Spliced or floating points

[WilleeCue]

bravo willie except i didnt start talking about strength or stiffness i was talking about the difference between spliced and inlayed cues. that was the original subject.
go back and read from the beginning.

You are right.
Your very first post talked about the structure of a cue and then some nonsense about taking parts out of a cue and trying to play with it.
(Wont even mention the tire thing)
The rest of us here seemed to be talking about strength and flexability of the different type joints.
What are you alking about?

Did'nt you just post and ask for some sort of a test of strength or something???

Sorry if I was off topic.

 

[merylane]

willie my tests statments were in reply to the other posts. i dont know how to paste them up here to reply to them the way edwin does so it would make it clearer. sorry and i also type with one finger.

please explain to me the difference between spliced and floating points.

maybee yours will be beter understood.

 

[Canadian cue]

Bandido I would first like to thank you for responding to my post regarding your name my curiosity has been satisfied. Although I was a bit disapointed in that you chose not to respond to the rest. If you are choosing simply to agree not too agree, I guess that ends the debate. Regarding your test with one of your cues and a house cue, I do not think this would be a very accurate test. In order for it to be accurate all things must be equall with exception of the joint style. Your cue will have been manufactured with very tight tolerances and the best glues available. The mass produced house cue is hardly equall in those respects. All that been said I still am curious as to how the test will turn out.

 

[bandido]

Ok, I'll give my opinion on these.

I do agree that todays adhesives have minimized the negative effects of the end-grain rubbing-end grain. What you have stated makes a lot of sense, but this is only one of the problems associated with A-joints.

Here, we are in agreement.

The fact that the full splice joint runs over almost 7" of the cue gives it a lot of surface area much more than a thread and tenon will offer you. The best solutions to most problems are usually the simplest in nature. A full-splice is much simpler with a lot less potential for problems.

I agree with the statement "The best solutions to most problems are usually the simplest in nature". But somehow, knowing that the right modern adhesive can be stronger than the wood itself, I'd have to disagree with your reference to surface area.

You just have to ask, "Why did the half splice come about?" Because, it's easier and cheaper to manufacture! The half-splice was created to benefit the cuemaker not the customer.

IMO this reasoning is now passe. How can a structurally superior a-joint be easier and cheaper to manufacture when additional equipment and time have to be invested to put threads on the tenon and cavity plus the use of more advanced material than metal bolts?

The other advantage the half splice offers the cuemaker, is it gives them better control over the end product and enables them to be more creative in the cue's design.

To me, this is the only reason. Freedom to configure and design a cue to whatever I or the customer would desire.

As I said before a GOOD A-joint is still a viable compromise but overall the fullsplice is still hard to improve on as far as a method of joining two pieces of wood.

Full-splice is a full-splice, a half-splice is a half-splice. They're jointing methods but the bottom line is, the user makes the final decision on what cue works best for him/her.

Just my opinion.
Edwin Reyes

 

[WilleeCue]

willie my tests statments were in reply to the other posts. i dont know how to paste them up here to reply to them the way edwin does so it would make it clearer. sorry and i also type with one finger.
please explain to me the difference between spliced and floating points.
maybee yours will be beter understood.

I will assume that you are talking about half splice points.
Basicly they are the same as a floating CNC point in as much as a pocket is cut into the forearm and then filled with wood or some other material. Half spliced points are cut off at the end of the forearm and butted up against the handle. They are uasualy deeper into the forearm where the handle joins the forearm and taper up as it goes toward the joint. Some cuemakers cut in a half splice point after the handle is attached and hide the lower end under the wrap.
A floating point is one that is higher up on the forearm and does not butt up against the handle. Hence the term "floating". It is uasualy cut to a constant depth of around .125".

 

[CaptainJR]

Well! Looks like I really gave you all something to talk about. Although most of this is just plain over my head, I really thank you all. I do think I've got the idea of the subject.

Thanks again
CaptJR

 

[merylane]

thanks willie i did not know the were the same?

i geuss they must be built the same also?

its funny i always though there was adifference.

thanks again.

