Thoughts on the Z² shaft.

[PaulieB]

I've hit middle ball with a snooker cue and a pool cue.The bigger tip
left the bigger mark and both tips were shaped the same.
.

Yup, but both tips left the mark in the same spot, right? If your aim and contact point are the same with a 13mm tip and an 11mm tip you will have the same contact point. I honestly think the thoughts about a smaller tip being more demanding is just because of the fact that larger tips give less feedback.

You can have pinpoint accuracy with a larger tip but you won't always know it. Smaller tips don't demand greater accuracy, they just show lesser accuracy. Larger tips don't show lesser accuracy, they just sometimes miss without showing anything.

 

[DrClean]

You mean about small tips not magnifying stroke errors? Maybe indirectly, if their smallness makes them lower squirt.

Or about higher squirt self-correcting more? Squirt "straightens out" offcenter hits... more squirt = straighter (pivotpoint@bridge=straight).

pj
chgo

Oh okay. I've never played with or even shot with a LD shaft. But, I see what you mean.

 

[scsuxci]

Yup, but both tips left the mark in the same spot, right? If your aim and contact point are the same with a 13mm tip and an 11mm tip you will have the same contact point. I honestly think the thoughts about a smaller tip being more demanding is just because of the fact that larger tips give less feedback.

You can have pinpoint accuracy with a larger tip but you won't always know it. Smaller tips don't demand greater accuracy, they just show lesser accuracy. Larger tips don't show lesser accuracy, they just sometimes miss without showing anything.

Yes,both tips left a mark in the same spot,except the bigger tip left a bigger
mark.That would tell me the larger tip is contacting more of the cueball,
I would think?

 

[scsuxci]

I don't think it's clear that longer contact time would make a difference. Compression absorbs impact to begin with, counteracting any power gain. And was it the Jacksonville experimenters who said that longer contact time might actually reduce spin?

pj
chgo

Now thats really interesting that it could reduce spin.Again,
I would think more contact time +power would generate more spin.
This is really strange findings?Did you here why they thought this?Thanks

 

[TheThaiger]

Yes,both tips left a mark in the same spot,except the bigger tip left a bigger
mark.That would tell me the larger tip is contacting more of the cueball,
I would think?

I play English 8 ball, which has a CB of 1.75". I break with a 13mm pool cue, my friend breaks with a 8mm snooker cue. We both use Kamui chalk, which coats the CB after each break. When I break, there's a highly visible great big fat chalk mark 13mm wide. When my friend breaks, he leaves a highly visibly but smaller 8mm mark on the CB.

We have used two CBs, and compared the marks they leave. The whole of each tip is imprinted on each ball. They are like craters on the moon.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Now thats really interesting that it could reduce spin.Again,
I would think more contact time +power would generate more spin.
This is really strange findings?Did you here why they thought this?Thanks

scsuxci,

I'm interested in this as well. In every other sport that I am familiar with, more contact time when causing spin equals more spin, unless...some other parameter is also changed. For instance in tennis a flat hit with a softly strung racket might be in contact with the ball longer than a very quick, sharp very glancing strike & the flat hit would yield less spin, but the hit is totally different.

I do not see how if ALL parameters are EQUAL except contact time that less contact time would produce more spin. If the spin producing force is in contact longer, then I see it producing more spin, ALL other parameters being equal. More force with less time could yield more spin, but how would one achieve that as more force should also yield more compression.
I'm very interested in the answer.

Regards & Merry Christmas,

 

[dr_dave]

If your aim and contact point are the same with a 13mm tip and an 11mm tip you will have the same contact point.

If the contact point is the same with both, then the contact point will be the same. However, if the "aim" and "tips of English" are the same, the contact point could be different, depending on the shape of the tip. For more info, see:

cue tip size and shape effects​

Here's an illustration from the page:

I honestly think the thoughts about a smaller tip being more demanding is just because of the fact that larger tips give less feedback.

Tip hardness probably has just as important an effect as tip size when it comes to "feedback." For more info, see:

cue "feel," "hit," "feedback," and "playability"​

Merry Christmas,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Yes,both tips left a mark in the same spot,except the bigger tip left a bigger mark.That would tell me the larger tip is contacting more of the cueball, I would think?

The size of the contact patch varies with tip shape and hardness, not with tip size. A flatter and softer tip will leave a larger mark than a rounder and harder tip.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I don't think it's clear that longer contact time would make a difference.

Agreed. For more info and supporting resources, see:

cue tip hardness and contact time effects​

Compression absorbs impact to begin with, counteracting any power gain. And was it the Jacksonville experimenters who said that longer contact time might actually reduce spin?

FYI, articles describing the results of the Jacksonville study (along with other info) can be found here:

Jacksonville Project resources​

Happy Holidays,
Dave

 

[naji]

scsuxci,

I'm interested in this as well. In every other sport that I am familiar with, more contact time when causing spin equals more spin, unless...some other parameter is also changed. For instance in tennis a flat hit with a softly strung racket might be in contact with the ball longer than a very quick, sharp very glancing strike & the flat hit would yield less spin, but the hit is totally different.

I do not see how if ALL parameters are EQUAL except contact time that less contact time would produce more spin. If the spin producing force is in contact longer, then I see it producing more spin, ALL other parameters being equal. More force with less time could yield more spin, but how would one achieve that as more force should also yield more compression.
I'm very interested in the answer.

Regards & Merry Christmas,

What a fine Christmas day, happy one for all..

about 10 years ago, i made a laminated tip from an old bike tube, put on a 13 mm cue, and i was not able to hit a shot without CB spinning. With tip very soft, and have that rubber grab it felt like the tip is contacting the CB for longer time, or possibly the friction is so high between them make you feel that. Unfortunately tip deteriorated quickly, and did not go back, i might do that again with me shooting much better now, it will be interesting to find out,, i will search Google if such tip is available..Later

 

[dr_dave]

I do not see how if ALL parameters are EQUAL except contact time that less contact time would produce more spin. If the spin producing force is in contact longer, then I see it producing more spin, ALL other parameters being equal. More force with less time could yield more spin, but how would one achieve that as more force should also yield more compression.

I think this topic is covered fairly well here:

cue tip hardness and contact time effects​

Here are some relevant quotes from the resource page:

...
Some people think that because a soft tip stays in contact with the CB slightly longer (see contact time), a soft tip can apply more english. However, see Bob Jewett's comments below. Also, the contact time is still extremely small with both a soft and hard tip: close to a thousandth of a second (0.001 sec). Assuming the CB speed is the same in all comparisons: even though the peak force will be different (more with the shorter contact time), the amount of momentum (linear and angular) transferred to the CB will still be the same (because the sum of force over contact time is the same in both cases). The CB doesn't move much (translation or spin) during the extremely small contact time, so the only significant factor is the tip contact point at impact.
...
from Bob Jewett:

One issue is which harness of tip will allow the farther-from-center hit. Some believe that a soft tip takes chalk better so it can hit the ball farther from center.

There is a counter theory, and that is because a softer tip will have a longer contact time than a hard tip. During contact, the tip rides around the side of the ball some, so the final eccentricity as the tip leaves the ball is larger than when the tip first hits the ball. A softer tip, with the longer contact time will be farther off center at the end than a harder tip with the same starting offset. If both tips can only hold to a certain point of offset, and you start your shot so the miscue point is barely reached at the end of contact, the average offset will be larger for the harder tip. This means that the harder tip can create more spin for a given ball speed.

Which dominates? Holding chalk better or starting farther off-center? I don't know of any experiment that has tested this.​

Regards,
Dave

 

[naji]

I think this topic is covered fairly well here:

cue tip hardness and contact time effects​

Here are some relevant quotes from the resource page:

...
Some people think that because a soft tip stays in contact with the CB slightly longer (see contact time), a soft tip can apply more english. However, see Bob Jewett's comments below. Also, the contact time is still extremely small with both a soft and hard tip: close to a thousandth of a second (0.001 sec). Assuming the CB speed is the same in all comparisons: even though the peak force will be different (more with the shorter contact time), the amount of momentum (linear and angular) transferred to the CB will still be the same (because the sum of force over contact time is the same in both cases). The CB doesn't move much (translation or spin) during the extremely small contact time, so the only significant factor is the tip contact point at impact.
...
from Bob Jewett:

One issue is which harness of tip will allow the farther-from-center hit. Some believe that a soft tip takes chalk better so it can hit the ball farther from center.

There is a counter theory, and that is because a softer tip will have a longer contact time than a hard tip. During contact, the tip rides around the side of the ball some, so the final eccentricity as the tip leaves the ball is larger than when the tip first hits the ball. A softer tip, with the longer contact time will be farther off center at the end than a harder tip with the same starting offset. If both tips can only hold to a certain point of offset, and you start your shot so the miscue point is barely reached at the end of contact, the average offset will be larger for the harder tip. This means that the harder tip can create more spin for a given ball speed.

Which dominates? Holding chalk better or starting farther off-center? I don't know of any experiment that has tested this.​

Regards,
Dave

Thanks Dave, we really live in a fast world these days, as i hit send to my previous post, and refreshed the answer was in next post, this is really technology! and dedication..got answer before i post a question!!! Thanks

 

[dr_dave]

Thanks Dave, we really live in a fast world these days, as i hit send to my previous post, and refreshed the answer was in next post, this is really technology! and dedication..got answer before i post a question!!! Thanks

You're very welcome.

I aim to squerve,
Dave

 

[TheThaiger]

The size of the contact patch varies with tip shape and hardness, not with tip size.

See post #65.

A flatter and softer tip will leave a larger mark than a rounder and harder tip.

IF they are the same size.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Hi Dave,

Merry Chritmas to You & Yours.

That's my point.

The key in the study is that different hardness of tips were being compared. The hard tip's peak force for a shorter time than the more even force of the softer tip for a longer time might yield equal or even more spin.

Two parametres were changed. The hardness of tip AND the contact duration. to say that less contact time yields more spin is mis-leading unless it is pointed out that the hardness parameter is also changed. Also can you tell for certain that the exact same force, weight & speed of cue stick was used? Was it robot testing or was there a human component with a subconscious perception involved?

How far off center can that peak force hard tip go before a miscue compared to a soft tip with a more even force for a longer period of time?

I do not mean to argue against the testing or conclusions. It just seems that some statements made by some can be misleading to some when certain particulars are left unstated.

If a hard tip could be compressed to an equal amount of a softer tip and applied to the exact same location on the ball it would convey more speed & spin to the ball. However to do that it would require more force, mass/speed combination.

As many of us know, it is not so much the amount of spin, but the spin to speed ratio that is very important.

Best Regards,

 

[scsuxci]

This topic has ruined my brain and Christmas,thanks AZ
Merry Christmas to everyone and have a nice NewYear.

This topic will keep me thinking through the Newyear,hell the way I think
it might keep me thinking till next Christmas.

 

[CreeDo]

No killer persuasive arguments. I used a z2 for several months and it was fine. Broke it, tried an OB2, and liked it a hair better, and have been using it for years. Would not cry if forced to go back.

If I could persuade you of anything, I would try to hammer home these tidbits:

- Most of it is down to personal preference, and a lot of that is formed by what you're used to.

- don't get bogged down in overthinking your equipment choices. You don't have to look for subtle physics justifications to use whatever feels right. "I like how it feels better" or "I hate how the other option feels" are good enough reasons... maybe the only ones that count.

