PDA

View Full Version : Pred. 314(2) X OB-1 shaft



sjatky
06-05-2007, 08:58 AM
Hello, i am just first time on the forum. My name is Mike and i am from Czech republic.
As planning to buy a new shaft, i am deciding between Predator 314(2) and OB-1 shaft. Which one would you recommend me?
if OB-1 i have few questions. Is the wooden ferlure screwed and glued or just gloued? and if this "45 angle felure" is chalk resistand - bcse i hate dirty felures..
thanx for your polite messages and some tips on buying new shaft..
have a nice day Mike

PoolSharkAllen
06-06-2007, 12:52 AM
This topic has come up a few times recently at the AZ Billiards discussion forums (see link below):
http://forums.azbilliards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6

I recently bought a 314-2 myself. However, it appears that the OB-1 is getting quite a few rave reviews too, due to its radial shaft providing a more consistent hit.

Rich R.
06-06-2007, 07:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sjatky:</font><hr>As planning to buy a new shaft, i am deciding between Predator 314(2) and OB-1 shaft. Which one would you recommend me?<hr /></blockquote>
I would recommend the OB-1. It is better than the Predator, without question.

dr_dave
06-06-2007, 08:01 AM
FYI, a comparison of various shafts, based on the amount of cue ball deflection (squirt), can be found here (https://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php).

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sjatky:</font><hr> Hello, i am just first time on the forum. My name is Mike and i am from Czech republic.
As planning to buy a new shaft, i am deciding between Predator 314(2) and OB-1 shaft. Which one would you recommend me?
if OB-1 i have few questions. Is the wooden ferlure screwed and glued or just gloued? and if this "45 angle felure" is chalk resistand - bcse i hate dirty felures..
thanx for your polite messages and some tips on buying new shaft..
have a nice day Mike <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
06-06-2007, 08:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote PoolSharkAllen:</font><hr>radial shaft providing a more consistent hit.<hr /></blockquote>What exactly do you mean by "more consistent hit," and how do you think the shaft contributes to this? I would think hit consistency would depend only on the shooter's stroke and whether the tip is well-shaped and holds chalk well or not (for shots with English). Are you implying that a shaft can somehow help with consistency with shot speed or the amount of English?

Thanks,
Dave

SpiderMan
06-06-2007, 08:48 AM
Dave,

I don't refer anyone to Platinum's squirt comparisons because I can't convince myself that they are accurate. Their reported pivot points differ only by two or three inches from one another when going from a "low" to a "high" squirt shaft. This does not agree with data claimed by other testers, who report much greater differences.

The Platinum site is vapor-thin on details regarding how they arrived at those numbers, only that squirt is measured by a "robot". What are the mechanical details? What, if anything, was done to standardize tip shape/hardness? How was grip and bridge resiliancy simulated? What was the independent variable? Was it a fixed condition of cueball speed and spin, using whatever offset and stroke speed required to achieve that standard condition?

The Platinum chart implies that there isn't a dime's worth of difference in squirt characteristics between "low" and "medium", or between "medium" and "high". An inch or so in pivot point is indistinguishable in play. Does this really agree with players' practical observations?

I'm not convinced these tests accurately represent what a player will experience, and the details that might convince me that these guys have a clue about scientific method are not provided.

SpiderMan



<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> FYI, a comparison of various shafts, based on the amount of cue ball deflection (squirt), can be found here (https://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php).

