Meucci Robot Tests
Ken Bour
performing SQUIRT tests of every cue/shaft combo willing to be measured.
Consistently, the Meucci shaft/cue outperformed every other comer and by
wide margins (20-50% and more). What I would like to know is this: are
the tests valid?
Some random factoids:
1) The Meucci booth was, literally, across the aisle from Predator's
exhibit area. I couldn't help but ask both Alan and Shane, at Predator, if
they had any thoughts on what might be right/wrong with Meucci's tests.
There were no hypotheses offered as to what might explain the fact that the
P shaft/cue combinations performed substantially worse than any/all Meucci's
put into the machine.
2) I checked the alignment of cueball, object ball, lazer sight, chalk on
tip, mechanical part movements, etc. etc. -- looking for anything that might
be different between successive trials. I watched very carefully and could
find nothing that would suggest that the experiment was flawed. From all
appearances, every cue was placed in the machine the same way, measured
similarly, shot with the same speed, chalked the same, etc. The only thing
I found that was consistently different was the hardness of the tips used.
The Meucci had a Water Buffalo or equivalent tip -- extremely hard. Could
that change alone produce substantially less squirt? I asked Alan that
question and he said, "No, not from anything he has observed."
3) Mike Massey stopped by Meucci's booth with a "low squirt" shaft made by
Shuler at his specific request. According to Mike, the shaft was hollowed
out and a very short ferrule (1/2") was used. Massey told me that it was
the lowest squirting shaft he had ever found. That shaft produced results
that, according to Bob Meucci, were among the best that he had seen so far
at the show. Still, the Meucci red dot that he tested outperformed Massey's
equipment by about 15-20% (I forget the exact numbers).
4) Another friend pulled out a Parrot cue with a P shaft. Meucci tested
it. It didn't do too badly, but was about 25% worse than the Meucci.
Meucci then put one of his red dot shafts on the Parrot butt and it
performed about 10% better than the P-shaft! I commented that it wasn't
very much different and Bob M stated that the best results come from the
Meucci red dot shaft on a Meucci butt.
One thing that I wanted to test, but didn't, was grabbing any Meucci red dot
cue off someone's "For Sale" table, and subjecting it to the test. The only
Meucci cue that I saw tested was the "Power Piston (?)" model that he
already had available.
Even though I saw this testing done last year and largely ignored it, I
found myself drawn in this time. Now I want to know if the testing is
legitimate. Shane told me that he has offered to have independent testing
done by impartial third parties and Meucci has steadfastly refused. Hmmm...
Could it be that the Meucci's do, in fact, produce 25-40% less squirt than
the Predator (and 50% less than the rest of the pack) or is there someone
behind that curtain we're supposed to ignore?
I may just purchase a Mecci red dot and try it for myself. That wouldn't be
such a bad idea if they weren't so butt ugly (is that where that term came
from?)
Ken Bour
Blkjackds
Ken,
DON'T DO THAT!!!!! That's exactly what Bob Meucci wants you to do. Don't give
in to his "I'll baffle 'em with Bullshit" approach to selling cues. His
product is NOT the best out there and he knows that. He also knows that he has
to make outlandish claims (That he refuses to back up) to at least sell enough
to cover production costs. I don't care about a 15% squirt factor difference
or an 85% squirt factor difference nor do I believe it is worth even worrying
about. He can hype his product as much as he wants, and say whatever he wants.
He's just trying to sell them. That is his job. We don't have to be fooled
though.
Blackjack David Sapolis
tony mathews
Ken Bour wrote:
> Consistently, the Meucci shaft/cue outperformed every other comer and by
> wide margins (20-50% and more). What I would like to know is this: are
> the tests valid?
Here's the problem as I see it. I've tested Meucci red dot shafts and Predator
shafts using the aim and pivot test (including using a power piston butt btw).
While the red dot does well, I've never seen one yet that beat the Predator in
pure low squirt. And I wouldn't care if it did (in fact it would be interesting
to me). Also, I'm sure that Masse has hit with a lot of cues including red-dots.
If he says the Schuler is lower squirt, then I believe him.
So I see a few possibilities (I'm not saying that this is what is happening mind
you):
1) the red-dot shafts tested are "modified" for very low squirt. Maybe drilled
out like the P shaft.
2) the test using an object ball somehow skews the results by either throw or
swerve.
3) the tip curvature could be different. Therefore the actual contact point
could be closer to center and less squirt would be observed.
I've talked with Alan McCarty about this myself, and he has tested the red-dots
many times. He says that they are about on par with the Predator at lower speeds
(we have talked here on rsb in the past about the speed vs. squirt variance of
the red-dot and the reasons why). I see no reason to doubt him as his results
compare with my own.
I've also discussed this with long time Meucci users that are professionals.
Specifically Gerry Watson here in Toronto (Meucci user and former player rep for
many years). He uses a Red-dot shaft on his cue (he used to use an older Meucci
shaft). He's tried a Predator shaft, but he thought that it was lower in squirt,
and he didn't want to adjust his game to it, so he stuck with the red-dot. He
was adamant that he didn't want a shaft with too little squirt. If the red-dot
was super low squirt, he would have noticed don't you think?
So my only conclusions are that either the results are somehow rigged (either
intentionally or not) or the test does not give a true picture, or maybe the
Meucci is lower squirt, but somehow nobody else can tell in actual play (which I
doubt).
I wonder what Bob and Ron think?
Tony
jdub
"Blkjackds" <blkj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020318015937...@mb-fw.aol.com...
Personally, I think if it doesn't cause economic hardship on Ken he should
go for it. I respect his findings. His testing and results have always
been very well articulated and I can't say I've event seen somebody counter
them. If Ken tests a stock Meucci and finds this to be consistent, then
that information is valid.... likewise if he finds it to be different that
information is worth noting as well. Yes, Bob has a product to sell. I
think it would be worthwhile to know if his marketing is based on fact or
fiction, regardless of his business sense.
--Jim
Mike Page
>
> I've talked with Alan McCarty about this myself, and he has tested the
red-dots
> many times. He says that they are about on par with the Predator at
lower speeds
> (we have talked here on rsb in the past about the speed vs. squirt variance of
> the red-dot and the reasons why).
I assume this is the ferrule hitting the tenon issue. At what kind of
shot speed does this happen?
--
mike page
fargo
jeff knoch
very low squirt. i don't know what you all have against meucci's. sounds
like elitist thinking to me. quit looking to debunk bob's test and just
admit it...
jk <~loves his meucci
"Ken Bour" <ken....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5Lfl8.14235$e33....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Texas Willee
It was the first thing you seen walking into the room.
I watched for a an hour or so both days I was there and was fascinated with
it.
Like you I saw nothing to indicate the tests were slanted toward Meucci
cues.
I also was interested in the device that measured the stiffness of the
shaft.
Aint science great?
Texas Willee
Ken Bour <ken....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5Lfl8.14235$e33....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Ron Shepard
tony mathews <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I wonder what Bob and Ron think?
I tested a red dot shaft several years ago, when they first came out.
It had about a 40 inch pivot point, better than average, but not as good
as the predator shafts that I have tested. I think they have changed a
few things since then, including shaft tapers and the gap between the
ferrule and tenon.
I don't know if it is just marketing, or if they do have a good design,
I'm just glad that vendors now are actually concerned with performance.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Texas Willee
>
> Ken,
> DON'T DO THAT!!!!! That's exactly what Bob Meucci wants you to do. Don't
give
> in to his "I'll baffle 'em with Bullshit" approach to selling cues. His
> product is NOT the best out there and he knows that. He also knows that
he has
> to make outlandish claims (That he refuses to back up)
Bob Meucci had his machine sat up and was testing every cue anyone brought
to him.
I think he was backing up what he was saying were well.
I watched him test other cues and shafts for hours and not one had less
deflection that his red dot shaft.
How can you back up what you just said?
Texas Willee
Gideon Forrest
> Ken Bour wrote:
>
> > Consistently, the Meucci shaft/cue outperformed every other comer and by
> > wide margins (20-50% and more). What I would like to know is this: are
> > the tests valid?
> So I see a few possibilities (I'm not saying that this is what is happening mind
> you):
> 2) the test using an object ball somehow skews the results by either throw or
> swerve.
Well, Bob Meucci said during the Expo that they do their test using
slight elevation and using an object ball precisely to include swerve
and throw into the equation. He used the term "effective deflection"
in describing what his machine was measuring. He also indicating that
he had "no interest" in determining what one might call "pure squirt".
I would suspect that his results wouldn't be as good if that were
what he were measuring.
