A business option for pipemakers

[Cayden]

I suppose almost every profession, especially the self-employed ones, complains about the rewards given.

While I don't envy all aspects the pipemaker's job I don't think they're really in the poorhouse yet, especially the ones with a good order portfolio. The ones I know all seem to have much more to spend than I do and I am far from begrudging them that. But they're not quite the bottom of the pile, by far.

[fixed typo]

[reedbiter]

Bill...I disagree with you on the flat reamers...In fact, I get MUCH better and far more accurate results from my flat reamers that I do from my expensive fluted ones. You just have to have the experience with them

[billh]

Bill...I disagree with you on the flat reamers...In fact, I get MUCH better and far more accurate results from my flat reamers that I do from my expensive fluted ones. You just have to have the experience with them

I took Mark to mean truly flat reamers, not D reamers. I think you'll agree that those (machined/cut from flat stock) are rubbish.

Bill

[reedbiter]

Rubbish?? Maybe that has been your experience. But over the years it's been my own personal experiences that flat reamers work very well indeed. I'm able to get a mirror finish on my bores with consistent bore measurements using flat stock reamers. In fact, in many ways I prefer them. I can make much finer adjustments to bore measurements than I could otherwise.

Engineered / fluted reamers are horribly expensive and frequently leave spiral "skid marks" on the interior of a bore. Once you plop the dosh down for one of these you are committed to a particular "cone" profile.

[reedbiter]

Don't ruin my poor me party!! Heh heh! ...my LAST "real" job was as a high school teacher!

[billh]

I'm not arguing for fluted/engineered reamers, or (god forbid ) straight cones - only arguing against flat reamers. D reamers give the best results I've seen, excepting perhaps John Hughes' fluted reamers which are lovely, mind you, but bear little resemblance to the stuff you'd contract out to most machinists...

I have however seen some truly awful stuff made with flat reamers. Yours is the first credible report of good results using flat-stock reamers that I've encountered. If it works for you, okay, I believe you and I know you're careful and observant, but I admit to being surprised. In other people's hands they seem to be dreadful.

How do you keepthe flat reamers from chattering? They are notorious for cutting lobed cross-sections. I assume you'd need well step-drilled interiors for starters, and careful attention to the diagonal profile of the flat reamer. Also, it seems they are guaranteed to change size every time you sharpen them...

Bill

[qwertymarka]

(heh heh... apparently i openned a can of worms amongst the pipemakers.... dance puppets! you! fetch me the wall street journal!.... you two! fight to the death! and here i was just talking a bit of rubbish )

i will say though that the flat reamers always did scare me when i thought of them... pure speculation on my part, of course, as i've never used a lathe to work wood... but the idea of shoving the flat reamer in seemed... unsupported and catchy. mostly catchy. but i'll go ahead and assume that my chanter was made with a flat reamer, and i'm quite thrilled with the result... so... no complaints on this end of the reamer.

[giggleswicksam]

Ah good, a spat! Can I join in now?

We use both. The ones from ground flat bar are fine, as long as you get the feed speed right, and lubricate - not necessary on an oily wood like lignum. Davy S also uses these. Peter's flat reamers are even thinner than the ones I've made recently and can't be used on the lathe - but they seem to have done all right for him over the years . . . . It has taked 3 days to ream a B chanter though . .

Chatter can be avoided with even the thin flexable flat reamers by packing around them with stuff, like old bits of cane etc, but the best packing is the wood dust itself when it gets packed around the reamer.

Where comes the theory that a polished bore is better anyway? Is brighter always better? Just asking. Again, we do both - and can be found sitting on the fence again . .

Of the various milled round reamers we use my favourite for speed and finish is a 3 bladed, ie 3 cutting edges. More than that seems to slow things up a bit, not so much space for debris.

[billh]

Ah good, a spat! Can I join in now?

We use both. ...

Well, color me surprised... How do you deal with the fact that they change dimension when sharpened? I take it you correct for the fact that the cutting diameter is the cross-sectional diagonal, rather than the actual width of the flat reamer?

