Jump to content
bob123

Truss Rod Idea

Recommended Posts

Let's be honest here...the only reason to try to build without a truss rod is because you are scared of it because you lack the skills to feel comfortable or you are trying to create a marketing scheme which will make you stand out like Ed Roman.

Man up and stop being so scared of everything.There are enough useless guitars and wasted wood in the world without falling prey to this,which is as I said before the trap every single newb falls into out of fear...the need to come up with a solution for a non-problem in which the solution itself is always more complicated than just doing it the correct way.

Truss rod=correct

No truss rod= not correct

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited your response to show just how assinine it is. Fear, marketing schemes or newbiness has nothing to do with creating new neck joins, or in DISPROVING the "need" for a rod. Three years later, the necks that I made are still holding up fine. Bobs original thoughts here were a different rod channel- not a rodless neck. I just posted to show that trussless necks are not the warping, twisting, uncontrolable things people *think* they are. After three years, I have tangible evidence. You all have an OPINION.

A 5 string bass and a 6 string guitar -both trussless, both still in action .Sometimes, we create things just to create them, not necessarily to solve a 'problem'. What a concept..............

You want to stick to tradition? feel free. Don't lambaste everyone who steps out of your comfort zone though. Makes you look cheap.

..the only reason to try to build without a truss rod is because you are scared of it because you lack the skills to feel comfortable ........... the trap every single newb falls into out of fear...the need to come up with a solution for a non-problem in which the solution itself is always more complicated than just doing it the correct way.

Truss rod=correct

No truss rod= not correct

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but agree with what Wes says. The truss rod was an evolutionary stage in the development of instruments necks so why work backwards?

To put it another way, look at it from a for/against standpoint. There are virtually no points FOR not using a trussrod other than it reducing the steps required to make a neck. Even then, this isn't a huge complex bit of work. As DarkAvenger says, it is possible to make a neck without one, but why would you?

Nothing about a correctly installed trussrod is a negative. They - very elegantly I might add - solve the issue of neck flex with the enormous advantage of having a range of adjustment. Not having one does nothing positive. Nothingnothingnothingnothingnothing. Fine if you want to do it and by all means try it. Just recognise that there exists a fine line between pointlessness and experimentation on this score.

OurSouls: I don't see the advantage in spending additional time and effort making a trussless neck or to try re-inventing the wheel when a specific work methodology (ie. using a trussrod!) ticks the boxes, meets the requirements, is up to snuff, etc. I am of course not the type of builder who is hugely interested in re-inventing wheels. I'd rather know that the work I am carrying out has controllable and known bounds so that the end results is predictable and within the specifications I originally stated. Not really a concept builder!

I would disagree about your "sticking to tradition" bit. A trussrod is not merely tradition, it is an inextricable component in a neck which allows it to be adjustable against string tension and seasonal movement. Using a proven and established method of solving an issue is not tradition, it is just sense. Medical practitioners are not going back to bloodletting and sacrificing chickens to solve common medical complaints! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but agree with what Wes says. The truss rod was an evolutionary stage in the development of instruments necks so why work backwards?

To put it another way, look at it from a for/against standpoint. There are virtually no points FOR not using a trussrod other than it reducing the steps required to make a neck. Even then, this isn't a huge complex bit of work. As DarkAvenger says, it is possible to make a neck without one, but why would you?

Nothing about a correctly installed trussrod is a negative. They - very elegantly I might add - solve the issue of neck flex with the enormous advantage of having a range of adjustment. Not having one does nothing positive. Nothingnothingnothingnothingnothing. Fine if you want to do it and by all means try it. Just recognise that there exists a fine line between pointlessness and experimentation on this score.

OurSouls: I don't see the advantage in spending additional time and effort making a trussless neck or to try re-inventing the wheel when a specific work methodology (ie. using a trussrod!) ticks the boxes, meets the requirements, is up to snuff, etc. I am of course not the type of builder who is hugely interested in re-inventing wheels. I'd rather know that the work I am carrying out has controllable and known bounds so that the end results is predictable and within the specifications I originally stated. Not really a concept builder!

