Will one shaft spin the cb better than another? Will one tip miscue more than another

[Flex]

I've played around with this thing for a long time, that is, the spin stuff.

For those who say the stroke is everything, I can't agree.

I have two different shafts, each with a milk dud tip, and the absolute amount of spin I get with them is quite different. One shaft is very powerful, made for me by Ed Young, with his taper. Although the shaft is about 11.5 at the tip, it's a very stiff shaft, and squirts like crazy. The other shaft is from a sneaky pete and is 13 mm. There is no doubt in my mind, or when I'm playing with one or the other shaft (on the same butt) that the Ed Young shaft puts more absolute spin on the ball. Doing Puck's test may not show any real difference, but I can tell you that on a full cross the table, diagonal shot from one corner to the other, power draw, that Ed Young's cue will outdraw the other, by a sizeable amount. It might be that someone else's stroke can get more out of the less powerful and less squirty shaft, but from countless hours shooting with both shafts, for the ultimate in a power draw shot, Ed Young's shaft comes way in first. Lest you think it's the 11.5 mm tip that is the trick, when it was 12.6 it was the same: lots of power and more absolute spin. It could well be that the off the rail spin test the Puck has up there is not the ultimate way to test this stuff. Also, depending on the rail, the angle of departure will vary. It will also vary depending on the speed of the cue ball, at least that's been my experience.


Flex

 

[seymore15074]

Having a person do the hitting and watching the results is not that scientific. There are way too many uncontrolled variables when you rely on humans as instruments.

Dave

BS. Machines don't play pool, people do... How does anyone run balls with "way too many uncontrolled variables" when they are, in fact, aiming at a contact point that is such a small target? Us humans are often remarkably accurate.

So what has to be done is SIMPLE: Hit the rail with the ball at the same spot. If you have to aim this way or that way to make up for squirt, then so be it.

 

[DaveK]

BS. Machines don't play pool, people do... How does anyone run balls with "way too many uncontrolled variables" when they are, in fact, aiming at a contact point that is such a small target? Us humans are often remarkably accurate.

So what has to be done is SIMPLE: Hit the rail with the ball at the same spot. If you have to aim this way or that way to make up for squirt, then so be it.

There are very few humans who can perform with the same accuracy, precision, and repeatability as a machine. I'm speaking of hitting the cue ball in the same location repeatedly (within a couple of thou') on the same plane (similar tolerances) at the same speed (within a small fraction of a mph). Then, when a different cue comes along weeks later, the machine can be set up to perform the same test with the same tolerances. Just how in hell does a human perform to this level ? They can't ! So how do these human tests gain accuracy, precision, and repeatability ? They can't. This does not even address all the issues with having a human decide the results (where does the ball land).

Note that this really has nothing to do with playing pool, rather it is about the specific performance of a cue. Of course this machine cannot "play pool", I'm not so silly as to even suggest that.

Dave, knows it aint that SIMPLE, if it were everyone would be a pro

 

[seymore15074]

There are very few humans who can perform with the same accuracy, precision, and repeatability as a machine. I'm speaking of hitting the cue ball in the same location repeatedly (within a couple of thou') on the same plane (similar tolerances) at the same speed (within a small fraction of a mph). Then, when a different cue comes along weeks later, the machine can be set up to perform the same test with the same tolerances. Just how in hell does a human perform to this level ? They can't ! So how do these human tests gain accuracy, precision, and repeatability ? They can't. This does not even address all the issues with having a human decide the results (where does the ball land).

Note that this really has nothing to do with playing pool, rather it is about the specific performance of a cue. Of course this machine cannot "play pool", I'm not so silly as to even suggest that.

Dave, knows it aint that SIMPLE, if it were everyone would be a pro

I do not see how it matters if you hit the cue ball in the same place or not. All you have to do is hit the object in the same place. Your machine cannot perform this test and yeild any relevent results. Same speed, same tip placement, different places on the rail = bad data.

 

[Flettir]

I have to agree with the more spin crowd. I have been playing for a long time (40 years) with everything from mop handles to my current favorite Predator P2 with Z2 shaft. 5 years ago I decided to look for a really good cue. I started reading the different manufactures web sites and comparing what they had to say and who was using their cues. I went with what I thought then and think even more so today was the best for me.
Also trying looking at the spin demo at this site. Cut and paste to browser.

http://www.predatorcues.com/predator_cues_shaft_demo.html#generationdif

 

[Andrew Manning]

So here's something:

Jal and Mike Page and Scott Lee (experts in physics, engineering, and billiards), seem to agree that spin/speed ratio is effected to a fairly minimal (NOT what many posters are calling "huge") extent by the equipment used, given a constant actual tip offset. Fair enough.

But I'm quite sure that my sledgehammer break cue hits the CB a LOT harder (absolute speed) than my predator-shaft playing cue. I accept this without much scientific experimentation since I've played racks with it (I like to goof off at the end of a long night of pool, and it's fun to try to run racks with a phenolic tip break cue), and on the first few shots after I switch to it, I usually over-run my position play by at least 50% of the intended amount of roll.

So if we've agreed that I get a minimal amount of spin/speed ratio difference, and a quite significant amount of absolute speed increase, than I think it follows that I AM getting a lot more absolute spin on the ball for a given tip offset with my break cue than my playing cue. And although spin/speed ratio is the relevant quantity for certain shots where you're trying to affect the CB angle coming off the rail, absolute spin is what's relevant for power-draw and power-follow, and these are the shots where most players are trying to get the maximum action on the ball.

So I'm postulating that whatever the differences are that allow a player to hit the ball harder (faster) with one cue than with another, and I'm certain these differences exist (or break cue makers would go out of business), that's what enables players to get more action with one cue than another. They may think of it as spinning the ball more, and some may disagree with them, but all in all, I think some players really do hit harder with one cue than another, and get more juice.

What say the physics guys?

-Andrew

 

[DaveK]

I do not see how it matters if you hit the cue ball in the same place or not. All you have to do is hit the object in the same place. Your machine cannot perform this test and yeild any relevent results. Same speed, same tip placement, different places on the rail = bad data.

I can explain it, but cannot make you understand, so why bother.

Dave

 

[Bob Jewett]

... But I'm quite sure that my sledgehammer break cue hits the CB a LOT harder (absolute speed) than my predator-shaft playing cue. ...

Tests have shown that harder tips are also less "lossy" in that the speed of the cue ball better approaches the theoretical speed for a perfectly elastic tip. If the tip is perfect (and the stick is three times the weight of the cue ball) the cue ball speed is expected to be 150% of the speed of the stick at impact. What has been measured for a normal leather tip is more like 130%. If you could recover that 20% (with a harder tip, for example), you would get 30% more energy into the cue ball.

If you could achieve the same tip offset with a more "efficient" cue, then you should be able to get more absolute spin on the ball, but my experience is that those very hard tips can't hit the ball as far from center.

But for nearly all shots, the player is not interested in generating maximum spin -- he wants a well-controlled amount of spin. If you are playing at the edge of your competence you will probably go wrong. That's the scary thing about artistic players like Massey and Sayginer -- for the most part the amazing shots they shoot are well within their comfort range.

 

[mikepage]

[...] And although spin/speed ratio is the relevant quantity for certain shots where you're trying to affect the CB angle coming off the rail, absolute spin is what's relevant for power-draw and power-follow, and these are the shots where most players are trying to get the maximum action on the ball.

[...]

I can see where that may play a role in some peoples perceptions. But I really think most people mean spin/speed when they say "more action." Here is Ron Shepard's "challenge draw shot." It's a shot designed specifically to compare sticks looking for a difference in action. You try to get maximum draw, as in maximum spin/speed. If you're doing it right you miscue on a reasonable fraction of the attempts.

http://pl.cuetable.com/showthread.php?p=535

 

[Bob Jewett]

I can see where that may play a role in some peoples perceptions. But I really think most people mean spin/speed when they say "more action." Here is Ron Shepard's "challenge draw shot." It's a shot designed specifically to compare sticks looking for a difference in action. You try to get maximum draw, as in maximum spin/speed. If you're doing it right you miscue on a reasonable fraction of the attempts.

http://pl.cuetable.com/showthread.php?p=535

Here are two other draw shots I think are useful for this test:

Put the object ball on the foot spot and shoot it to the middle of the head cushion while drawing the cue ball straight back. The cue ball should hit the foot cushion without the object ball banking back to the foot cushion. See how much farther up the table from the spot you can put the object ball.

Put the object ball by the side pocket about 9 inches off the side rail. Shoot it straight up the table and draw the cue ball straight back in the other direction, with both balls traveling parallel to the side rail. The cue ball has to get to the end cushion before the object ball banks back -- it's a race. See how close you can take the object ball to the first cushion it hits and still have the cue ball win the race.

For more explanation and diagrams, see http://www.onthebreaknews.com/Jewett3.htm#June04 -- it's the June 2004 article "Two Draw Drills."

Compared to Ron Shepard's shot, these have the disadvantages that the quality of the cushion is involved and the stickiness of the cloth is more involved, but I think these have the advantage that cheating the pocket is not a factor.

 

[HollyWood]

Mister EdwinReyes has this opinion

Here's a link that a cuemaker posted to explain shafts:

http://www.easypooltutor.com/module...days=0&postorder=asc&highlight=er240&start=15

 

[HollyWood]

Where have the water buffalo all gone

15 yrs or so I had the privilige and honor of banging the balls with the miz's 3-Richard Blacks he had for sale. The break cue was like 25-oz. Anybody remember how he broke on the five-Tens. All ivory ferrules with Richards own tips. How about tad kohara tips 4-ply layered if I remember correctly. Think you can still getum in calif. How bout Danny Janes and the crown jewels anybody know his story of the tipson his cues.

