drilling the front end of a shaft

spliced

spliced

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
i have a solid maple shaft that i want to have the low deflection characteristics of a 314. I was thinking about drilling the front end. The ferrule is uncapped. What diameter hole would you recommend and how deep would you drill?


thanks
 
also, do i have to worry about it cracking or breaking since the shaft is not laminated? is there a diameter hole that you would not go beyond on a regular maple shaft for fear of breakage?
 
Dont know never tried. Pred is like 6 in deep if im not mistaken. Youre ferrule tenon is .280 so i dont know what you plan on doing. Pred ferrule is paper thin. Basically just a capped veneer. A 13mm shaft is like .513 sooo.
 
hahaha. wtf was i thinking. honestly i never m,easured. someone told me it was that size. when i convers i just skim and fit skim and fit until its perfect...
 
Last edited:
Joey's dimensions are correct (.250"x 5" deep).
Dave's dimension (.404") is correct for the tenon diameter of a 314, not the diameter of the hole. Hopefully you haven't drilled the hole yet.

As to the wall thickness of the Predator ferrule (.502"[12.75mm] - .404" = .098"/2 or .049" wall thickness.
This is one of the primary factors in limiting a shaft reduction to 12.3mm on a 314(2) shaft.
 
I tried that with a maple shaft.

If'n I remember right I used .25 and 5.5 inches deep.

It did seem to make a difference ... but not as much as the 314.

LWW
 
RBC said:
Be careful of patent infringement.

Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer. I believe however that under the fair use doctrine any person is allowed to reverse engineer a product by dissecting it and also to make their own version of it for their own non-commercial use.

If however a product arises out of that activity that is commercialized and it needs the patented idea/process to exist then it must come with the permission of the patent holder to be sold legally.

It is my opinion that this is the basic law on the subject. That may or may not stop Predator from attacking anyone putting holes in the top of their shafts but I think that the law allows them to do it but not to sell or give away those modified shafts.
 
Not to nitpick, but I've also taken apart a few predator 314's over the years. The ones I saw had 2 diameters in their hole. For example (I don't have the measurements now): .290 for the first 2 inches, and .220 for the next 3.25 inches.

If someone only was replacing the ferrule they might not have noticed this. I cut the shaft down its length, exposing its cross section, and could clearly see the two diameters.

To the original poster's question, it has been stated before that the very first predator shafts were one piece of wood, instead of the laminations.
 
Speaking of patents, I believe utility patents are good for 15 or 17 years, and thats only if you pay the maintenance fees on them. Predator shafts have been around since at least the mid 90's. I think the original Predator patent will expire soon. We might be seeing the market flooded with lower priced knock-off shafts soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top