 

[WilleeCue]

thanks willie i did not know the were the same?
i geuss they must be built the same also?

You are quite welcome.
Yep ... it is kinda like pool cues.
Basicly they are all the same.

its funny i always though there was adifference.

You are gifted with an amazing sense of humor.
lol.

.

 

[Canadian cue]

halfsplice vs fullsplice

Bandido, your response to my post has one part which doesn't seem to make sense to me and I was wondering if you could elaborate .

knowing that the right modern adhesive can be stronger than the wood itself, I'd have to disagree with your reference to surface area.

If the adhesive is stronger than the wood then why do you and so many others place so much emphasis on threading all your mating parts? I can only see three advatages to threading, number one it gives more surface area for the adhesive , two it helps in the assembly of the cue and three it helps when trying to bond hard to glue materials.( The last point relates to the first) Now you have stated that the glue is stronger than wood so the suface area isn't an issue. If you have two mating parts for example the tennon which the but sleave goes over and the sleave, why thread this? If the sleave is properly prepared and the adhesive is stronger than the wood it would never come apart. What part am I missing? I am just looking for a deeper understanding ,your time responding to my posts is very much appreciated.

 

[Jon]

Bandido, your response to my post has one part which doesn't seem to make sense to me and I was wondering if you could elaborate .

knowing that the right modern adhesive can be stronger than the wood itself, I'd have to disagree with your reference to surface area.

If the adhesive is stronger than the wood then why do you and so many others place so much emphasis on threading all your mating parts? I can only see three advatages to threading, number one it gives more surface area for the adhesive , two it helps in the assembly of the cue and three it helps when trying to bond hard to glue materials.( The last point relates to the first) Now you have stated that the glue is stronger than wood so the suface area isn't an issue. If you have two mating parts for example the tennon which the but sleave goes over and the sleave, why thread this? If the sleave is properly prepared and the adhesive is stronger than the wood it would never come apart. What part am I missing? I am just looking for a deeper understanding ,your time responding to my posts is very much appreciated.

I'm not Bandido, but this is my opinion on threading.

I really do not have an opinion on threading. I'm just here to take up space. With that said, i will say only this.

Why not thread your parts?

Thanks,

Jon

 

[bandido]

Bandido, your response to my post has one part which doesn't seem to make sense to me and I was wondering if you could elaborate .

knowing that the right modern adhesive can be stronger than the wood itself, I'd have to disagree with your reference to surface area.

If the adhesive is stronger than the wood then why do you and so many others place so much emphasis on threading all your mating parts? I can only see three advatages to threading, number one it gives more surface area for the adhesive , two it helps in the assembly of the cue and three it helps when trying to bond hard to glue materials.( The last point relates to the first) Now you have stated that the glue is stronger than wood so the suface area isn't an issue. If you have two mating parts for example the tennon which the but sleave goes over and the sleave, why thread this? If the sleave is properly prepared and the adhesive is stronger than the wood it would never come apart. What part am I missing? I am just looking for a deeper understanding ,your time responding to my posts is very much appreciated.

I was referring to your statement about the mechanical advantage of more surface area contact for the full-splice cue. If the adhesive used is stronger than the wood itself, wouldn't the bond that it creates on the base of the half-splice points be strong enough to actually make the half-splice points part of that A-jointing structural bonding machanism? If you find this reasoning with merit then, wouldn't you say that the half-splice surface area connection adds to the mechanichal attributes of the A-joint?

Edwin Reyes

 

[Canadian cue]

Threads

I'm not Bandido, but this is my opinion on threading.

If you can, why not? It can only make things better. I use an old Craftsman Grinder (it's older than me, and still goin') and (at the moment, more to come) a .250" and .500" thread mills, will have a .375" soon, and i am going to make a special "custom" thread mill for me and a "loves-to-gloat-buddy". Take a look at a ferrule tenon that has been threaded with a "compression die", and then take a look at a ferrule tenon that has ground threads. Which do you think would be stronger???

