Whats the deal with shaft pilots???

[spliced]

I'm trying to figure out why modern day shaft pilots are not made the same way as they used to be when Rambow invented them for Brunswick. The pilots of yesteryear were long (enough to touch the bottom of the hole, and wide(enough to make contact with the sides of the joint collar. Nowadays it is a tiny brass nipple sticking out without little if any contact with the collar, and leaving a big empty gap in the middle of the joint. What is the point in even having a pilot if it doesnt contact anything?? Is there even a point to having a pilot? Whats the deal??

Check out the pics of what I'm talking about.

Thanks
Ian

 

[TATE]

You would probably get better answers posting this in the Ask the Cuemaker section.

On the Brunswick joint pic you showed (top) the pilot makes sense, because the joint wall is so thin. I assume that the thin joint was an effort to save weight. If you didn't have a tenon, there would be a lot of pressure on the edges of shaft when screwed in. Also, the old inserts tended to fit really loose, so the shaft would wobble around when screwing the cue together if there were no tenon.

On the joint shown in the bottom photo, I agree that the brass pilot is not even necessary on the thicker walled joints. I think it was just a carry over from the previous design.

You can take a flat faced shaft and screw it onto most thick walled piloted joints and never know the difference.

Chris

 

[JimS]

You would probably get better answers posting this in the Ask the Cuemaker section.

On the pic you showed the pilot makes sense, because the joint wall is so thin. I assume that the thin joint was an effort to save weight. If you didn't have a seated tenon, there would be a lot of pressure on the edges of shaft when screwed in.

I agree that the brass pilot is not even necessary on the thicker walled joints. I think it was just a carry over from the previous design.

You can take a flat faced shaft and screw it onto most thick walled piloted joints and never know the difference.

Chris

I've wondered about this too and I have no input whatsoever as I don't know squat about cue construction... but I am interested. Hope the cue makers jump on this thread.

 

[bogey54311]

lambros is close to the old style.
top cuemakers (searing, tascarella, etc.) have an outstanding piloted joint.
it screws down VERY tight as the wood surrounding the pilot squeezes into the joint.
it's the cheaper makers who's cues dont screw down tight IMO.

chris G

 

[spliced]

On the Brunswick joint pic you showed (top) the pilot makes sense, because the joint wall is so thin. I assume that the thin joint was an effort to save weight. If you didn't have a tenon, there would be a lot of pressure on the edges of shaft when screwed in. Also, the old inserts tended to fit really loose, so the shaft would wobble around when screwing the cue together if there were no tenon.

I just dont see why Rambow would go through all this trouble instead of just making these joints flat faced on both ends.

 

[thingie]

lambros is close to the old style.
top cuemakers (searing, tascarella, etc.) have an outstanding piloted joint.
it screws down VERY tight as the wood surrounding the pilot squeezes into the joint.
it's the cheaper makers who's cues dont screw down tight IMO.

chris G

My Runde has a similar joint to that, screws down very tightly in the last few turns. Am not sure whether he does this for the rest of his cues or just that range of short-spliced "sneaky petes" that he made. Any one has any ideas?

 

[Denny]

I believe it may be a matter of economics and marketing. The short pilot doesn't need the fitting of the Searing's or Tascarella's. This leads to less work in the shop and a faster turn over. The short pilot will also screw on any piloted jointed cue with no worry of fit. Some cue makers now will just send you an extra shaft without requiring the butt for fit. Which will increase the market shares of universal fit shaft. We all have seen sales and auctions saying will fit Joss, Schon, etc. Hello, Preditor, OB1 and other Aftermarket shaft makers. Just my thoughts I could be wrong. Wouldn't the first time.

Denny

 

[paulybatz]

I agree Denny

Its like when you compare a Lexus to a Hyundai in a sense...the fit and finish is much tighter...tolerances, etc...each of the premier cuemakers has their own magic formula that makes it work for them.

 

[Tommy-D]

> My Runde-era Schon is like that,particularly with fresh shafts. I've only hit balls with 10 cues in my life I objectively thought were equal or superior,period. I'm convinced the pilot is part of the answer. Tommy D.

 

[manwon]

Hello, I have read what the others are saying about economics, however I suspect that many cue makers are doing this for fit alone. Speaking from a construction stand point it really takes no more time to do it either way.

The standard joint size today is around .850 thousandths, keeping a standard joint size is the key to making any shafts your build fit all your cues. This joint gives you a stable platform to build your shafts to, with the butt being sight un-seen.

Many Custom cue makers use this platform, and so do almost all production cue makers because of the above.

However, the same techniques could and should be used for cues with a piloted joint and they are not. In my mind this greatly affects the cues transmission of hit. To me cues built using this technique have a dead hit, which could be changed by extending the shaft pilot. I personally consider this a design flaw, because it really costs no more, and really takes no more time to do it correctly.

The Conversion cues I am currently building are all flat faced wood to wood joints using a 3/8-10 pin. I have also built shafts for cues that are piloted though and either way with the jig's I have made there is no difficulty in the construction when done correctly.

 

[cutter]

What's the deal

Most replacement shafts are made with an undersized pilot, just to make sure they'll fit. Every steel joint is different. Evenn from the same cue maker, and especially from production people. To properly fit a piloted joint that is done correctly takes some time. Some cue makers glue/thread the brass insert into the end of the shaft with the brass pilot just sticking out and that's what they index off of. The old style and I feel the better way of doing it is to completely recess the insert, then turn the pilot down so that you have wood around the brass. Just a little taper makes it snug up really tight. Each one has to be idividually fitted to get just the right fit.
I disagree with the statement that it takes no longer to do than a flat faces joint. Flat face is just that. Face off the cue, the shaft, put it the pin and tap the shaft. Done, especially with sanding mandrals. Perfect fit everytime. A few more steps with the piloted joint. Now I'm not saying it makes a better hitting joint, I'm just saying that it takes more time to do it correctly. That's why alot of the present day brass pilots are undersized. Either they have to fit a multitude of different cues, or they are not taking the time to do them the way I think they should be done.

 

[manwon]

Most replacement shafts are made with an undersized pilot, just to make sure they'll fit. Every steel joint is different. Evenn from the same cue maker, and especially from production people. To properly fit a piloted joint that is done correctly takes some time. Some cue makers glue/thread the brass insert into the end of the shaft with the brass pilot just sticking out and that's what they index off of. The old style and I feel the better way of doing it is to completely recess the insert, then turn the pilot down so that you have wood around the brass. Just a little taper makes it snug up really tight. Each one has to be idividually fitted to get just the right fit.
I disagree with the statement that it takes no longer to do than a flat faces joint. Flat face is just that. Face off the cue, the shaft, put it the pin and tap the shaft. Done, especially with sanding mandrals. Perfect fit everytime. A few more steps with the piloted joint. Now I'm not saying it makes a better hitting joint, I'm just saying that it takes more time to do it correctly. That's why alot of the present day brass pilots are undersized. Either they have to fit a multitude of different cues, or they are not taking the time to do them the way I think they should be done.

The old style and I feel the better way of doing it is to completely recess the insert, then turn the pilot down so that you have wood around the brass. Just a little taper makes it snug up really tight. Each one has to be idividually fitted to get just the right fit.

This is how I construct Piloted shafts. When you are starting with a shaft dowel and you are building a shaft for a specific cue this process in not that complicated. Yes, I agree there are a few more simple steps for the piloted shaft, however it is not difficult in any way to accomplish, and I charge no more for a Piloted shaft than I do for a flat faced shaft, either way I charge $125 for a new shaft.

My point is, why do it in the first place if you are not going to do it right.

Have a nice day