|
|
Post by newey on Mar 9, 2008 10:23:45 GMT -5
Didn't really know where to post this, I figured not in Lutherie since I don't really have a specific question. The genesis of this is, I was called out of town on business for a couple of days last month, and the intervention of a snowstorm kept me in the hotel room for an extra day. The whole time I was really wishing I had a guitar with me, woulda beat hell out of endless reruns of Sportscenter on ESPN. So, I thought, I need a travel guitar that I could just leave in the trunk of my car in a gigbag, with a mini-amp. (Heat/humidity issues duly noted- I'm thinking on that . . .) Or, at least, something that I could throw in the car before going out of town. It should also be airline-worthy if possible. Checked the web and these things go for a few hundred USD. Not a lot, but more than I'm willing to spend for something that's going to sit in the car most of the time. So I started thinking, hey I've got enough pieces 'n parts lying around here, I could use the neck from an old Ibanez and make up a minimalist body out of a chunk of wood. The goal would be to get it small enough to fit in one of those padded bags for a shotgun or something similar. Probably have to minimize the head stock by moving some tuners to the right hand side. Anyone ever done that? Second thought was to go spend about $99 on one of those mini Strats, and then give the body a radical liposuction with a bandsaw. I'd keep the cavity intact and leave the curve portion on the lower half of the body for balance-on-the-knee ability. More of an initial outlay, but a lot less work to get a workable guitar. Anyone ever tried anything similar? Your thoughts? And, assuming one of those miniamps is in the picture here, anyone have a preference among those things? Ideally, it'd have to fit in the zippered pocket of whatever sort of bag I end up with. (Edit)Although I did find some cheaper small guitars here |
|
|
|
Post by lpf3 on Mar 9, 2008 20:12:35 GMT -5
newey- have you checked out a Martin backpacker? There's a couple on e-bay under $100 & since they're acoustic you won't need to buy an amp. Don't know if I'd leave it in the car tho' - lpf3
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Mar 9, 2008 23:32:57 GMT -5
I have one of the Speedster travel guitars that I bought for $230 a few years back. This is about the smallest electric that you'll find. It's ok, but they won't let me take my Mesa Mark IV into the hotel anymore, so I have to make do with a Korg mini effect that has 11 amp models and some effects (it's the same DSP front end used in the Vox modeling amps). I use it with headphones, and if I could remember where I put it, I'd tell you the model (it's out of print now). www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Vox-Valvetronix-AD50VT-50W-Guitar-Combo-Amp-?sku=482615This is a step in the right direction; www.usacustomguitars.com/dst.htmlIf overall instrument length is an issue, folks are installing machine screw inserts into necks and using machine screws for detachable necks. www.onyxforgeguitars.com/Insert%20kit.htmlString wander is an issue with detachable necks, just use a fairly tight capo to hold them in place at the nut after detuning and before removing the neck. |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Mar 10, 2008 5:30:33 GMT -5
Thanks, Chris- Looks like you got a good deal on your speedster, currently $350 at MF. Looking at those was kinda what started this thread in the first place. The removable neck idea is interesting, but it sounds like too much setup and breakdown for occasional use. However, I have a few bolt-on neck guitars in the stable that might benefit from that idea, so I added the link to the links page. Go figure . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by dunkelfalke on Mar 10, 2008 5:48:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Mar 10, 2008 15:47:56 GMT -5
Chris, Your link to that bolt-on neck has one error, right at the top of the page, so I thought that I'd not let anyone here get the wrong idea......... According to the author of the linked webpage ( Onxy Forge Bolt-On Neck Conversion Kit), the bolts are actually machine screws, and that "bolt" is a misnomer. Not so!! Take a look here, it'll set the record straight: euler9.tripod.com/bolt-database/boltdef.html1 Bookmark the page for future reference, or in order to settle disputes with your friends. I've copied it to my own archives, just in case it goes down for whatever reason.  The kit sold by Onyx Forge contains non-tapered inserts, and 18-8 is a very standard thread gauge, albeit a quite large one.  In the case at hand, take a look at Condition G........ uh oh! Looks like the definition of "bolt" has been met, no?  sumgai 1. This is a Mechanical Engineer's personal page, but that person is well regarded and highly respected within the ME rank and file. I admit that his definition differs somewhat from the US Government's definition - they "try" to make an official definition due to there being a different tariff for each kind of fastener, when imported to this country. The government's definition relies on whether you turn the nut to tighten down the assemblage (that's a bolt), or you're tightening the threaded thing-a-ma-jig into threads that are part of the assemblage (that'd be a screw). Not very practical, as definitions go, but there you have it. Just to give you both sides of the story, you understand. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Mar 11, 2008 0:16:12 GMT -5
Well, I guess, but I just don't know..................
