Robert Irizarry

Can you give some additional details? What parts are you looking to do yourself vs. farm out? Do you want to assemble from parts? Do you want to make the body but not the neck? The more everyone knows the better the suggestions we can make...

Welcome aboard! I'm fairly new to Project Gutar as well (just joined earlier this month) and in this time I've gotten great feedback from the group here. There is a lot of information here and great people as well. Avail yourself of the search feature because there's a lot of good stuff already here. If you don't find it there put the question out there. There a lot of great ideas here.

Recently discovered - like in the last couple of hours.

When you are looking to build a particular design make sure that you account for the number of frets on the neck and how that affects the mounting relative to the guitar body.

I've been looking at a design where the design meets the body at the 19th fret. The neck on the original design is 24 frets. I, however, picked up a 21 fret neck for a song. The problem is that there is very little area to actually mount the neck since there's so much less material to work with.

I'll figure something out but man... Deep breath...

I was thinking of perhaps having a pickguard made of wood on my project. Perhaps something like spruce or another tonewood. I was just toying with the idea. It would also possibly help when I paint it.

What do you guys think, good idea or bad idea

I think its a cool idea. I've seen a few guitars that have with a wood pickguard. I think it looks good but I guess it also depends on the overall theme of the guitar.

Thanks again for the nice welcome guys, I am from Nevada, work at an underground mine, play guitar for a hobby, and am testing the water with refinishing an old geet. Im kind of new at it, so I will probably need all the help I can get, I was referred here from the Dean forum, good guys over there.

You work in an underground mine? Good god. I think I would soil my pants. :-) How is that?

As far as the adjustment range, if its any help, I'd be glad to get you an estimate of the adjustment range of the tuners on my Hohner headless as well as any other dimensions you might think helpful. Its currently strung with .010-.046 strings if thats any help. And again, I've never had problems tuning it. Let me know and I'll get these measurements for you this weekend.

That would be great. I'm sure I can work in the same range.

I'll get the information for you and post it by tomorrow. Stay tuned...

Found somthing interesting

Textured punches

Fantastic! I'm so glad I started this thread. That's what I was actually hoping for.

Thanks!

Here's the plan: 12 strings, 0.300" string spacing. Two groups, with 0.380" between the two groups. It's a combination of wanting to go headless and yes, I really do want to make the tuners. Probably cost me 10x as much as buying them, but we're not in this for the efficiency, right? I've alread built a custom bridge, but I may redo it since I was originally going to use conventional tuners and a headstock. I just could not get the slim look I wanted with that great big 12 string headstock up there.

The plan is 0.290" diameter knurled knobs and 6-40 threaded rod. 40tpi should give me plenty of precision. My main concern is how long the threads need to be. Do I need 0.5" of adjustment range or 1.0"?

Other problem I've not figured out a good solution for is how to anchor the string. Can you clamp onto a 0.007" string with an aluminum clamp without weakening it at that point?

Thanks, and having fun with the lathe,

Charles

Interesting project. I've been thinking about headless designs for a while now and one solution I've seen is the use of a conventional locking nut to anchor the strings. I've seen several examples of this as an alternative to using the stock headpiece (expensive) and double ball end strings (for some, hard to obtain). I think that if you model you're clamp after something like that, you should be fine. I would go with something like the Kahler style locking clamp that fits after the nut. Because its after the nut, you don't have to worry about its radius. Its just there to retain the strings.

Here are a couple of examples using locking clamps/nuts:

Chris Shaffer Headless @ Kronosonic.com

Cotta Guitars Klein Replica

As far as the adjustment range, if its any help, I'd be glad to get you an estimate of the adjustment range of the tuners on my Hohner headless as well as any other dimensions you might think helpful. Its currently strung with .010-.046 strings if thats any help. And again, I've never had problems tuning it. Let me know and I'll get these measurements for you this weekend.

I'm a no-woodworking-experience newbie and I would love to see this as well.

