Why does weight of a cue matter ?

[jrc750]

This has probably been asked a hundred times before, (so i will apologise now for being too lazy to search thro old postings) but why does the weight of a cue matter so much ?
Ill start by saying ime not a great player - only 44 break so far, but ive just this year returned to snooker after about a 20 year layoff !!
Ive bought a few cues (15 actually - got carried away ! - nothing at all flash before you ask) and took 4 today to my local club for a few hours knock about, and i found the ones under 17 ounces i couldn't pot even straight balls every time, but the cues at 17 1/2 to 18 were no trouble at all ! Is this all down to cue action ???

[jonnylovessn8ker]

simple physics

newton's second law of physics, there is always a force.
f=ma
f = force
m = mass (in this case, the cue (there are other scientific factors. we are talking ideal situation) )
a = acceleration (of the cue, caused by the stroke of the cue action)

simple a level maths, there is a direct relationship to the total force.

so why ppl choose different weights:
- a heavier weight helps the power of force, improve power shots, due to higher value of f
- people dont have to put so much acceleration when cueing when they have a heavy cue

ie. big buff guy might feel its hard for him to control his pace of cueing because he so buff and big. so he chooses a lighter cue.
skinny skeleton dude may want heavier cue because his stroking isnt at a fast acceleration rate.

this is speaking strictly from a physics view. it is a choice of preference at the end of the day.

[jrc750]

simple physics

newton's second law of physics, there is always a force.
f=ma
f = force
m = mass (in this case, the cue)
a = acceleration (of the cue)

simple a level maths, there is a direct relationship to the total force.

so why ppl choose different weights:
- a heavier weight helps the power of force, improve power shots, due to higher value of f
- people dont have to put so much acceleration when cueing when they have a heavy cue

this is speaking strictly from a phyics view.

Very good answer jonny - thankyou - i guess i lean towards heavier cues then. By the way ime 6 feet 1 inch tall and about 15 stone, so maybe there is a need to have a heavier cue ? Ime sure i read somewhere the great Joe Davies recommended a 16 ounce cue ? but i guess the balls were different in those days so maybe outdated info

[RGCirencester]

Can I just point out if it was purely from a physics point of view... you cannot possibly accelerate through the cueball... There will a drop of something like 40% speed upon contact and the white is only in contact with the tip for sub 4mm...

Back to the original topic... It could be that you are used to the weight of between 17.5-18 oz and so maybe you would not find such a difference if you had practiced with a 16oz cue for say 6 months.

[jrc750]

Can I just point out if it was purely from a physics point of view... you cannot possibly accelerate through the cueball... There will a drop of something like 40% speed upon contact and the white is only in contact with the tip for sub 4mm...

I left school/college 25 years ago "simple" physics and "A level" maths are a distant memory for me i just want to pot balls consistantly

[CueAntW147]

When looking at cue weight i don't think about or go into the science behind it, the good thing is there are different weights available & the most important thing is finding the one that suits you as an individual & feels right.

Trial & error is the only way, experiment a bit and eventually you'll know what feels right to you which will help in choosing a cue in the future as you'll be able to rule some out straight away........so i think your doing the right thing by trying plenty.

On the other hand no doubt if there wasn't so much choice & there was only one weight available over time we'd get used to it regardless of what it was..........but you will draw your own conclusions eventually & there is no right or wrong answer.....just find what suits you best & run with that.

[RGCirencester]

So "because you like them" is your answer then

I've heard people say they prefer 17-18oz because it feels like the natural weight a cue should be.

[CueAntW147]

Yeah...thats what i was trying to say....lol

Although the balance point of a cue can be more important regardless of its actual weight..........

[RGCirencester]

Although the balance point of a cue can be more important regardless of its actual weight..........

That I definately agree with. Personally I think you can get used to any weight of cue given time, but no matter how much you get used to it a badly balanced cue is always a badly balanced cue.

[CueAntW147]

Yeah......plus it effects the spread of the weight or how it feels ......2 cues weighing exactly the same weight...........but one balanced higher or forward at around 18-19" will feel totally different to a cue balanced lower at 16" to 17" ...........

some will like the weight in the butt so its in there hand...........some will like the weight spread over the cue....hope this makes sense?

[jrc750]

Trial & error is the only way, experiment a bit and eventually you'll know what feels right to you which will help in choosing a cue in the future as you'll be able to rule some out straight away........so i think your doing the right thing by trying plenty.

This was my reasoning for buying so many cues
Try to find my personal specs and eventually buy the correct high quality cue if/when finances allow - now if i can sell off the ones that dont suit me on good old ebay i may get close to that goal. Although i did buy a lovely E. Diggle circa 1895-1920 that is lovely to look at but only 15 1/4 ounces - but ill keep that to oggle at

[CueAntW147]

This was my reasoning for buying so many cues
Try to find my personal specs and eventually buy the correct high quality cue if/when finances allow - now if i can sell off the ones that dont suit me on good old ebay i may get close to that goal. Although i did buy a lovely E. Diggle circa 1895-1920 that is lovely to look at but only 15 1/4 ounces - but ill keep that to oggle at

Thats the best way..........

but how about if you re weighted the Diggle to 18oz.....

which would be a shame if its unspoilt, but it could turn out to be a great playing cue ....horses for courses

then other things would come in to play though like the shaft being stiff enough, the taper, tip size etc, etc ...

[jrc750]

Thats the best way..........

but how about if you re weighted the Diggle to 18oz.....

which would be a shame if its unspoilt, but it could turn out to be a great playing cue ....horses for courses

then other things would come in to play though like the shaft being stiff enough, the taper, tip size etc, etc ...

I havn't tried this cue out yet - never considered the possibility of getting it re-weighted, it does feel nice as it is, 10 mm tip, decent enough taper, but i reckon it more than likely wont be stiff enough anyway. But being old myself i do lean towards old style cues - aint nothing wrong with a plain ebony butt

[checkSide]

you cannot possibly accelerate through the cueball... There will a drop of something like 40% speed upon contact and the white is only in contact with the tip for sub 4mm...

I'm not sure exactly what this sentence means, but I doubt it is correct.

A snooker ball weighs less than 5 ounces. When you consider the average cue is 4-5 times heavier, and being swung by the human hand, it is very hard to believe it loses almost half it's speed upon contact with the white.

If you watch snooker on TV, just watch when a shot is replayed in slow motion. The cue's movements look completely unaffected by the white. In fact, if you watch the cue closely, it appears to cut through the white as if the white isn't even there. There is no way it slows down by 40%.

Also the cue is only in contact with the white for 0.001 sec. As recorded by Dr.Dave. For a cue to decelerate by 40% of its speed within 0.001 seconds is unbelievable to say the least.

[RGCirencester]

OK, where does the force that moves the ball come from? maybe not 40% but its impossible to accelerate through the cueball as you would need to exert extra effort at the exact point of impact.

If your quoting doctor Dave I believe he is where I originally got the 40% figure from.

See this video
http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_...ew/HSVB-40.htm

He quotes 40%

This is something I've been thinking about lately, which makes sense to me.