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sjatky:</font><hr> Hello, i am just first time on the forum. My name is Mike and i am from Czech republic.
As planning to buy a new shaft, i am deciding between Predator 314(2) and OB-1 shaft. Which one would you recommend me?
if OB-1 i have few questions. Is the wooden ferlure screwed and glued or just gloued? and if this "45 angle felure" is chalk resistand - bcse i hate dirty felures..
thanx for your polite messages and some tips on buying new shaft..
have a nice day Mike <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
06-06-2007, 09:59 AM
Spiderman,

I agree Platinum's squirt and pivot point numbers don't seem to vary over as big a range as one would expect (based on experience); but if their experiments have been performed as described on their website, the data offers at least a decent relative comparison. Platinum's results (https://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php) is the only collection of extensive data I have seen. I've also seen Meucci's video (http://www.billiard-deals.com/videos/Meucci%20Black%20Dot%20-%20Entire%20Video%20-%202006.wmv). Meucci is measuring the combined effects of squirt, swerve, and throw, so good squirt numbers are not directly reported, but the video still offers a decent relative comparison between selected shafts. Ron Shepard's squirt paper (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/physics/Shepard_squirt.pdf) reports a squirt angle range of about .5 to 2.3 degrees for low- to high-squirt cues, corresponding to a pivot point range of about 50" to 10". Platinum's data (https://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php) ranges over 1.3 to 2.3 degrees of squirt angle and 7.6" to 14.1" for pivot points. I agree Platinum's low-squirt values seem a little high, and the pivot point numbers seem way off; but, again, if their experiments were done as reported, the data is at least useful for a relative comparison. Do you know of any other published data?

Regards,
Dave

PS: Hopefully, by the end of the year, I will have a reliable and usable squirt-testing machine that I can use to get reliable (and trustworthy) data.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>I don't refer anyone to Platinum's squirt comparisons because I can't convince myself that they are accurate. Their reported pivot points differ only by two or three inches from one another when going from a "low" to a "high" squirt shaft. This does not agree with data claimed by other testers, who report much greater differences.

The Platinum site is vapor-thin on details regarding how they arrived at those numbers, only that squirt is measured by a "robot". What are the mechanical details? What, if anything, was done to standardize tip shape/hardness? How was grip and bridge resiliancy simulated? What was the independent variable? Was it a fixed condition of cueball speed and spin, using whatever offset and stroke speed required to achieve that standard condition?

The Platinum chart implies that there isn't a dime's worth of difference in squirt characteristics between "low" and "medium", or between "medium" and "high". An inch or so in pivot point is indistinguishable in play. Does this really agree with players' practical observations?

I'm not convinced these tests accurately represent what a player will experience, and the details that might convince me that these guys have a clue about scientific method are not provided.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> FYI, a comparison of various shafts, based on the amount of cue ball deflection (squirt), can be found here (https://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php).<hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote>

Tom_In_Cincy
06-06-2007, 10:41 AM
Dave,
OB1 and Predator shafts have that plywood design that provides a consistant hit. Compared to other shafts, there isn't a 'grain' that can have more deflection or less depending on the rotation factor. If the grain is straight up, the deflection/squit is different than if it is horizontal to the cue ball.

That is if you believe Bob Meucci

dr_dave
06-06-2007, 10:47 AM
Thank you for the clarification. The radial symmetry (e.g., from Predator's pie-shaped sections glued together) provides consistency for any shaft orientation. Makes sense to me now.

Thanks,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> Dave,
OB1 and Predator shafts have that plywood design that provides a consistant hit. Compared to other shafts, there isn't a 'grain' that can have more deflection or less depending on the rotation factor. If the grain is straight up, the deflection/squit is different than if it is horizontal to the cue ball.

That is if you believe Bob Meucci <hr /></blockquote>

SpiderMan
06-06-2007, 11:49 AM
The results I have in my mind for reference are anecdotal reports by players on this forum and RSB, but one thing I recall being quoted several times is the phenomenon of very long pivot point for low-squirt cues. I recall reports of pivots long enough that "back-hand english" is useless as compensation. Actually offsetting the bridge hand instead might work better for compensation.

Anyway, the Platinum tests do not seem to be performed in a manner that reproduces this result. If lab experiments can't model real-world observations, then the setup should be questioned.

I don't know what their problem was, but I suspect that their practice of using a constant center-to-center offset is one thing biasing the results. A large-diameter shaft with a flat tip will strike much closer to center, for the same offset, than will a thin shaft with a dime contour. This would produce less squirt in their measurement of the "fat shaft" than would be seen in play, where the player would offset more as required to achive desired CB action.

