Cue weights?

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443
While I know that the weight of your cue is a personal preference, still is there an optimum cue weight for playability. Do heavier cues have a different impact on the cueball vs a lighter cue? Will the same stroke applied with a heavier cue have the same effect on the cueball as with lighter cue?

Instinctively, I feel like there must be a difference, but I'm not sure of the science to prove it. Does E=MC2 have anything to do with it? Is the speed the cueball and then the object ball travels at solely a result of your stroke speed regardless of the cue weight?

Gimme thoughts and opinions on this, or if you have ironclad science please explain.:confused:
 

DickP

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
121
The azbilliards forum has a wealth of opinions on this topic. Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett both contribute there regularly and are for-real physicists who write regularly on this sort of stuff.

How are you defining "playability"? If playability means "making the cueball go where it's aimed", I think that's better accomplished with a heavier cue; popular opinion is that you'll see diminishing returns above 21oz. If playability means "feel and control", then a lighter cue is optimal, with diminishing returns below 17oz. Therefore the 19oz standard, as a compromise.

This is an interesting subject I've been wanting to research more. I've been playing with a 17oz for awhile and it's pretty squirrelly - all my mechanical flaws seem magnified in their effects. Everything seems harder, except for touch and speed control. Playing with a 19oz now feels like a sturdy battleship that goes wherever you point it, but who knows where it will finally come to rest...
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,667
NEWTONS SECOND LAW
FORCE EQUALS MASS TIMES ACCELERATION
F=MA
http://zonalandeducation.com/mstm/physics/mechanics/forces/newton/newtonLaw2.html
so the force the cue stick imparts on on the cue ball
is its mass (the weight of the cue stick ) multiplied by the acceleration of the cue stick
so to answer one of your questions
"Will the same stroke applied with a heavier cue have the same effect on the cueball as with lighter cue?"
answer ....no
so an equal swing speed would produce more force with a heavier cue stick
(theoretically since the stick is heavier it might slow your swing speed so the net effect would not change.....thats been the debate on light versus heavier break cues for rotation games)


e=mc squared i dont think plays a role here to answer another question

as for optimal playability i think is subjective based on what you get used to
within reasonable limits as mentioned above by dickP
i am not a physicist
icbw
check your pm
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443
NEWTONS SECOND LAW
FORCE EQUALS MASS TIMES ACCELERATION
F=MA
http://zonalandeducation.com/mstm/physics/mechanics/forces/newton/newtonLaw2.html
so the force the cue stick imparts on on the cue ball
is its mass (the weight of the cue stick ) multiplied by the acceleration of the cue stick
so to answer one of your questions
"Will the same stroke applied with a heavier cue have the same effect on the cueball as with lighter cue?"
answer ....no
so an equal swing speed would produce more force with a heavier cue stick
(theoretically since the stick is heavier it might slow your swing speed so the net effect would not change.....thats been the debate on light versus heavier break cues for rotation games)


e=mc squared i dont think plays a role here to answer another question

as for optimal playability i think is subjective based on what you get used to
within reasonable limits as mentioned above by dickP
i am not a physicist
icbw
check your pm
Larry,

Thanks for this response, exactly what I was looking for, however, in trying to understand this, I can't help but have several questions. You may not have all the answers, so if anyone else wants to jump in feel free.

First, mass is defined as the weight of the cue. Is acceleration simply the speed of the stroke at impact? Acceleration is usually thought of as something like the rate of change in speed (like in a car goes from 0-60 in 5 seconds), which is different than speed at a given point, isn't it?

So, in trying to understand your conclusion that the same stroke (assuming one can apply the same stroke) applied with two different cue weights will produce different results (i.e. a cueball that goes faster or slower, a cueball that travels farther or less far) seems to need further explanation.

So, here's what we have. A cueball can't go farther unless it goes faster. A cueball can't go faster unless it goes farther. These seem true, no?

For our conclusion to be true, a heavier cue will move the cueball faster than the actual stroke speed, while a lighter cue will move a cueball slower than the actual stroke speed. Therefore, there must be a cue weight that moves the cueball at the same speed as the actual stroke speed, no?

That weight would seem to represent the optimal weight for a cue because it produces a result that is in precise tune with my stroke. Additionally, lighter cues, because they produce a cueball speed slower than the stroke speed, require more effort, and heavier cue weights require less effort.

All of the above seems to make sense to me, with the possible exception that a cue can actually cause the cueball to travel faster than the actual stroke speed. Care to elaborate on this, anyone?
 

1pwannabe

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
842
Cue Weight

E=MC^2 describes how mass is convertible to energy and wouldn't be useful here, unless you were wanting to try to accelerate a cue stick at near light speeds.