Because he is introducing swerve and throw into the equation, I wonder
whether the "myth destroyer" would produce the same results if the
degree of tip off-set and the speed of the shot were varied, and if
different elevations and different distances between cue ball, object
ball and targert were selected. In other words, Bob may have found
the speed, tip-offset, elevation and distance which best demonstrates
the virtue of his cues - other cues may perform better with other
forumlations.
On the other hand, if the results stayed the same throughout the range
of effective english/speed/distance/elevation combinations, then I
would see his point about not caring about which shaft squirts less on
a "pure squirt" basis.
Regards,
Gideon
Texas Willee
opinion.
Feel is something that is different to each person.
That mechanical arm don't have no feel so it just strokes a cue exactly the
same every time.
The results from it would seem to be valid.
It might be something like audio quality.... once it gets to a certain level
then you need to have lab equipment to measure the difference. Those
differences you just can not hear.
Do you think that this is what is happing with the cues?
Texas Willee
tony mathews <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3C95BC9E...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
Texas Willee
But the question is which cue has the lowest squirt.
It might turn out to be like the great debate between Fords and Chevy's.
Texas Willee
jeff knoch <jeff...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Ubol8.63701$Yv2.26176@rwcrnsc54...
Patrick Johnson
> ... Bob Meucci said during the Expo that they do their test using
> ... He also indicating that he had "no interest" in determining
> what one might call "pure squirt".
> ... I would suspect that his results wouldn't be as good if that were
> what he were measuring.
I don't trust his results (because he won't permit independent testing),
but there should be no difference in the comparative results if all the
sticks are elevated and offset the same amount and hit with the same
force.
> Because he is introducing swerve and throw into the equation, I wonder
> whether the "myth destroyer" would produce the same results if the
> degree of tip off-set and the speed of the shot were varied, and if
> different elevations and different distances between cue ball, object
> ball and targert were selected.
Of course the results would be different for all the sticks tested with
these changes, but would the comparative differences change? I don't
think so.
> In other words, Bob may have found
> the speed, tip-offset, elevation and distance which best demonstrates
> the virtue of his cues - other cues may perform better with other
> forumlations.
I wouldn't think so, unless there's some reason to believe that the same
elevation, offset and force produces a different amount of swerve for
some cues than for others. I don't know of any reason to believe that.
> On the other hand, if the results stayed the same throughout the range
> of effective english/speed/distance/elevation combinations, then I
> would see his point about not caring about which shaft squirts less on
> a "pure squirt" basis.
They should remain proportionately the same, but adding this stuff
needlessly complicates the measurement and makes it much more difficult
to tell what's really going on (and maybe easier to skew the results).
There's no reason to avoid the simplest test unless you want to avoid
the clearest result.
All in all, it sounds to me like Meucci is doing everything in its power
to limit and control the "testing" so they can produce desired results.
Not confidence-inspiring. For all I know, Meucci has the
lowest-deflection shaft on the market, but their way of trying to show
it arouses more doubt than anything. It all looks like spin to me.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Clay
like to see if there was anything I could pick out.
Clay
"Texas Willee" <n5...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:j_ol8.30476$Vx1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Dick
accurate. What makes me suspicious is why Meucci's machine shows his is the
best and prediters machine shows theirs are the best. They are both
mechanical and work on the same principle so why the disparity in results?
There's got to be a "chipmonk in the woodpile" somewhere.
Dick
--
RHN Custom Billiard Cues
Creating fine poolcues for real
poolplayers at affordable prices.
Cincinnati, Ohio
(513) 242-1700
e-mail di...@dickiecues.comnews:89pl8.30488$Vx1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Dick
thousands of dollars repairing Meuccis, broken ferrules, joints not glued
on, inlays not glued in and falling out, finishes that turn nice and yellow
and hard maple shafts that are so soft that the act of just barely leaning
the cue against a table is enough to leave a dent, bumpers that are
constantly falling out and becoming lost and of course points and inlays
that always raise thru the light yellow finish. I really love Meucci's great
product.
Dick
--
RHN Custom Billiard Cues
Creating fine poolcues for real
poolplayers at affordable prices.
Cincinnati, Ohio
(513) 242-1700
e-mail di...@dickiecues.com
"jeff knoch" <jeff...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Ubol8.63701$Yv2.26176@rwcrnsc54...
Clay
"Clay" <cferriola@.....No spam....triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:XHpl8.221$y71....@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Clay
those who have observed it in operation. Do they vary the speed of the
stroke? I suspect that at different speeds different shafts react
differently. I really would like to see some extensive data.
As an aside I hope his cues look better than his machines.news:89pl8.30488$Vx1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
KP
tony mathews
Mike Page wrote:
> I assume this is the ferrule hitting the tenon issue. At what kind of
> shot speed does this happen?
>
Yes that's right. I'm not sure what speed is required for this to begin, but I
assume that it is something like med firm to firm.
Tony
Mark0
he demonstrating ANY of his red dot cue's performance?
Mark0 <--remember it as the former
"Texas Willee" <n5...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:89pl8.30488$Vx1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
tony mathews
Mark0 wrote:
> Please clarify for me. Was Bob M using the same cue over and over? Or was
> he demonstrating ANY of his red dot cue's performance?
>
Yes that was the question that I wanted to know also. Could you pull any old
red-dot off of the shelf and get it tested, or was it a red-dot reserved for the
test?
Tony
KP
independent testing then he is hiding something or is afraid.
I played with a Mayouchi for 3 years. It's in my knowledge the second least
deflecting shaft around. Predator is better in that department. Predators
test revealed that low end mass and weight was the key. Meucci's shafts are
pretty light near the first 8 inches. More so than any other production cue.
The idea most people have about Meucci is that they are whippy and thin
tapered which is true. Meucci accomplished the whole "end mass" thing
Predator scientifically discovered much earlier by using a thin long taper
and a soft ferrule. The reasons Meucci says their shafts produce less squirt
are all wrong. They been doing for years what Predator has proven, but in a
different way. The difference is Meucci's are whippy as a side effect while
Predator has a much stiffer "hit" while having less squirt.
I heard B.M. was bending and stressing competitors shafts prior to his
testing in past shows......
Kp
Gideon Forrest
news:Y4Fl8.188568$Dl4.22...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> I heard B.M. was bending and stressing competitors shafts prior to his
> testing in past shows......
I don't know about past shows, but he was offering and did put people's
cues into the machine,
including a predator shafted cue. He certainly wasn't bending or
stressing the guy's cue
with him standing right there.
Regards,
Gideon
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Texas Willee
I asked someone from Predator where their machine was and they replied that
it was at some university being rebuilt so it can test other things. It does
make you wonder doesn't it?
Texas Willee
Dick <rhn...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:u9cam5g...@corp.supernews.com...
Texas Willee
Why haven't they tested cues before?
Texas Willee
KP <No...@NOSPAMtampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Y4Fl8.188568$Dl4.22...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Joe Van
>Who else has a testing machine other than Predator?
>Why haven't they tested cues before?
>
Cues are tested all the time by very skilled people..... the people who use
them.
Joe
Texas Willee
Consumer test labs do not have a cue testing machine.
Even if they did I doubt if that would put an end to it.
Sorry I missed you at the Expo.
Really wanted to meet you.
You gonna be at Vegas this year?
TexASS Willee
Joe Van <class...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020319134556...@mb-fo.aol.com...
Kirk Douglass
"tony mathews" wrote
Howard Vickery and I spent about 10+ hours with Bob & Julie at their plant
in Sledge, MS for a tour just before the Red Dot shafts were introduced
(early 98?). The better part of that time, 8+ hours, was spent testing
diferent cues and shafts on the Myth Destroyer. During that time Meucci
tested several competitors production cues and "specialty" shafts that he
had purchased from a known distributor. Several (10 or so) of the Red Dot
shafts used for the test were pulled from the production area, all of them
produced nearly the same identical results. One interesting thing to add
concerning tip shape that some may find interesting, a dime radius deflects
MUCH less than a nickel.
Kirk
tony mathews
Kirk Douglass wrote:
> One interesting thing to add
> concerning tip shape that some may find interesting, a dime radius deflects
> MUCH less than a nickel.
>
Yes Predator reported the same thing. I don't know about "much" less, but IIRC,
they measured about 9% difference.
Tony
tony mathews
KP wrote:
> Meucci accomplished the whole "end mass" thing
> Predator scientifically discovered much earlier by using a thin long taper
> and a soft ferrule.
Actually, I doubt that the long thin taper has anything to do with the low
squirt of their shafts. Neither does the "soft" ferrule material in a general
sense. The ability of their ferrule to flex sideways (which is enhanced by the
"softness" to be sure) within the "airspace" between tenon and ferrule wall is
the key to their shaft. Put the same ferrule on a stiff shaft, and you get low
squirt also.