I would disagree about your "sticking to tradition" bit. A trussrod is not merely tradition, it is an inextricable component in a neck which allows it to be adjustable against string tension and seasonal movement. Using a proven and established method of solving an issue is not tradition, it is just sense. Medical practitioners are not going back to bloodletting and sacrificing chickens to solve common medical complaints! <_<

In all honesty, I think moving toward a trussrodless design could be a good thing if done right. Agreed, a trussrod is an elegant solution to an undeniable issue. However it's also a 50 year old solution, and as far as I'm aware carbon fiber wasn't as reliably available (or cost effective) back then. There are some benefits to a CF stabilized neck. For one, there are not moving parts in the neck and if done correctly could benefit the setup process and reduce the time frame on the first setup. I usually wait a minimum of two weeks for the wood to settle in after the initial setup on a new guitar, a CF neck might not have these restrictions. Also, you might be able to create a new stable neck joint style if you're creative with it. Carbon fiber seems to be one for those building materials that guitar players like, for whatever reason, and is generally considered to be a 'neutral tone', so you'd have that going for you too.

There's nothing wrong with moving on from tradition, you can look at advancements in many industries these days and find traditional methods being replaced with simpler solutions that weren't possible originally. Truss rods aren't going away(ever ever ever) but they aren't necessarily an end all solution. There is a bit of room in the industry for ideas like these, if pulled off correctly.

Back to the original subject... I wouldn't put a truss rod under a glue joint. I have no basis for this, but I don't see a point to do it this way either. I'd just glue a matching fretboard on if I wanted the neck to appear one piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, I kind of see where you're headed with this. As long as the solution (truss rod or whatever) ticks the boxes of simplicity, stability and adjustability then you're a winner. Unfortunately trussless meets only two of these requirements so falls short. The only traditionalism I see is the insistence on the use of compression style rods in opposition to say, u-channel or double-acting rods.

Truss rods are almost a hundred years old however wheels are a lot older, yet we still use those out of some misguided sense of tradition. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon fiber moves.Anyone who ever put CF rods in to aid stiffness can tell you that you can still adjust the neck via truss rod...very easily in fact.The only thing CF has that wood does not is an added "memory" so that it tends to try to stay straight.Some woods are stiffer than CF.

Only the truss rod gives you the ability to actually move the neck to counter movement that may come up due to humidity,temperature,or even just an eventual refretting.

"Tradition" is just a keyword being used in this topic to explain away the fear of routing a simple channel.When you say "tradition" you mean "old" and the inference is that you have fresh,new ideas...

No such thing.I have been on this site 10 years and have heard the same exact assertion from almost every guy who starts without woodworking experience..including myself.Without a truss rod your guitar will be less useful than a similar guitar with one.It is a cold,hard truth.Once you get over your fear and lack of skill,you will laugh at yourself for ever thinking it was difficult.

Like Pros said, It was invented to counter a specific problem and it does it well,and the two way rod is so simple to install and use that you would be foolish not to.Hack at wood and cry about tradition all you want,but without a truss rod all you will have built is a guitar shaped piece of art for the wall that anyone who buys will only curse you for selling them once the need arises for adjustment.

If you want to be "fresh and new",invent a thinner,stronger two way rod that still installs in a straight channel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joel already did that with his carbon fibre rod:

http://www.cycfi.com/2010/10/cf-truss-rod/

Exactly the same conclusions you have stated also Wes. Carbon fibre is certainly very stiff perpendicular to the lamination direction for its weight. I'd only ever use graphite/CF reinforcement if the overall stiffness of a piece needed altering so that the opposing forces of string tension vs. neck resistance to movement can be swung either way by the rod.