I haven't built this (yet) but I came across it during my endless wanderings on the Internet and I thought it was a great idea - They came up with a jig to expedite creating the forearm comfort cut. The jig consists of two boards. One is simply the base. The other is attached vertically at a 15 degree angle. The guitar is then laid across the vertical board and a bandsaw used to make the cut. By itself it requires an 18" bandsaw but I'm sure someone could rig it to use some type of flush cut saw instead. After that, all that's left is a little smoothing. It also makes for more consistent results.

I add this because every place I've looked has shown creating this forearm contour by hand and that simply gives me hives. I was dreading this step until I came across this jig...

May just be me, but I'd rather take a rasp to a piece of wood to rough the contour out and plane it smooth than invest in an 18" bandsaw and cut the guitar while it was standing vertically on edge.

Duff Beer Man: Nice idea for a thread, but it's really where the Tools etc Reference forum comes into play....

If you read a little further into my post, you'll see that I don't suggest an 18" bandsaw is the way to go. I suggest that applying a little thought should make this feasible with a hand tool.

Following the right arm comment. Have you considered a hollowbody instrument of sorts? I've played classical guitar for 35 years and that seems to fit your issue, but probably not the sound. An old Gibson archtop? DÁquisto? (haha, i couldnt afford that). I realise it is not quite this forum's subject, but it might lead you to a different body design.

I have considered that but right now I'm looking at less traditional forms and solutions. I've done some reading about guitar ergonomics and sitting position and conventional guitar forms represent some concerns. For example, I've read a number of articles about the classical guitar and how there have been several attempts to improve supporting it including stands that position it at just the right height and angle. That doesn't seem like the way to go for me. I want the guitar to remain portable which for me is part of the appeal. Lugging around a stand doesn't cut it. That said, I'm looking for features and forms that improve the way the guitar "interfaces" with the guitarist leaving the guitarist to focus on playing and not the struggle to maintain proper position. Thanks for the input!

Welcome aboard! I've only been a member for a short while and I've already gotten some great feedback from the fine folks here. I'm loving it here. I'm sure you will too.

I'm a no-woodworking-experience newbie and I would love to see this as well.

I haven't built this (yet) but I came across it during my endless wanderings on the Internet and I thought it was a great idea - They came up with a jig to expedite creating the forearm comfort cut. The jig consists of two boards. One is simply the base. The other is attached vertically at a 15 degree angle. The guitar is then laid across the vertical board and a bandsaw used to make the cut. By itself it requires an 18" bandsaw but I'm sure someone could rig it to use some type of flush cut saw instead. After that, all that's left is a little smoothing. It also makes for more consistent results.

I add this because every place I've looked has shown creating this forearm contour by hand and that simply gives me hives. I was dreading this step until I came across this jig...

Well, since my telecaster is already heavily routed under the pickguard, I'm thinking of going all the way, opening up the space completely and using that to test the P90.

e

I think that's a great idea and if you look at some of the aftermarket Strat bodies out there they've gone ahead and just routed out a rectangle spanning the whole pickup area. If you're covering it up with a pickguard, why bother to route out individual spots for the pickups? Its one of the only reasons I keep considering a pickguard on my as yet unannounced first project - ease of routing and flexibility in terms of switching pickups. Besides some of my fellow Project Guitar members think its unconscionable to do without one.

Very cool looking stuff. It almost looks like stone...

First question - Are there no tuners that would fit what you are trying to accomplish or is part of the goal making the tuners? Maybe some kind of diagram could help get some ideas from the fine folks here. Also, I own a Hohner licensed version of the Steinberger and I've never had issues with tuning. Second question -Are there any measurements I can take that on the bridge that might help?

Well, the RKS is really a design statement...those wings were't designed as replacements, it's part of a total statement...I beleive they are very expensive too!

But yes, If you have a "broom", you could stick different shapes to the back of it to detirmine a shape and design that works for you. I have heard of (and maybe even seen a patent somewhere) of a core guitar with slot in wings. There have even been buitars with slot in pickup configurations...

The RKS has some interesting ideas though. The split design allows for the controls to be side mounted off the surface on thumb wheels and there is an interesting carve between the pickups to give more pick room as you get with a tunomatic, with a flat bridge style.