Tony
tony mathews
Gideon Forrest wrote:
> Well, Bob Meucci said during the Expo that they do their test using
> slight elevation and using an object ball precisely to include swerve
> and throw into the equation. He used the term "effective deflection"
> in describing what his machine was measuring. He also indicating that
> he had "no interest" in determining what one might call "pure squirt".
Yes, I understand what he is doing Gideon. But he is actually measuring the effects of 3 different
things with his test:
1) squirt
2) swerve -opposes squirt
and
3) throw - opposes squirt
#1 is affected by equipment (cue related) and effected by the eccentricity of the hit. #2 is based on
the elevation angle, the eccentricity of the hit and the speed used. #3 is affected by the surface
condition of the balls, and the amount of sidespin used, and the speed of the shot.
To my mind that is too many variables to control. Measuring pure squirt gives less of a real world
answer to be sure, but is much easier to duplicate. A slight change in speed alone can skew the
results. So can a slight change in elevation.
Measuring the final object ball angle (as Meucci does) might seem to make sense to a player at first
glance, but there are serious drawbacks to the potential repeatability and accuracy of the results
imo.
Tony
likes simpler better....
>
tony mathews
Texas Willee wrote:
> I asked someone from Predator where their machine was and they replied that
> it was at some university being rebuilt so it can test other things. It does
> make you wonder doesn't it?
Why because you think that they might not be telling the truth? As far as I
know, Allan and the boys are having Willie redesigned to add more
instrumentation (accellerometers (Steve Hegg will be creaming..) servos, force
sensors etc. etc.). This is part of a project with a University to understand
more about what is happening. I look forward to results from the new and
improved Willie.
Tony
- free willie!.....
Joe Van
>You know what I was trying to say, Joe.
>Consumer test labs do not have a cue testing machine.
>Even if they did I doubt if that would put an end to it.
>
>Sorry I missed you at the Expo.
>Really wanted to meet you.
>You gonna be at Vegas this year?
>
>TexASS Willee
>
Willee,
I have been around a long time. I appreciate the things that people are trying
to
prove, make better equipment and all that ladi-dah stuff. But I am smart enough
to know that its always been how the cue feels when you play with it. Period.
I doubt I am going to Vegas.. isn't the BCA thing in Louisiana this year?
I am not going there either.... lol.
I will however consider the DBC or the Open...
Thanks...
Joe
Visit www.classiccues.com for a vast selection of collectible cues. Featuring
cues by Skip Weston.... "No special joints, no special shafts, just a special
cue", cues by Paul Mottey and many fine collectables. Buying and trading all
the time....
John Collins
stringent level of lab testing at the university level. Soon there will
indeed be independent data about what exactly squirt, swerve and deflection
are and how each is measured accurately.
The result might be that for the best performance, wood shafts might become
obselete.
John
"Texas Willee" <n5...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kjLl8.1496$s8.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Texas Willee
Even then there will be controversy over the results with players saying
that their highly tuned senses tell them just the opposite about the
results.
Texas Willee
John Collins <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message
news:MP2m8.24$TZ3....@news.uswest.net...
Fred Agnir
[snip]
> To my mind that is too many variables to control. Measuring pure squirt gives less of a real world
> answer to be sure, but is much easier to duplicate. A slight change in speed alone can skew the
> results. So can a slight change in elevation.
I think that he does a decent job at controlling elevation and speed
variables. Is there something that you've seen in the setup that
suggests otherwise? Are you suggesting that he does a slight change on
purpose to skew the results?
>
> Measuring the final object ball angle (as Meucci does) might seem to make sense to a player at first
> glance, but there are serious drawbacks to the potential repeatability and accuracy of the results
> imo.
I suppose Bob Meucci would question what results any player is looking
for other than hitting the object ball closer to the target given the
same speed and eccentricity.
Fred <~~~ likes Pat Johnson's answer
gerry watson
To let you all know, i have never, yes never hit a ball with a
predator shaft. I have been told by many big time champions, such as
Bustamante who has stated along with others, that a predator shaft
woould play different one day to another. Some players use predator
shafts only to break with. As for the comparison of Meucci and
predator, Meucci is made of one piece of wood, whereas predator is
made up of several pieces of wood glued together, whereby the chances
of all pieces reacting to temperature changes the same is impossible.
I take my hat off to predator for a great sales pitch, but who's
buying, whereas Meucci continues to outsell most all American
manufactures. Note: most US champions used Meucci when they were
road players and would prefer to continue today if not for their
negotiating skills getting in their way of making a deal.
John Collins
for Predator then there would likely be no great debates or major interest
in this subject.
It was very nice to put a face to the name at the Expo. As usual I did not
have time to enjoy the festivities - but it's the road I chose.
Sheldon got to witness one of my Prozac moments firsthand when I had a
desire to destroy a case and he offered his Porper 4x8 for destruction and I
hit it with an Instroke. The Porper held up like a champ and the Instroke
took a dent. Oh well, can't win em' all...
John :-))
"Texas Willee" <n5...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Lo4m8.4138$s8.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
tony mathews
Fred Agnir wrote:
> I think that he does a decent job at controlling elevation and speed
> variables. Is there something that you've seen in the setup that
> suggests otherwise? Are you suggesting that he does a slight change on
> purpose to skew the results?
I'm not suggesting that that's what is being done Fred. Just saying that I'd rather look at one variable
than, well, many more than one.
Tony
-can juggle one ball at a time... sometimes
tony mathews
gerry watson wrote:
> To let you all know, i have never, yes never hit a ball with a
> predator shaft.
Hey Hi Gerry (is that you?). Didn't I see a Predator shaft on your break cue for a while? Does that
count as hitting a ball with it?
Tony
Brent
this would be interesting.....
BTW...were both cases on the same "Weight Division" (3 x 6, 2 x 4
etc..) I recon a 2 x4 would beat a 3 x 6 it were hit on the thinner
side....)
"John Collins" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message news:<HM9m8.138$TZ3....@news.uswest.net>...
Slasher2129
this Predator bullshit! in fact that idiot doesn't know how to play pool. He's
a pool expert wannabe. Hahahah......POOL EXPERT WANNABE!!!!!!!!!
>Subject: Re: Meucci Robot Tests
>From: "John Collins" inst...@instroke.com
>Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2002 7:23 PM
>Message-id: <HM9m8.138$TZ3....@news.uswest.net>
Texas Willee
CASE WARS!
You bash them until one of them loses a part.
Texas Willee
John Collins <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message
news:HM9m8.138$TZ3....@news.uswest.net...
Texas Willee
gerry watson <pool...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:88a9c351.02032...@posting.google.com...
>snip
>Note: most US champions used Meucci when they were
> road players (snip)
I think the reason for that is the need for more cue action on a bar or well
used pool hall table verses the like new cloth and level table conditions
found at pro tournaments. Your comment about cue endorsements probably has
some validity also but I doubt that a pro player would try to make a living
with what he thought was a second best cue or refuse to play with a cue that
he knew would improve his chance of winning.
Texas Willee
Barry
"Texas Willee" <n5...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:A4qm8.1610>
Some snipage
Your comment about cue endorsements probably has
> some validity also but I doubt that a pro player would try to make a
living
> with what he thought was a second best cue (snipage)
>
> Texas Willee
>
In the real world, if the cash is right you could get most any cue
endorsed.....
Brent
"Texas Willee" <n5...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<A4qm8.1610$oi.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Michael Gleason
Karen Corr
Shannon Daulton
Troy Frank
Ramil Gallego
Jose Garcia
Jayme Goodwin
Frankie Hernandez
Tang Hoa
Gerda Hofstatter
Julie Kelly
Warren Kiamco
Antonio Lining
Rodolfo Luat
Rafael Martinez
Grady Mathews
Ming Ng
Alex Pagulayan
Tom Rossman
Luc Salvas
George SanSouci
Evgeny Stalev
Cliff Thorburn
Michael
Cues Plus Billiards
"Brent" <brent...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:27679f95.02032...@posting.google.com...
Ron Shepard
"Michael Gleason" <sa...@cuesplus.comNOSPAM> wrote:
[on players who use Predator cues...]
> By FAR not an inclusive group but here is a small list:
>
> Karen Corr
> Shannon Daulton
> Troy Frank
> Ramil Gallego
> Jose Garcia
> Jayme Goodwin
> Frankie Hernandez
> Tang Hoa
> Gerda Hofstatter
> Julie Kelly
> Warren Kiamco
> Antonio Lining
> Rodolfo Luat
> Rafael Martinez
> Grady Mathews
> Ming Ng
> Alex Pagulayan
> Tom Rossman
> Luc Salvas
> George SanSouci
> Evgeny Stalev
> Cliff Thorburn
>
> Michael
Michael, I noticed that you added your name to the list. :-)
Anyone know how many players use Predator shafts on other, custom or
production, butts?
