Ergonomic Design.

[GarrettS]

18 minutes ago, norm barrows said:

So compared to the "traditional" playing position, you want the guitar to be further away, and further to the left - correct?

Yes.

 

18 minutes ago, norm barrows said:

This moves the elbow away from the ribs, and relaxes the angles on the left shoulder and left elbow.

Yes.

18 minutes ago, norm barrows said:

Further away you can get with a simple spacer on the back of a conventional design.

Further left while maintaining balance with headstock tuners will mean a long body design with lots of weight at the bottom end, like a Gibson V, Jackson randy rhodes,Jackson  roswell, Gibon Moderne, or something like my x-4 or guitar #3 counterweights.

Yes, long body design. And the upper strap button a bit lower, like around 19th fret, like with a V.

18 minutes ago, norm barrows said:

You can add a leg bar to a V, Randy Rhodes or Roswell and make it playable while seated

OK. I've never tried that.

18 minutes ago, norm barrows said:

I suspect the long curve on the right side of the Modern is strategically placed for use as a leg cutout with excellent balance.   I almost made one at one point, and studied the shape rather in-depth.

Yeah, looks good. Similar dimensions to the BBJ. Can't find one at GC or sweetwater. Can't try it.

18 minutes ago, norm barrows said:

If you go nohead, its easier to balance. as the weight of the hardware is better distributed to begin with.

That's the plan. Headless, thicker body. I'm worried the body will be too heavy, especially if I go thick, like 9cm, even with heavy contours.

[curtisa]

8 hours ago, norm barrows said:

by my definition of "construction methods"...

:chambering is not soild-body.   its like semi or hollow body.

carves and cutouts are a shape, not  a construction method.

alternative materials are materials, not construction methods

The original discussion was regarding balance of the instrument. Why would the method of construction of a guitar (and yes, when talking holistically about balance you have to consider all aspects of the way the guitar was put together, including the materials used, it's shape and the distribution of weight due to hollows, voids and curves actively created by the builder) not take into account the above items?

Your original statement was:

On 6/1/2020 at 3:21 AM, norm barrows said:

what construction method would affect balance in a solid body?

AFAICT the response provided doesn't seem unreasonable given the topic at hand.

 

6 hours ago, norm barrows said:

The downside is that guitars with long counterweights are long and awkward.   Most guitars are 3.25 feet long   My "guitar #3" is 5 feet long, and its somewhat awkward - like swinging an axe - you need a clear field of fire around you.  My "x-4" build is 4 feet long.  much more manageable, but still takes some getting used to.  Its a nohead design, so it needed less counterweight to begin with. 

It's a novel suggestion, but I doubt many people would consider it a practical solution. I would argue that a guitar that's almost as long to the right of the body with an attached counterweight as it is to the left with the neck is creating far more problems than it solves, 

[GarrettS]

2 hours ago, norm barrows said:

I don't advocate long counterweight guitars - its just something i'm experimenting with - like the thumbscrews.

With the counterweight experiments (remember the lead brick idea for the red guitar?), I'm reaching the conclusion that shorter is in general better.   Even my Roswell is somewhat awkward due to its body length - and its heavy.

In the long run, I suspect a slightly longer (3.5 foot) thin body and strategically placed weight on the lower right back side will be the answer - combined with nohead designs of course.  This should result in the best compromise between overall length and weight in a balanced guitar.

traditional headstock designs would be similar, simply with more top end weight to be countered.

 

.

First off, I need to get the basic shape down. The BBJ probably will work, so I need to try one.

Shorter is perhaps OK for your shoulders, Norm, but that does not work for me for reasons stated. Again, that right-shifts the guitar and that's the opposite of what I want. I want the guitar left-shifted. The way to make that happen is with a longer body shape.

Different body types fit things differently…  Automobile manufacturer and clothing designers don't get this either… They design clothes and cars I can't fit into. No jeans fit me and with my broad shoulders, few coats that aren't designed for obese men will, either. In the most obnoxious cases, I hear things like "Oh, you can fit in the car, just lean the seat way back." Guitar builders will say these general-purpose best practices, too; things like "a strap button on a long horn is best because it gives the guitar more stability" without considering that that right-shifts the guitar and pulls it too close to the player's torso. Some players have a more prominent breastplate abdomen, with set-back shoulders and for those players, it can work. I have the opposite.

The counterweight for a headless guitar idea is getting ahead and seems unnecessary. Rather, chambering the guitar and choosing a lighter tone block will lighten it and that will be better. 

[GarrettS]

Who wants to build the prototype BBBJ?