Taper on a thin handled cue

spliced

spliced

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
For those of you who dont mind building a cue with a thinner butt, say 1.2" at the buttcap, what sort of a taper do you use so the butt does not have too much flex and become whippy. What other methods do you use to preserve the stiffness at such a small diameter?

Thanks
Ian
 
fullsplicefiend said:
For those of you who dont mind building a cue with a thinner butt, say 1.2" at the buttcap, what sort of a taper do you use so the butt does not have too much flex and become whippy. What other methods do you use to preserve the stiffness at such a small diameter?

Thanks
Ian
Click to expand...

Ian

I am not a cuemaker but I have a number of cues that were built at my request to 1.18 at the butt cap. I don't feel any negative flex or whip with the cues of smaller diameter handles. None of the cues have a compund taper. I do like the thinner handle cues for my personal preference.

Kevin
 
Thanks joey and kevin. Anybody have any input on this? What if the butt is longer, like 31". Can a straight taper still do the job?
 
My cue is 60" long(30/30), and I don't find it whippy at all. The butt has a straight taper, about .830 at the joint, and 1.2 at the bottom.

It may depend on the woods used though. Mine is a bocote forearm, and zircote handle.
 
Rodney said:
My cue is 60" long(30/30), and I don't find it whippy at all. The butt has a straight taper, about .830 at the joint, and 1.2 at the bottom.

It may depend on the woods used though. Mine is a bocote forearm, and zircote handle.
Click to expand...

All of Chris Bartrams butts for the last 8 years have been at .842 at joint and 1.215 at the back of the butt cap and 31" long with a straight taper.

Dick
 
ive made a few

my general taper is like 850 to 1250

on the slimmer cues i go with a 835 to 1225 straight taper.

a while back a maker here said" is a cue is straight it will roll straight.

in this case i dont think it would . more at the ajoint i think the cue would be like a teeter totter
 
I note that some talk about having cue butts tapered to only 1.2 or 1.18 inches at the but end. I've always wanted to have my cue butt modiffied so that the back end of the butt is cut to a uniform diameter for, say, the last one foot approximately. It makes sense to me that the cue butt should remain the same diameter along the range where I slide my grip hand. My question is this:
What do you think would be an optimal diameter for the normal grip zone? I realize this would be affected by hand size etc. so let's just talk general terms here, if possible. For Example, the 1.18/1.2 inch diameter is only at the end of the butt which implies where the hand normally is, the diameter is smaller. I hope this makes sense to you, and thanks. I intend to soon have a butt end narrowed, along the lines of what Joey is talking about, I suspect - compound taper. Just trying to avoid pitfalls if possible.
 
Last edited:
I believe Earl's Gulyassy cue has a uniform diameter (parallel taper) from the buttcap to 12" up the handle, and then begins to taper down normally. Would this taper make the cue flex funny?



shankster8 said:
I note that some talk about having cue butts tapered to only 1.2 or 1.18 inches at the but end. I've always wanted to have my cue butt modiffied so that the back end of the butt is cut to a uniform diameter for, say, the last one foot approximately. It makes sense to me that the cue butt should remain the same diameter along the range where I slide my grip hand. My question is this:
What do you think would be an optimal diameter for the normal grip zone? I realize this would be affected by hand size etc. so let's just talk general terms here, if possible. For Example, the 1.18/1.2 inch diameter is only at the end of the butt which implies where the hand normally is, the diameter is smaller. I hope this makes sense to you, and thanks. I intend to soon have a butt end narrowed, along the lines of what Joey is talking about, I suspect - compound taper. Just trying to avoid pitfalls if possible.
Click to expand...
 
fullsplicefiend said:
I believe Earl's Gulyassy cue has a uniform diameter (parallel taper) from the buttcap to 12" up the handle, and then begins to taper down normally. Would this taper make the cue flex funny?
Click to expand...
He has a skinny-whippy shaft too.
Only he can play with that combo.
 
JoeyInCali said:
He has a skinny-whippy shaft too.
Only he can play with that combo.
Click to expand...

Well yea but Im saying with a fairly stiff tapered shaft and forearm how would having a parallel tapered handle affect the cues playability?
 
Seems like nobody knows. Maybe an experiment is in order? Take an old, thick, cue and do some cutting?
 
my way

my taper bar is set for a .85 at joint and 1.25 at the butt. when i want a skinny butt i just cut the butt normal, then take the router off the taper bar. i then start making small straight passes on the butt until i get the diameter i want. so the front of the butt has a normal taper, and the back of the butt has a straight taper. the length of this straight part depends on how small diameter i'm cutting the butt. since most of the straight cut is behind your hand i have really never noticed any flex in the butt. it really feel funny to me because i have played so many years with old bar cues that sometimes have a 1.40 butt. chuck
 
I make my handles 29.3 to 29.5 mm diameter.
This dimension was derived from standard cues and is the diameter that I was mostly holding the cue with thumb and 2 fingers.
I have not noticed anything bad about reducing the handle diameter to being like a dowel.
Neil
 
conetip said:
I make my handles 29.3 to 29.5 mm diameter.
This dimension was derived from standard cues and is the diameter that I was mostly holding the cue with thumb and 2 fingers.
I have not noticed anything bad about reducing the handle diameter to being like a dowel.
Neil
Click to expand...

Is your butt sleeve OD the same as the handle OD? In other words, is the the butt shaped as a cylinder from the handle back? That's essentially what I want to do, but some think that is ugly, and another says there must be some non-cylindrical taper to make it roll properly and for aesthetics. I'm just trying to optimize a tool. I'm not hoping to create an "ugly stick", but I'll be happy with it if it improves my game. When I practice stroke, it is easy for me to see that the motion of my grip hand fingers is significantly different when further forward on the cue (narrower butt region) with a short bridge. I use to think that the enhanced potting accuracy was due exclusively to shortening the bridge but now it's becoming clear that the fingers move more cumbersomely around a fatter cue during the stroke. A narrower cue just rides in the cradling fingers easily. A fat cue requires that the fingers must slide around the outside of the cue more (for lack of better words). Just my observations. This makes me glad I don't own an expensive cue - since its maker likely would not change this aspect of it, and I'd probably be reluctant to do it myself because of the money involved. There is no doubt in my mind, however that the gripping survace of the cue should remain the same diameter for its length. Everything about this game involves consistency.
 
shankster8 said:
Is your butt sleeve OD the same as the handle OD? In other words, is the the butt shaped as a cylinder from the handle back? That's essentially what I want to do, but some think that is ugly, and another says there must be some non-cylindrical taper to make it roll properly and for aesthetics. I'm just trying to optimize a tool. I'm not hoping to create an "ugly stick", but I'll be happy with it if it improves my game. When I practice stroke, it is easy for me to see that the motion of my grip hand fingers is significantly different when further forward on the cue (narrower butt region) with a short bridge. I use to think that the enhanced potting accuracy was due exclusively to shortening the bridge but now it's becoming clear that the fingers move more cumbersomely around a fatter cue during the stroke. A narrower cue just rides in the cradling fingers easily. A fat cue requires that the fingers must slide around the outside of the cue more (for lack of better words). Just my observations. This makes me glad I don't own an expensive cue - since its maker likely would not change this aspect of it, and I'd probably be reluctant to do it myself because of the money involved. There is no doubt in my mind, however that the gripping survace of the cue should remain the same diameter for its length. Everything about this game involves consistency.
Click to expand...


exactly my dilemma, I often find myself gripping the cue way too far forward just because the thinner diameter feels more comfortable. I have to consciously move it back because it messes up my stroke to grip that far forward.
 
My cues have a parrellel section from the handle to the butt.
It is straight all along from where you would be holding the cue.
It so happens that the straight diameter starts about 12 to 15 mm infront of the balance point. Now on a normal tapered shaft cue that dia would be alot smaller than 29.3 mm. And of course the back of the cue would be alot bigger.
I just like having the same diameter where ever I hold the cue for the shot or break. I don't have to adjust the grip because it is a different size.
Technology has changed alot over the years, and now cues can almost be any configuration you want and still get the weight , balance and playability in the cue. Originally the thicker butt or tapered handle was to get the balance correct for the cue.
On an existing cue, depending on how the trim or inlays etc are done, triming it down should not be a big problem. But the overall weight will change and so will the balance point.
Then you need to address those issues. You can use tungsten powder and epoxy mixed with milled glass fiber or lead shot instead of tungsten powder. The glass epoxy mix has about a density ratio of 1.2 and #8 lead shot is about 7.1 gms per cc. So you can see that there is alot of space in and around the lead to be filled with epoxy and glass. The glass is a filler and bonder. 20 cc of shot weighs about 142 grams and you can add about 7 cc of glass epoxy for the same volume. Lead has a density of 11.3
Hope this helps.
Neil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top