$.02 -Ron Shepard <--I do, but I mean pro players.
Blkjackds
>production, butts?
Blackjack does. Predator on a McDermott
d-21. Predator on a Josey cue. And yes, I noticed a difference immediately.
Blackjack David Sapolis
Ken Bour
league happens to own a Meucci red dot shaft/cue combination and agreed to
let me borrow it for some experimentation.
After performing my own variant of a squirt test, the Meucci red dot cue was
significantly higher in squirt than 3 other Predators (1 to myself and 2 to
other players) I tested that evening. The Predators were all pretty much
identical in measurable squirt, but the Meucci was decidely worse. Not
close.
I have to conclude that Bob Meucci is falsifying something in that robot
testing or deliberately misleading the spectators in a way that has not been
exposed yet.
For my purposes, I am satisfied that the Meucci red dot DOES NOT squirt less
than Predator.
Ken Bour
"jdub" <removeextr...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5Lgl8.196628$s43.44...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
>
> "Blkjackds" <blkj...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020318015937...@mb-fw.aol.com...
> > >I may just purchase a Mecci red dot and try it for myself.
> >
> > Ken,
> > DON'T DO THAT!!!!! That's exactly what Bob Meucci wants you to do.
Don't
> give
> > in to his "I'll baffle 'em with Bullshit" approach to selling cues. His
> > product is NOT the best out there and he knows that. He also knows that
> he has
> > to make outlandish claims (That he refuses to back up) to at least sell
> enough
> > to cover production costs. I don't care about a 15% squirt factor
> difference
> > or an 85% squirt factor difference nor do I believe it is worth even
> worrying
> > about. He can hype his product as much as he wants, and say whatever he
> wants.
> > He's just trying to sell them. That is his job. We don't have to be
> fooled
> > though.
> >
> > Blackjack David Sapolis
>
> Personally, I think if it doesn't cause economic hardship on Ken he should
> go for it. I respect his findings. His testing and results have always
> been very well articulated and I can't say I've event seen somebody
counter
> them. If Ken tests a stock Meucci and finds this to be consistent, then
> that information is valid.... likewise if he finds it to be different that
> information is worth noting as well. Yes, Bob has a product to sell. I
> think it would be worthwhile to know if his marketing is based on fact or
> fiction, regardless of his business sense.
>
> --Jim
>
>
>
Ken Bour
I have to agree with you. I don't know how Muecci is rigging the robot
device, but, after my own independent test with a new Meucci red dot
(borrowed from a friend), I am personally convinced that it produces
significantly more squirt than Predator (I tested it against 3 different
P-shaft/cue combinations).
In terms of the possible explanations for Meucci's results, I don't think
that swerve/throw are relevant given the speed of the shot (10 MPH) and the
angle of the cuestick when it makes contact with the cueball. Also, the
laser is set at 3/16" offset to the right of center. Maybe the varying tip
curvatures could have something to do with it... I'm leaning toward the
hypothesis that he may have doctored the main testing cue. I wonder if
anyone saw him test a stock Meucci (off the rack, as it were) while at the
Super Billiard Expo. If so, did the stock cue perform like the one he had
marked on the table (incidentally, with a black dot!).
Ken Bour
Ken Bour
draws the robot's arm back and it locks in place. Then, he presses a
release lever (the same way each time) and the arm launches forward,
controlled by a spring.
His machine looks a lot better than his cues IMO. Have you looked at any
Muecci cues? I'm glad that they squirt more than Predators 'cause I
couldn't stand to own one. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the term
"butt ugly" was coined for Meucci designs!
Ken Bour
"Clay" <cferriola@.....No spam....triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Dqql8.242$y71....@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> I just went to there site and looked at his machine. I have a question for
> those who have observed it in operation. Do they vary the speed of the
> stroke? I suspect that at different speeds different shafts react
> differently. I really would like to see some extensive data.
> As an aside I hope his cues look better than his machines.
> Clay
Ken Bour
butt to which is affixed a Predator shaft.
Mike Massey used to play with Predators also, but he manged to convince Ray
Schuler to build him a custom shaft with a small ferrule (1/2" or less),
drilled out, etc., based on Predator principles of low mass. Interestingly,
Alan Clawson told me that, after he heard about Schuler's low squirt shaft,
he called Ray to inform him that no one is permitted to build/market such
shafts because it violates Predator's patent. He then told me that Ray
then asked to license the idea, but doing so is not in Predator's current
marketing/distribution strategy.
Ken Bour
"Michael Gleason" <sa...@cuesplus.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:xRym8.95651$q2.9917@sccrnsc01...
Kirk Douglass
"Ken Bour" wrote
> Tony:
>
> I have to agree with you. I don't know how Muecci is rigging the robot
> device, but, after my own independent test with a new Meucci red dot
> (borrowed from a friend), I am personally convinced that it produces
> significantly more squirt than Predator (I tested it against 3 different
> P-shaft/cue combinations).
>
> In terms of the possible explanations for Meucci's results, I don't think
> that swerve/throw are relevant given the speed of the shot (10 MPH) and
the
> angle of the cuestick when it makes contact with the cueball. Also, the
> laser is set at 3/16" offset to the right of center. Maybe the varying
tip
> curvatures could have something to do with it... I'm leaning toward the
> hypothesis that he may have doctored the main testing cue. I wonder if
> anyone saw him test a stock Meucci (off the rack, as it were) while at
the
> Super Billiard Expo. If so, did the stock cue perform like the one he had
> marked on the table (incidentally, with a black dot!).
>
> Ken Bour
Ken,
Varying tip curvatures means a lot, a nickel radius tip will produce much
more throw than a dime radius. As for Meucci doctoring the test cue, I doubt
he did. We spent several hours watching him test different cues at his place
and he did the testing comparing apples to apples, so to speak. All cues has
the same brand tips installed, all tips shaped to the same radius (dime).
Which put all the cues on the same playing field. All cues were held at the
same point. The results I seen mirror what everyone seen at Valley Forge-
Red Dot (Best), Predator (Close, second), etc...
However I would like to see comparitive opinions on the design and function
of the two machines, Destroyer & Willy, from those with a more scientific
understanding of physics and/or mechanical engineering. I, like many others,
would like to know why the two produce different results and which produces
the correct one.
Kirk
Ron Shepard
"Ken Bour" <ken....@verizon.net> wrote:
> I have to conclude that Bob Meucci is falsifying something in that robot
> testing or deliberately misleading the spectators in a way that has not been
> exposed yet.
Have you ever built any electronics devices? If so, then you know that
you can buy different grades of resistors. The ones with a silver
stripe are more accurate than the regular ones. I forget the actual
numbers, but the regular ones might be accurate to 10% and the silver
stiped ones might be accurate to 5% (or maybe the numbers are 20% and
10%?). The silver striped ones cost a little more than the regular
ones. Anyway, my point is that they are all made the same way in the
same batches, there is not a separate production line for the two types.
Then they are tested after production, and sorted into the appropriate
bins, the stripe is painted on, then they are packaged and sold.
I don't know that Meucci does this, but it would be one way for a cue
maker to market low squirt cues. He would need a large enough
production volume to get enough of the cues at the low-squirt end, but
that would be one way to achieve the goal.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Clay
then, except maybe for resale.
Clay<<<<thinks Meucci's machine looks really SHI**Y
"Ken Bour" <ken....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:t0Nm8.614$n8....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Clay
cue ball, I generally line up on center and then adjust to the side slightly
by moving my bridge hand. The way I personally do this means the butt end
moves slightly in the opposite direction.(off parallel to the straight aim)
Does the robot hit off-center but maintain a parallel alignment to the
aiming direction (in other words, the whole cue moves right or left), and
would this make a difference in the test?
Clay
"Ron Shepard" <ron-s...@NOSPAM.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:ron-shepard-E5FC...@netnews.attbi.com...
Bob Jewett
> I have a question.....When I shoot an off center hit(left or right) on the
> cue ball, I generally line up on center and then adjust to the side slightly
> by moving my bridge hand. The way I personally do this means the butt end
> moves slightly in the opposite direction.(off parallel to the straight aim)
> Does the robot hit off-center but maintain a parallel alignment to the
> aiming direction (in other words, the whole cue moves right or left), and
> would this make a difference in the test?
I think that both the Predator and Meucci machines get sidespin by moving
the cue ball. That is much easier than moving the large, heavy machine
relative to a stationary cue ball.
