PDA

View Full Version : Throw & cue ball deflection - tip size



johan
09-19-2007, 08:18 AM
Simple testing on a table shows that throw (or cue ball deflection) depends on the ammount of side spin and the height where you hit the ball. Maximum deflection is experienced when playing bottom spin (screw shots) because hitting the cue ball low means that it's 'lifted' gradually from the table cloth (lowering the friction and thus lowering it's resistance to go off line)
Therefor it's most difficult to pot a ball (with a high deflection cue shaft e.g. 13 mm standard cue). This counts for medium paced shots and even more for hard shots where the deviation or throw will be even bigger.
Be aware that most shots are playd with unintentional side spin anyway. And this for all angled shots as this is a natural tendency. Cue ball physics are a very complex matter which most players are clueless about. Having worked on a low deflection cue project together with my friend and top coach Chris Henry (currently coach of snookerlegend Stephen Hendry) for more then 3 years, it has given me the insight that a lot depends on the deflection of your cue. A high deflection cue makes it very difficult to judge the throw as it depends on the strenght of the shot, the height you play it, the degree of side englich and also the distance to the object ball !!! Due to the bigger spectrum of deflection of a standard cue, it is very very difficult to judge how much the cue ball will deflect when playing a shot with intentional side spin. Therefor most players are not capable of playing such a shot consistently. The only solutions is an ultra low deflection cue.
The myth that a 13 or 12mm tip size is 'ideal' has been going on for far too long. This kind of tip size was needed in the old days when ivory balls were used on thick cloths which were slow. These kind of tips were then needed as the balls needed to be struck much harder and thus the cue had to be stronger. Now that people like 'Saluc' (aramith) developped much better (high reactive) balls and now that cloths are much faster, there is no need for this 'broomsticks' (sorry) anymore. The world of 'billiardcues' has not evolved from pre-history as it seems that only predator and a few other companies such as acuerate understand that playing conditions have changed!! Just like in other sports (look at the evolution of tennis rackets for instance ! which adapted to the lighter balls). So for all those who find it hard to play a screw shot with side spin ... just think about these myths and consider to adapt to a smaller tipsize.

The myth that it's easier to hit the 'middle' of the cue ball is also ongoing. 99% of shots are playd with un-intentional side spin anyway! But with a bit tip this will surely result in higher deflection. This means that you will just suffer more throw then with a smaller sized tip. I would say : try it out and see for yourself.

This for your information guys !
Johan

Deeman3
09-19-2007, 08:51 AM
In honor of Dr. Dave's request I will not terrorise this gentleman. There, see...I can be friendly in face of overwealming insight and intellegence far beyond our present day understanding of the sport we so love but are so woefully ignorant of.

I'll play nice for 15 more hours. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

dr_dave
09-19-2007, 09:12 AM
Johan,

If you guys want to understand all of this stuff a little better, you might want to check out my recent articles of throw, squirt, and swerve (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/index.html).

You might also want to check out pertinent links here (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads.html).

Happy reading,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote johan:</font><hr> Simple testing on a table shows that throw (or cue ball deflection) depends on the ammount of side spin and the height where you hit the ball. Maximum deflection is experienced when playing bottom spin (screw shots) because hitting the cue ball low means that it's 'lifted' gradually from the table cloth (lowering the friction and thus lowering it's resistance to go off line)
Therefor it's most difficult to pot a ball (with a high deflection cue shaft e.g. 13 mm standard cue). This counts for medium paced shots and even more for hard shots where the deviation or throw will be even bigger.
Be aware that most shots are playd with unintentional side spin anyway. And this for all angled shots as this is a natural tendency. Cue ball physics are a very complex matter which most players are clueless about. Having worked on a low deflection cue project together with my friend and top coach Chris Henry (currently coach of snookerlegend Stephen Hendry) for more then 3 years, it has given me the insight that a lot depends on the deflection of your cue. A high deflection cue makes it very difficult to judge the throw as it depends on the strenght of the shot, the height you play it, the degree of side englich and also the distance to the object ball !!! Due to the bigger spectrum of deflection of a standard cue, it is very very difficult to judge how much the cue ball will deflect when playing a shot with intentional side spin. Therefor most players are not capable of playing such a shot consistently. The only solutions is an ultra low deflection cue.
The myth that a 13 or 12mm tip size is 'ideal' has been going on for far too long. This kind of tip size was needed in the old days when ivory balls were used on thick cloths which were slow. These kind of tips were then needed as the balls needed to be struck much harder and thus the cue had to be stronger. Now that people like 'Saluc' (aramith) developped much better (high reactive) balls and now that cloths are much faster, there is no need for this 'broomsticks' (sorry) anymore. The world of 'billiardcues' has not evolved from pre-history as it seems that only predator and a few other companies such as acuerate understand that playing conditions have changed!! Just like in other sports (look at the evolution of tennis rackets for instance ! which adapted to the lighter balls). So for all those who find it hard to play a screw shot with side spin ... just think about these myths and consider to adapt to a smaller tipsize.

