Will one shaft spin the cb better than another? Will one tip miscue more than another
- Thread starter JimS
- Start date
Spice from Louisiana
Just to add to the discussion: I was thinking that my new OB-1 shaft put more spin on the cue ball than my Bender Maple shafts because of what I was seeing.
I shot the cue ball into the rail with as much side English as I could put without miscueing. I used a flat laminated cue and the cue ball traveled to a similar location as the OB-1 shaft.
The flat laminated shaft deflected the cue ball approximately 2 inches while the OB1 deflected the cue ball only about 1/4".
While it wasn't a scientific study, I made great effort to put the same stroke and same English on each shot and shot several times with each shaft. I'm not sure of the conclusion (if there is any) as the cue ball hit at two different spots on the rail even though I was aiming at one particular spot (a Diamond) on the foot rail.
It would appear that more English was put on cue ball with the flat laminated cue which I find hard to believe but the cue ball found its way to similar final location with both shafts.
The flat laminated shaft had a slightly larger diameter than the OB1 shaft.
Have at it. I don't know what to say.
JoeyA
John Barton said:Spin was not measured. Ball speed was calibrated using a radar gun. The experiments were designed to measure deflection. I did not comment that the cues tested under these conditions generated more or less spin than any other. I only commented that they produced differing results.
And yes perhaps with a large enough sample of all possible working configurations (i.e. those that are considered to be of suitable construction to play the game), and the proper execution, documentation, and verification, the questions we all debate may very well have been answered to a much greater degree. However I doubt that the debate would stop.
Just to add to the discussion: I was thinking that my new OB-1 shaft put more spin on the cue ball than my Bender Maple shafts because of what I was seeing.
I shot the cue ball into the rail with as much side English as I could put without miscueing. I used a flat laminated cue and the cue ball traveled to a similar location as the OB-1 shaft.
The flat laminated shaft deflected the cue ball approximately 2 inches while the OB1 deflected the cue ball only about 1/4".
While it wasn't a scientific study, I made great effort to put the same stroke and same English on each shot and shot several times with each shaft. I'm not sure of the conclusion (if there is any) as the cue ball hit at two different spots on the rail even though I was aiming at one particular spot (a Diamond) on the foot rail.
It would appear that more English was put on cue ball with the flat laminated cue which I find hard to believe but the cue ball found its way to similar final location with both shafts.
The flat laminated shaft had a slightly larger diameter than the OB1 shaft.
Have at it. I don't know what to say.
JoeyA
JoeyA said:Just to add to the discussion: I was thinking that my new OB-1 shaft put more spin on the cue ball than my Bender Maple shafts because of what I was seeing.
I shot the cue ball into the rail with as much side English as I could put without miscueing. I used a flat laminated cue and the cue ball traveled to a similar location as the OB-1 shaft.
The flat laminated shaft deflected the cue ball approximately 2 inches while the OB1 deflected the cue ball only about 1/4".
While it wasn't a scientific study, I made great effort to put the same stroke and same English on each shot and shot several times with each shaft. I'm not sure of the conclusion (if there is any) as the cue ball hit at two different spots on the rail even though I was aiming at one particular spot (a Diamond) on the foot rail.
It would appear that more English was put on cue ball with the flat laminated cue which I find hard to believe but the cue ball found its way to similar final location with both shafts.
The flat laminated shaft had a slightly larger diameter than the OB1 shaft.
Have at it. I don't know what to say.
JoeyA
Those are hard experiments to do. Aside from the normal precision problems in getting the same contact point, there are perception problems when the shaft diameter changes slightly and the tips might not be shaped the same. These are the reasons Ron Shepard came up with his special shot where you try for maximum spin with different equipment.
mikepage said:
It would be nice to get Ron Shepard to come over to the dark side and do some posting on AZ.
Ron always has interesting and accurate information to share. There are plenty of posts on the AZ Non-related pool forum when he gets bored talking about pool.
Mike, all other things considered equal, can a conical taper provide significant differences in amounts of spin versus a straight taper (14-20")?
Thanks,
JoeyA
John Barton said:And yes perhaps with a large enough sample of all possible working configurations (i.e. those that are considered to be of suitable construction to play the game), and the proper execution, documentation, and verification, the questions we all debate may very well have been answered to a much greater degree. However I doubt that the debate would stop.
Thanks for the details John.
The debate is good, I'm sure we ALL (or mostly) agree. And it will not stop in the face of hard evidence as you say, but being rather thick that's the only thing that will convince me. Until then, these various ideas and suggestions are fun to ponder.
The funny thing is that I'm the kind who plays with the same cue for years on end and so I don't have a playing frame of reference, only a physical / engineering frame of reference
Dave
To me, I am concerned more with applying the correct amount of spin with my shaft. If you asked me does my shaft impart as much spin as my buddies Z, no, I honestly don't think it does. However, this is probably more due to the fact that his is over a mm smaller so I might be closer to the edge of the cue when striking it? No matter what, a good stroke will impart enough spin. I think at my level, I will notice very little (if any) difference. Does a difference exist??? maybe very slight and not enough for me to worry about.
It's not a myth...shafts make a huge difference on cue ball action
The differing characteristics of shaft woods GREATLY affect the degree and consistency of spin that one can apply to the cue ball. Anyone who states that this is a common myth in billiards is either considering a narrower context or basically admitting that they don't know very much about cue ball spin. I am a little surprised that there is even a debate about this on this forum.
Cost-concious players often look for an inexpensive used butt (for a couple of hundred dollars) - and then go far out of their way to get their hands on a piece of quality shaft wood (for a couple of hundred more). One could effectively get the equivalent hit of a $1500+ cue for less than a third of the price.
I'd be extremely surprised to find even a single carom player in the world with an average of over .750 (3c) that can be convinced that different quality shafts have no significant effect on cue ball action.
-Ira
The differing characteristics of shaft woods GREATLY affect the degree and consistency of spin that one can apply to the cue ball. Anyone who states that this is a common myth in billiards is either considering a narrower context or basically admitting that they don't know very much about cue ball spin. I am a little surprised that there is even a debate about this on this forum.
Cost-concious players often look for an inexpensive used butt (for a couple of hundred dollars) - and then go far out of their way to get their hands on a piece of quality shaft wood (for a couple of hundred more). One could effectively get the equivalent hit of a $1500+ cue for less than a third of the price.
I'd be extremely surprised to find even a single carom player in the world with an average of over .750 (3c) that can be convinced that different quality shafts have no significant effect on cue ball action.
-Ira
iralee said:
Ira...It IS a common misconception about pool cues. It will not matter for the huge majority of poolplayers. CB spin is more about stroke, than tips or shafts. I did mention that carom cues will respond differently than pool cues.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Comparing cues with dime shaped tips, Platinum Billiards' data has the least deflecting cue (Predator Z2) at 1.34 deg at 9mm offset of the center of the shaft, while the most deflecting (Lucasi) at 2.02 deg. The actual offset of the contact point corresponding to 9mm of centerline offset and a dime radius is 6.89mm. The offset angle (theta in the diagram below) is then 13.96 degrees. To get the effective offset, as Dr. Page referenced earlier, and as shown in the diagram, just subtract the deflection angle (gamma) from this and find the sine of the new angle.John Barton said:
Comparing the Z2 and Lucasi then, their effective offsets are 6.24mm and 5.91mm, respectively. Dividing, 6.24/5.91 = 1.056. Thus we get a 5.6% difference in spin/speed ratio (which is a direct function of this offset) for the Z2 over the Lucasi. (Because of ball rotation during contact, the offsets are actually a little bit larger, but for comparison purposes, using the initial offset yields the greatest difference between them.) Whether 5.6% is significant is a matter of judgement. Surely, the better player is more likely to notice.
To the extent that you accept Platinum's data, this is concrete. The physics is about as simple and straightforward as you can get. But figuring the difference in absolute spin (as opposed to ratio), is harder and now differences in stick/tip efficiency come into play. But the numbers strongly suggest that you're not going to see anything like 30% or 50% increases from one cue to the next.
Just to note that spin/speed ratio is relevant to cushion rebound effects, but absolute spin is what determines the distance traveled in draw and follow shots. It's actually the square of the absolute spin that matters, so a 10% difference between cues becomes about a 20% difference in distance (1.1*1.1 = 1.2) . Whether you'll actually see a 10% variance between "normal" cues, I don't know.
I think that Scott Lee's point is that the subjective impact of going from one cue to the next is probably much greater than the objective performance data would indicate. Maybe these rather severe differences, such as JoeyA just reported, are due to partial tip slippage during impact?
Jim
Last edited:
Now it all makes senseJal said:Comparing cues with dime shaped tips, Platinum Billiards' data has the least deflecting cue (Predator Z2) at 1.34 deg at 9mm offset of the center of the shaft, while the most deflecting (Lucasi) at 2.02 deg. The actual offset of the contact point corresponding to 9mm of centerline offset and a dime radius is 6.89mm. The offset angle (theta in the diagram below) is then 13.96 degrees. To get the effective offset, as Dr. Page referenced earlier, and as shown in the diagram, just subtract the deflection angles from this and find the sine of the new angle.
Comparing the Z2 and Lucasi then, their effective offsets are 6.24mm and 5.91mm, respectively. Dividing, 6.24/5.91 = 1.056. Thus we get a 5.6% difference in spin/speed ratio (which is a direct function of this offset) for the Z2 over the Lucasi. (Because of ball rotation during contact, the offsets are actually a little bit larger, but for comparison purposes, using the initial offset yields the greatest difference between them.) Whether this is significant is a matter of judgement. Surely, the better player is more likely to notice.
To the extent that you accept Platinum's data, this is concrete. The physics is about as simple and straightforward as you can get. But figuring the difference in absolute spin (as opposed to ratio), is harder and now differences in stick/tip efficiency come into play. But the numbers strongly suggest that you're not going to see anything like 30% or 50% increases from one cue to the next.
Just to note that spin/speed ratio is relevant to cushion rebound effects, but absolute spin is what determines the distance traveled in draw and follow shots. It's actually the square of the absolute spin that matters, so a 10% difference between cues becomes about a 20% difference in distance (1.1*1.1 = 1.2) . Whether you'll actually see a 10% variance between "normal" cues, I don't know.
I think that Scott Lee's point is that the subjective impact of going from one cue to the next is probably much greater than the objective performance data would indicate. Maybe these rather severe differences, such as JoeyA just reported, are due to partial tip slippage during impact?
Jim
Thanks for the clarification.BVal
I think it's up to the people claiming that a particular stick hits the ball much differently from a another stick (assuming they are both built solidly and have good tips installed) to propose a shot to demonstrate the difference -- one stick makes the shot easily and the other not at all or only with difficulty.mikepage said:
Some might claim that one sort of stick is far more consistent in how it hits the ball. That's much harder to show, I think, especially if it is a person who is doing the shooting.
For me, the main thing for consistency in a stick is reduced squirt, but that's because I use too much side spin.
Puck
ctapa.com
I was thinking this could be tested with the following shot. The spin would be measured by how many diamonds you could spin the cueball downtable. The short distance from the cueball to the long rail would make any swerve negligible.
In this example the cueball is spun three diamonds downtable. It's not an exact science...but then again we're looking for a significant difference between shafts.
In this example the cueball is spun three diamonds downtable. It's not an exact science...but then again we're looking for a significant difference between shafts.
John Barton
New member
No Superspin
I think that we are not talking about "Superspin" or a 30% increase in spin. The original question was "does one shaft impart more spin than another" whether that is 1% to to x-% the answer is yes. The reasons however range from tip hardness, shaft construction, taper, diameter and ability to achieve greater offset, etc....
So the net effect is that a player CAN switch shafts and achieve more spin with the same amount of effort. Or conversely they can switch shafts and get LESS spin with the same amount of effort. So to achieve the same result - which is to place the cue ball into a particular position - the player must adjust to the shaft configuration BECAUSE each one performs differently.
Can we agree on that?
I think that we are not talking about "Superspin" or a 30% increase in spin. The original question was "does one shaft impart more spin than another" whether that is 1% to to x-% the answer is yes. The reasons however range from tip hardness, shaft construction, taper, diameter and ability to achieve greater offset, etc....
So the net effect is that a player CAN switch shafts and achieve more spin with the same amount of effort. Or conversely they can switch shafts and get LESS spin with the same amount of effort. So to achieve the same result - which is to place the cue ball into a particular position - the player must adjust to the shaft configuration BECAUSE each one performs differently.
Can we agree on that?
I can tell you that I had a black dot meucci shaft(PP-2) and I could get a lot more spin on the ball than I could with any other cue I've used(vikings, vikings with predator shafts, meucci with red dot shafts, McDermott, Adams, Balabushka, among others). Was it a coincidence that it was one of the flexiest shafts I've ever used? I don't think so. I find that the stiffer the shaft(mixed with super hard tips) the more prone you are to miscueing when trying to put extreme amounts of english.
Do Puck's test and see for yourself. Rep for Puck--the best post in this thread!
seymore15074 said:
Puck's test is a nice one.
However, as I was looking at the layout I realized another problem. If you are testing a high squirt cue (relatively) and a low squirt cue; in order for you to hit the same spot using the same side English and stroke you are going to have to aim at two different spots.
Aiming and adjusting for cue ball squirt is another factor for consideration. Do you aim at the diamond and let the cue ball hit where it may or do you adjust so that the cue ball always hits the diamond?
JoeyA