3+3 on Fender straight headstock
Satnam Singh
and notice a comment on the Timtone website about headstock design.
He suggests that the 3+3 tuner arrangement is not suitable for the
Fender style headstock without angle. I certainly haven't seen many
(any?) guitars designed like this, though I have seen 6 string
guitars/basses with 4+2 arrangement. Presumably, whatever the basis
for this opinion, the same princple would apply to 2+2 arrangement for
a 4 string bass.
Anyone have any idea why this is "unsuitable"?
I would think if the low 3 strings on the fender can go without
string T's, that you could put the high 3 opposite them (maybe the G
string would need a little offset to allow clearance for the D string
tuner, assuming straight pull string path).
Satnam Singh
miker
> and notice a comment on the Timtone website about headstock design.
> He suggests that the 3+3 tuner arrangement is not suitable for the
> Fender style headstock without angle.
> Anyone have any idea why this is "unsuitable"?
Ask Leo Fender, his first prototype was that way.
Also check out the Grazzioso/Futura or Futurama (like George Harrisons)
which had that style headstock as a 3x3.
Chris Johnson
Satnam Singh wrote:
You DO know why Leo Fender decided to use that headstock
design, with the scooped out face, right?
He did it because it was easier and cheaper to get wood for
the necks in that thickness rather than the greater thickness
that would be needed for an angled headstock, or the additional
labor (and expense) of splicing a headstock to the neck. It
was an ECONOMIC choice, not a performance choice. It's
such a good design that you need string trees to keep the higher
strings in their slots with adequate force. It's a compromise
and not a particularly good one. I can't imagine wanting to
try to do a 3+3 headstock shape and keep the scooped flat
profile. If you're going to go to the effort to make it, consider
angling the headstock and save yourself a headache with having
to use string trees in a 3+3 configuration.
I think you'll find that part of the problem is that the straight pull
of a Fender headstock requires a specific tuner to tuner lateral
spacing, and you will have a BIG problem with getting a straight
pull on all six strings on a 3+3 design. And trees are only
available in standard string spacings typical of staraight pull
headstock designs. So you'll have to custom make the trees.
And when you're done, you'll see that a 3+3 headstock on a Strat
looks absolutely silly.
You could probably make it work, but I'd be surprised if the results
were something you'd actually want on your guitar.
CJ
miker
One additional point... go to any vintage store, line up everything 25+
years old, and count broken headstocks, Fender vs. angled.
Paul Buerk
from the nut. With string trees, you can make the correction, but you add
some friction into the equation. Maybe that's not such a big deal - I can
only guess that it's probably not. As for what kind of tree, you could
probably make up something pretty simple for all six (or seven, or twelve,
or whatever) strings to go under at one point, kind of like a big staple in
the front of the headstock.
For a 3 x 3 that's somewhat in the style of a Fender headstock, take a look
at what Ralph Novax (sp?) is doing with his necks. They're made of a single
plank, but a little thicker so that some angle can be incorporated into the
headstock, and they don't need no steenkin' trees. For myself, it's just too
darn easy to do a scarf joint headstock..
"miker" <miker4n...@mindnospamokspring.com> wrote in message
news:ahjs37$o8c$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
Nick Odell
wrote:
>I've been playing with design ideas for electric guitars and basses
>and notice a comment on the Timtone website about headstock design.
>He suggests that the 3+3 tuner arrangement is not suitable for the
>Fender style headstock without angle. I certainly haven't seen many
>(any?) guitars designed like this, though I have seen 6 string
>guitars/basses with 4+2 arrangement. Presumably, whatever the basis
>for this opinion, the same princple would apply to 2+2 arrangement for
>a 4 string bass.
>
>Anyone have any idea why this is "unsuitable"?
>
I think it all probably boils down to personal preference - rather
like the zero fret/nut argument ^^thataway^^ somewhere. I built
literally thousands[1] of Hayman guitars[2] back in the 70s - all of
which had a three-a-side flat headstock that seemed to work okay.
Nick
[1]Well, built many hundreds and ran the production line that made the
rest.
[2]All with zero frets :)))))
--
real e-mail is themusic dot workshop at ntlworld dot com
miker
> probably make up something pretty simple for all six (or seven, or twelve,
> or whatever) strings to go under at one point, kind of like a big staple
in
> the front of the headstock.
Just like the Fender Electric XII. I'm remembering some Vox 12 strings with
this setup too.
Sheldon Dingwall - Dingwall Guitars
mahogany and/or a small truss-rod adjustment at the heel vs. a large wrench
relief taken out of the headstock juncture?