If I am correct in this analysis, then Platinum's squirt results would be moderated for some cues that would normally squirt badly, and squirt would be accentuated for some some other cues that would normally produce a very long pivot result.

That's why I insist that the "constants" in a legitimate squirt comparison should be both cueball speed and spin. Each cue tested should have it's stroke speed and offset adjusted to achieve this standard "action". Probably the intuitive "pivot and shoot" testing, on which our other observations are based, comes a lot closer to this ideal than Platinum's testing.

SpiderMan

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Spiderman,

I agree Platinum's squirt and pivot point numbers don't seem to vary over as big a range as one would expect (based on experience); but if their experiments have been performed as described on their website, the data offers at least a decent relative comparison. Platinum's results (https://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php) is the only collection of extensive data I have seen. I've also seen Meucci's video (http://www.billiard-deals.com/videos/Meucci%20Black%20Dot%20-%20Entire%20Video%20-%202006.wmv). Meucci is measuring the combined effects of squirt, swerve, and throw, so good squirt numbers are not directly reported, but the video still offers a decent relative comparison between selected shafts. Ron Shepard's squirt paper (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/physics/Shepard_squirt.pdf) reports a squirt angle range of about .5 to 2.3 degrees for low- to high-squirt cues, corresponding to a pivot point range of about 50" to 10". Platinum's data (https://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php) ranges over 1.3 to 2.3 degrees of squirt angle and 7.6" to 14.1" for pivot points. I agree Platinum's low-squirt values seem a little high, and the pivot point numbers seem way off; but, again, if their experiments were done as reported, the data is at least useful for a relative comparison. Do you know of any other published data?

Regards,
Dave

PS: Hopefully, by the end of the year, I will have a reliable and usable squirt-testing machine that I can use to get reliable (and trustworthy) data.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>I don't refer anyone to Platinum's squirt comparisons because I can't convince myself that they are accurate. Their reported pivot points differ only by two or three inches from one another when going from a "low" to a "high" squirt shaft. This does not agree with data claimed by other testers, who report much greater differences.

The Platinum site is vapor-thin on details regarding how they arrived at those numbers, only that squirt is measured by a "robot". What are the mechanical details? What, if anything, was done to standardize tip shape/hardness? How was grip and bridge resiliancy simulated? What was the independent variable? Was it a fixed condition of cueball speed and spin, using whatever offset and stroke speed required to achieve that standard condition?

The Platinum chart implies that there isn't a dime's worth of difference in squirt characteristics between "low" and "medium", or between "medium" and "high". An inch or so in pivot point is indistinguishable in play. Does this really agree with players' practical observations?

I'm not convinced these tests accurately represent what a player will experience, and the details that might convince me that these guys have a clue about scientific method are not provided.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> FYI, a comparison of various shafts, based on the amount of cue ball deflection (squirt), can be found here (https://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php).<hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
06-06-2007, 12:08 PM
Spiderman,

Great summary! You make some excellent points.

FYI, I will be presenting, illustrating, and elaborating on many of these issues in my upcoming series of BD articles dealing with squirt. I've already done some experiments to support the articles, and I hope to do more. The first article will appear in August, 2007. I'm finally done with my throw/spin-transfer series, which lasted 12 articles (the final article will appear in July, 2007). I expect to write about 6 articles on squirt.

Regards,
Dave

PS: I don't have a clue where Platinum got their numbers for the pivot points. They obviously seem wrong.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> The results I have in my mind for reference are anecdotal reports by players on this forum and RSB, but one thing I recall being quoted several times is the phenomenon of very long pivot point for low-squirt cues. I recall reports of pivots long enough that "back-hand english" is useless as compensation. Actually offsetting the bridge hand instead might work better for compensation.

Anyway, the Platinum tests do not seem to be performed in a manner that reproduces this result. If lab experiments can't model real-world observations, then the setup should be questioned.

