The difference of a cue butt in play

You know guys, dictionaries are cheap and spell-check is free.
The word you're crucifying is 'impoverish' = to reduce to poverty.
Isn't that what cue making is all about? I used to be rich.
 
KJ Cues said:
You know guys, dictionaries are cheap and spell-check is free.
The word you're crucifying is 'impoverish' = to reduce to poverty.
Isn't that what cue making is all about? I used to be rich.
Click to expand...

Word it.
Im is the prefix . Poverty is the root word.
 
WheatCues said:
If you don't believe me, try it yourself... I have done the tests so I know the results....
Click to expand...

Tried it several times over several years. It's not that cut & dry. All I can say is no two shafts made by two different builders will be the same. Your shafts on my butts will not play like my shafts on my butts, and likewise. If I put a Pred shaft on my butt will it play like a full Predator cue? Not a chance. Predator's success in the market is a totally different topic & has nothing to do with how much a butt contributes to playability, nor does NASA. As far as NASA is concerned, if I had the tax payers' money then I could also build a giant potato gun & launch a chunk of metal out the earth's atmosphere. It wouldn't mean I know jack about cues.
 
qbilder said:
Tried it several times over several years. It's not that cut & dry. All I can say is no two shafts made by two different builders will be the same. Your shafts on my butts will not play like my shafts on my butts, and likewise. If I put a Pred shaft on my butt will it play like a full Predator cue? Not a chance. Predator's success in the market is a totally different topic & has nothing to do with how much a butt contributes to playability, nor does NASA. As far as NASA is concerned, if I had the tax payers' money then I could also build a giant potato gun & launch a chunk of metal out the earth's atmosphere. It wouldn't mean I know jack about cues.
Click to expand...


Point made but I don't want to confuse playability with feedback !!!


- Eddie Wheat
 
We obviously both have valid points and alot to share.. I'm looking forward to hearing more on your theories about this subject and any indepth experiments or tests you've done that have given you this insight aside from what you have already shared!


- Eddie
 
Last edited:
WheatCues said:
We obviously both have valid points and alot to share.. I'm looking forward to hearing more on your theories about this subject and any indepth experiments or tests you've done that have given you this insight aside from what you have already shared!


- Eddie
Click to expand...

You haven't got my question answered.

Eventhough :withstupid: I know where Predator get the number "314" from.

But how did you get a 12.7% ? :confused:
 
icem3n said:
You haven't got my question answered.

Eventhough :withstupid: I know where Predator get the number "314" from.

But how did you get a 12.7% ? :confused:
Click to expand...


Actually I did answer it earlier.....mabey it wasn't directly to you but it was broken down !!!!

Scroll down....If you can't find it let me know and I'll repost it !


- Eddie Wheat
 
icem3n said:
You haven't got my question answered.

Eventhough :withstupid: I know where Predator get the number "314" from.

But how did you get a 12.7% ? :confused:
Click to expand...
2/3rd is .667.
How he got to 12.7% is all bullkaka until he can come up with the equation.
First of all you can't even quantitate HIT itself.
Feel free to quantitate it Eddie.
Pls don't pull the NASA engineers b.s. which nobody buys.
 
WheatCues said:
Actually I did answer it earlier.....mabey it wasn't directly to you but it was broken down !!!!

Scroll down....If you can't find it let me know and I'll repost it !


- Eddie Wheat
Click to expand...
THIS ONE???
I personally cannot take credit for the analysis and breakdown of the percentages...

Buy I will attest to them only becasue I have gotten that involved in the various components differentials enough to distinguish the noticable variances with each material used...

As far as breaking down the last 12.7 % goes... all I can say is the joint pin is the majority of that 12.7% and then the joint collar on the butt and then the butt's forearm composition absorbs the remaining few percent "no pun intended !"

But seriously. the remaining few percent breakdown is like handing someone a cue and asking them if they can physically feel a 1/4oz difference in the weight of a cue !!!

I hate to say this... but the original construction of a cue in the early days " fullsplice house cues" were more than sufficient to get the job done of shooting a ball into another ball at a pocket using a leather tip....and all of our world records were set by famous players using solid 1-piece shafts and basic butts.....

All this over engineered hoopla has not contributed to any breaking of those records to this date and we have much stronger players now-a-days !

So my theory is this: get a well constructed cue that fits your physique properly and is geared up for your unique style of play, and as long as you have good mechanics you will get as good as your head will let you !!!
Click to expand...

12.7% and the joint pin is majority of that?
 
JoeyInCali said:
2/3rd is .667.
How he got to 12.7% is all bullkaka until he can come up with the equation.
First of all you can't even quantitate HIT itself.
Feel free to quantitate it Eddie.
Pls don't pull the NASA engineers b.s. which nobody buys.
Click to expand...


I really don't care if anybody buys it or not !!!

I'm simply conveying what I was shown and proved... and therefor since I can prove that with the construction of my cues that's good enough for me and MY customer's !!!!



- Eddie Wheat
 
WheatCues said:
I really don't care if anybody buys it or not !!!

I'm simply conveying what I was shown and proved... and therefor since I can prove that with the construction of my cues that's good enough for me and MY customer's !!!!



- Eddie Wheat
Click to expand...
SHOWN AND PROVED?
Where?
The question was how you arrived to 12.7% for butts?
SIMPLE question, how did you get to 12.7%?
 
JoeyInCali said:
THIS ONE???


12.7% and the joint pin is majority of that?
Click to expand...

Yes, the joint pin is more than a third of that !!!

and it WAS proved to me !



-Eddie WHeat
 
Last edited:
WheatCues said:
Yes, the joint pin is more than a third of that !!!

I didn't get that and it was proved to me !



-Eddie WHeat
Click to expand...
More than a third?
YOU said MOST . So it has to be over 50%.
 
WheatCues said:
Yes, the joint pin is more than a third of that !!!

I didn't get that and it was proved to me !



-Eddie WHeat
Click to expand...
More than a third?
YOU said MOST . So it has to be over 50%.
 
WheatCues said:
Yes, the joint pin is more than a third of that !!!

I didn't get that and it was proved to me !



-Eddie WHeat
Click to expand...
More than a third?
YOU said majority . So it has to be over 50%.
 
JoeyInCali said:
More than a third?
YOU said majority . So it has to be over 50%.
Click to expand...


The butt is the last 12.8% and is comprised of three factors starting with the joint pin then the joint collar and lastly the forearm....

Percentages break down from greatest to smallest in gradual distrubution with the joint pin hogging a little more than a third which is the majority of the remaining 1/3 's divided by 3 parts !

Sorry, this is the best I can tell you ... I was so impressed at the time this was being explained and shown to me that I forgot to ask technical questions !


- Eddie Wheat
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top