The BIG low deflection Hype Campaign.

[jmurphy]

But what's probably closer to the truth is a SS360 is right there beside you on deflection, has more feel. At half the price.

I am all for having testing results for LD shafts, that would be awesome.
However this part of your above statement is not accurate. The SS360 is not half the price of a new OB shaft.

BD cues sells the SS360/2 shaft for $200
OB shafts on sale at Syberts for $188 and the new OB1+ shafts are like $229

 

[mantis99]

Your completely missing the point, I'll try to simplify it for you.
If your marketing something under a guise, such as having low deflection. Why not have a standardized testing method and numbers to back it up.

If all shafts had to go through the same test, then you could actually compare.

The point everyone else is making is that there is no standardized way to test deflection right now that would stand up to any level scientific scrutiny. You can't have tests done if there is no testing method available. Also, it would require a significant investment to produce such a test. A little while back, Barioni cues made a robot to be able to test stuff like this, but his method came under significant scrutiny by the scientific minded on here, some of who suggested that the grip used to hold the cue made the test completely inaccurate. Of course the tests proved that Barioni's shafts had the lowest squirt.

 

[Kel_82]

I believe enough in Dr.Dave to send him shafts to test, and trust his non-robotic process. I'm sure there are others out there who would be willing to send him shafts also. Wonder if he is game.

 

[RBC]

It's not about the test.

There are many of us who could build a machine that provides the right conditions and is consistent enough to properly evaluate cue ball squirt.

The problem is, "who's going to do it?"

First you would need an independent to do it. If they were directly involved then there would be someone who cried foul. There's simply no way around that without it being a completely unbiased independent.

Next, you need a budget. And don't think it would be small either.
You would need a facility, the testing equipment, cameras and computers to record it all. You would need people watching people to make sure nobody cheated. You would also need to hire another outside firm to "Certify" that your results are correct, and that nobody cheated. You would probably need to go ahead and set aside some funds for your legal defense because it's likely that someone who is negatively effected by your results will want to sue you.

You would have to buy all the products for testing from random retailers. If you had them donated, then you might not be testing the same product that is sold to the public. I know very well that I could trick out a cue shaft to be super low. But it might not last a month of normal play, so I would never sell it. But if I can do it, then so can others and the temptation to cheat is pretty high.


I would really love to have some testing. I see shafts all the time that called LD, but are nowhere near the top performers. I think they just put a shorter ferrule on it, add $75.00 to the price, and call it LD.


I think that the market should decide. If a cue shaft isn't worth the price, it will stop selling. If it is, then more people will want it. Now, I've got to get back the filling those back orders.


Royce Bunnell

 

[Omar]

LD shafts will not magically make anyone a better player.
Speaking from experience, I played for almost 30 years with stiff hitting high squirt shafts, and never had a problem. I was used to adjusting with tuck and roll, and I hated the LD shafts with a passion when I first tried them. That said, I made a dedicated effort a few years back to give them an honest effort sticking with a predator for a couple of weeks. After relearning my aiming without worrying about squirt or twisting my back hand, I can honestly say the LD shafts are worth the money. For newer players it would be a huge advantage to learn how to aim with english and stroke straight as opposed to any back hand english when their stroke isnt grooved in yet.
So are they needed to play well? No of course not. Are they just hype? No, of course not.
Chuck

I find it interesting how many LD shaft proponents say that they aim without adjusting for squirt, when this obviously isn't true. There isn't a single shaft on the market that reduces squirt to zero. Predator claims about 40% or so for the Z2, and you can find independent tests that confirm these numbers. For example, I watched a video on Dr Dave's site where they measured shots with a standard shaft squirting about a ball width over the length of the table with maximum tip offset, and with a LD shaft squirting an inch or so less.

So you are still adjusting when you use side spin, whether you consciously realize it or not. The time you took to learn to play with the new shaft taught your brain how much you need to adjust, and you do it without thinking about it. Which is exactly what the guys who aren't playing with LD shafts are doing.