I don't know what their problem was, but I suspect that their practice of using a constant center-to-center offset is one thing biasing the results. A large-diameter shaft with a flat tip will strike much closer to center, for the same offset, than will a thin shaft with a dime contour. This would produce less squirt in their measurement of the "fat shaft" than would be seen in play, where the player would offset more as required to achive desired CB action.

If I am correct in this analysis, then Platinum's squirt results would be moderated for some cues that would normally squirt badly, and squirt would be accentuated for some some other cues that would normally produce a very long pivot result.

That's why I insist that the "constants" in a legitimate squirt comparison should be both cueball speed and spin. Each cue tested should have it's stroke speed and offset adjusted to achieve this standard "action". Probably the intuitive "pivot and shoot" testing, on which our other observations are based, comes a lot closer to this ideal than Platinum's testing.

SpiderMan

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Spiderman,

I agree Platinum's squirt and pivot point numbers don't seem to vary over as big a range as one would expect (based on experience); but if their experiments have been performed as described on their website, the data offers at least a decent relative comparison. Platinum's results (https://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php) is the only collection of extensive data I have seen. I've also seen Meucci's video (http://www.billiard-deals.com/videos/Meucci%20Black%20Dot%20-%20Entire%20Video%20-%202006.wmv). Meucci is measuring the combined effects of squirt, swerve, and throw, so good squirt numbers are not directly reported, but the video still offers a decent relative comparison between selected shafts. Ron Shepard's squirt paper (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/physics/Shepard_squirt.pdf) reports a squirt angle range of about .5 to 2.3 degrees for low- to high-squirt cues, corresponding to a pivot point range of about 50" to 10". Platinum's data (https://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php) ranges over 1.3 to 2.3 degrees of squirt angle and 7.6" to 14.1" for pivot points. I agree Platinum's low-squirt values seem a little high, and the pivot point numbers seem way off; but, again, if their experiments were done as reported, the data is at least useful for a relative comparison. Do you know of any other published data?

Regards,
Dave

PS: Hopefully, by the end of the year, I will have a reliable and usable squirt-testing machine that I can use to get reliable (and trustworthy) data.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>I don't refer anyone to Platinum's squirt comparisons because I can't convince myself that they are accurate. Their reported pivot points differ only by two or three inches from one another when going from a "low" to a "high" squirt shaft. This does not agree with data claimed by other testers, who report much greater differences.

The Platinum site is vapor-thin on details regarding how they arrived at those numbers, only that squirt is measured by a "robot". What are the mechanical details? What, if anything, was done to standardize tip shape/hardness? How was grip and bridge resiliancy simulated? What was the independent variable? Was it a fixed condition of cueball speed and spin, using whatever offset and stroke speed required to achieve that standard condition?

The Platinum chart implies that there isn't a dime's worth of difference in squirt characteristics between "low" and "medium", or between "medium" and "high". An inch or so in pivot point is indistinguishable in play. Does this really agree with players' practical observations?

I'm not convinced these tests accurately represent what a player will experience, and the details that might convince me that these guys have a clue about scientific method are not provided.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> FYI, a comparison of various shafts, based on the amount of cue ball deflection (squirt), can be found here (https://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php).<hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

SPetty
06-06-2007, 03:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sjatky:</font><hr> As planning to buy a new shaft, i am deciding between Predator 314(2) and OB-1 shaft. Which one would you recommend me?
if OB-1 i have few questions. Is the wooden ferlure screwed and glued or just gloued? and if this "45 angle felure" is chalk resistand - bcse i hate dirty felures.. <hr /></blockquote>Hi Mike,

I am a former Predator 314 player that now plays (if you can call it that! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif) with an OB-1. I like the OB-1 a whole lot better than the Predator 314. I have also found that in my case, the OB-1 shaft produces less squirt than any of my Predators did.

The wooden ferrule is not screwed /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif, but is simply glued. But it's been my experience that it is not chalk resistant. However, the superior playing properties of the shaft more than compensate for a slight blue tinge on the ferrule. The ferrule can be cleaned, but then must be sanded down again to make it smooth again.

