PDA

View Full Version : Switching from OB-2 shaft to Predator Z-2 (again)



Soflasnapper
12-04-2011, 10:53 AM
I'd used the Predator shaft family for some time, starting with the original 314, going eventually to the 314-2, and finally the Z-2, before I found the original OB-1. After switching to the OB-1, I converted to the OB-2 once it came out, and always liked how it played.

Recently I didn't have my usual Jacoby with me at the house, or the OB shafts, so I used an older Predator cue and the Z-2 shaft combination. I liked it so much I wondered if the cue was the reason, but experimented by using the Z-2 on the Jacoby (all are unilock joints).

Now I'm sticking with that Z-2, since it seems to do something great for my accuracy (for no reason I can think of, relative to the OB-2). Maybe it has a stronger taper or something? No idea.

But as I have astounded my opponent with ridiculous stroke shot after ridiculous stroke shot, I have held the cue up to his face and pointed out the Z-2 logo near the joint.

Maybe it's just my game coming together at a higher peak level, which is possible. Nah, it's gotta be the shaft!

Any OB or Z-2 (or other Predator shafts) users who can say their preference between these?

Bambu
12-04-2011, 11:23 AM
I have both the z-2 and the ob-2. If you like a stiff, solid hit, ob is good. But if you prefer whippy, z-2 is better(for you). I plan on selling my ob-2 but havent gotten around to it.

Rich R.
12-04-2011, 01:03 PM
Come on guys. Good cue makers spend a lot of time and effort making great solid maple shafts. You really owe it to yourselves to give them an honest try.

I never tried an after market shaft that I like better than a cue makers solid maple shaft.

Sid_Vicious
12-04-2011, 01:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come on guys. Good cue makers spend a lot of time and effort making great solid maple shafts. You really owe it to yourselves to give them an honest try.

I never tried an after market shaft that I like better than a cue makers solid maple shaft. </div></div>

I do have a few great solid maple shafts, but they are all old wood. I've been an OB convert for years, yet the old wood plays as well, most of the other whiter, solid maple shafts I have are just so-so. You just can't be sure of finding old wood any more, so these aftermarkets have taken hold IMO. sid

Bambu
12-04-2011, 07:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come on guys. Good cue makers spend a lot of time and effort making great solid maple shafts. You really owe it to yourselves to give them an honest try.

I never tried an after market shaft that I like better than a cue makers solid maple shaft. </div></div>

I used regular cues for 20 years, schons and meuccis mostly. Once you go Z, you never go back.

dg-in-centralpa
12-05-2011, 09:03 AM
Will this make you a small size fish now? Seriously, I have an old Predator from 1999. My regular cue is a Jacoby or Richard Black. When the OB first came out, I looked at it at VF. The guy who was there asked me what cue I play with and told him the Black. Didn't have Jacoby at the time. He said,"I guess you don't need this." Some nights I feel more comfortable with the Black that is 2 ounces heavier and some nights it's the Jacoby. Why? Who knows. Maybe it's the slightly different feel with the current combination as well as confidence.

Duane- not an expert by any means

JJFSTAR
12-05-2011, 04:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come on guys. Good cue makers spend a lot of time and effort making great solid maple shafts. You really owe it to yourselves to give them an honest try.

I never tried an after market shaft that I like better than a cue makers solid maple shaft. </div></div>

I shot with standard shafts all my life until I tried a Mac-D “I” shaft. It is a preference; nothing more. These “after market” shafts (BTW I like to use the “damp cue” description much better I think it is more descriptive of their nature, they “dampen” everything; right along with the reduced defection (squirt) you get “dampened” action, for the most part) do squirt less. If one gets used to allowing for deflection over years and the “report” of a standard shaft the new tech will surely fail them, especially at 1st so obviously they won’t like them.

When the 314 came out I hated it, and I still do hate the 314. I think it is the deadest cue I have ever shot with. The bottom line is that it is about what is right for you. These cue makers if you look on their website will all say exactly the same thing about their high performance shaft they will say “this is the perfect shaft, it has the most action and least deflection of any shaft ever produced” well quite frankly it’s all bologna. The best you can do with a shaft is balance it perfectly for a particular player and that’s it. THERE IS NO MAGICAL POOL EQUIPMENT.

