Headless Guitars Out There.

[MP63]

Anyone have ideas or pictures of headless guitars that aren't Steinberger or Horner?

Has anyone made a guitar with the tuners mounted on the body? Regular tuners?

I have a short piece of wood that is just a hair too short for the regular headstock.

If I can create a tuner mounted body design, I should be OK.

I have a couple of ideas, but not sure if the practical aspect will really work.

Thanks,

Mike

[verhoevenc]

Scott French's current GOTM has a headless system. BC Rich makes a guitar like you're talking about with classic style tuners on the body. I think it's the Bich model?

Chris

PS: If you're doing this to use that piece of wood to save you the money of buying a new neck blank, forget about it. ANYTHING headless will way outway the costs of just buying a new neck blank. Only build headlesses if you actually want it headless.

[Nitefly SA]

i think the one youre thinking of is that double neck bich, its 12 string neck has the headstock with six tuners and 6 ferrules and then the high strings(6 next to main six) go past to the bridge where the tuners are

[Pr3Va1L]

no the bich is a 10 string bich, with the 4 top strings doubled and 4 tuners down the body.

http://www.themusiczoo.com/BCRich10StringB...oa84029_PO.html

[Nitefly SA]

one on the left is the one i was thinking of.

http://pointyguitars.com/gallery/images/co...er/richbich.jpg

[Firefox2551]

Sounds cool,

It probably wouldn't be terribly difficult, you'd just have to build the neck like normal, nut included, put string thru ferules on the headstock so the ball ends have someplace to go.

Then using a TOM bridge or similar you would just have an open area behind the bridge somewhere so you can mount tuners.

These steinberger tuners look like they'd fit in the space well and you wouldn't have any knobs to fiddle with.

http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Tuners/Guitar,...ess_Tuners.html

[MP63]

The reason being, besides the length, was to allow easy tuning while the left hand is still fretting the string. There's a guitar on a Telecaster Gallery site that shows a great idea, although it is complex to make.

My only problem was to make something that would lessen the string angle from the tuners to better match the bridge. I thought of using strap buttons to have the strings to wrap around so that the strings line up just like the bridge spacing.

I would route out the back side of a guitar at the edge where the tuners would go.

It WILL look weird but how it functions is the key.

I plan on getting a used, cheap Squire type guitar to do this on.

Cut the head and install furrules to the back of the headstock nub.

Just thinking and seeing what the feedback is.

The other option is to install the bridge/tailpiece at the edge of the body to allow the most space at the head.

Thanks,

Mike

[Mickguard]

I like the idea of using the wood you have.

I suppose you still have the option of redesigning the headstock to match the shorter piece of wood?

For example, the Fernandes Nomad --I kind of like that one.

But the headless idea is interesting too -- my first thought was that you could route a 'headstock' into the body behind the bridge. It would end up being similar to the strat trem cavity...

Except, you'd have the option of routing your 'headstock' into the BACK of the guitar. The top of the guitar then becomes string-through --it'll end up looking like any other guitar, you'd have the same break angle over the TOM, etc.

It might be a little difficult tuning up at the back --you'd definitely have to go with locking tuners. And it'd probably be easier with tuners like the Steinberg gearless tuners.

With those tuners, you could mount them vertically and recess the heads into the back of the guitar a bit --you could even design a cover plate so that the tops of the tuners show through--enough to give you access to tuning.

And to solve stringing up difficulties, I'd go with a Y-shaped or V-shaped 'headstock', similar to those old Kramer aluminum headstocks.

Or you cuold just go with a more traditional horizontal mount--stick with 6-inline tuners and route an extra cavity for your fingers along the side.

The guitar might be fussy stringing up, but not that much worse than stringing up a guitar with a Bigsby.

[ihocky2]

Another option if you want to go headless is to get a Floyd Rose Speedloader and the ball end locking nut. You have to use strings made specifically for this set up since you need a ball end on both ends of the strings and the strings are cut to a high tolerances length, but it elminates the need for tuners.

[MP63]

Thanks for the sugestions.

There seems to be a lot to concider.

This idea was primarily to use up the piece of wood I had, but now I want to see if I can do it first and not just make it a gimick guitar.

I want to try it on a cheap guitar and see what the best angles will be.

