software

OK i was going thru my closet of uncomplete guitar parts.... I have started a lot of guitars that i like to make by hand but moved on to other projects and now i have a pile of various necks and bodies i want to finnish oneday....

Part of these necks is a bunch of strat and tele necks that i made out of slightly thicker rock maple... and this maple is like a ROCK too!!! Tough stuff! I use Warmoth truss rods and fingerboards on these necks and i normally use a 3/4 inch piece of maple for the neck blanks to match Fender neck pockets.. But after looking at the issues of using string trees for more downward pressure on the nut with strats i came up with the idea to make some necks 1/8 thicker then Fenders and the downward slope from the nut to the tuner should be on a slightly steeper angle..... But this also means that design would mean i have to rout out the neck pockets 1/8th deeper on a standard 1 3/4 thick body....

Am i gaining anything by making these necks slightly thicker to get more of the downward nut pressure? Even if i have to rout out the neck pocket deeper?

One option i was looking at was to keep the headstock thicker and thin the heel out so it works with standard Fender neck pocket sizes.....

I have 4 necks that i made 1/8th thicker... 3 strat necks and 1 electric 12 string neck for a double neck i was working on....

WHOFAN

Why don't you use a thinner blank and save on wood. Build up the heel and do the raked headstock as an inverted splice. It will be a stiffer construction, stronger and more secure. You will probably also be abler to get a quarter cut piece about 3/4quot; thick. It will be less effort to cut and shape as well.

Like this....
Originally Posted by octavedoctorWhy don't you use a thinner blank and save on wood. Build up the heel and do the raked headstock as an inverted splice. It will be a stiffer construction, stronger and more secure. You will probably also be abler to get a quarter cut piece about 3/4quot; thick. It will be less effort to cut and shape as well.

Like this....I've made some Gibson style necks that way out of some Mahogany.. Guess you missed the point, as i'm try to improve the Fender design a little wee bit and still trying to retain the look.... I'm just not sure if the little wee bit more of an angle my necks will have is worth the effort....

you might check the specs on the Eric Johnson sig strat. The headstock construction is slightly different to do away with the string tree.

Truthfully, I dont know that it would be worth your time. It would be a great experiment however, and if you end up doing it, I would be very interested to see how it turns out.

If you can raise your bridge saddles high enough, it should be alright.


Originally Posted by Captain TightpantsIf you can raise your bridge saddles high enough, it should be alright.

No need for higher saddles... I would rout the neck 1/8th deeper into the neck pocket to make up for the extra thickness of the neck...


Originally Posted by haiz69Truthfully, I dont know that it would be worth your time. It would be a great experiment however, and if you end up doing it, I would be very interested to see how it turns out.

Well i have 3 necks all glued together.. Truss rods are in and fingerboards are on.... Dot markers are glued in.. I need to sand the board, fret it, and finnish the final shaping on these extra thick necks..... I have another neck rough started that needs the truss rod installed and the fingerboard glued on. I'll try to get working on these....


Originally Posted by Curlyyou might check the specs on the Eric Johnson sig strat. The headstock construction is slightly different to do away with the string tree.

They're called staggered machine heads. The peg gets shorter from the high E to low E.

Although this sounds interesting, I don't know how a design that's been proven over it's history can be improved upon anymore than where it already is. There may be something there, just a matter of what that something is.


Originally Posted by ErikHThey're called staggered machine heads. The peg gets shorter from the high E to low E.

Although this sounds interesting, I don't know how a design that's been proven over it's history can be improved upon anymore than where it already is. There may be something there, just a matter of what that something is.

I was planning on using staggered tuners as well..... Sperzels if i can afford them. The difference in the angle of staggered tuners helps some so i figured that a slightly deeper headstock should help even more... It may look funny at first but once i get done with the final shaping i'll get to see what it looks like. It's only a difference of 1/8th so it may not even be noticed unless i point it out.... But ya the effort to try something different to gain a little may not be worth it... I maybe on to something but maybe not

I'm wondering how many degrees you can gain on that downward slope by doing this. If you change the angle too much, you may have to modify the nut to accomodate it.

WhoFan - Your quest for more break angle over the nut is a good one. I am not sure that the geometry of 1/8quot; deeper face on the headstock will make much difference for the high E string.

Staggered tuners definitely help, but evntually I still had to put a string tree on my Warmoth frankenstrat despite the Sperzel tuners. The slot for the high E wasn't perfect, and it sounded slightly dead until I pressed down on it behind the nut. I took it to a luthier to ask if he could do better on the nut, and he told me that more break angle over the nut was all that I needed (i.e. the string tree).

BTW, I re-arranged the tuners a little to get virtually the same break angle for all six strings. There's a string tree on the B and high E, and the angle from the string tree to each tuner is about the same for both strings too. The tuners are set up like this:

E A D G B E
t t m s s m (t-tall, m-medium, s-short)

All my thinking about this subject and looking at different guitars still leads me to prefer a 4x2 headstock. I still haven't finished the guitar this neck is for (argh!), but here's my take. The placing and shape of the shoulders and the angle of the bass side (4 tuners) is taken from a Strat. Surprisingly, the overall design looks a little familiar
Another set of Sperzel tuners here, arranged like this to get the best and most consistent break angles over the nut:

E A D G B E
t m s s m t

Chip

See i remember thinking back then that when i had a Warmoth neck with Sperzels as well and they used string trees on it, that even with the staggered tuners that there still not enough downward tention on the nut with a strat or tele without string trees..... The difference between a regular tuner eye and the lowest Soerzel is not that huge of a difference.... It does help but it's a mild help. So i figured if i slightly helped out even more with a slight steaper angle but still look Fender-ish then it may work.

I see your point about a different arangement of the staggered tuners.. and i also like the EB style headstock...... Soon i want to try and design my own headstock design instead of copying the classics for my homemade guitars....

Someone said to check out the headstock on the Eric Johnson strat for some ideas and if i remember right don't they use a slightly thinner headstock on those guitars then a regular Fender strat?

WHOFAn

Now I see more of what you're getting at. It should be possible to achieve more angle but only as much as what the wood behind the nut will allow. Looking at my Strat, which I've had a LSR nut installed, there's not a lot of room left between the back edge of the fingerboard and the nut. The low E is sitting on it actually. The others are right above it.


Originally Posted by ErikHNow I see more of what you're getting at. It should be possible to achieve more angle but only as much as what the wood behind the nut will allow. Looking at my Strat, which I've had a LSR nut installed, there's not a lot of room left between the back edge of the fingerboard and the nut. The low E is sitting on it actually. The others are right above it.

Ya i was also thinking about the wood behind the nut may be in the way.... I'll have to work around that i guess. Once i get the neck done i'll get cracking on a body.. But i think i'll make the necks heel to Fender neck pocket specs so i can try it out on a body i already have before i build one for the neck.

I found a Neck blank i cut out that has a headstock in the shape of my 1988 Kramer Striker.... I have no idea why i copied that neck's headstock..... Maybe i should make a better quality homemade version of my first guitar... a Kramer Striker.. Better quality as i have a real Floyd and some Duncans sitting in a box here...


Originally Posted by WhoFanYa i was also thinking about the wood behind the nut may be in the way.... I'll have to work around that i guess. Once i get the neck done i'll get cracking on a body.. But i think i'll make the necks heel to Fender neck pocket specs so i can try it out on a body i already have before i build one for the neck.

I found a Neck blank i cut out that has a headstock in the shape of my 1988 Kramer Striker.... I have no idea why i copied that neck's headstock..... Maybe i should make a better quality homemade version of my first guitar... a Kramer Striker.. Better quality as i have a real Floyd and some Duncans sitting in a box here...

One way to possibly help keep the wood behind the nut out of the way would be to sand it to a rounded edge, and possibly lowering it a little bit, but not too much that the nut falls out. Just a nice rounded edge.

I used to have a Striker too. Big 'ol POS really. Plywood body.....EHHH!!!. Sounded horrible.


Originally Posted by ErikHOne way to possibly help keep the wood behind the nut out of the way would be to sand it to a rounded edge, and possibly lowering it a little bit, but not too much that the nut falls out. Just a nice rounded edge.

I used to have a Striker too. Big 'ol POS really. Plywood body.....EHHH!!!. Sounded horrible.

Being a fan of the Who i destoryed my Striker and glued it back together again.. I stripped the finnish for a VH style paint job, i even set it on fire.... I missed that guitar as it was my first electric... It was a huge POS but i liked the idea behind it.... I plan to get some paint matched as i still have the neck off that guitar and it has a painted headstock they should be able to match..... I'll build a good copy oneday

Hey, what if you start with one of your necks, then make the face of the headstock 1/4quot; below quot;normalquot; (i.e. the fingerboard), then added 1/8quot; of veneer on the back of the headstock? You see veneers on the top of headstocks all the time, so it can't be a big deal tone-wise...

That would give you twice the improvement in break angle over the nut.

Chip


Originally Posted by Fresh_StartHey, what if you start with one of your necks, then make the face of the headstock 1/4quot; below quot;normalquot; (i.e. the fingerboard), then added 1/8quot; of veneer on the back of the headstock? You see veneers on the top of headstocks all the time, so it can't be a big deal tone-wise...

That would give you twice the improvement in break angle over the nut.

ChipBy then it will lose the Fender look which is key.... By using a 1/4 distance would really make it look weird.... it would function i'm sure, but there may be some stress problems with that much of a string angle on a flat headstock.... Might as well make an Angled back headstock if you are going to go that distance.

I have a Floyd Rose bridge i want to make a super strat with and i am wondering if this slightly deeper headstock will help the strings sit in the nut better... any strat neck i have owned has always had the string retainer bar behind the nut pushing down and always in the way of restinging.. But for the first neck i get done doing this type of construction i am planning on using a Hardtail bridge for better tone...