PDA

View Full Version : Maybe Not So Interesting Table Room Size Myth Debunking

Fred Agnir
04-01-2002, 12:29 PM
I was thinking about this today, for no particular reason. It's something that I've posted in the past to different pool-related forums. It usually goes over people's head quickly and starts a continuation of confusion. For fun, I'll lay it down, and you can all do what you will.

Here it is:

If it helps one person, then this information and its posting is validated. In the back of your mind when you're wondering how much room you need for a pool table, whether buying a new home or building the perfect home room, remember: a pool table is *NOT* twice as long as it is wide. Only the playing area is 2x1. Everything else is not.

As a correlation, *if* 19 ft. is the bare minimum for some of you for comfortability in playing, then the other dimension better be 14' 10" or something of that order, and *NOT* 14' 6". That's because... a pool table is *NOT* twice as long as its width. Believe it or not.

Fred &lt;~~~ waiting for the sounds of scratching heads...

Troy
04-01-2002, 05:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Fred Agnir:</font><hr> I was thinking about this today, for no particular reason. It's something that I've posted in the past to different pool-related forums. It usually goes over people's head quickly and starts a continuation of confusion. For fun, I'll lay it down, and you can all do what you will.

Here it is:

If it helps one person, then this information and its posting is validated. In the back of your mind when you're wondering how much room you need for a pool table, whether buying a new home or building the perfect home room, remember: a pool table is *NOT* twice as long as it is wide. Only the playing area is 2x1. Everything else is not.

As a correlation, *if* 19 ft. is the bare minimum for some of you for comfortability in playing, then the other dimension better be 14' 10" or something of that order, and *NOT* 14' 6". That's because... a pool table is *NOT* twice as long as its width. Believe it or not.

Fred &lt;~~~ waiting for the sounds of scratching heads... <hr></blockquote>

How about keeping it simple --- 15' x 20' ..... /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

Tom_In_Cincy
04-01-2002, 06:23 PM
All rail surfaces being equal, (6 inches) the ratio will never be 2:1
100 inches long with two 6 inch rail surfaces = 112 inches
50 inches wide with two 6 inch rail surfaces = 62 inches.

Not quite a 2:1 ratio

But if you add a 5 foot measurement (lenght of cue resting perpendicular to the rail) to all the sides of a 9 foot table, the dementions will come out to be 19.3 feet. for the long room measurement. and 15.16 feet for the short room measurement. Or, from a simple rule, a 20 x 16 should be more than enough for your table and accessories.

04-02-2002, 08:41 PM
I don't understand why it matters that the table size is 1:2 ratio or not? The cue is only going to be hitting balls on the playing area that is a 1:2 ratio. Think about it - the actual border width around the playing area (the cushions and wood) doesn't make a lick of difference cause you don't play shots off them. Just add 5 - 5 1/2 feet all round the playing area and it will be right.

Alfie
04-02-2002, 11:28 PM
&gt;&gt;&gt; I don't understand why it matters that the table size is 1:2 ratio or not? The cue is only going to be hitting balls on the playing area that is a 1:2 ratio. Think about it - the actual border width around the playing area (the cushions and wood) doesn't make a lick of difference cause you don't play shots off them. Just add 5 - 5 1/2 feet all round the playing area and it will be right. &lt;&lt;&lt;

The minimum room size question should have a precise answer, IMO. An answer like "just say 15x20" could keep someone with a smaller yet big enough room from getting a table. Your answer could result in someone spending big cash for a table only to find out the stroking distance on some shots is too short. A good answer is to say "take the playing area dimensions and add both the length of your cue and 6" stroking distance all the way around." There is a section in the pool FAQ on this.

Fred was addressing a problem that arises with the quick and easy (but wrong, IMO) answer "just add 10' to the nominal table size."

04-03-2002, 10:33 AM
Well, you've got me scratching my head, Fred. If that's true, I see only two possibilities why: either the trim is wider along the sides than the top and bottom, which I doubt, or the skirt of the table is angled more outward along the sides and extends beyond the edge of the rail. I can see the second one being possibly true, due to the design of the ball return. Even if there isn't a return on a particular table, the shell design probably wouldn't change.

Fran

Fred Agnir
04-03-2002, 11:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Well, you've got me scratching my head, Fred. If that's true, I see only two possibilities why: either the trim is wider along the sides than the top and bottom, which I doubt, or the skirt of the table is angled more outward along the sides and extends beyond the edge of the rail. I can see the second one being possibly true, due to the design of the ball return. Even if there isn't a return on a particular table, the shell design probably wouldn't change.<hr></blockquote>

The playing area is twice as long as it is wide. However, when we add rails, you add the same amount of rails to the width as you do to the length. You don't add twice the amount of rail to the length, so you don't have a 2:1 ratio anymore.

I've seen where people said the old " add 10' to the dimensions" and come up with a 19' x 14' 6" room size for a 9' table. Their room might be 18' 10" x 14' 4". Maybe they think they're only giving up two inches per dimension (or an inch per side). The reality is that they're giving up 3" per side on the width. They'll be surprised and will be scratching their head as to why they have a certain stroke length for the lenth of the table, but are much shorter on the width.

Fred &lt;~~~ scratched

Fred Agnir
04-03-2002, 11:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Alfie:</font><hr> A good answer is to say "take the playing area dimensions and add both the length of your cue and 6" stroking distance all the way around." There is a section in the pool FAQ on this.

Fred was addressing a problem that arises with the quick and easy (but wrong, IMO) answer "just add 10' to the nominal table size."<hr></blockquote>

You got it.

SpiderMan
04-03-2002, 06:07 PM
Actually, I think the room should be sized off the playing area more than off the outside of the rails. It's the extreme possible cueball position that determines how far back your stick has to be able to go. Adding more material to the rail width wouldn't necessarily make you need a bigger room.

SpiderMan

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Fred Agnir:</font><hr> I was thinking about this today, for no particular reason. It's something that I've posted in the past to different pool-related forums. It usually goes over people's head quickly and starts a continuation of confusion. For fun, I'll lay it down, and you can all do what you will.

Here it is:

If it helps one person, then this information and its posting is validated. In the back of your mind when you're wondering how much room you need for a pool table, whether buying a new home or building the perfect home room, remember: a pool table is *NOT* twice as long as it is wide. Only the playing area is 2x1. Everything else is not.

As a correlation, *if* 19 ft. is the bare minimum for some of you for comfortability in playing, then the other dimension better be 14' 10" or something of that order, and *NOT* 14' 6". That's because... a pool table is *NOT* twice as long as its width. Believe it or not.

Fred &lt;~~~ waiting for the sounds of scratching heads... <hr></blockquote>

04-03-2002, 06:44 PM
Of course. How obvious. It's one of those "Where is Grant buried?" type things.

Fran