This is what I'm talking about.
As per everything else I do, it's probably overkill.
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Total Bolt On Neck http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=4885 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | John How [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Very nicely done Terrence. Is that your wrench I see there for tightening the fretboard screws? |
|
| Author: | Daniel M [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Terry; Does the fingerboard extension pad (with the T nuts) contact the internal blocks, or is there a tiny space between the two pieces? I've been thinking about this & will probably do it on my next project. It'd make life simpler if you could leave a little space & not have to machine a precise angle on the heelblock. If there is a gap between, you'd sure have to be careful not to overtorque the FB extension bolts. Beautiful work, by the way! |
|
| Author: | Sylvan [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Great job, Terry! It really does work! Daniel -there should be a small space between the fingerboard extension pad and the internal blocks. Just don't overtorque the FB extension bolts! |
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
For you guys who do this..... If you over or under tighten the bolts in the headblock and the neck extension doesn't that change the "flattness" of your fingerboard -- not the radius, but how flat the neck is from the nut to the end of the board. I would think that it would create slight variations depending on how much pressure was on the bolts. I would be interested in hearing reports about this. |
|
| Author: | Pwoolson [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sylvan, Terry and Mayes(if you see this), is there a reason that you don't make the FB extension pad go all the way to the neck? It seams to me like leaving that 1" or whatever the depth of your tennon is, is asking for trouble. Like a hump or a dip. I put a mortise in the fingerboard surface and insert the patch into that. Thus really locking the whole system flat and straight. Any thoughts? |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brock you would be exactly right on the effect of over tighten the extension bolt if there is any gap. you would pull the extension down from the neck joint to the end of the extension. I am with Paul here it would make more since to me if the pad was inlet into the FB and flush fit to the pocket or body. Advantage of this arrangement would be latitude in setting the neck but I would think you would want a final shim to go in to eliminate the pull down issue. |
|
| Author: | Pwoolson [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is what I'm talking about.
As per everything else I do, it's probably overkill. |
|
| Author: | John How [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't do this type of joint anymore but have been considering returning to it. When I did, first I would set the top angle so the fingerboard extension is where I want for bridge height. Then I would route the mortise in the top with the neck attahed (no fingerboard yet) and the mortise would run from the transverse brace past the neck tenon into the neck itself. The I make the insert which is just narrower than the fingerboard and leave it a little thicker than the mortise is deep. I will then install the insert glueing it to the neck and re-level it till it is flat with the top. Then glueing the fingerboard to it puts the fingerboard right where it would be if glued to the top. If the tenon in the extension is set at the correct height you will not deform the fingerboard. I agree that I like the fingerboard mortise to be attached to the neck itself not just the fingerboard. |
|
| Author: | John How [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Good picture Paul, That is what I was trying to describe as well. Terrance, where did you get that cool mirror in your picture? |
|
| Author: | Andy Zimmerman [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
One way to make sure you fretboard extension pad straight is not to make it a separate piece. BUT make it an extension of the original block of mahogany that the neck it made from. You just have to make your tenon differently. I don't know if you can use the Woolson/Fox jig Andy |
|
| Author: | Sylvan [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Paul - My development of the method I used just evolved. It started with doing away with the popsicle brace and inserting a piece of spruce larger than the headblock that spanned the distance from the headblock to the transverse brace. That seemed to work well but I was still gluing the fingerboard to the top. When I decided to try the double tenon method all I did was rout a hole in the spruce patch as described on my website. So, I never thought about potential ramifications as the method seems to work just fine. Granted I have only been doing it this way for the past year so there is only around ten guitars done with this system. But I have had no complaints or repair issues with those in the field. I guess time will tell. Actually, yours is probably stronger but I wonder if it really will make any difference? |
|
| Author: | Pwoolson [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sylvan, you're probably right that it really doesn't make a difference. I'm the best at over engineering things. But for me, the reason that I moved to this system was to get far far away from any hump or extension rising issues. So I don't want to take a chance. Andy, I've thought about making it one piece. I think it would be superior but the problem would be that it would waste a LOT of wood. You're looking at an additional 2.5" in the whole block for only 1/2" of wood used. I think the jig could still work. You'd just have to rework the tennon fixture so that it has little "shoulders" on it at the base, then you would be routing out the cheeks of the extension tennon. I think it would work pretty well. In fact, I might give it a try. |
