Whippy Cues or Flexible Shafts
ange...@gmi.net
There has been a lot of conversation about "whippy cues" or in another
language, flexible shafts. Why does Meucci build a cue with a flexible
shaft???
A. ' and don't know anything after 35 years as a leader in the
business.
B. Is not able to buy high-quality lumber...taking into account that they
own their own saw-mill. The same saw mill that produces the finest white
shafts in the world in which many custom cue makers buy their lumber from
(Schon, Predator, etc., to name a few) after Meucci has had first choice.
C. They just can't taper a cue using the machinery they have, cause it
can only hold a 1,000th of an inch tolerance on a piece of wood and Bob
Meucci is only a journeyman tool & die maker.
No...I any of those are the reasons. I think they do it on purpose.
So for the benefit of inquiring minds out there. Here is a plausable
explanation:
Flexibility, whether it be in a fiberglass pole for pole-vaulting or
flexible graphite in a tennis raquet, golf shaft or the taper of the
modern baseball bats that create flexibility; all serve to do the same
thing. That is, to capture and store energy in the tool and release it at
the proper time to amplify the amount of force applied to the ball.
Therefore, with less power we generate more power or amplify your stroke.
To further clarify...at the moment the tip impacts the cue ball, the cue
ball starts to compress or foreshorten before the cue balls inertia, to
remain at rest, is overcome. Hence, loading into the shaft a portion of
the speed and power of the individuals arm or stroke. Then, as the ball
starts to move, you not only get the armspeed and power, but also the
additional loaded power in the flexible shaft. The result you see as a
player is..."Boy! a Meucci cue draws better than other cues."
Needless to say, if it draws better, it also can put more side spin on
the left or right of the ball and more top spin; as well as more foward
motion velocity, because power can only be expressed in two ways on the
cue ball.
1. Foward motion velocity, when struck perfectly in the middle.
2. English velocity when struck very high or very low or extreme left or
extreme right.
Or, a percentage of both, which the latter is present in most pool shots
with the exception of the break, struck pure in the center for just
foward motion velocity.
"Okay", you may say "Lots of power, but what about control?"
If you use a cue that has no power, (in other words, a cue which can only
draw 8 ft) then obviously, if you hit the ball down low on the bottom
every time and vary your speed of stroke; the difference between 6 and 12
inches of draw will require quite a difference in power and for the
amateur who has no touch, he will feel like he has more control.
Unlike amatuers, the best players in the world, do not hit the ball with
extreme low, high, left or right, (for most shots) and control with speed
of stroke. Instead they (Buddy Hall being the perfect example)hit the
ball basically the same power every time, but make slight adjustments of
tip position off the center of the cue ball. In other words, 1/32nd of an
inch below center, 1/16th an inch below center, 3/32nds an inch below
center, 1/8th inch below center, etc., etc., and still have left in their
bag of tricks that four rail draw shot when they need it and their cue
can deliver it!! Need I say more?
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Ron Shepard
>There has been a lot of conversation about "whippy cues" or in another
>language, flexible shafts. Why does Meucci build a cue with a flexible
>shaft??? [...]
You have posted a reasonable summary of some of the theories about why a
flexible shaft might be better than a stiff shaft at getting draw. Since
you are apparently a new poster here to r.s.b., you may not know that
these things are discussed all the time here. One of the things that is
missing from your post is a way of supporting, or in a loose sense,
proving, your claims. If you look through some of the previous threads on
this topic, for example using dejanews, you will find descriptions of a
"challenge draw shot"; the last time the shot was described it had the
title "two challenge draw shots". This is an example of a reproducible
shot setup that players, and cue makers, can use to prove claims of
superdraw, superspin, superpower, and so on.
Some players believe that a flexible shaft is better for draw, some
believe that a stiff shaft is better, and some believe that it doesn't
make much difference, that the most important thing is the tip-ball
contact point and the speed of the shot. The above challenge draw shot
seems to support the last claim. Can you use this shot to support your
claims of the advantages of a flexible shaft? Is there another shot setup
that you can suggest that would support your claims?
$.02 -Ron Shepard
dwhite1
ange...@gmi.net wrote in article <887265466...@dejanews.com>...
> There has been a lot of conversation about "whippy cues" or in another
> language, flexible shafts. Why does Meucci build a cue with a flexible
> shaft???
>
snip items re. Meucci
> Flexibility, whether it be in a fiberglass pole for pole-vaulting or
> flexible graphite in a tennis raquet, golf shaft or the taper of the
> modern baseball bats that create flexibility; all serve to do the same
> thing. That is, to capture and store energy in the tool and release it at
> the proper time to amplify the amount of force applied to the ball.