--
Bob Jewett
Ken Bour
the rest of the production lot earn "red dots" painted on them.
Furthermore, he might have even separated out the one in a thousand
"amazing" shaft, painted a black dot on it, and set it aside for his Myth
Destroyer trade show exhibit. I suppose that's possible. It seems hard
to imagine that production shafts made using the same type of wood and a
similar process could have that much variation in squirt, but I know
virtually nothing about wood properties or making cue shafts.
Incidentally, I asked Bob Meucci if he was using 12 3/4 mm shafts, thinking
that the slimmer thickness would help reduce squirt. He said that he
prefers 13mm to give players more surface area to hit the cueball.
Ken Bour
"Ron Shepard" <ron-s...@NOSPAM.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:ron-shepard-2565...@news.attbi.com...
Michael Gleason
I almost hate to ask this question but for your test did you align the cue
with the red pointed upwards? The only reason I ask is that the red dot
shaft is not intended to have a 360 degree sweet spot. The red dot is
supposed to be pointed up in order to hit will less deflection.
I am not suggesting that there is any truth or lack there of in any test
conducted with the Myth destroyer but that is their gauge (red dot up).
Michael
Cues Plus Billiards
"Ken Bour" <ken....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SMMm8.575$8r....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Ken Bour
examining Meucci's robot. From all that I could tell, it appeared to be
shifted in a parallel line from center (based on the laser light). Of
course it's tough to tell what's happening when the offset is only 3/16".
You may be on to something...read on.
Normally, I think it's kinda natural (to coin Grady) to pivot the cue a
little when applying right or left english. The reason is that when you
line up and then move parallel, the eyes are tricked into believing that the
cueball is no longer pointed at the original target. When I do squirt tests
moving parallel from the center aim, I have to force myself to disregard
what my eyes perceive in order stay true to the test.
Another squirt test variation I like even better actually takes advantage of
the pivoting technique. I place the cueball on the head spot and an object
ball in the exact center of the table. I have corner lines drawn on my
table which cross precisely at the center, so placement of the middle ball
is consistent and accurate. I then line up to shoot the object ball to the
end rail at the center diamond. Before firing, I pivot the tip about my
bridge hand (always same distance from the cueball) to the outer edge of the
cueball and try to strike the horizontal center (no intentional draw or
follow). I shoot hard in order to minimize the effect of swerve/throw and
then mark the position of the object ball on the end rail.
In this test, the lowest squirting cue sends the object ball the furthest
away from the center diamond. The squirtiest shafts tend to shoot the
object ball right at the center diamond. If you think about it for a few
minutes, you'll see why this is the case. I find it easier to accomplish
this test more accurately than others.
What intrigues me about your question is that, if Meucci is pivoting the
robot's cue, then his shafts are actually the WORST performing shafts out
there. Hmmm.... I'm being a little facetious here, but who knows...
Ken Bour
"Clay" <cferriola@.....No spam....triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8ePm8.5765$a3.25...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Ken Bour
was a factor at all given the speed of the shot (10 MPH).
At one point, I was shocked at what Bob Meucci did to one guy's cue. He
started banging the tip into the tile floor -- HARD. Salazar even yelled
over to knock off the racket! Bob M said that the tip was too soft and had
an air pocket. Before he would put it in the robot, he told the chap to go
over to Gulyassi's (sp?) booth and get a dime radius put on it. The guy
did, came back, and it still squirted well to the right of everthing else
that was being tested at the time.
I didn't see anything in the actual testing process that was being obviously
doctored (changing robot speed, angle of shot, placement of balls, different
chalking technique, etc.). I'm just wondering if the best performing "black
dot" cue might have been tampered with ahead of time or, along Ron S's
hypothesis, could have been the 1 in a million production shafts in terms of
squirt properties.
Ken
"Kirk Douglass" <kdou...@NOSPAMcolumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:TGQm8.215236$s43.48...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
[SNIP]
Ken Bour
didn't matter whether I put it up or down or on the side. The Meucci still
squirted about the same distance.
From what I could tell, the way that the "red dot" gets put on his shafts,
he bends the shaft in a machine about 6" (!!!) and twists it slowly while
measuring something (I couldn't see what). After a couple of rotations, he
has found the lowest number and that's where the dot goes. He performed
this service for Mike Massey after the Schuler shaft was tested in the
robot.
Anyway, my question is this: when does a shaft get bent 6" in any direction
including the break shot? Is finding the lowest or highest measurement of
anything at a 6" bend useful in terms of play characteristics? What I would
want to know is: if you bend it 1" is there any difference in tortional
stability (or whatever it is that's being measured) as you twist it in the
device? I'll bet the answer is either NO or not enough to count for
anything.
Ken
"Michael Gleason" <sa...@cuesplus.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:ATRm8.101100$q2.10352@sccrnsc01...
Clay
> the cue ball. That is much easier than moving the large, heavy machine
> relative to a stationary cue ball.
>
>
Ok, that answers the first part of the question. However, is that how most
people line their shots up, with the shaft parallel to the shot direction or
like I described earlier(below), and would this effect the results? I
believe it would.
Clay
"Bob Jewett" <jew...@sfbilliards.com> wrote in message
news:10168496...@emperor.labs.agilent.com...
Patrick Johnson
> parallel to the shot direction or [compensated for squirt], and
> would this effect the results? I believe it would.
The only thing to compare is how much the cue ball path differs from the
extended line of the actual cue. You don't even need an object ball or a "shot
direction" to measure it.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Clay
aiming direction but offset to one side will the results differ from the
results when the cue tip is offset but not the butt. I realize that what we
are trying to observe is the cue ball path, but what differences will we see
when doing the test both ways, and which way is the way we actually shoot.
Which way do you shoot Pat? I shoot off parallel.
Clay
"Patrick Johnson" <patrick...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3C9C20D4...@attbi.com...
Ron Shepard
"Ken Bour" <ken....@verizon.net> wrote:
> I'm just wondering if the best performing "black
> dot" cue might have been tampered with ahead of time or, along Ron S's
> hypothesis, could have been the 1 in a million production shafts in terms of
> squirt properties.
What I described wouldn't be "tampering," it would just be
after-production selection. Sort of a "Herbie the Love Bug" approach to
making and marketing low-squirt shafts.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Patrick Johnson
*Everybody* shoots off parallel or nobody would be making any shots. That's
irrelevant to testing or comparing squirt. To test or compare squirt, all you
have to do is measure how far off "straight" the cue ball goes for a given
amount of offset/sidespin. And "straight" means parallel with the cue stick,
not parallel with the shot line. If there's an object ball in front of the cue
ball, you can remove it because it doesn't change anything. If it makes it
easier for you to visualize, imagine the object ball is a little to the side so
you're "aiming off parallel". The results will be the same either way.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Clay
difference in the stiffness in certain bend directions of the shaft and it
is measurable even to 1/8". I have tested this to see what would happen.
Incidentally, the stiffness is also measurable 180 degrees opposite the "red
dot" side as well, although not as stiff.
It is measurable on all wooden shafts.
Claynews:sbSm8.1601$8r....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Texas Willee
Every shaft has one. It is the spot at which there is the least resistance
to bend.
What Bob was using was a weight scale to measure the amount of force that
was present when bending the shaft. The rig he uses moves the scale to a
fixed position relative to the shaft tip. The lowest reading is where he
puts his "Red Dot". You could do this with any shaft to find what he calls
the "sweet spot".
Texas Willee
Ken Bour <ken....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:sbSm8.1601$8r....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
tony mathews
Ken Bour wrote:
> Furthermore, he might have even separated out the one in a thousand
> "amazing" shaft, painted a black dot on it, and set it aside for his Myth
> Destroyer trade show exhibit. I suppose that's possible.
Another possibility, is that one or two shafts are "modified" to produce extra
low squirt (special ferrule, or with a hidden hole drilled up the end for
example). Externally, you would not be able to tell the difference. I'm not
saying that's what is done, but it certainly could be done.
What makes me suspicious is that he doesn't just test any old red-dot, but a
red-dot set aside just for testing purposes. This certainly raises a red flag to
me.
Like I said, I've tried many red-dots (although none made in the last 3 months)
and I've yet to find one that has lower squirt than a Predator. Some are close
mind you, but not 25% less like he claims.
Unless there is a new improved red-dot out there that we don't know about.
Anyone hear about such a beast?
Tony
tony mathews
Michael Gleason wrote:
> Ken,
>
> I almost hate to ask this question but for your test did you align the cue
> with the red pointed upwards? The only reason I ask is that the red dot
> shaft is not intended to have a 360 degree sweet spot. The red dot is
> supposed to be pointed up in order to hit will less deflection.