 

[smashmouth]

your company is on the right path for sure

the irony, this sport revolves around marketing bs, including all cuemakers and followers perpetuating the myth that any type of fancy custom can outplay a cheap off the line chinese players

any straight stick with good tip shoots as well as any other, no more no less, (ld properties not withstanding)

basic physics

meucci was the first big name to try and incorparate science and r&d, he was decades ahead of the industry, he had to eat though $$$$$$$$ and imo the reponsibility of advancing the entire industry was not his alone to bear

I see Predator, Mezz and OB as the big three at the moment and solid companies

 

[KRJ]

I find it interesting how many LD shaft proponents say that they aim without adjusting for squirt, when this obviously isn't true. There isn't a single shaft on the market that reduces squirt to zero.

and you would be wrong. On shots where the ob is only a diamond or two from from the pocket and the cb is not that far from the ob, no adjustment is needed, and these shots come up a lot.

It really helps the most on using inside spin, so yes, there are shots where there is no adjustment, and there are shots with just a little adjustment, and some where you have to adjust a little more. But adjusting a lot, never, not for me.

And that is fine, if folks are use to adjusting and shoot fine without it, god bless them. Some folks can adjust better in very small increments.

I think of maple shafts as using the old adage "Kentucky Windage", which is a gun reference to when you can't hit the middle of the target, as all of your shots are 6 inches to the right of the bullseye. Well, KW says just aim 6 inches more to the left, and then you hit the target...

And nobody says you can't do it. Mosconi did it. Earl did it. Efren did it. and most of the rest of the pro players on the planet are able to compensate correctly "most" of the time.

Well, "most" of us are not like any of them, as we don't spend hours and hours practicing....so, it makes the game a little easier for the rest of us. Not sure why that puts folks in a tizzy ???

 

[jmurphy]

and you would be wrong. On shots where the ob is only a diamond or two from from the pocket and the cb is not that far from the ob, no adjustment is needed, and these shots come up a lot.

It really helps the most on using inside spin, so yes, there are shots where there is no adjustment, and there are shots with just a little adjustment, and some where you have to adjust a little more. But adjusting a lot, never, not for me.

And that is fine, if folks are use to adjusting and shoot fine without it, god bless them. Some folks can adjust better in very small increments.

I think of maple shafts as using the old adage "Kentucky Windage", which is a gun reference to when you can't hit the middle of the target, as all of your shots are 6 inches to the right of the bullseye. Well, KW says just aim 6 inches more to the left, and then you hit the target...

And nobody says you can't do it. Mosconi did it. Earl did it. Efren did it. and most of the rest of the pro players on the planet are able to compensate correctly "most" of the time.

Well, "most" of us are not like any of them, as we don't spend hours and hours practicing....so, it makes the game a little easier for the rest of us. Not sure why that puts folks in a tizzy ???

Very well said Sir. I could not agree more.......:thumbup:

 

[GoBilliards]

Kel,

You seem to be going on the assumption that everyone out there is looking for the one magic shaft that will make their game better. This is not true. The LD cue companies want you to believe that type of stuff, and players are looking for a way to get better, as long as that way doesn't include more practice time at the table.

While I believe the LD stuff actually does what they say in does, I know that there is a give and take in deflection and I don't see a need to reduce it.

What OB is saying in a nut shell is this. There is a very limited amount of money in the Pool world and any evidence obtained by any LD shaft maker would be considered hype and sales pitch, even if they did spend the money on research
, which the won't and can't.

 

[RBC]

I find it interesting how many LD shaft proponents say that they aim without adjusting for squirt, when this obviously isn't true. There isn't a single shaft on the market that reduces squirt to zero. Predator claims about 40% or so for the Z2, and you can find independent tests that confirm these numbers. For example, I watched a video on Dr Dave's site where they measured shots with a standard shaft squirting about a ball width over the length of the table with maximum tip offset, and with a LD shaft squirting an inch or so less.

So you are still adjusting when you use side spin, whether you consciously realize it or not. The time you took to learn to play with the new shaft taught your brain how much you need to adjust, and you do it without thinking about it. Which is exactly what the guys who aren't playing with LD shafts are doing.

Omar

I think I might be able to clear this up a little bit.

First, it should be the goal of all pool players, no matter what equipment they are using, to reach a point where adjustments for squirt, swerve, throw, slow cloth, fast cloth, dry cloth, wet cloth, and so on is all done in the subconscious. When that happens, the player doesn't consciously adjust for most shots. I'm not saying adjustments aren't made, it's just not one recognize or even realize most of the time.

Now, if you're at that point, where you don't think about all that stuff, you just look at the ball and shoot it in, what causes you to miss? I mean, we all miss, even those who adjust completely without thinking about it. We're all human, and even our subconscious makes mistakes. This is where LD comes in. Even when we don't think about adjusting, and our brain is off a little, the smaller cue ball squirt makes for a smaller error on the other end, and more of the balls find the pocket. It may not be the center, but it's still in the pocket.

