[QUOTE=bpoling]
How do you do it now? Pics?[/QUOTE]
I don't have an open box or even a top. I am building necks and working on FP I'll see if I can draw something and then post it.
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Tucking the braces on the back? http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=649 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | LanceK [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have been doing some work on a C-Fox guitar for Craig Lavin, while its been in my paws I have given a good look. One thing that intrigues me are the back braces, they are not cut into the lining but rather thinned down to paper thickness as they go under the linings, a VERY clean look. I'm considering doing this for my next few guitars. What are your thoughts? Good idea? Bad idea? Not sure? I believe it will simplify this process, also make it much faster to do. As well as a very clean sharp look. Thoughts? LanceK |
|
| Author: | Don Williams [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If nothing else, it will make for a more *active* back. |
|
| Author: | John Mayes [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've seen that done on the top before. In fact I do that on the tone bars on the top, but I've not seen that on the back. I don't think I would like the look of it, but I would wager 90% of customers never notice that sorta thing. As long as it is clean and smooth it is *right* |
|
| Author: | Paul Schulte [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yep, tucking those braces is time consuming and I don't go nuts trying to make the fit between the braces and linings perfectly gap free. I guess the question is does tucking the braces really prevent a brace from popping loose, which is why I think it is done in the first place? |
|
| Author: | LanceK [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
But, if the braces were thinned yet still went under the lining, that would keep the ends from popping. |
|
| Author: | Paul Schulte [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If it's paper thin I don't think it would take much force to break it at the lining. Another question is how do you get a good glue joint between the linings and the back when you glue the back on, even if the brace is paper thin? Do you rely on wood compression of the linings and brace to make a good fit? Believe me I would love to get away from tucking those critters! |
|
| Author: | LanceK [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ill give it a close look when I get home, Maybe Paul Woolson will chime in here, He took a class with C-Fox, im sure he knows the deal.. |
|
| Author: | Dave-SKG [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Lance I thin my back braces to less than an 1/8" probably closer to 1/16". And I tuck. this way the brace is less likely to pop loose yet is not so thick as to hamper movement. |
|
| Author: | Ron Priest [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you tuck your braces, you should just skiff the area with a file so as to relieve the pressure of the brace on the back. Just like you would with a normal brace only not near as deep. It will in fact make the back more responsive and less tied together to the sides. That is the toin toss.How thin and responsive does one dare to go?? That is the question. |
|
| Author: | Dave-SKG [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
My Braces are no longer shaped like the ones in the pics I posted. I took Somogyi's Class last February and it really changed my whole approach to Bracing/tuning/voicing etc. He is an amazing luthier! He has another class comming up this Feb 2005. Any one interested should contact him at www.esomogyi.com or call 510-652-5123. |
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
How do you do it now? Pics? |
|
| Author: | Dave-SKG [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 8:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=bpoling] How do you do it now? Pics?[/QUOTE] I don't have an open box or even a top. I am building necks and working on FP I'll see if I can draw something and then post it.
|
|
| Author: | Pwoolson [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hey guys, Lance asked if I could chime in here. So here it goes. I don't tuck ANY of my braces, back or top. It's probably a bit contraversial and I KNOW Mario will disagree with me (as we've had this arguement in the past). But my rationale is this: on a tucked brace top/back if you work your way around the parimeter you will find loose spots where there are no braces and very rigid spots where the brace is 1/8 or so thick. This doesn't allow the top/back to work as a unit. Now in contrast, if you work your way around one of my tops/backs there will be very little change from the non-braced area to where you hit a brace as far as stifness is concerned. The braces are shaved down to next to nothing. In fact if done properly (which is not easy) they stop just under the inside of the lining. We're talking about the thickness of a sheet of paper only under 1/4 - 1/3 of the lining. It is very easy to squeeze the top/back to make good contact with the full lining. I wouldn't advise doing this if you are only trying to find an easier way than tucking braces. I've done it both ways and, if done right, it's realy a toss up. Sure you don't have to cut the mortises in the linings but you have to be pretty darn good with a chisel to get the braces to taper to 0" within 1/16" into the actual lining. Trust me, it's hard. But worth it to me. Any questions, drop me a line. 