Where comes the theory that a polished bore is better anyway? Is brighter always better? Just asking. Again, we do both - and can be found sitting on the fence again . .

I attribute the (sometimes vast) differences in tone between timbers (which I have observed in my own work) to surface effects; the less polished surfaces are not only less bright, but can sometimes exhibit obvious faults which are mitigated by improving the bore surface. Examples seem to be: reluctant/absent third octave, stuffy second octave, poor or absent hard bottom D and E, and flat pitch overall - I can think of one chanter which exhibited all of the above awful symptoms until immediately after the bore was oiled with two or three drops of linseed oil (this was in a timber that didn't take a nice internal polish fresh from the reamer). With most timbers I'm not convinced it's possible to get a bore that's "too" polished (unless it's coated with something plastic-like). Maybe there is indeed a point where less is more, but I am not sure I've reached it - so far the shiniest bores seem to get the most compliments from listeners.

(Just my opinion on this matter at this point in time)

Best regards,

Bill

[John Mulhern]

How do you deal with the fact that they change dimension when sharpened?

...the same problem flat D reamers have when sharpened beyond CL, Bill...all that careful profile shaping GONE! ...heh heh heh.
Aside from the controversy over the most efficient number of segments & resharpening difficulty concerns...going below CL on a segmented taper reamer doesn't change the bore profile. Kinda counter-intuitive, but going below CL just generates positive radial rake...which can be freer cutting...above CL makes it slightly less aggressive (and possibly less chatter-prone) This is an arbitrarily chosen .489" dia. example...providing about 4.7 deg. of positive or negative radial rake @ only a measley .020" above or below CL. The number of segments doesn't affect this angle...but it does change with diameter...ie. at .146" dia. it has jumped to 15.9 deg. of rake.

We're all stuck with straight fluted taper reamers, folks, due to the machining difficulty of making a helix...while the professionals who grind these things specifically advise against using straight flutes for this purpose & recommend helical ones.

[reedbiter]

For goodness sakes people..you guys are just spoilin for a fight eh?! Personally I thought Billa and I were having a lovely conversation. (that was meant and said in all seriousness and friendliness!! )

Oh flat reamers have issues. But really they all do.

Oh, some of the hideous work that I've seen as well...yikes...but it can be attributed to all sorts of things. Oh, many other makers have had perfectly fine results with flat reamers.
Some things I've learned about them...
Good steel is necessary.
Measurements taken off of any* reamer must be taken carefully, and it must be kept in mind that this doesn't always translate from the external of the reamer to the internal bore of a chanter. But yes, initial measurements mujst betaken on the diagonal. Care must be kept to always keep the reamer sharp. If the reamer is kept consistantly sharp along it's edge then the relative measurements stay within acceptable tolerances. In other words, if you mark a point on the reamer A, and 4 inches away as point B The slope or taper of the o.d. measurements will remain *relatively* consistant. Flat reamers can't be used effectively on a simple "pilot bore". The bore should be "step drilled" and reamed from there.
Flat reamers can indeed cut lobed cross sections. However, poorly prepared billets will lead to warped or misshaped cross-sectional bores from d reamers as well as fluted reamers.
Grease or lubricant is always a good idea in 95% of the reaming processes.
Flat reamers, as I've found with the others as well, are best used either manually or under exceptionally slow and controlled lathe conditions.

Flat reamers can and do indeed lose their overall shape or profile, but this is a tendency with all sorts of reamers. The culprit is not the reamer itself, it's the user and how one sharpens the reamer. The trick is to sharpen consistently along it's length and to be constantly referencing the i.d. dimensions of your billet and not simply assume that because you shoved a sharp thing into the hole the same depth each time that the bore will be identical.

It seems to me that THAT seems to be one of the biggest mistakes..or trend of mistakes that I* made. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are doing that Bill...just an observation of my own mistakes.