Don't forget to come back and let us know what you decided!

PoolSharkAllen
06-06-2007, 08:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote PoolSharkAllen:</font><hr>radial shaft providing a more consistent hit.<hr /></blockquote>What exactly do you mean by "more consistent hit," and how do you think the shaft contributes to this? I would think hit consistency would depend only on the shooter's stroke and whether the tip is well-shaped and holds chalk well or not (for shots with English). Are you implying that a shaft can somehow help with consistency with shot speed or the amount of English?

Thanks,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>
Please reference the following thread from AZB:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=63860

Since it is a rather long thread, I've cut and pasted some of the highlights that were discussed. I'd be interested in knowing what you and others think.

Check out the OB-1 shaft construction page to see how it's made:
http://www.obcues.com/construction.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoolSharkAllen
"I haven't heard this before. Are you saying that if you play with a 314-2, that depending on which way the shaft is rotated, that the hit will be different? Can you prove that the shaft rotation makes a significant difference?"

"Ok here is the deal on the question you asked about. Wood isn't perfect, it never has been because it is a living organism.

When we use it to make shafts each shaft has a spine in it, meaning that if you turn the cue in your hand there will be more or less deflection than the last position you had it in your hand.

Ask cue makers they can tell you about this.

So started the hype behind predator. They cut the wood into pie shape pieces and glue them together in an effort to relieve the spine and therefore be more consistent no matter what position you have the cue in your hand.

Then came along laminated shafts like the T3 and Meucci. They are just strips of laminate glued together. However if the strips are vertical facing there will be a different amount of deflection than if the strips are horizontal facing.

This is why Meucci started putting dots on the shaft. The idea is that if you always put the dot on the top of the cue when you are stroking then you always have the same amount of deflection. (Makes since to me, if you always have the shaft in your hands the same way, and it isn't rotated, then it should hit the same every time.)

Then came along all these other shafts trying to figure out how to make the shaft have less deflection, and be more radial all the way around for the same type of hit.

I think that the OB-1 does this the best of any shaft out there. I think they are more likely to have no spine, and play more consistent no matter how you have the shaft rotated in your hand.

That is the whole reason I bought two OB-1 shafts, and that is why I use them. I didn't buy it for the deflection factor. I bought it for the consistency factor. The deflection rating is just a plus in my opinion."

dr_dave
06-07-2007, 09:06 AM
Great summary! Thanks for the highlights.

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote PoolSharkAllen:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote PoolSharkAllen:</font><hr>radial shaft providing a more consistent hit.<hr /></blockquote>What exactly do you mean by "more consistent hit," and how do you think the shaft contributes to this? I would think hit consistency would depend only on the shooter's stroke and whether the tip is well-shaped and holds chalk well or not (for shots with English). Are you implying that a shaft can somehow help with consistency with shot speed or the amount of English?

Thanks,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>
Please reference the following thread from AZB:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=63860

Since it is a rather long thread, I've cut and pasted some of the highlights that were discussed. I'd be interested in knowing what you and others think.

Check out the OB-1 shaft construction page to see how it's made:
http://www.obcues.com/construction.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoolSharkAllen
"I haven't heard this before. Are you saying that if you play with a 314-2, that depending on which way the shaft is rotated, that the hit will be different? Can you prove that the shaft rotation makes a significant difference?"

"Ok here is the deal on the question you asked about. Wood isn't perfect, it never has been because it is a living organism.

When we use it to make shafts each shaft has a spine in it, meaning that if you turn the cue in your hand there will be more or less deflection than the last position you had it in your hand.

Ask cue makers they can tell you about this.

So started the hype behind predator. They cut the wood into pie shape pieces and glue them together in an effort to relieve the spine and therefore be more consistent no matter what position you have the cue in your hand.

Then came along laminated shafts like the T3 and Meucci. They are just strips of laminate glued together. However if the strips are vertical facing there will be a different amount of deflection than if the strips are horizontal facing.