Knowing Ken he probably did so diligently. However, there is not any evidence
(other than Meucci's) that there is any basis to the red-dot idea in the first
place! His claim that the flexibility of the shaft can influence the squirt to
the degree that you need a red-dot is highly suspect imo. I've built and tried
(and seen the results of tests of) super stiff shafts that are lower squirt than
anything available. So I don't buy the whole idea behind the red-dot to begin
with.
Tony
tony mathews
Ken Bour wrote:
> Anyway, my question is this: when does a shaft get bent 6" in any direction
> including the break shot?
Well it never does of course.
> Is finding the lowest or highest measurement of
> anything at a 6" bend useful in terms of play characteristics?
First you would have to accept that a variation in stiffness can have a
meaningful affect on the squirt characteristics in the first place. I don't buy
into this. Second, bending a shaft 6" has got to stress it more than I would
want to see. Third, it isn't neccessary. You could flex the shaft as little as
0.010" while rotating, if you had a sensitive enough force sensor, or if you
used a constant force, a sensitive deflection measuring tool (like a digital
dial indicator, accurate to within 0.0001"). This is enough to tell if the shaft
is radially consistent.
> What I would
> want to know is: if you bend it 1" is there any difference in tortional
> stability (or whatever it is that's being measured) as you twist it in the
> device? I'll bet the answer is either NO or not enough to count for
> anything.
You are not measuring tortional stability, simply stiffness, measured radially.
And no, bending it 1.0", or 0.010" is enough to tell you all you need. Bending
it 6" might actually damage the wood fibers.
Tony
tony mathews
Texas Willee wrote:
> You could do this with any shaft to find what he calls
> the "sweet spot".
Yes you could. However, this assumes that you buy into the notion that the
stiffness variation is actually going to affect the squirt angle. I don't think
that it does, at least not enough to worry about. I've measured many solid (and
laminated) shafts, and it is surprising how radially consistent many of them
are.
Tony
tony mathews
Clay wrote:
> Ok, that answers the first part of the question. However, is that how most
> people line their shots up, with the shaft parallel to the shot direction or
> like I described earlier(below), and would this effect the results? I
> believe it would.
Well it depends on how much squirt your cue produces. If your cue has a pivot
point located near your bridge length, then the cue will be angled away from the
sidespin direction, at an angle approximately equal to the angle formed by
pivoting the cue about the bridge hand. If the cue is very low squirt (pivot
point longer than the cue for example, or infinite) then you can shift the cue
parallel to get sidespin. In both cases the cueball will take the exact same
path.
So no, it wouldn't affect the results. Both machines are only interested in
measuring how much squirt is present, and this can be done with a parallel shift
quite nicely.
Tony
Clay
squirt, can they duplicate the results of the machine.
I am trying to determine why people say they come up with results different
than the machine. It may be irrelevant in testing and getting results, but
there may be something in the perception of what they think they saw with
the machine and what they see in real life. The results may actually be
identical, but there is some question about it. It may just be perception.
How can Predator and Meucci claim the same thing? This is what I want to
know. I am trying to systematically get all the variables.
BTW, Pat I really didn't know everybody shot off parallel. I play pool as a
hobby, I design and build machines and structural test equipment for a
living, hence the interest here.
Clay
"Patrick Johnson" <patrick...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3C9CB35E...@attbi.com...
Clay
different results than a human? Is it that the results are the same and we
perceive them differently? I know you don't buy in to the shaft
stiffness/squirt deal, but some do. I am trying to determine why, and how to
prove one or the other with test equipment. I am also trying to figure out
how Predator and Meucci can claim the same thing and claim to be able to
prove it, yet no one here believes Meucci.
Claynews:3C9D77C...@sympatico.ca...
tony mathews
Clay wrote:
> Thanks Tony. My next question is this...Why is it that the machine produces
> different results than a human? Is it that the results are the same and we
> perceive them differently?
Actually, so far, the Predator machine produces results that match the findings
of the human testers. So it's not an issue of machine versus human in a general
sense. We are mainly disputing the results from Meucci's machine.
> I know you don't buy in to the shaft
> stiffness/squirt deal, but some do. I am trying to determine why, and how to
> prove one or the other with test equipment.
I'll tell you why I don't buy into it first. Meucci's claim is that the greater
the shaft flexibility, the less the squirt angle. Period. His theory of squirt
is based purely on the stiffness of the shaft. If this was true, it would be
very easy to test (which it has been) and the theory should be able to predict
some things. The other conservation of momentum (CoM) theory of squirt can also
be used to predict various effects. The question is which theory most closely
follows what is observed in reality? I think it is the conservation of momentum,
not the stiffness theory.
Here's why:
If squirt was purely a function of shaft stiffness, then adding or subtracting
mass from the end of the shaft by adding or removing small weights should have
no effect on the squirt angle, since the stiffness will remain constant. You can
try this experiment for yourself (see the archives for a post by Greg Miller on
this topic). Take a shaft (use a Meucci if you want) and measure the squirt
using the aim and pivot test. Now go to the hardware store and buy a small hose
clamp. Add the hose clamp to the end of the shaft in the middle of the ferrule.
Do the aim and pivot test again. The pivot point will likely be reduced by at
least 30% to 50%!
Don't take my word for it, try it yourself. Add some more weight. See the pivot
point shorten. Have some fun, move the weight up and down the shaft and see how
the pivot point changes. At what point on the shaft does moving the weight below
that point not change the pivot point? (Greg found that a weight added below a
distance of about 6" from the tip, did not affect the pivot point).
Ask yourself why does adding weight change the squirt angle, when the stiffness
is unaffected?
The other reason that I don't buy the stiffness versus squirt angle is that
there are examples of very stiff shafts out there that have very low squirt
angles. This is impossible under the Meucci theory (and yet they exist, try a
decent 3C conical billiard shaft for yourself for ex) and yet perfectly
consistent under the CoM theory.
I've tested a graphite shaft that is so stiff you can hardly bend it with your
hand, and yet it has the lowest squirt angle that I've ever seen (pivot point
longer than the cue length).
This shaft alone blows Meucci's theory right out of the water. Under his theory,
this shaft shouldn't exist, it should be impossible. And yet there it is.
Now I'm not saying that shaft stiffness cannot affect the squirt angle in any
way, in fact it can, but only in the sense that it can affect the moment of
inertia of the effective end mass. In this regard, the stiffness is still
accounted for in the CoM theory, but it is a complicated issue and for most
wooden shafts it is a negligeable effect. You can see an earlier thread for
greater details on this.
> I am also trying to figure out
> how Predator and Meucci can claim the same thing and claim to be able to
> prove it, yet no one here believes Meucci.
Actually, they don't claim the same thing, that's the point. Meucci are claiming
that the red-dot produces way less squirt than any shaft out there. No one here
has been able to confirm that by testing red-dot shafts with the aim and pivot
method. And yet, Predator's claims are consistent with the results of many
testers using the aim and pivot method. So we are naturally supsicious of
Meucci's claims.
And no, I don't think that it is a case of machine versus human. I suspect (as
do many here it seems) that it is a case of apples versus oranges.
Tony
tony mathews
Clay wrote:
> What I am getting at is, when someone personally tests a shaft to measure
> squirt, can they duplicate the results of the machine.
Yes, but not as consistently, or as accurately. Many people here on rsb have
tested many shafts using the aim and pivot method, and the results are
consistent with the Predator machine.
> I am trying to determine why people say they come up with results different
> than the machine. It may be irrelevant in testing and getting results, but
> there may be something in the perception of what they think they saw with
> the machine and what they see in real life. The results may actually be
> identical, but there is some question about it. It may just be perception.
No I suspect that the results from the Meucci machine are incorrect, for some as
yet undetermined reason.
> How can Predator and Meucci claim the same thing? This is what I want to
> know. I am trying to systematically get all the variables.
Well they don't. That's why we are having this debate. If they claimed the same
thing, the debate would be over, and we could all go back to, whatever we go
back to....
Tony
-going back to the grind now...
Patrick Johnson
> ... I really didn't know everybody shot off parallel.
If you don't yet understand this most fundamental fact about compensating for
squirt, it's no wonder your question doesn't make sense. A good idea would be
to read what the FAQ says about it and then go to Google Newsgroups and search
for past discussions about it.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
> ... If the cue is very low squirt (pivot
> point longer than the cue for example, or infinite) then you can shift the cue
> parallel to get sidespin. In both cases the cueball will take the exact same
> path.
