retapered to more of a standard pro taper. The only other shaft I've seen that is as low deflection as the ob-1 or predators is the Cuetec R360. That shaft is also fairly stiff because of the graphite rod inside. It's actually a very nice shaft, I like it a lot. Taper is similar to the ob-1.

I just curious, does your D2 have a logo on in it. The way you described the taper on your Dominator makes me think it is the original Dominator. The D2 taper is based on the 314-2 shaft. In other words it is nearly identical. When you say it plays like a standard shaft this does not sound like a D2. The D2 is far more stiff than a standard (even a standard shaft with a strong taper)shaft.

 

[shankster8]

Deleted, sorry for my confusion.

 

[CueAndMe]

so far i've only seen them available for cuetec threads. though i've seen some european shops carrying R360 partials, don't know if the US will get them too.

the feel of the r360 is somewhat similar to other LD shafts. the ferrule itself has a hollow section, in between the tip and where the shaft tenon begins, so that gives the hit kind of a tinny feel. the shaft is stiffer than the 314 or ob-1, feels more like a z in terms of stiffness, but with a long ob-1 type pro taper. changing the tip helped a lot, the one that came with it was awful. i put on a pressed triangle and that made things a lot better. the predators to me have more of a dull thud feel, the r360 isn't quite as dull, but both have a hollow feel. the best feeling LD shaft i've tried is the ob-1, provided you put a very hard tip on it. that one doesn't have the hollow feel, but does have a soft hit, which is why I put a hard tip on it. i like sumo's on mine. the uss also have a very solid hit, like a traditional shaft, but it is not as low deflection as the ob-1, r360, or predators, but still noticeably lower than a maple shaft.

Excellent information. Thanks very much for the detail.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Pat, where did you come up with this diagram? It seems to me that the tip contact point (outer edge of the tip) should coincide with the miscue limit line, not the tip center as your diagram seems to portray.

What diagram are you looking at? All four tips shown in my diagram contact the ball at or near their outer edge. How does any tip contact point "coincide with" its center?

Otherwise, a smaller tip certainly will strike the cueball further off center, and produce more english and deflection, which contradicts what you say, IMO.

I don't know what you mean by "otherwise", but I do know that a smaller tip will not strike the cueball farther off center or produce more english or produce more deflection.

None of your post makes any sense to me.

pj
chgo

 

[shankster8]

I misinterpreted your diagram, sorry.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I misinterpreted your diagram, sorry.

No prob. It's a relief to know I'm not nuts.

By the way, I drew the diagram awhile ago when this same conversation came up. I should improve it, since the topic will undoubtedly be back.

pj
chgo

 

[McChen]

I just curious, does your D2 have a logo on in it. The way you described the taper on your Dominator makes me think it is the original Dominator. The D2 taper is based on the 314-2 shaft. In other words it is nearly identical. When you say it plays like a standard shaft this does not sound like a D2. The D2 is far more stiff than a standard (even a standard shaft with a strong taper)shaft.

yup, it's definitely a D2, not the original. It is quite stiff I agree, but the taper on mine is not like the 314, it's more like the Z with the euro type conical taper. But in terms of deflection, it's pretty much like a maple shaft, nowhere near a predator

 

[Gerry]

Phoebe Cate in Fast Times at Ridgemont High

finally someone with their priorities in line!

BOING!!!!

 

[hard english]

You can only get the deflection so low with a solid maple shaft. It is a nice shaft though, feels good, but I wouldn't call it low deflection.

I have to disagree - I feel that the D2 is a low deflection shaft and I have had many players tell me that it hits like the original 314 which is also a solid maple construction (no hollow sections, no hollow ferrule.)

The only difference between the original 314 and the D2 is 10 piece (314) versus 8 piece (D2). The D2 uses a much higher quality maple (more grains per inch) than the 314 ever did which more than makes up for the extra two pieces in the construction. The ferrules are made of similar material and the ferrule length is the same (3/4"). The D2 uses a very large tenon further reducing ferrule material.

Just to make a point that a solid maple shaft (a radial constructed one) is a low deflection shaft take a look at predators comparison chart where the original 314 (solid maple) is compared to the 314-2 (maple with just the front section hollow).
http://www.predatorcues.com/predator_cues_shaft_evolution.php#generationdif
Notice the percent difference in deflection between the standard shaft, the original 314 (solid maple), and the 314-2 (maple with hollow sections). It's clear from this bar chart by predator that radial construction alone will make a shaft a low deflection shaft without adding hollow sections.

An another comparison is the Platinum Billiards shaft deflection test data.
http://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php
Notice that the test ball travels a length of 50" and the amount of deflection difference between the original 314 (solid maple) and the 314-2 (maple w/ hollow sections) is less than 2mm over that distance. Granted, the 314-2 has lower deflection, but 1.8mm over 50'' distance is anything but a radical difference.

The only shaft that I would put into the "ultra low" deflection category is the Z-2. Unfortunately few players like it because of its radical taper.

The data shows that a "solid maple" radial constructed shaft (alone without hollow sections) is very capable of low deflection. In fact, it is a much bigger factor in low deflection than hollow sections or hollow ferrules.