TMI
I consider a machine screw as something with a uniform thread meant to mate with a uniform thread. This implies a matched set in thread.
I consider a (wood/sheet metal/plastic) screw as something that is intended to form threads when it is attached.
I consider a bolt to be that there thingy that goes back and forth real fast in my CAR15. It's also what I lock a door with, or a roll of material.
Leo developed wood screw-on neck guitars (they ain't bolts), but back in the 50's, screwing on necks was directly in the sights of the prohibitionists and highly not recommended along with patent leather shoes and hoop skirts.
In retrospect, I believe that I've solved that whole ugly Tremo'Leo incident; it was ok to tremble to the music, but not to vibrate.................
But then, there's those carriage bolts........................
So when does a drill become an auger?
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Mar 11, 2008 3:28:59 GMT -5
Chris,
I don't recall that we ever did any screwing on necks, back in the 50's. Perhaps we just figured that's why they made davenports.......
;D
As soon as you figure out how to get people to accept the old saying "That doesn't drill well for the company, does it now".
;D
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Mar 11, 2008 15:40:29 GMT -5
CK and SG: Take your ritallin boys, tangential again.
Leo developed wood screw-on neck guitars (they ain't bolts), but back in the 50's, screwing on necks was directly in the sights of the prohibitionists and highly not recommended along with patent leather shoes and hoop skirts.
Then along came Elvis the Pelvis. Uh Oh, don't bogart the ritallin. Back to the content of the thread: Heres a cheap Steinberger clone. cgi.ebay.com/Deluxe-6-String-Electric-Guitar-Headless-Black_W0QQitemZ360032072295QQihZ023QQcategoryZ2384QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItemAnd you don't even have to know how to play because, "This Guitar is All Hand-Craft work and provides Highest Quality Song."Gee, I wonder where its made? |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Mar 11, 2008 16:05:00 GMT -5
Thanks, Rune- for the link, and for refocusing the thread. I was about to make a bunch of bad "screw vs. bolt" cracks, so you likely spared the board a lot of corniness, too.
I've never been a big fan of the headless tuning on Steinbergers, maybe it would just take living with one to get used to it. But, for travel, it would probably be short enough, and it's cheap enough to not worry about theft, trashing it, etc. A pretty good compromise as far as what I'm looking for.
But, did you notice that, in addition to providing "Highest Quality Song", this thing also has "Steel Strings- 25 frets" and also "20.8" Scale" (!). Looking at the photo, I can see a double dot at the second to last fret, which would therefore be #24, but I'm skeptical of that scale length.
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Mar 11, 2008 16:37:50 GMT -5
newey,
Fret #24 is the last fret, not the second to last. They're counting the Zero fret as one of the 25 - there's no fret nut in the usual sense of the word.
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Mar 11, 2008 19:07:09 GMT -5
You're right, Sumgai= I missed it. But if that's how they got to 25 frets, I'm now even more skeptical of the rest of the description. "Q: When is a fret not a fret?" "A: When it's the zero fret." Not to go all philosophical or anything. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Mar 11, 2008 19:42:15 GMT -5
Feldergarb. I don't believe that "fret" in the sense of actuating (v) a change in pitch is a voib (New Joisey for verb). It's the fretboard 'cuz it's where one finds the frets, not where one "frets aboot". Of course, that whole computer science concept of the zero fret might cause many to fret(v). I only get concerned when it's the -1 fret. Oh yeah, travel guitars. Hmmm, you gots a neck. With the application of a short plank and a ceegar box............. www.cigarboxguitars.com/I probably have some original vintage source (unfortunately now empty) boxes laying aboot. (Of course, you could just wait for Raul to...............) |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Mar 11, 2008 20:06:47 GMT -5
Well, I keep hitting redial but my Verizon service, even with all those guys they give you, doesn't seem to stretch to Havana. So the Raul option is off the table for now. Rather than going for the slab of wood and cigarbox idea, I am thinking DIY here, but I'm going in the opposite direction. My thinking is, the reason guitar bodies made out of beautiful figured woods are so expensive (as are the blanks for same) is because they have to be over a foot wide to make a decent sized guitar body. But I don't need width, so I could probably get a really nice piece of wood reasonably cheap, thus allowing me to make a travel guitar body out of much more exotic wood than I could ever afford in a full-size guitar body. Probably only need 7-8" width, so I've got my eye out for a narrow slab of figured maple or some such. |
|
|
|
Post by dunkelfalke on Mar 12, 2008 3:14:54 GMT -5
I've never been a big fan of the headless tuning on Steinbergers, maybe it would just take living with one to get used to it. i have two headless guitars and a headless bass. the tuning is not that bad, you'll get to use it fast. there are lots of cheap steinberger clones out there now, but the manufacturing quality sucks often but not always. don't worry about scale length, they all have got the normal strat 25.5", with 24 frets and a zero fret. you also don't need double ball end strings like on real steinberger guitars because the strings are either clamped like on a floyd rose neck or the vibrato system is modified for normal strings. |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Mar 12, 2008 5:34:05 GMT -5
Dunkel-
I didn't know that- didn't even know they made such strings. Learn something new every day, as they say. . .
Yeah, the scale length stated in the ebay ad doesn't make much sense. I thought maybe whoever wrote it mistook fretboard length for scale length, but even that doesn't make sense, if it's really a 25.5" scale that would mean only 4.7" from the end of the fretboard to the bridge. It's obviously more than that looking at the photo.
|
|
|
|
Post by dunkelfalke on Mar 12, 2008 5:41:35 GMT -5
you are right, after a closer look this guitar does look strange.
you can try the one i have linked, that one is the real deal (if the frets are done properly, that is).
|
|
|
|
Post by wolf on Mar 12, 2008 9:39:26 GMT -5
Like dunkelfalke, I have 2 headless guitars. Actually they are genuine Steinbergers but made in Korea which actually is a good thing because the savings are great. You could get the Steinbergers at www.musicyo.com (where I got mine) but they have had a notice saying they'll be "available on May 2008". Trouble is, a few years ago, I went there and it said "available on January, 2004". Basically they just have their webpage add a few months to the current date. I have no idea what is happening with that company but the 2 guitars I got from them were terrific. They even had some "scratch and dent" guitars you could buy for about $250. However, I haven't seen one being sold there for several years now. |
|
|
|
Post by kuzi16 on Mar 14, 2008 10:19:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 5, 2008 0:12:22 GMT -5
Well, Chris sez- Got me to thinkin' . . .I've got enough pieces parts sitting around that I could build a travel guitar for zero outlay. And, despite having several other projects in the works, one cannot say "no" to a friend who a) has a wood shop and b) donates a 9/4ths hunk 'o maple to the cause.   Nice looking hunk of maple, I'll plan to offset the neck so that most of the body is available for cavity routing and a curve for "knee-ability"  Made a rough template out of a file folder, not for routing the neck pocket or cavity, but just for general layout and body shape. The twin goals of a small body and an underbelly curve for that kneeability pretty much dictate the body template to be a sort of Kidney bean shape. The "Beancaster", anyone? Got a spare hardtail Strat bridge (black) that I can use, and the heads to the Ibanez neck are black as well, so it looks like black hardware is the order of the day. The pickup is a 2-wire HB with red pearloid covers- won't really match anything but, again, zero outlay,  After some planing down, you can see there's some heartwood to deal with- this will be the back, then.  All planed down to 1 3/4".  And bandsawn to a rough bean shape. Sanding and routing to follow . . . |
|
|
|
Post by lpf3 on Apr 5, 2008 2:01:57 GMT -5
newey, I really like the body shape but I can't decide, Warhol ? Or Picasso ? -lpf3 |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 5, 2008 7:41:04 GMT -5
Well, to paraphrase our resident cynic, I should copyright the shape. Then I can sue Hormel over their chili with beans. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by dunkelfalke on Apr 7, 2008 10:05:26 GMT -5
the shape reminds me of this one:  |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 7, 2008 15:11:41 GMT -5
Dunk-
Good to hear from you, been a while since you've posted. Yeah, that is similar to what I'm going for, although mine will probably end up being a bit thicker- I want to keep it small width-wise, but still want some heft to hopefully balance the weight of the neck a bit better.
What is that BTW?
|
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Apr 7, 2008 20:17:15 GMT -5
Well, to paraphrase our resident cynic, I should copyright the shape. Then I can sue Hormel over their chili with beans. ;D ...I heard that... |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 7, 2008 21:44:50 GMT -5
cyn1- Sorry, I couldn't resist. Keep servin' up those softball straight lines, and I'll keep aimin' for the fence. |
|
In the case at hand, take a look at Condition G........ uh oh! Looks like the definition of "bolt" has been met, no? 