This is why Meucci started putting dots on the shaft. The idea is that if you always put the dot on the top of the cue when you are stroking then you always have the same amount of deflection. (Makes since to me, if you always have the shaft in your hands the same way, and it isn't rotated, then it should hit the same every time.)

Then came along all these other shafts trying to figure out how to make the shaft have less deflection, and be more radial all the way around for the same type of hit.

I think that the OB-1 does this the best of any shaft out there. I think they are more likely to have no spine, and play more consistent no matter how you have the shaft rotated in your hand.

That is the whole reason I bought two OB-1 shafts, and that is why I use them. I didn't buy it for the deflection factor. I bought it for the consistency factor. The deflection rating is just a plus in my opinion." <hr /></blockquote>

PoolSharkAllen
06-07-2007, 09:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Great summary! Thanks for the highlights.

Regards,
Dave
<hr /></blockquote>

Dave, Since you and I live in Colorado, we don't have any OB-1 retailers nearby to try out the OB-1 shaft.

Does anyone have a opinion on the essence of the AZB thread -- Does the way a shaft is rotated make that much of a difference in the consistency of the hit?

DeadCrab
06-07-2007, 10:36 AM
Just a couple of beginner's questions:

1) If you go to a dealer, would you likely be allowed to actually hit balls with one?

2) How do you optimally match the shaft with a butt? Do you have to buy an entire cue, or can they sell you a butt for the OB-1?

3) How does the OB-1 compare with the McDermott I series, which is advertised as optimal for particular playing styles?

Doc
06-07-2007, 11:48 AM
I almost did not buy a low deflection shaft after reading the Platinum squirt comparisons. It did not seem like much to gain. I kept looking into the idea of one of these type of shafts for consistency and finally purchased the OB-1. Not only is the shaft a pleasure to hit with, the decrease in deflection is very noticable (not the 1/2 inch that is shown in the Platinum test results).
I do not know about the other shafts, but I became a believer in the OB-1 shaft.
My 2- cents.
Thanks
Robert "Doc" T

PoolSharkAllen
06-07-2007, 12:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DeadCrab:</font><hr>
Just a couple of beginner's questions:

1) If you go to a dealer, would you likely be allowed to actually hit balls with one?

2) How do you optimally match the shaft with a butt? Do you have to buy an entire cue, or can they sell you a butt for the OB-1?

<hr /></blockquote>
1. It depends. Predator does have retailers that may have demo cues that you can try out on-site. Check out the predatorcues.com web site for dealer locations, then call and ask if you can try one out. Ditto for OB-1 cues, go to obcues.com .

2. Find out what size cue joint you have, then order the corresponding shaft that's appropriate for your cue joint.

SpiderMan
06-07-2007, 12:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Doc:</font><hr> I almost did not buy a low deflection shaft after reading the Platinum squirt comparisons. It did not seem like much to gain. I kept looking into the idea of one of these type of shafts for consistency and finally purchased the OB-1. Not only is the shaft a pleasure to hit with, the decrease in deflection is very noticable (not the 1/2 inch that is shown in the Platinum test results).
I do not know about the other shafts, but I became a believer in the OB-1 shaft.
My 2- cents.
Thanks
Robert "Doc" T <hr /></blockquote>

Robert,

As discussed elsewhere in this thread, I don't believe the Platinum results are accurate, primarily because they chose the wrong independent variable for their testing. Their "constant offset" methodology might be responsible for artificially representing the performances as too near one another.

At any rate, there seems to be a lot of independent testing that disagrees with the Platinum chart.

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
06-07-2007, 12:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote PoolSharkAllen:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Great summary! Thanks for the highlights.

Regards,
Dave
<hr /></blockquote>

Dave, Since you and I live in Colorado, we don't have any OB-1 retailers nearby to try out the OB-1 shaft.

Does anyone have a opinion on the essence of the AZB thread -- Does the way a shaft is rotated make that much of a difference in the consistency of the hit?

