Eliminating String Trees

[Mickguard]

So, I'm moving closer and closer to building my own neck...

See my previous post about dropdown headstocks.

The Preamble:

I started wondering about downward pressure (keeping the strings in the nut slots) and headstock designs.

Gibson solves this by adding an extreme angle to their headstock.

Fender solves this by using a "dropdown" headstock and adding string trees.

The Gibson headstock looks cleaner without the string trees--but they're more fragile and require thick neck blanks for a one-piece design. Which is solved by using a scarf joint (but I don't personally like scarf joints).

You never hear of Fender headstock breaks...but you find plenty of Gibson breaks out there. Leads me to think that the dropdown design is more robust?

But the dropdown headstock requires string trees to keep the strings in their slots. Or does it?

The idea:

Seems to me that one could solve this problem by adding extra thickness to the BACK of the headstock. Gibson and other guitars often add veneers to the front (which would only exacerbate the problem).

But suppose you add some thickness to the back, thereby lowering the tuning pegs closer to the wood? You'd increase the string angle, providing greater downward pressure into the slots. And, by eliminating the string tree, probably provide better tuning stability too.

There'd be no incidence on the tone of the guitar. And you'd have a variety of options for the treatment --such as, adding strips for the tuners to rest on. Or adding individual mounts for the tuners to rest on (You could even use washers for a base). Or you could add a veneer to the entire back of the headstock.

Hell, you could even retrofit your existing headstocks to work.

Your thoughts?

[marksound]

Aren't most of the Gibson style headstock breaks caused by doofus stuff like stepping on the neck? Besides, ask Metal Matt how strong a scarf joint can be. The glue joint is stronger than the wood. I think I'd worry more about lack of strength from grain runout on a one piece angled head than from a scarf joint.

Anyway, you could take a cue from Carvin and do a shallower 11º angle. You could do a one piece and have a not so thick blank.

[Mickguard]

Aren't most of the Gibson style headstock breaks caused by doofus stuff like stepping on the neck? Besides, ask Metal Matt how strong a scarf joint can be. The glue joint is stronger than the wood. I think I'd worry more about lack of strength from grain runout on a one piece angled head than from a scarf joint.

Anyway, you could take a cue from Carvin and do a shallower 11º angle. You could do a one piece and have a not so thick blank.

←

It's not the strength, I just don't like the look...hey, I'm getting up there too

I've read about Gibson breaks happening just because the case got knocked over.

From what I've seen it doesn't take much...simple as the guitar falling off its strap and hitting its head in the wrong place.

By some miracle, my non-volute Melody Maker survived my punk days...just got lucky, that's all.

The dropdown look doesn't bother me at all, though maybe a combination of a shallower angle and a the lowered tuners idea could be the best way to go.

[doug]

The scarf joint produces a much stronger neck than a one piece where you have the grain runout as mentioned. While it's quite likely that a straight headstock like Fender uses could provide an extra measure of safety in case of a mishap, it does require some method to provide downward string pressure.

Veneering for the most part is for looks as it is generally very thin. If you consider adding veneer to the back of the headstock as a way to thicken it and subsequntly lower the post height on the front, why not use tuners with posts that are at the height you need? Since you're concerned about strength, make a thicker headstock and use tuners with taller posts. There are many sizes to choose from.

You could do a comprimise too. Since you're not too keen on the scarf joint, you could make a headstock with a shallow angle and still use a single piece of stock. Then get a set of short tuners and eliminate the need for string trees. Just be sure to match your headstock thickness to your tuners and calculate the finish thickness in there too.

-Doug

[Setch]

+1 to Doug's responce.

Also, there is no 'look' to a scarf joint, unless you opt for the scarf in the neck shaft ala Ibanez. A headstock scarf, with glued on ears and a veneer on the face leaves very little evidence of a joint, provided you're careful with your grain matching.

If you want it even more hidden, arrange the joint so it sits under your E tuners, or veneer the rear of the headstock.

[MzI]

you may also want to consider the fact that generally Gibson necks are made of mahogany while fender necks are generally made of maple which is signfiicantly stronger. I currently have two Gibsons, one with a maple neck and one with mahogany and havent had any problems to speak of. Another way to cure the headstock break is to make a bigger volute on the back of the neck. Having more wood there will help prevent the breakage at that point. I personally use scarf joints because it saves wood, its stronger, and i like the look especially using contrasting wood for the headstock, I also tend to turn my wood quarter sawn and make multilaminates which also heavily increases the strength of the neck so that may be something to look into also.

MzI

[doug]

If you want it even more hidden, arrange the joint so it sits under your E tuners, or veneer the rear of the headstock.

←

If you make your neck blank wide enough, using laminates or large stock, you won't even need ears depending on your headstock design too.

Thanks Setch for pointing out the grain matching! The ears can nearly be invisible by using the same stock and aligning the grain. I like the under the E string suggestion Setch! I never actually gave it much thought before but it is a real handy "trick".

-Doug