Wood over CF shaft options

[Black-Balled]

I agree.
Remember the days where guys would count the number of wood grains that ran off the edge of the shaft? Or how many rings there were looking at the end of the shaft? I'm guessing a CF tube eliminates the need for that sort of thing, if there ever really was a need for it.
Also likely reduces the risk of warpage, and since smaller pieces are used in the construction, it should reduce drying times and they can use lower density wood, especially in the core and still have a stiff hit and likely almost all shafts would have the same "hit". And with their lifetime warrantee it probably reduces cost and increases customer satisfaction in general.

A fine summary!

 

[Paul_#_]

Also likely reduces the risk of warpage, and since smaller pieces are used in the construction, it should reduce drying times and they can use lower density wood, especially in the core and still have a stiff hit and likely almost all shafts would have the same "hit". And with their lifetime warrantee it probably reduces cost and increases customer satisfaction in general.

In any event, it is not the way to reduce deflection.

McDermott's Defy carbon-fiber-only shaft also mimics McDermott's effort to make their i-series and G-core shafts non-Revo like. Defy's carbon fiber is different from other companies's CF. As McDermott states on its website about a component in the carbon fiber rod:

SmacWrap, originally designed for the aerospace industry, absorbs vibration and dampens noise resulting in a confident hit with a soft feel and quiet sound.​

OK, it is remarkable stuff, but that accomplishment of a 'confident hit' (read not a Revo hit) and quiet sound (read not a Revo tink) comes at a cost of lessening the energy transfer efficiency to the cue --- significantly. Its a sort of joke but it is an accurate test of relative energy transfer efficiency by dropping a shaft on a pool table and seeing how far it bounces. The higher the bounce, the more energy transferred. Defy doesn't bounce while other shafts do. Proof enough this CF shaft lives up to company hype that their shaft is different. But it comes with a cost of less oomph to each hit.

Find Bob Jewett and Dr Dave's bounce-test of whole cues not done on a pool table by clicking here. See bar bouncing of Defy shaft by clicking here.

 

[overlord]

I just want a little more feel. I understand all the performance aspects of CF. That's why I use CF right now. But CF can't give you feel.

The LD shafts that were made of wood had ' feedback ' problems according to purists.

Many Old School One Pocket players avoided them.

Brand to brand the CF shafts hit different.

I play with a Mezz CF shaft and have no feedback issues.........

Then there is the issue of ferrules, different ferrules play differently............

 

[Jerry R]

In any event, it is not the way to reduce deflection.

McDermott's Defy carbon-fiber-only shaft also mimics McDermott's effort to make their i-series and G-core shafts non-Revo like. Defy's carbon fiber is different from other companies's CF. As McDermott states on its website about a component in the carbon fiber rod:

SmacWrap, originally designed for the aerospace industry, absorbs vibration and dampens noise resulting in a confident hit with a soft feel and quiet sound.​

OK, it is remarkable stuff, but that accomplishment of a 'confident hit' (read not a Revo hit) and quiet sound (read not a Revo tink) comes at a cost of lessening the energy transfer efficiency to the cue --- significantly. Its a sort of joke but it is an accurate test of relative energy transfer efficiency by dropping a shaft on a pool table and seeing how far it bounces. The higher the bounce, the more energy transferred. Defy doesn't bounce while other shafts do. Proof enough this CF shaft lives up to company hype that their shaft is different. But it comes with a cost of less oomph to each hit.

Find Bob Jewett and Dr Dave's bounce-test of whole cues not done on a pool table by clicking here. See bar bouncing of Defy shaft by clicking here.

You are assuming it's everyone goal to make some sort of magical zero deflection shaft. There are many players who are doing just fine with a 30 year old cue with an over 4 ounce shaft that has had no consideration for deflection. Most of those people don't want a drastic change in how they aim if they decide to buy a new cue. A large majority of pool players who are buying these things never even hit a ball with them before the purchase. They just like the way it looks.

Oscar just had a really good run at US Open. He plays with the 12.9mm LP Infuzed shaft because it is not as low of deflection as their other products.

Also, I completely disagree with your assessment of the bounce and energy transfer. Ever hit something with a dead blow hammer?
Just because there is a dampening system within something doesn't change the potential for energy transfer. And some people like a soft, quiet hit.

 

[garczar]

This is what I don't understand. You put the CF in so it can be hollow (or filled w foam which I presume adds negligible weight), thereby reducing end mass blah blah it's lower deflection. So then what is the point of filling the CF with wood?

Balance and sound. They use a wood that is lighter than maple. You still end up with less en mass thus still get squirt reduct.