<hr /></blockquote>

It's true to some extent. For example, if you orient the edge grain of your shaft vertically, it will bend somewhat easier side-to-side than up-and-down. This can be verified using a spring scale.

It may be arguable whether grain orientation substanially affects squirt characteristics, though. Dr Dave and others have shown by analysis that the shaft's static resistance to bending is only a secondary influence compared to effective end mass. And I'd expect that effective end mass is mostly orientation-independent.

On the other hand, response and "feel" characteristics such as vibration/damping may be influenced by orientation on off-center hits. I don't personally notice this using my conventional shaft, but flat-laminated shafts might possibly exhibit more directionality in their flex characteristics.

SpiderMan

Jal
06-07-2007, 02:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>As discussed elsewhere in this thread, I don't believe the Platinum results are accurate, primarily because they chose the wrong independent variable for their testing. Their "constant offset" methodology might be responsible for artificially representing the performances as too near one another.

At any rate, there seems to be a lot of independent testing that disagrees with the Platinum chart.<hr /></blockquote>Spiderman,

Between the short pivot length group and the very long pivot length group, my guess is that the short pivot length is right...if the answer doesn't lie in-between.

For one, there are obvious potential problems with the aim-and-pivot test. If the players that perform it judge a full hit by having the cueball stop dead (while spinning), throw and post-impact masse can explain at least a significant part of the discrepancy. However, if the contact area is wetted and a player judges a full hit by the object ball's direction (ignoring the cueball's post-impact behavior completely), these problems are eliminated.

For another, it's hard to see what could be going so wrong with the robotic tests, as long as they're reasonably precise about setting up the tip offset. Even if they don't bother to use the same tip curvature on all of the cues, the difference between a quarter-radius and and a dime-radius only results in a 9% difference in offset. And the fatness of the cue has no effect on this, at least from the geometry itself.

Predator's data agrees with Platinum's data for their cues. I do believe the same person, Steve Titus, was responsible for building both test setups, so maybe that's not a surprise. But you would think that Predator has taken a long hard look at the equipment and procedures, and would be overjoyed to report the extremely low-squirt figures, if they possibly could. But they don't.

And it's not just Platinum against the world. A few pretty knowledgeable posters have also done some testing and believe the short pivot point numbers, amongst them Colin Colenso who is a student of backhand english.

You may be right, but from what I know, I would say the odds are in favor of Platinum.

Just some observations.

Jim

dr_dave
06-07-2007, 03:23 PM
Jim,

Great post. I have some comments below.

Regards,
Dave
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>As discussed elsewhere in this thread, I don't believe the Platinum results are accurate, primarily because they chose the wrong independent variable for their testing. Their "constant offset" methodology might be responsible for artificially representing the performances as too near one another.

At any rate, there seems to be a lot of independent testing that disagrees with the Platinum chart.<hr /></blockquote>Spiderman,

Between the short pivot length group and the very long pivot length group, my guess is that the short pivot length is right...if the answer doesn't lie in-between.

For one, there are obvious potential problems with the aim-and-pivot test. If the players that perform it judge a full hit by having the cueball stop dead (while spinning), throw and post-impact masse can explain at least a significant part of the discrepancy. However, if the contact area is wetted and a player judges a full hit by the object ball's direction (ignoring the cueball's post-impact behavior completely), these problems are eliminated.<hr /></blockquote>
Jim,

Wetting the contact area on the OB will greatly reduce the throw effect, but swerve will still be a factor. Am I missing something here?

BTW, silicone spray (on both the CB and OB) is another useful tool for dramatically reducing both throw and swerve. I've been doing a bunch of squirt experiments lately, and the effects of the silicone spray have been dramatic.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>For another, it's hard to see what could be going so wrong with the robotic tests, as long as they're reasonably precise about setting up the tip offset. Even if they don't bother to use the same tip curvature on all of the cues, the difference between a quarter-radius and and a dime-radius only results in a 9% difference in offset. And the fatness of the cue has no effect on this, at least from the geometry itself.<hr /></blockquote>Another issue with the current testing robots is cue stick elevation. It sure would be nice to build a tester with a perfectly horizontal cue stick. Then, swerve won't affect the results at all. I hope to have such a system built by the end of the year.