> Therefore, with less power we generate more power or amplify your stroke.
>
> To further clarify...at the moment the tip impacts the cue ball, the cue
> ball starts to compress or foreshorten before the cue balls inertia, to
> remain at rest, is overcome. Hence, loading into the shaft a portion of
> the speed and power of the individuals arm or stroke. Then, as the ball
> starts to move, you not only get the armspeed and power, but also the
> additional loaded power in the flexible shaft. The result you see as a
> player is..."Boy! a Meucci cue draws better than other cues."
>
snip rest on english
Be careful about saying that flexibility is supposed to create more power.
In the case of a tennis racquet that you cite, more flexibility in the
racquet creates LESS power. Interestingly enough, more flexibility (ie.
less string tension) in the strings creates more power. So the rule is,
more flexible racquet, less power; lower string tension, more power. The
reason for this, apparently, is as follows: When the ball hits the strings,
both the string bed and the racquet flex. As the ball rebounds, the
strings react fast enough to cause the "spring" action you talk about.
However, the racquet itself does not recoil quickly enough. The ball
leaves the strings before the racquet itself recoils. So, the flexible
racquet has actually taken energy AWAY from the ball.
So, how does this apply to a whippy shaft? Does it take energy away from
the cue ball, add to it, or have no effect?
--
D. White
Jeffrey Weiss
The mysterious Meucci-guy known only as ange...@gmi.net sez:
> [Meucci's own miss is] The same saw mill that produces the finest white
> shafts in the world in which many custom cue makers buy their lumber from
> (Schon, Predator, etc., to name a few) after Meucci has had first choice.
Are you saying, then, that Schon, Predator, and others use inferior wood in
their shafts than Meucci?
> Flexibility, whether it be in a fiberglass pole for pole-vaulting or
> flexible graphite in a tennis raquet, golf shaft or the taper of the
> modern baseball bats that create flexibility; all serve to do the same
> thing. That is, to capture and store energy in the tool and release it at
> the proper time to amplify the amount of force applied to the ball.
> Therefore, with less power we generate more power or amplify your stroke.
Except that in each of those activities, the important contact time is
significantly greater than the tip-to-ball contact time in pool. Also, what is
the purpose of amplifying a stroke in pool? How many people find that there
are circumstances where they do not have the ability to hit the ball as hard as
they need to? And, to what degree can stored energy amplify the stroke (5%,
10%, 50%, more?)?
> Needless to say, if it draws better, it also can put more side spin on
> the left or right of the ball and more top spin; as well as ...
Can it increase the spin-to-speed ratio, or just both in proportion? Do you
understand what I mean by the importance of spin-to-speed ratio?
> If you use a cue that has no power, (in other words, a cue which can only
> draw 8 ft) then obviously, if you hit the ball down low on the bottom
> every time and vary your speed of stroke; the difference between 6 and 12
> inches of draw will require quite a difference in power and for the
> amateur who has no touch, he will feel like he has more control.
OK, I understand so far...if the input has a fixed range (your stroke), and the
cue has a greater dynamic range, then the result is more sensitive to the
input. That makes sense. And it's a good, useful definition of control.
> ...Instead [pros] (Buddy Hall being the perfect example) hit the
> ball basically the same power every time, but make slight adjustments of
> tip position off the center of the cue ball. In other words, 1/32nd of an
> inch below center, 1/16th an inch below center, 3/32nds an inch below
> center, 1/8th inch below center, etc., etc., and still have left in their
> bag of tricks that four rail draw shot when they need it and their cue
> can deliver it!! Need I say more?
But the input in this case (distance off center) still has a fixed range, so
the greater sensitivity (i.e., less "control") is still there. In other words,
the effect of Buddy aiming for 1/16 and getting 3/32 instead will be amplified
by the more "powerful" cue. Just as the effect of trying to stroke at a given
speed and actually hitting a touch harder or softer. Same difference. I need
you to say more!
--
jw (NYC)
George Rutherford
> There has been a lot of conversation about "whippy cues" or in another
> language, flexible shafts. Why does Meucci build a cue with a flexible
> shaft???
>
> No...I any of those are the reasons. I think they do it on purpose.
Snippitty-doo-dah, snippitty day
Maybe there is something to this, I don't really know. I know a number of
people who think Meucci sticks have "great action", meaning you can yank
the cueball all over the place; I've tried them (which IMHO doesn't mean
much unless you live with it for a while), but I felt that I couldn't
shoot straight with 'em (but see above disclaimer). I could draw like
crazy, tho, but then I can normally draw OK. I wonder if there is a point
to my post (as George looks back).
