Building A Bolt On Neck

[MasterMinds]

RGGR et al - one other reason I'd love no russ rod is my headstock is NOT angled like most headstocks. I want it to stem straight out from the neck with no angle at all. Therefore, this makes access to the truss rod a bit of a challenge.

Let me know on that I will google in the mean time.

[MasterMinds]

RGGR et al - Here is what I found, besides companies selling guitars with this system.

http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Truss_rods/Car...07.html#details

Apparently what this is saying is, if I buy that rod and the drill bit - I can put this rod INTO my wood neck and, as this is not a truss rod, there is no need for access to either end of the rod for tightening/loosening - it's sealed in like a mummy.

Am I right? And is this what you were speaking of? Thanks!

[feylya]

He doesn't use that design exclusively, only on his maple necked guitars.

http://www.fairplay.demon.co.uk/faq.htm#Is...ue%20that%20GSG

←

Ah, this one has a mahogany neck.

And it's a horrible guitar too

[RGGR]

In a strange way, I sense you have gotten some weird ideas about guitar necks.

You seem to have some of the basics screwed up.

RGGR et al - one other reason I'd love no russ rod is my headstock is NOT angled like most headstocks. I want it to stem straight out from the neck with no angle at all. Therefore, this makes access to the truss rod a bit of a challenge.

Eh?.....and how different is that from you dime a dosen Fender Strat type neck???? Don't see the issue here.

Also, I like the skunk stripe idea - however RGGR please tell me more abou this carbon neck.

Again...sunk stripe is just your regular maple fretboard early Fender Strat type neck.

Nothing special there. You researched 5.000 guitars you said?????

Here is link to graphite guitar necks. Some like the feel of it, some don't.

http://www.mosesgraphite.com/cgi-bin/moses...ic_Guitar_Necks

Apparently what this is saying is, if I buy that rod and the drill bit - I can put this rod INTO my wood neck and, as this is not a truss rod, there is no need for access to either end of the rod for tightening/loosening - it's sealed in like a mummy.

Carbon rods are used to strengthen guitar/bass necks. Applying carbon rods, doesn't eliminate need for trussrod. Strength in neck is something different from bow control of that same neck.

RGGR - Both aesthetics AND construction. If there is no need to have two pieces, then why do so? Adding more pieces and more glue can never result in better strength, the simplest solution - using the strength of wood and not glue - is always the best.

Glued wood will always break on the wood, not on the glue line, as the glue is stronger than the actual wood itself. So laminating necks......will add strength and stability to a guitar neck. Laminates in actual guitar blank, glue line by actually putting fretboard on blank. All this add to stability of the neck. Lamination also gives you possibility to counter/twine your wood grain. Again, adding to stability of guitar neck. Using different woods for fretboards/laminates, gives you possibilty to also color the sound impact of your neck (read: guitar).

Plus, I love the look of it - it is very striking to see beautifil silver frets on a naked neck.

That's agrument I can live with. Some like clean looking maple neck, some don't.

Mostly they clear coat right over naked maple necks....and I don't like feel of this. (IS personal, I guess)

To me a sunk stripe seems like your perfect solution for the ideas you have. You still have the possibility to add trussrod with relative ease......have wonderful clean naked look, and small stripe on back of guitar neck that gives nice contrast on back of neck.

I know Viger Guitars uses there "patented 10/90" system where 10% is carbon, and thus no truss rod - but this is a patented idea. I would be very interested in more about this - I assume it was a patented secret etc..

See following link: http://www.edromanguitars.com/tech/stealthneck.htm

And you might wanna check www.catalyst.nl. They constructed guitar completely out of NASA type ceramic material. Very cool idea. Very cool tremolo.

Edited March 30, 2005 by RGGR

[MasterMinds]

In a strange way, I sense you have gotten some weird ideas about guitar necks.

You seem to have some of the basics screwed up.

What basics? I think I have the basics and the specifics down very well - enough to know how poorly guitars are designed and the nee for improvement in accuracy.

[jnewman]

What basics? I think I have the basics and the specifics down very well - enough to know how poorly guitars are designed and the nee for improvement in accuracy.

←

Let's see. First, that a straight headstock makes trussrod access hard. This is not true, every standard Fender Stratocaster and Telecaster ever made have a straight headstock. Some have trussrod access at the heel, which is awkward but not disastrous, but most newer ones have access at the headstock and it's not the least bit problematic.

