Avoiding a neck reset on a cheap guitar

[Yamaneck]

 

Please do, I do have an old Yamie that I have been putting of sawing off the neck - but its reached the point where something has to be done. I'll consider all options.

 

 

It's not that big of a deal, though it certainly looks daunting, if you haven't done it before. The worst part is getting the fingerboard extension to let go.

[Yamaneck]

Hey, Yamaneck. Thanks for asking. So far, I've only built two instruments (new neck sets), and reset two necks, but I have a modest collection of vintage ladder-braced parlors. Are you familiar with ladder-braced parlors? If so, then you know I have lots of personal experience with bridge rotation. Saw any necks in two lately?

 

FG75s are ladder braced, but don't have any more bellying issues than other Yamahas;-- plytops. I'll bet little parlors are delicate hothouse flowers!

 

I have an FG170, and a Michael Kelly ABG, both of which will be sawn rather than steamed. Martins are a walk in the park, compared to AMJs & AMG.

[gitnoob]

Yes, 100-year-old parlors quickly taught me all about how wood creeps over time. Ladder bracing. Thin plates. Usually no sound hole reinforcement. No neck reinforcement.

 

Interestingly, the necks appear to be the least problem-prone. Those deep-V's add plenty of stiffness.

 

The lack of sound hole reinforcement means that the neck block tends to rotate towards the sound hole -- probably the weakest area of the top.

 

The ladder bracing offers very little resistance to bridge rotation.

 

Great guitars for learning repair techniques as well as potential weaknesses if you're planning to build a guitar.

[DeepEnd]

 

Not so--this is what the OP said: The trick is to ramp the bridge right up to the slot, then continue the ramp on the front side of the slot, so the bridge saddle can happilly be shaved down to the level of the top of the bridge (or even below!).   He's talking about removing wood in front of the saddle, as well.

Cutting notches in front of the saddle isn't the same thing as shaving the bridge. When Cort started building Ibanez acoustics in China vs. Korea, they had bridges with notches in front of the saddle from the factory. Maybe we're thinking different things regarding "shaving" the bridge. When I think of "shaving," I picture removing material from the top of the whole bridge as if you were using a plane or a belt sander.

[FretFiend.]

Regardless of whether you cut notches in the front of the saddle, or whether you lower the front of the bridge in front of the saddle, or whether you take a belt sander to the entire top of the bridge, the net effect is the same as far as string height. You lower the string height at the bridge, relative to the top. That will compensate for excess neck/body angle, and enable you to restore the correct string height at upper area of the fretboard. That can have lots of undesired structural effects on a guitar not designed or intended to be set up that way.

 

And it changes the dynamics of the whole bridge/saddle/top structure, which is a separate issue for argument among the truly experienced and learned luthiers, and not us amateurs.

[Freeman Keller]

Right -- the spanish heel is interesting in that the actual "neck angle" is fixed during construction, but you still need to determine fretboard thickness and bridge height. You actually have to think about things like how much torque you want on the top and how much the top will belly under string tension. In other words, bridge height is a design decision -- not something you copy from Martin.

 

I really wondered about your choice of construction when you did it (but I know why you did). Its ironic to this entire discussion that when your guitar does need a reset you have three choices - sliping the joint, which I understand is tricky and works best if you used hide glue, sawing the neck off and bolting it back on (duh) or shaving the bridge. I probably won't be around to find out which one you use.

 

Both of Deepend's last comments are dead on - the whole geometry of the guitar does change, resetting the neck just gets it back as closely as possible to where it was originally. And yes, I understand what Koiwoi is taking about but it is still modifying the bridge enough that if you ever did reset the neck it would probably require a new one.

 

Lastly, I did (reluctantly) shave the bridge on a guitar one time. It was an Ovation with the little holes in the top - there was no way to get inside and bolt the neck back on if I did saw it off (which I considered). The action was unplayable and there was very little saddle to work with. These are crappy pictures, sorry

 

 

 

 

I'll be curious to see if Koiwoi's trick would have worked here

[gitnoob]

I really wondered about your choice of construction when you did it (but I know why you did). Its ironic to this entire discussion that when your guitar does need a reset you have three choices - sliping the joint, which I understand is tricky and works best if you used hide glue, sawing the neck off and bolting it back on (duh) or shaving the bridge. I probably won't be around to find out which one you use.

 

It was actually the structural weakness of old parlors that got me interested in why guitars, including old Martins, need neck resets.

 

You're right that it's the entire body that deforms, but it's mostly the top.

