Stew Mac Dread - Tuner Holes

[johnc.marple]

The tuner holes are offset by 1/8" on the plan 

Does not look right to me 

What would you do? Align or follow the plan? 

[Charles Tauber]

First, what plan is it? Does it accompany/document a kit, with holes pre-drilled to that spacing? Does it specify specific hardware that has different length shafts to which the tuner buttons attach?

With typical "paddle-head" style tuning machines, one is limited by the length of the shafts to which the tuner buttons attach. That is, you want the tuner buttons to clear the side of the head and have enough room between your fingers and the buttons to allow you to turn them. The further from the edge of the head you mount the tuning machine housings - i.e. center of posts - the shorter the distance from button to edge of the head. 

For typical machine heads, if anything, you'd want each pair of machine heads to be closer to the center of the guitar head to allow clearance between the strings and the machine head posts. For example, the B and A string tuning machines might be a little closer to the center of the guitar head than the  high and low E tuning machines, and the G and D strings might be a little closer to the center of the head than that. I'm unaware of any reason to do what is shown on the plans, since it would increase the potential fowling of strings on the B and A machine head posts. 

The simple test for fowling is to use a straight edge and align it to a string slot in the nut and the winding edge of the machine head post about which it winds. That can be done on the drawing.

[Doug Shaker]

Here’s what I would do:

 Copy the drawing on a copier. Make several copies.

 Dummy up a paper version of the nut, with the string spacing you will want. 

Sit down with a few colored markers or technical pens and draw the tuning pegs in different locations according to your technical beliefs, and aesthetics. Then use a fat-leaded pencil to draw the string paths from the nut to the tuning pegs. See if the layout you like gives the strings enough clearance from each other and from the tuning pegs along the way. 

Iterate until happy and convinced it will work. 

-Doug Shaker

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Robert O'Brien Guitar Building Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to obrien-forum...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/obrien-forum/a2fc1961-8e1e-4ebd-8ac7-01785e096ceen%40googlegroups.com.

[Charles Tauber]

Upon further reflection, I'd suggest two things. First, the amount that the head flairs is too extreme. When using typical tuning machines, the greater the angle used for the sides of the head, the wider the head gets at its extreme end. That spaces the machine head posts increasingly closer to the outside E strings, increasing the angle each string makes from the nut to the tuning post, decreasing the space between strings and intermediary tuning posts, increasing potential interference between strings and tuning posts. Less extreme an angle of the sides of the head decreases that. An extreme case is to have the edges of the head angle inwards so that the head gets narrower towards its end: that puts each tuning machine progressively closer to the center of the head and reduces the angle the string makes from the nut to the tuning post. Some makers go so far as to use tuning machines/pegs and head shapes that allow for a straight pull - zero angle - from tuning post to nut, reducing string friction in the nut slot. The StewMac plan does the opposite.

Second, it is usually a bad idea to have sharp corners that are easily struck and damaged. Rounded corners are more forgiving and typically sustain less damage that knife-edge ones. The corners of the end of the head are one of the more often struck places on a guitar. 

There are the aesthetic choices concerning the head angles and corners, but those are subjective.Likely, the plan is aimed at beginners and ease of construction rather than aesthetic choices. (Using a less angled head with rounded corners might infringe on Martin's design.)

My suspicion is that the position of the holes in the drawing is an error that someone then dimensioned. Unless someone else knows of a reason to do what's shown on the plans, I'd stick with uniform spacing.

[Brock Poling]

I run the marketing team at StewMac.  This is correct… well… it’s intentionally like Martin does it. 

I sent this over to Gene who runs our tech team and this is what he said:

 

“That's how Martin does it.  It's also functional. The E,A,B, and E are all approximately at the string spacing for the nut (1 7/16",) since the peghead flares out, the D and G tuner buttons would just about run into the sides of the headstock if they were spaced that far in.  So the extra 1/8" gives them room and keeps them more uniform to the sides with the other 4.

If you space them all equidistant from the edge, you have to be aware of the strings not hitting the posts in front of them as you move back on the headstock.  Hard to have a flared peghead and tuners in a straight line.”

 

 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Robert O'Brien Guitar Building Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to obrien-forum...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/obrien-forum/a5160b86-5f4d-44bc-9860-9089f9169c2cn%40googlegroups.com.