 |
|
|
     
|
| |
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Slotted Headstock reinforcements?
|
KAT
Member
|
posted 12-23-2003 07:01 PM
   
In another string I recently revived on the New SCGC Tuners the subject of headstock strenght came up. It seems in choosing between single tuners VS. 3 on a plate Tuners for Slotheads, Paul H. spoke strongly in favor of 3 O.P.'s as they increased the strength of a usually weak area.I'm curious...has anyone used Graphite to strentgthen this area by inserting a veritcal bar of it in a "blind slot" and then letting the headstock overlay cover up the "work"? I would think putting a couple pieces of Graphite material on edge thru that sometimes narrow band of wood at the base of the neck would help. It would dramatically improve it's strength and lessen the chances of a headstock snapping were it dropped, wouldn't it?
Graphite materials are used to stiffen and strengthen necks under the fretboard area...why not in the critical headstock area?
KAT |
LittleBrother
Member
|
posted 12-23-2003 08:02 PM
The more vintage look of an engraved plate sealed the decision for me. |
Paul Hostetter
Member
|
posted 12-23-2003 09:11 PM
It's not just looks, but practicality. Remember, the problem with single gears is that they each have the capacity to rotate on the string post if the button is hit. All the screwholes plus the post hole itself weaken the wood. So you have six separate accidents waiting to happen. Adding graphite to such a small area as the cheek of a pegbox is also asking for a lot of production time to make it look good. If you used graphite implants, you would have to drill and tap for machine screws for each of the gears - wood screws would no longer work. Graphite is a miserable material to work with in this regard: brittle and crumbly, it eats tools and the dust is really bad news. The plates on the gears solve the problem elegantly and effectively. The only neck woods I would feel comfortable using with singles in a sidemount configuration would be maple and harder woods. Mahogany, the most common neck wood, is not really a strong wood. The plates are an ounce of prevention, and they do look good on this type of headstock, which is how they evolved in the first place.
|
LittleBrother
Member
|
posted 12-23-2003 09:30 PM
I'm soaking this up Paul. Thanks. I think I am going for the waverlies with the bronze style plate and ivoroid buttons. Should look pretty vintage like. Your opinions have been very helpful to me. I respect the opinions of luthiers that decide not to use the plates but at the same time I like the plate for multiple reasons and the price is not different. Appreciate the insight and allowing me to hitchhike on this thread. |
J Kinnaird
Member
|
posted 12-24-2003 03:36 AM
I inlet two pieces of graphite bar on either side of the truss rod slot and it runs up into the headstock in the center section of the slothead and strengthens that head to shaft "joint" The graphite bar does not run the full length of the head but tapers out half way up the head. Then, for extra strength I usually laminate some tropical hardwood top and back of the peghead. That helps some.The outside runs of wood on the slothead are clearly the weakest link and like Paul said need the additional support of a plate. Moreover, I find that the actual mechanicals of the worm gear support on the plate macnines to be smaller and more aesthetically pleasing than the same support on the singles. |
KAT
Member
|
posted 12-24-2003 07:11 AM
See how your expansive experience mixes with my very limited knowledge and make the "Gear world" a better place!
Paul, not having actually machined Graphite I welcome your insights. My thoughts are currently running toward a potential run at a kit to start (OR end) my building "career".
John, I'd envisioned a potential blind slot up the center "web", covered up by the top overlay. The back overlay is also a nice touch. All the laminations visible in the slots are so pretty! I'd also kind of envisioned some short slats angling away from the base of the headstock in that critical weakpoint that seems most prone to snapping.
Paul's suggestion of machining problems causes me to think one would need to abbreviate the length so as not to run into them in the mounting process.
All this gives me more to ponder. REALLY cool things going on in the world of Lutherie these days with all the technology... mixed with all the proven "olde world" ideas.
THANKS, as always, for ALL of your input, all of you!
KAT
P.S. John...get some SLEEP, buddy![This message has been edited by KAT (edited 12-24-2003).] |
Paul Hostetter
Member
|
posted 12-24-2003 08:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by KAT:
I'd envisioned a potential blind slot up the center "web", covered up by the top overlay.