I find that a lighter cue (18 oz) helps me greatly with cue ball speed for 1P, but I prefer 19-19.5 oz for rotation and straight pool. Selling out in 1P is worse than missing a shot most of the time, so I'll trade off accuracy for the better cue ball speed.
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,667
darmoose
it would be easier for me to discuss this in person than having to type alot
i sent you my cell # via pm
regardless of cue weight
if i asked you to put the cue ball on the foot spot and make the cue ball go
head rail/ foot rail/center table
after a few tries you would get close
if i gave you a different cue in weight and told you to do the same thing
after a few tries you would get close
you would learn by feel how hard you need to stroke to get the cue ball to move a certain distance
 

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
2,928
Larry,

Thanks for this response, exactly what I was looking for, however, in trying to understand this, I can't help but have several questions. You may not have all the answers, so if anyone else wants to jump in feel free.

First, mass is defined as the weight of the cue. Is acceleration simply the speed of the stroke at impact? Acceleration is usually thought of as something like the rate of change in speed (like in a car goes from 0-60 in 5 seconds), which is different than speed at a given point, isn't it?

So, in trying to understand your conclusion that the same stroke (assuming one can apply the same stroke) applied with two different cue weights will produce different results (i.e. a cueball that goes faster or slower, a cueball that travels farther or less far) seems to need further explanation.

So, here's what we have. A cueball can't go farther unless it goes faster. A cueball can't go faster unless it goes farther. These seem true, no?

For our conclusion to be true, a heavier cue will move the cueball faster than the actual stroke speed, while a lighter cue will move a cueball slower than the actual stroke speed. Therefore, there must be a cue weight that moves the cueball at the same speed as the actual stroke speed, no?

That weight would seem to represent the optimal weight for a cue because it produces a result that is in precise tune with my stroke. Additionally, lighter cues, because they produce a cueball speed slower than the stroke speed, require more effort, and heavier cue weights require less effort.

All of the above seems to make sense to me, with the possible exception that a cue can actually cause the cueball to travel faster than the actual stroke speed. Care to elaborate on this, anyone?[/



When playing one pocket, the weight of a cue stick is best suited to personal preference and feel. Playability and touch is something that has to be decided by the individual using the cue. The weight/force ratio is a personal thing, as is the wrap, the tip, the ferrule, & the mm of the shaft used.

As to the delivery, or imparted speed, ie; propulsion, it seems not to compare with other sports where light vs. heavy or speed equating to force has a greater impact.

A light baseball bat swings faster and faster equals farther in baseball...
Club head speed, not weight determines distance in golf...
If someone had super strength and could swing either of these two at the same speed only weighing twice as much, which balls would travel farther? According to F=MA the heavier bat and the heavier golf club would out distance the lighter weaponry by far... That could very well be true, but, :sorry. I don't buy it...:)
 
Last edited:

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,667
Larry,

Thanks for this response, exactly what I was looking for, however, in trying to understand this, I can't help but have several questions. You may not have all the answers, so if anyone else wants to jump in feel free.

First, mass is defined as the weight of the cue. Is acceleration simply the speed of the stroke at impact? Acceleration is usually thought of as something like the rate of change in speed (like in a car goes from 0-60 in 5 seconds), which is different than speed at a given point, isn't it?

So, in trying to understand your conclusion that the same stroke (assuming one can apply the same stroke) applied with two different cue weights will produce different results (i.e. a cueball that goes faster or slower, a cueball that travels farther or less far) seems to need further explanation.

So, here's what we have. A cueball can't go farther unless it goes faster. A cueball can't go faster unless it goes farther. These seem true, no?

For our conclusion to be true, a heavier cue will move the cueball faster than the actual stroke speed, while a lighter cue will move a cueball slower than the actual stroke speed. Therefore, there must be a cue weight that moves the cueball at the same speed as the actual stroke speed, no?

That weight would seem to represent the optimal weight for a cue because it produces a result that is in precise tune with my stroke. Additionally, lighter cues, because they produce a cueball speed slower than the stroke speed, require more effort, and heavier cue weights require less effort.

All of the above seems to make sense to me, with the possible exception that a cue can actually cause the cueball to travel faster than the actual stroke speed. Care to elaborate on this, anyone?[/



When playing one pocket, the weight of a cue stick is best suited to personal preference and feel. Playability and touch is something that has to be decided by the individual using the cue. The weight/force ratio is a personal thing, as is the wrap, the tip, the ferrule, & the mm of the shaft used.

As to the delivery, or imparted speed, ie; propulsion, it seems not to compare with other sports where light vs. heavy or speed equating to force has a greater impact.

A light baseball bat swings faster and faster equals farther in baseball...
Club head speed, not weight determines distance in golf...