So when they say they don't adjust, they don't, consciously. It's easier for a newer player to reach that subconscious point with equipment that doesn't require as much adjustment. The brain takes it over a little easier.

Shoot Straight!

Royce

 

[GoBilliards]

and you would be wrong. On shots where the ob is only a diamond or two from from the pocket and the cb is not that far from the ob, no adjustment is needed, and these shots come up a lot.

It really helps the most on using inside spin, so yes, there are shots where there is no adjustment, and there are shots with just a little adjustment, and some where you have to adjust a little more. But adjusting a lot, never, not for me.

And that is fine, if folks are use to adjusting and shoot fine without it, god bless them. Some folks can adjust better in very small increments.

I think of maple shafts as using the old adage "Kentucky Windage", which is a gun reference to when you can't hit the middle of the target, as all of your shots are 6 inches to the right of the bullseye. Well, KW says just aim 6 inches more to the left, and then you hit the target...

And nobody says you can't do it. Mosconi did it. Earl did it. Efren did it. and most of the rest of the pro players on the planet are able to compensate correctly "most" of the time.

Well, "most" of us are not like any of them, as we don't spend hours and hours practicing....so, it makes the game a little easier for the rest of us. Not sure why that puts folks in a tizzy ???

I'm sure Omar would argue that putting distance parameters in your argument will only helps his. The distance parameter says that the lack of adjustment is still within the margin for error and the ball still goes in without adjustment. If there was no margin for error, it would not.

 

[Kel_82]

Kel,

You seem to be going on the assumption that everyone out there is looking for the one magic shaft that will make their game better. This is not true. The LD cue companies want you to believe that type of stuff, and players are looking for a way to get better, as long as that way doesn't include more practice time at the table.

While I believe the LD stuff actually does what they say in does, I know that there is a give and take in deflection and I don't see a need to reduce it.

What OB is saying in a nut shell is this. There is a very limited amount of money in the Pool world and any evidence obtained by any LD shaft maker would be considered hype and sales pitch, even if they did spend the money on research
, which the won't and can't.

No. I'm saying I want a set of numbers to go with the shaft.

Like the gentleman above me stated, your brain knows where to aim at a ball when using a certain shaft from memory. It's made the shot many times, it knows how much you can cheat the pocket, Etc off of memory.

Most grumpy LD thread trollers automatically assume anyone who wants answers is searching for a magic shaft. Not true. I shoot just fine with my 12.25 Joss. I know the rules of squirt, english, bhe, parallel english etc. I'm not searching for a magic arrow.

I'm searching for scientific process of which we can develop some type of standardized testing to where people can have a shaft stolen, broken, lost. Then find another shaft without spending 500 hours getting instroke with the next one. Not all of us play 4+ hours 4/5 times a week.

 

[nobcitypool]

I'm searching for scientific process of which we can develop some type of standardized testing to where people can have a shaft stolen, broken, lost. Then find another shaft without spending 500 hours getting instroke with the next one. Not all of us play 4+ hours 4/5 times a week.

It stands to reason, the lower the squirt/deflection, the less variance there would be shaft to shaft. Squirt/deflection is primarily affected by end mass. The manufacturing process for LD shafts directly address this while this is not the case with standard shafts. Therefore, as am example, the variance from one ob 2 shaft to another is less than it would be with a custom cue maker's "monster"maple shafts. At the same time we're dealing with wood. This isn't the same as machining metal parts to .005" tolerances. Nonetheless, I'm confident the variance is still quite good and much better than the tolerance of a human being's stroke.

I have 5 custom cues with two pin types that are within .2 ounces of each other. I have 4 OB2 shafts, two of each pin size. I can play with any of the cues with zero adjustment necessary for aiming. This is not the case if I play with the 13 mm shafts supplied by each custom cue maker. I can't speak for you, but for me, the LD shafts do exactly what I need them to do.

 

[naji]

It stands to reason, the lower the squirt/deflection, the less variance there would be shaft to shaft. Squirt/deflection is primarily affected by end mass. The manufacturing process for LD shafts directly address this while this is not the car with standard shafts. Therefore, as am example, the variance from one ob 2 shaft to another is less than it would be with a custom cue maker's "monster"maple shafts. At the same time we're dealing with wood. This isn't the same as machining metal parts to .005" tolerances. Nonetheless, I'm confident the variance is still quite good and much better than the tolerance of a human being's stroke.