Just to clarify (since Clay is unfamiliar with squirt concepts): "aiming
parallel" never really produces the "exact same path" with a real cue stick
because nobody has invented a zero-squirt stick (one with an "infinite pivot
point"). As long as sticks squirt, some aiming adjustment must be made*,
although it can be small for the lowest-squirt shafts.
What's a "pivot point"? It's the distance that the cue ball travels before it
goes as much offline as your tip is offset from center. If you offset one tip
width (about 1/2 inch) to get sidespin, and the cue ball travels 24 inches
before being 1/2 inch offline, then your pivot point is 24 inches. This means
that if you adjust your aim by 1/2 inch for each 24 inches of cueball travel
you'll compensate exactly for your stick's squirt (you can do this automatically
by pivoting the stick at a point 24 inches from the tip to apply the sidespin -
the "pivot point"). Using Tony's example, if your stick has a pivot point
longer than your stick -- say, 60 inches (I don't know of any sticks with this
long a pivot point) -- you'd have to adjust your aim (with 1/2 inch of tip
offset) by 1/2 inch for each 60 inches of cueball travel. Not a lot, but not
nothing either*.
*By the way, all of the above describes the theoretical amount of aim adjustment
to make if you're shooting with a perfectly level stick. If your stick is
elevated at all (almost always the case), your aim adjustment is reduced by the
counteracting effects of "swerve" -- in extreme cases you have to adjust a
little the "wrong" way, like for a masse shot. But that's for a later class.
Most players don't think about any of this stuff, but just adjust their aim by
"feel" gained from shooting hundreds or thousands of shots with sidespin. So do
I, but I learn this stuff to give my brain something to work with subconsciously
to help me get the feel of it.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Jimbo Ct
close
>mind you, but not 25% less like he claims.
Who cares! Unless you have never played the game before or you can find a cue
that has 0 (ZERO) squirt. Your mind adjusts for the squirt, your mind doesn't
know what alot or a little squirt is, it just knows it has to adjust and it
does. If I had my choice to switch to a cue with NO squirt or to a cue with the
same as the cue I shoot with now for an important match with no time to get
used to it I'll stick with the squirt. Fact is I am used to squirt and I have
already learned to shoot with it. people who waste time trying to find a cue
less squirt are wasting time that they can better use adjusting to it and
moving on. my cue may have a ton of squirt but if I have to cut a ball in the
side with a ton of inside english I'll make it 90% of the time where as I'd
miss it 70% of the time with a predator shaft. I happen to like my cue and see
no reason or benefit to relearn how to shoot
that shot let alone pool. I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again
Efren doesn't know shit about Squirt but he can give Bob J. or Ron S or anyone
else here who knows all about it the 5-out and take home the cheese.
Jim <---Bet
Patrick Johnson
> ... your mind doesn't know what alot or a little squirt is
The fact that you can shoot pretty good with more squirt doesn't mean you
wouldn't shoot better with less. All you're saying is you don't want to
re-learn. It probably isn't worth Efren's trouble either -- how "best" can you
get? You and he aren't convincing examples. It might well be worth the trouble
for somebody else.
> ... I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again
> Efren doesn't know shit about Squirt but he can give Bob J. or Ron S or anyone
> else here who knows all about it the 5-out and take home the cheese.
Yep, that's at least a hundred and one times (and that's only counting you).
And for all this time and all that repeating, it remains true but irrelevant.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Jack Justis
>first
>place! His claim that the flexibility of the shaft can influence the squirt
>to
>the degree that you need a red-dot is highly suspect imo. I've built and
>tried
>(and seen the results of tests of) super stiff shafts that are lower squirt
>than
>anything available. So I don't buy the whole idea behind the red-dot to begin
>with.
>
>Tony
Tony
I'm going back to my rod building days to give you his reasoning for doing the
shaft deflection test. When the shaft is rotated under slight stress, it has a
soft side and a stiff side due to the grain in the wood, therefore the red dot
he places on the shaft is the side that produces the most stiffiness. If you
position the red dot up on every shot, the shaft should perform more
consistently. The same thing applies to custom casting rods. If you align the
spine of the rod blank on the same plane that the caster holds his arm when
casting the lure, accuracy is increased greatly due to the rod not trying to
twist off in another direction. I am not a Meucci fan by any means, but I can
see the reasoning behind the red dot shaft.
Bob Jewett
> We're talking about squirt in this thread, not throw. I doubt that throw
> was a factor at all given the speed of the shot (10 MPH).
I think that Kirk may be using the word in the UK sense rather than in
the US sense. In the US, throw means the change in the path of the object
ball away from the ideal path (line of centers of the balls at impact)
due to friction of the cue ball (or combination ball) against the object
ball. I think that in the UK, "throw" means the non-parallelness of the
cue ball's travel due to an eccentric hit, or what we would call squirt.
That's the only thing that makes sense of Kirk's remark:
>> Varying tip curvatures means a lot, a nickel radius tip will produce much
>> more throw than a dime radius.
"Throw" in the US sense is not significantly affected by tip curvature.
"Throw" in the UK sense may be.
--
Bob Jewett
Jimbo Ct
>wouldn't shoot better with less.
No Pat but there is no proof the other way either and I can make a better case
that if I took the same amount of time practicing with my old cue as it would
take to re-learn with the new cue (less squirt) I'd get better. Again if I had
never played at all I can see a slight advantage at best.
Jim <----Squirt schmirt
Jimbo Ct
subconsciously
>
>to help me get the feel of it.
>
If you ask me you just gave your mind something to think about every time you
use english thus taking your mind off of what is really important, making the
shot. The less you are thinking of when you pull the trigger the better your
shot making ability becomes. IMO of course.
Jim <------But missing or making only really matters when you play for
something, not just practice.
Patrick Johnson
>> subconsciously to help me get the feel of it.
> ... The less you are thinking of when you pull the trigger the better your
> shot making ability
True for most, I think, but maybe not everybody. Anyway, I wasn't suggesting
thinking about it while shooting. I threw the word "subconsciously" in there as
a clue.
> Jim <------But missing or making only really matters when you play for
> something, not just practice.
Gambling is what matters to gamblers. Pool matters more to those who enjoy it for no discernible reason.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
tony mathews
Jack Justis wrote:
> Tony
> I'm going back to my rod building days to give you his reasoning for doing the
> shaft deflection test. etc. etc.
Yes I understand the reasoning behind the red-dot. I've always aligned my ash
Snooker cue the same way up each time as well (the flat on the top of the rear of
the butt is better than a red-dot imo).
And as a general rule, having the shaft behave consistently is a good thing. I
don't dispute that. I'm just disputing the entire idea that squirt is due to shaft
stiffness, that's all.
Tony
tony mathews
Bob Jewett wrote:
> I think that Kirk may be using the word in the UK sense rather than in
> the US sense.
I believe that you are correct Bob. When I first heard about squirt in the
Toronto area, the common useage was "throw", as in, this cue throws the cueball
a lot more than my old cue, or some such thing. All this came from the Snooker
background of the older players. "throw-off" is also used sometimes as well.
And yes, this makes it confusing sometimes!
Tony
o.k, let's all stop this deflection nonsense and keep to squirt can we?
tony mathews
Jimbo Ct wrote:
> Who cares! Unless you have never played the game before or you can find a cue
> that has 0 (ZERO) squirt.
Hey thanks for your contribution Jimbo!
We are not even talking about whether squirt is good or evil, or covered in milk
chocolate! Ken asked a question that is interesting to those of us that like to
discuss such things.
Go back to your squirt free world and let us have our little discussion will you?
Tony
lfigueroa
the two balls frozen combo trick" shouldn't doubt that a test like this
could be subtly doctored. It certainly would take much to change the
results.
Lou Figueroa
"Ken Bour" <ken....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2Sm8.1593$8r....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> We're talking about squirt in this thread, not throw. I doubt that throw
> was a factor at all given the speed of the shot (10 MPH).
>
> At one point, I was shocked at what Bob Meucci did to one guy's cue. He
> started banging the tip into the tile floor -- HARD. Salazar even yelled
> over to knock off the racket! Bob M said that the tip was too soft and
had
> an air pocket. Before he would put it in the robot, he told the chap to
go
> over to Gulyassi's (sp?) booth and get a dime radius put on it. The guy
> did, came back, and it still squirted well to the right of everthing else
> that was being tested at the time.
>
> I didn't see anything in the actual testing process that was being
obviously
> doctored (changing robot speed, angle of shot, placement of balls,
different
> chalking technique, etc.). I'm just wondering if the best performing
"black
> dot" cue might have been tampered with ahead of time or, along Ron S's
> hypothesis, could have been the 1 in a million production shafts in terms
of
> squirt properties.