Second, that gluing together pieces of wood "can never result in better strength." That is EXACTLY what it does. When you cross grain patterns, you get a MUCH stronger, more stable piece of wood on a size-per-size basis than a single solid piece. This is why people use plywood for building, not solid sheets. This is also why so many of the highest quality guitars and basses out there have laminated multiple-piece necks (not one neck piece and one fretboard piece, three or more pieces forming the neck itself).

Third, that the truss rod is there to add strength to the neck. It's not. The wood gives the strength, but under load anything will bend. The truss rod allows you to tune the neck bow so that it is straight. Let's say you build your perfect neck with no trussrods and just carbon inserts so that it's perfectly straight with the (let's say) 9 guage strings you like so much (which would be quite hard to do, incidentally). Now let's say you want to change to 10's. The strings have higher tension and now your neck is bowed and you'll never have proper playing action.

Finally, what need is there for more accuracy? This is work in wood, which changes shape and size drastically based on temperature, humidity, and load - extremely accurate measurements don't really have any value. Guitars are not poorly designed, although if you're really convinced they are, come up with something better and astound us all - some of us may be grumpy about it for a while, but if it's really better a lot of us will end up doing it your way. Let me just warn you that nearly everything anyone has ever thought of has been tried at least once.

[Marzocchi705]

RGGR et al - one other reason I'd love no russ rod is my headstock is NOT angled like most headstocks. I want it to stem straight out from the neck with no angle at all. Therefore, this makes access to the truss rod a bit of a challenge.

Let me know on that I will google in the mean time.

←

Fender Strat? Nuff said really... You obvously dont really know what your talking about, your trying to convince a forum of builders of some of the best guitars ive ever seen that truss rods arnt nessesary? If they wernt nessesary why do 99% of guitars have them?

Oh, and befor you say i dont know what im talking about, im pretty sure most of the members here will back me up on this.

ON TOPIC. I like the look of that neck, the laminates really set it of well, you do good clean work.

[MasterMinds]

Man, you guys DO get testy when things don't go your way.

"if they weren't necessary why do 99% of guitars have them"

99% of guitars use straight frets across angled strings which throws each note more and more out of tune, when it's a sinch to correct. By your own admission, since most guitars do this, it must be necessary! You have a very narrow mind to what a guitar requires - especially since there's plenty of posts proving guitars need NO truss rod on this very forum!

jnewman - truss rods provide strength to the neck. You proved that yourself by saying they control the bow of the neck - can the wood bend the truss rod? No, the strings do. Therefore the truss rod provides strength to counter bowing of the wood. It's really that simple.

Let's get real guys, it sounds like your building narrows your mind as to how the instrument works.

Edited March 31, 2005 by MasterMinds

[Devon Headen]

There's so much I want to say, but you obviously aren't listening so it's pointless. Go out into the world, waste your money working on ideas that have been tried before (and obviously didn't take off for very good reasons), then you'll know that these people aren't getting defensive about guitars, they're trying to save you a lot of trouble.

[marksound]

And don't forget to post a tutorial so we can all see where we've been mistaken all this time.

Personally, I can't wait.

[MasterMinds]

What are you talking about "mistaken all this time"? I've not said you're mistaken about anything. Amazing the defensive attitude when I didn't even disagree, all I did was ask!

Devon Headen - You seem to think I care if my idea is unique or not, why do you get this idea? I want to make what I want to make - nobody here cares if their idea is original or not, so what makes you think I do?

And what do you mean their ideas didn't "take off"? You seem to think I plan on marketing my idea or something. Again, you're getting these ideas from hell knows where.

[jnewman]

Man, you guys DO get testy when things don't go your way.

"if they weren't necessary why do 99% of guitars have them"

99% of guitars use straight frets across angled strings which throws each note more and more out of tune, when it's a sinch to correct. By your own admission, since most guitars do this, it must be necessary! You have a very narrow mind to what a guitar requires - especially since there's plenty of posts proving guitars need NO truss rod on this very forum!

jnewman - truss rods provide strength to the neck. You proved that yourself by saying they control the bow of the neck - can the wood bend the truss rod? No, the strings do. Therefore the truss rod provides strength to counter bowing of the wood. It's really that simple.

Let's get real guys, it sounds like your building narrows your mind as to how the instrument works.

←

Please read a book on luthiery to learn the purpose of a guitar's various parts and a book on structural engineering to learn what the word strength actually means. All the truss rod does is supply a flexural stress counter to that of the strings, with the strength and flexure in the wood itself. The truss rod is primarily a stabilizing element, not a load-bearing element.