The myth that it's easier to hit the 'middle' of the cue ball is also ongoing. 99% of shots are playd with un-intentional side spin anyway! But with a bit tip this will surely result in higher deflection. This means that you will just suffer more throw then with a smaller sized tip. I would say : try it out and see for yourself.

This for your information guys !
Johan
<hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
09-19-2007, 09:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> In honor of Dr. Dave's request I will not terrorise this gentleman. There, see...I can be friendly in face of overwealming insight and intellegence far beyond our present day understanding of the sport we so love but are so woefully ignorant of.

I'll play nice for 15 more hours. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif<hr /></blockquote>Deeman,

I'm proud of you. Now go take another Vicodin. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Dave

wolfdancer
09-19-2007, 09:33 AM
Doctor Dave, you are now prescribing drugs? I didn't know you were a Medical Doctor.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I'm sure the Deeman got his start playing with Ivory balls.
I often wonder about those impressive runs back in the days of 10 ft tables, ivory balls, and napped cloth. It was like playing golf with hickory shafts.

dr_dave
09-19-2007, 09:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Doctor Dave, you are now prescribing drugs? I didn't know you were a Medical Doctor.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif<hr /></blockquote>I'm not a medical doctor, but I do occasionally offer free breast exams. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Don't bother to ask about testicle exams ... that's outside of my specialty area. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Regards,
Dave

Deeman3
09-19-2007, 10:10 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

bsmutz
09-19-2007, 03:34 PM
All this stuff has me mythtified.

cushioncrawler
09-19-2007, 07:28 PM
Johan -- I mostly disagree.
Fast cloths havnt made the use of english eezyr. Having to try to get lots of english at slowish pace iz more diffikult.

The modern ball iz krap compared to the oldendayz (harder) ballz. In fakt i suspekt that the ivory ball played better than the modern Krapamiths.

Big tips (ie stiff cues) do not make judging squirt and swerve (squerve) more difficult. Squerve iz more difficult to judge uzing thin (ie flexy) cues.

But, i agree that, for some players, a flexy cue iz more forgiving for some shots (ie at some ranges). Here i am talking about both intentional and unintentional english etc. madMac.

Deeman3
09-20-2007, 07:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> Johan -- I mostly disagree.
Fast cloths havnt made the use of english eezyr. Having to try to get lots of english at slowish pace iz more diffikult. <font color="blue"> This is supported by many oldtimers who say that english "stayed" on the balls longer on the old Simonis (i.e. McGorty according to Robert Byrne) </font color>

The modern ball iz krap compared to the oldendayz (harder) ballz. In fakt i suspekt that the ivory ball played better than the modern Krapamiths. <font color="blue"> I have an incomplete set of ivory balls and have hit a bunch of shots with them. I find, while they are, of course, more inconsistent, they do oddly seem to "more lively" in response off the cue ball, which is Ivory as well. </font color>

Big tips (ie stiff cues) do not make judging squirt and swerve (squerve) more difficult. Squerve iz more difficult to judge uzing thin (ie flexy) cues. <font color="blue"> Yes </font color>

But, i agree that, for some players, a flexy cue iz more forgiving for some shots (ie at some ranges). Here i am talking about both intentional and unintentional english etc. madMac. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> Not sure </font color>

<font color="blue"> I once played around with the idea of a concave tip and actually made a near-fit shape with a lathe into the tip (continuous semitrical profile?), then later a model with a stationary end mill forming the contour of the cue ball at one spot in a tip.

In both cases, a good bit of english/draw follow could be applied but it was very sensitive to tip placement and I did not see much practical application. I still have the second type tip and have thought of bringing it out for, for instance, a very challenging draw shot but probably then would face the chance of a very embarrassing miscue.

What I had done was, of course, increase the surface area of contact but, probably in reality, only gained because of the increased surface of chalk adhesion as the friction/back pressure was spread over a larger area, the pressure of that local area was diminished in terms of friction per sq. mm.