 

You'd think the sides would provide plenty of stiffness, especially when coupled to the back, but the sides flex quite a bit -- not directly in line with the string tension force vectors, but inwardly.

 

So that gets you thinking about how you could build a guitar that may never require a neck reset (and not sacrifice tone):

 

1) Stiffer sides (either laminated or by using a flying buttress).

 

2) A spanish foot.

 

3) A large "tongue" coupled to the UTB (Martin's A-frame is a great idea).

 

4) Taller sound hole reinforcement (again, check out Martin's A-frame).

 

5) A larger bridge plate or a box around the bridge plate (check out Somogyi, Martin's A-frame, Larrivee, or Charles Fox).

 

I didn't try all of these things, but I'm hoping my neck set outlasts me.

[EdBega]

Interesting thread guys, I give it five stars.

[Grant Harding]

I really wondered about your choice of construction when you did it (but I know why you did). Its ironic to this entire discussion that when your guitar does need a reset you have three choices - sliping the joint, which I understand is tricky and works best if you used hide glue, sawing the neck off and bolting it back on (duh) or shaving the bridge. I probably won't be around to find out which one you use. Both of Deepend's last comments are dead on - the whole geometry of the guitar does change, resetting the neck just gets it back as closely as possible to where it was originally. And yes, I understand what Koiwoi is taking about but it is still modifying the bridge enough that if you ever did reset the neck it would probably require a new one. Lastly, I did (reluctantly) shave the bridge on a guitar one time. It was an Ovation with the little holes in the top - there was no way to get inside and bolt the neck back on if I did saw it off (which I considered). The action was unplayable and there was very little saddle to work with. These are crappy pictures, sorry I'll be curious to see if Koiwoi's trick would have worked here

It totally would have worked. It's virtually identical to what you did, but my trick only removes wood under the string.

 

What you did looks nicer and as far as I'm concerned (given all of the factors) was the right thing to do. In the limit if, the action needed to be lowered more your method runs out of bridge slot depth, whereas with the slots most of the bridge is still there no matter how low you go.

[Brindleleaf]

 

JEEEZE...I'm loving this stuff...it's a little like watching two beautiful women arguing about which laundry powder washes whiter.......I really don't care, but I'm enjoying watching and I'll certainly learn something that'll someday make me sound interesting....

[FretFiend.]

... Lastly, I did (reluctantly) shave the bridge on a guitar one time. It was an Ovation with the little holes in the top - there was no way to get inside and bolt the neck back on if I did saw it off (which I considered). The action was unplayable and there was very little saddle to work with. These are crappy pictures, sorry I'll be curious to see if Koiwoi's trick would have worked here

 

Sanding the entire top of that Ovation string-through bridge would have severely weakened it, so shaving the front side of the bridge (or maybe notching it) would be the only options there. Also, since the strings anchor to the back of the bridge instead of underneath it, slotting and ramping the backside of the bridge is not possible. That limited how low you could go on the front, and still have any break angle.

[fastblueheeler]

JEEEZE...I'm loving this stuff...it's a little like watching two beautiful women arguing about which laundry powder washes whiter.......I really don't care, but I'm enjoying watching and I'll certainly learn something that'll someday make me sound interesting....

 

[DeepEnd]

. . . So that gets you thinking about how you could build a guitar that may never require a neck reset (and not sacrifice tone): 1) Stiffer sides (either laminated or by using a flying buttress). 2) A spanish foot. 3) A large "tongue" coupled to the UTB (Martin's A-frame is a great idea). 4) Taller sound hole reinforcement (again, check out Martin's A-frame). 5) A larger bridge plate or a box around the bridge plate (check out Somogyi, Martin's A-frame, Larrivee, or Charles Fox). I didn't try all of these things, but I'm hoping my neck set outlasts me.

I don't know if anyone has tried it but maybe an anchor of some kind running from the neck block to the "end block"? I can't think of the term but it's the piece that holds the sides together down by the endpin. Kinda a Bridge Doctor in reverse to offset the torque on the neck?

[Yamaneck]

 

I don't know if anyone has tried it but maybe an anchor of some kind running from the neck block to the "end block"? I can't think of the term but it's the piece that holds the sides together down by the endpin. Kinda a Bridge Doctor in reverse to offset the torque on the neck?

 

 

Larson Brothers, Fender.

[gitnoob]

The Larson design was kind of interesting. It both pushed from the inside and pulled from the outside. No idea how effective it was, but people seem to love those guitars.

 

 

They also used laminated bracing for extra strength.

 

And some high-end guitars of the period had laminated sides. Back then, lamination was a high-price-point feature, not a low-price-point feature like today.