There's a great lack of understanding on neck design with many people, but there you have it. That last paragraph should be tattooed onto the inside of people's eyelids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact,it occurs to me that the guitar itself is disgustingly traditional..I mean...pushing on STRINGS for music...ugh.always having to change strings...killing trees to make sounds?

I think we have all been taken in.You can get a plastic guitar shaped thing and play music through your video game system..I have a keyboard that has a guitar setting on it and takes much less skill to operate.

Man...I can't believe I have been duped by tradition all these years.

The fresh,new guitar of the future...perfection in plastic

60463_l.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wes and Prostheta, I don't discount your combined vast knowledge, nor am I trying "be innovative". However, I refuse to believe truss rods are "mandatory" in a guitar if done a certain way.

Vigier has been making guitars longer then both of you, and way more. They sell for around 2500$+, and people buy them. These DONT have truss rods, and people like guthrie govan love them. If they are so "wrong" how the hell are they still in business???

Why do I think its important? Because instead of routing a channel through half your neck, inserting a; relatively speaking, loose metal object that you force the wood in the other direction for. "well bob, why would you want to try your idea?" Because instead of routing DOWN material that DOESNT NEED TO BE REMOVED, you can route EXACTLY the wood you need removed. This theoretically, would make your truss much more sensitive as it doesnt need to "Travel" to move. The glue joint, if done right, is more then stable enough for this task. The stress is longitudinal, along the entire neck. G & L Necks are actually kind of made this way as well. Im proposing DIY solutions for things people are already doing, and have been for a long time.

Prostheta, that thread is flawed. Vigier BUILDS IN relief to their necks... That nulls out that entire articles basis of point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but you're not Vigier.

So now we're going from "no one can do it" to "you cant do it because...". Very nice. Maybe after a few more rounds of debate we can get to "hey someone should try this".

edit: If you notice, I'm not asking to make necks out of graphite. Im asking about finding a way to exactly slot the truss rod...

Edited by bob123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When approaching any problem you need a reasonable structure as to the deficiencies in the existing system, a proposal for improvement, a development plan with a method of implementation. You have none of these other than a misguided sense of wanting to throw out an existing solution for an old solved problem with no apparent reason for improvement. Until you can propose a reasonable and realisable idea for producing something useful then it is a personal foible written in a box on somebody's website.

You can't do it because: you haven't got a reasonable plan or a feasible idea yet.

The "no-one can do it" extrapolation you pulled out of the air is more like "you haven't proposed anything real yet".

Airware.

This whole thing about glue joints and laminations is irrelevant. Good glue joints are at least as good as the wood themselves. Consider them as though they were wood. No idea what you were going on about with "obviously not Mahogany" except it shows a lack of understanding about the properties of the materials.

Essentially you are trying to solve a problem which has already been solved by people with far more experience and knowledge than anybody that has written more than five words on this board, ever. This board wasn't around in 1921 however.

You know what? Build it. That is the way true innovators sail their ships. Propose a prototype with project bounds that can be analysed and hopefully met, then build it. Analyse the result and gloat as the world flocks to your gleaming steeple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ you guys are jumpy today.

You can't use mahogany, because the wood isn't stiff enough to fret. I've played enough les pauls and prsi to know you can make the damn neck out it...

I'm also not going to provide an entire engineering proprosal to a board of woodworkers. This is supposed to be a discussion based forum. People propose idreas, and they are intended to be discussed. I'm sorry I don't take "nope, its been done this way since 1921" as a valid answer. That's an asinine thought process, wed still be in the dark ages if that was constant

Another thing you guys fail to understand (apparently) is people are already doing some of my ideas in some form or fashion. I had no idea g & l do truss rods like this before I made this thread. If my idea is so piss poor, why are some of the highest regarded guitars on the planet using it? Food for thought imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not jumpy, just sick of facepalming. Not sure if you are trolling or just unable to accept anything which is contrary to what you want to hear. Re-quoting Vigier marketing doesn't make their claims truer. Any neck that uses wood is subject to movement from environmental changes and string tension, even one of that has a whopping steel beam or other reinforcement. G&L necks are nothing amazing or different. A lot of these ideas are great on paper and are a marketers wet dream - a tool with which to brand everything that doesn't use the idea as inferior.