And ultimately, the interior dimensions of any chanter are going to alter over both short spans of time as well as the long run. THAT drives me insane...one can be as technically specific and precise as one wants...but the bottom line is the result and the inescapeable face that getting there is FAR more of an ART than it is a SCIENCE.

Bill, all that being said if I had a decent metal lathe in the shop I'd be making d reamers as well! Flat ones are easy to make and can produce top notch results with care and experience. The biggest bonus I've found to D style reamers is the additional strength that is gained by the extra steel!

Hey..for you guys lookin fer a fight...uh..umm..Bill has 2 ears! So there, Nyah!

[rorybbellows]

If it takes a pipemaker 300 hours to make a full set of pipes,and taking he works a 40hour week(some self-employed work alot more) and he takes a generous four weeks off for holidays ,he should be turning out a least 6 full sets of pipes in a year.
On adverage 6000 euro for a full set ,thats 36,000 a year,and with a good accountant he would not pay much tax ,so overall not bad!!!!


RORY

[billh]

If it takes a pipemaker 300 hours to make a full set of pipes,and taking he works a 40hour week(some self-employed work alot more) and he takes a generous four weeks off for holidays ,he should be turning out a least 6 full sets of pipes in a year.
On adverage 6000 euro for a full set ,thats 36,000 a year,and with a good accountant he would not pay much tax ,so overall not bad!!!!


RORY

In practice it doesn't really work out quite that generously. Most makers don't get 6k euro for a 300 hour set, and you haven't figured in operating costs, tools and materials, and R&D, nor the time to maintain existing sets and customer relationships. Taxman will take 20% of the rest, even with a good accountant, unless your operating expenses are too high in which case the tax break only mitigates the damage, it doesn't preserve income.

20 euro per hour would be a good wage, but in practice there are many such hours that can't be billed. I used to think I could make 6 sets a year on a 40 hour week but that was before I knew better All the more reason to keep overhead as low as possible in this business.

Nonetheless, as I've pointed out before, it's a voluntary activity and I am not saying that in order to complain. I for one am delighted to be making pipes, no pity party here! Even at 10 euro per hour it beats washing dishes for minimum wage, or most entry level white collar jobs.[*] That said, the reality is that the money is quite marginal for such skilled work, so makers must do it for other reasons. There are plenty of non-monetary rewards for those who are so motivated, and a frugal person can get by.

One problem with this thread seems to be that people are thinking about this in "business" terms. I think if someone is thinking that way (i.e. in terms of a better "business model") they should maybe think about some other, more lucrative, business !!! OK, I'll expand on that...

Pipemaking need only be a business in the sense that one is mindful of the law and balances one's books; primarily pipemaking (at least "artisan making") is a bit like being a "fine" artist. As I've pointed out before pipes are not presently typical of other "commodities" traded in 21st century commerce - perhaps they are not commodities at all. I think many of the frustrations and complaints about pipemaking from the perspective of newcomers to piping stem from the surprise that they can't just be bought from Ye Olde Musick Shoppe Inc., and the usual rules of supply, demand, and outsourcing do not apply. (We've gotten very spoiled by the convenience and economy of mass produced goods and third-world labor costs - doesn't work so well for pipes, as the example of nonfunctional pipes made in Pakistan illustrates.)

Trading a more commercial, commodity model for pipemaking, even if it were economically feasible (which is in doubt), would sacrifice a good number of the attractions for existing makers, in exchange for, perhaps, slightly better income and/or more timely production. Let's see how ARHPA get on, they seem to be on that track; myself, I'd rather take commissions

Bill

[*] or, IMO, even a highly-paid IT job, if money isn't your thing...

[billh]

..
Measurements taken off of any* reamer must be taken carefully, and it must be kept in mind that this doesn't always translate from the external of the reamer to the internal bore of a chanter. But yes, initial measurements mujst betaken on the diagonal.
...
...if you mark a point on the reamer A, and 4 inches away as point B The slope or taper of the o.d. measurements will remain *relatively* consistant. Flat reamers can't be used effectively on a simple "pilot bore". The bore should be "step drilled" and reamed from there.
Flat reamers can indeed cut lobed cross sections. However, poorly prepared billets will lead to warped or misshaped cross-sectional bores from d reamers as well as fluted reamers.

I infer from what I have seen and read that flat reamers are more likely to result in misshapen bores, but it's nice to know that it can be done (making decent bores with flat reamers). I reckon most things can be done, given the right mix of skill and determination.

As for step-boring, I think that makes sense for anything other than a factory setup (and maybe even then). With a fluted reamer you might be able to run a few bores without step boring, but it doesn't seem like a good practice.

Grease or lubricant is always a good idea in 95% of the reaming processes.
Flat reamers, as I've found with the others as well, are best used either manually or under exceptionally slow and controlled lathe conditions.

Flat reamers can and do indeed lose their overall shape or profile, but this is a tendency with all sorts of reamers. The culprit is not the reamer itself, it's the user and how one sharpens the reamer.

I only partly agree with that; flat reamers are guaranteed to get smaller across their cutting edges as you sharpen them, whereas a D reamer that's a bit generous of centerline can be sharpened many times with no effect on the cutting dimensions (only an imperceptible change in the reamer rake over time). Personally I like knowing that my reamers are not changing size.

The trick is to sharpen consistently along it's length and to be constantly referencing the i.d. dimensions of your billet and not simply assume that because you shoved a sharp thing into the hole the same depth each time that the bore will be identical.

It seems to me that THAT seems to be one of the biggest mistakes..or trend of mistakes that I* made. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are doing that Bill...just an observation of my own mistakes.

Well, I agree that one really must check one's work to find out what the bore really is as opposed to what one thinks it is based on the reaming operations. Lots can go wrong, or just go slightly different-to-plan.

However, I have found very good consistency between reamer insertion distance and resulting bore dimensions with D reamers, when using the same timber and approximate insertion pressure.

What I do is initially bore "slightly under", using insertion depth (withholding one or two mm), at low speed under lathe power, That has never failed to produce an undersize bore. For timbers like ebony or rosewood, I then hand ream over time, as the chanter settles, checking occasionally with probes. Again, the correlation with reamer insertion depth has been very very good, although like you I would not trust that without verifying it.

I have one reamer with four straight flutes that cuts very accurately to depth; the main issue is wood elasticity, which requires that the reamer be well lubricated during the middle stages and applied with rather minimal force during the final hand-reaming steps. There's a tradeoff between using enough force to prevent the reamer from wobbling/cutting oversize, and not so much force that the wood deforms appreciably (producing an oval, undersize bore).

For timber like boxwood that's subject to warping in such a way that re-boring is difficult, I give long rests during the first stages of boring, but try to bring the bore to the 'final' target dimensions before turning the outside of the chanter/regulator, since it's likely to bow a bit after that.

Anyhow, that's what I've found to date - excellent consistency with the D reamers. I admit I've never put the flat-stock reamers to the test, since I do have a metal lathe and have little motivation to switch horses.

And ultimately, the interior dimensions of any chanter are going to alter over both short spans of time as well as the long run. THAT drives me insane...one can be as technically specific and precise as one wants...but the bottom line is the result and the inescapeable face that getting there is FAR more of an ART than it is a SCIENCE.

Possibly, but I do think that precision and technics yield results as well, as long as one applies them "artfully"

ATB

Bill

Bill, all that being said if I had a decent metal lathe in the shop I'd be making d reamers as well! Flat ones are easy to make and can produce top notch results with care and experience. The biggest bonus I've found to D style reamers is the additional strength that is gained by the extra steel!

Hey..for you guys lookin fer a fight...uh..umm..Bill has 2 ears! So there, Nyah!

[reedbiter]

Thanks Bill et al. this is the best conversation (excepting the wonderful talks I have with myself and by tools at 3 am) in a long time!
Well, the bottom line I suppose is..well..the bottom line!

36000 euros a year...and making only how many sets? wow, where do I sign up?

It's been said a million times before, but this is the most unique and unusal of instruments and professions...