I have never seen you shoot so I do not know for sure, I am just speculating. The chances are that allowing for deflection is just a natural part of your game; and when you shot with an after market shaft, high performance cue or damp cue (whatever you want to call it) it didn’t have the same sort of feel that you are used to and when you put english on the ball especially at long range you missed. So I don’t think it’s about “trying good old maple shafts” it is about the feel you like, what you’re used to and what you can run tables with.

Fran Crimi
12-06-2011, 08:49 AM
I'd be interested in trying the OB 2. I use a 314-2 which I like, but I prefer a stiffer hit. Do you or anyone know if the OB 2 is a stiffer hit than the 314-2?

Soflasnapper
12-06-2011, 12:43 PM
Will this make you a small size fish now?

No, a larger one! LOL.

Just out of availability, once I had the Z-2 on my old Predator and also had the Jacoby back in the house (with the OB-2), I had them both out, leaning on the counter together, and switched at random after each inning for the next inning.

It was working fine, even though there is no reason to do that. I decided since they were different weights, different tips, different shapes on the tips, etc., that there was no reason to throw my touch for shape on shots such curveballs repeatedly as switching up all those factors.

While I was doing it, I noticed no obvious or particular difference. But I do think when sticking to one, it is making a difference.

Soflasnapper
12-06-2011, 12:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have both the z-2 and the ob-2. If you like a stiff, solid hit, ob is good. But if you prefer whippy, z-2 is better(for you). I plan on selling my ob-2 but havent gotten around to it. </div></div>

I am quite surprised to see your description of the Z-2 shaft as whippy! Really?

Isn't the lowered deflection exactly from stiffness of the shaft? (If the shaft moves over, from whippiness, the cue ball has to move over more as well, i.e., deflect.)

So far as I can tell, what I'm liking more about the Z-2 is greater stiffness, not the opposite.

Any more you can tell me about this analysis?

Soflasnapper
12-06-2011, 12:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come on guys. Good cue makers spend a lot of time and effort making great solid maple shafts. You really owe it to yourselves to give them an honest try.

I never tried an after market shaft that I like better than a cue makers solid maple shaft. </div></div>

Before (and I guess, still, after) the lowered deflection shafts, there were the stiff (standard materials and construction) shafts of prized cue makers like Dennis Searing. Many still prefer to use his shafts, and switch one of them for even the shaft that came with a cue maker they endorse and use.

For Searing, it's all about the aging (he's got them hanging around to cure by the hundreds in his shop, the shop I went to before he moved anyway), I'm sure the quality of the wood together with the aging, and then, the strong pro taper. TO ACHIEVE STIFFNESS (which reduces deflection).

So, could it be that you've gotten some top of the range standard shafts in terms of stiffness, mooting much if any difference between that hit and the hybrid design lowered deflection shafts?

(Here's where you tell me you've used old standard Meucci shafts, whippy suckers, I'm sure! LOL!)

Bambu
12-06-2011, 07:29 PM
I am quite surprised to see your description of the Z-2 shaft as whippy! Really?

Isn't the lowered deflection exactly from stiffness of the shaft? (If the shaft moves over, from whippiness, the cue ball has to move over more as well, i.e., deflect.)

So far as I can tell, what I'm liking more about the Z-2 is greater stiffness, not the opposite.

Any more you can tell me about this analysis? [/quote]


I could be wrong, but I dont think stiffness effects deflection. The lower deflection comes from a cored out, lower end mass. Now if the shaft flexes/vibrates, it's whippy to me. I like the z-2 alot, but I wouldnt call it solid hitting as compared to other cues. The ball reacts well to the shaft, just in a different way a custom cue would. Still, I cant help but wonder how much of what I like about the Z is due to the narrow tip diameter alone. I never tried one, but a custom 11.75 mm cue that hasnt been cored out, would still have less end mass than an average 13mm shaft(and therefore also less deflection).

Rich R.
12-06-2011, 08:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come on guys. Good cue makers spend a lot of time and effort making great solid maple shafts. You really owe it to yourselves to give them an honest try.