If someone had super strength and could swing either of these two at the same speed only weighing twice as much, which balls would travel farther? According to F=MA the heavier bat and the heavier golf club would out distance the lighter weaponry by far... That could very well be true, but, :sorry. I don't buy it...:)
swing faster and club head speed is related to the A in the equation
F=MA
so more A can offset M.......:)
the results on the table is personable like you said jeff
i dont know a formula for that....:D
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,667
Thanks Larry,
So which balls would travel farther, theoretically?
if the mass is heavier and the ACCELERATION (not just speed) is equal
the heavier bat and club would make the ball go farther
thats how i understand it
too bad patrick johnson doesnt post here anymore
he really knows about this stuff
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,623
A light baseball bat swings faster and faster equals farther in baseball...
Club head speed, not weight determines distance in golf...
If someone had super strength and could swing either of these two at the same speed only weighing twice as much, which balls would travel farther? According to F=MA the heavier bat and the heavier golf club would out distance the lighter weaponry by far... That could very well be true, but, :sorry. I don't buy it...:)
(Shhhhhhh... you should.) The formula is not Mass times Acceleration, it is Mass times double the speed. That's why more weight = more force only up to the point that it causes speed to diminish, but before that point is reached, more mass equals more force.

Could you move a bowling ball farther with a 16 lb sledge hammer or a slug from a .45?

Mass and speed can vary in their significance within ranges relevant to certain tasks. Golf clubs and pool cues (especially break cues) have weights within ranges where speed is greatly relevant. If you add a 1/2 oz to a cue or club without reducing max swing speed, that cue or club can deliver more force.
 

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
2,928
(Shhhhhhh... you should.) The formula is not Mass times Acceleration, it is Mass times double the speed. That's why more weight = more force only up to the point that it causes speed to diminish, but before that point is reached, more mass equals more force.

Could you move a bowling ball farther with a 16 lb sledge hammer or a slug from a .45?

Mass and speed can vary in their significance within ranges relevant to certain tasks. Golf clubs and pool cues (especially break cues) have weights within ranges where speed is greatly relevant. If you add a 1/2 oz to a cue or club without reducing max swing speed, that cue or club can deliver more force.

:heh. If I point the 45 at you, I'm guessing I could move the bowling ball farther with the 45!!! So I suppose the new formula in this case would be 45@u=whatever distance I make you carry the bowling ball... :heh:heh:heh:)

I'm in over my head as usual...:frus
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,667
:heh. If I point the 45 at you, I'm guessing I could move the bowling ball farther with the 45!!! So I suppose the new formula in this case would be 45@u=whatever distance I make you carry the bowling ball... :heh:heh:heh:)

I'm in over my head as usual...:frus
jeff
dont worry about any of this stuff......:D
you shoot way better and know way more than we do.......:frus.....:)
 

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
2,928
(Shhhhhhh... you should.) The formula is not Mass times Acceleration, it is Mass times double the speed. That's why more weight = more force only up to the point that it causes speed to diminish, but before that point is reached, more mass equals more force.

Could you move a bowling ball farther with a 16 lb sledge hammer or a slug from a .45?

Mass and speed can vary in their significance within ranges relevant to certain tasks. Golf clubs and pool cues (especially break cues) have weights within ranges where speed is greatly relevant. If you add a 1/2 oz to a cue or club without reducing max swing speed, that cue or club can deliver more force.
While it's true that more mass will produce more force to any given object until speed is diminished, when if ever does any of this have an effect on playing a game called one pocket...

I fail to grasp the point, unless it's simply what weight cue should be used to play one pocket? The answer to that lies not in any mathematical formula or equation, it's simply which weight suits your game the best, and which weight are you the most comfortable playing with all the time... Whatever feels good and works is what everyone needs to be playing with... Find one that feels good and has a good tip, I used to play off the house rack when on the road and that principle worked surprisingly well for me. Now I can afford a production two piece with a artificial plastic joint, man oh man it's got everything a country boy could want...:)
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,623
While it's true that more mass will produce more force to any given object until speed is diminished, when if ever does any of this have an effect on playing a game called one pocket...
It definitely has an effect, just not one that's productively quantifiable, predictable or observable. (But if you happen to ask me how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, I'll probably give you an answer. :D )
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,667
While it's true that more mass will produce more force to any given object until speed is diminished, when if ever does any of this have an effect on playing a game called one pocket...

I fail to grasp the point, unless it's simply what weight cue should be used to play one pocket?...... Whatever feels good and works is what everyone needs to be playing with...
first
lets remember it was darmoose who started this thread
i think he should be replying to some of the posters
that said
jeff here is how it relates to one pocket
in my opinion
on the touch shots ..ie you want to move the cue ball an inch to freeze against a ball and the rail for example
would take a more precise or delicacy of stroke with a 21 oz cue vs a 18-19 oz cue because there would less forgiveness with relation to movement of the cue ball for any given force
that being said
there is no perfect weight or balance of a cue for one pocket or any other pool game
"to each there own"
get a cue/ get used to it /and go for it...:)
 

petie

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
3,314
Interesting, I think, facts:

Mosconi used a 19.5 oz. cue.

