The REVO is taking over pool

[pinkspider]

The next level in carbon composite shafts will be more expensive not cheaper. There is a better material for the composite shafts available. The down side, the material cost alone costs more than the retail price of the Predator series shafts now. These new materials dampen frequencies in the shaft, so that they do not vibrate for very long and other very desirable traits for a cue shaft.
Neil

is graphene in the picture? anyway i was thinking more along the lines of old tech for carbon fibre rather than the cutting edge stuff (looking for the chinese to 'spoil' the market prices), which is more for like the 5% that's willing to blow the cash... Wouldn't dampening kill the feel though? Or am I interpreting it wrong?

 

[pinkspider]

...I believe this is also the same reason as the fishing rods the Revo flexes and comes back to the original state faster than wood does...

This to me is the biggest differentiator for Revo vs low-deflection wood shafts. it's totally different in that respect. There are some shots i struggle with because of this initially, but once i understood how it behaved (as you described) i just adapted accordingly. like any cue you pick up, you play to its strengths and i think this carbon fibre lark isnt too bad after all. i really enjoy it.

 

[rjb1168]

I have hit some with my son's revo and don't see the big deal. I
will stick with my Tascarella which I really like a lot.:smile:

 

[hang-the-9]

I think convenience trumps all. If the prices get driven down the other benefits become compelling.

– no need to worry about warpage for the most part and warranty BS shenanigans
– no need to worry about shaft getting dirty
– no need to worry about dings
– variances between shafts less than that of wood

Low deflection shafts have been on the market for the longest time. For all the hype generated, it’s never been a silver bullet because at the end of the day it’s all down to the player's style. Highly doubt that players will play with more spin because it usually is not necessary to begin with.

But ultimately nothing will change until the day they just make all shafts carbon or low deflection by default because the stuff's cheaper or something to that effect. Then we'll all find other things to argue about...

I have to say that none of those things is why I am using a Revo right now. The main reason is that I can get more action on the cueball easier than with my other shafts.

 

[lorider]

I shot a few racks with a revo after putting it on my blak 4 butt and liked it pretty good. Being an old man on a limited budget I started saving up for when I could find one ...always out of stock lol. Well I have recently faced 2 other 5's in matches that were both playing with revos and I won both matches with me using a 20.00 sneaky Pete. Those wins got me to thinking....so I realm need a revo although I thought it looked good on my blak ? nah....bought a new j b 4x 8 case with what i had already saved . Old case has seen better days anyway.

 

[CGM]

I hit with one for a while. It felt great but it didn't improve my game at all. I'd rather save the $500 toward a custom but thats just me.

 

[Taxi]

To each his own, but I've been playing with a Revo 12.9 for the past month, and now that I've gotten used to it I wouldn't go back to a wood shaft for anything. The lack of effort needed on long draw shots with the Revo shaft and an extra soft Kamui tip is simply amazing. I got mine with a Predator butt on ebay for $900, and I consider it by far the best investment I've ever made in my pool game.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[BRussell]

I have to say that none of those things is why I am using a Revo right now. The main reason is that I can get more action on the cueball easier than with my other shafts.

What do you mean by "easier?" It's not like it's "hard" to use english.

I don't buy it. I don't think the material that a cue is made of will have an effect on how much the cue ball spins. These shafts are nice because of the reasons pinkspider laid out: less susceptible to dens/dings and warp, easier to clean, they don't absorb oils and sweat and chalk. And they're at least as low-deflection as the lowest-deflection wooden shafts (but I haven't seen testing to show that they're lower deflection). Maybe they're stiffer and maybe some people like that, and maybe the ball travels a fraction of an unnoticeable amount faster when you hit it compared to a less stiff shaft. But if that's what you want just get a 20oz rather than 19 and you'll get a far bigger difference.

 

[garczar]

What do you mean by "easier?" It's not like it's "hard" to use english.

I don't buy it. I don't think the material that a cue is made of will have an effect on how much the cue ball spins. These shafts are nice because of the reasons pinkspider laid out: less susceptible to dens/dings and warp, easier to clean, they don't absorb oils and sweat and chalk. And they're at least as low-deflection as the lowest-deflection wooden shafts (but I haven't seen testing to show that they're lower deflection). Maybe they're stiffer and maybe some people like that, and maybe the ball travels a fraction of an unnoticeable amount faster when you hit it compared to a less stiff shaft. But if that's what you want just get a 20oz rather than 19 and you'll get a far bigger difference.

Have you hit with one? I've tried both sizes and i agree on the spin part as i stated above but you can drive the ball forward a lot easier. Call it stiffness or efficient energy transfer, whatever, its real.

 

[hang-the-9]

What do you mean by "easier?" It's not like it's "hard" to use english.