George
BHW4Canes
<<Interestingly enough, more flexibility (ie.
less string tension) in the strings creates more power. So the rule is,
more flexible racquet, less power; >>
You have it all wrong. The snap in the flex of the raquet, golf club, or hockey
stick gives it added velocity. I'm not sure where you went to school, but maybe
you should go back and ask your physics teacher. Looser strings in a tennis
raquet make for sloppy, slower ball speeds. Tight strings + correctly flexing
raquet make for awesome speed. Only less control.
Mike Hu
BHW4Canes wrote:
I have heard that a lower string tension produces more power, while a
higher one give you more control. Ron, or anyone else qualified out
there, can you give us your hypothesis as to the real truth to this
matter?
BHW4Canes
All the talk about flexing is really not comparable to a cue. A hockey stick,
tennis raquet, and golf club all have lots of flex....in a plane parralel to
the object being struck, or the swing. A golf club flexes considerably at the
top of your backswing. A hockey stick contacts the ice, and flexes, adding snap
to the shot. A raquet absorbs some of the energy of the moving tennis ball,
then gives it back with a kick, propelling the ball back from whence it came. A
cue, absorbs impact on a vertical axis to the object (cue ball). It may allow
for deflection, but will not impart power on the ball by flexing. It is being
compacted at full impact, not flexing away. If it is flexing away, you
definately have a whippy cue. Brace a cue on the table and send a ball at the
tip with force...it will all but kill the roll. It flexes, but very little in
this fashion. Throw a tennis ball at a braced raquet, and it should have some
good rebound. Different materials and weight(inertia) come into play here. Cue
ball and stick are both very solid and less flexible than graphite raquet,
hollow ball, or a wood/aluminum/graphite stick and rubber puck.
Bradley Cook
BHW4Canes wrote:
> You have it all wrong. The snap in the flex of the raquet, golf club, or hockey
> stick gives it added velocity. I'm not sure where you went to school, but maybe
> you should go back and ask your physics teacher. Looser strings in a tennis
> raquet make for sloppy, slower ball speeds. Tight strings + correctly flexing
> raquet make for awesome speed. Only less control.
This doesn't really apply to cue sticks and isn't entirely accurate.
Golfer with high swing speeds actually use stiffer clubs, while many
senior players use graphite(flexible) clubs. The theory, as I
understand it, is that when you start the forward swing, the clubs head
lags a bit due to shaft flex. With a slower swing, by the time your
club head reaches the ball, the shaft has started to flex back to its
original shape thus giving the club head a little extra speed. If you
have a faster swing, I don't think this helps much...
But in pool, the flex is AFTER contact, and nobody has determined
whether or not this has an effect on the shot(and Ron Shephard contends
that it doesn't).
--
<<<REMOVE "NOSPAM" from email address to reply>>>
dwhite1
BHW4Canes <bhw4...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980213044...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> <<Interestingly enough, more flexibility (ie.
> less string tension) in the strings creates more power. So the rule is,
> more flexible racquet, less power; >>
>
hockey
> stick gives it added velocity. I'm not sure where you went to school, but
maybe
> you should go back and ask your physics teacher.
I have an engineering degree from Northwestern University. How about you?
A tennis racquet is not a golf club, nor is it a hockey stick, and they
don't all behave the same. You obviously have never played much tennis or
else you'd understand what I'm talking about (and it's 'raCquet' not
'raquet').
If you're right, then you'd better inform Wilson that their racquet power
ratings are all backwards. The SI (stiffness index) ratings they use are
to match a player's power to the racquet. The higher the SI, the more
flexible, and less powerful the racquet. The SI is measured by hanging a
specified weight off the end of the racquet by a string. The amount of
deflection of the shaft downward, in millimeters, is the SI rating. A 4.2
is a little stiffer than, say, a 6.1 which has flexed 6.1 mm instead of 4.2
mm. Taller people and others with large swings should use the more
flexible, higher SI numbered racquets which are LESS powerful.
> Looser strings in a tennis
> raquet make for sloppy, slower ball speeds. Tight strings + correctly
flexing
> raquet make for awesome speed. Only less control.
>
Looser strings make for sloppy play in large part because they have MORE
power. The ball flies off the racquet more at the expense of control.
Tight strings give you MORE control at the expense of power and LESS speed.
BHW - You're certainly not the first person to be confused by the fact that
a flexible racquet has LESS power, while looser strings have MORE power...
but I've already gone over this in the previous post.
I think it unnecessary that you make personal insults in a forum where
people discuss a FUN activity like pool. However, if you are going to do
so, you should at least get your facts straight before you come off like an
expert. Errors such as the one you've just made will tend to ruin your
credibility on other issues.
