Why do older cues

[Cornerman]

Ah yes, I understand.

But that is unusual construction, no?

Usually the wood pin is made as a separate piece, and screwed/glued in place.

Dieckman, of course, had to do it the harder way. :wink: But I imagine his repair that you mentioned involved boring the shaft and putting a new wood pin in it.

Wood pin carom cues do still today generally have the pin in shaft.

I was thinking of "standard" metal pins when I made my comment.

.

Im no billiard historian, but as far as I know, the threaded wood male pin is normally part of the shaft wood in old school billiard cues.

Someone on here must have a Longoni carom cue. I think that is simply a threaded joint-end tenon, no drilling or gluing.

 

[PoppaSaun]

Many cues have a second shaft.

That would mean two pins instead of one pin.


Crappy cues need new shafts over the years. If you replaced two shafts after a few years, you're now paying for a fourth pin.



Don't get me started on Pins, I pay $10 each for them and getting PERFECT pins is not the easiest, I have more than 20 that were junk on delivery. I made a video I may put on youtube when I get the time, it shows some pins are off by .004" upon delivery. Into the garbage they went. A good pin will show on my Lathe at around two ten thousands of an inch off, it could simply be the chuck, it's set up perfect at my collet diameter but .0002" is awesome for pins and/or a Chuck. That's with the center barrel in the chuck and measured at the end of the pin, then the pin is reversed and the flat spot behind the barrel is tested, they must be perfect or,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

If 0.004" means you have to toss a pin, your construction methods are the problem. You are expecting the pin to do something it was never intended to do...because it does that poorly. Screws are not alignment features and never should be. That is why they are supposed to have play in the threads.

 

[pdcue]

If 0.004" means you have to toss a pin, your construction methods are the problem. You are expecting the pin to do something it was never intended to do...because it does that poorly. Screws are not alignment features and never should be. That is why they are supposed to have play in the threads.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Screws are not alignment features and never should be."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You got that right

Cuemaking 101 - First day of class

Second day of class - ball screws are for moving things smoothly,
not for holding things together tightly.

Dale

 

[BarenbruggeCues]

If 0.004" means you have to toss a pin, your construction methods are the problem. You are expecting the pin to do something it was never intended to do...because it does that poorly. Screws are not alignment features and never should be. That is why they are supposed to have play in the threads.

Respectfully, I have to disagree.
With the new style pins in use today (flats between the threads), a pin can be and IS being used by myself and many others to bring 2 parts together AND locate at the same time.
The minor diameter is the locator and the threads pull the 2 pieces together.
Standard V cut threads are a different animal and much harder to achieve this function.

Dennis Dieckman who made exceptional wood pin shafts, didn't drill bore and insert the pin. He simply cut the pin then cut the thread. Maybe lazy but it's a pain in the butt ... I mean shaft to get the pin 1000% perfectly centered.

A famous cue builder broke one of my pins off while replacing a tip. This builder called Dennis on what to do since he didn't know how to cut the threads. Dennis took the job gratis. It's not that he couldn't do it, he just didn't want to.

Question is which is stronger? Inserting a pin or simply cutting it.

Dennis was a fairly good teacher of this technique. I've cut many wooden threaded pin cues over my career and have done it both ways. Straight off the shaft wood and also building the wooden pin and then installing it in the shaft after the fact.
IMO......doing it the later is a stronger method with a collar installed on the shaft. Without the collar, I believe, it's a coin flip but I've seen many wooden threaded pins that are much older than I, cut right off the same piece of wood, still being used successfully today as they were when they were constructed. Ironically, I recently repaired a cue that was in the neighborhood of 70 to 80 years old, possibly older, that originally had the wooden threads cut separate and installed in the shaft. The wooden threaded pin insert was still in excellent shape(the shaft was destroyed) and I was able to reuse the pin in the new shaft.
Being able to locate the shaft on the butt is no problem IF a short tenon is made on the pin at the face of the joint. If done properly, this should locate the shaft on the butt in a tolerance within a standard that is not noticeable by eye or feel.

 

[PoppaSaun]

Respectfully, I have to disagree.
With the new style pins in use today (flats between the threads), a pin can be and IS being used by myself and many others to bring 2 parts together AND locate at the same time.
The minor diameter is the locator and the threads pull the 2 pieces together.
Standard V cut threads are a different animal and much harder to achieve this function.

You can disagree all you want, it simply makes you wrong. A few thousand years of engineering is on my side.

I could show you my plans for a toilesaxobone. It's a combination saxophone, trombone and toilet. It works as all three, but it does each of them very poorly.

 

[Chopdoc]

In old school thinking, I would agree with you 100 percent but today? It would blow your mind if you saw some of the rediculous things I've repaired on joint screws. I'm talking joint screws as short as 3/4" in length to be glued, and less than 1/4" actual thread. Pretty funny stuff across the board.

1/4 inch?

Wow.

You are right, that blows my mind.

.