|
| Author: | John Mayes [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Paul, I've never had a problem with a hump at the body joint. I do use one piece on the top of the block rather than two pieces there as I don't want the neck to have a place to give and shift. Which is also why I mention in the video it is very important to make sure the top block is firm up against the transverse. |
|
| Author: | Sylvan [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Paul - Maybe it helps that I do not fret until the neck and body have been joined as one. Then, usually I will sand the entire fretboard dead flat before fretting. For me, this solves any issue of a hump, which, I have not seen anyway with this method. But that takes us back to the construction of the body and neck and making sure the top has a slight angle to line up with the fretboard extension. It is just all interconnected and no one thing is going to solve all of the problems. I do not think that many people really appreciate the complexity of these boxes! |
|
| Author: | Anthony Z [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 2:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Paul, I think there is an easier way to make this work with your "tenon jig" if (not withstanding Sylvan and John M's comments) you still want to have the fretboard extension joined to your neck. Cut the tenon as you would normally on your jig, then route away only a portion of your tenon (and not into your neck as your diagram shows). Woops - (edit) -- Terry those are excellent pictures - nicely done sir. Terry a couple of questions if I may. How thick is your fretboard extension and what is the gap between the extension and the extension mortise? |
|
| Author: | Serge Poirier [ Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks for this great thread guys, very interesting info! Serge |
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Sylvan] Paul - Maybe it helps that I do not fret until the neck and body have been joined as one. Then, usually I will sand the entire fretboard dead flat before fretting. For me, this solves any issue of a hump, which, I have not seen anyway with this method. But that takes us back to the construction of the body and neck and making sure the top has a slight angle to line up with the fretboard extension. It is just all interconnected and no one thing is going to solve all of the problems. I do not think that many people really appreciate the complexity of these boxes![/QUOTE] But it looks to me like every time you take the neck off and put it back on it is likely that the bolts will never have the same pressure on them and as a result the fingerboard could get pulled a little out of proportion. The wood can compress if it is too tight (even if it is just a little). True? I know we are splitting hairs here and we are not talking about much variance, (or maybe I am just dense  ) but it looks to me like ensuring that the fingerboard remains dead flat is harder than it initially looks.
|
|
| Author: | John How [ Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The fact that it is a removable neck does not mean that you will taking it off regularly. It only means that you can take it off without introducing the possibly harmfull effects of heat and/or water. The only reason you should have for taking the neck off is to readjust the angle of the neck in which case you will be changing the shape of or adding a shim of some sort to this piece of wood anyway. I still see many advantages to this kind of neck joint. |
|
| Author: | Sylvan [ Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brock - You make a good point as I do not know what the effect would be once the neck has been bolted to the body, fretboard leveled, fretted and now take it apart and put it back together. I don't think it would make much difference as long as you tighten the bolts securely but not be a gorilla about it. Also, keep in mind that the part of the fretboard which might be affected is the part of the board which is the least played. I am just not going to worry about it; as John says this is not designed to be taken apart very often and, if a neck reset is necessary, you may want to refret anyway. |
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ok. Fair enough. That is a good point. I am not arguing the point so much as I am trying to resolve it in my head because I think I might like to try this joint. I see some real advantages to it. I am just trying to think through where the struggles are. |
|
| Author: | John Mayes [ Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
also if you try to tighten the FB bolts down a LOT then the tenon will break, or pop loose. They only need to be real snug. The lock washers keep them from moving in the future. Once the fingerboard contacts the top there is very little that can move, and if it does move it is insignificant. Besides I like a slight amount of fall away in the board after the body... |
|
| Author: | Jim Kirby [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=azimmer1] One way to make sure you fretboard extension pad straight is not to make it a separate piece. BUT make it an extension of the original block of mahogany that the neck it made from. You just have to make your tenon differently. I don't know if you can use the Woolson/Fox jig Andy[/QUOTE] It shouldn't really be any different than adding the fingerboard extension for an archtop guitar, after the tenon is shaped, right? (I'm thinking of Benedetto's instructions). The extension just isn't the full width of the fingerboard in this case. Jim Kirby |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|