I used to admire the minimalism of headless guitars, but nowadays I can see the sense in the headstock. A fair amount of mass at the head really aids in the vibration of strings it would seem. There are weights you can add to the head...fathead is it?...and I have certainly noticed that a change from cheap, light opent machineheads to solid diecast tuners can have a dramatic effect on some guitars.

At the present time, there is a lot of "post-modern" design concepts that in time may be found suspect in comparison to more classic concepts that go beyond the ideas of making statements...2c... pete

However...hijack aside...yes, cut up that guitar NickCormier!!!

Just doing a little thinking outside of the box. Personally, I can see some benefit for prototyping but maybe that's beyond the scope of what most of us have the time and/or money to do. (Dang reality!) And, I agree that there is something to the classic concepts and that we need to question why they've stuck around. That said, the world was flat for many years and then some guy came along and challenged it.

Personally, I tend toward a more conservative approach thinking in terms of evolution rather than revolution. However, I thought the RKS design concept was a natural progression from the idea of starting with a core section of a guitar and adding wings to it. Just hoping to add to the body of thought.

p.s I have been looking further into some of Zachary's...errr...writtings and inspirations....hmmm That design of his has some interesting points but like a lot of these sites, many of the ideas are derived from convieniance as much as anything else! That guitar is very small and the bridge very far back. I quite like it in it's own way (especially the drift wood look) but really a lot of the features (straight headstock, oil finishes) are really based on conveiniance as much as anything. Fender guitars all have headstocks parrallel with the neck. Leo made no secret that much of his designs were for ease and economy of manufacture...he developed string trees (that currently people are trying to minimalise) to address the lack of headstock tilt...here Mr. Z uses trees on all strings....and come on, the oil finishes are a lot easier than something like Ormsby's high gloss extravaganzas...they are easier and cheaper and require far less skill! Black machine puts forward the same ideas...now I like an oiled peice of timber (saves on lubricating the pants i s'pose) but really, the acoustic reasons are overplayed...a good hard gloss finish could be argued to enhance resonance (as Parker asserts with his glass encased guitars) while a guitar that has soaked up oil and open to the future absorbtion of moisture....hmmm. Now, if oil was put forward as a ergonomic feature, a more natural grippiness of the natural woods grain...now that would be different. Oh for the days of guys like Leo Fender, some weird and suspect ideas in his career, but some moments of absolute brilliance...but most of all you have to admire his general integrety...bolt on neck will be cheap and easy to make...that's a good enough reason for me!

Thanks for all the feedback and as far as Mr. Z... Well he is an "interesting" fellow. As far as his guitars I like his bare knuckles aesthetic - I'm into clean design. However, I have to agree that many of the points played up by builders as essential elements to their sound are more than likely just hogwash. I doubt there are many of us that can hear the difference a finish makes on an electric instrument (an acoustic is a whole other beast), or pickups that are mounted directly to the wood or any number of other little claims. As far as Leo is concerned I also admire the integrity of his approach and design.

As far as any of these elements making their way into a project of my own - well I have a couple of parameters. For one, I would incorporate those features which are "cheap and easy to make" like Mr. Fender. I don't have the woodworking skills in order to come up with supercarved bodies so that's out. A superthin body like the Black Machine, however, is a cheap and easy feature to incorporate. A Danish oil finish is just easier to deal with and because its an oil/varnish mix, its far more protective than a straight oil finish. Pickups screwed directly into the body? Sure why not? It falls into another parameter of mine which is I like a clean design. It doesn't cost me anything to incorporate and I'm not a big fan of pickguards or pickup rings anyway. (I hope this last comment doesn't get me banned. For some, this is almost heresy. )

I love the front body contour - very nice! However, I have two concerns.

1.Those horns look mighty fragile. I'd be afraid of knocking the thing over. Any thoughts on that? (If this were a boat building forum, you'd be wrapping them in fiberglass and epoxy for strength.)

2. How does it balance? I'm wondering since there seems to be a lot of weight on the right hand side.

BTW - what are the holes(?) along the right hand side?

Yeah, you're screwed, you have to go through with it now.

Without a doubt. I think you're right - why bother with a proof of concept? I'd be better served by getting one under my belt, gaining the experience and going from there. I think I've also forgotten to factor the importance of commitment to the project. It would probably be too easy to lay it aside as just an experiment if it were just a proof.

