- This topic has 10 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I have only been playing pool seriously for the past few years. Just sold my 9′ AMF as we are getting ready to move. Hopefully, I can pick up an Irving Kaye box bar table once I get settled in my new home. I learned some diamond systems and read up on the math to hopefully accelerate my rate of improvement. I figured knowing what is at least geometrically possible is better than guessing.
I noticed that some of the smaller IK models have the aiming sites spaced at 1/3 table width instead of the standard 1/4 table width.
I put some masking tape on my table at the 1/3 marks and found some interesting relationships with 1, 2, and 3 rail banks. Unlike standard tables with sites set at 1/4 the table, I found with sites set at 1/3 the table width, pockets can be made without adding English and by shooting through the site vice a point on the rail 90 degrees in front of the site.
In this respect, fewer sites actually makes using the sites a lot more useful. I think Irving Kaye was definitely onto something with three sites instead of four. Single rail bank shots using the congruent triangles method seems a lot easier when the table is on a 3 x 6 grid. Two rail banks to a side pocket seem to be a lot easier.
Has anyone else found different geometric relationships with three sites instead of four? Does anyone know of anything Irving Kaye might have published about playing diamond systems on a table set up on a 3 x 6 grid system vice a 4 x 8 grid? Did any other manufacturers build tables on the 3 x 6 system?
If there is interest, I’ll add some diagrams when I get time.
I haven’t seen anything published by IK, but I would love to see your diagrams.
Maybe you could help me determine if the rumor is true… I read somewhere that IK made some of their tables narrower than they should be to allow for more tables in a smaller space. I’m not sure if this is true or just urban legend.
It would be interesting to compare the dimensions listed on the old flyers for the overall dimensions of IK tables vice those coin op tables of the day made by American Shuffleboard and Valley and Cougar.
I know Valley made some tables with pretty small playing surfaces- 6 1/2′ x 3 1/4′. I know I have seen one old box bar table that was actually as small as 6′ x 3′. If the dimensions are not twice as long as wide, the whole system no longer works, so I suspect that any narrowing took place in the rails, not the playing surface or the distance between nose and feather strip or the distance from nose to center of the sites. You can’t make a table much thinner without impacting the dimensions of the pockets, especially the sides. Smaller, but proportional would make sense, just narrower seems like it wouldn’t work. The Satellite has an overall dimension of 75 x 45. That’s a pretty small playing surface.Here are the relationships on a 3 x 6 grid on an 8 foot pool table. I cannot guarantee the absolute accuracy of my table or my masking tape markings replicating the 3 x 6 grid on smaller IK tables. It would be interesting to see if these relationships transfer with minor changes to English applied.
Great slides thanks for sharing! My Eldorado Mark III is 78-1/8 x 38-1/4 (inside of the rails) I always thought it was ~2″ longer than it should be.
Your table not being twice as long as it is wide is strange from a systems point of view. I wonder if that contributed to the adoption of the 3 x 6 grid? As the playing surface shrinks, but the distance from the nose to site does not change, altering the angle between sites, if employing a diamond system.
I would be interested to get your feedback on comparing what banking relationships you find on your table compared with the relationships I found on my 8′ table which is exactly twice as long as wide.
Although the stories you have heard about the tables being narrower than normal proportions to fit more in a pool hall is plausible, only saving an inch hardly seems worth the effort if your table plays funny. It seems unlikely as there is not a standard size of a pool hall, and the additional width to make the table I’ll bet the decision to make the table slightly elongated was not a casual decision. Kaye had to have known that if his table played differently than others in the industry, he was at risk of losing customers. I suspect the decision to employ 3 x 6 sites was related to the length being 2 x width + 1 5/8 inches. Unless some architectural archives are discovered, the reason for the non-standard length/width relationship and the non-standard site placements may be lost forever. If you find there are a lot of additional banking options than you would find on a standard table, I think that would solve the mystery.
What is the distance from the nose to the center of the sites on your table? Is the distance from nose to sites the same on long and short rails?
Are the side rails wider than the end rails? Based on the dimensions on the flyers and the dimensions you sent (assuming my math is right), the side rails are 1 3/8″ wider than the end rails. Is this correct?
I have found an old IK Fleetwood in need of restoration and parts and I’m trying to get as much insight on parts in case I have to buy new parts or attempt to manufacture my own.
Also trying to crack this mystery of the additional 1 5/8″ in length. Going to hit up some math teacher colleagues for their input.
I’m 99% sure, the rails are the same width… the inside edge of the rails are 42-1/8 x 82-1/16. weird right?
When I subtract your playing surface dimensions from the exterior dimensions from the flyer in the photo gallery, it appears that each rail width, from nose to exterior edge is approximately 5″ which makes sense.
Your inside rail measurements confuse me.
I asked Dr. Dave from Colorado State why a table would be slightly longer than twice the width. He did not have an answer, and referred me to published standards.
It would be interesting to find someone who worked for Irving Kaye who might have been involved in the design of their tables.
I still think the answer is linked to the 1/3 table diamond system and the small playing surface. The size of the balls, pockets, and distance from nose to sites do not change, but the distance between noses does. So, as you shrink the playing surface size proportionally, the angles formed by the sites do not remain constant- they get more and more obtuse. Perhaps the elongation of each half of the table by 13/16″ was added to compensate for the angles growing less acute.
It would also be interesting to hear from other IK owners to find out what model they have and the playing dimensions of their tables to see if their tables are also not twice as long as wide. I wonder if IK purchased slate with length and width already cut and if there was an efficiency gained by having bumper pool and six pocket pool tables cut to the same dimensions (although usually bumper pool tables are less than twice long as wide). IK Klub pool tables are close to the dimensions of his smaller 6 pocket billiards tables.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.