"Stuff like this makes me question "normal" build methods and techinques... I follow the normal path, but at the same time, if theres a better way to do it, why not?"

If you want to question "normal build methods" then fine, however understanding them in the first place is paramount in being able to propose an alternative method. Picking up somebody else's idea - especially one with much investment in the marketing to sell product - and hailing everything else as questionable off the back of it is highly silly. There are good ideas out there however many of them are overly complicated for little or no return in comparison to the archaic class-of-21 truss rod.

Throwing out ill-formed and baseless ideas and hoping something sticks the same way conspiracy theorists do is akin to jumping face first into every doggy doo you see and hoping you come out with a dollar stuck to your nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Bob's comment below (Oddly, the editor won't let me put the insertion point after the quote.):

You won't get a "truly one piece" look. First, saw cuts are not infinitely thin and grain lines are not perfectly straight. You will have offset on either side of the cut. Second, you plan to flip on of the pieces. There's no way you'll get the grain on the flipped side to match. Third, glue is not invisible. It's possible to hide the glue line well, but that often relies on a geometrical feature of the piece (a corner, an edge, etc.).

There are reasons why binding, purfling, rosettes, and inlay stripes were added to guitars.

Ray

For "Why?", simply to have a truly "one peice neck" No fretboard, very clean look imo, particularly thinking about flamed maple necks, or other interesting figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's start over, eh? Not sure what your misunderstanding or face palming about here, but here's what you're asking for.

Why - to get an exact route. Removing less wood, allowing the truss rod to be more reactive and sensitive. Some will claim tone should improve due to both less wood removed and a more exact route allows the rod to be more integral.

Work involved - still able to attach fretboard if wished. No more work then installing a normal truss rod. Less work then a skunk stripe.

Cons - only available on a bolt on or set neck style. Requires accurate and precise routing to be made as intended. If you don't use a fret board, you can't use softer woods like mahagony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK then, lets get back to basics. I've worked on a LOT of guitars and have learned quite a bit about truss rods and about a variety people's playing preferences. I've also worked on a lot of cheap guitars and I've vowed to NEVER do another repair job on a guitar that doesn't have an adjustable neck. I've actually taken a few apart, ie. pop the fretboard, pull the steel reinforcing rod and replace with a single action adjustable rod. I make them work but it definitely does not justify the time, money and effort in making a cheap guitar playable, good expereince tho. :)

So why would you want to build a guitar that does not have an adjustable neck??!

I'm not just talking about how long a guitar neck "might" remain static. I don't care if its got carbon fiber, steel or even diamond for stiffening, eventually the wood is going to move and cause internal stress and your neck is going to bend. ALSO, I've had some people want (even NEED) to have a different action. I got one friend who uses a bigass plastic thumpick on his guitars and hes constantly complaining about buzzing after I do a normal (to us) setup. So I'm constantly adjusting his relief ie. loosening his truss rod, so he can have more room for his strings to vibrate. A non-adjustable neck is useless to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's start over, eh? Not sure what your misunderstanding or face palming about here, but here's what you're asking for.

Why - to get an exact route. Removing less wood, allowing the truss rod to be more reactive and sensitive. Some will claim tone should improve due to both less wood removed and a more exact route allows the rod to be more integral.

Work involved - still able to attach fretboard if wished. No more work then installing a normal truss rod. Less work then a skunk stripe.

Cons - only available on a bolt on or set neck style. Requires accurate and precise routing to be made as intended. If you don't use a fret board, you can't use softer woods like mahagony.