Basically what i am saying is, if you have the equipment, or the means to get the equipment (it's not hard to find a suitable grinder and thread mills) why not thread your parts?

Thanks,

Jon

Big Jon

I do not dispute that cutting threads with a router is a superior method of cutting threads, but this is not what is being discused. As far as cutting threads simply because you can, I don't agree with your logic. If your doing unnecessary work without having a purpose in mind then you are only wasting time. Explain to me how threading in all cases is going to make for a better cue. As far as grinding improving strength, grinding only improves on the accuracy of the thread. If you were using epoxy to glue your parts (which most people use) then the fact that your threads mated tightly together would actualy make your bond weaker because epoxy bonds better when there is some space between mating parts. I think there are times when threading is necessary, and times when grinding threads is necessary and times when neither are.

 

[Canadian cue]

I was referring to your statement about the mechanical advantage of more surface area contact for the full-splice cue. If the adhesive used is stronger than the wood itself, wouldn't the bond that it creates on the base of the half-splice points be strong enough to actually make the half-splice points part of that A-jointing structural bonding machanism? If you find this reasoning with merit then, wouldn't you say that the half-splice surface area connection adds to the mechanichal attributes of the A-joint?

Edwin Reyes

Bandido,following your logic then the strength of a joint is more reliant on the adhesive used than the mechanical means of bringing the pieces together.
should it not be the other way around.

 

[bandido]

Bandido,following your logic then the strength of a joint is more reliant on the adhesive used than the mechanical means of bringing the pieces together.
should it not be the other way around.

These mechanical means are so designed to work in conjunction with the adhesive and I do say that the full-splice is more dependent on the adhesive's strength than the tenon and pocket design. With out adhesive the full-splice cue wouldn't be playable at all let alone stay together when lateral load is applied. The tenon and pocket jointed cue will beat the full-splice in mechanical properties specially if adhesive wasn't used. The words development, progress and improvement (some products of passage of time and need) brought about the advantages offered by half-splicing over full-splicing. And the major advantages are freedom to configure (for performance) and design however you want.

There's nothing wrong with relying on the bonding properties of adhesive, they were created and improved upon to meet or exceed requirements. The full-splice's strength and playability is dependent too on the quality of the adhesive between its splices, isn't it?
Edwin Reyes

 

[classiccues]

good posts canadian cue.
bandido,willie and cueman in the begining i was talking about the differences as the original post asked.
but you guys got worried about strength, you didnt answer my previous question so let me ask you to try an experiment?
take 2 strait maple forearms-put 4 big inlays in one and 4 splices in the other.
turn same size taper and length. suport on each end and begin putting a load in the middle. which broke first? i cant wait to see if the results from different cue makers would be the same.

as for the "a"joint is conserned please do the same test on that vers fullsplice.

i did not mention vibration or durring stroking the ball?

willie i guess the 4 extra shafts and case are also part of the cue because they are the sum of the whole! although that might be a hard sell.

This is one test, that would be good. Here is another that I would like to see.. take a short splice, done deep and correctly, then take a floating point or even a flat bottom pointed forearm and then hang them upside down in water for a few days, maybe a few weeks. Remove them and tell me which one is more warp resistant. The biggest turnoff in cues that I see daily is warping. So I would be curious..

Joe

 

[blud]

strongest?????????

I haven't read all the post, but a few about which is strongest deep VEE's or floating points.

As we know floating points are only about .125 deep on the center line of each point, because of the rounded cue, and leaving the "back-bone" of the cue undistrubded and in tack..These are strong, as they add a thin flat to the cues 4,6, or more ares of sides.

Deep Vee's are also very strong, also. They offer more strength to the forearm, because the back-bone is cut away, and they [veners,and iner-inlays], replacing it, and are crosed over and again and the grain of these are running in a differant dircetion, from the original back bone, of the forearm.

In my opinion,the water soak idea is not a good comparision.