The bridge needs to be higher than the tuners, so maybe recessing the tuners might work, or I can cut an angle like Rickenbacker does on the tailpiece end.

Lots to think about. The biggest is getting the strings to line up for the bridge. Since the spacing that the tuners will be at will be greater than the bridge spacing, something has to bring them closer together. I am not a machinist and buying something too expensive will defeat the purpose and challenge of this idea. That's where the strap buttons would come into play.

I definitly will post pics of what I complete.

Thanks for the help.

Edited May 8, 2006 by MP63

[MP63]

I just thought of something...

What about the Steinberger tuners on the body end, with the back slightly routed out so that the tuners are just above the front face of the guitar.

The head would be parallel with fingerboard line and have back ferrules and the Stew-Mac front ferrules for "tail-less" guitars. So, the string would feed through the back ferrules and come out the front ferrules. The head would be about 1" thick, but be short and stubby. Hey, it ain't going for a beauty contest. This is getting more interesting...hmmm?

Has anyone used Stew-Mac's front ferrules?

Thanks,

Mike

[ihocky2]

If you use a TOM bridge, you can use a stop tail piece to create a piece to bring the strings in to the right spacing for the bridge. I have been toying around with something of this type of design and using a stop tail piece was the easiest way I found to bring the strings together again.

[Mattia]

I've made use using ABM hardware (same as Scott's guitar, methinks, except I used the headpiece, and I believe he used a Floyd locking nut up top):

[MP63]

Man, that is a beautiful piece!

Mahogany correct?

Damn it! I am now allergic to mahogany, so that's that.

I had sorta that shape i mind on the upper shoulder area.

That only problem with the tailpiece, would be that fact that there would be no presurre to keep the tailpiece from falling out.

It would only be used to keep the string aligned.

If it had holes for the studs like a TOM bridge it might work. A TOM alone wouldn't work. The string angle would be so severe, that the saddle notches might not be deep enough to keep the strings from pulling out.

Edited May 8, 2006 by MP63

[Mattia]

Thanks! Made it from scraps, with neck of Iroko, then 2 bits of mahogany, 2 more bits of Iroko. Iroko is a wood I've got slight allergic reactions to, so I ain't using it any more...

[MP63]

When I'm done with the mahogany I have left, it's no more for that wood.

Big allergy to that. I'll have to seal myself up when working with it.

I have two solid one-piece bodies of mahogany, rough cut for a Tele body.

Real cheap! They just need final routing of the edges. They have no cavities routed, just the outline.

Any Los Angeles builders let me know.

Mike

Anybody have ideas for a head design for a "headless" guitar?

I saw someone use Telecaster style furrules for the headstock.

They simply chopped the Tele head and made it about 3" short.

The strings came out of ferrules mounted on the head. The ones the Tele has on the back of the body. For body tuners, I might use the Steinberger's, but after reading those comments about them, I might have reservations.

[GregP]

Holy hell, Mattia. That's the best guitar I've ever seen. Swear, no exaggeration-- you may have made it out of scraps, but it encapsulates almost everything I love in a guitar design.

Related note:

I've always wanted a Steinberger "broom"-style guitar, partially because one of the only guitarists I'd consider a "guitar hero" of mine (Martin Tielli of the Rheostatics) did some seriously amazing work on one, and I always thought they looked cool, too (hey, I have weird taste). I've been considering a build on and off for a long time now, but the tricky part is the hardware. Those ABM bridges are expensive, and I want a trem. Can't get the 'basic' Steinberger trem anymore, and when you CAN, they don't include the piece that goes at the "head" of the neck for some reason. I almost bought a Spirit by Steinberger cheapie just to steal the hardware from it, but I suspected that it wouldn't live up to my expectations.

The next closest thing I've seen is the Speedloader, but it hasn't caught on yet (and may never) and therefore the strings are prohibitive and difficult to find in Ottawa.

In any event, that story doesn't go anywhere except to mention that I want to build a headless, that it might end up being a "broom" style, but that after seeing Mattia's masterpiece there (scrapperpiece, my ass!) I may very well change my mind about the broom (but not about the headless).

Greg

[Mattia]

Wow, thanks Greg! I'm pretty happy with it m'self, and I've been toying with the idea of building another, maybe a matching bass.