weighting of a cue

[sanman]

The issue of weighting a cue was recently proposed by Jason Owen on this forum. I don’t know how any of the cuemakers approach this and achieve this with any accuracy but this is just a method that I came up would after due consideration of the problem. It would be nice to get some insight from others as to what their experience (if any) with this particular problem is. I could think of two approaches to weighting and balancing a cue. The first would be a calculated approach. Being lazy I would go via this method but mistakes can happen with calculations unless one is good with physics and mathematics. The second would be a simple hands-on exercise with almost very little chance of making a mistake. A piece of fishing line and a plastic bank coin packet or ziplock bags would do and lead.

Generally after a cue is finished it is weighed and thereafter the cuemaker would weigh the cue and check for its unweighted balance point. From this point the cuemaker can determine what weight he requires of the cue and how far from the butt he requires a balance point. Once the weight required is determined the cuemaker then determines how much lead (generally this is used for a number of reason mainly because it’s has a high density which is 11.34g/cm3) to be used. Weighing out this amount of lead the cuemaker can then place that amount in a ziplock or bank coin packet and seal the contents. Measuring the distance from the end of the butt that the new balance point would be, this point is marked in pencil on the cue. The ziplock bag is then tied on one end of the fishing line and on the other end is a slipknot. Place the cue on a Fulcrum (Eg an outstretched finger) and noting which side the cue dips. On the opposite side of the fulcrum place the bag with lead tied to the slipknot along the shaft of the cue. And move along like on some scales till one gets the cue being horizontal with no bias to one side or another. Mark that spot where the slipknot is on the cue with a pencil mark. This would represent where the CENTRE OF MASS OF LEAD would be positioned. I am highlighting this as it is very important. When one drills a hole in the buttend of a cue and say for example one wanted an increase of two ounces of lead. This would mean approximately 56.7 grams of lead. That would mean 5 cm3 (by formula of mass divided by density = 56.7 grams lead/11.34g/cm3) of lead would have to be used to weight the cue to the desired mass. Suppose a hole of 1cm diameter was drilled all the way up the cue. This would mean that the length of 6.4 cm of SOLID LEAD (not lead pellets) cylinder with a diameter of 1 cm would be needed to be inserted into the butt end of the shaft. The length of the hole that is drilled would need to be 3.2 cm past the mark of the slipknot where the cue balanced on the fulcrum previously described. The reason for this is that the centre of mass of the lead cylinder needs to sit on the exact location of the slipknot pencil mark.

One last note is that the mass of the wood that the lead displaces would be approximately 2/3 the volume(cm3) to give the number of grams extra lead that needs to be added to the mass. This may seem confusing but it is important if one wants to be accurate to within a gram. So as a rule of thumb when weighting the cue for each additional inch of lead drill 0.1cm extra or deeper and add 0.2cm more lead(for a 1 cm diameter cylinder lead pellet) so that our final weighting would be in this case 3.3 cm past the line of the slipknot mark with a lead cylinder pellet of 6.6 cm. For those that find this a bit confusing I have added the following drawing. Hope this clears it up some. After inserting the lead pellet the drilled hole is seal of with a dowl.

For a one piece cue the drilling depth would be significantly larger than for a ¾ or centre joint as I would imagine due to the one piece being solid and the drilling site is always from the butt end. With a ¾ it would be much easier to weight I suppose. Also the hole that is being drilled has to be dead centre else one would end up with a situation of a gravity cue ie where the cue always ends up resting at one position even when left on a table.

[jim evans]

hi do a far easier method when ive nearly finished a cue i find the bal point by resting cue on my finger using it to find the existing balance point ie near the splices is a good point to start once balance is found that should be about the point for the weight this sets the balance niether too far forward or too far back

[sanman]

hi do a far easier method when ive nearly finished a cue i find the bal point by resting cue on my finger using it to find the existing balance point ie near the splices is a good point to start once balance is found that should be about the point for the weight this sets the balance niether too far forward or too far back

yes that would be fine if one wanted to go with the natural balance point. Just to mention your finger is the fulcrum. The thing is what do you do if you wish to be wish to set the balance at a specified point. Suppose a customer insists on a natural balance point of 17 inches and the natural balance rests at 15 inches. How then would you address that. the above method would be my way of doing it accurately. but thanks all the same

[JasonOwen]

Sanjay,
This is a very interesting thread for me. I have wrestled with the balance point vs weight problem for the past few months.
There are a few things to take into consideration within your expertly worked out plan.
1. Have you considered that the hole you have drilled up into the butt that will house the weight, this has taken bulk (weight) out of the butt thus making the whole cue lighter.
2. Im not sure if cue makers do drill up so far into the butt. Im pretty sure they dont drill up 20 inches in order to place 2 inches of lead cylinder to get a 17inch balance point.
3. I have experimented quite successfully in adding weight at the splicing stage. Ie I have put the 2 side splices on, then planed the front and back splices and then drilled holes to house 1/2 ounce nuggets of lead. Ive added 2 ounces this way and then drilled up the butt in the normal way to get the final weight requirement. This method saves me having to drill further than 14-15inches up inside the butt. I believe that more of the original cue is left the better, from a feel and playability point of view.

Heres how I see it, a customer requires a balance point (fulcrum) of 17 inches. I can add weight to the butt side but the only way to add weight to the shaft side is by either using a heavier density shaft to start with or too leave more wood on the taper. I dont think you can drill up into the shaft side of the fulcrum.
Be great if Trev or Mike could come on here and give us some pointers, especially considering the thought and effort you have put into the subject.

[eaoin11]

Sanjay,
This is a very interesting thread for me. I have wrestled with the balance point vs weight problem for the past few months.
There are a few things to take into consideration within your expertly worked out plan.
1. Have you considered that the hole you have drilled up into the butt that will house the weight, this has taken bulk (weight) out of the butt thus making the whole cue lighter.
2. Im not sure if cue makers do drill up so far into the butt. Im pretty sure they dont drill up 20 inches in order to place 2 inches of lead cylinder to get a 17inch balance point.
3. I have experimented quite successfully in adding weight at the splicing stage. Ie I have put the 2 side splices on, then planed the front and back splices and then drilled holes to house 1/2 ounce nuggets of lead. Ive added 2 ounces this way and then drilled up the butt in the normal way to get the final weight requirement. This method saves me having to drill further than 14-15inches up inside the butt. I believe that more of the original cue is left the better, from a feel and playability point of view.

Heres how I see it, a customer requires a balance point (fulcrum) of 17 inches. I can add weight to the butt side but the only way to add weight to the shaft side is by either using a heavier density shaft to start with or too leave more wood on the taper. I dont think you can drill up into the shaft side of the fulcrum.
Be great if Trev or Mike could come on here and give us some pointers, especially considering the thought and effort you have put into the subject.

Actually I think Sanjay mentions wood displaced in the third paragraph. He is way to thorough to miss that detail

If you add weight at splicing stage can you later adjust the balance further by altering the weight of the base joint? Particularly if you use the heavier base joints like those used by MW. With the base joint being furthest from the fulcrum, I guess you'd need to add/remove less weight to have an effect on balance point.

I often think about balance points etc too as I really like lighter cues.

[sanman]

Sanjay,
This is a very interesting thread for me. I have wrestled with the balance point vs weight problem for the past few months.
There are a few things to take into consideration within your expertly worked out plan.
1. Have you considered that the hole you have drilled up into the butt that will house the weight, this has taken bulk (weight) out of the butt thus making the whole cue lighter.
2. Im not sure if cue makers do drill up so far into the butt. Im pretty sure they dont drill up 20 inches in order to place 2 inches of lead cylinder to get a 17inch balance point.
3. I have experimented quite successfully in adding weight at the splicing stage. Ie I have put the 2 side splices on, then planed the front and back splices and then drilled holes to house 1/2 ounce nuggets of lead. Ive added 2 ounces this way and then drilled up the butt in the normal way to get the final weight requirement. This method saves me having to drill further than 14-15inches up inside the butt. I believe that more of the original cue is left the better, from a feel and playability point of view.

Heres how I see it, a customer requires a balance point (fulcrum) of 17 inches. I can add weight to the butt side but the only way to add weight to the shaft side is by either using a heavier density shaft to start with or too leave more wood on the taper. I dont think you can drill up into the shaft side of the fulcrum.
Be great if Trev or Mike could come on here and give us some pointers, especially considering the thought and effort you have put into the subject.

As Eaoin has mentioned I mentioned the issue of the mass or voulume displaced by the mass/volume of lead. As a rule of thumb for every extra inch of lead with 10mm diameter pellet added one should add an additional 2mm of lead. if one does forget or ignore this the penalty is 1.5 grams per inch of lead. I am sure this can be ignored but I did mention it as I am sure someone would have brought it up and u did first up. The issue of weighting before splicing can be succesfully does the first time ie without adding weights the second time around if one has the densities of the wood and the exact taper and can do the calculations to determine the axact natural balance point and then what the reweighted balance point would be. That is where the spreadsheet I emailed you comes in and you wouldnot have to reweight a second time from the butt end. Most cues in their naturally weigh from around 15.5-17 ounces (1 piece cue and 20 inch splices and 9.5 mm tip and 30 mm butt with ash density of around 0.66 and ebony density of around 1.3 tons/m3). 3/4 cues would weigh more due to more ebony in the butt end. Butt I think the greatest challenge with respect to weighting would be a one piece cue due to the limited ends on a cue from which one can approach to add weight. If U desire a weighting of up to around maybe 18 or 19 onces for a cue I think you could get away with weighting it before splicng jason but then again I would have to say that you would have to be absolutely sure of the natural balance point before weighting as by weighting at different places along the lenght of the cue the balance point can be moved backwards or forwards so that one could achieve the bias one desires ie either forward or backwards weighted. Also a note leaving extra wood on the cue may add up to 0.4 of an ounce only as one would tend to get too thick a taper or convex taper.