Efren uses a 26 oz. cue.

Mizerack once played with a cue made totally out of Stainless Steel while entertaining for a steel industry group. It weighed a ton. He said it played good but wore him out to use it.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443
While it's true that more mass will produce more force to any given object until speed is diminished, when if ever does any of this have an effect on playing a game called one pocket...

I fail to grasp the point, unless it's simply what weight cue should be used to play one pocket? The answer to that lies not in any mathematical formula or equation, it's simply which weight suits your game the best, and which weight are you the most comfortable playing with all the time... Whatever feels good and works is what everyone needs to be playing with... Find one that feels good and has a good tip, I used to play off the house rack when on the road and that principle worked surprisingly well for me. Now I can afford a production two piece with a artificial plastic joint, man oh man it's got everything a country boy could want...:)
Sorry I haven't responded to comments on this subject which I brought up. I was out all day playing one pocket with my new Balance-Rite extension, which so far I am very pleased with. This is the reason I asked the question(s) in the first place.

I have been researching the Balance-Rite extension and reading reviews and comments about it. The factual effects of this extension are 1) it will add about two ounces to your cue, 2) it will add about four inches to the length of your cue, and 3) it will provide more weight forward thus moving the balance point forward on your cue.

I was pretty sure I would like the longer length and the movement of the balance point more forward (which puts more downward force on the shaft, very desirable when shooting with open bridge), but I was a little concerned about the extra two ounces. My cue is about 19.4 so this would make it 21.4 ounces.

What finally caused me to cough the $35.00 and buy this gizmo was reading several opinions of players, instructors, and even a few from self identifying scientists that said basically that more weight = less effort= more accuracy and conversely less weight = more effort= less accuracy. The most common theory is that a heavier cue helps to keep you cue on track (less lateral movement through the stroke).

Obviously, as L S John points out, this is only good up the point where weight impedes your ability to develop enough speed of stroke. I've played now two full days (10-11 hrs) with this modification, and am pleasantly surprised that I played at my best level almost immediately and stayed there all day. I am aware of the phenomenon that almost any change can initially provide improvement, so I am not at a point of final judgement yet.

My observations these last two days are that I felt like my cueball was rolling farther with less effort, my stroke did seem more "solid", and I was pretty darn accurate both shooting and moving.

I want to say a word about comments from a few about cue weight and other cue properties being merely a personal preference, and we must simply get used to it, and there being no optimum, which I also stated initially in my original post. I think NOW that there MAY just be an optimum, and no one can know without trying options.
 

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
2,928
Sorry I haven't responded to comments on this subject which I brought up. I was out all day playing one pocket with my new Balance-Rite extension, which so far I am very pleased with. This is the reason I asked the question(s) in the first place.

I have been researching the Balance-Rite extension and reading reviews and comments about it. The factual effects of this extension are 1) it will add about two ounces to your cue, 2) it will add about four inches to the length of your cue, and 3) it will provide more weight forward thus moving the balance point forward on your cue.

I was pretty sure I would like the longer length and the movement of the balance point more forward (which puts more downward force on the shaft, very desirable when shooting with open bridge), but I was a little concerned about the extra two ounces. My cue is about 19.4 so this would make it 21.4 ounces.

What finally caused me to cough the $35.00 and buy this gizmo was reading several opinions of players, instructors, and even a few from self identifying scientists that said basically that more weight = less effort= more accuracy and conversely less weight = more effort= less accuracy. The most common theory is that a heavier cue helps to keep you cue on track (less lateral movement through the stroke).

Obviously, as L S John points out, this is only good up the point where weight impedes your ability to develop enough speed of stroke. I've played now two full days (10-11 hrs) with this modification, and am pleasantly surprised that I played at my best level almost immediately and stayed there all day. I am aware of the phenomenon that almost any change can initially provide improvement, so I am not at a point of final judgement yet.

My observations these last two days are that I felt like my cueball was rolling farther with less effort, my stroke did seem more "solid", and I was pretty darn accurate both shooting and moving.

I want to say a word about comments from a few about cue weight and other cue properties being merely a personal preference, and we must simply get used to it, and there being no optimum, which I also stated initially in my original post. I think NOW that there MAY just be an optimum, and no one can know without trying options.
When we played the seniors in Houston this year, I bought a balance rite mid- cue extension from John Henderson, he said he liked the shorter version 2" vs the 3.75" model that you and I are now using.

I'm nuts about it, I won't ever play without it again. I like the forward balance it gives and the feel of the longer cue in my hands, I've been playing with it since April, and I feel it's improved my overall game about a ball. The added weight now at 20 ozs. Up from 18 is not a problem, in fact I like it. :)
 
Top