Official Luthiers Forum!

What Mike said about CF rods in the neck - does nothing to belay body distortion.

But... combine the CF rods in the neck with say what Dennis just posted, using CF rods to maintain the body geometry and you just may not ever need a neck reset...

Pretty cool Dennis!

Newbie thought... Is a guitar purely a musical tool with a limited life or are folk building heirlooms that last forever...I guess the ideal is both, but given that the tone is so affected by the rigidity or otherwise, is there a dnager that in the course of looking for ultimate stability and maximising the life of an instrument, it compromises the very thing its designed for?

True. And I realized you have tongue and cheek icons at the end of the sentence. But I think it is feasible to take the OP's question in some reasonable context. From this thread I'm convinced that conventionally built guitars fall under the, "yes" category. I'm unconvinced that some of these alternate designs fall in that category.

Filippo

Michael,
Good point.

To this end, I looked at a 1940's 0-15 Martin last night, in for repair at Greenridge. When we started taking measurements and inspection, it was clear that there was compromise in the dome behind the bridge. It was not a bridge/belly problem. When checking the dome, it was high but acceptable from center to edge. What was interesting ... as you moved the straight edge from heel block to bridge, the dome was asymmetrical to the base side. The treble side was dead flat. So bracing seem to have "let go", even though they were affixed.
Material stress is inevitable. Ultimately we are distributing the stress. But to that end, I would also point out that we build guitars like we build unibody construction automobiles. This is cost effective in manufacturing. Race cars are not built that way, on the other hand. One could build a frame with a sound box around it, but that's not how we build guitars. The net result would be a very different stress distribution. The counterpoint being - it's not the stress that string tension brings that is the issue. It is the stress it brings in respect to the structure that is being asked to deal with the stress.

Filippo

Yes there is that is the reason we still search for the Holy Gail of structure vs responce centuries after the invention of the guitar.

Michael,
Good point.

To this end, I looked at a 1940's 0-15 Martin last night, in for repair at Greenridge. When we started taking measurements and inspection, it was clear that there was compromise in the dome behind the bridge. It was not a bridge/belly problem. When checking the dome, it was high but acceptable from center to edge. What was interesting ... as you moved the straight edge from heel block to bridge, the dome was asymmetrical to the base side. The treble side was dead flat. So bracing seem to have "let go", even though they were affixed.
Material stress is inevitable. Ultimately we are distributing the stress. But to that end, I would also point out that we build guitars like we build unibody construction automobiles. This is cost effective in manufacturing. Race cars are not built that way, on the other hand. One could build a frame with a sound box around it, but that's not how we build guitars. The net result would be a very different stress distribution. The counterpoint being - it's not the stress that string tension brings that is the issue. It is the stress it brings in respect to the structure that is being asked to deal with the stress.

Filippo

Are you asking if would concider designing with the thought that I could build a superior sounding guitar but with a shorter life sand to achive this superior tone?

If that is the question, to me that is a strange inquiry since we are at a point where we build instruments at present that are capable of producing tonal characteristics superior that the human ear is capable of evaluating that will far out last the builder and or player. So my response is no I don’t look at it from that sand point. I look at guitar design in terms of what we know works in regard to structure integrity.

But maybe I miss understand your question.

Hi

No you understood the question correctly (although it was not addressed at anyone specifically), just a thought as to whether it was ever in anyones thoughts. I think it stemmed really from the issue of neck resets, in that methods have been devised and are in common use that make this process less invasive and easy to manage, than the traditional glued dovetail, and (arguably) have minimal impact on tone (although there are probably plenty who would argue that point )

So are these methods used to facilitate easier resets in the future thus there being an acceptance that it will be inevitable, (or that it allows just a little lighter construction) or simpy because are they are easier/cheaper to do? or both ..

Well for one I use a bolt-on neck that the fretboard extentionas well as the neck is bolted. ther is not glue to soften and seperate. That makes a reset very simple and far less risky repair