Deflection reduction comes from reducing mass at the front of a cue. You can have a cf rod inside and still be low-def. if the front mass is reduced. My Mezz HybridPro combined both and played unreal.
Wood over CF shaft options
- Thread starter AverageTXN
- Start date
AverageTXN
New member
Wood over a CF is what I am looking for. I'm open to other options, and after looking at a few of the ones mentioned here I'm really interested in the Kielwood and Kielwood over CF shafts.
I have a bit of a problem with always wanting to try new things, not because I think they will magically improve my game, I just enjoy it. As a result, I've had MANY shafts over the last 10 years or so. Recently I've gone away from the CF back to wood. I've settled at the moment on a Kielwood shaft that started as a Prather blank and was finished out by the late Reuben Fisher. I also have a Jacoby KW that I sometimes play with depending on which butt I'm using at the time.
A couple things to note, I prefer larger diameter shafts, mostly 13mm. I don't obsess over deflection. All shafts deflect so it's really just a matter of how much and getting used to it. I do obsess a bit over sound and "feel".
For Kielwood, I've had a first gen Hsunami and Diviney Trans-K shaft. Both were very nice and to me played similar as far as deflection. I know the Hsunami was foam filled, and I believe the Trans-K was as well. They just didn't have the feel I was looking for though both are better in the feedback department than a CF. Jacoby uses Balsa in the end to lighten it which to me feels a bit more natural than foam filling.
I have a Lucasi Carbon Infuzed 12.9mm. Has a very nice hit and good feedback. With the 12.9 I would call it standard deflection. I believe the smaller ones are notably lower deflection, though I've never tried them.
I also have an OB Fusion 4 which is their carbon cored shaft maple. It's 12.8mm and is ridiculously low defection. A friend who is a high 600 Fargo and has played with a 314 for years did a deflection test and was pretty shocked. If it would have fit his cue, I'm pretty sure he would have tried to buy it from me. It has a nice solid hit and good feedback and no predator "tink". (I do have a Predator vantage which very much has the tink...lol)
For CF shafts, I've played with Cuetec, BeCue, Jacoby 1st and 4th gen, Pechauer 1st and 2nd gen, McDermott 2nd and 3rd gen, Meucci, Whyte Carbon, and the Tiger Fortis.
The only one I still sometimes play with is the Fortis. I may well have the only Fortis X (13mm) shaft in the country as I don't think I've ever seen one for sale and the one I have I bought from Darren Appleton since none of the U.S. distributors would even order one for me at the time. That may have changed now IDK. In my opinion it has better feedback than most of the others I've tried, but it also has a bit more of the tink sound. Not bad, but more than some of the others.
I'm not really sure how much advantage there is putting the CF inside the wood. I'm guessing they can still warp, and they can obviously get dings in them, so it's really more about weight and I assume slightly higher energy transfer if the CF runs full length.
I really like the OB shaft, but I'm not willing to put in the time to get used to the much lower deflection right now.
There are so many options out there now it's really hard to choose but definitely try to find a Kielwood to test. I don't think I've ever talked to someone who didn't like it. If you want the carbon core, the PureX might be the way to go. Just note there are two versions of that. The Fuze and the Infuzed. I may try a Infuzed as my next experiment.
cueball2010
Active member
I think some people are getting confused about your thread title "Wood over CF shaft options". That could be seen two different ways. Perhaps wood on top of CF or CF core wood shaft options might lessen confusion.
My entire life I’ve played with original maple shafts that were made for my pool cues. I finally tried Kielwood shafts a
year ago after hearing that another version of wood shafts was available. I called several cue makers, including ones
I previously had bought cues from. I proceeded to try different brands KW shaft from pool players I knew. Surprisingly,
the hit and feel of every shaft I tried seemed off. I’m sure the deflection improvement was there for every KW shaft I
played with but the feel never seemed quite right. Low and behold after weighing every KW shaft I could try, all the shafts were much lighter than the shafts for all my cues that average 4.1 ozs. The KW shafts were much lighter.
