Thin Bodies

[Andy]

How thin would you go for a body made from Perfectly flat quartersawn mahogany?

What I'm planning is a through-necked guitar with a three piece laminated neck, All Quarter Sawn Mahogany/Wenge/Mahogany and a very thin Quarter sawn mahogany body, possibly with the wings having a thin exotic wood laminate on them (rosewood/lacewood/figuredmaple). A fixed bridge and direct mounted pickups

Would the wenge be stiff enough in the neck (an inch wide laminate) for a thin, possibly JEM like profile?

Also to increase the glue joint strength, me and my dad had the idea of routing 2 thin channels down the side of each wing, and exactly corresponding channels down the body part of the neck and putting a strong wood insert, like cross grained wenge or strong plywood, to increase the strength of the neck/body joins.

How thick would the top have to be to adequately support standard pots?

Also would a tungoil finish be suitable for mahogany wenge and possibly a stained maple veneer?

I very much like the guitars here: http://www.blackmachine.co.uk/ and they kinda inspired me to throw this idea around back when I started wanting to build a guitar.

[Jester700]

As a practical matter, can you get any thinner than a Sabre or Parker Fly and still have electronics? actually, it looks like blackmachine was influenced somewhat by both of those designs...

[westhemann]

i have gone as thin as 1 1/2" through the body...but you have to take that into account on bridge selection vs neck angle....in other words,if you have a recessed floyd,you need to angle the neck enough to put the bridge far enough above the top to allow the trem block you choose to sit below the cavity cover...

notice a saber,at 1 5/8" thick,has a cavity cover over the trem block and claw which does not recess...now you know why

if you are using a topmount bridge...go as thin as you like that will still balance properly...since it is a neck through...though i think less that 1 1/4" would be insane

[Digideus]

As a practical matter, can you get any thinner than a Sabre or Parker Fly and still have electronics?  actually, it looks like blackmachine was influenced somewhat by both of those designs...

←

I think youre right. Doug @ Blackmachine usually goes for the 28mm depth to his bodies. He says it tightens up the frequency responses for the woods he uses. I guess the answer is as thin as you want to try and make it , but be practical. Electronics may be the biggest hurdle in youre quest for thinness!

[Jester700]

As a practical matter, can you get any thinner than a Sabre or Parker Fly and still have electronics?  actually, it looks like blackmachine was influenced somewhat by both of those designs...

←

I think youre right. Doug @ Blackmachine usually goes for the 28mm depth to his bodies. He says it tightens up the frequency responses for the woods he uses. I guess the answer is as thin as you want to try and make it , but be practical. Electronics may be the biggest hurdle in youre quest for thinness!

←

Which is why I like the radius body - thin up top for comfort, but thick enough at the bottom to fit a push-pull pot and 4 pole rotary switch!

[frank falbo]

Radius dittos!

I'm at 1 3/16" with a one-piece Quilted Maple 7-string. It should be done this summer. It just needs to be buffed. I've had it playing before and it's fantastic. It's a bolt on with an AANJ, and 5 recessed neck ferrules. If it wasn't Maple I probably wouldn't have gone that thin. It also has a custom T-o-M and string through the body. You can't use a trem. BTW Wes I recessed a Saber backplate by slicing grooves into the trem block, so the springs lay flush with the bottom of the block. I recessed the electronics plate too, by hand. It barely touched the 5-way.

If you're trying to tighten the lows while still producing good vibration, a thinner body is useful. Carl Thompson basses are thinned down. If you go thin you have to have rigidity, either from harder woods like Walnut or Maple, or with the help of laminates. (or both)

The electronics all fit but I couldn't do a 5-way. I have to do 3 mini toggles. I can't fit a push/pull either so I might have to add another mini toggle or two for the "fun stuff."

[westhemann]

BTW Wes I recessed a Saber backplate by slicing grooves into the trem block, so the springs lay flush with the bottom of the block.

that is a VERY good idea...i would have never thought of it myself...

[Jester700]

Radius dittos!

If you're trying to tighten the lows while still producing good vibration, a thinner body is useful. Carl Thompson basses are thinned down. If you go thin you have to have rigidity, either from harder woods like Walnut or Maple, or with the help of laminates. (or both)

←

Speaking of radii, I finally got that jewel blue body attached to its Carvin neck (yeah, I know...). Also put A5 poles in one coil the bridge bucker. It "strats out" very nicely. ;-) Now to add the double barrel switching...

Jackson's stealth (sabre knockoff) had a lighter wood; I think it was alder but it may even been basswood (I wasn't paying much attention back when I had them). They were THE lightest trem equipped guitars I've ever owned. Didn't seem to hurt them much; they sounded good (though not as full as the mahogany sabres, and they did have overwound buckers).