>
> Ken
>
>
> "Kirk Douglass" <kdou...@NOSPAMcolumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:TGQm8.215236$s43.48...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> [SNIP]
>
> > Ken,
> >
> > Varying tip curvatures means a lot, a nickel radius tip will produce
much
> > more throw than a dime radius. As for Meucci doctoring the test cue, I
> doubt
> > he did. We spent several hours watching him test different cues at his
> place
> > and he did the testing comparing apples to apples, so to speak. All cues
> has
> > the same brand tips installed, all tips shaped to the same radius
(dime).
> > Which put all the cues on the same playing field. All cues were held at
> the
> > same point. The results I seen mirror what everyone seen at Valley
Forge-
> > Red Dot (Best), Predator (Close, second), etc...
> >
> > However I would like to see comparitive opinions on the design and
> function
> > of the two machines, Destroyer & Willy, from those with a more
scientific
> > understanding of physics and/or mechanical engineering. I, like many
> others,
> > would like to know why the two produce different results and which
> produces
> > the correct one.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "tony mathews" <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:3C95BC9E...@sympatico.ca...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ken Bour wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Consistently, the Meucci shaft/cue outperformed every other comer
> and
> > by
> > > > > wide margins (20-50% and more). What I would like to know is
this:
> > > are
> > > > > the tests valid?
> > > >
> > > > Here's the problem as I see it. I've tested Meucci red dot shafts
and
> > > Predator
> > > > shafts using the aim and pivot test (including using a power piston
> butt
> > > btw).
> > > > While the red dot does well, I've never seen one yet that beat the
> > > Predator in
> > > > pure low squirt. And I wouldn't care if it did (in fact it would be
> > > interesting
> > > > to me). Also, I'm sure that Masse has hit with a lot of cues
including
> > > red-dots.
> > > > If he says the Schuler is lower squirt, then I believe him.
> > > >
> > > > So I see a few possibilities (I'm not saying that this is what is
> > > happening mind
> > > > you):
> > > >
> > > > 1) the red-dot shafts tested are "modified" for very low squirt.
Maybe
> > > drilled
> > > > out like the P shaft.
> > > > 2) the test using an object ball somehow skews the results by either
> > throw
> > > or
> > > > swerve.
> > > > 3) the tip curvature could be different. Therefore the actual
contact
> > > point
> > > > could be closer to center and less squirt would be observed.
> > > >
> > > > I've talked with Alan McCarty about this myself, and he has tested
the
> > > red-dots
> > > > many times. He says that they are about on par with the Predator at
> > lower
> > > speeds
> > > > (we have talked here on rsb in the past about the speed vs. squirt
> > > variance of
> > > > the red-dot and the reasons why). I see no reason to doubt him as
his
> > > results
> > > > compare with my own.
> > > >
> > > > I've also discussed this with long time Meucci users that are
> > > professionals.
> > > > Specifically Gerry Watson here in Toronto (Meucci user and former
> player
> > > rep for
> > > > many years). He uses a Red-dot shaft on his cue (he used to use an
> older
> > > Meucci
> > > > shaft). He's tried a Predator shaft, but he thought that it was
lower
> in
> > > squirt,
> > > > and he didn't want to adjust his game to it, so he stuck with the
> > red-dot.
> > > He
> > > > was adamant that he didn't want a shaft with too little squirt. If
the
> > > red-dot
> > > > was super low squirt, he would have noticed don't you think?
> > > >
> > > > So my only conclusions are that either the results are somehow
rigged
> > > (either
> > > > intentionally or not) or the test does not give a true picture, or
> maybe
> > > the
> > > > Meucci is lower squirt, but somehow nobody else can tell in actual
> play
> > > (which I
> > > > doubt).
> > > >
> > > > I wonder what Bob and Ron think?
> > > >
> > > > Tony
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Texas Willee
that.
Perhaps there is something inherent in the machine or setup that due to lack
of understanding is causing the results to be tilted toward his shafts. Even
then you would think that there would be some shafts somewhere that would
test the same or better than his red dot shafts. Whatever it is I am sure
Bob Meucci is not trying to deceive anyone and is honest about his test
setup.
Texas Willee
lfigueroa <lfig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:X6Fn8.4760$Eb5.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
JoeyA
not be a magician/snake oil peddler but another cue maker with innovative
ideas that can and will be proved under accepted and legitimate conditions,
given the opportunity. I doubt that he is waiting for our approval nor
should he.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if most questions and doubts are going to be
answered in July at the BCA trade show in New Orleans.
JoeyA
"lfigueroa" <lfig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:X6Fn8.4760$Eb5.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Jimbo Ct
>We are not even talking about
Hey Tony this happens to be a public group, "what *WE* were talking about" is
what I gave my opinion on, it had to do with squirt and the myth-bot. If you
didn't like what I wrote it will be easy for you to ignore it, I'm not sitting
here waiting to type something for you to approve. Maybe if you spent more time
playing and less time talking about squirt you'd understand. For those of you
who like to discuss things and didn't like my opinion you can go screw, I'm
sorry I didn't come into your little discussion with something that you liked.
Jim <---Discuss that
Patrick Johnson
I thought it was direct and simple, yet oddly eloquent, with a hint of humor
softening an otherwise acidic tone. All in all, a respectable effort for Jimbo,
who's posting is in a maturing but still volatile stage. I'm looking for a
solid season from him, especially since he's started to get some control over
that squirtphobia of his.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Grasshopper
setup skewing the results. To carry this idea one step further, it
would stand to reason that if Meucci used Iron Willie to develop the
best performing shaft (on Iron Willie) then it would make complete
sense that their shaft performs the best on their machine. This would
not, however, guarantee that the shaft would have the same performance
edge (if any) in the hands of a mere human in a real world shooting
application.
-or maybe I'm wrong...
Jeff Tjaden
"Texas Willee" <n5...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<sELn8.5082$xa5.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Bob Jewett
> I agree with Willee on the theory of something inherent in the machine
> setup skewing the results. ...
Well, yes, but it may not be intentional.
I don't remember exactly how the Myth Destroyer holds the front of the
stick, but if it holds it very firmly and close to the ferrule -- which
is not an unreasonable way to ensure an accurate hit -- that "bridge"
could have an effect on the amount of squirt. If you accept that the
Meucci shaft gets low squirt by having a ferrule that does the shimmy,
while other cues rely on low mass in the first foot or so, then the
Meucci might be less influenced by the firmness (and mass) of the
bridge.
The suggestion would be to use a more pliable or longer bridge for the
tests.
--
Bob Jewett
Ty E.
myself.
I too was at the expo and watched the Myth Destroyer in action. There
is no
comparison between the Myth Destroyer and the Iron Willie. By the
way, the Iron Willie is made of wood, and is held in place by
sandbags. How can this be
accurate? The Myth Destroyer, if anyone noticed, was a machined
precision instrument, mounted securely to the table with a 30" bar
under the rail and a
12" x 12" aluminum base, and also had 2 steel legs, all to guarantee
that there would be no movement from one shot to the next. I feel
assured that Bob M. left no variables. I watched him test cue after
cue from different cuemakers and none beat the red dot shaft or the
new black dot shaft, which, by the way,
did out perform the red dot shaft. I also watched him test Meucci
cues with and without red dot shafts owned by others in the crowd. I,
myself, had him test my own personal cues, both Meucci's with red dot
shafts and they performed as well as the red dot test shaft, but not
the black dot. I was there when 2 onlookers said that Predator told
them that Bob had buttons that he pushed to change the outcome of the
test, "slight of hand", I don't think so. When Bob heard this
outrageous comment, he made everyone in the booth, including himself,
back away and let the owners test their own cues, with the same
results, the red dot and black shafts still out performed and improved
their cues when tested with the red dot shaft. I also overheard Bob
challenge ANYONE in the business, at his expense, to bring anyone they
choose to do independent testing as long as the results were reported
to the public. There was no response and I DARE anyone to take this
challenge. If anyone there was listening to Bob, you would have to
realize that the man is a genius and this testing is really a matter
of the laws of physics. Of course, Bob did not write the law of
physics, but, he understands physics better than anyone in that crowd
or as a matter of fact, in the building. It's obvious by the
responses I see in this post. Independent testing has been done with
Bob's machine by 3 members of the physics department from the
University of Mississippi. You can see these results at
Meuccicues.com. By the way, Joey A
I think we will see shocking results at the BCA tradeshow in New
Orleans that will show which is better. Is Bob Meucci not allowed to
progess. I think what he is doing for the billiard industry is
remarkable. He has been in this business for a very long time and
still has the excitement for the business to better his cues as well
as others. I guess I have said my 2 cents worth or maybe 5 by the
length. Ty E.