So I embarked on contacting cue makers about building a heavier KW shaft. I wanted to match the weight of my maple
shafts. The majority of the cue makers I contacted said they could do that by adjusting the insert and so I asked about
building a KW shaft with no insert, just solid wood but a much heavier weight. The design would sacrifice some of the
low deflection design a cored KW shaft produces. I was told it wasn’t possible to build a 4 oz KW all wood shaft w/o adding weight. I am opposed to doing that and just want an all wood shaft that’s torrefied . I’ll live with how the cue deflects sans any coring, i.e., lower front end mass. I’ve played cue shafts without any low deflection so a uncored KW shaft will be just fine.
I finally found someone to build what I want and a couple of KW shafts should be arriving shortly. Here is what I found.
KW shafts do indeed produce much lower deflection and are a competitive alternative to CF shafts that do not feel or hit like wood. I happened to discover that the feel of KW shafts I tried wasn’t to my liking. I attribute it to the weight of the KW shafts only weighing in 3.4 to 3.7 ozs range. My personal preference was for shafts over 4 ozs to match my orig. maple shafts. I decided to stick with maple wood shafts that had been only torrefied but not cored.
The shafts being built aren’t hollow with an insert plug but instead are just torrefied maple. The shafts are 12.6mm and12.75mm, 29” and will hopefully be in the low 4 oz. range. I borrowed a flat faced uncored KW shaft that was 30” and weighed 4 ozs. It definitely felt much better than any of the cored KW shafts I previously tried that were lighter weight. After six decades of playing pool with maple shafts that exhibit deflection properties, that’s less of a priority or concern to me than just the hit and feel of the shaft. The uncored KW shaft I’m currently trying feels very solid and plays great so I’m optimistic.
year ago after hearing that another version of wood shafts was available. I called several cue makers, including ones
I previously had bought cues from. I proceeded to try different brands KW shaft from pool players I knew. Surprisingly,
the hit and feel of every shaft I tried seemed off. I’m sure the deflection improvement was there for every KW shaft I
played with but the feel never seemed quite right. Low and behold after weighing every KW shaft I could try, all the shafts were much lighter than the shafts for all my cues that average 4.1 ozs. The KW shafts were much lighter.
So I embarked on contacting cue makers about building a heavier KW shaft. I wanted to match the weight of my maple
shafts. The majority of the cue makers I contacted said they could do that by adjusting the insert and so I asked about
building a KW shaft with no insert, just solid wood but a much heavier weight. The design would sacrifice some of the
low deflection design a cored KW shaft produces. I was told it wasn’t possible to build a 4 oz KW all wood shaft w/o adding weight. I am opposed to doing that and just want an all wood shaft that’s torrefied . I’ll live with how the cue deflects sans any coring, i.e., lower front end mass. I’ve played cue shafts without any low deflection so a uncored KW shaft will be just fine.
I finally found someone to build what I want and a couple of KW shafts should be arriving shortly. Here is what I found.
KW shafts do indeed produce much lower deflection and are a competitive alternative to CF shafts that do not feel or hit like wood. I happened to discover that the feel of KW shafts I tried wasn’t to my liking. I attribute it to the weight of the KW shafts only weighing in 3.4 to 3.7 ozs range. My personal preference was for shafts over 4 ozs to match my orig. maple shafts. I decided to stick with maple wood shafts that had been only torrefied but not cored.
The shafts being built aren’t hollow with an insert plug but instead are just torrefied maple. The shafts are 12.6mm and12.75mm, 29” and will hopefully be in the low 4 oz. range. I borrowed a flat faced uncored KW shaft that was 30” and weighed 4 ozs. It definitely felt much better than any of the cored KW shafts I previously tried that were lighter weight. After six decades of playing pool with maple shafts that exhibit deflection properties, that’s less of a priority or concern to me than just the hit and feel of the shaft. The uncored KW shaft I’m currently trying feels very solid and plays great so I’m optimistic.
Last edited:
Because carbon fiber is denser than wood, anytime you replace carbon fiber with wood at the front end of a shaft, you will have a lower deflecting shaft.