In a guitar with a wood neck, if you plan on ever moving out of one climate or ever changing the guage of your strings, you must have a truss rod or something that acts in the same way. If you want to build a guitar with an all metal neck, go ahead - I won't be playing it, and I doubt many other people will either. They've been done before and have never been all that popular.

Edited March 31, 2005 by jnewman

[Setch]

As a group guitar builders get defensive when somebody sets out to redesign the wheel, without understanding how the wheel actually works....

1. Trussrods don't stiffen necks (well, actually some do, but that is secondary to their intended purpose) they oppose the force off the strings. Imagine a straight pole, pointing up. Attach a guy rope to one side,and tension it. The pole will bend, unless it is very stiff. The easiest way to straighten the pole is not to make it so stiff it can't bend, but to add a guy rope to the otherside. This is effectively what the trussrod does. This is a better approach than stiffening the neck, since it means you can adjust the force applied by the trussrod to compensate for different guages of string, or for different string heights, etc.

2. Tapered string spacing doesn't throw strings out of tune. This is simple geometry - the relative spacing of the frets remains the same regardless of the string direction. As for necessity, yes, I consider it desirable to taper the neck so that it is slim and easy to chord at the nut, whilst maintaining a manageable string spread for picking at the bridge.

3. Stating that a laminated blank is stronger than one piece, or that a glue joint is 'stronger than the wood itself' is not as obvious a fallacy as you suggest. Glue is actually very weak, but the bond created by glue is very *very* strong. A well fitted glue joint using aliphatic or hide glue involves the creation of a molecular bond between the glued surfaces. A poorly fitted glue joint involves the the creation of a mechanical bond. The former is very strong, the latter pretty weak.

No offense intended, but you really haven't given more than superficial thought or research to most of the areas you have touched on, or you'd realise the statements you've made are incorrect. Not a dig, just an observation.

[MasterMinds]

Setch - That's why I asked, because I needed to know how the ideas fit. However, the answers I get seem to be quite fundamentalist and narrow, rather than empirical reasons. But your answers without attitude are much more valuable than the latter.

One question. You said angled strings (tapered), do not throw the guitar out of tune, however, using pythagoras' theorum one can deduce how this is true.

The "high E" string moves from X distance of the center of the neck at Fret 1, to greather than X distance from the center of the neck at fret 24. This is because the guitar has angled strings, not linear ones. Now, try this. Measure the D or G strings on a guitar from the NUT to the 24th fret. Now measure the distance of the high or low E strings from the nut to the 24th fret.

You will find they are not the same at all. And yet, calculating fret distance will tell you the proper distance for the 24th fret to be from the nut. So, while the fret remains the same distance for a LINEAR string set - the strings are angled.

It's a simplistic calculation, and shows that as strings move further from the center on a straight-freted instrument, they become more and more out of tune.

Solutions

1 - use angled strings and angled frets - this works, except for the concepts of bending strings

2 - use straight strings and straight frets - this works much better. the only downside occurs if you do not choose a proper string distance and you cannot form a chord, or you cannot pluck accurately

So Setch, geometry (pythag) will show you the difference and that it does throw strings out of tune.

EXAMPLE - Here are my measurements for an example, using pythag will produce perfect results, and you can calculate the number of "cents" the notes are out of tune.

NUT to 24th fret across G string --- 19 and 2.9/16 of an inch

Nute to 24 fret across E string --- 19 and 2.2/16 of an inch

That's measured average of 3 guitars, same scale length 25.5 - remember that because distance of frets change on scale lengths, but angles do not (at least they do not correlate), some scale lengths are thrown many cents out of tune.

Setch - as you know a "cent" is 1/100 of a half step. Now calculate the distance from fret 23 and 24 - it's about 6/16 of an inch. and our error is 0.7/16 of an inch. From this we see a decent amount of lack of tune - other not a major issue.

Edited March 31, 2005 by MasterMinds

[MasterMinds]

Please read a book on luthiery to learn the purpose of a guitar's various parts and a book on structural engineering to learn what the word strength actually means. All the truss rod does is supply a flexural stress counter to that of the strings, with the strength and flexure in the wood itself. The truss rod is primarily a stabilizing element, not a load-bearing element.

I'm not going to quible with you on your syntax. The rod pulls against the force of bow, and it takes strength to pull. It's a first grade concept.