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>Predator's data agrees with Platinum's data for their cues. I do believe the same person, Steve Titus, was responsible for building both test setups, so maybe that's not a surprise. But you would think that Predator has taken a long hard look at the equipment and procedures, and would be overjoyed to report the extremely low-squirt figures, if they possibly could. But they don't.

And it's not just Platinum against the world. A few pretty knowledgeable posters have also done some testing and believe the short pivot point numbers, amongst them Colin Colenso who is a student of backhand english.

You may be right, but from what I know, I would say the odds are in favor of Platinum.

Just some observations.

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

SpiderMan
06-07-2007, 03:24 PM
Jim,

If the "pivot" testers are wrong, and Platinum is right, then there shouldn't be much discernable difference in cues. "Low-squirt" cues would be pretty much a myth if they only reduced the squirt angle by 20% - not worth messing with.

While I agree that the pivot-point test may not be absolutely accurate (especially when stop-ball action is used to terminate the iterations), it should certainly be able to provide relative comparisons. If, as calculated by Platinum, two cues really pivot within a few inches of each other, then a real-world pivot test should not find them differing by a couple of feet or more. I've never owned a "low-squirt" cue, so I've not personally observed two-foot pivots in such a test, but there seem to be many who have reported such. The same testers report 9-inch numbers for other cues under the same conditions.

I would tend to vouch for the sensitivity of the test in discriminating between seemingly-minor differences. I use BHE as a cross-check when lining up shots, and I have found that I can seemingly discern different pivot points for different cueballs. The cueball mass change is never greater than about 3/8 ounce, or about 6%. That implies that aim/pivot is a reasonably-sensitive technique.

I agree that a "real" nickel and dime are not that different in curvature. But in the real world there is much more variation. Plus there are the shaft-diameter and tip-hardness issues as well.

For constant offset, a fat shaft with a hard flat tip would have an effective contact point (center of squash region) substantially closer to CB center than a thinner shaft with more curvature and a soft tip. This difference would not be the same as just comparing a nickel and dime, though an observer might declare the tips to have those exact characteristics. And taken to the limit, if the tip is soft enough, then the effective contact point approaches the centerline of the tip.

SpiderMan

ras314
06-07-2007, 06:58 PM
For what it's worth I would learn how to chalk the tip without getting chalk on the ferrule, rather than pick a shaft on how easy the ferrule is to clean. A dirty ferrule is one of my many excuses for playing poorly. And do NOT loan the cue out!

Only objections I have to the 314 shaft is that the wood seems to be soft (is easily dinged) and the hit seems to vary a bit depending on speed, seems to be more limber on hard hard hits. I suspect the ferrule may also be difficult to replace, as would be the OB-1.

With that said, I recently bought a OB-1 shaft for my Predator and now prefer it. This is with the same tip (Talisman) but is not the 314(2). Difficult to pinpoint why, except it feels more consistent with speed of hit. It has taken some time to get used to the wood colored tip.

As a disclaimer, I must add that I am an old timer still looking for that magic wand. Also I don't seem to be much concerned with squirt, just consisentcy /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

ras314
06-07-2007, 07:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DeadCrab:</font><hr>
Just a couple of beginner's questions:

1) If you go to a dealer, would you likely be allowed to actually hit balls with one?

2) How do you optimally match the shaft with a butt? Do you have to buy an entire cue, or can they sell you a butt for the OB-1?

3) How does the OB-1 compare with the McDermott I series, which is advertised as optimal for particular playing styles? <hr /></blockquote>

1)no idea, except the folks at the recent BCA nationals were not adverse to letting me try the shaft on my Predator.

2)Shaft fit the Predator butt well with no "warp" roll, but not matched as well as a custom cue.

3)I am lost on this one. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif