Doesn't carbon fiber change that?
Why different shaft diameters for different games?
- Thread starter Rocket354
- Start date
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
I'd also challenge that. Is that true? As in 'science'
I mean, I can draw the length of a snooker table with ash or maple 9.5mm and when I had a little go with both my friends cues (whom I mentioned earlier, both are ash), I can get action with no trouble at all. Feels easier, but maybe that's psychological?
I think this hits on it.100% right, I have asked some of the tip-top players, and not many can give a reason beyond 'It feels good' and that 'good' feeling stems from familiarity not some tech mumbo jumbo.
A good friend of mine uses a beautiful Wooldridge (9.75mm), and another friend uses a 30 year old Stanford (9.4mm). Both play snooker, Chinese-8 and American table with the same cue. When I first saw this, My insides hurt3K GBP+ being used to bash around the pool table. The guy with the Stanford even breaks with it. Hurts me every time I see it...
Whereas, I wouldn't put my snooker cue anywhere near those heavy, giant balls. My initial reasoning when I first started playing pool was that I may damage the tip/ferrule, but really I don't think there is anything in that more than a 'maybe it could'
Now I am just familiar with what I know, and am comfortable using.
There are many brands here in China; LP, O'min (Chinese version), LiSi etc that are making ash one piece cues with a 10.5mm+ tip which are aimed at Chinese-8 players
When wood was the only material available for shafts, people wanted a certain hit/feel to it, with enough sturdiness to confidently move the balls around. So 13mm became standard, with some people venturing down towards 12. I don't think I ever heard of a shaft smaller than 12 until low-deflection became a craze, and that was 11.8. Why 11.8? I don't know, but perhaps that's as small as they could make the shafts and still maintain a certain amount of stiffness and structural integrity.
So then when carbon fiber became a thing, people were used to certain sized shafts. And so the carbon fiber shafts are essentially 1:1 exchanges for the old sizes. 12.5/11.8 are common sizes. However, 13mm seems to have gone the way of the dodo. There is a Revo 12.9 and I've seen other brands with 12.8 CF, but it seems like most brands stick between 11.8 and 12.5. I think the twin desires for "familiar" sizes and low-deflection has kept the shafts towards the low-end of the traditional range, and CF's inherent stiffness has allowed for it.
But...CF can still be plenty stiff and powerful enough at even smaller sizes. So pool shafts are what they are so that existing players will transition, and therefore new players learn on the same sizes. But ultimately, I suspect there very well might be a slow trend towards smaller and smaller shafts until we reach the smallest point that CF stiffness still equals what wood could do. I don't know what that size is, but I do know 10.5 is perfectly fine for pool, with no loss of power or ability, and with the advantages of increased cue ball visibility and tip-placement precision.
I recently switched to a 10.5 CF shaft for pool. I have absolutely no loss in feel or in any ability, including table-length draws. In fact, I think I'm performing better at most shots simply because I have better cue ball visibility and feel like I can more precisely determine the tip's contact point on the CB.
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
Really interesting. thanks for sharing. From my cynical perspective, my brain just wants to make it all about longevity of product and nonsense marketing. So, I want to see some Dr. Dave style science as evidence lol
I used an O'min one piece for Chinese-8 for a while (which I gave to my father to try out, but now sits in his garage). It was ash, 10.5mm and hit beautifully. Now I am using a real stiff Maple 12mm shaft on a Mezz butt. Can't stand the hit/feel of any CF shaft I have tried, in any size. I picked up an Ignite G as a break shaft due to the lifespan of CF.
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
Just saw this added bit. Again, thanks for sharing your insights. At one point, I was content to never buy a cue. But as my interest grew, I spent a lot of time thumbing through pages of nonsense, and listening to friends blabber on about how great their cues are, trying anything and everything. Eventually just found what felt comfortable for me in hand, and comfortable for my wallet. I don't want to be buying this, that and whatever else every year. I want a cue to last 15+ years like my snooker cue has.
I agree, sighting could perhaps be made slightly easier with a smaller tip.
FWIW, I felt much the same way about CF. I can't stand a Revo, for example. I'm ok with a few other brands. But the Cynergy really is quite good at keeping a hit close to wood. If you haven't tried it, definitely give it a go. (They do not sponsor me in any way; I'm just a satisfied customer who was able to switch from 13mm solid wood to CF after 25 years of playing because of the Cynergy.)
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
I have a couple of friends that use them on various butts (Custom American, Mezz, Cuetec etc). I would agree with you based on what friends say. My friend with the Exceed, much prefers the Cuetec to Mezz shaft. I couldn't get on with it myself, but might just be the time I've spent using wood. The only switch I made when playing snooker was to get a maple cue made for when I had a gargantuan beard and the ash kept pulling hairs out from time to time
Ultimately, whatever feels best is what's best for you. And, of course, what you are used to.
I've gone from 13mm solid wood -> 12.5cf -> 11.8cf -> 10.5cf all in the last 3+ years. Hopefully I'll finally stick to this most recent change so I can just focus on my game.
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
Seems you might have found 'the one' - hope you keep improving!
A 9mm tip is 1/6 the width of a 2 1/16” snooker ball.
A 12mm tip is 1/5 the width of a 2 1/4” pool ball.
pj
chgo
So that's what happened to my teeth!!
For carom the measurements of balls and cue shaft and cue diameter are designed at mathematical thresholds.
Anything round or involving circles is associated with pi. The grade school version is building a sphere was the initial challenge, what they wanted to do back then was all pre electronics, it was analog and projectile focused. It was original designs for projectile motions. A ball pushed by a stick. Today there are more sports than ever hit by sticks or paddles or other surface types.
Imagine mathematicians before 3d printers and visual analysis.
Any billiards technology is superior for its time and what it models mathematically.
Original Billiards Tech is on par with Gauss, Euler and Leibniz. They were likely the engineers to produce the materials by hand too.
Anything round or involving circles is associated with pi. The grade school version is building a sphere was the initial challenge, what they wanted to do back then was all pre electronics, it was analog and projectile focused. It was original designs for projectile motions. A ball pushed by a stick. Today there are more sports than ever hit by sticks or paddles or other surface types.
Imagine mathematicians before 3d printers and visual analysis.
Any billiards technology is superior for its time and what it models mathematically.
Original Billiards Tech is on par with Gauss, Euler and Leibniz. They were likely the engineers to produce the materials by hand too.
snookered_again
Well-known member
im glad you did the math, i said exponential but It might not be the correct term, I seem to remember a formula for the volume of the sphere, it escapes me ust now.. . weight and volume are directly related..
I think that the other part of the formula could be a little off, if snooker cues are more like 10 or 11 mm, that's about what I see most with. If you compared 10 or 11mm for snooker and about 13mm for pool then the ratio might fit a bit closer to that of the ball's weight difference, the rule of thumb is a dime for the snooker cue , a nickle for a pol cue, for tip roundness. smaller ball radius , smaller tip radius.
I might not get my snooker cue as low as some do and that may influence my backspin ability or lack thereof, fine line between launching balls by going under and getting proper backspin to draw balls.. I probably just need to practice more, but point is the ball radius is different and so is that space under the equator, thus so is the cue tip to be optimal... If you are a good 9 ball player and you take your stick to a snooker table you can still shoot without upsetting things, its just not quite right.. I've played against better players that had a horribly crooked cue, they still win ;-) its lot more about the skill level. I wouldn't break 9 ball with a snooker cue. I bought a 100 dollar sneaky Pete, good enough for me , for that. A thousand dollar cue wouldn't give me much advantage at all..
I think that the other part of the formula could be a little off, if snooker cues are more like 10 or 11 mm, that's about what I see most with. If you compared 10 or 11mm for snooker and about 13mm for pool then the ratio might fit a bit closer to that of the ball's weight difference, the rule of thumb is a dime for the snooker cue , a nickle for a pol cue, for tip roundness. smaller ball radius , smaller tip radius.
I might not get my snooker cue as low as some do and that may influence my backspin ability or lack thereof, fine line between launching balls by going under and getting proper backspin to draw balls.. I probably just need to practice more, but point is the ball radius is different and so is that space under the equator, thus so is the cue tip to be optimal... If you are a good 9 ball player and you take your stick to a snooker table you can still shoot without upsetting things, its just not quite right.. I've played against better players that had a horribly crooked cue, they still win ;-) its lot more about the skill level. I wouldn't break 9 ball with a snooker cue. I bought a 100 dollar sneaky Pete, good enough for me , for that. A thousand dollar cue wouldn't give me much advantage at all..
snookered_again
Well-known member
Imagine mathematicians before 3d printers and visual analysis.
Ill sometimes read books on vintage ( hollow state) electronics , wow the math is pretty complex.. I think there are less people now studying math at high levels, computers do the thinking and we trust the results.. If you go back to wartime , early 40's you cna find a lot of texts loaded with math, tables etc. they used slide rules..
I can barely even remember how to do long division.. I guess I can, but why would I ? ;-) new kids here don't even learn to write in script, imagine a future when reading handwriting is a special skill.
Ill sometimes read books on vintage ( hollow state) electronics , wow the math is pretty complex.. I think there are less people now studying math at high levels, computers do the thinking and we trust the results.. If you go back to wartime , early 40's you cna find a lot of texts loaded with math, tables etc. they used slide rules..
I can barely even remember how to do long division.. I guess I can, but why would I ? ;-) new kids here don't even learn to write in script, imagine a future when reading handwriting is a special skill.
snookered_again
Well-known member
if its common for people to use a smaller tip like 10-11 mm on chinese 8 ball with 2 1/4" balls, will they shape the tip like a nickle like one may to play pool on the same sized balls or would they go to a dime radius like in snooker?
I guess one could do similar math and see a relationship between ball size and tip curvature and there may be an optimum target?
my girlfriend spotted a hot young lady on the train , big boobs and she was "all that "
.. She wore a shirt that said "I dont need maths" ;-)
I guess one could do similar math and see a relationship between ball size and tip curvature and there may be an optimum target?
my girlfriend spotted a hot young lady on the train , big boobs and she was "all that "
.. She wore a shirt that said "I dont need maths" ;-)
There are plenty of people studying math at high levels. They are the ones who have to design and program all the software packages that run through actual calculations quickly. (As well as advance the field so that new technologies can emerge. )
I agree that many are math illiterate...much to their detriment if credit card debt and car loan statistics are to be believed.
Tip shape is related to tip width, not ball size. If you don't want to hit on the tip's edge when applying spin (for which the tip needs to include at least 60° of arc), you'll go with a dime radius.
pj
chgo
oscargrouch
Active member
What was the reason again for why you need 60° of arc?
To avoid hitting on the tip’s edge (and potentially miscueing) your tip’s surface must be at the same angle as the CB’s surface where you hit it, and the miscue limit on any ball is 30 degrees from center on each side (= 60 degrees total arc).
pj
chgo
Last edited: