Is tobacco content proportional to size?

[Habana Mike]

So after having smoked a 4" x 62RG stick in Pinar del Rio last week it got me thinking.

Is there approximately the same amount of tobacco by weight and/or volume in a cigar that size as one that is 8" x 31RG, or 2" x 124RG, God forbid. 6" x 40RG may be most realistic these days?

[rodrigodeanda]

Most cigars are cylinder shaped and if you do the math you can calculate it's volume very easily.

I think the amount of tobacco varies from one vitola to another therefore varying the density of the cigar, if we assume the cigars we are comparing have the same volume. So under that logic the tobacco content is not proportional to it's size.

I just did the math and found that density is NOT constant in cigars so I can assume that tobacco content is not proportional to it's size.

That's assuming the tobacco inside the cigar have the same density in both cigars which I think it's not the case.

I think that's a really tough question to answer without having important data and considering a lot of things. With the info I have (weight of the cigar, RG and cigar length) that's as long as I can go for now to try to answer that question. Mind you I'm not a cigar expert, just a guy who likes to do math every now and then.

[Colt45]

I've no idea, but I imagine that even if the same amount of full leaves were used, that how they are bunched would have to differ - leaves cut in half to fill the short fat cigar. I imagine this might have an effect on flavor delivery. I think there is a chart of weights somewhere here or on Trev's / Alex'a site which might be of help.

[Maplepie]

I just did the math and found that density is NOT constant in cigars so I can assume that tobacco content is not proportional to it's size.

x2. Packing really, really changes it.

Before anyone says anything about humidity, it's negligable as long as you're not storing at 50% or 80%.

I would assume a scale would be the best way to measure.

[PigFish]

I suppose this is a question for a seasoned roller.

I think there is a lot to consider with a cigar cross sectional analysis and a relationship for tobacco space verses, air space. In order to achieve the same draw, the rate of transfer of air through the cigar, would have to be dependent on many things including length and tobacco twist, but certainly there would be an air space density component.

As I recall, our brother Wilkey did some analysis on cigar weights related to ring gauges and did a little data comparison visually showing the scatter and groups of his data as he found it. I will do a quick search and see if I can find the thread.

I have my own beliefs in this area and that leads me to be fond of cigars generally less than 44 ring. I find preference in cigars of 42 ring and many smaller. I call this a "mass flux" burning theory and I have also written about it extensively on the forum.

I don't really have time to cover it all again here but if I can find the threads I will post them.

Cheers! -Piggy

[PigFish]

Oh and Maggie, water has a lot to do with it...

You cannot single out water whether it is in consideration of the size of the leaf, and as you mention the use of a scale, there is little to be determined with that, if you have no idea what the percentage moisture content of your cigars is.

I mean if you are going to weigh cigars and their comparative percentage moisture contents are not the same, then the data is useless as the percentage moisture content would be a variable, an uncontrolled one, that would render the data rather random.

The real only way to perform this would be with completely dehydrated cigars. That is the way I see it anyway...

Cheers! -Piggy

[PigFish]

Good data here:

http://www.friendsofhabanos.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=115972&hl=%2Bwilkey+%2Bcigar+%2Bweight#entry424833

[Maplepie]

Oh and Maggie, water has a lot to do with it...

The real only way to perform this would be with completely dehydrated cigars. That is the way I see it anyway...

Too many variables......... As you've listed above, we're not even talking about the applications of the tobacco content : ring gauge ratio, YET. When that comes in and we start talking about draws, it gets to be a real problem.

Currently, yes. But wouldn't that be a moot point as the oil content will also really, really mess up the values in general? I can only see dry curing as an option. A simple vacuum dessication would still leave too many other volatiles present - how does one account for this?

But should one discount oil content?

Then what about plume?

PS. You can call me Maggie. Maggie Thatcher. Know to the UK only for her discoveries in the biological chemistry field...

[madandana]

Where did you get the 62 RG?

[Ginseng]

Another way to state the question is whether cigars are all designed around a target density. If you consider that the first order cylindrical approximation I made will understate belicosos density and strongly underestimate figurado density, this seems reasonable. The long tail to the low density end will be those underestimates and will tend to increase the standard deviation.

Wilkey

[Habana Mike]

Where did you get the 62 RG?

Miguel rolled it for me. Foxy couldn't believe they had molds that size.....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PigFish]

Another way to state the question is whether cigars are all designed around a target density. If you consider that the first order cylindrical approximation I made will understate belicosos density and strongly underestimate figurado density, this seems reasonable. The long tail to the low density end will be those underestimates and will tend to increase the standard deviation.

Wilkey

If we back out of this a bit and look not at some numerical answer (yes that is unlike me) and look at it from a subjective, tactile view, I would have to say that cigars are rolled based on "feel" and firmness.

I say this because if we examine density, density viewed as a relationship of open space to tobacco cross-sectional space, then all larger ring cigars would likely be softer, like a longer spring wound of the same spring steel will have a different linear relation to force verses compression. It would have a different compression ratio.

If density then was the principal focus, then all larger ring cigars would be softer (generally) as all longer springs would also be "softer" than shorter ones.

With that in mind, the historical weight and then the density of a cigar is something that must be proven empirically and is probably not the same, perhaps not even linear from one thin ring cigar to that of a larger ring.

If the 'feel' of a cigar is the important factor and if draw is considered, then a cigar of larger girth has to have a similar cross-sectional area of free space to that of a thinner ring cigar. The fat cigar therefore, would have to be more densely packed with tobacco then in theory...

I am hanging my hat on there being an optimum cross-sectional air space. I will call it Piggy's Constant of Cross-sectional Airspace Theory and open the floor for debate!!!

I wish I had more time for this thread today... Reminds me of the old days!!! -Cheers all!

-Piggy

[CaptainQuintero]

So if you had the amount of tobacco and correct blend to make a corona, would making a different sized cigar from that specific amount of tobaccos make it taste the same as the corona it was initially destined for?

So a short robusto or slim panatela? Trying to roughly guess which other cigars weigh similar to a corona.

Eg rerolling a corona into something robusto sized

Or re rolling a robusto into something roughly corona or long corona sized

Would rerolling a RASS into a long corona make a cigar that still tasted like a RASS?

[Maplepie]

If the 'feel' of a cigar is the important factor and if draw is considered, then a cigar of larger girth has to have a similar cross-sectional area of free space to that of a thinner ring cigar. The fat cigar therefore, would have to be more densely packed with tobacco then in theory...

I don't believe so. What the LGC Triunfos taught me was that a cigar can have a perfect draw but be underfilled. You just have to have a bottle neck near the cap of the cigar.

I have found this with more and more larger RG ring gauges (of the ones that I smoke). You do not have to pack it tighter at all.

Let's take my little experiment with my BHK 54 boxes. 8 cigars ranged between 14.5 and 15.4 grammes. Two cigars weighed 17.5 and 17.6 grammes. I rant about this mathematical consistency as some are rolled by Partagas and some rolled by EL. That's an argument for another day.

I digress. Back on topic: the BHK 54s all had near perfect draws. How can that be when they've been moulded by the same shape and contains significantly more tobacco than the other?

I then propose my bottleneck idea. They're both bottlenecked by a small piece of scrap tobacco the roller puts near the end of the cigar to allow such a bend. Every cigar has this. So larger ring gauges would not fall pray to a denser pack.

This is my guess. Feel free to render it invalid.

If we back out of this a bit and look not at some numerical answer (yes that is unlike me) and look at it from a subjective, tactile view

Now I know why you love numbers and charts so much. You can't argue with numbers!!

[Andy04]

My experience has taught me the following...

If you have 2 cigars, one is 6X31rg and the other 6X62rg, you will need more than twice the amount of leaf to fill the 62rg.

The reason being that fatter cigars require a tighter packed filler to allow for a perfect draw where by a thinner ring gauge requires a less tightly packed filler.

If you were roll a thinner ring gauge stick with the same filler density as a thicker ring gauge it would be considered plugged.

[sengjc]

...I just did the math and found that density is NOT constant in cigars...

Interesting, was your sample size across a box or based on single sticks?

I always imagined that there should be an ideal density value assuming cigars are perfectly 'homogeneous' (even distribution of mass) - could be an ideal range.

Any more or less would be a strong indication of a plugged or underfilled stick.

[Sophistic]

you also have to keep in mind that you throw away a portion of the cigar in thend, and if the cigar is thicker, you also throw away more.

[JustinThyme]

If someone rolls a cigar in the woods and there is no one there to smoke it is it still too dense and plugged?

@ OP Its strictly at the hands of the roller and done by feel. I would say on the average that yes, tobacco content is proportional to size.

[rodrigodeanda]

Interesting, was your sample size across a box or based on single sticks?

I always imagined that there should be an ideal density value assuming cigars are perfectly 'homogeneous' (even distribution of mass) - could be an ideal range.

Any more or less would be a strong indication of a plugged or underfilled stick.

I did the math based on weights of single sticks posted online.

[PigFish]

I did the math based on weights of single sticks posted online.

I was going to do this myself today. You saved me the trouble.

If I had to guess, I would say that my original assessment would be correct, in that density increases with ring gauge in order to maintain a consistent draw and feel. Meaning, roughly, that airspace as seen cross-sectionally would have to be consistent of cigars of the same length. I could see the density also varying with the length of the cigar. As the cigar lengthens there must be some consideration for actual manufacturing flaws (real life) and maintaining a draw would have to be factored into that.

In order for larger ring cigars not to become mush, one would have to increase the density of them to maintain the feel and the draw. It is only logical!

-Piggy

[garbandz]

here are some pics.......three 36 rg sticks and one 58 rg.

You can see based on these cigars that it would take 3 36 rg to equal 1 58 rg,approximately.

So you can imagine how many 31 rg cigars it would take to equal a 62 rg. Maybe 5 or 6?

I roll cigars as a hobby,and I usually stick to 46 or smaller sticks, because it seems to take twice as much leaf to roll a 50 rg cigar as a 46.

[rodrigodeanda]

I was going to do this myself today. You saved me the trouble.

If I had to guess, I would say that my original assessment would be correct, in that density increases with ring gauge in order to maintain a consistent draw and feel. Meaning, roughly, that airspace as seen cross-sectionally would have to be consistent of cigars of the same length. I could see the density also varying with the length of the cigar. As the cigar lengthens there must be some consideration for actual manufacturing flaws (real life) and maintaining a draw would have to be factored into that.

In order for larger ring cigars not to become mush, one would have to increase the density of them to maintain the feel and the draw. It is only logical!

-Piggy

Just did the math a little bit further and found that it seems the relationship between RG and density is a bit random. For now I did the numbers for 10 random sticks and it doesn't seem to have a direct relation between those two. For example the density in a Bolivar Libertador (RG 54) is lower than a Partagas 8-9-8 (RG 43) but higher than a BHK 56 (RG 56).

So for now I can't relate the two, maybe the weights online are not accurate or I have to make the numbers with a bigger sample and make a graphic to really see if there's a direct relationship.