 

[Paul_#_]

You sre assuming it's everyone goal to make some sort of magical zero deflection shaft

McDermott's goal is not to make a magical zero deflection shaft. It is concentrating more on hit and sound. They use marketing gurus who tell McDermott that hit and sound are very important even if the design increases deflection more than others. Their advertising may, however, be less than clear on this.
As far as the bounce test, take a look at the Jewett/drdave video. Search, too, here for dead blow hammer.
One thing McDermott does is experiment. They don't do the same thing as everyone else. They are not on a race for low deflection. They have concentrated instead on a hit, sound, feel.

 

[Jerry R]

McDermott's goal is not to make a magical zero deflection shaft. It is concentrating more on hit and sound. They use marketing gurus who tell McDermott that hit and sound are very important even if the design increases deflection more than others. Their advertising may, however, be less than clear on this.
As far as the bounce test, take a look at the Jewett/drdave video. Search, too, here for dead blow hammer.
One thing McDermott does is experiment. They don't do the same thing as everyone else. They are not on a race for low deflection. They have concentrated instead on a hit, sound, feel.

So you are saying they are not concentrating on deflection, but earlier you seemed to be critical of them because the design of their shaft doesn't reduce deflection.

I'd be willing to bet that Bob and Dave would both laugh at that 16 year old video. Based on that short clip, you should consider a piece of 1/2 conduit with a phenolic tip for efficiency.
We are now at a point where shaft materials are so light that they routinely add weight for balance. Why not suspend that weight to soften vibration? I'd have to pull one out to check, but I believe the steel weight in the Defy shaft is about 11 or 12 inches from the joint.

 

[garczar]

McDermott's goal is not to make a magical zero deflection shaft. It is concentrating more on hit and sound. They use marketing gurus who tell McDermott that hit and sound are very important even if the design increases deflection more than others. Their advertising may, however, be less than clear on this.
As far as the bounce test, take a look at the Jewett/drdave video. Search, too, here for dead blow hammer.
One thing McDermott does is experiment. They don't do the same thing as everyone else. They are not on a race for low deflection. They have concentrated instead on a hit, sound, feel.

They can say whatever they want. I've watched various test of their shafts and they are lower in deflec., maybe not as low as some but still a lot less than solid wood. A pivot-point of 14-15" is a pretty low-d shaft, they didn't get that by mere chance. Me personally i like the hit/sound of the Viking Vikore better. As for 'zero' deflection? IF that was possible they'd have to re-write the laws of physics.

 

[Paul_#_]

So you are saying they are not concentrating on deflection, but earlier you seemed to be critical of them because the design of their shaft doesn't reduce deflection.y not get more durability

What do I know? Its odd that other companies lower shaft end mass by making the shaft behind the ferrule for a couple inches hollow except for foam versus McDermott plugs the shaft with wood and carbon fiber to boot.

_

 

[Jerry R]

What do I know? Its odd that other companies lower shaft end mass by making the shaft behind the ferrule for a couple inches hollow except for foam versus McDermott plugs the shaft with wood and carbon fiber to boot.

View attachment 846932 _View attachment 846931

Some people just like different things, I guess. In the early 2000's, over 100,000 people went new car shopping and chose the Pontiac Aztek.

 

[Paul_#_]

I'd be willing to bet that Bob and Dave would both laugh at that 16 year old video. Based on that short clip, you should consider a piece of 1/2 conduit with a phenolic tip for efficiency

See more about Bob's opinion in May 2025 on the Defy shaft at AZ link below. I have taken snippets from the post below.

Thread 'Non-low deflection carbon shaft maker?'

May 26, 2025

I'm looking for a power-breaking shaft and would like a thicker walled carbon shaft, not low-deflection carbon break shaft with less power. Any recommendations? Thanks

• TwoRailDave
• Replies: 26
• Forum: Main Forum

If you want to do your own testing of how much cue power will go into the ball, here is a simple way:

Find the hardest possible horizontal surface, like a smooth concrete floor or an exposed steel I-beam. Or maybe a granite headstone. Hold the cue stick vertically above it at a measured distance and release it to fall straight down to the "floor". Find what percentage of the original height it bounces up. That will tell you how "efficient" the tip and cue stick are in transferring energy to the cue ball.

Your tests showed all cues bounced off a 6"x12" chunk of metal. Your results would have been more interesting with a first-generation McDermott Defy shaft. It may not have bounced! You found leather-tipped cues averaged 73% efficiency versus phenolic-tipped cues' 84% --- how low would the Defy have been?

That's a really bad shaft for most purposes. No bounce means a lot of energy is lost in the tip/shaft. It also means that the tip will probably drag on the cue ball for some spin shots -- the ball will not be driven off the tip by the tip rebound.