That’s not the weak spot. I have only seen the cheeks of the headstock fail, because that’s where all the holes are, and that’s where the wood is perilously thin. Everything you inlay into wood that crosses grain tends to weaken the wood it fondly aspires to reinforce, particularly when the material is dissimilar, as wood and graphite are (one expands, contracts and flexes, the other doesn’t). Works great inside the shaft of the neck, parallel to the grain and working with the strength and mass of the neck itself, not effective when spanning across grain in a weaker place. quote:
Paul's suggestion of machining problems causes me to think one would need to abbreviate the length so as not to run into them in the mounting process.
You need reinforcement exactly where the plates are, and you can’t avoid where the screws would have to go. You’re not just bushing the post holes. The screws that hold down the tuners are where the reinforcement has to be. You can’t afford to abbreviate anything. Drilling and tapping little machine screws into inlaid graphite sounds like a world of hassle and trouble to me.
|
KAT
Member
|
posted 12-24-2003 10:53 AM
Paul;
Wouldn't strengthening the center "web" also help to stabilize the sides? IF the center were stronger wouldn't it help to survive a hit in the cheeks?
I now better understand your point about cutting the cross grain right where it needs the most strength. Would it be tacky to bury a thin strip of Graphite under the sides, then laminate a wood veneer, much like the headstock? Aside from the drilling tapping needs would it be much more work than a bound headstock? I know I'm creating more work...but IF it helps a guitar I will spend MANY hours building anyway, I'd be willing to invest the time.
John, If it's not too proprietary, I'd like to know more about how you do your reinforcements.
I've often looked at some slotted headstocks and wondered to myself "HOW DO they survive all that string pull, bumps and lumps, etc.!
KAT |
Paul Hostetter
Member
|
posted 12-24-2003 02:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by KAT:
Wouldn't strengthening the center "web" also help to stabilize the sides? IF the center were stronger wouldn't it help to survive a hit in the cheeks?
The center, again, never has the problem. Nor is the problem the headstock breaking off. The problem is the cheeks of the headstock breaking when the tuners get hit. Reinforcing the center does nothing to aid that situation. I can’t see that it does anything that needs doing. quote:
Would it be tacky to bury a thin strip of Graphite under the sides, then laminate a wood veneer, much like the headstock?
It would be completely unnecessary. The idea of going to the trouble of inlaying a wholly incompatible material into a small area of the headstock, increasing the production time several times over, only for the purpose of being able to use inappropriate gears when the appropriate ones take care of the situation doesn’t make any sense, to me anyway. If you value your time at all, 3/plate gears are a real bargain. Wood expands and contracts, and flexes. Graphite does not. A graphite bar inside a neck comprises maybe 15% of the mass of the neck, and the wood can work with and around that intrusion. Anything in the headstock, as you propose, will comprise over half the mass of the wood it purports to reinforce, and the joint is somewhat doomed because there’s more graphite than wood. I could show you many examples of dissimilar materials laminated with space age adhesives that failed over time. Why go to so much trouble to do something that really doesn’t need to be done? quote:
I've often looked at some slotted headstocks and wondered to myself "HOW DO they survive all that string pull, bumps and lumps, etc.!
It’s a pretty time-honored design, for a reason. Remember that it evolved with 3/plate gears. Tacking singles on is a relative small aberration from recent years when good 3/plate gears weren’t available.
