Variances in Deflection in Each Shaft?
- Thread starter ace911
- Start date
Could be. Depends on if all are same dimensions, weight, ferrule, etc. Deflection is usually argued to be attributed to tip end mass but something a lot of folks neglect to think about is your bridge. For me personally, a 13mm shaft is just about right for my bridge. 12mm is a loose fit in my closed bridge & uncomfortable, sloppy fit. 14mm seems like a log & is a very tight fit & equally uncomfortable. Given the nature of deflection, logic dictates that the 14mm shaft in my bridge will not yield to the cue ball by flexing away from it because i'm holding it so tight, and therefore the cue ball will yield to the cue. Opposite that, the 12mm shaft that fits very loose in my bridge has plenty of room to move and therefore will yield to the ball much easier than the 14mm. Given that both shafts are same weight, same tip end mass, it seems to me the tighter fit will cause most cue ball deflection. Experience seems to support the notion. Still yet, there are plenty who will argue that tip end mass is the ONLY factor in deflection. They dismiss the bridge because of the soft tissue of your fingers. But soft or not, it's still there & must be compressed to some degree if that shaft flexes or deflects from the cue ball to any degree. That compression is a force the shaft must overcome and will only do so if the cue ball's mass/weight is greater. It's a give & take kind of thing. My experience, at least.
I agree. Although end mass is very important lots of other things also contribute to deflection. I've found that no 2 cues nor no 2 shafts hit exactly the same.
Dick
Me neither, and I have focused on consistency for a decade, trying to exactly replicate the hit & playability I like. But in the end, cues, like people, have their own personality.
A matched set of shafts should include weight, and flexibility as well as the other normal factors. Apparently identical shafts can and do have wide differences in how they bend under identical loads and it is not necessarily gpi or weight that is the determinant. It's just the particular piece of wood and each piece ought to be measured.
We need one of these.
Hi,
I totally agree with the fact that the bridge has more to do with the issue and I firmly promote the use of 13 mm shafts with a modern pro taper not a skinny super pro type of taper. IMO, The shaft should pull flesh while stroking a closed bridge. The more variables you remove in fundamentals, the more accurate shot making becomes.
Rick
A closed bridge pulling finger flesh. It worked pretty well for this dude:
I totally agree with the fact that the bridge has more to do with the issue and I firmly promote the use of 13 mm shafts with a modern pro taper not a skinny super pro type of taper. IMO, The shaft should pull flesh while stroking a closed bridge. The more variables you remove in fundamentals, the more accurate shot making becomes.
Rick
A closed bridge pulling finger flesh. It worked pretty well for this dude:
Last edited:
What's a pro taper ?Hi,
I totally agree with the fact that the bridge has more to do with the issue and I firmly promote the use of 13 mm shafts with a modern pro taper not a skinny super pro type of taper. IMO, The shaft should pull flesh while stroking a closed bridge. The more variables you remove in fundamentals, the more accurate shot making becomes.
Rick
A closed bridge pulling finger flesh. It worked pretty well for this dude:
That term is so subjective.
Last edited:
Joe,
The way it was explained to me by Ray Schuller was that a Pro Taper has a visually noticeable dimensional climb in the linear geometry throughout the entire bridge area from the middle of the shaft to the tip of the shaft. This taper climb does not have to be constant but must not have any flat areas without climb.
Of corse there are a million combos to this as expressed by each cue maker's desire to bake the cake. Terms get thrown around very loosely and I guess this is one of the gray areas that need an explanation when it is used.
This is JMO. Ok, now let's here you take on it. :duck::thumbup:
Rick
Here is a view of my shafts at final taper which abides by the pro taper rules as described by Ray Schuller so one can pull flesh in a closed bridge. I don't know how clear or focused the taper can be seen near the bridge area in the pic. My Esoteric Cue shafts were designed based from Omega DPK's taper but Ray Hernandez added a tiny bit more spine on auto cad to the parabolic taper from the joint to 15.5" downstream to add a touch or more stiffness to the playability compared to the Omega DPK Geometry.
Last edited:
Give me the G-codes and I'll check it on NC Edit.
Ray Martin I believe was the first one to coin " pro-taper".
I believe ban in those days , 5 thousandths or more per inch taper was more common than those less. I believe RM's taper was some 2 to 3 thou per inch in the stroking area.
IMHO if a taper is more than .036" on the 12th inch mark , it's not a " pro-taper" nowadays.
A parabolic taper can't be a " pro-taper" I think. A pro-taper has to have a slight straight angle or angles, not a curve IMHO.
I can not agree more with this. I have written countless posts about tonal characteristics & how they correlate to flex & memory characteristics, but have never been able to put in words the differences one piece of wood can have from another. Like identical twins, each may seem exactly the same on the surface but each has a unique personality of their own.
Harvey Martin, not Ray. Ray is a HOF player. Harvey a HOF builder.
I read once that Mosconi used a Rambow butt with Martin shafts. Lots of great players used Martin's shafts, if not entire cues.
From all I can tell, a pro-taper is commonly considered a straight cylinder for a determined distance before beginning the taper toward the joint. For instance, Meucci's 14" taper would be 12.75mm from the tip to 14" from the tip, then begin tapering up. A parabolic taper by the very definition of parabola, would indicate a constant curve, meaning the taper is infinitely & constantly changing, following a curve the entire distance. If followed indefinitely, it will eventually return to cross over itself as in a circle. A true parabolic taper on a cue shaft would represent a short section of a huge circle.
Joe,
Don't you mean Harvey Martin. Ray "Cool Cat Martin" is the straight pool player who lives in FLA.
My parabolic taper is discernible only from the joint collar to the middle of the shaft or so ( 15.5 ), then the transition to the Harvey Martin style taper you describe which I do agree with totally. My 88 year old friend Stew was friends with HM and Red Baker and he has preached the pulling flesh thing to me for years. He worked at Hollywood Billiards across the street from Red's Barber shop in the day.
My shaft taper is proprietary to my QA / QC Guideline & Procedures and anyone who wishes to see the numbers must mic it and plot it themselves.:groucho:
Rick
Last edited:
Duh! Harvey Martin of course. Tad's former mentor.Harvey Martin, not Ray. Ray is a HOF player. Harvey a HOF builder.
I read once that Mosconi used a Rambow butt with Martin shafts. Lots of great players used Martin's shafts, if not entire cues.
From all I can tell, a pro-taper is commonly considered a straight cylinder for a determined distance before beginning the taper toward the joint. For instance, Meucci's 14" taper would be 12.75mm from the tip to 14" from the tip, then begin tapering up. A parabolic taper by the very definition of parabola, would indicate a constant curve, meaning the taper is infinitely & constantly changing, following a curve the entire distance. If followed indefinitely, it will eventually return to cross over itself as in a circle. A true parabolic taper on a cue shaft would represent a short section of a huge circle.
Martin originated the pro-taper and butchered by others I think.
Which makes that shaft no longer a parabolic taper in my view.
I don't how to call that. Maybe a compound taper with a curved back end.
One day... i will own Your cue sir :thumbup:
:blush: Thank you