I never tried an after market shaft that I like better than a cue makers solid maple shaft. </div></div>

Before (and I guess, still, after) the lowered deflection shafts, there were the stiff (standard materials and construction) shafts of prized cue makers like Dennis Searing. Many still prefer to use his shafts, and switch one of them for even the shaft that came with a cue maker they endorse and use.

For Searing, it's all about the aging (he's got them hanging around to cure by the hundreds in his shop, the shop I went to before he moved anyway), I'm sure the quality of the wood together with the aging, and then, the strong pro taper. TO ACHIEVE STIFFNESS (which reduces deflection).

So, could it be that you've gotten some top of the range standard shafts in terms of stiffness, mooting much if any difference between that hit and the hybrid design lowered deflection shafts?

(Here's where you tell me you've used old standard Meucci shafts, whippy suckers, I'm sure! LOL!) </div></div>
Sorry Phil, you won't find any Meuccis in my cue cases.

On a regular basis, I play with cues by Scruggs, Lambros, Capone and Barnhart. Yes, they all have their little differences. However, I like them all better than any after market shaft I have tried.

BTW, I have never specified "old growth" shafts or anything else from these cue makers, other than a flat laminated shaft made by Lambros. I get their standard shafts. I will concede that these guys are all pretty picky about the product they put out so, it is possible that the shaft wood they use may be a premium for other cue makers.

Also BTW, please feel free to send me a Searing cue for a test drive anytime you want. Keep in mind, a proper test drive could take a few years. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

I'd order a Searing but I probably wouldn't live long enough to get it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

cushioncrawler
12-09-2011, 03:42 PM
This year i uzed a 13.4mm Eliminator that i got on ebay for $25 -- maple, sneaky pete, 18oz.
I kut the white ferrule off, plus some -- and sanded it down for an 11.25mm Triumph tip.
Wt woz 18oz -- but i kut a bit of butt off my 19oz Eliminator and skrewed it into the 18oz butt -- and added lead -- and the wt iz now 29oz.

I did hav it set up at 34oz for a while -- this woz probly better than the 29oz combo.

I bort four Eliminators, for $25 eech -- 18oz, 19oz, 20oz and 21oz.
Beware of cheap imitations.
mac.

cushioncrawler
12-09-2011, 03:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">......Come on guys. Good cue makers BTW, I have never specified "old growth" shafts or anything else from these cue makers, other than a flat laminated shaft made by Lambros. I get their standard shafts. I will concede that these guys are all pretty picky about the product they put out so, it is possible that the shaft wood they use may be a premium for other cue makers.....</div></div>I woz talking to an oldtimer about an old time cue-maker now gone.
He mentioned that the best shafts were made from regrowth wood -- here he possibly meant the new shoots that shoot from a stump.
I would hav thort that old slow growth gave better propertys than new fast growth.

But then again i hav read writings that sayd that a wide grain woz better for a shaft than a narrow grain.

Any thorts???
What do pool cue-smiths say???
mac.

Fran Crimi
12-09-2011, 04:21 PM
Ray Schuler used to say to me that a narrower grain is a sign of stronger wood, like with ash, which is used often for snooker cues. You can really see the grain. A lot of pool players, as opposed to snooker players, don't like to see the grain. Ray made a pool shaft for me out of ash once. I must admit that it was hard to get used to because of the grain.

The other question is what actually makes a 'good shaft?' Maybe you don't want the wood so be so stiff. I noticed that the ash shaft didn't deflect much and I had to compensate more for cb squirt as opposed to my maple shaft with the same taper.

Soflasnapper
12-09-2011, 07:45 PM
mac, those higher weights for breaking?

cushioncrawler
12-10-2011, 07:08 AM
No the hi wts were for just hitting straight -- partikularly (but not only) for shots with no side and no skrew.

I tend to make the qball go left when under pressure -- especially for slow shots hitting center-ball -- especially for what shood be unmissable shots -- and the heavy cues fix things (a bit).

