Custom String Retainer

[S.Tinkerer]

So this is a continuation of my previous post about the old school style trem. The problem now is I need a little more break angle on the saddles. I'm thinking the best solution would be to add a string retainer (like what you see on the headstock of a floyd rose guitar) between the trem and the bridge, but I can't find one long enough. Got the idea to use a cabinet handle but also can't find the right size. The space it's going in is kind of tight so I don't have a lot of wiggle room. I should probably custom make a part but don't have access to anyone with machining skills.

The measurements I'm going with are a length of about 2.25-2.5 inches and a screw spacing of about 1.625 inches.

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[Bizman62]

The Teisco for which you needed a stronger spring?

A bar type string retainer would increase the break angle on the saddles but it might also grab the strings every time you use the whammy bar. Even worse, as the trem makes the strings go back and forth, the strings may dig grooves into the retainer bar unless you can find a material that's much harder and slicker than the string steel.

One option might be using another roller type bridge as a retainer, the type with rollers on a threaded rod which allows the strings go under the rollers. But that would add material and weight and change the overall looks.

Another option is to countersink the trem to the body, that would be a relatively easy task to do even with just a sharp chisel and some drilled depth marks.

Then I took another look to your previous post and started thinking about similar issues with Bigsby trems which resulted this non-destructive idea: How about putting the strings in from the bridge side of the trem and wrapping them around the bottom of the top construction? That would significantly increase the break angle. See illustration:

[curtisa]

44 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

How about putting the strings in from the bridge side of the trem and wrapping them around the bottom of the top construction? That would significantly increase the break angle.

That would make the bar operation opposite to normal; pull-up would lower the pitch rather than raise it.

[Bizman62]

7 hours ago, curtisa said:

That would make the bar operation opposite to normal; pull-up would lower the pitch rather than raise it.

Thanks @curtisa, now that you said it it's obvious. I already thought the solution couldn't be that simple!

Back to the starting point... Options #1 and #2 are still valid, I suppose. But I wouldn't be me if I wouldn't think about another #3!

But no, the new idea would not be a viable option. I was thinking about drilling new holes below the original ones but there's not too much space between the current ones and the swivel line. Drilling them below the side bolts would be similar to the wraparound idea, fitting them just above the swivel would make the trem effect way too subtle. Plus the holes should be so close to the originals that there'd be a risk of the strings chewing through the thin wall.

Bigsby has models with a retainer but the bar is pretty thick compared to the headstock versions, most likely for a smoother action and less friction to reduce wear and grab issues.

The nut I talked about for the first suggestion looks like this, for such you'd need a nut on the upper side to prevent the bridge from raising and falling off by the string tension. Actually the height adjusting wheels would work there!

 

[S.Tinkerer]

Yeah this all seems like accurate info. I'm thinking I have 2 options left, both of which have issues.

Option 1: Get some roller string trees. Issues being 1, probably need a spacer and longer screw so I don't go the other direction and get too much break angle and 2, the string spacing on that side is much wider than it is on the headstock.

Option 2: Add an attachment to the underside of the top part of the trem. Issues being 1, the best way to attach would probably be welding (that I don't have) on top of attaching it to a only mostly flat surface and 2, It does have potential to cause the same issue that curtisa pointed out.

Am I missing anything?

[S.Tinkerer]

I do like the first suggestion too but I'm worried I don't have enough space to put something like that in. I also don't love the 2nd suggestion because it's already a pretty thin body, that and I'm not a very skilled woodworker.

[S.Tinkerer]

I'll tag @Bizman62 because you've been my best advisor with this project and to let you know that I posted response.

Also here's the guitar as it looks right now 

[Bizman62]

32 minutes ago, S.Tinkerer said:

Am I missing anything?

Yes, my idea #2 requires carving wood away from under the trem base. Setting the base flush with the wooden body, that is.

The method to do that is to first take a sharp pointy knife and score around the trem. Then take the trem off and redo the scoring through the finish and preferably a couple of millimetres deep. That will take several passes as your knife will most likely slip if you try to do it on one or two passes!!! Then take a chisel and go from cut to cut, from the inside to the knife cut groove. A half V if that makes any sense. Then either chisel or use a Dremel router to carve away the marked area, trying to make it as flat as the top was.

And I'm flattered to embarrassment...

[curtisa]

Those old Teisco-style guitars are bolt-on construction, aren't they? Why not just set the bridge higher using the two adjuster nuts and then introduce a little back angle on the neck using a shim to compensate for the increase in action height? No drilling, no cutting, no need to purchase special hardware, completely reversible.

[Bizman62]

10 hours ago, curtisa said:

Those old Teisco-style guitars are bolt-on construction, aren't they?

D'oh! Of course... Never seen one in real life so the bolt-on construction and a wedge shaped shim didn't pop into my mind. Stoopid me.

[S.Tinkerer]

I did some shimming already just to get the action normal. I'm worried that it would create a odd angle off the body which would make it more uncomfortable to play. That and I'm still under the impression that keeping the bridge down helps resonance between the strings and the body. Plus the height adjusters are just nuts on each post that could easily unwind themselves.

I guess a solution to that last bit would be to add a nut rather than just raising it. And you're also right about reversibility of it so I may try to to see if it the neck angle doesn't need to be crazy to work.

I'll post what my final solution ends up being when I (eventually) get there.

[Bizman62]

5 hours ago, S.Tinkerer said:

I'm worried that it would create a odd angle off the body which would make it more uncomfortable to play.

One of the benefits of the neck break angle is that it makes the guitar more comfortable to play by bringing the neck closer to the body. Especially if you play it like holding a rifle with the body under your arm a straight protruding neck will be far away from your hand. Obviously a 45 degree angle won't work as the nut should be crazy high but a few degrees is very common.

The shim doesn't have to be crazy high, raising the bridge by a millimetre already does a lot. Adjust the bridge to the height where the angle seems right, then measure the action at the last fret. Subtract your desired action from that value and you'll know how thick the wedge has to be at the highest point. The other end of course is zero.