Bowl Material or Engineering?

[Grangerous]

I’m paraphrasing something I’d read from a pipe smoking machinist…I wish I could remember where to give him credit…

[“All pipes have draft holes which vary in size. Taste, burn quality, ash formation is affected by draft hole diameter. The flavors we enjoy are only made possible by molecules clinging to water droplets. No turbulence can be involved, nor small draft holes. A pipe is a chimney and it needs to breathe”]

My reading has generated several personal observations and questions:

1. My estate pipes of bygone era were engineered with smaller diameter draft holes. Yet, I have no issue enjoying these pipes. — I believe its because I enjoy simple tobaccos. The enjoyment of an aro might be entirely different, hence the “it must be dried crispy” contingent among us?
2. Cobs are notorious for providing great smokes. Cobs also have wide open drafts. Question: How much emphasis is directed toward bowl material: Meer, Briar, Cob vs the pipes’s engineering: it’s draft and breathability?
3. Many modern artisan pipe-makers and major factories today employ wider drafts. Why this change?
4. To what degree does tobacco’s moisture, cut, varietal come into play in our deciding whether a particular pipe is a great smoker or not?
5. A strong argument for dedicating certain pipes to particular blends based upon its “compatibility” can be made, in other words, finding the most suitable “fuel” for that particular pipe, based upon its engineering, rather than focusing on the quality of its bowl material. Briar. Meerschaum, Clay, Cob, Maple, Pear, Composite, Metal, Glass etc etc. etc.

Much discussion on this forum involves the “preparation of the tobacco.” Perhaps this is why.

Or why we each arrive at particular bowl depth and diameter preferences.

It seems an endless game of matching pipes to tobaccos. Especially troublesome to those who have wide preferences. It becomes an art.


Your thoughts, please.

 

[Al Gore Rhythm]

Horse hockey all of it

 

[Briar Lee]

If you remove the bit from a lit pipe and suck on the shank, it’s a surprisingly different experience.

So drilling, or shall we say engineering, does have something to do with the pleasure of pipe smoking.

Yet my Lee obsession has led me to have a half a dozen or more Lees in each in the shapes of Slim Billiard, Bulldog, Dublin, Squat Bulldog, and Pear all as close to identical as Lee could make them. Each shape of pipe ought to all smoke the same, as its twins. They don’t. All are good smokers, but some are better.

And once in a great while, one pipe is an extraordinarily good smoker.

Mostly, it’s the briar quality.

What else explains the extraordinarily good smoking factory pipe?

 

[reloader]

I'd rather have a pipe that was engineered perfectly than one that had the highest quality briar or meerschaum and was engineered horribly. I like open draws in my pipes and have drilled estate and even new pipes so they are to my liking. I have found I have some pipes that smoke a certain blend (fuel) better than some other pipes, but only have pipes dedicated to English blends.

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

I'd rather have a pipe that was engineered perfectly than one that had the highest quality briar or meerschaum and was engineered horribly. I like open draws in my pipes and have drilled estate and even new pipes so they are to my liking. I have found I have some pipes that smoke a certain blend (fuel) better than some other pipes, but only have pipes dedicated to English blends.

Same here. But I'd prefer to have great briar carved in an appealing way constructed and drilled near perfectly. And a wide, thin stem I can easily clinch. The artisans I buy from do that. It took time and patience to assemble my collection to match that criteria.

 

[makhorkasmoker]

Many of your questions are questions I've been asking. Here's something I've noticed:

I have a largish clay billiard. Clay is an interesting material because it is highly absorbent when "clean"--and not very absorbent at all when it's been smoked for a while and gets full of oils. And like many clays, it has a VERY tight draw. What I've noticed is this: when the clay is "clean," it is a dry smoker. The tobacco burns down to clean ash. It never gets wet and soggy. It's just beautiful, and the tight draw improves the smoke. A smoke lasts a really long time in that pipe when it's clean, and I'm convinced it's partly due to the tiny draft hole. So material and design work together perfectly. However, when the clay gets full of oils, it becomes less absorbent and a wet smoker, and I think the tight draw makes it smoke wetter still. It goes from being one of my best smokers to my worst. Of course, the first chance i get, I throw it into glowing coals to clean it, and it's a great smoker again. All of this makes me think the absorbency of material is really important--and certainly enough to make up for narrow draft holes, and ideally will work in combination with the narrow draft.