I have 5 custom cues with two pin types that are within .2 ounces of each other. I have 4 OB2 shafts, two of each pin size. I can play with any of the cues with zero adjustment necessary for aiming. This is not the case if I play with the 13 mm shafts supplied by each custom cue maker. I can't speak for you, but for me, the LD shafts do exactly what I need them to do.

I agree 100% LD shafts do the job better than HD.

 

[KRJ]

I'm sure Omar would argue that putting distance parameters in your argument will only helps his. The distance parameter says that the lack of adjustment is still within the margin for error and the ball still goes in without adjustment. If there was no margin for error, it would not.

3 diamonds on the rail, and the cue ball at the head spot, and I need to use a tip of right draw to get the cue ball back for another shot....no adjustment... I was not speaking of "hangers", where technically you would be correct....

There really should be no argument, use what you like, not what others don't

 

[Hits 'em Hard]

................................................................................................................

" Not many people use parallel offsets for applying english"
......................................................................................................

I would beg to differ - and if you throw out the 1% of players who read AZB
aiming threads, I would make it 97.38 % who do just that.

Dale

If you've ever seen someone chicken wing a stroke, that's usually them trying to get some extra english and juice into the ball. The reason they chicken wing it is because they've through experience found out that 'works'. It works because it's just BHE, they just don't know it.

Just because someone doesn't know the proper terms for what they are doing, doesn't mean they aren't doing it.

The test is actually fairly simple... The test Dr Dave did was just one option and while it would be adequate there are other setups..... Table conditions, individual strokes really have no real bearing on raw data if done correctly... The major issue is acquiring the shafts... Aside from Royce and possibly predator, getting the industry to submit shafts is going to be a huge hurdle....

It may be possible to can the test and put it out where with a small equipment expense people can show their results on youtube for the shaft they own.... Granted older shafts that are no longer the same size as new shafts may eschew things slightly but a micrometer reading will help with that......

I know I can do the testing here in Knoxville spending maybe $50-$60..But I can't get all of the shafts. IF enough people are interested I'll try and put something together next weekend that can be duplicated......

it would be nice to know the squirt of all of the shafts out there... Will that determine the best shaft?? Not likely........

Chris

Yes, one set of tests is simple. Now in order for the tests to have any merit, you must establish a baseline for what is reduction. Since a 14mm tip is the largest allowed, and a conical/european taper should be the beefiest taper anyone uses, do you start with a ferrule-less shaft as a base line?

I'm going to quote your OP because I am in complete agreement. I have made a similar point in previous posts.

1. A few simple stats could be measured and published for every cue made:
A. Weight
B. Length
C. Tip diameter
D. Tip hardness (need a numerical value)
E. Pivot point in inches
Or, squirt on a standardized test
F. Vibratory dampening
G. Balance point (never understood why this is important, but some players think it is)
2. The lack of current performance standards is no impediment. The first decent sized manufacturer to start measuring their cues and publishing the results will set the defacto standard.
3. It will be a boon to some suppliers, and a bane to those who just want to make unsubstantiated claims.
4. Players will be able to better experiment with and specify characteristics in the kind of cue they like.
5. Cause and effect between physical characteristics and performance will be better understood, advancing the science of cue design. If my current cue has a slightly short pivot point, the exact tweaks necessary will be known to get it where I want it.

Personal anecdote:
I have an LD cue with a pivot point longer than I like. I added a few wraps of lead tape near the ferrule and "tuned" it exactly to my desired pivot point length. Works great, but not the best look. I would prefer to specify a shaft with the exact pivot point length at the outset.

Finally a few that see where I'm going with this.

We're all aware that everyone shoots differently, and then you have the guys saying quit looking for magic bullets etc. there is nothing wrong with my stroke. Just a science guy looking for some numbers.

Like I told Royce, I would buy an American made shaft before foreign regardless of the deflection. I'm just curious to see how today's crop of shafts stack up against each other. I've heard of bowling alley shafts, I've heard of ivory ferrules deflecting more, I've heard of 140 year old wood, hollowed fronts, short ferrules, wood ferrules, different drying processes etc. just curious.

I'm also aware Efren use to use $15 cue and dominate.