I don't buy it. I don't think the material that a cue is made of will have an effect on how much the cue ball spins. These shafts are nice because of the reasons pinkspider laid out: less susceptible to dens/dings and warp, easier to clean, they don't absorb oils and sweat and chalk. And they're at least as low-deflection as the lowest-deflection wooden shafts (but I haven't seen testing to show that they're lower deflection). Maybe they're stiffer and maybe some people like that, and maybe the ball travels a fraction of an unnoticeable amount faster when you hit it compared to a less stiff shaft. But if that's what you want just get a 20oz rather than 19 and you'll get a far bigger difference.

Just last night I was out trying to get used to an extension I got to match a 3/8 x 10 cue to the Revo. I tried the Revo on 3 butts, including the original Predator IKON it came on, and two different 3/8 x 10 cues. I also had 3 other shafts, all low deflection to test with, one for the Predator cue and two for the 3/8 x 10. When I went to the maple shafts, the hit was noticiably duller and took me more power to move the cueball. The cueball took off after the hit more lively off the REVO than the other shafts.

I did a lot of trial with different shafts and cues, none of it is imagination. It's easier to use spin because I can get the same action with a lighter hit, and the shot is more accurate. And I seem to get more maximum spin from the cueball with the REVO when I do power into the shot. I can also move to the outside edge of the cueball more and not feel like I will miscue, the shaft seems to grab into the cueball more rather than deflect away from it.

I can't say I play better because I still miss and still get out of line, but I can get more action on the cueball with less force with the REVO. At some point it may end up helping me advance a bit more with running out, maybe not. Either way, I enjoy the game a bit more with the REVO. And I am not one to go after every new tech when it comes out, the REVO is the first shaft from Predator I liked. All my cues were custom cues and with cue maker LD shafts, with a few OB shafts in the mix.

I posted before about this, I don't like the fact that I like the REVO but I do LOL I'd much rather shoot with a maple LD shaft made by a cuemaker than the REVO, but so far with having at least 7 shafts and 5 butts to pick from, I am sticking with the REVO.

What I compared things with: IKON 3-1 cue with REVO shaft and a custom LD shaft with uniloc made for that butt, 3/8x10 Ned Morris cue with adapter for the uniloc with REVO, and a bunch of 3/8x10 shafts -OB1+, Two Players HXT LD shafts 12.5m and 11.75 mm, custom cue maker LD shaft patterned after the Z shaft taper. 3/8x10 McDermott butt along with the same shafts and a full splice Radial cue with a custom LD shaft made by the same guy as my other custom shafts. All of those were compared to the REVO shaft on 3 different butts, and that is where I got my feel for the shaft. That should be enough to convince people that it's not just in my head that there is a noticeable difference between them.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...why I am using a Revo right now. The main reason is that I can get more action on the cueball easier than with my other shafts.

...you can drive the ball forward a lot easier. Call it stiffness or efficient energy transfer, whatever, its real.

The cueball took off after the hit more lively off the REVO than the other shafts.

So the difference is more efficient/complete energy transfer. That's plausible (although probly not as much of a difference as you think), but to be clear again, it isn't "more action" as in more spin-to-speed ratio - and you can also get the same increase with a little more cue weight and/or a little more stroke speed.

Are Revo shafts heavier than wooden ones?

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

So the difference is more efficient/complete energy transfer. That's plausible (although probly not as much of a difference as you think), but to be clear again, it isn't "more action" as in more spin-to-speed ratio - and you can also get the same increase with a little more cue weight and/or a little more stroke speed.

... or with a harder tip.

I’ve been playing with a Revo for while now. Here are the things I like:
- it is smooth and stays that way.
- it stays clean, and it is easy to clean.
- it doesn’t ding, and it doesn’t scratch very easily.
- it has the amount of CB deflection (squirt) that I like in a shaft (about the same as the Z2 that I played with for many years).
- it is straight and won’t warp over time.

The “hit” is a little stiff, but I really don’t care much about the feel or sound of a hit. The only feedback I need is seeing the CB do what it should for the aim, tip position, and stroke I used. Concerning the small difference in hit efficiency, that is also not a big factor for me. I adjust for this just like I adjust to cloth conditions. If I’m using a Revo with a hard tip playing on a fast cloth, I need stroke slower than when I use a Z2 with a soft tip playing on a slow cloth. This is something any decent player should be able to adjust to after a few shots.

I certainly can’t get more spin with Revo compared to other shafts. But there are some reasons why some people might think this, per the info here:

getting more spin with an LD shaft

Interesting thread,
Dave

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I doubt it. I've tested many shafts that claimed the same thing, and none of the claims turned out to be true.

Were the shafts you tested wood, or some other material?

There is the advantage of being able to hit a little softer for the same shot, but that's not "more spin" either (and you can get the same change by simply adding a little weight to the cue).

That actually does *not* create the same change. Adding a little weight to the cue means that in order to net the benefit you propose, you must swing the heavier cue the same speed you swung the lighter cue. This requires more force to be introduced to the cue. The properties of carbon fiber in this context allow more "output" with the "same" input. Very much the opposite situation. I think you meant that you can approximate the *effect* at the cost of additional stroke effort.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I don't think the material that a cue is made of will have an effect on how much the cue ball spins.