Hey, how 'bout playing a twelve point tie-breaker for a C note? (A twelve
point tie-breaker is where the first one to 7 wins if the other player has
5 points at most -- win by 2). I'll spot you 5 points. ;)
Regards,
--
D. White
dwhite1
BHW4Canes <bhw4...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980213044...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> <<Interestingly enough, more flexibility (ie.
> less string tension) in the strings creates more power. So the rule is,
> more flexible racquet, less power; >>
>
> You have it all wrong. The snap in the flex of the raquet, golf club, or
hockey
> stick gives it added velocity. I'm not sure where you went to school, but
maybe
> you should go back and ask your physics teacher.
I have an engineering degree from Northwestern University. How about you?
A tennis racquet (yes, it's racquet with a C) is not a golf club or hockey
stick, so don't be too quick to lump them all together. You obviously have
never played much tennis or else you'd know enough to be embarrassed by
your snoddy remark. There's no room for that in a forum where people want
to have fun discussing their hobby.
Now, as for your argument: If you are correct, then Wilson will have to
change their entire line of racquets. They are graded by something called
a 'stiffness index' or SI. The higher the number, the more flexible the
racquet. The SI is found by hanging a weight from a string off one end of
the racquet, and measuring the downward deflection of the shaft. An SI of
4.2 means the racquet flexed downward by 4.2 millimeters. An SI of 6.1
would be more flexible than a 4.2, for example, because it deflected by 6.1
mm. Tall players and others with big swings go with the higher SI racquets
since those racquets have less power than the lower SI ones.
You are not the first uninformed novice to be fooled by the apparent
paradox that flexible racquets have low power, while loose strings have
high power. Check back to the previous post for the reason why.
> Looser strings in a tennis
> raquet make for sloppy, slower ball speeds. Tight strings + correctly
flexing
> raquet make for awesome speed. Only less control.
>
Actually, loose strings make for sloppy play in large part because they
generate HIGHER ball speeds. Tight strings do not make for "awesome"
speed. The tight string bed IMPROVES control and also slows the ball.
If you'd like to settle this, let's play a 12 point tie-breaker for a
C-note! (That's where the first one to win 7 points by a margin of 2 wins).
I'll spot you 5. :)
Sorry to the rest of the group for overreacting, but I don't understand
people who slight others for no apparent reason, other than poor manners I
suppose.
Regards,
--
D. White
Ron Hudson
On 13 Feb 1998 17:00:40 GMT, "dwhite1" <dwh...@erols.com> wrote:
>I have an engineering degree from Northwestern University. How about you?
Hitler is one, and I think the other indication that a thread is about
to croak is when the participants enter the "my degree is bigger than
yours, Nya, Nya Nya" mode.
Ron
dwhite1
C'mon Ron, give me a break. He said he didn't know where I got my
education, so I told him! Where did Hitler go to college, anyway?
--
D. White
Ron Hudson <R...@Netcams.com> wrote in article
<34e6d553....@snews.zippo.com>...
Tom Simpson
In article <01bd38e5$7dcb8cc0$55c8...@dwhite1.erols.com>,
dwh...@erols.com says...
::C'mon Ron, give me a break. He said he didn't know where I got my
::education, so I told him! Where did Hitler go to college, anyway?
::
::--
::D. White
Off-topic thread-killer: There is a great novel called "White Noise" by
Don DeLillo where the main character is professor looking to stake out a
place in academia, so he starts a Department of Hitler Studies. He
doesn't speak German, and is a thoroughbred beaurocrat. Good stuff.
tom simpson
BHW4Canes
Hate to break it to you , but a degree doesn't mean shit.. It'a a piece of
paper. I know plenty of dumbases with degrees. Thanks for your time smartass.
Jim Barr
BHW4Canes wrote:
>
> Hate to break it to you , but a degree doesn't mean shit.. It'a a piece of
> paper. I know plenty of dumbases with degrees. Thanks for your time smartass.
Maybe I'm one of them, but is that how them there words are spelled?
:-)
Jim Barr
dwhite1
> Hate to break it to you , but a degree doesn't mean shit.. It'a a piece
of
smartass.
>
as in "I don't know where you went to college, but ..." so let's both drop
it.
My original point is just this: A flexible shaft does not necessarily mean
that more energy will be put back into whatever ball (pool, golf, tennis,
even baseball) you are hitting. I think all the posts from the real
physics experts in this group say that it's all very complicated, and
that's why there's so much debate.
--
D. White
Ed Mercier
I will say that I use a very dated Wilson Profile 2.8, which is one of the
stiffest tennis rackets around. This definately gives me mroe power with less
effort than other rackets. I know this from personal experience. Wilson also
makes this very clear in all their advertising. I think they still rate all
their rackets with an SI rating.