|
|
| Author: | Jimmy Caldwell [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I tuck only the main transverse brace on the lower bout of both the top and the back. My bracing pattern is different from anyone else's, but this works for me. I think it allows for more plate movement, which I think is a good thing, yet still gives enough support at the lower bout, which is where the players arm and thigh exert the most pressure on the guitar. Just my .02 worth, traditionalists probably think I'm nuts. If anyone's interested, I've redone my website, based in part on feedback from the OLF. I got a lot of suggestions, both pro & con, and tried to address the deficiencies in my original site. Thanks for the suggestions. |
|
| Author: | John Mayes [ Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I tuck all my back braces and they are 1/16th thick at the "foot" where they get inlet. Same goes one the top. |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I told lance this in an email a while back. I tuck the x-braced back braces for one reason only. I carefully fit then when I attach the back the channels act as indexers and help keep the back from creeping when cluing. |
|
| Author: | Matt Gage [ Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am a tucker. I like to leave a 16th and notch them in as well. For Me, the main concern is to get a fair amount of brace end to tuck, but not let the ends be to close to the side. I try to leave about a 1/16th gap from the end of the brace to the inside of the guitar side. The reason I do it is to leave some room to grow should the guitar be subjected to lots of humidity. Braces actually grow in length when they absorb, and I have seen them actually distort and split open guitars. Matt |
|
| Author: | Mario [ Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've done it both ways, and as Don said, we argued about it, but didn't really get anywhere, nor did the gloves come off <bg> As Don says, it is not easy to thin them correctly, so there's no real time savings. As for tone, I never really noticed a tonal shift from when I tucked, then stopped for a year or two, then resumed. Why did I resume? A big part of it was ruining a great figured walnut body when the back slid during glue up and went off center by a good amount. The back cracked as I tried to remove it the next day to try again. Argh! The back and sides came from the same board, too. Tossed the whole works into the wood stove... Same thing happened with a red spruce top on a mahogany body. This guitar I saved, and kept for myself, but I had to build another for the waiting client. With all the braces tucked solidly, the whole unit becomes self alining. Then there are the possiblities of braces coming loose. It hasn't happened to me, yet, but I've seen and repaired two others by a respected luthier who doesn't tuck. Both guitars came to me with a sunken top in the waist area, opposite the pickguard, and both had a loose X brace. The repair was simple enough, but it makes ya think. I do let the rear legs of the X braces float, and the tone bars also float. If we study the stress on the top, we see that the lower legs are bing forced _into_ the top, and not away, as they are in front of the bridge. The only way they'll come loose os from a blow to the top, I believe. It works either way, but I saw more advantages to tcuking than not to. Y'all make your own calls... |
|
| Author: | Dickey [ Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Time is money, so if I don't have to warranty a guitar by tucking the braces, I'm glad to spend the little time it takes to tuck braces. On tops I tuck eight brace ends. Two main transverse, dos xxes. On the back I tuck the same, four ladder braces all tucked .0625 That is the same as a piece of Martin binding, and is what I use to set the cutter bit on my dremel base. I use a spiral downcut bit, double ended, last twice as long. Do this and also use temporary alignment blocks on your mold and you'll never misalign a top or back, always perfect with your eyes shut. try it.  |
|
| Author: | Steve Kinnaird [ Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've enjoyed this a lot, and especially Mario's input about the push / pull forces on the X brace. If I read right, I do my X like Mario's--I inlet the front of the X braces, next to the transverse brace, but on the lower leg those ends taper to nothing. I've found that scraping is the best way to thin them accurately. As for strength, a client dropped one of my guitars on concrete a while back. He caught it after the first bounce. The only damage was a hole knocked into the top right next to that paper-thin brace. But the brace held. Discussing back bracing with Rick Turner once, his thinking involved the type of guitar one was trying to build. I.e., if one wanted a guitar to project, and really "throw" its voice, a stiffer back would be in order. (Thicker braces, tucked into the linings.) If the need was for a guitar that was more intimate, that enveloped the player in sound, then a more flexible back was called for (thin those braces out---perhaps like C. Fox). That makes sense to me. I think the first consideration should not be ease of construction, tempting as that is, but rather what you want the back to do. |
|
| Author: | Don Williams [ Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Steve, very well said. I've heard nother argument about an untucked x-brace on the lower ends. If you thin it out really carefully, it becomes very flexible so as to reduce the likelyhood of a blow to the top causing it to pop loose. It acts sort-of like a shock absorber. Food for thought. |
|
| Author: | Steve Kinnaird [ Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yup--I'll chew on that for sure. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|