Last edited:
Just like all wood shafts are not the same, all CF shafts are not created equal, Becue makes different kinds of CF shafts that are designed for different players preferences for feel, check out their technology page, great cues and shafts.
AverageTXN
New member
I got a chance to hit with the J. Flowers SMO-W shaft yesterday. Not a long demo, but enough to give a first impression.
This shaft performs quite similarly to a full CF shaft. I was able to easily line up and shoot without having to compensate at all, just like with my Revo. It provides a solid, firm hit, but with that added bit of feedback. With the SMO-W, I could tell if I hit exactly where I wanted to and if I struck the cue ball well, thanks to that added feedback. Whereas the Revo is definitely less responsive and more muted. I did not notice a significant drop in performance either. Whatever spin/english I used was nearly identical to the Revo.
Is this shaft the one? Maybe. It's definitely worth trying for a longer period. But it does make me wonder about the PureX Fuze/InFuze shafts. I really want to get a hold of one of those to try now.
This shaft performs quite similarly to a full CF shaft. I was able to easily line up and shoot without having to compensate at all, just like with my Revo. It provides a solid, firm hit, but with that added bit of feedback. With the SMO-W, I could tell if I hit exactly where I wanted to and if I struck the cue ball well, thanks to that added feedback. Whereas the Revo is definitely less responsive and more muted. I did not notice a significant drop in performance either. Whatever spin/english I used was nearly identical to the Revo.
Is this shaft the one? Maybe. It's definitely worth trying for a longer period. But it does make me wonder about the PureX Fuze/InFuze shafts. I really want to get a hold of one of those to try now.
Paul_#_
Well-known member
McDermott's G-core, i-Series shafts have inside the ferrule a carbon-fiber rod and inside that a, probably light, wood dowel. That is a recipe for strength but not for low deflection.
Attachments
oscargrouch
Active member
What's the point?
Wrong. Mass reduction is the key to reducing deflection. You can have stiffness/strength and still be low-def. if mass reduction is done right.
That's why cf used in shafts is hollow. CF used in shafts is not solid rod. The cf tubes used in shafts has less mass than the maple it replaces. What you're saying might apply if solid cf was used in shafts but its not.
Most CF shafts are filled with some type of foam, they are not hollow.
There was a video on Facebook reel of someone cutting different CF shafts to show the difference of the inside
Paul_#_
Well-known member
McDermott's wood shaft has no hollow space behind ferrule. It instead fills it with not just carbon fiber but also wood. If you wish to lighten shaft near ferrule omit the wooden dowel or the carbon fiber rod.
Edit---behind ferrule isn't hollow, it has three layers: wood shaft, CF inside, and wood inside that. To make it lighter and hollow, remove CF and inner wood dowel.
Last edited:
The cf tubes used in some 'wood-over-carbon'(not talking about 100% cf shafts) shafts are hollow tubes. My point is that the way cf is used in shafts allows for a reduction in mass. You're not replacing solid maple with solid cf. If you drill out a solid shaft and insert a hollow cf rod(very high strength/weight ratio) you will maintain stiffness along with a big reduction in mass. Do the same thing with a solid cf rod sure you'd get a mass increase. BTW, the density/mass of cf can vary a lot depending on the type/strength of the cf used along with the type/amount of epoxy used to make it.
Last edited:
If you watch that McDermott video, or look at the diagram of the G-core shaft, the shaft starts as solid maple, they core it, then they stick a carbon tube into the core, then they insert a wood dowel into the carbon tube, resulting in a solid shaft with a layer of carbon. That layer of carbon is heavier than maple. If instead McDermott cored the solid maple shaft, skipped the carbon tube, then inserted a dowel into the core, the shaft would be lighter.
If some of the carbon core shafts are made without inserting a solid wood dowel into the carbon tube, then the shaft could be made lighter than a solid maple shaft.
Building it this way still gets you a weight/mass reduction. Just using a wood dowel would work if it was a lot lighter/less dense. A hollow cf rod is pretty light. Reading their site looks like what they really were trying to do is improve radial. cons. more than anything else. Still has pretty low def. compared to solid maple just based on watchin a couple test vids.
Last edited: