Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) for measuring table "toughness"

[MahnaMahna]

LOL what kind of tape measure doesn't start on zero??? I feel dumb, but WTF.....

You guy's are great, I will get a ruler and re-measure and send new pictures later on tonight when I get back home.

Thanks!

 

[dr_dave]

LOL what kind of tape measure doesn't start on zero???

I thought you were trying to pull some sort of joke on us using that tricked-out tape measure.

You guy's are great, I will get a ruler and re-measure and send new pictures later on tonight when I get back home.

Sounds good. Thanks again for posting specs on such an unusual table. It helped me expand the factor tables some to deal with such situations.

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

FYI, I made some slight changes to the pocket angle factor (PAF) table so the values in the middle of the PSF range are more in between the values for high and low PSF values:

If you have an electronic or printed copy of the The Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) document, you might want to replace it with the new version (dated 6/30/2013).

This didn't change things much, but here's the latest updated list anyway:


Data reported by AZB users in table difficulty factor (TDF) order, based on the table size factor (TSF), pocket size factor (PSF), pocket angle factor (PAF), and pocket shelf factor (PLF):

name -- TSF -- PSF -- PAF -- PLF -- TDF
tough 10' table -- 10':1.10 -- 4":1.15 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 7/8":1.03 -- 1.33
MahnaMahna -- 10':1.10 -- 5 1/2":0.85 -- 2":1.15 -- 2 1/2": 1.15 -- 1.24
dr_dave example "B" -- 9':1.00 -- 3 7/8":1.20 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 7/8":1.03 -- 1.24
Bonus Ball -- 9':1.00 -- 3 7/8":1.20 -- 1/8":0.97 -- 3/4":0.98 -- 1.14 (Bonus Ball table)
Qaddiction -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/8":1.10 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.11
rexus31 -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.15 -- 3/8":0.98 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.10
FatBoy -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.15 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.09
TATE -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.15 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 7/8":0.98 -- 1.09
cigardave -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 1":1.08 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 1.08 (typical Pro-Cut Diamond)
dzcues Gandy Big G -- 9':1.00 -- 5":0.95 -- 15/16":1.08 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 1.01
dzcues -- 9':1.00 -- 4 3/4":0.98 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 7/8":1.02 -- 1.00 (typical League-Cut Diamond)
SloMoHolic -- 9':1.00 -- 4 3/8":1.02 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.00
"standard" table -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.00 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 1.00 ("standard")
Sloppy Pockets -- 8'+:0.95 -- 5":0.95 -- 1":1.08 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 0.97
mamics -- 9':1.00 -- 4 5/8":0.98 -- 13/16":1.04 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.97
JC -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":0.98 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.96
12squared -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.95 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.95 (typical Gold Crown)
rexus31 friend GC -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/4":1.05 -- 1/4":0.95 -- 15/16":0.95 -- 0.95
Neil -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/8":1.10 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 0.93
iusedtoberich -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.90 -- 1":1.06 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.93 ("loose" GC)
MSchaffer -- 9":1.00 -- 5 1/10":0.90 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 0.92
SloMoHolic league table -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.98 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.90
BRussell -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.95 -- 13/16":1.04 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.87
Dopc -- 8':0.90 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.87
dr_dave -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.98 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.86
dr_dave example "A" -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.95 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.82
dzcues Valley "bar box" -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.94 -- 1/2":0.95 -- 0.76
dr_dave Valley "bar box" -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.94 -- 3/4":0.95 -- 0.76 (typical Valley/Dynamo "bar box")

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

With each adjustment you make, my table gets easier. You'd think that would make me happy, but the problem is communicating this info to the table. Last night I practiced for several hours, and I have to say, that table had a mind of its own. It played like it was a 1.57 instead of a 0.97. Now there's a 13mm wide hole in the drywall at the other end of the room. Wonder how that got there?:embarrassed2:

FWIW I notice an anomaly in the reported data. Cigar Dave's "typical" Diamond Pro-cut pockets show a 1" mouth/throat difference. RKC states that Diamonds with the Pro-cut pockets have pocket facings cut at 141º. That equates to a roughly 3/4" difference, or a PAF of only 1.02 rather than 1.08.

Although Cigar's personal Diamond table may have been accurately measured, this is one style that I think we should get a few more examples of to be sure we have it right. 9' Diamonds with Pro-cut pockets are the tournament standard to which most serious players would compare their own tables to, and are the 9-footers most likely to be used in any new installation in any pool room in the US. In fact, I think it would be more helpful to set the 9' Diamond at 1.00 as the "typical" table instead of a softer one with somewhat arbitrarily chosen measurements. Just my two cents.

 

[JC]

With each adjustment you make, my table gets easier. You'd think that would make me happy, but the problem is communicating this info to the table. Last night I practiced for several hours, and I have to say, that table had a mind of its own. It played like it was a 1.57 instead of a 0.97. Now there's a 13mm wide hole in the drywall at the other end of the room. Wonder how that got there?:embarrassed2:

FWIW I notice an anomaly in the reported data. Cigar Dave's "typical" Diamond Pro-cut pockets show a 1" mouth/throat difference. RKC states that Diamonds with the Pro-cut pockets have pocket facings cut at 141º. That equates to a roughly 3/4" difference, or a PAF of only 1.02 rather than 1.08.

Although Cigar's personal Diamond table may have been accurately measured, this is one style that I think we should get a few more examples of to be sure we have it right. 9' Diamonds with Pro-cut pockets are the tournament standard to which most serious players would compare their own tables to, and are the 9-footers most likely to be used in any new installation in any pool room in the US. In fact, I think it would be more helpful to set the 9' Diamond at 1.00 as the "typical" table instead of a softer one with somewhat arbitrarily chosen measurements. Just my two cents.

I measured a few smart table bar boxes which have the "pro cut" pockets with an angle meter when I was deciding how to do my own table and they measured 143

JC

Edit: I agree that Dave is somehow going wrong here. My table now plays easier than average which anyone playing on it knows is not correct.

 

[dr_dave]

With each adjustment you make, my table gets easier.

When I can find some time next week, I'll try to take another look at things and adjust the scales to bring things more inline with people's observations.

FWIW I notice an anomaly in the reported data. Cigar Dave's "typical" Diamond Pro-cut pockets show a 1" mouth/throat difference. RKC states that Diamonds with the Pro-cut pockets have pocket facings cut at 141º. That equates to a roughly 3/4" difference, or a PAF of only 1.02 rather than 1.08.

Are you suggesting the difference should be larger, as applied to a wide range of shots?

Although Cigar's personal Diamond table may have been accurately measured, this is one style that I think we should get a few more examples of to be sure we have it right. 9' Diamonds with Pro-cut pockets are the tournament standard to which most serious players would compare their own tables to, and are the 9-footers most likely to be used in any new installation in any pool room in the US. In fact, I think it would be more helpful to set the 9' Diamond at 1.00 as the "typical" table instead of a softer one with somewhat arbitrarily chosen measurements. Just my two cents.

I decided to use the center of the WPA spec range for each measurement as "standard." I don't want to tie things to any particular manufacturer or model.

Thanks for the input,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I agree that Dave is somehow going wrong here. My table now plays easier than average which anyone playing on it knows is not correct.

I think you guys have a valid concern here. I'll take a closer look when I can find some time.

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Are you suggesting the difference should be larger, as applied to a wide range of shots?

I'm sure what I'm suggesting anymore. lol

What I was trying to point out is that for every 1/8" difference between mouth and throat dimensions there is very close to a 1º difference in pocket facing angle. A 1" difference should be about 8º more open than 135º, which comes out to 143º.

In light of the fact that RKC has stated that Diamond currently uses a 141º facing angle and not 143º, I was questioning whether or not more effort to get the straight dope about Diamond pockets might be in order. They are, after all, the current gold standard in new tables in most folks minds.

Of course, maybe Glen is out to lunch about this (I doubt it) or perhaps I misread what he has written on the subject.

BTW I called Diamond earlier, but they aren't open on Sundays. Imagine that, the lazy slackers.

 

[cigardave]

SP - If I interpret your post to Dr. Dave correctly, I believe that you are questioning the measurements that I took on my Diamond Pro Am with Pro Cut pockets... and I believe that I can prove to you that I have.