"miker" <miker4n...@mindnospamokspring.com> wrote in message
news:ahk3t0$rb8$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
miker
> mahogany and/or a small truss-rod adjustment at the heel vs. a large
wrench
> relief taken out of the headstock juncture?
>
> > years old, and count broken headstocks, Fender vs. angled.
I think its the short grain that a one-piece angled headstock requires - I
would think this is the major advantage of the Fender design (besides ease
of manufacture). The other things you mention are factors (esp. the wrench
relief).
The original question was, "why not a Fender flat-style 32x3 headstock", and
someone else had called the Fender design a poor compromise. I really just
wanted to make the point that the "poor compromise" was quite a bit
stronger.
John R. Frondelli
I'm sure it worked for Leo. In fact, I saw a repro of this last year at
Winter NAMM.
It seems to me that a graduated set of 3 + 3 tuners would solve the
down-pressure problem, with the shortest posts being farthest from the
nut (Posts 1 & 6 the tallest, 2 & 5 medium, and 3 & 4 short). You really
don't want to add any friction points, like trees, hold-downs, etc.
When all is said and done, the straight pull across the nut is what
REALLY makes the axe stay in tune. This is why a V-type (arrow-shaped)
headstock, with a 13° pitch is just about the ideal headstock
(scarf-jointed, though, thank you!).
Satnam Singh
the prototype had 3+3 but the production model didn't is because Leo found
some hideous side effect that caused birth defects in factory employees and
vowed never to make a 3+3 headstock ever again." Of course I'm kidding, but
I fear if someone came forward with some comment that Leo changed because of
a problem, I would be none the wiser to know if it was true.
JimLowther
>Without knowing the exact reason, I always have doubts, as in "the reason
>the prototype had 3+3 but the production model didn't is because Leo found
>some hideous side effect that caused birth defects in factory employees and
>vowed never to make a 3+3 headstock ever again." Of course I'm kidding, but
>I fear if someone came forward with some comment that Leo changed because of
>a problem, I would be none the wiser to know if it was true.
I bet the reason ol' Leo switched from 3+3 to six on a side tuners is that he
could save a buck on those tuners!
Best wishes,
Jim Lowther
Stan Gosnell
news:20020820003159...@mb-cj.aol.com:
Sounds logical to me. Everything about the Fenders is designed for low
cost production.
--
Regards,
Stan
MMGGUITARS
>> that he could save a buck on those tuners!
I was under assumption that the snakehead peghead( 3x3) was just a takeoff of
the lap steels that they were already building at the time. The 6 on a side
concept was derived from earlier German instrument construction, and was first
seen on Paul Bigsby guitars which were supposed to have influenced Leo's
design..
Marty
Stan Gosnell
news:20020820062610...@mb-mg.aol.com:
That could be true also. I really have no first-hand knowledge (surprise!)
& it's all speculation on my part. I have been struck by how much the
Bigsby & Fender headstocks look alike. The 5-string solid-body mandolin
Bigsby made for Tiny Moore has a headstock very similar to the Strat
headstock. Coincidence, or........
:-D
--
Regards,
Stan
JimLowther
>I really have no first-hand knowledge (surprise!)
>& it's all speculation on my part.
You too, Stan?
;-)
I'm sure everyone knew my comment to be a bit tongue in cheek. OTOH, Leo does
seem to have been consistently cost conscious.
Best wishes,
Jim Lowther
Stan Gosnell
news:20020820102046...@mb-bg.aol.com:
I was assuming the entire thread was a bit tongue in cheek.
--
Regards,
Stan
miker
news:20020820003159...@mb-cj.aol.com...
> I bet the reason ol' Leo switched from 3+3 to six on a side tuners is that
he
> could save a buck on those tuners!
Now, I had always assumed it was obvious that he went 1x6 to have straight
string pull, and the prototype (3x3) was built before he thought of that.
(The 3x3 proto is non-straight, right?)
But then I'm thinking, "No trem, nobody bending strings, why would he care
about straight string pull?" Maybe, given that the Bigsby guitar/tailpiece
was around, he was thinking possible future trem use...
Jim, the 1x6 approach also lets him use 1 less tuner screw! :)
Mike Dotson
on a side makes the tuners east to reach while playing and they all turn the
same 'direction'.
miker
news:20020821161401...@mb-cs.aol.com...
> It may not have been ALL economics. Leo was real big on ergonomics too.
And 6
> on a side makes the tuners east to reach while playing and they all turn
the
> same 'direction'.
Ah, now I remember... Travis told Bigsby to put the tuners on one side so
they'd be easy to reach.