Okay, so let's see here. You want a truss rod now? I'll pull the Wikipedia classic citation query here.

Some will claim tone should improve

Who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's start over, eh? Not sure what your misunderstanding or face palming about here, but here's what you're asking for.

Why - to get an exact route. Removing less wood, allowing the truss rod to be more reactive and sensitive. Some will claim tone should improve due to both less wood removed and a more exact route allows the rod to be more integral.

Work involved - still able to attach fretboard if wished. No more work then installing a normal truss rod. Less work then a skunk stripe.

Cons - only available on a bolt on or set neck style. Requires accurate and precise routing to be made as intended. If you don't use a fret board, you can't use softer woods like mahagony.

Okay, so let's see here. You want a truss rod now? I'll pull the Wikipedia classic citation query here.

>Some will claim tone should improve

Who?

Holy crap. Please read the title of the thread... if you guys are going to be blind to what I write, why do you even bother to post?

Who? Probably these people.

http://www.tdpri.com/forum/tele-technical/169087-rattling-truss-rod-how-hard-fix.html

http://www.frets.com/FretsPages/Luthier/Technique/Setup/BuzzDiagnosis/TrussRod/trussrod.html

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f18/fix-truss-rod-rattle-243506/

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148199

http://forums.fender.com/viewtopic.php?p=528075

http://www.harmonycentral.com/t5/Electric-Guitars/Rattling-Truss-Rod-Help/td-p/30656854

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a common belief that removing more wood than necessary is detrimental to tone,mostly among newbs looking for fantastically ju-ju filled instruments that will have the soul of the tree embedded into it's heart so that the aforementioned newb will have his musical deficiencies reduced by the resulting magical voodoo.

But experience converts these beliefs to be the myth that they always were.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all you're worried about it a little rod rattle Bob, use a bead of silicone in the slot to dampen any resonances. No need to try and make a piston-fitting slot where the rod will quite happily end up hanging up or eventually seizing. Rattling rods are not a massive problem, however they are more common on factory guitars than customs. Quite simply, adding another work step into a factory process is an expensive proposition. In the hands of a small builder, running a bead of silicone is no big deal.

If you did enough reading around you would find this, instead of just demonising truss rods like they are an intrinsically flawed thing.

My wheel is squeaking! Add oil rather than re-invent the whole damn thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't understand why all the fuzz.Bob is simply stating a different way of making a guitar neck.I don't know the guy but he makes a fair point.I don't get why Prostheta and Wes are getting so 'jumpy' and disrespecting.People should challenge tradition in order to evolve their craft (as Fender,Les Paul, Steinberger ,Floyd Rose tand many more did in their time even if at times it came back to bit some of them).Also as i recall there is someone here who makes one piece builds, to my knowledge a big no no for 'traditional' luthiers.With respect to everyone from a zero experienced builder to be.

P.S you do know that wheel is not the best way of transport.I believe there are some trains gliding on magnetic fields that are way faster from the traditional wheel trains ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about?If we feel a statement is flawed there is no reason we should not state our opinion.Nobody is "disrespecting" anybody.

you do know that wheel is not the best way of transport

Really?You do know that most trains still do run on wheels and that magnetic fields won't work unless you have roads of metal?So that is not useful at all for most transportation?So the wheel is in fact still the best mode of land transport in terms of economic feasibility over a wide variety of terrain...

Anyway,I stand by everything I have stated.If you don't like opinions you are in the wrong place.

If Prostheta or I were truly "disrespectful",as you think,then this would not be a mere discussion,now would it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way,we both do know Bob pretty well and have more of an internet relationship than just this topic.Familiarity is not disrespect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you.Stating an opininion is one thing bashing is another(stuff like : ju ju and newbs).Again i just call them as i see them.

If Prostheta or I were truly "disrespectful",as you think,then this would not be a mere discussion,now would it?

What do you mean exactly by that?

Edited by DropTop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...