I also got stuck with the flatest tip in the universe in a situation once where I had no choice but to use it and, for monetary reasons, could not "doctor" the tip. My point is, I was very surprised at how well it did perform in the condition. I drew from this that, perhaps, the isolation of the contact area to a very small surface area was not near the problem I had assumed it would be. Is this because the local pressure/friction (cooefficient of friction concentrated) was greater? </font color>

cushioncrawler
09-20-2007, 05:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr><font color="blue"> I once played around with the idea of a concave tip and actually made a near-fit shape with a lathe into the tip (continuous semitrical profile?), then later a model with a stationary end mill forming the contour of the cue ball at one spot in a tip. In both cases, a good bit of english/draw follow could be applied but it was very sensitive to tip placement and I did not see much practical application. I still have the second type tip and have thought of bringing it out for, for instance, a very challenging draw shot but probably then would face the chance of a very embarrassing miscue. What I had done was, of course, increase the surface area of contact but, probably in reality, only gained because of the increased surface of chalk adhesion as the friction/back pressure was spread over a larger area, the pressure of that local area was diminished in terms of friction per sq. mm. I also got stuck with the flatest tip in the universe in a situation once where I had no choice but to use it and, for monetary reasons, could not "doctor" the tip. My point is, I was very surprised at how well it did perform in the condition. I drew from this that, perhaps, the isolation of the contact area to a very small surface area was not near the problem I had assumed it would be. Is this because the local pressure/friction (cooefficient of friction concentrated) was greater? </font color><hr /></blockquote>Dee -- I dont agree with much of the stuff that i have seen re the importance of contact pressure or area etc re tips. I think that tip shape and tip hardness etc etc are (can be) important, but the only time that i ever worryd much about pressure woz when i woz thinking about the high rate of misscues with (my) small hard non-flat tips (this woz years ago) -- i decided that the contact area woz sometimes so small that the poor old tip failed in (tangential) shear (despite the extra pressure at 90dg), ie it woznt an ordinary misscue, but a tip shear failure (albeit near the surface).

I love flat tips -- they are great for skrewing -- in fact u can skrew back say 6 times before u misscue (try that with a convex tip), i mean without rotating the cue to bring a fresh part of the tip into play.

I reckon that the contact area of a flat tip wouldnt be much different to a convex tip, in fact it could be larger -- but this would be eezy to check by looking at the tip-chalk-marks i think. So, the coefficient of friction neednt be doing anything peculiar at all.

I too have done some tests with concave tips. I remember drilling a hole in the center of a tip, to give a sort of concave "action". I thort that it would be forgiving for unintentional off-center hits. I never did give this tip a good testing.

But i did a similar thing. I sanded a flat into the "top" and the "bottom" of a flattish tip. The rezults were spectacular -- very accurate for skrew and english, and especially for masse. But, i allso sanded a valley down the middle of the tip, to make it concave. This woz a dizaster -- now it magnyfyd my natural errors from unintentional off-center contacts -- i still have and uze (occazionally) this tip (cue), but i have remooved the concavity and it iz now flat (actually a bit convex due to use).

Lately i have been thinking about the "best" shape for a tip. A flat tip iz of course really good (for some/most players). I know of only one snooker/billiards player who uzes a perfiktly flat tip, and this year he won the state snooker title for West Ozz. When i asked him about hiz flat tip (years ago), he woz a bit embarrassed, and he said that it would develop some "shape" with use -- but i knew better, i knew that he woz a confirmed "flattie".

Lately, i am leaning towards agreeing with that player around here who posted that the best shape woz the same radius az the ball (ie flattish but not perfiktly flat). This iz what i am uzing today (and i uze an 11.5mm tip whilst most uze 9.5mm), and its wonderfull -- i can still play any sort of shot, and the flattish tip iz very forgiving. Its nice to be able to uze a bit of pivot and the rezult iz a slight "dumbing down", rather than the "magnyfycation" of error and pivot that u get with a concave tip. But i guess that the best (most forgiving perhaps) tip radius will vary from player to player.

Oh, and one more player who uzed a flat tip -- Walter Lindrum -- i held hiz cue in my own hands a few years ago and woz surprized to see that it woz dead flat (for accuracy). Plus, it woz (intentionally) "mushroomed" a bit around the edge(s) -- i figured that this "edge" gave Wally eezy short-range stun for hiz nursery cannons, and, great masse and pique action without having to take out hiz special masse cue. But this stuff iz hiz'n'mine little secret.

Earlyer, when i said that fast bed-cloths were (can be) bad, i do realize that many (pool) players dont like slow bed-cloths. I guess that this iz (mainly) koz K55 etc cushions are very dead (koz they are designed to throw goodish rebound angles rather than goodish speed). madMac.