 

[Puck]

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

Just like any of the other drills mentioned, the only significant results are the consistent ones. If results can't be repeated then there could be a problem with stroke or mechanics. Hitting the same spot on the rail with or without english shouldn't be a problem...you just compensate depending on how much squirt your shaft has. There are other "cueball only" drills that you can do to ensure your stroke is consistently hitting the same spot on the rail, but that would be for a different thread.

I figured a cueball only drill would be better to evaluate spin so collision induced throw doesn't come into play.

It just comes down to what works consistently. I'm of the opinion that it's the indian and not the arrow...but what's really important is that the right combination of the two will be more than the sum of its parts. My 9-ball team has four players that are "C" speed or better...we play with two 314 shafts, one Z2, and I use a Viking. We'll go back and forth about which shaft gets more action and control but no one ever gets a significant advantage...and we accept that. It's all about what works for you consistently. Squirt is a function of the cue shaft...consistency is a function of the stroke.

I'll run drills with the 314 and Z shafts but have always preferred the Viking shaft. However, I do believe it helps to learn how to play shots well with different shafts. It's helped me learn more about the game and also to gain confidence in having a solid, consistent stroke.

(Late reply...haven't been online lately...)

 

[Jal]

So here's something:

Jal and Mike Page and Scott Lee (experts in physics, engineering, and billiards),....

Andrew,

You can exclude one of them from "expert" status. In post #12, I stated that in going from a cue/tip with an 85% efficiency to 100% efficiency (offset .4R), you would see an increase in absolute speed and spin of 9%. Actually, it would result in about a 36% gain! (I had the right formula but must have punched in random numbers while doing the calculation.) Sorry about that.

But I'm quite sure that my sledgehammer break cue hits the CB a LOT harder (absolute speed) than my predator-shaft playing cue. I accept this without much scientific experimentation since I've played racks with it (I like to goof off at the end of a long night of pool, and it's fun to try to run racks with a phenolic tip break cue), and on the first few shots after I switch to it, I usually over-run my position play by at least 50% of the intended amount of roll.

So if we've agreed that I get a minimal amount of spin/speed ratio difference, and a quite significant amount of absolute speed increase, than I think it follows that I AM getting a lot more absolute spin on the ball for a given tip offset with my break cue than my playing cue. And although spin/speed ratio is the relevant quantity for certain shots where you're trying to affect the CB angle coming off the rail, absolute spin is what's relevant for power-draw and power-follow, and these are the shots where most players are trying to get the maximum action on the ball.

So I'm postulating that whatever the differences are that allow a player to hit the ball harder (faster) with one cue than with another, and I'm certain these differences exist (or break cue makers would go out of business), that's what enables players to get more action with one cue than another. They may think of it as spinning the ball more, and some may disagree with them, but all in all, I think some players really do hit harder with one cue than another, and get more juice.

In light of the above, I'll have to do a reversal and agree that there is at least a potential for getting significantly different amounts of spin. It's probably less "subjective" than I had thought.

The question of the actual range of cue efficiencies isn't easy to answer. We can probably set a lower limit at about 87%. For sticks with an effective mass of 18 oz., at an offset of .5R this produces a post impact separation speed between the stick and ball of zero. There's some haggle room here because the tip is pushed off to the side and even with a slightly negative separation velocity, they will still separate. But the shaft snaps back within about a ball diameter of forward movement for fast shots, and much less than this for slow ones (about a quarter ball diameter).

So, for instance, if the range is 87-96% amongst actual cues meeting this "minimum standard", that would mean the most efficient tip/cue should produce 21% more absolute spin at .5R. This would translate to almost 50% more draw/follow distance. But that 96% upper limit is pretty much arbitrary.

Jim

 

[BVal]

Andrew,

You can exclude one of them from "expert" status. In post #12, I stated that in going from a cue/tip with an 85% efficiency to 100% efficiency (offset .4R), you would see an increase in absolute speed and spin of 9%. Actually, it would result in about a 36% gain! (I had the right formula but must have punched in random numbers while doing the calculation.) Sorry about that.

In light of the above, I'll have to do a reversal and agree that there is at least a potential for getting significantly different amounts of spin. It's probably less "subjective" than I had thought.

The question of the actual range of cue efficiencies isn't easy to answer. We can probably set a lower limit at about 87%. For sticks with an effective mass of 18 oz., at an offset of .5R this produces a post impact separation speed between the stick and ball of zero. There's some haggle room here because the tip is pushed off to the side and even with a slightly negative separation velocity, they will still separate. But the shaft snaps back within about a ball diameter of forward movement for fast shots, and much less than this for slow ones (about a quarter ball diameter).

So, for instance, if the range is 87-96% amongst actual cues meeting this "minimum standard", that would mean the most efficient tip/cue should produce 21% more absolute spin at .5R. This would translate to almost 50% more draw/follow distance. But that 96% upper limit is pretty much arbitrary.

Jim

I am not sure if what you are saying really makes sense - it probably does. I just want to say that I can no longer read them because of the insane headaches they bring to me with all of the thinking that I must do.

BVal