Re: Ash vs. Maple

> I'm researching how cues are built and what materials are used to make  
> them. I'm looking into the woods. It seems like in the U.S. the wood that  
> is used primarily to make the shafts and butts (other than all the exotic  
> stuff to make the stick look pretty) is Maple. Specifically Sugar Maple.  
> However, in the UK, and I think for most snooker cues, the wood used is  
> Ash.  
>  
> Anyone have any ideas about why this is the case? What are the pros and  
> cons of Ash vs Maple? Are there other shock resistant woods that are used  
> with some frequency? Thanks. 
>  
> --  
> "Every brand new day should be unwrapped like a special gift." 
> - Harry Harrison, New York's "Morning Mayor" 
> 

Both woods absorb the energy of impact between the cue tip and the cue ball 
and via vibrations that travel down the length of the cue the woods provide 
both auditory and tactile clues as to how the cue ball was struck.

Pool balls are bigger and heavier than snooker balls so the heavier and harder 
hitting maple works better with them, whereas the ash works better with the 
lighter snooker balls.

There is also a trade off between the energy absorbed by the cue/transfered to 
the cue ball, and those clues one feels as vibrations. Ash may provide more 
clues, but maple transfer more energy (which is needed for bigger balls).

Anyhow, that is my guess, but I'm sticking to it.

There is something I like about snooker cues though. They put the joint right 
above where our pool cues have the wrap, giving what they call a 3/4 cue. Much 
better than placing the joint midway in the shaft.