I think maybe smokers in the deep South and midwest often smoked cobs not only because they were cheap and available. They work great in heat and humidity--because they have both open drafts and the almost sponge like absorbency of the the cob.

 

[Briar Lee]

Here’s a mystery.

This is a Baronet branded Savenelli 616 EX.

It’s nearly entirely rusticated. Chances are the briar used wasn’t to Savenelli grade, or it would have been branded Savenelli. It’s stained nearly black, so you can’t even begin to tell what grain structure it has.

And it was made to exactly the same specifications as every other 616 EX Savenelli on the same machines, by the same workers.

It is a dynamite good smoker.

I know I can’t count on the next 616 being as good.

It’s the briar. Not the beauty of the briar, but some quality of it that can’t be reliably reproduced, or else all the pipe markers would do it.

 

[Grangerous]

Some thought provoking responses:

“Mostly, it’s the briar quality. What else explains the extraordinarily good smoking factory pipe?” - @BriarLee.

“I like open draws in my pipes and have drilled estate and even new pipes so they are to my liking.” - @reloader

“.. It took time and patience to assemble my collection to match that criteria.” - @hoosierpipeguy

“..smoke lasts a really long time in that pipe when it's clean, and I'm convinced it's partly due to the tiny draft hole. So material and design work together perfectly. However, when the clay gets full of oils, it becomes less absorbent and a wet smoker, and I think the tight draw makes it smoke wetter still. It goes from being one of my best smokers to my worst..” - @makhorkasmoker

“Horse hockey all of it” - @Al Gore Rhythm

 

[SBC]

There is in me a modernist and a pre-modernist, a scientist and a mystic -- I want to understand, and I want to wonder.

The older I get, the more the latter wins out.

(But I'll follow this thread anyway for any super fascinating insights...)

 

[Chasing Embers]

I just look for pipes with the largest chambers and unobstructed airways that are easier for my arthritic hands to hold and for longer uninterrupted smoking time.

 

[warren]

Most of you know my feelings with regard to complicating, over thinking, what should be a simple experience. I fully understand that all of us have different philosophies about the pipe. I prefer to keep my smoking simple. I pick a tool, stuff it and enjoy. I believe it all boils down to your mental makeup, some enjoy complicated rituals, others seek to try every blend available. Still others amass pipes. So, it's whatever it takes to allow you to enjoy life.

 

[yanoJL]

@Grangerous the turbulence concept is interesting to me. I have 2 savinellis, both drilled for a 6mm balsa "filter". I use the term filter loosly here as, unlike the carbon filters, smoke doesn't pass through the balsa. I feel like they are more like "absorbers" than filters. And when I use the balsa, they are invariably damp upon completion of the bowl. Based on popular logic, the drier smoke provided by the balsa should be more enjoyable. However, I actually prefer the filterless experience with the same pipes. And I'm wondering if the addition of the balsa also adds turbulence, and a restricted draw, and thus diminished returns.

Of course, a counter argument can be made that the balsa is removing more than just moisture (flavor as well). But I'm not sure that's the case with balsa as it would be with carbon/charcoal.

