Second weight bolt in the joint for balance?

Patrick Johnson

Patrick Johnson

Fargo 1000 on VP4
Silver Member
Weight and balance are two of the most important cue features - getting them both to your liking is critical, more so the more you play. So I wonder why cuemakers don't make it easy to adjust both.

Seems it would be a simple matter to make the weight bolt in the butt a little smaller and add an even smaller additional weight bolt in the joint so both weight and balance can be adjusted.

The joint takes more impact shock than the butt (I think), so there might be a little engineering challenge, but is that the only reason it hasn't been done?

pj
chgo
 
Interesting...

My Titlist conversion has added weight behind the pin. Its not adjustable like you are talking about but the maker did add some weight behind the pin to get the forward balance that I like. I like the idea of an adjustable forward weight, hopefully one of the fine cue makers here on AZ will chime in and give thoughts/ideas of the feasibility of this.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Weight and balance are two of the most important cue features - getting them both to your liking is critical, more so the more you play. So I wonder why cuemakers don't make it easy to adjust both.

Seems it would be a simple matter to make the weight bolt in the butt a little smaller and add an even smaller additional weight bolt in the joint so both weight and balance can be adjusted.

The joint takes more impact shock than the butt (I think), so there might be a little engineering challenge, but is that the only reason it hasn't been done?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Cue Balance is very good subject, and it has been something that cue makers have been attempting to find a fix all solution for and master since the beginning of cue making in America.

Herman Rambo was the first cue maker to make an adjustable balance point for his cue known as the Hub. This balance system allowed the cue to be unscrewed at the connection of the forearm and the cues handle. The threaded dowel that was located at this point could be screwed farther up into the handle to move the balance back or unscrewed from the handle and screwed deeper into the forearm. This would allow the balance to be moved forward or backward depending upon what the player likes.

Today this balance system is still used although it is not movable, today the threaded dowel is a connecting screw used to secure a cues A-Joint which is the connection between the handle and the forearm. By adding length to this metal dowel you can also add weight forward, as an alternative to putting weight directly behind the pin. Another alternative is adding weight to a cues shaft, now this is not new, however, if it done correctly it can be effective also.

JIMO
 
I thought about this years ago. I like forward balanced cues. Mine are generally bored out in the back and filled with cork. I think a variable pin length that threaded in to joint with some sort of jam nut arrangement would work well.

Top of butt would be threaded to accept a variable depth and you could use variable depth pins or materials. Conversely you could fill the void with light material (aluminum etc) tension threaded pin against it.
 
Last edited:
i agree that a adjustable balance system would be great. i've found that you can only do a limited number of things to change the balance point to be more forward, and sometimes it can only be a little bit:

use a headless weight bolt and put the weight farther up into the handle
use a lighter weight bolt
get a heavier shaft

you could do something more dramatic like changing the joint collar and such, but it's major surgery
 
Interesting idea...

I think having a 'user-serviceable' joint adjustment for balance may be opening a can of worms for the cuemaker who makes it happen. I could see small tungsten pellets that could be moved from below the weight bolt in the butt to below the pin in the joint...

BUT, just look at all the cross-threaded shafts and bent pins we have now, and those are not adjustable! If there is something that can go wrong, it will go wrong. Also, if you add weight to the joint to move balance forward, you are also increasing the overall weight of the cue which may not be desireable. Weight needs to be shifted around the cue to move balance.

I like to just put the cue together and see where the weight falls. Fortunately, I don't end up with a butt-heavy cue; plus it's a lot easier!
 
Dieckman Sayzzzz

Pool cues should balance forward.....
Carom cues should be butt heavy......
Construction techniques [butterfly vs mortise and tenon] can influence balance as well as woods used-heavy vs light and where used.
Weight can be added anyplace in a cue, usually at the rear as an after thought.........in the front or in the middle if the cue builder is thinking ahead.
 
Why such a distinction in the balance points of pool vs. carom cues

Magik Wandzzzzz said:
Pool cues should balance forward.....
Carom cues should be butt heavy......
Construction techniques [butterfly vs mortise and tenon] can influence balance as well as woods used-heavy vs light and where used.
Weight can be added anyplace in a cue, usually at the rear as an after thought.........in the front or in the middle if the cue builder is thinking ahead.
Click to expand...

My question is why? Why "should" pool cues balance forward, and why "should" carom cues be butt heavy? What is the reason, especially since carom balls (at least 3-cushion billiard balls) are slightly larger and heavier than their pool counterparts? Or, is it a nostalgic thing that has been gratuitously brought forward without any particular reason why?

Personally, I prefer a cue that is butt heavy. I.e. the balance point of the cue is *right at* the beginning of the wrap where it joins the forearm, so that I feel that I'm swinging the weight of the cue (pendulum), and not "pushing" it forward. I've never understood the reason why pool cues were balanced so far forward (i.e. the balance point pushed forward somewhere in the meat of the forearm), but perhaps that is just me. I've always sought-out cues that had a rearward balance point, because, to me, they feel like they allow me to stroke the ball better, rather than "pushing" a heavy wooden bolt through my bridge. I get a much "freer" stroke with a rearward-balanced cue than a foreward-balanced one. Again, probably just a personal thing with me.

Care to elaborate on the two bolded statements above? I'm certainly all ears on that one, in the spirit of always trying to learn all I can about this great sport...

-Sean
 
manwon said:
Today this balance system is still used although it is not movable, today the threaded dowel is a connecting screw used to secure a cues A-Joint which is the connection between the handle and the forearm. By adding length to this metal dowel you can also add weight forward, as an alternative to putting weight directly behind the pin. Another alternative is adding weight to a cues shaft, now this is not new, however, if it done correctly it can be effective also.

JIMO
Click to expand...

And more chance of metal buzz/rattle IMHO.

Seems it would be a simple matter to make the weight bolt in the butt a little smaller and add an even smaller additional weight bolt in the joint so both weight and balance can be adjusted.
Click to expand...
Or set screws.
It can be easily done. Plug up the bottom with a half-inch diameter phenolic tube with a 1/4 hole and as long as you want below the A-joint.
Tap the hole for 5/16 set screws.
What happens to the cue's hit/reasonance after that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top