DrummerDude Posted September 18, 2005 Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 Hi dudes! I decided to build a Telecaster that is 1:1 with the first vintage models from the 60's. I never had one of those, so Teles are a complete mistery for me. I searched the forum and I saw at least 10 topics of people asking for Telecaster plans. I know www.guitarbuild.com and their CAD plans but the one I downloaded from their site didn't show any info about pickup cavities' depth and all that measurements related stuff. Actually, it showed no details at all (is it just me or are those DXF files missing measurements info?) I need a detailed plan of a Telecaster with cavities' depths, neck socket width & depth, wiring holes and all those measurements needed in the routing process. Can anyone help me? A link or a plan file will be much appreciated. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mailman Posted September 18, 2005 Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 note: guitarbuild.com's CAD plans are all completely out of scale. their guitars are like 843 feet long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted September 18, 2005 Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 you sure that's not "843" mm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southpa Posted September 18, 2005 Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 (edited) Yep, thats about right, 843 mm = 33 inches. Ya hafta think metric sometime, ya know. But thats still about 5 inches short for a tele. Edited September 18, 2005 by Southpa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted September 18, 2005 Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 Yep, thats about right, 843 mm = 33 inches. Ya hafta think metric sometime, ya know. But thats still about 5 inches short for a tele. ← After living overseas for a total of 15 years now (including my 7 years in Amsterdam), I gotta tell you guys: metric is better. Really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnewman Posted September 18, 2005 Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 Actually, it showed no details at all (is it just me or are those DXF files missing measurements info?) ← That's kind of the whole point of CAD - all the measurements are actually there, scaled, in the drawing. If you need a dimension for something, ANY decent CAD software can give you any dimension you want (of anything actually drawn in the file), you just have to ask for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southpa Posted September 18, 2005 Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 Just right click on any "object" (be it a line, polygon etc.) and click on "properties" and you will get all info about that object. eg. grid co-ordinates, length, linetype/weight etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwedishLuthier Posted September 18, 2005 Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 Try "The Fender Telecaster" book by A.R.Duchossoir. It got original Fender plans included. The plans is scaled down, but I just threw the book into a photo copier and enlarged them. Worked fine. It also gives you all necessary, and a lot of unnecessary, information about the Tele. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mailman Posted September 18, 2005 Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 Yep, thats about right, 843 mm = 33 inches. Ya hafta think metric sometime, ya know. But thats still about 5 inches short for a tele. ← i just pulled the 843 number outta thin air. it was still hundreds of inches my program was set to inches, so shouldnt it have resized itself accordingly? seriously. i copied and pasted one of theirs next to a 100% scale guitar i drew, and it was thousands of times bigger than mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattia Posted September 18, 2005 Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 Yep, thats about right, 843 mm = 33 inches. Ya hafta think metric sometime, ya know. But thats still about 5 inches short for a tele. ← After living overseas for a total of 15 years now (including my 7 years in Amsterdam), I gotta tell you guys: metric is better. Really. ← Well, duh. Laying out a fingerboard in fractional, or even decimal inches? Not a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tschommer Posted September 18, 2005 Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 The CAD Tele drawing from that site also has a neck pocket shape from a Strat rather than the more squared off Tele neck pocket shape... I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrummerDude Posted September 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 Thank you for your replies, guys! I don't want to turn this topic into a CAD program discussion. Many of the plans on guitarbuild are 2-dimensional, which means that there is no way to find out the depth of the neck socket or the depth of the pickup cavities. Also, their Telecaster plan shows the guitar with all the hardware set in - bridge, pickguard, pickups, neck... You can't figure out the bridge pickup cavity shape or measurements since it's not shown there. Maybe my question about the Telecaster plans should be read as: What is the telecaster body thickness? What is the telecaster neck socket width? What is the Telecaster neck socket depth? What is the depth of the Telecaster pickup cavities? What is the total lenght of the Telecaster body? And so on, and so on up to the headstock... OFFTOPIC: Metric vs Imperial? Definitely Metric. It's totally precise and you don't have to deal with stuff like 7/8, 6/9, 2/3 and so on. Plus the smaller M. units guarantee you a better accuracy. I wonder why Imperial still exists... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwedishLuthier Posted September 18, 2005 Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 England and US is going metric...inch by inch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnewman Posted September 18, 2005 Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 Well, I believe the Telecaster's body thickness is supposed to be exactly 1 3/4", for what it's worth. Two offtopic bits: First, nothing would make me happier than if the US changed over to metric. Second: my program was set to inches, so shouldnt it have resized itself accordingly? No, it wouldn't - CAD files have units as dimensionless values, the program itself has to be set with units/scale to the numbers in the CAD file. It's done that way in part so that you can scale things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdw3332 Posted September 18, 2005 Report Share Posted September 18, 2005 I bought plans from the MIMF site. $15 and very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrummerDude Posted October 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Any idea how to make one of these myself? LINK By the way are they any good? The guy who sells them seems to know his stuff but still... Anyone tried them? Seen cheaper ones? Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuitarGuy Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Any idea how to make one of these myself? LINK By the way are they any good? The guy who sells them seems to know his stuff but still... Anyone tried them? Seen cheaper ones? Thanks! ← Oh that guy invented templates.... LMAO. I say buy em from someone else. Big D has some usually. (not to start another ronkirn bashing thing but anyone read this line. "Years ago while working on a 1954 Telecaster I created the masters for these templates by using a pin router and using the original body as the master, thus these are duplicates of that original Tele." that just kills any scap of credibility that guy had) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGwaH Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Two offtopic bits: First, nothing would make me happier than if the US changed over to metric. Second: ← Fight the power man --> U.S. Metric Association Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n8rofwyo Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 It's interesting to me that this thread has encroched on two topics; (neither the original thread intent) scale, and metric vs. imperical measurment. Metric is far more precise on a smaller scale and Imperial is far more economical on a larger scale. Just the thoughts of a guitar builder/contractor. ONTOPIC: Pm bigD, I'm sure he'd set you up with a template. Or figure out your scale problems with cad - assuming the cad drawings are actual drawings of your vintage tele. Good luck! Nate Robinson EDIT: unclear punctuation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGwaH Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Metric is far more precise on a smaller scale and Imperial is far more economical on a larger scale. Just the thoughts of a guitar builder/contractor. ← I think for elegance alone, the metric system should be adopted world wide. On a side note, aside from the US the only two countries that haven't oficially adopted the metric system are Liberia and Myanmar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n8rofwyo Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Elegance doesn't appeal to someone on a fixed income when purchasing a new home. I would be interested in the price per square foot of a home in a "metric" country, however there are many factors that effect that price. Social, economical, and political views/beliefs affect the pocketbook and thus the "elegance". Since politics is off limits here, though, I will agree to disagree and keep an eye on this thread as I am in the market for a tele template and don't have a tele to pull a template from as Mr. Kirn seems to. Nate Robinson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGwaH Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Oh no no no, I had no intentions of bringing politics into this. I only meant elegance in the sense that all the measurements flow so perfectly into one another i.e. 1 dm x 1 dm of water at sea level = 1 kg = 1 litre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n8rofwyo Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Well, if all we are talking about is math skills, then maybe we should be concentrating on guitars. KICK ASS GUITARS = APPLIED MATH!!!!! Nate Robinson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrummerDude Posted October 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 (edited) This Telecaster project of mine is going to be my first experiment in guitar body-building. I am trying to make my own template using the CAD drawing from guitarbuild.com and the measurements I got from mdw3332. Still, I am lacking several critically important details about pickup and brdge placement. The easiest way to get them would be to buy all the needed parts and do all the routing on the body acording to their dimensions but I don't want to spend like 300-400 bucks for a neck, pickups, bridge and electronics just to find out that I am not skilled enough to make the body. That would force me to spend some extra 150-200 bucks on a Warmoth replacement body and it will kill the whole body-building idea. So, I am trying to make the body first. I need a decent template or additional information to make my own. I've been searching the Internet for ages already and I've came across many free routing plans - RGs, Strats, Explorers, Flying Vs... and I swear that there are no free Telecaster plans. I couldn't belive it but it is true. I was considering spending $50 on one of those eBay templates but now you guys made me think twice. And what about these? (see pic) They are cheap but don't give any information about the exact positioning of the cavities. PS: About Metric vs Imperial - open a new topic, please. Edited October 2, 2005 by DrummerDude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 That Link to ebay.ca didn't work for some dum reason. You seem to have formatted correctly, but ebay.ca (unlike ebay.com?) didn't like the deep-linking. My thoughts-- it can't be TOO hard to find a straight-on picture of a 60's telecaster, or even its cavities. (Haven't actually tried it, though, to be honest!) Then you can use your mad maffematic skills (ie. blow it up or use an overhead projector on top of your outline, with ruler in hand), you can get within a millimetre or two. I think capturing the spirit of it is more important than if the cavity is routed exactly to within a millimetre of the original plan. If it's your first body build, you're going to accidentally tear out, chip, or burn part of it anyhow while you're routing it. Worrying about such precision will take all the fun out of the project. I'm not knocking precision... certain things like fretboard slotting brooks NO deviation! But even something like the vintage bridge... the saddles move forward and backward enough that if you mount it 2 millimetres in the wrong direction either way, you will still be able to intonate your guitar properly. In my opinion as a guy who hasn't even finished his first guitar because he gets too bogged down in the details (and the cost), the money spent on a set of templates is money very very well spent. I'm sure somebody other than ronkirn is selling them if he rubs you the wrong way. Like other people suggested, BigD is likely to either have one or be able to set you up with one if he has the time. I don't want to speak for him since I've never seen him advertise himself as a "template-maker" here, but it wouldn't hurt to ask. Greg 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.