Per the diagram above, I trust that there is no issue with the 4.5" pocket mouth that I measured.

Using trigonometry and the measurements that I made, I have validated the pocket's throat dimension using the 141 degree pocket facing angle that you apparently got from Glen. I'll try to walk you through it.

First off, the width of the cushions on my table are 2.125", not the "standard" 2" width mentioned earlier in this thread.

Using the 141 degree pocket facing angle and the 2.125" cushion width dimension from its nose to the face of the subrail, I calculated the length of the cushion facing to be 3.377, which is very close to 3 3/8". (hyp= 2.125/sin 39 degrees = 3.377") Next I went to my table and verified that 3 3/8" was correct.

Next I calculated the pocket width reduction from the mouth to the throat for one cushion. Using the length of the pocket facing to be 3.375" and the opposite angle to be 9 degrees (141-135=9), I solved for the opposite side and it calculated to be 0.528". (opp= (3.375" x sin 9 degrees = 0.528") Doubling that to take into account the pocket throat reduction for the other facing yields 1.056".

Using the recommended Post-it note method to extend the lines of the cushion nose, the pocket face and the subrail face to which the cushion is attached, I measured 1.0", which is essentially the 1.0" that I reported to Dr. Dave.

Make sense? If not, why not. Questions?, pls ask.

We'll get this figured out, brother. Cheers.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Cigar Dave, nice way to double check things. I'm on my phone away from my desk, so I'll just trust you on the trig. Big thing here is the 141° angle IMO, not the actual size reduction. Lets face it, the cushion could be a foot across and it would neck down to zero toward the pocket back but still have 141° facing angles, so the balls would drop even easier with the super deep pockets.

Now, step that up just 2° and you have a whole different animal on your hands. Balls on my table just want to get spit out unless you baby them. I'm not saying I can never hit a ball hard, or that Diamonds never reject well-hit balls (we see the pros rattle balls all the time), it's just that it happens to me a lot more and over a larger range of shot angles than I find on a Diamond.

I really love the Diamonds. The 4 1/2" pocket doesn't seem to make me miss more (I'm more apt to flub the stroke and miss by half a diamond than to miss by the 1/4" difference on each side), and the balls usually slide in nicely if I hit them right. It's not that the Pro-cut Diamonds are easy, it's just that they are a lot more fair.

 

[TATE]

I think you guys have a valid concern here. I'll take a closer look when I can find some time.

Catch you later,
Dave

In terms of pockets alone, in my opinion, the pocket opening should have a weight of two thirds since it is go or no go. It is a stand alone measurement. You cannot adjust for a pocket opening like you can for a pocket angle.

The pocket angle should only be measured at the opening of the pocket at the shelf. The back of the pocket doesn't matter if there is no shelf there. The angle and depth only affect certain shots and certain speeds. There is no need to accurately measure the extreme of a hacked up gaffe table.

By the way, my friend had a hacked up deep pocketed Brunswick with large opening and a severe angle. Because he played on it all the time, he adjusted his game so the balls would drop and played prerfectly well on the table, while the rest of us were hitting what should have been good shots that were spit out. The difficulty factor for him was no greater than any other table, but for the uninitiated, it was severe.

As far as pocket opening goes, a simple comparison of a 4" pocket to a 4.5" pocket would show the 4" pocket as 11% smaller. Reality is a 4" pocket is considerably more difficult than 4.5". If you deduct for the diameter of the ball, the margin of error on a 4.5" pocket is 2.25". On a 4" pocket the margin is 1.75". The difference between them is close to 21%. That I think is pretty accurate.

 

[oldschool1478]

My Diamond Pro

I modified the rails (per RKC specs) and installed Artemis cushions on my red labeled
Diamond Professional, bringing it up to the blue label specs. Cloth is Simonis 760.

50x100 = 1.00 TSF, 4 1/2 = 1.00 PSF, 5/8 = 1.02 PAF, 1 3/4 = 1.03 PLF = 1.05 TDF

All measurements done in Autocad, at 1 to 1 scale. Measuring on the table was too difficult.

 

[mamics]

All measurements done in Autocad, at 1 to 1 scale.

