3 Piece Cues.
I am surprized that someone out there aint making 3pce cues (ie with 2 lite-wt joints).
A stainless 5/16"--18tpi wood-to-wood joint (with a brass sleeve in shaft) probly adds less than 1oz to a cue.
U kood hav a 20" maple shaft (instead of 29"), plus 20" maple mid, plus 20" butt (instead of 29"), ie a 60" long cue (the extra 2" would help the balance).
A 3pce cue would allow a shorter cue-case (the only reason to hav a 3pce instead of a 2pce).
I hav three 2pce cue-cases 31", 32" and 34" long (I kood shorten one to 21"). In fakt a 20" shaft fits some office brief-cases on a diagonal.
I know of billiard players who now uze a 2pce instead of a 3/4jointed cue, koz a 2pce fits in their luggage.
A 3pce cue would fit in your flight hand luggage (but it wouldn't be allowed).
The main question iz whether a 3pce plays az well az a 2pce.
Heavy steel joints would certainly disappoint (ie too much energy loss), theze probly add 2oz each (or even 3oz) -- but a 5/16" 18 kan add less than 1oz -- and of course a pure wood joint would add allmost zero wt.
Apart from energy losses, joint wt would spoil balance (ie 3pce cues would be noze-heavy unless counterbalanced).
A heavy joint in the butt wouldn't hurt energy transfer much (hencely this joint kood be any type u like).
But a heavy joint 20" from the qtip would hurt energy transfer (and balance) -- here the joint would surely be near an anti-node for bending/flexing/buckling, and thusly rob energy. A heavy joint at a bending node wouldn't hurt energy transfer, but a heavy joint at or near an anti-node would. And anti-nodes nearer the qtip suffer a larger displacement than anti-nodes nearer the butt, hencely more energy loss.
Anyhow all joints hurt energy transfer one way or another.
A change in material leads to reflection and refraction of axial impact shock waves. Even a wood-to-wood joint would create reflection losses, and surface effect losses, koz of small (even microscopic) air gaps.
There are at least 4 major ways a cue bends (and vibrates) during impact.
Hencely there are 4 major sets of bending/flexing nodes and anti-nodes, and a badly placed joint might sin gainst 2 or 3 of theze.
Anyhow, a 3pce cue might be my next project -- a sneaky pete naturally.
One of my 3/4 snooker cues haz a 20" butt.
If I put a nice 5/16" 18tpi joint halfway along the shaft I would hav a nice 3pce cue.
I think my nearest cuesmith would charge $150 for such a joint, and he uzually duzz it while u wait.
Most of the experts suggest two-piece cues for pool as they are easy to transport. It is advisable to start with one piece pool and later switch to the two-piece cue.
For my sneaky pete 3pce I might havta kut up a 1pce dufferin.
But anyhow (az I sayd in 12 Eliminators) I want a fat stiffshaft, lots of maple -- which I wont get if I simply kut up a 1pce dufferin.
To get a fat shaft I would needta uze two 1pce cues (or two 2pce cues) -- and then the splice would finish up too far forward -- and the cue would probly be too noze heavy even for me what with that splice and thems two joints.
I see a 3pce poolcue on ebay -- but it haz big klunky brass joints.
And u can get a 3pce jimmy white snooker cue, but it iz a short cue for juniors.
And u can get a 5pce poolcue, big klunky brass joints and all.
I karnt see why a poolplayer shood start with a 1pce and then switch to 2pce. In fakt in snooker its the reverse.
Originally Posted by enjoydgame
But re a heavy joint hurting, or re 2 joints hurting, one or two heavy joints would in fakt make a low-deflection shaft look even lower. And a thin spineless cue would do the same. And a thin spineless cue with one or two heavy joints would in effect giv ultra low deflection.
Deflection iz due to the wt of the shaft near the tip -- and one or two heavy joints would not affect deflection, nor would a thin spineless shaft (ie at cue midpoint) -- that's why I say "in effect". The deflection would be what it iz, but the heavy joints and lack of spine would rob power, giving less squerv (or more squerv, u know what I meen).
Talking bout thin spineless cues -- all pool cues are thin and spineless.
That's why poolplayers tend to revere heavy maple, lots of grain, lots of slow growth. This iz rubbish.
If poolcues were thicker then players would end up kumming to their senses and appreciating lite maple, with wide grain.
I think its an aesthetics thing -- poolplayers like the thin look, ie thin joints.
But, koz of silly loop bridges, poolplayers like a parallel taper, ie fat 13mm qtips.
Hencely instead of thin qtips and fat midjoints u silly sausages hav fat qtips and thin midjoints -- the exakt opposite of what a good cue needs.
They is lots of 3 piece cues made.
I hav never seen any 3pce options on any poolcue site (but i guess that any cuesmith can make anything if the money iz right).
Or, u do find faux-3pce cues, but theze are simply a 2pce pool cue with the butt having an extra joint (godnozewhy).
And faux-3pce cues on ebay etc are usually 3/4 snooker cues with a mini-butt extn (or 4pce with a maxi-butt extn).
My local cuesmith would be happy to make a 3pce to my specs but he would ask for $1200, and praps $1600 if with bells and whistles.
If I had my time again, I-we would be a cuesmith, making 3pce cues. I might call my-self (we-selfs)......
LIBERTY 3-PCE CUES.
U tell us what size joint-1 and joint-2 (we will make-em).
U tell us what dezign and color butt (we will make a sneaky pete).
We chooze to put a 3pce sneaky pete on the moon by the end of this decade, not koz it iz eezy, but koz it iz hard.
Vellkum to Kommie-Kues. Vee make vun joint, vun size. U enjoy good.
All joint be stalin-joint. Steel to steel. All produktion kommie-traktor axle faktry. U enjoy good.
Zink not vot kuntry kan do u, zink vot u do kuntry.