- When considering whether some equipment decision is worth obsessing over or not, I use the 'laugh in his face' test:

Your opponent just missed a ball, and seems stunned. He gets up and tells you he missed because ___________ . Does that statement make sense to you, or do you laugh in his face? "I just missed because the inlays changed the balance" for example. Do you consider 11 vs. 13 millimeter a legit excuse for missing or not?

It's true that worry about something that feels wrong can get in your head and make you miss. But it's up to you to understand the difference between

"I missed because it felt funny and that affected my stroke"
vs
"I missed because some subtle interplay of tip physics kept my perfectly hit shot out of the pocket".

 

[thefonz]

This topic has ruined my brain and Christmas,thanks AZ
Merry Christmas to everyone and have a nice NewYear.

This topic will keep me thinking through the Newyear,hell the way I think
it might keep me thinking till next Christmas.

lol,
i think the essence of what the OP was trying to determine has gotten somewhat sidetracked on the subject of tip position and contact point as being the only reason in determining playability between larger shafts and smaller ones.

if you ask any top player i would bet that the majority would tell you that using a z2 is more difficult in maintaining any sort of consistency. it's only bangers that complain about spinning the CB not enough, most top players are concerned with spinning the ball too much. 99% of the time, you simply don't need to put that much shit on the ball. which i think what scsuxci was getting at commenting about unwanted side, which is what i found that you'd get when playing with a z2. i found Z shafts play fine if you stay inside of a tip of english, anything outside of that things can get a little unpredictable. that still may be a matter of preference, but we're talking mere mortals here, not Corey Deuel.

the Z shaft is a designed purely for low deflection and enhanced spin, the low deflection can be helpful but the enhanced spin i believe hurts the shaft more than it helps. that combined with a slightly off target hit, and cueing marginally across your intended target line (nobody sights the ball and aligns perfectly all the time) usually is a recipe for disaster.

If the OP is looking for control, power, spin, and low deflection, he should look into a 314 FAT shaft, just tried using one this year for shits and giggles, and i am embarrassed to admit that it hits great for a predator product. that thing moves the cueball around effortlessly, and with little compromise for control. it won't take the place of my 4.4oz gina shafts but it did bring a smile to my face.

 

[bender_lu]

No killer persuasive arguments. I used a z2 for several months and it was fine. Broke it, tried an OB2, and liked it a hair better, and have been using it for years. Would not cry if forced to go back.

If I could persuade you of anything, I would try to hammer home these tidbits:

- Most of it is down to personal preference, and a lot of that is formed by what you're used to.

- don't get bogged down in overthinking your equipment choices. You don't have to look for subtle physics justifications to use whatever feels right. "I like how it feels better" or "I hate how the other option feels" are good enough reasons... maybe the only ones that count.

- When considering whether some equipment decision is worth obsessing over or not, I use the 'laugh in his face' test:

Your opponent just missed a ball, and seems stunned. He gets up and tells you he missed because ___________ . Does that statement make sense to you, or do you laugh in his face? "I just missed because the inlays changed the balance" for example. Do you consider 11 vs. 13 millimeter a legit excuse for missing or not?

It's true that worry about something that feels wrong can get in your head and make you miss. But it's up to you to understand the difference between

"I missed because it felt funny and that affected my stroke"
vs
"I missed because some subtle interplay of tip physics kept my perfectly hit shot out of the pocket".

great post! :thumbup:

 

[predator]

For me personally, I bought the Z2 because I love a bit of conical taper, and thinner shaft seems ideal for my fingers, feels great on my bridge hand As far as deflection and swerve characteristics are concerned, I'm not a slave to it, given time I can adapt to anything. Besides, nowadays I play more center ball than I ever did.

With any decent built shaft that has a tip radius *within reason* and with which you enjoy playing with, you could be a either a ball banger or a world champion. Just how good depends on natural ability and work put in combined, certainly not the equipment. There isn't a shaft on the market which would limit a player as to how far he could progress with his game. Shafts don't pot balls and don't miss them either, players do.