|
J Kinnaird
Member
|
posted 12-25-2003 12:35 PM
Hey KAT
This is a picture of what I have done with greaphite neck reinforcement. This is pretty standard procedure. The graphite is quite strong and in itself has quite a following among luthiers as a reinforcing agent, ranging from neck laminates to very thin pieces sandwiched between spruce spars to make reinforced top braces. (Proux guitars for example) As you can see in the picture, the bars just run out of the peghead from their trip down the neck. The ends are cut off and then sanded flush with the top of the peghead and then a veneer is glued over that. Since I have an adjustment channel in the center of the neck I like the extra strength there to keep that part of the peghead stable and stiff. Clearly this has little to do with the outside surface of the slot and that surface, IMHO, needs the plate to help stiffen it.Hope the pics help explain what I am doing. John http://www.kinnairdguitars.com/images/32_three_necks_showing_reinforcements.jpg
|
guitone
Member
|
posted 12-25-2003 02:39 PM
I just received my first slotted headstock guitar. I upgraded to waverly tuners and they are singles. Just what do I need to be careful of here, I am not sure I understand? Is it more of a problem if I mishandle the guitar or it falls, or are these single tuners by themselves a potential problem? I would like to know how to best care for this instrument.Thanks Joel Stern |
KAT
Member
|
posted 12-25-2003 05:42 PM
JK;
IT APPEARS that you Laminate a darker wood down the center of the neck and cut channels near, but not immediately next to the truss rod.
Do you then epoxy them to the neck, with a wodden slot fit in between the two, tight enough on the truss rod to be held in place?
I guess I was never really against 3 O.P.'s, Just that there appears to be SO many more quality options on individual tuners.
In my "perfect world" I'd like to be able to procure 18:1- 3 O.P. tuners without breaking my piggy bank open! THANKS for the picture to help explain your use of reinforcements!
KAT |
J Kinnaird
Member
|
posted 12-26-2003 04:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by KAT:
JK;
IT APPEARS that you Laminate a darker wood down the center of the neck and cut channels near, but not immediately next to the truss rod.
Do you then epoxy them to the neck, with a wodden slot fit in between the two, tight enough on the truss rod to be held in place?
I guess I was never really against 3 O.P.'s, Just that there appears to be SO many more quality options on individual tuners.
In my "perfect world" I'd like to be able to procure 18:1- 3 O.P.
KAT
Yes on most if not all your observations. I don't always laminate a denser wood down the center. Depends on the whims of both customer and builder, phase of the moon, etc. But I always epoxie the two graphite bars close the reinforcement channel but not immediately next to it. On a slot head it is important to keep those graphite rods as close toghether as possible because there is a risk of exposing them when cutting the slots in the peghead. I epoxy the fingerboard in place in part because I want to engage as fully as possible the tops of the graphite bars, linking them together in a box like configuration. Seems like epoxy will do that better than hide glue since they are built in an epoxy like matrix.
Shaller and Gotoh and Santa Cruz also make a 3 OP tuner for steel string. I have used the first two and find them both to work fine. Between those two I like the Gotoh's best. You can find them in the LMI catalog. In fact, Gotoh sells a whole array of steel string 3OP tuners if you check out their web site. But they get real pricey real quick. My favorite tuner is the Waverley 3500. I understand that the SC tuner is great for a much better price and is worth checking into. |
J Kinnaird
Member
|
posted 12-26-2003 04:23 AM
Joel
All will probably be OK. I know of quite a few individual slothead tuner setups that seem to have lasted for quite some time. The problem is that each tuner is acting on its own when it comes to support against the stress of collisions. Each tuner has two small wood screws that get all the stress of any torque applied to that tuner from whatever the source. It may be a twisting due to impact, string tension, or it may be a lateral blow, etc. ON a 3OP system the support work is shared up and down the plate by more screws and by more wood. I have always worried most about the center tuner whose support is the farthest from the solid wood near the neck or the peghead top. With 3 op that weak spot is in effect bridged.
|
guitone
Member
|
posted 12-26-2003 02:47 PM
JK,Thanks....I didn't want a slotted headstock because I heard how hard it was to change strings. I did it once and it is ok, not a real big deal, but I take my time when changing strings anyway as I like it to look clean. I handle my guitars carefully and I don't take them out so I will probably be fine. I can tell you that the look is great, if I did a slotted headstock again I would probably specify 3 on a plate. I didn't think of it and it was not mentioned. Are 3 on a plate more expensive? Thanks again Joel |
Contact Us | Acoustic Guitar Central
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c
|
|
|
|
|
|