 

[Chopdoc]

Im no billiard historian, but as far as I know, the threaded wood male pin is normally part of the shaft wood in old school billiard cues.

Someone on here must have a Longoni carom cue. I think that is simply a threaded joint-end tenon, no drilling or gluing.

I have examples from the 1930's that are as you say, the pin was machined as part of the shaft, not added.

The most common method today, and for at least the last couple or three decades AFAIK, is to bore the shaft and add the wood pin.

But I am no cue maker nor historian so I am completely open to being corrected on any of this.

I find it a very interesting discussion.


.

 

[BarenbruggeCues]

You can disagree all you want, it simply makes you wrong. A few thousand years of engineering is on my side.

I could show you my plans for a toilesaxobone. It's a combination saxophone, trombone and toilet. It works as all three, but it does each of them very poorly.

OK...I'll bite
Explain to us your theory on why I'm wrong and why my pin of choice isn't doing what I know for 100% fact it is. (Locating and pulling 2 parts together)
After sorting through some of your other posts, I personally don't believe anyone is on your side and I believe you've come here to just simply argue on a subject that you have absolutely no idea about.
Show us your cues you've built and the type of joint you use in your 2 piece cues with full illustrations please. Make believers out of us or stay out of the cue maker section with your nonsense.

 

[CuesDirectly]

If 0.004" means you have to toss a pin, your construction methods are the problem. You are expecting the pin to do something it was never intended to do...because it does that poorly. Screws are not alignment features and never should be. That is why they are supposed to have play in the threads.

Hello, this is the first time I have read this.

I will NEVER use a Pin if I know it's four thousands out of round, nor would I ever purchase another item from those who sell them. People like you earn a living on crappy pins and don't care.

YOU claim I have a construction method problem? My main machine is very accurate, you most likely could not tell the difference between a good pin and a bad pin like I can.

If the center barrel is off by that much from the threads, the center joint will be off by a hair.

AND

I don't sell crappy pins period.

It did not bother me to throw a few in the trash, the real question here is WHY NOT? Would YOU knowingly sell them? It seems the answer is YES.

I feel sorry for your customers.

 

[CuesDirectly]

You can disagree all you want, it simply makes you wrong. A few thousand years of engineering is on my side.

I could show you my plans for a toilesaxobone. It's a combination saxophone, trombone and toilet. It works as all three, but it does each of them very poorly.

Dave is not wrong, Daves are rarely wrong. Poppasaun IS wrong but does not know it.

Keep up the wrong, we can call you Poppa "Wrong Way" Saun.


Thanks, Dave.


(You guys can have this argument today, I am out of here for a grueling 11 mile hike with 3500 feet in elevation gain and yes, I will be in Bigfoot country.)

 

[qbilder]

You can disagree all you want, it simply makes you wrong. A few thousand years of engineering is on my side.

Would it be a lot to ask from where you obtained an engineering degree, and the specific degree you have? Have you had that degree for a few thousand years, and have you been making cues the same time? Reason I ask is because in order for your words to have credibility, you need some basis/background to qualify them. Case in point, Dave Barrenbrugge has been making a world class quality cue for a long time. His cues are renowned for execution, accuracy, and intricacy of construction. So when he says something about cue construction, there's a name & tangible product to give credence.

Contrarily, when you say something, it's worth a fart in the wind because nobody knows who you are, what you do or have done, and what your knowledge base is. Compounding that with the pretentious attitude and insults you throw around make it incredibly difficult to take you seriously. If I had to guess, you're neither a cue maker (or at least one of note) or an engineer.

In my best Bill Cobbs voice, "This here is Fast Eddie Felson. Who the hell are you!?"

 

[Cornerman]

I don't want to play pile on the silly poster, but...

Loose tolerance screw threads (Class I), I certainly wouldn't use for locating. And from an historical viewpoint, the perfection of the piloted joint allowed the use of a looser tolerance thread. But to say that you can't or shouldn't use a threading for tight locating is just ignorance. Of course you can, depending on the thread feature and the tolerances you want to hold.

In decades on past, mass produced threads may have had to have been held only to loose Class I tolerancing, and most commercial bolts are at least to Class 2. But with today's machining precision (CNC and such), I better be able to design a tight locating screw and expect precision, repeatable results for the functions I require (strength and location). And if I have to have +/- 0.001", I better be able to get it.

Every mechanical engineering student knows this from basic Junior year machine design class.

 

[PoppaSaun]

OK...I'll bite
Explain to us your theory on why I'm wrong and why my pin of choice isn't doing what I know for 100% fact it is. (Locating and pulling 2 parts together)
After sorting through some of your other posts, I personally don't believe anyone is on your side and I believe you've come here to just simply argue on a subject that you have absolutely no idea about.
Show us your cues you've built and the type of joint you use in your 2 piece cues with full illustrations please. Make believers out of us or stay out of the cue maker section with your nonsense.

I never said it didn't 'work', I said it was a poor method of accomplishing two tasks.

The reason the pin minor diameter should not be used as a locating device is twofold.