I hav uzed hi wt cues in the past -- uzually 22oz or 24oz or 28oz or even over 30oz -- uzually when my stroke woz inkonsistent -- or sometimes when konsistent but konsistently off.
But i allways went back to standard low wts when i thort my stroke woz better.
Standard wts are better for forcers and power-skrew -- just az the science sez.

In the past i liked having the wt foreward a bit or a lot -- this foreward balance helped (me) more (i think).
But sometimes the wt took the balance back a bit -- and the latest efforts take the balance a long way back.

BACK iz eezyer to engineer than FOREWARD -- adding wt in the end of the butt iznt diffikult.
But i wanted to try it further back anyhow -- and this year i think further back iz more effektiv (for me).

I will keep this hi-wt etc going in 2012 -- the first billiards event iz in March 2012.
I think i will stick to 29oz -- but i might go back to say 25oz -- and i dont think i will ever go back to standard wts.
mac.

cushioncrawler
12-10-2011, 08:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fran Crimi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ray Schuler used to say to me that a narrower grain is a sign of stronger wood, like with ash, which is used often for snooker cues. You can really see the grain. A lot of pool players, as opposed to snooker players, don't like to see the grain. Ray made a pool shaft for me out of ash once. I must admit that it was hard to get used to because of the grain.

The other question is what actually makes a 'good shaft?' Maybe you don't want the wood so be so stiff. I noticed that the ash shaft didn't deflect much and I had to compensate more for cb squirt as opposed to my maple shaft with the same taper.</div></div>Walter Lindrum sayd that a wide grain woz best -- but az u say "best for what". Plus he sayd that a straight grain woz best.
Certainly i held Walters cue (hiz 1960 cue) in my hands a few years ago (Wally died in 1960) and it woz the most amazing cue i ever saw.

It had i think 2 arrows on one side (its an ash cue, ash cues hav arrows formed by the grain) -- and 2 arrows on the other side.
But the amazing thing iz that all 4 arrows went away from u -- ie they pointed foreward.
This meant that the grain woz perfiktly straight -- something that Wally sez iz dezirable (in hiz book) -- but something i hav never ever seen on any other cue.

And the fakt that it had only 2 arrows (on one side) iz amazing.
Most (ash) cues hav at least 3 or 4.

Perhaps some maple cues hav a perfiktly straight grain -- but u karnt eezyly see arrows on maple cues -- and pool players dont seem to bother or care about this stuff anyhow.

Do usofa cue-smiths bother about having straight grain???
I suppoze that the question duznt arize if u hav a laminated shaft.

Anyhow, back to the story -- every other ash cue i hav ever seen had arrows pointing away on one side -- but on the other side the arrows allways pointed to u -- or sometimes there were no real arrows on that other side.

Except that this year i did finally see one other cue that had arrows pointing away from u on both sides.
And, it had the same number of arrows on both sides (i think 3) -- hencely the grain woz perfiktly straight, and fairly wide-grained (but not az wide grained az Wally's).

The cue woz a Walter Lindrum replica -- and this woz written on the name plate.
It had been specially made for the Ozz champion, Matt Bolton -- made by a famous Asian cue-smith, and prezented to Matt free of charge (Matt sayd).

I explained this stuff to Matt -- he woznt aware of most of this stuff.
It appears that the asian cue-smith knew something about straight grain and about Walter that other cue-smiths didnt.

I told Matt that the cue woz aktually a replica of the cue uzed by Wally in 1930 -- u kood tell by the butt.
Wally's cue-butt seen in photos from that era woz mostly black ebony with a small (brown) extension spliced onto it uzing i guess a different wood (az did Matt's replica).

The current world billiards champion (Mike Russell of England) woz uzing a cue in 2010 that had about 10 arrows on eech side -- and theze pointed away on one side, and to u on the other side -- ie the cue had a very fine grain, and a very crooked grain, the exakt opposite of what Wally sayd.

By the way, Mike beat Matt in the 2010 final.
If Mike woz uzing hiz 20-arrow cue (Mike changes cues like he changes sox), then that final would hav seen a 20-arrow cue (a worlds record probly) versus a 6-arrow cue.
It would hav been a bit like a McEnroe versus Borg tennis final -- ie Borg had the tightest strings in tennis, and McEnroe had the softest strings in tennis.

