Proposal for New and Easy Standard for Sizing Pipes

[brass]

Greetings all:
Have you ever been frustrated by the lack of clear standards for sizing pipes? We all know generally about a Dunhill group 2, group 3, etc but know one seems to be able to point to the standards defining them. The sizes appear somewhat arbitrary.
I've tried to calculate cubic volumes in millimeters and inches but the sheer number of shapes, e.g. billiard, volcanos, pots, v-shapes, proved to have exceeded my limited math ability.
It occurred to me that we are really concerned about is "how much tobacco will this pipe hold?" In other words, we are really interested in a volume standard. That led me to consider various volume measurement standards.
I'll skip the stupid things I considered and skip to one that is, IMHO, simple, elegant and intuitive.
I propose the following standards based on level teaspoons of table salt. Simply fill the bowl with salt and count the teaspoons required to fill the bowl.
Size 1 = 1 level teaspoon

Size 2 = 2 level teaspoons

Size 3 = 3 level teaspoons (equals 1 tablespoon)

Size 4 = 4 level teaspoons

etc

etc

etc.
I suggest table salt because it is commonly available. It can be used equally effectively in all shapes, e.g, a pot or a stack. Even an amateur can easily and accurately calculate and communicate the volume of a pipe.
So, what do you think? If enough of you adopt it, we could vastly simply buying pipes.
If you like it, name it after me.
Pax

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Since a pipe that is more narrow than tall smokes way longer than a pipe that is more wide than tall, despite the volume, wouldn't it just be easier to say .75 x 1.25" or .85 x 1". Then, all you need is a ruler. I'm not sure I want to put salt in my pipes.
Besides, this would get confusing when talking with Dunhill people. They would think that you're talking about Dunhill sizes.

 

[brass]

Uhhh, yes. Russ point out you can simply multiply inner depth by inner diameter to get cubic volume. And he pointed out it would confuse the Dunhill people.

 

[mso489]

If it could be agreed upon, "salt volume" or measurements, it would be a good alternative to the Dunhill Groups, since Dunhill doesn't really divulge how those are determined. I'm used to the Dunhill Groups, so I'm not unhappy, but technical/engineering minds really find Dunhill Groups annoying.

 

[igloo]

I like the Marty Pulvers system . Nice big pipe my thumb fits in it . Nice small pipe my pinkie fits in it . Small pipe wont fit the Czech pipe tool .

 

[fmgee]

It is also worth considering international measurment challenges

 

[brass]

Say you have a pipe .7 x 1.3 deep
I understand Russ's point that you can estimate the volume,e.g. .7" wide by 1.3 deep equals .91 but what actually is the result?
The formula for volume for a billiard would be that of a cylinder: Pi * radius2 * length
So we would get 0.5002986300841745 cubic inches for our example.
You might use a cone formula for a volcano:
V=πr2h

3
.017
But these numbers mean nothing to me. I like the salt standard because it is visual.
I discovered something quite interesting. I used the salt standard on four pipes tonight.
Stanwell billiard poty: .7 x 1.5"

Stanwell poker .7 x 1.6

Savinelli 316 KS pot .93 x 1.3

MM Freehand Unknown
To my eyes the Stanwell potty looked tiny. The Sav 316's look much larger. But volume wise, they were almost equivalent - 2 teaspoons of salt. I tried a second billiard that looked even larger but the difference was maybe a 16th of an inch from the top. So now, I know why my pipes seem to smoke the same length of time - because they mostly are about equal in volume. The shapes are misleading.
BTW, the Freehand was a salt size 3.
Anyway, I think this approach could be useful. It has already given me insights with my own pipes.

 

[settersbrace]

It has to be a form of metric volume measurement. My 5th grade teacher insisted that we will be converting to the metric system very soon since we here in America are ignorant. I never liked her.

 

[derfargin]

Yes..We American's laugh at your "metric" system. We're all too stupid to count to ten and measure at the same time.

 

[warren]

Interesting thread. I've never considered the tobacco capacity of a pipe when buying. As long as the bowl is in proper proportion with the rest of the assembly I'm happy. Wall thickness is a consideration but, again only from the standpoint of eye appeal.
I don't time my smoking so I'm really not that concerned with inner dimensions. And, I've found that different blends smoke at different rates, then there's whether I loaded the bowl correctly and if I'm laboring or resting when smoking, none of which I pay particular attention to.
I am fascinated by the distinctly different types of smokers which haunt this forum. There's those which simply enjoy the experience for what it is, others need rituals, still others are apparently assaying to try every blend available, some seem to make it absurdly, to me, involved and then there are the few that keep it as simple as possible. No one style is correct or incorrect. That's what makes the pipe an "every man" diversion and this particular forum so stimulating.

 

[buroak]

Standardized sizes would be nice in a lot of respects, but I would still want measurements for tobacco chamber depth and diameter. For instance, I like a shallow, wide tobacco chamber for complex oriental blends, but a narrower chamber for flakes. The salt capacity of a bowl would not tell me all of information I want to know, but it would get me in the ballpark and help me narrow my range of choices more quickly.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

No no no, you just pile a bunch of pipes into a box, toss them down the stairs, and the pipes that go the furthest get an F. F would stand for furthest. The pipes that just fall at your feet would get an E. And, E could stand for Feet, because we've already used the F. And, all of the pipes in between we would just make up stuff for. But, we'd all have to do this at the same time for it to work. No do-overs.