Maybe take and test two fronts from the same board, and do a bending test side ways, with the grain of each forearm, facing the same way.
Make a tapered collet about 4: long, place the forearm in it, and in a vice, and attach a bloch and tackle, or come-along, or a small chain fall, start pulling it side ways, and measure from the vice to where each breaks.
My bet would be the floating forearm breaks first.

Or don't worry about it and draw snow, with either.....

blud

 

[Jon]

Big Jon

I do not dispute that cutting threads with a router is a superior method of cutting threads, but this is not what is being discused. As far as cutting threads simply because you can, I don't agree with your logic. If your doing unnecessary work without having a purpose in mind then you are only wasting time. Explain to me how threading in all cases is going to make for a better cue. As far as grinding improving strength, grinding only improves on the accuracy of the thread. If you were using epoxy to glue your parts (which most people use) then the fact that your threads mated tightly together would actualy make your bond weaker because epoxy bonds better when there is some space between mating parts. I think there are times when threading is necessary, and times when grinding threads is necessary and times when neither are.

Yes, the threads are very accurate. As far as gluing the parts up? That is where the accuracy comes in. With a tap and die, you have no choice of how much, or how little glue room you can have. With grinding you can make the fit a little tighter, or looser, to hold more glue or less glue as needed. It's not rocket surgery...

Thanks,

Jon

 

[classiccues]

I haven't read all the post, but a few about which is strongest deep VEE's or floating points.

As we know floating points are only about .125 deep on the center line of each point, because of the rounded cue, and leaving the "back-bone" of the cue undistrubded and in tack..These are strong, as they add a thin flat to the cues 4,6, or more ares of sides.

Deep Vee's are also very strong, also. They offer more strength to the forearm, because the back-bone is cut away, and they [veners,and iner-inlays], replacing it, and are crosed over and again and the grain of these are running in a differant dircetion, from the original back bone, of the forearm.

In my opinion,the water soak idea is not a good comparision.

blud

The water test has nothing to do with strength, its simply a warping test. It's the only way a warping test could be done. For the same reason you say deep v's are strong, its also the same reason why I would bet the deep V warps less. BTW the first test done on any cue I buy, is a straightness test and the first thing a consumer does when he buys a cue from me is a straightness test. So the test is relevent.
BTW before people start saying Nelsonite and other stablizers are what keeps a cue straight, don't bet on it. I have (had) a cue from someone that uses Nelsonite and it warped within a year after manufacture.

Joe

 

[Canadian cue]

These mechanical means are so designed to work in conjunction with the adhesive and I do say that the full-splice is more dependent on the adhesive's strength than the tenon and pocket design. With out adhesive the full-splice cue wouldn't be playable at all let alone stay together when lateral load is applied. The tenon and pocket jointed cue will beat the full-splice in mechanical properties specially if adhesive wasn't used. The words development, progress and improvement (some products of passage of time and need) brought about the advantages offered by half-splicing over full-splicing. And the major advantages are freedom to configure (for performance) and design however you want.

There's nothing wrong with relying on the bonding properties of adhesive, they were created and improved upon to meet or exceed requirements. The full-splice's strength and playability is dependent too on the quality of the adhesive between its splices, isn't it?
Edwin Reyes

Ok Bandido, you win, I am resigning from this debate. Something tells me you have had this debate concerning full-splice vs half-splice once or twice before and to continue it would be futile. So I will end by thanking you once again for your time and I will ponder over what you have said.

 

[Canadian cue]

Yes, the threads are very accurate. As far as gluing the parts up? That is where the accuracy comes in. With a tap and die, you have no choice of how much, or how little glue room you can have. With grinding you can make the fit a little tighter, or looser, to hold more glue or less glue as needed. It's not rocket surgery...

Thanks,

Jon

Granted this statement is true but the procedure is not always necessary. Accuracy in threading is only relavent when your thread has to be capable of maintaining the concentricity between mating parts. If you are using the thread only as a means to bring two pieces together and are using a tennon to create concentricity then milling the internal thread is probably not necessary. As far as the external thread, die's were never intended for cutting wood so I would never argue that point about milling the external thread.