Anyhow, back to the main topik -- a narrow grain iz probly stronger than a wide grain. But i wonder if the strength to wt ratio iz larger.

Anyhow, i notice that usofa cue-smiths measure all sorts of strengths and modulii for woods in all sorts of direktions, so it iz a komplikated subjekt.

Anyhow, squirt etc iz suppozedly mainly affekted by endmass they say -- but i dont entirely agree, i reckon that shaft stiffness counts too, but Dr Dave and Bob Jewett dont agree.

I think that in theory ash iz stronger in some ways or in all ways to maple -- if the 2 shafts are the same size i think the ash shaft iz stiffer, ie stronger.
However, Dr Dave would say that the squirt woz the same if the endmass woz the same.
However, Fran iz suggesting that ash squirts more -- which i would agree with, koz ash iz stiffer.

I know that maple iz "stiffer" along the grain (00dg), ie kompared to akross the grain (90dg). And ash likewize.
But i suspekt that the difference iz more marked in ash than in maple -- i dont know. I only mention this koz if someone out there iz going to put some hours into looking into this stuff then he/she had better watch the grain.
If stiffness affekts squirt, then the direktion of the grain affekts squirt.
If Dr Dave and Bob are korrekt, then the direktion of the grain iz not important.

If stiffness affekts squirt then that might be one reason that Wally recommends a wide grain. Alltho az allready mentioned we dont know whether Wally wanted more squirt or less, or whether Wall had some other reason.
mac.

cushioncrawler
12-10-2011, 09:07 AM
I bort 4 Eliminator 13.4mm cues koz i wanted to experiment with fat shafts.

I had been talking to a New Zealand player who uzes a (i think) 12.75mm pool cue, for English Billiards -- he haz 2 Predators butts (i think), with Z1 and Z2 (maple) shafts (i karnt really remember what all of this means).

I hav say 20 ash and maple cues with tips from 8.6mm to 11.25mm.
I find that every cue iz better than every other cue, for some shot, sometime, somewhere.

Anyhow, i woz happy to see that the Eliminators had very fat butts -- much fatter than billiards and snooker cues.
In fakt now that i hav spent a year uzing Eliminators my billiards cues (butts) feel much too skinny -- and i feel sure that i will never go back to english cues.
Except that 3 of my old cues hav fat butts -- two 1898 Alcocks, and one (1895??) Peall.

Anyhow, i experimented with the pool cues -- sanding the ferrules and tips down thinner (down to 10mm at times)-- sanding the shafts thinner (down to 9mm at times) -- kutting the ferrules off -- kutting length off (a little at a time) -- taking the wts out (out of the butts) -- adding wt in the butts (uzually lead) -- adding wt in the joints (joints are sneaky petes).
I experimented with hundreds of such changes and kombinations.

The four shafts on the Eliminators kood be interchanged -- but then some combinations had a slight bend -- which woz ok by me -- i uzually go better with a bend.

But in the end i am now uzing the 18oz butt and its proper 18oz shaft -- this kombo iz dead straight -- but az i hav allready sayd the full wt iz now 29oz.
And i eventually settled on a 11.25mm tip -- and it duznt hav a ferrule, just a plain wood shaft (in the 60's when i first started playing none of the cues had ferrules).

But the shaft iz a bit too whippy (thin) i think -- ie the taper iz i think a bit too parallel for me -- ie i think i might go better with a stronger taper.
But u karnt add wood -- i might keep a lookout for a thicker pool cue.

Anyhow i will keep uzing my Eliminator in 2012.
Beware of cheap imitations.
mac.

MasseRob
02-21-2012, 04:38 PM
I have both of those as well, I love my jacoby cues, I just ordered their new performance shaft, The Jacoby Edge Hybrid.

I order it at 12mm tip diameter and will be equipping a Kamui Black SS tip. Once I get it, I am going to test all three to each other.

SpiderMan
04-02-2012, 03:51 PM
"Lower deflection" shafts/cues are intended to deflect the cueball less, not the the shaft. When you strike the cueball off-center, the shaft deflects to one side and the cueball to the other. The heavier object deflects less, so low-deflection cues minimize effective end mass of the shaft. This makes the shaft deflect more and the cueball less.