It's not about the test.

There are many of us who could build a machine that provides the right conditions and is consistent enough to properly evaluate cue ball squirt.

The problem is, "who's going to do it?"

First you would need an independent to do it. If they were directly involved then there would be someone who cried foul. There's simply no way around that without it being a completely unbiased independent.

Next, you need a budget. And don't think it would be small either.
You would need a facility, the testing equipment, cameras and computers to record it all. You would need people watching people to make sure nobody cheated. You would also need to hire another outside firm to "Certify" that your results are correct, and that nobody cheated. You would probably need to go ahead and set aside some funds for your legal defense because it's likely that someone who is negatively effected by your results will want to sue you.

You would have to buy all the products for testing from random retailers. If you had them donated, then you might not be testing the same product that is sold to the public. I know very well that I could trick out a cue shaft to be super low. But it might not last a month of normal play, so I would never sell it. But if I can do it, then so can others and the temptation to cheat is pretty high.


I would really love to have some testing. I see shafts all the time that called LD, but are nowhere near the top performers. I think they just put a shorter ferrule on it, add $75.00 to the price, and call it LD.


I think that the market should decide. If a cue shaft isn't worth the price, it will stop selling. If it is, then more people will want it. Now, I've got to get back the filling those back orders.


Royce Bunnell

How many different tapers are currently available to the public via production companies? Standard and LD shafts. Add in custom tapers, I can't even count the number, it's gotta be 1000+. I know of over 10 different ferrule types, let alone the way a way can be attached to a cue. Then to talk about tips, and may as well throw in the different styles of joints too. Add on top of that the varying bridge lengths used, along with the height of the cue from the bed of the table. Then the varying ways a cue can be delivered to the cue ball. To run each shaft through all of it's possible configurations to identify what produces the lowest deflection, would cost nearly $10,000 per shaft.

The attempt to identify what is the best shaft after the data is gathered is near impossible. As with all data, what could be the best on paper may not be best suited for full time use. It could be prone to failures, or it could be a wet noddle. Who knows.

To be blunt, if you want to test all possible cues to be able to show any data that matters, you have (all known tapers)*(all known ferrules/ferruleless)*(alll known tips) sitting somewhere near 1 million already. Then times the other possible options and it could easily tip towards 500mil-1billion possible testing options. And that's only if each configuration only hit one ball. You're looking at having to set-up and shoot 20+ billion shots, just to get a baseline of data to understand how to then go forward and define low deflection and what shaft/combo is the 'best'. And even if 20 billion is the high end, you're still looking at data for at least a minimum of 100 million shots.

We already know OB Cues has no interest in attempting to test so many shots because of the cost. Renfro if you think setting up the test is so easy, I'll help assist(as long as I get paid) for the entire duration of the tests. No matter how many months/years it takes. Kel_82 do you understand yet that since there is no defined baseline as to what deflects the most->least, there is no way to publish numbers that mean anything. Even internal testing has showed that there's a large variance to the numbers of the product produced because the product is wood.

 

[Kel_82]

I have always understood what I'm trying to say.

I can't see what's so difficult to understand that the simple off the shelf configurations could easily be tested.

A lot of you just like to give a lot of reasons "why you can't" do something.

I'm the type if guy that thinks, figured out solutions, and makes things happen. I bet your wives and girlfriends aren't very satisfied with your can't do mentality

 

[KRJ]

I have always understood what I'm trying to say.

I can't see what's so difficult to understand that the simple off the shelf configurations could easily be tested.

A lot of you just like to give a lot of reasons "why you can't" do something.

I'm the type if guy that thinks, figured out solutions, and makes things happen. I bet your wives and girlfriends aren't very satisfied with your can't do mentality

we understand, we just don't care. Should we have a R&D team put together when a company says they make the best tomato soup, or that one soda tastes better, or a certain body spray will get you "laid".

Yep, some of it is hype, some of it opinion, some of it fact. If you don't like the "facts" that some LD companies give you, don't buy their product, enough said.

 

[I rack balls]

Done with thiss

 

[JoeyInCali]

Any competent cue maker or tech can make a low-end mass shaft now.
Predator's patent has lapsed.
Just drill a hole 5" deep and use lightweight ferrule.
Predator's original ferrule is readily available.

LD shafts should really be renamed to low end-mass shafts.
So that those who just market shafts as LD, even though they are not low-end mass, can be weeded out.