If you want to build a guitar with an all metal neck, go ahead - I won't be playing it, and I doubt many other people will either. They've been done before and have never been all that popular.

Again with the strange assumption I am attempting to market this idea? Why are you pulling this from man? This guitar is for me, not you, and you will never be playing it - so why are you so bent on promoting what you and some others don't care for? It's really skewing your value, and I'm seeing you're of no value to me.

Edited March 31, 2005 by MasterMinds

[Devon Headen]

I understand your math. It makes sense on paper, but, like you mentioned, where's your emperical data? A guitar is an imperfect instrument. There are compromises on fretted instruments plain and simple. I don't think anyone is going to debate that. The current system is the best that has been found. I suppose it's possible that it will be improved in the future, but it will have to be a lot more complex than anything we're discussing here. There are a handful of guitarists I've heard complain about their guitars playing out of tune. Most of that can be traced back to proper intonation. Adjustable saddles solve a lot of the tuning problem. Like I said, there are compromises, and a guitar, even one with a straight string lie, will still have problems. The most obvious is that when you press a string down, you are lengthening the string slightly. This is why there are adjustable bridges. Knock yourself out with experimentation, but be willing to listen when people tell you why it won't work. If you want to be innovative, you can't waste your time on things that have been tried before. Again, not meant as a slam, meant as friendly advice.

[fryovanni]

Wow! Quite a debate you have going. I think you should start building and experimenting. You can learn plenty from trial and error. If you feel comfortable with your understanding of the physics involved in a neck, then get after it. Like Devon and others have mentioned a fretted neck is flawed in it's design. Close to being correct has been acceptable although closer is always going to be better (given you are not trading off playability). As for the truss rod, there is nothing stopping you from building a rigid neck w/no truss rod. My bass has no truss, and the neck angle can be adjusted in the heal pocket with a screw. It works but then again this neck is wrapped in carbon and I have never noticed humidity to be a factor (it really doesn't move much). No matter what, just have fun with the project.

Peace, Rich

[jnewman]

I'm not going to quible with you on your syntax. The rod pulls against the force of bow, and it takes strength to pull. It's a first grade concept.

Fine. It's a first grade concept. Do first graders build good guitars?

Again with the strange assumption I am attempting to market this idea? Why are you pulling this from man? This guitar is for me, not you, and you will never be playing it - so why are you so bent on promoting what you and some others don't care for? It's really skewing your value, and I'm seeing you're of no value to me.

←

I never said you were trying to market anything. What I did say was that no one's ever had much success marketing such ideas in the past. What this means is that, in general, people've never been happy with the kind of "innovations" you've been talking about.

On the other hand, if you come up with something really revolutionary, something that's really better - I'd love to try it and I'll be the first to say you found something great.

[Setch]

Solutions

1 - use angled strings and angled frets - this works, except for the concepts of bending strings

2 - use straight strings and straight frets - this works much better. the only downside occurs if you do not choose a proper string distance and you cannot form a chord, or you cannot pluck accurately

3. Make individual string length adjustable by way of moveable saddles. I believe you'll see this one a lot... Like I said before, the angle of the string will effectivey alter the theoretical scale length, however, the interval between the frets will still be proportional to that theoretical scale length.

Eg: Measure the e string versus the d string, and you will find the e to be slightly longer since it has to travel diagonally. However, what you are missing is that if you measure the fret spacing *along the diagonal path plotted by the string* it will also be greater. You can't measure one straight and the other diagonally!

Also, as Devon pointed out, the whole issue of equal temperment, and the difference between being musically in tune, and mathematically in tune arises - the whole system of equal temperment is a compromise, so the difference introduced by a tapered string spacing is so insignificant as to be ignored. If you look at the usual setup of saddles on an intonated bridge you'll see that string guage makes far more difference to saddle position that the tiny differences in scale length caused by tapering the fretboard.

[RGGR]

Amazing the defensive attitude when I didn't even disagree, all I did was ask!

And all we did was answer your questions to our best knowledge.

Let's get real guys, it sounds like your building narrows your mind as to how the instrument works.

Oeeeeei....dangerous remark.

Especially to people whom are **** enough about their guitars, that they go about building their own custom ones...with all the flaws they know are in the conceptial idea of the guitar, and the self-induced errors created by building your own.

Non of us knows it all and we are here to learn from each other......we all enjoy building and playing our "flawed" instruments till someone comes along with something better.

