Official Luthiers Forum!

Stewmac. Never reshaprened.

(Although my bit is more than due for a replacement, I have to admit!)

_________________
Alain Moisan
Former full time builder of Acoustics, Classicals and Flamencos.
(Now building just for fun!)

I have a stewmac bit and bearing set that I never used, if anyone wants it.

I also have a tru-channel setup that I never used, except for the body carriage pieces, which I like.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

got a price in mind?

Just pay me for shipping. Probly fit into a $5 flat rate box. Let get home and find them first.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Is that for the true channel too? If so I love you!

My only problem with all of these carriage systems is that they don't do as well at dealing with steeply arched and tapered guitar backs, or wedge guitars. With his old system, one can have the bearings on the side and keep the bearing plate fairly parallel with the back, allowing for an even depth cut. The carriage systems cannot adjust to the taper because their positions are fixed and consequently their cuts run away from the guitar at the headblock or on the sides on a wedge. Incidentally, Ribbecke's original jig was designed to allow the laminant trimmer to tilt side to side to follow the plate. That part of the design wasn't implemented when LMI offered the plans so many years ago.

I thought about that too when looking at the tru-channel stack. I'm not sure that'd be too huge a problem for most acoustics, but it was originally a consideration of mine when deciding to use the handheld unit to more accurately follow the arch. What pushed me over the edge to the Luthier Tools unit was the bearing system though. It didn't seem the best for my personal sensibilities.




Well, the tru-channel won't fit in the flat rate box.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

well im more interested in the tru-channel than the bits, if you would like to sell the tru-channel that may be able to be arranged. Or I can send you a bigger box just let me know if ya want it out of your way.

I'll take the bits if they are still up for grabs - be glad to pay the shipping. Looks liek teh Tru Channel is spoken for already - let me know if you change your mind ZekeM.

_________________
It's this new idea from recent decades that everyone gets a participation award. - MUX

Hmm. I may have a use for the tru-channel, though. I think the Luthier Tools cutter head can be mounted to the tru-channel thing.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

I copied Chris Paulik's binding cutter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve_PmQMS ... E1A7DA0FAC
Uses a downward spiral cutter. Cost me nothing to build. Works great.

_________________
We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at guitars.

that's cool. I'll just have to quit being lazy and build me one.

I see a couple problems with the Luthier's Tools setup: The bearing is too far away from the cut which would cause serious inconsistency in the depth of cut. Also, without being able to see exactly how the tool is operated, it appears that the operator would have to precisely maintain the perpendicularity of the bearing to the surface being cut or there would again be serious depth of cut inconsistency. Please correct me if I'm wrong or not seeing the whole picture.

Edit: I see, after looking at the description, that the tool is self-aligning to the guitar outline. Not sure how this works but that should take care of the perpendicularity issue mentioned above.

Depends on how good your sides are.

The bearing can be moved up some too, I believe.

My handheld unit has two bearings, which are held against the side, and ride out any inconsistencies.

Paulick's video brings out a good point as well, the sides of the guitar must be perpendicular to the table surface, that would be the same with this (and ANY) carriage setup.

I'd forgot about that since my current method makes that a moot point, but my shoulders are tipped back to create the neck angle, so that would present a slight problem, since when the sides and tail of the guitar body are perpendicular to the table, my shoulders are not.

So the handheld unit for me registers off the sides perfectly, rides out any arch to the back or sides, has infinite depth and height adjustment, uses a spiral down cut router bit, works with my tipped shoulders, and is fast and easy to operate.

If carriage systems were my thing, this would take the cake, but I might as well just stop kidding myself.

I'm just a handheld unit kinda guy!

(I'm sure SOME of you will find that last sentence amusing, you sick puppies....)

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

I DO think that this unit would work perfectly as a dedicated solid body binding router. The handheld seems a little cumbersome for that.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Interesting. I haven't noticed any depth reduction, and I haven't chamfered any inside corners on any of my binding.

That hasn't been an issue for me.

I actually don't like the idea of an inside bevel, why reduce the gluing surface area?

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

I'm on my second StewMac cutter, at over 100 instruments between the two. Haven't worn out a bearing, yet.

If I think a top will be splintery(after a while, you get a feel for wood...) I'll cut the top's purfling channels with a 1/4" downcut spiral bit using a hand held Porter Cable 310, with a simple wooden "finger" clamped to the base as a bearing/guide. Works great, costs nothing. There isn't any taper to the top's surface, so a hand held router works just fine for the purfling channels. I've never experienced a situation when routing a back that required a spiral bit.

I also don't like the idea or the bearing being so far away from the cut; even the best factory acoustic guitars have sides that are slightly less than perpendicular, and often slightly "wavy", enough so that the cut will not be true every time. Bearings are also a much quicker method of changing the cut depth, and 100% consistent, every time, where you'll be adjusting, and making test cuts, adjusting, more test cuts, etc... for every. single.cut. with the above system.

Anyone have a source for bearings for the stew mac rig? Need some intermediate sizes that they don't sell. Have wraped with tape to build up diameter, but would prefer the proper size bearing.

I'm with you all the way on this.

_________________
Alain Moisan
Former full time builder of Acoustics, Classicals and Flamencos.
(Now building just for fun!)

No, I just took my latest acoustic out and measured it. It's exactly 3/16th's in height all the way around the back of the instrument at all the 20 or so points of measurement that I measured. That's exactly the height it was when I made it, so my binding ledge was absolutely consistent to the binding all the way around the instrument.

But I agree, if it WERE there, I would likely consider it irrelevant as well and likely wouldn't true it up.

So what causes that for you guys? Does it have something to do with the sliding carriage system? Just curious.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

I just think that the bottom edge is already thin enough, chamfering it would reduce it further. If binding is 3/32 wide and the chamfer removes even as little as 1/64th of an inch, that would actually be roughly 15% of the gluing surface area of the bottom edge.

But I guess it doesn't really matter though, it's not going to come unglued.

To each his own!

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

I forgot to mention that I'm extremely nearsighted. I can read the microprinting on check signature lines.

No kidding.

At that magnification 3/16th might as well be a foot, it takes up my entire field of view.

So yes, I can see exactly where the binding lines up to the ruler, exactly in the centers of the black index lines.

Yes, zero variation.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Ah, standard practice for cabinetmaking.

OKay, I can see that, if indeed it's not truly structural on an acoustic guitar.

However, I notice a difference in response of the box when I rout for bindings, that is restored somewhat when tghe binding is glued.

To that end I've endeavored to develop as tight and complete a binding ledge joint as is humanly possible, to minimize the possible impact of routing for bindings, to the best of my abilities.

That's one reason Ive started making my own bindings, as I've been unhappy with the trueness I get from manufacturers.

Maybe it's in my head, but I think every bit adds up to a whole.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

The issue is not your eyesight. It's the fact that you are using a ruler to measure. That's not an accurate enough form of measurement to detect the variation.

Sure it is. Even if the ruler is not exactly 3/16th, the distance between the two points of measurement stays the same at that point on the ruler, so I can detect whether or not the binding is that particular distance. It lines up on the center of the black index marks. They're not very wide.

I can see a thousandth of an inch difference with my eyeball at that distance no problem.

Hard for you to believe, I know.

But just so you are aware I got my dial caliper out, measured it, same result. .190 all around.

I measured a point, locked the caliper, checked all around.

Frankly,I'm a little surprised myself, considering that the final sanding shoulkd have likely caused a s little more variation, but no.

I'm very careful about that too, though.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!