Nice method - very nice ! :-D

 

[cigardave]

I modified the rails (per RKC specs) and installed Artemis cushions on my red labeled
Diamond Professional, bringing it up to the blue label specs. Cloth is Simonis 760.

50x100 = 1.00 TSF, 4 1/2 = 1.00 PSF, 5/8 = 1.02 PAF, 1 3/4 = 1.03 PLF = 1.05 TDF

All measurements done in Autocad, at 1 to 1 scale. Measuring on the table was too difficult.

Nicely done, oldschool.

By comparison to your pocket throat dimension of 3.875", mine is 3.5" on my red-logo Diamond Pro Am.

Although I haven't dimension-ed mine with auto-cad (don't have the software), I'll have to post a photo of mine later today.

I just looked at a photo of my corner pockets and it's obvious why my pocket throats are 3.5" and yours are 3.875".

My pocket facings project inside the mouth of the black pockets. Yours don't... they align with the inside walls of the black pocket mouth.

I hope that my upcoming re-cal from a red-logo Diamond to a blue-logo Diamond fixes that as well (as well as the angle of the cushion).

 

[oldschool1478]

Nicely done, oldschool.

By comparison to your pocket throat dimension of 3.75", mine is 3.5" on my Red Diamond Pro Am. I'll have to post a photo of mine later today.

I just looked at a photo of mine and it's obvious why mine is 3.5" and your is 3.75".

My pocket facings project inside the black pocket mouth. Yours don't... they align with the black pocket mouth.

I hope that my upcoming re-cal from a Red Diamond to a Blue Diamond fixes that as well (as the angle of the cushion).

It sounds like your pocket facings may have been shimmed. This often makes the facings too hard, and can deaden the bounce.
I cut my cushions on plane with the factory rail ends, and glued on a single 1/8" neoprene facing.
The picture and measurements are the result. This pocket will accept a shot down the rail at speed as long as you don't touch the far point, or the rail any where beyond the last diamond. Most soft shots that rattle a little will fall, but too hard will kick out.

Dan

 

[cigardave]

It sounds like your pocket facings may have been shimmed. This often makes the facings too hard, and can deaden the bounce.
I cut my cushions on plane with the factory rail ends, and glued on a single 1/8" neoprene facing.
The picture and measurements are the result. This pocket will accept a shot down the rail at speed as long as you don't touch the far point, or the rail any where beyond the last diamond. Most soft shots that rattle a little will fall, but too hard will kick out.

Dan

I bought the table from Diamond as "Tournament Used" so I doubt that the pocket facings have been shimmed.

Based on your description of how how corner pockets play, mine plays similarly. If you don't hit the pocket square, it may well rattle out of there.

My table plays very tough imo... but also consider that I'm likely a B- player given a real honest assessment of my skill level.

 

[cigardave]

Here is the photo.

Notice how the projection of the pocket facings are considerably inside the walls of the black pocket mouth, quite unlike yours.

 

[oldschool1478]

I'd like to see that same shot with the cloth off the rails.
The mouth looks right. I have seen wedge shaped shims.

 

[cigardave]

I'd like to see that same shot with the cloth off the rails.
The mouth looks right. I have seen wedge shaped shims.

I understand.

I'll check that out closely when I have my table re-covered and also have the rails re-calibrated.

Best guess that will take place near Labor Day.

I'll let you know what the story is then.

 

[SloMoHolic]

I just looked at a photo of my corner pockets and it's obvious why my pocket throats are 3.5" and yours are 3.875".

My pocket facings project inside the mouth of the black pockets. Yours don't... they align with the inside walls of the black pocket mouth.

Just for the sake of comparison...

I have a Diamond Pro 9' table (red label rails). It was purchased new, directly from Diamond in 2005. The cloth has never been replaced, and the rails have never been disassembled since the initial installation.

I remeasured my pockets using the post-it note method and a couple of rulers. The throat on my table is right between your measurements, and it looks like my rails extend to just inside the leather:



Here are my updated measurements:
Mouth: 4.5"
Throat: 3.625"
Shelf: 1.375" (to the start of the slate radius)
Shelf: 1.4375" (to the edge of the slate)

TDF = 1.02

I hope this helps!

-Blake