You are completely mistaken. This is very well documented, and basic physics. A material's ability to transfer energy is a very real thing. Hence the entire field of mechanical design and engineering.

Just FYI.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Were the shafts you tested wood, or some other material?

All wood. Some low deflection, some not.

Adding a little weight to the cue means that in order to net the benefit you propose, you must swing the heavier cue the same speed you swung the lighter cue.

You have to use a little more force to move it, but not necessarily to the same speed. Depends on the added weight.

This requires more force to be introduced to the cue.

It's a small change, but I'd rather not have it either - all else being equal I'd choose the cue with greater power transference. Just clarifying the nature of the force.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I don't think the material that a cue is made of will have an effect on how much the cue ball spins.

... I certainly can’t get more spin with Revo compared to other shafts.

This is very well documented, and basic physics. A material's ability to transfer energy is a very real thing. Hence the entire field of mechanical design and engineering.

I think this is a semantic difference about how "spin" is defined. KM's talking about increasing RPMs and speed with increased force. BRussel and Dr. Dave (a mech engineering professor, BTW) are talking about more efficient spin production - increasing RPMs more than speed.

pj
chgo

 

[one stroke]

... or with a harder tip.

I’ve been playing with a Revo for while now. Here are the things I like:
- it is smooth and stays that way.
- it stays clean, and it is easy to clean.
- it doesn’t ding, and it doesn’t scratch very easily.
- it has the amount of CB deflection (squirt) that I like in a shaft (about the same as the Z2 that I played with for many years).
- it is straight and won’t warp over time.

The “hit” is a little stiff, but I really don’t care much about the feel or sound of a hit. The only feedback I need is seeing the CB do what it should for the aim, tip position, and stroke I used. Concerning the small difference in hit efficiency, that is also not a big factor for me. I adjust for this just like I adjust to cloth conditions. If I’m using a Revo with a hard tip playing on a fast cloth, I need stroke slower than when I use a Z2 with a soft tip playing on a slow cloth. This is something any decent player should be able to adjust to after a few shots.

I certainly can’t get more spin with Revo compared to other shafts. But there are some reasons why some people might think this, per the info here:

getting more spin with an LD shaft

Interesting thread,
Dave

I'm probably the first one to ever put a acrylic pad on top of thier pad I did it actually to break up the black however I have found the hit and the sound to be different it acts as a silencer I believe sounds more like a regular cue hit I really like it I would however question the spring back effect of wood as opposed to carbon fiber on a hit outside of center ball in golf you have different degrees of stiffness as I mentioned in fishing rods , I can't possibly see how there is no difference from one to another,, I don't believe the theory of the ball comes of the tip to fast for there to be a difference I'm more inclined to believe that there isn't a reliable source of measurement to prove otherwise

1

1

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I think this is a semantic difference about how "spin" is defined. KM's talking about increasing RPMs and speed with increased force. BRussel and Dr. Dave (a mech engineering professor, BTW) are talking about more efficient spin production - increasing RPMs more than speed.

pj
chgo

Yeah I'm definitely saying that a Revo can introduce more power to the cue ball at a given stroke speed than any maple cue I've tried. I'm *not* saying that it produces a greater spin to speed ratio. If that is achievable at all, I'd think it would lie more with the tip. It *seems* like a soft tip can produce a slightly higher spin to speed ratio, but a harder tip produces a higher maximum amount of spin (and speed).

KMRUNOUT

 

[hang-the-9]

So the difference is more efficient/complete energy transfer. That's plausible (although probly not as much of a difference as you think), but to be clear again, it isn't "more action" as in more spin-to-speed ratio - and you can also get the same increase with a little more cue weight and/or a little more stroke speed.

Are Revo shafts heavier than wooden ones?

pj
chgo

At some point there is a limit to stoke speed because of muscles and also of decreasing accuracy as more power is added to the shot. I'd rather not shoot at 75% of my power when I can shoot at 50.

I have never felt I could get more spin on the cueball with a heavier cue. Maybe more power behind a hit with less stroke, or more follow with an easier stroke, but not more spin. I also don't like a heavier cue or harder tip because those cause me to miscue more (or at least make me feel like I am about to miscue which means I am not comfortable in the shot which means my stoke and thinking is off so it may as well be a miscue) and have less control of my speed.

Given all things being equal if something can do a thing better than another thing, there is a benefit there.

I have more confidence in putting english on the cueball without feeling the tip is about to slide off the edge, I can get the cueball moving easier with the same power, so it's better for me. If some-one wants to just hit harder, up to them.

 

[pinkspider]

I have to say that none of those things is why I am using a Revo right now. The main reason is that I can get more action on the cueball easier than with my other shafts.

I realised from replies to my post that I should have framed what I said a bit clearer – it’s more about mass market mainstream adoption, reason being that it seems that everyone has differing opinions about how a shaft plays but what seems more universally appealing are things like shaft care or resistance to dings. But yes, I too, use the revo as well on merits of performance, albeit after trying many, many, configurations before getting a setup that I felt compelled to commit to.