 

[sasquatch]

Why the drift to bigger airway? Because in some measureable way, they "work better". If your airway is teeny tiny, under 1/8" say, then ANY drop of water, any condensate, any little stray piece of leaf is going to completely occlude the airway. Pipe will be prone to gurgling and unpleasant to smoke. So okay, we go the other direction, make the airway 1/2" wide. Nothing occludes it ever. But you have no control, you are simply burning leaves at whatever rate they'll burn while you suck vast quanities of air through it. Literally just combustion. But a pipe is more than this, your machinist friend is right - the oils and esters we perceive as "flavor" need to be carried in the smoke, so we are looking for a very gentle burn, a smolder and nothing more, lest we destroy these big floppy molecules. Therefore some middle ground needs to be found, and generally speaking 5/32" is really really good. You cannot of course carry that diameter out through the stem, you have to make a wide deep slot to carry that air. And mostly, in the best pipes, this set up is what you'll find. Are there exceptions? Yes. Are there tweaks to be made in tapering airways or reducing plenum spaces... yes, all sorts of little improvements can be had, and that's what artisan pipe makers fiddle with.

 

[OzPiper]

Some well-thought-out responses here.

But I'm with @warren

Interesting. IF you are a pipe maker like @sasquatch
But why over-think a pleasurable interlude in an otherwise hectic, stress-laden (not always) existence.

Generally not one for navel-gazing.

 

[yanoJL]

...
But why over-think a pleasurable interlude in an otherwise hectic, stress-laden (not always) existence.

Because it's a discussion forum. We discuss pipes, that there terbaccy, and related carp.

It's what we do.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to put a piece of briar in a wind tunnel.

 

[OzPiper]

Because it's a discussion forum. We discuss pipes, that there terbaccy, and related carp.

It's what we do.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to put a piece of briar in a wind tunnel.

I get that.

My best mate at university was very much into hi-fi and had a most indulgent mother.
I remember seeing his new set-up for the 1st time (1970)
Transcriptor turntable, Quad amplifier and Quad electrostatic speakers.
He spent what seemed like an eternity fiddling with the equipment.
Then even more time placing a chair in THE "optimum" position.
Then turned on the equipment and looked at me expectantly

I said "you haven't put a record on !"
His answer was "Can't you hear - there is no hiss, crackle or pop and rumble"

He was into the specs and minutiae
I just wanted to listen to music

 

[Grangerous]

@warren has often shared that he wouldn’t purchase a pipe without first having an opportunity to inspect it in hand.

I get that.

A pipe’s aesthetics mean little, so that leaves “functionality” as the reason for his inspection.

His inspection is based upon his experience and our “keeping things simpler” is the fruit of gained experience.

@OzPiper It’s easy to become numb to topics that no longer hold interest. I get that too.

But this is a pipe discussion forum.

 

[Chasing Embers]

that there terbaccy, and related carp.

That forum's two doors down.

 

[bassbug]

1. I don't think "engineering" is the correct word. It's more "design"

2. The finest design possible, unless properly executed, will be crap.

3. The finest design possible, properly executed with crap materials will be....crap

4. A less than perfect design, properly executed with reasonable materials will, 99% of the time, be indistinguishable (in terms of smoking pleasure) from the "perfect". For empirical proof of this, just review the number of posts telling us all how wonderful this or that pipe is, even with the imperfections.

Moral of the story....it's all absolute hooey, but if you like theorizing and "what-iffing" then knock yourself out.

 

[Grangerous]

1. I don't think "engineering" is the correct word. It's more "design"

2. The finest design possible, unless properly executed, will be crap.

3. The finest design possible, properly executed with crap materials will be....crap

4. A less than perfect design, properly executed with reasonable materials will, 99% of the time, be indistinguishable (in terms of smoking pleasure) from the "perfect". For empirical proof of this, just review the number of posts telling us all how wonderful this or that pipe is, even with the imperfections.

Moral of the story....it's all absolute hooey, but if you like theorizing and "what-iffing" then knock yourself out.

Thanks @bassbug,

Pipes have had as long a run of manufacture as have home fireplaces. There’s a science to both.

Parameters for the latter are enforced by code and proven geometry, for obvious reasons, in home construction.

Not so with pipes. But I draw a fair inference that a tobacco pipe can benefit from optimum design and warrants further discussion.

“Moral of the story....it's all absolute hooey, but if you like theorizing and "what-iffing" then knock yourself out” —@bassbug

Well, if not discussed on a pipe forum, where might you suggest?