Various methods are employed to achieve low effective end mass - smaller diameter, lighter materials, hollow cores, etc. In theory a stiffer shaft should cause more cueball deflection, but I believe it is a second-order effect. The resistance to shaft bending is probably not as significant as the F=MxA force which is accelerating these objects sideways.

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
04-02-2012, 04:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But as I have astounded my opponent with ridiculous stroke shot after ridiculous stroke shot, I have held the cue up to his face and pointed out the Z-2 logo near the joint.

Maybe it's just my game coming together at a higher peak level, which is possible. Nah, it's gotta be the shaft!

Any OB or Z-2 (or other Predator shafts) users who can say their preference between these? </div></div>

Isn't the Z-2 the one with the stiff taper and very small tip diameter?

If so, and if these astounding shots are power draws, english, etc, then it may be at least partly due to the smaller tip size. If you aim the centerlines of a large tip (OB's are mostly made at 12.75 mm) and a much-smaller tip both at the same offset from center on a cueball, the smaller tip will physically contact the CB further away from center.

So, if you are aiming at the same offset with your Z2 as you did with your OB shaft, you're going to get more action. Jacked-up shots off the rail are also going to work a little easier with a smaller shaft/tip diameter.

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
04-02-2012, 04:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fran Crimi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd be interested in trying the OB 2. I use a 314-2 which I like, but I prefer a stiffer hit. Do you or anyone know if the OB 2 is a stiffer hit than the 314-2? </div></div>

I've worked on, re-tipped, and hit balls with a number of Predators and OBs, though I play with a standard shaft.

If by "stiff" you refer to a resistance to sideways bending, then the OB-2 is reasonably stiff. It does, however, have a very "soft" feel to the hit. As a rough analogy, a hard tip on the OB sounds/feels like a medium tip on a more-conventional cue. I suspect that this is at least somewhat due to the ferrule being made of wood, with the grain sideways rather than longitudinal.

I recently spoke to Royce about replacing the pad on one of his cues, and he said that I should use carbon-fiber pads like the original. Standard pads are not as stiff, and he believed that this would eventually allow ferrule damage. In my mind, this somewhat validates my "soft ferrule" thinking.

Some people like this softer feel, some don't, and some are indifferent to it. I guess it's personal preference. I do know a lot of our local players like the OB.

SpiderMan

cushioncrawler
04-02-2012, 04:48 PM
I sort of disagree with some of that skoolkid mathLand swerv and squirt and squerve stuff.

Last week i put aside my Eliminator, and pulled out my 3-pce cue.
A year or two ago i got my cuesmith to make a 3/4 jointed snooker cue into a 3-pce, by putting a 4.5oz joint i think 14" from the tip.
He woz amazed, and i woz amazed. The squerve changed -- it bekame negativ.
This iz for slightly longer range shots, ie for a 12' table, with the uzual amount of jackingup.

I think i then shortened the 3-pce. I think it woz less than 10mm, and i made it 10.2mm.
And then this week i shortened it some more and made it 11.25mm -- the woody tip-shaft iz now 10.5" long, and the brass joint iz a further 1-5/8".

I dont think that it now haz a negativ squerve. Partly due to the new qtip being so soft. I might havta change the tip if it duznt harden up proper.

At prezent the cue karnt skrew for nuts. Nice for stun but.
mac.

SpiderMan
04-05-2012, 06:03 PM
Nice thing about physics - it doesn't require that you agree /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

SpiderMan

cushioncrawler
04-06-2012, 04:01 AM
I love physics, and i love math.
But math duznt explain how a 4oz wt 11" from the tip kan affekt squirt and swerv and squerv.
And, if it did explain/predikt, it would predikt that the extra wt would inkreec squerve -- but u might remember that i sayd that the extra wt in fakt made the squerv negativ.
I arrest my case your honor. Your witness.
mac.

LoneWolf
08-24-2012, 04:54 AM
Why is it that you buy a predator shaft? If it's to reduce deflection you must know that's all in the grip of the cue. I play with a house cue and have almost no deflection.