Anderson Atom Neck Joint

[javacody]

Any ideas on a jig that would allow me to get this joint?

http://www.andersonguitars.com/customconte...e_neck_heel.jpg

http://www.andersonguitars.com/customconte...ie_body_hyp.jpg

http://www.andersonguitars.com/customconte..._back_bolts.jpg

[Daniel Sorbera]

You could just ask Tom himself over at the David Crowder band forum... (Can you guess which name is mine? )

davidcrowderband.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi

Hees a regular up there. I think it's come up before but we diddn't discuss how you could do it without CNC.

Thats a great forum to talk about guitars and drums in there -finished- state

It's nice and active.

Mabye a 45 degree angled bit?

Edited September 13, 2005 by Godin SD

[marksound]

Something like this, maybe?

[mledbetter]

you wouldn't be able to do an exact copy, but the general idea is just having 45 degree angles to the sides of the neck heel to focus pressure on the bottom and make it not twist out.

that being said, i would think you could route your neck pocket out with a 45 deg chamfer bit.. and once the neck heel is profiled, treat it's edge with the same chamfer and you have a fit.the diameter of those bits would make more of a U shaped hole though and the end of your neck would have to look the same with the fretboard extending past to hide the shape.

[javacody]

I'm kinda slow with this stuff, so I'm not quite seeing how a 45 degree chamfer bit will work?

Chamfer Bit

Are there larger bits that would take the whole cut at once? How would I use this with a template?

[Mattia]

V-groove bit, not a piloted chamfer bit. Start with a regular bit to do the flat bottom, then a V-groove bit, a template and a collar to do the rest. You can do the matching neck with a piloted chamfer bit, though, although I'd rough it out with chisels or similar first, to prevent possible blow-out.

Edited September 13, 2005 by mattia

[erikbojerik]

Just to clarify, when using the V-groove bit, your template would have to be smaller than the actual cut to make it come out right.

I don't quite see what that joint does for you that a mortise & tenon wouldn't.

[mledbetter]

that's me.. it's an interesting concept but a tight LP style joint would hold with 2 bolts too and wouldn't wiggle in the least.

I think it was just so they could patent something. it's a good PR move..

[javacody]

Well, roughing out the neck heel with my table saw will be fairly straight forward, I don't trust myself with chisels enough to rough out the neck pocket. I think I'm going to have to get some scrap wood and get to practicing.

[darren wilson]

It's a pretty cool idea, but with only two bolts positioned the way they are, why on earth did they leave so much bulk on the heel? They could easily have made that a much more seamless neck/body transition since there's no mounting hardware to get in the way.

[frank falbo]

I could be wrong here, because I've never seen one in person. Also the photos are taken from a steep angle. But to me, the back end of the body route (and therefore the neck shape also) looks like a tighter radius than the one an angled bit would leave. The 45 degree V groove bit would leave more roundness at the back corners of the neck pocket, IMO. Not necessarily right at the base of the pocket, but as it flares out to the guitar's top. The CNC would make that pattern with a straight bit, and it would get you those tighter edges. It kind of looks like it was done with a straight bit to me.

I don't know how I feel about that neck joint. One thing's for sure, he makes a huge mistake in his explanation:

"And, with a larger contact surface than previous neck joints, more sound is undoubtedly invited to travel throughout the length of the instrument."

Unless he's ignoring the side contact on a traditional Strat heel, there's more surface contact on a Strat heel, or at least the same if you consider that the treble side has no side wall for most of the pocket. He went a little too far with his "I'm a tone god" marketing bull with that comment. I'm sure it's a great neck joint, but he's ascribing false benefits where there are none. And he does it in such a sly way with this part: "...more sound is undoubtedly invited to travel..." INVITED TO TRAVEL?! What the heck is that? Does the body send a special invitation to the neck before they are assembled?! "Please, neck, join me in this invitation to travel more sound than traditional neck heels...RSVP at body@marketing.tom"

Hey pretty soon I'm going to start calling him "Tom Romanderson"

Edited September 13, 2005 by frank falbo

[RAI6]

It seems to me, that design is much more forgiving when it comes to fit.

No matter what, the neck will touch somewhere.

If the neck is too wide, it will touch the sides, but not the bottom.

If it's too narrow, it'll touch the bottom, but not the sides.

On a regular bolt-on, too wide means it won't fit, too narrow will show a huge gap on the sides.

Maybe that's just me....

[tirapop]

I get the opposite impression about fit. Unless you get the dimension exactly right, you only get contact on either the sides or the bottom. Neither of which will have as much contact area as a conventional bolt-on... if contact is the be all and end all of tone as Anderson suggests, you're losing something.

It would take less precision to get a good fitting conventional neck.

As far as hiding any gaps, it would be easier to cut shoulders on the base of the neck (like on some set necks) and overhang the fingerboard.

Edited September 14, 2005 by tirapop