And finally I just wish to state here that to weight a cue to a particular mass is not the object of this thread as that can be achieved easily. what my wish here is to find a way whereby the weighting is done accuratelysuch that the desired weight with the desired balance point is achievable

And Eaoian a heavy base joint is only beneficial if one wants to a rear weighted cue as this weight is added at the extreme rear of the cue. Does not really help with weighting a cue forwards of its natural balance point.

[eaoin11]

And Eaoian a heavy base joint is only beneficial if one wants to a rear weighted cue as this weight is added at the extreme rear of the cue. Does not really help with weighting a cue forwards of its natural balance point.

Yep I haven't thought about this in the depth you have, but I thought that if you allowed for an average of (say) 1oz in the base joint from the beggining, and do your weighting for a one peice cue at splicing stage, then you could fine tune the balance point forward or back at the finishing stage by reducing or adding to the weight of the base joint.

Not saying that this is a good way though, I prefer the cue to be weighted as naturally as possible.

[trevs1]

Yep I haven't thought about this in the depth you have, but I thought that if you allowed for an average of (say) 1oz in the base joint from the beggining, and do your weighting for a one peice cue at splicing stage, then you could fine tune the balance point forward or back at the finishing stage by reducing or adding to the weight of the base joint.

Not saying that this is a good way though, I prefer the cue to be weighted as naturally as possible.

Why.?.....that has no benefit whatsoever.

Virtually ALL one piece cues of more or less standard dimensions, weighing anything above 17oz's will almost always have weight added.

[sanman]

Yep I haven't thought about this in the depth you have, but I thought that if you allowed for an average of (say) 1oz in the base joint from the beggining, and do your weighting for a one peice cue at splicing stage, then you could fine tune the balance point forward or back at the finishing stage by reducing or adding to the weight of the base joint.

Not saying that this is a good way though, I prefer the cue to be weighted as naturally as possible.

Not possible. The base joints can only be inserted after weighting.

[eaoin11]

Why.?.....that has no benefit whatsoever.

Virtually ALL one piece cues of more or less standard dimensions, weighing anything above 17oz's will almost always have weight added.

Ah, yeah, disregard that bit in bold.

Not possible. The base joints can only be inserted after weighting.

I was assuming that.

[sootyvrs]

I am under the impression that the premium cue makers don't add any artificial weight to their cues and they are naturally balanced. Does anyone know if this is true?

I suspect when there is a specific request for a heavy cue and the dimensions requested will not allow using just the timber that then artificial weights then need to be added.

[jim evans]

a 3/4 solid ebony butt would prob want weight removing a 1 piece ebony butt would be about what you would say is norm17-1/2 to 18-1/2 oz maybe a bit more depending on butt dia

[jrc750]

I am under the impression that the premium cue makers don't add any artificial weight to their cues and they are naturally balanced. Does anyone know if this is true?.....

I think Trevor White already answered this question (see below)
Edit : my one piece cue weighed only 15 1/2 oz before needing weight adding

....Virtually ALL one piece cues of more or less standard dimensions, weighing anything above 17oz's will almost always have weight added.

[sanman]

A 3/4 is approximately 1.5 to 2 ounces heavier than a one piece of same dimension. Generally it is difficult to get a solid ebony 3/4 joint cue at 16 inches jointed weighing less than 18 ounces unless the cue is for example slim butt and slim taper. But a 3/4 ebony cue will ALWAYS be heavier than a similar one piece if same woods are used. Hence the diffences in feel and playability. Also it is very difficult to see how a one piece cue at 20 ounces for example is not weighted so the argument that the premium cue makers not weighting their cues is difficult to imagine but again I stand to be corrected. Trevor White has stated in the 8th post here any one piece cue of standard dimensions above 17 ounces will always have weight added. And as jim Evans has stated a 3/4 would probably want weight removed. And weighting of a 3/4 would be much easier I suppose.

[Gerry Armstrong]

I am under the impression that the premium cue makers don't add any artificial weight to their cues and they are naturally balanced. Does anyone know if this is true?

I suspect when there is a specific request for a heavy cue and the dimensions requested will not allow using just the timber that then artificial weights then need to be added.

No it's not true. Almost all cues have weight added.