ScottR Posted May 16, 2017 Report Share Posted May 16, 2017 Oh sure, I see how that works . The cords and nails threw me off. I've seen cords used with wedges or cams to add tension. But those nails weren't going to push the two boards any closer together no matter how tight you got the cords. I wonder how many psi of pressure you get that way....I'll bet it's quite a lot. SR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StratsRdivine Posted May 16, 2017 Report Share Posted May 16, 2017 Whatever gets it done, I always say. So many ways to clamp stuff. Clear strapping tape works well too for a ton of weird shape clamping. Shrink wrap multiple passes around your board would work too. Amazing force can be had with that stuff, and its kindof the same principle. Nice work so far, and I love the design - looking forward to the progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psikoT Posted May 16, 2017 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, ScottR said: I wonder how many psi of pressure you get that way....I'll bet it's quite a lot. I think the question here is how many psi of pressure the top needs to be properly glued. Since is not a structural part and the whole thing will be glued to the body, I guess is enough. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andyjr1515 Posted May 17, 2017 Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 11 hours ago, psikoT said: I think the question here is how many psi of pressure the top needs to be properly glued. Since is not a structural part and the whole thing will be glued to the body, I guess is enough. It's an interesting question. My own guess - and it is a guess - is that, assuming you are starting with the fabled 'perfect' joining surfaces, it just needs to be enough to squeeze out of the joint and into the grain enough of the glue to the point of wood to wood contact along the whole joint line so that you are not left with a void caused by hydrauliced and then dried glue. But how much that is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottR Posted May 17, 2017 Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 The perfect joining surfaces are the key. That is what eliminates a glue line. I'd think that since the entire underside of these pieces are going to be glued to the body, as psikoT says, only enough pressure to hold them in contact is enough. I was going to say you might even get away without any glue there since the body joint will keep everything in place, but natural movement could possible cause them to separate in dry weather....so that would be a rather stupid comment. There are so many different ways to get the job done, and I sure enjoy seeing all of them. SR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psikoT Posted May 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 Got the top and the body ready to be glued, just need to find some extra clamps... It's starting to look like a guitar... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottR Posted May 17, 2017 Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 You have a knack for choosing pieces of wood that greatly complement each other. It really adds another level of completeness to your builds. In the old days we would have said they are soooo together. SR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post psikoT Posted May 20, 2017 Author Popular Post Report Share Posted May 20, 2017 On 2017-5-17 at 8:08 PM, ScottR said: You have a knack for choosing pieces of wood that greatly complement each other. It really adds another level of completeness to your builds. In the old days we would have said they are soooo together. SR Thanks Scott, glad you like my choices... I'm not fan of maple tops and trying to find a wood which looks simple, elegant and doesn't need any kind of stain, dye or sunburst... but I must say that there is some randomness in the process, as you never know what you will get from Madinter. I've ordered a Madagascar rosewood top and they sent an Indian one. But I'm happy with it, I think it looks awesome as soon it gets some spirits on it. Glueing and routing was a hard job, but life is easier with a robosander, I highly recommend it. So this is ready for neck attachment, which means "I need a neck"... 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattharris75 Posted May 20, 2017 Report Share Posted May 20, 2017 Super clean work! Love it! And as far as the robosander, my oscillating spindle sander is one of my favorite and most used tools in the shop. Not sure how I'd build without it, it has so many uses. And it allows me to use the router less, which is a good thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psikoT Posted May 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 Thanks, glad you like it! So I have been working on the neck this week and got it ready to be attached to the body. 22 frets this time, due to the tight dimensions of the neck. Still 666 mm scale though. All the hard routing work is done... Having a shorter neck doesn't allow me to make the typical rollout at the nut area, so I had to do it Gibson style... And here is the whole thing. Finally! I want to install a tremolo bridge, so the neck wont have any angle... is there any trick to calculate the depth of the neck pocket? I don't trust on my calculations.... Thanks! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2.5itim Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 This is looking great so far! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StratsRdivine Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) Fortunately, the pivot posts on trem systems allow height adjustment of about 1/4" or more. The posts on floyd rose trems are screws that insert into housings, and you unscrew out to heighten the bridge, etc. I would get the trem you want, mill out its cavities, drill and insert the posts, and set it in place, then mill your neck pocket depth once the trem is in. Oh, forgot to add - I read that for hole location, you measure out the scale length, then deduct .415" and that gives you the center hole locations for the studs. Worked perfectly on my FR install. Edited May 28, 2017 by StratsRdivine added stud length calcualation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtisa Posted May 29, 2017 Report Share Posted May 29, 2017 My advice would be to route nothing until you have the trem on hand to confirm measurements with. I might have missed it, but what bridge are you using? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psikoT Posted May 29, 2017 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2017 Hi, thanks for replies... Yes, sorry, I should have started from the beginning... the bridge I'm gonna use is this one: The bridge It's a replacement for a strat, so the dimensionas are pretty much the same. This is the side view with the saddles at maximum height. Since it's the first time I install a tremolo, I've routed the cavity in a piece of scrap wood just to avoid any mistake... In order to make the calculations, I need to know how the bridge should rest in the normal position. Not sure if it must be separated from the body as shown in the top-right diagram below, or like in the bottom-left one. So I've figured out that the screws in the saddles are more to match the radius of the fretboard, but the height of the bridge is defined mostly by the two posts as @StratsRdivine said... isn't it? I've tested the fitting and the bridge has enough space to oscillate, but still not sure if I did the routing properly... anyway, I was wondering if I should center the "top hole" in the main cavity, stick it to the other side or leave it as it is now... As you can see, I have no idea about floating bridges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtisa Posted May 29, 2017 Report Share Posted May 29, 2017 5 hours ago, psikoT said: In order to make the calculations, I need to know how the bridge should rest in the normal position. Not sure if it must be separated from the body as shown in the top-right diagram below, or like in the bottom-left one. Depends what effect you're wanting. You can raise the bridge slightly to leave a small gap underneath to allow for a little bit of upwards movement on the arm, or flat-mount it to the body so that the arm can only go downwards, or route a shallow pocket for the trem to rest in so that it appears to be flat-mounted but can move up and down (much like a recessed Floyd Rose). The option with the 3mm gap underneath the plate may require the neck to be shimmed up, or with a slight downwards angle. Quote So I've figured out that the screws in the saddles are more to match the radius of the fretboard, but the height of the bridge is defined mostly by the two posts as @StratsRdivine said... isn't it? More or less, although if you route the neck pocket too shallow and have to raise the bridge studs up to compensate it can look a bit odd. Regarding the trem routing, if it were me I'd bring the "top hole" forward towards the nut (or the bottom one further away). You want enough clearance for the trem block to swing backwards when you depress the arm fully. In all the trem routes I've seen and done the "lip" between the bottom hole and the top is at the back of the block route rather than the front. It also gives a little more meat for the trem posts to be fitted into. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psikoT Posted May 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2017 Thanks for the advice, really appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pan_kara Posted May 30, 2017 Report Share Posted May 30, 2017 yea, definitely move the hole forward, the two should be flush at the nut side - like Curtisa is saying. Concerning the trem angle - the good thing is that you have some wiggle room here and you can always tweak it to some extent when the guitar is stringed up, IMHO this boils down to player preference. I guess you won't be using a locking nut so the trem will not be meant for stunt dives and pull-ups - so I'd keep the bridge parallel to the body, either resting on it or raised just a tiny bit above (~1mm). Raised allows for some shallow 2-way vibrato. Resting on the body allows you to for example over-tighten the springs so that (1) the bridge is sitting tight against the body and (2) pulling up on a string doesn't make other strings go out of tune. So basically you should be able to get the strings above the frets with the bridge flush to the body without maxing out the saddle adjusters, and then if you raise the bridge on the posts you should be able to lower the saddles a little to get sensible action. Since unlike some I'm too lazy or sloppy to plan out every detail, the way I approach this is to get the neck pocket to a point where the fingerboard is ~1mm above the body, which seems a good starting point (unless the fretboard is really thin or really thick). Then at some stage I the strings, at least the outer two for example, or even just take a straightedge - and see where the bridge falls. If there's a tiny change needed I can always sand a little off the heel to bring the neck down away from the strings, or sand a tine angle into the heel to bring the strings down to the neck. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psikoT Posted May 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2017 Hi, thanks very much for the info... I've already mounted the bridge and separated it 1 mm from the body, with the saddles at middle height, then measured the height of the roller saddle... that was 10mm. Once I got the height, went to the computer and drawn everything, because I have no frets installed ATM... 2 hours ago, pan_kara said: the way I approach this is to get the neck pocket to a point where the fingerboard is ~1mm above the body, which seems a good starting point (unless the fretboard is really thin or really thick). ... and that was exactly what I got in the computer. So I'm gonna give it one more mm to be sure it doesn't get too low, which is my concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottR Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 This is going to look great sitting next to the single cut. They'll look like they are a matched set. SR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmensik Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 I make the bottom hole a plain rectangle because I don't like the offset T hole. Usually there is no need to access the trem arm from the back, only the springs. The trem block should always be shallower than the body thickness, so there can be a few mm thick bottom under it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psikoT Posted June 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2017 Hi there, got some updates... @kmensik I bought a set of premade templates, so I have to stick with them, but your approach makes total sense. Something to take in consideration. Using these templates was awesome, but the downside is that I didn't have control over the dimensions, which ended in some odd result. Plus that I must have missed some measures at some point, so the guitar itself is gonna be really weird... you will see in a while... ^^ Cavities are huge, specially the electronics one... although I've seen that caparison makes something like that just for one potentiometer, so that forgives me a lil bit. The good thing is that the fitting is perfect. I've made two caps in ebony. Sorry but I don't have matching wood. Maybe I can get them in the same rosewood than the top. Let`s see how lazy I feel. Ok, so here is the problem. The body is too small. I've already noticed that right after cutting it, but I thought it was cute. I wanted a small and light guitar, but I didn't consider the lenght of the scale, which moved the bridge way back. I was checking the ergonomy and there's not much space for the forearm, but that's something I will discover when I put the strings Since I'm showing all the mistakes, here's the top one. The body sliped while drilling the recess for the ferrules... Anyway.... the good new is that I'm done with the router. Now is time to carve. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottR Posted June 7, 2017 Report Share Posted June 7, 2017 Man, I like the dimensions of that guitar. I don't think you are going to have a forearm issue at all. I also like the black high contrast cavity covers. Personally I'm a fan of large control cavities. I like having the extra room for wiring and soldering. And I like the the weight reduction aspect of it. SR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmensik Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 (edited) It is a beauty anyway. For the trem routes I usually make templates of MDF scraps, just put them on the body with double stick tape in the shape I need at the moment, no permanent templates. Your neck heel is pretty thick still. Consider sloping it towards the neck so that the offset ferrule hole would disappear, then drill a new one. That is how I fixed the same mistake, plus it is a more comfortable neck joint. http://kmensik.rajce.idnes.cz/DIY_S/#P1140800.jpg http://kmensik.rajce.idnes.cz/DIY_S/#P1140802.jpg Edited June 8, 2017 by kmensik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psikoT Posted June 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 19 hours ago, ScottR said: Man, I like the dimensions of that guitar. I don't think you are going to have a forearm issue at all. I also like the black high contrast cavity covers. Personally I'm a fan of large control cavities. I like having the extra room for wiring and soldering. And I like the the weight reduction aspect of it. SR Thanks, glad you like them cause they will stay like that. Yeah, now it's like 1 kg lighter, we can call it semihollow. 8 hours ago, kmensik said: Your neck heel is pretty thick still. Consider sloping it towards the neck so that the offset ferrule hole would disappear, then drill a new one. That is how I fixed the same mistake, plus it is a more comfortable neck joint. Already considered, thanks for the suggestion and the pictures, very well done. However, I'm not totally sure... I wanted to avoid a thin heel, as I had some issues in the past. I made some calculations and I would need to reduce the thickness in all of the holes if I want a curve like yours, and still I probably will get the old recess still visible. The heel itself is 19mm thick, the recess is 7mm deep. If I want to remove the old hole, I'll get a 12mm thick heel at the end, which I have to recess 7mm, so the result is 5mm... that screw would do nothing, just decoration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post psikoT Posted June 10, 2017 Author Popular Post Report Share Posted June 10, 2017 Heel carving... with a gouge, a rasp and sand paper. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.