Edited March 31, 2005 by RGGR

[GregP]

Gotta say, it's not this crew that's getting 'defensive', it's a crew of people who understand the instrument and are perhaps zealous to educate. That's not a bad thing... it's just that you proposed a few only semi-thought-out theories and then when they were questioned you defended them too rigorously with weak logic.

That's about it.

Regarding the maths, Setch has it bang-on. Measure along any given string, and you will not notice a perceptible shift, even if the trigonometry indicates that there is a wee bit of a shift.

I think you will discover that the mere act of pressing down on the string will introduce a FAR greater and more noticeable discrepancy in tuning accuracy than this theory of angled strings, to the point where even thinking that the string angle is a factor is almost unthinkable. That's why compensated nuts and tuning systems were invented-- because this discrepancy is HUGE (by comparison) the closer you get to the nut. Way up at fret 12, not so much. It's also why I'm an advocate of zero fret instead of nut. Can't say that I've had any real experience with it myself (yet), but my logic tells me that it's the way to go for my needs and due to the fact I won't be able to shape a nut with the accuracy required.

Given the argument that merely playing your strings is a far significant factor than the shape of tapered neck, I think it's only reasonable that anyone should acknowledge that the comfort gained from a tapered neck is a much greater deciding factor.

Also, I can't say that I'd ever want a one-piece neck. For a wood like maple, it's almost a given that it will warp sooner than later, and it's just a matter of 'when'.

Greg

[RGGR]

That's why compensated nuts and tuning systems were invented-- because this discrepancy is HUGE (by comparison) the closer you get to the nut.

This would be example of that, right???

http://www.catalyst.nl/products/apnut.htm

[crafty]

The "high E" string moves from X distance of the center of the neck at Fret 1, to greather than X distance from the center of the neck at fret 24. This is because the guitar has angled strings, not linear ones. Now, try this. Measure the D or G strings on a guitar from the NUT to the 24th fret. Now measure the distance of the high or low E strings from the nut to the 24th fret.

I just did that. Guess what? They're almost the same, just a millimeter or two different. Why is that? Because Leo Fender invented the individually adjustable saddle Strat trem more than fifty years ago! It was designed to not only compensate for the minute differences in string length due to the neck taper, but also the differences in string gauge and tuning. The saddles on my intonated guitar form an almost perfect "C" if you're looking straight on at the bridge. Your use of the pythgorean theorem is commendable, but totally negated in this case because you can adjust the saddles to compensate for the neck taper's effect on intonation.

So here's the question you should answer next, why do angled, or fanned, fret guitars need bridges with more individual saddle adjustment if, according to you, they don't need them?

[MasterMinds]

Eg:  Measure the e string versus the d string, and you will find the e to be slightly longer since it has to travel diagonally.  However, what you are missing is that if you measure the fret spacing *along the diagonal path plotted by the string* it will also be greater.  You can't measure one straight and the other diagonally!

Dude, that IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEASURED. You're missing the point here.

The distance from NUT to 24th fret on the G string IS SHORTER THAN the distance from NUT to 24th fret on the E string. Calculating fret distances will tell you the distance from NUT to 24th fret should be identical for every string, relative to the strings PATH>

It is not this way with angled strings!

This means that as you move outward on GREATER angled strings, and move upwards where the angle produces greater changes in distance relative to the straight hypothetical strings, you because sharper in pitch.

So, your statement proves my point - that the fret spacing is greater - which is exactly what I said the fret space is greater, which means the strings will lie on the frets and be greater.

[mledbetter]

MasterMinds.. You hijacked a thread and your very first post indicated you didn't even know what a skunk stripe was and that rear installation of a truss rod was even possible.. You get people's ire up when you hijack a thread.. but you will get even more flames when you flood the thread with "what about this.." "no.. well then what about this.." "still no.. then what about this.."

Questions are cool, and I am one that will usually answer even the ignorant ones without getting an attitude, just because I like to help.. but you need to at least start your own thread. If it's a dumb idea, people will ignore it. If it has merit then a discussion will form around it.

Bottom line is that folks who have read, studied, built, had trials and errors, don't like it when someone else wants to take a short cut and just ask for all the answers up front. That's what the books are for. You learn by doing. Period. It seems odd that you're ready to debate equal temperment and tuning inaccuracies in fretted instruments when your other questions about building are so basic. Guitarists have survived for decades with imperfect intonation, you're much better off nailing down the fundamentals first.

This was all meant to be constructive.. not a flame. Hopefully you will take it in that spirit. We have 4 pages here and the topic ended before the first page was even through.