Thanks for setting me straight!

Same problem here. The middle pickup just happens to sit just about where a sound hole on an acoustic would be which is about where I've been told I should be. Yeah, its not an ideal placement so you're not alone. I like the suggestion of cranking it down lower - you can still use it if you like and you don't have to go through the trouble of hacking your guitar to get rid of it.

If and when I start my first project though, there will be no middle pickup.

Ok. I think I found us an "answer"!

Behold RKS Guitars!

Essentially, the creator has taken a blank, carved out wings and a central cavity and then dropped a pod in the middle which contains the neck, bridge, humbuckers etc. We could take this idea and use it to just focus on the wings. Get a blank. Cut out the shape. Carve out a cavity in the center. Drop the neck/bridge,pickup unit (pod) in the middle. Bolt it together.

I see a couple of advantages here. First and foremost, it works as a test bed for new shapes! You don't have to worry about fitting the wings to the existing pod. You're basically just centering your pod in the cavity and bolting it together. To prevent stripping of the attachment points, I would use machine screws with threaded inserts. Second, I think it actually looks kind of cool as a guitar regardless of its test bed possibilities.

This actually would work rather well with my Hohner. Its a neck thru design made out of maple - essentially a rectangle - what is known affectionately among the steinberger crowd as the "broom". Basically its the original Steinberger design.

So what does everyone think? I'm really pyched about the possibilities!

Well to be honest I don't use it a whole lot, you can get some nice sweeping sounds going from the single coil thin sound to the humbucker sound.

The pickups in the WI66Pro give me a nice range of tones for old classic rock.. which is what I bought it for. I don't have much use for playing in split mode. It's just like the tone control.. but a little different, there's not alot to say.. imagine single coil sound, and humbucker sound.. and the ability to use a control to go from one to the other.. very much the same way you can go from a fat sound to a thin sound with the tone control.

Thanks for the input. This won't be on my first project guitar but probably a second. (I can't believe I just "committed" to that. I still have to start the first. )

Those round back guitars are barely comfortable standing up...so it's no wonder it hurts. You'd figure, as long as they're making a plastic-backed guitar, they could have molded it to match the human body.

I like the sound of it well enough but even this shallow bowl guitar is a bit difficult to deal with. It was also a gift and the guitar that got me back to practicing so it has to stay.

For the Black Machine, I don't think integrity's that big an issue --my Melody Maker (set neck) only has about 10 mm beneath the neck at the joint, and it's been holding steady for 40 years.

Actually, it's a guitar you should look at --the body of mine is only 35 mm thick (I had a second one for a while that was 38 mm thick), and it's by far my favorite sit-down guitar. Has a nice wide body at the lower bouts.

Plus it's extremely lightweight --mine weighs something like 2.8 kilos (I don't remember exactly...but that was back when it had a Badass and a chrome humbucker...now I'm back to a compensated wraparound and a MM pickup).

I'm fascinated with the idea of a very thin guitar like the Black Machine so I think I will need to do a bit of research around this. The Melody Maker sounds like a good place to start.

The guitar I'm thinking of building now will be slightly thicker--about 40 mm--but I'm thinking of adding in strat-style belly and thigh carves. I prefer a flattop--seems more comfortable to me.

I was thinking along those lines myself. At 40mm its still thinner than the standard 1.75" body blank. Adding contours would go a long way toward improving the comfort further. At some point I have to post my project idea but I'm still researching.

That sounds the same as the VCC on washburn guitars (like my WI66Pro)

Cool! How does it work for you? Do you find that it gives you some useable sounds? Does it only work on a particular humbucker (neck or bridge)?

That idea has crossed my mind as well. I own a little Hohner/Steinberger broom which is basically a rectangle and I thought this could be a good way to run through some different ideas without having to worry about all the "hard stuff" such as intonation.

But as Mickguard points out, the tricky part is getting the thicknesses to match up. I thought this would be an easy enough thing with my little Hohner but it turns out that it subtly changes thickness from the center to the edge. I didn't realize this until recently when I took it apart to take some measurements of various elements.

That said, you may want to stick with a slab style body to ease making matching wings.