First, you are using a tight tolerance on the minor diameter to locate, which means that you have unnecessary friction while screwing the pin together. This causes wear and possibly damage if any foreign material gets in the threads.

Second, your cue is, by definition, over-constrained. You have a pin with tight tolerances which is nominally perpendicular to the joint face. Thus, you have four faces that you are trying to mate with 100% contact--you have the minor diameter of the screw, the minor diameter of the threaded hole and the two faces of the joint. You have materials that are only slightly compliant and you have a low-torque method of assembly.

 

[PoppaSaun]

I don't want to play pile on the silly poster, but...

Loose tolerance screw threads (Class I), I certainly wouldn't use for locating. And from an historical viewpoint, the perfection of the piloted joint allowed the use of a looser tolerance thread. But to say that you can't or shouldn't use a threading for tight locating is just ignorance. Of course you can, depending on the thread feature and the tolerances you want to hold.

In decades on past, mass produced threads may have had to have been held only to loose Class I tolerancing. But with today's machining precision (CNC and such), I better be able to design a tight locating screw and expect precision, repeatable results for the functions I require (strength and location). And if I have to have +/- 0.001", I better be able to get it.

Every mechanical engineering student knows this from basic Junior year machine design class.

Yeah, can make a cnc machined screw to any tolerance you are willing to pay for, but why would you?

There are better ways of screwing a cue together and radially locating the joint. Oddly enough, guys figured it out 60+ years ago.

 

[Cornerman]

Yeah, can make a cnc machined screw to any tolerance you are willing to pay for, but why would you?

There are better ways of screwing a cue together and radially locating the joint. Oddly enough, guys figured it out 60+ years ago.

I think you're creating a non-existing argument.

I would defer to David Barenbrugge on why he would want to in cues. I have had several reasons in fixture building and product development of why I needed to. I was answering your post, since it came off as misleading.

There are several cuemakers that do a really good job at using the screw thread design itself as a proper locating and connection feature, so this isn't some out-of-the-box idea. To somehow say this isn't what a screws job is supposed to be is way short-sighted and doesn't match up with modern machining capabilities.

Guys figured out many things in the past. Today modern manufacturing have improved in many areas (speed of manufacturing, yield percentage, repeatability, just to name a few). Surely you're not suggesting we go backwards in technological time. I'm sure the guys of the past, being creative genius madmen, would love to have today's technology.

Freddie <~~~ going forward

 

[JoeyInCali]

Yeah, can make a cnc machined screw to any tolerance you are willing to pay for, but why would you?

There are better ways of screwing a cue together and radially locating the joint. Oddly enough, guys figured it out 60+ years ago.

Sounds like what DoubleD was arguing about years ago.
Then he disappeared.

Originally Posted by DoubleD View Post
If you are going to talk screws, at least take the thirty-second beginner course and learn that the 'small' diameter is called the 'minor' diameter. We have a vocabulary for a reason.

I've never seen a 3/8-10 thread worn out. I've seen them damaged due to abuse, but never worn out.

From an engineering standpoint, the 3/8 radial should bend less, but is a moot point. If the screw is flexing, there is something majorly wrong.

Screws are made to provide axial force. The friction caused by the axial force is used to react the shear forces caused by a force or moment on an assembly.

dld

 

[BarenbruggeCues]

I never said it didn't 'work', I said it was a poor method of accomplishing two tasks.

The reason the pin minor diameter should not be used as a locating device is twofold.

First, you are using a tight tolerance on the minor diameter to locate, which means that you have unnecessary friction while screwing the pin together. This causes wear and possibly damage if any foreign material gets in the threads.

Second, your cue is, by definition, over-constrained. You have a pin with tight tolerances which is nominally perpendicular to the joint face. Thus, you have four faces that you are trying to mate with 100% contact--you have the minor diameter of the screw, the minor diameter of the threaded hole and the two faces of the joint. You have materials that are only slightly compliant and you have a low-torque method of assembly.

All you had to say in the beginning was you prefer the piloted joint technique over the pin into wood technique for your cues.
Your argument works well in theory and I understand your beliefs on it. I have many peers that believe the piloted joint in cues is the only way to fly.
If the application were say a SS pin and brass insert with the tolerances too tight I can certainly see inherit problems and threads possibly being galled. But to say the idea of SS into maple is poorly thought out tells me you've never done it. And if you have, you didn't do it correctly.
There are a lot of things done in building cues that are probably considered unconventional to the other side. But until you've actually done them they could very well be a misunderstood application.
Call it poor...call it wrong...call it whatever you want. It's a different way than your way of thinking and works quite well for not only myself, but with the number of pins with flat bottom minors being sold, hundreds of other builders world wide as well.
Continually sending my cues around the world I can say I've never had anyone claim that the cue did not go together straight at the joint or there was problem with too much friction when assembling the two halves.
The biggest problem I have is keeping up with production demands with such a poorly constructed joint technique.

 

[raistlinsdragon]

Next Dave, he'll be telling you that your ring work is to simple.