I was playing at the Canadians last week and picked up a old Meucci for a buddy real cheap.I'm a Predator guy but this cue had a Black Dot shaft on it.I wanted to make sure the cue sounded okay when hitting the ball cause the guy was using it as a break cue,and he broke hard.The shaft was still almost dead nuts straight as well as the butt.I'll tell you,maybe its a fluke but this shaft hit the ball outstanding.I was thinking before hitting with it''Oh God this should be awefull".It deflected really low and I was cutting balls in from everywhere on the table.I'd never thought I'd say it but this shaft really impressed me with its playability.I wonder how it would rank on that test?
The Lowest of the LD Shafts
- Thread starter Cornerman
- Start date
Interesting...I tried the WD700 and liked the feel, but found that the squirt was substantially higher than a 314-2. I must say I am very interested in this Jacoby Edge shaft. Fred you still in the NH area wink wink? Also, I'm currently playing with an OB Classic, and would say it has a hair more squirt than the 314-2, but a better feel. I actually like it quite a bit.
KMRUNOUT
KMRUNOUT
Interesting construction. The ferrule is a soft light plastic
and without any wood through it's core for lighter tip weight?
http://www.billiardwarehouse.com/cueobsessions/jacoby/jacoby_hybrid-edge-cueshaft.htm
and without any wood through it's core for lighter tip weight?
http://www.billiardwarehouse.com/cueobsessions/jacoby/jacoby_hybrid-edge-cueshaft.htm
Sorry Pat. I can barely remember this thread let alone the actual testing! I'll repeat the test with actual data next time (which could be in three months as little as I play).
Kerry, I've been in St. Pete for a year and a half. And other than for business or to visit my girls in college, I don't ever plan on moving back!!!
Interestingly, I took my OB Classic down a smidge and retapered. The feel is fantastic and the squirt was reduced noticeably. But of course, I don't have a number for what it was prior. I suppose I'll have to check the new pivot point and report.
Things that make you go humm.
Can you give specific data on the test, number of shots, distance and the like? But the most important question of all is; how did you overcome the human error factor in the test?
Can you give specific data on the test, number of shots, distance and the like? But the most important question of all is; how did you overcome the human error factor in the test?
A "pivot length" works the same for any amount of tip offset, and the aim-and-pivot test that Fred used is simply a trial-and-error method of finding it for a particular shaft: increase/decrease the pivot length until you find the pivot length at which all sidespin shots work. This pivot length principle is how backhand english works.
So with respect to amount of tip offset there's no human error possible. But that may not be the kind of error you're thinking of...
pj
chgo
I am not thinking of any particular “type” of human error.
P.S. I have enjoyed your contributions to the colostate site and thank you for it and do understand BHE, I salute you!
Last edited:
I have the Platinum data
I have the old data from the Platinum website. PM me if you want a copy.
I have the old data from the Platinum website. PM me if you want a copy.
Just remember that Platinum Billiards' pivot points were lower than the numbers that we typically get with the Aim & Pivot method. The AP method gets "effective pivot point" due to actually using an object ball.
Shane still posts here, so he can speak to his tests. I assume he was hitting a board or something other than an actual object ball.
Freddie
The blurb says 64 veneers, I count 7 veneers per section and 8 sections--giving 56 veneers.
But platinum used a robot arm and took 4 shots and recorded the average, how did you do that?
Not sure what or to whom you're asking.
Yes, that is correct. When we did the Platinum Tests there was no object ball in play, only a cueball hitting a target with carbon paper on it (hence the difference in pivot point numbers)
Obviously you have never seen Freddie play pool, he is more accurate than any robot
This was posted by JoeW
01-29-2011, 05:23 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a proponent of the Predator Z2, If you run your own tests I think the answers are self evident.
Place two balls on the foot rail 2.5 inches apart and centered on a diamond.
Place the cue ball on the same diamond line at the other end of the table.
Warm up by shooting center ball and hitting the foot rail without hitting either object ball.
I compared the two shafts on my $2,500.00 cue stick with ivory ferrules with a long Predator Z2.
My bias at the time was to prefer the original shafts because they keep the cue maker’s work in tact.
Use one to one and one half tips of offset on the cue ball and shoot to hit between the two balls on the foot rail without hitting either ball.
Mark the shafts in four position around the circumference of the shaft and shoot three shots from each mark.
Without going into a long winded discussion of each shaft I was a little disappointed to learn that the Predator shaft produced less deflection. The original shafts had more deflection but the amount of deflection varied from two opposing sides of the shafts to the other two opposing sides.
Based on the results I play with only the Predator Z2. I have placed the original shafts in storage for my grandchildren.
I changed shafts based on the results of my research not on any hype from anyone.
-----------------------------------------------
Here is a link to Dr. Dave's where he has the aformentioned Platinum Billiards chart:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#data
01-29-2011, 05:23 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a proponent of the Predator Z2, If you run your own tests I think the answers are self evident.
Place two balls on the foot rail 2.5 inches apart and centered on a diamond.
Place the cue ball on the same diamond line at the other end of the table.
Warm up by shooting center ball and hitting the foot rail without hitting either object ball.
I compared the two shafts on my $2,500.00 cue stick with ivory ferrules with a long Predator Z2.
My bias at the time was to prefer the original shafts because they keep the cue maker’s work in tact.
Use one to one and one half tips of offset on the cue ball and shoot to hit between the two balls on the foot rail without hitting either ball.
Mark the shafts in four position around the circumference of the shaft and shoot three shots from each mark.
Without going into a long winded discussion of each shaft I was a little disappointed to learn that the Predator shaft produced less deflection. The original shafts had more deflection but the amount of deflection varied from two opposing sides of the shafts to the other two opposing sides.
Based on the results I play with only the Predator Z2. I have placed the original shafts in storage for my grandchildren.
I changed shafts based on the results of my research not on any hype from anyone.
-----------------------------------------------
Here is a link to Dr. Dave's where he has the aformentioned Platinum Billiards chart:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#data
Obviously you have never seen Freddie play pool, he is more accurate than any robot
I stand corrected.
Shane, why did your tests (without an object ball) show different results than testing with an object ball would?
pj
chgo