chambered headstocks to prevent neck-dive....

[jordan_frerichs]

A friend showed me one of his projects, and one detail that caught my attention, was that he had chambered out the headstock everywhere (except where the tuners where placed). Because a major factor that affects how the instrument balances is the length and weight of the body, compared to the length and weight of the head, this seems like something that would be stupid not to do, if you are putting a face on the front or back of the head anyways. I hate neck dive, and my current project has a very light hollowed out body, and a larger than usual 8-sting head. I thought it was going to have bad neck dive, but now i am a bit more hopefull. I haven't seen or heard of anything like this, and just thought i would share, and get of builders opinions on this.

[roberthabraken]

It is indeed a unique idea, to my ears, but I would have some concerns about the fact that the headstock has to be structurally sound and this could be compromised by hollowing out the headstock. Also, it has been said that the headstock (the mass of it) contributes in the sustain of the instrument considerably.

But I think if you plan it out carefully there's no reason why it wouldn't work, imo.

[Skelf]

It would be a lot simpler just to have the top horn extend to or beyond the 12th fret then your bass will balance.

[Son of Magni]

I think generally the entire headstock probably weighs about the same as one tuning machine. So this idea seems pretty pointless to me. There are many factors that can be addressed in the design of a bass to insure good balance that will be easier to accomplish and be more effective than whittling off a couple ounces of wood from the headstock. Imho of course...

[vbasscustom]

i would think that would weaken the headstock a considerable amount

[dmusic148]

I have 3 graphite basses- all have hollow headstocks. Makes more sense with graphite though as it's heavier by volume than most woods used for necks, as far as I know.

[BigOldHarry]

Originally Posted by roberthabraken

It is indeed a unique idea, to my ears, but I would have some concerns about the fact that the headstock has to be structurally sound and this could be compromised by hollowing out the headstock. Also, it has been said that the headstock (the mass of it) contributes in the sustain of the instrument considerably.

But I think if you plan it out carefully there's no reason why it wouldn't work, imo.

Yeah, the one part of a bass which I have seen get broken more than any other part was the headstock... And the few oz you save by removing that wood seems pretty trivial.

Careful strap-button placement seems like a better solution to me.

[elpezpr]

Good idea if you can't design a balanced bass in the first place.

[Zombbg4]

Upper horn length, strap button placement, and ultralight or mini tuners all seem like much better ideas than a hollowed headstock. Rodent brought up the idea of drilling out a block of wood and filling it with pennies, then putting it in your control cavity. But hey, go for it if you want and let us know how it works out.

[Yvarg]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with everyone else. Interesting idea, but the amount of headstock breaks (especially on Gibson styled instruments!) I've seen in the short amount of time I've spent doing repairs would keep me from trying this myself.

[PasdaBeer]

ditto to everyone else, theres a lot of tension on the headstock, just like the neck.

[jordan_frerichs]

those are things to think on. Unfortunately, I can't extend the upper part (its a single-cut) even though it is a neck through, because the upper and lower wings need to line up (for the soundholes), and i want good 24th fret access. Do you think a lot of bass in the middle of the body would help counter or contribute to neck dive? I am planing to hollow out the core a bit already (just behind the bridge, to connect the hollow space in the upper and lower horns)

[T-Bird]

Hi.

To counteract the weight of the headstock and tuners You'll need as much as possible amount of mass in the opposite side of the pivot point, the farther the better, ie. behind the bridge. Any mass in the middle adds/is just weight.

Regards
Sam

[Cy_Miles]

I like small headstocks, and by putting half the tuners on the bass side and half on the treble side, you can decrease both the mass of the headstock and just important by making it shorter is has less leverage.

[ehque]

Originally Posted by T-Bird

To counteract the weight of the headstock and tuners You'll need as much as possible amount of mass in the opposite side of the pivot point, the farther the better, ie. behind the bridge. Any mass in the middle adds/is just weight.

Correct. Routing out wood near the bridge area makes your bass neckdive even MORE, as well as weakens the area where your bridge or strap pin goes.

I would route out the area where the pickups sit instead.

Regarding the headstock, a symmetrical headstock with straight string pull for each string can be designed in such a way that it's almost impossible to remove any more wood from it by chambering, at least in my mind. Ultralight tuners will also go a long way.

[J Lund]

Originally Posted by T-Bird

To counteract the weight of the headstock and tuners You'll need as much as possible amount of mass in the opposite side of the pivot point, the farther the better, ie. behind the bridge. Any mass in the middle adds/is just weight.

Regards
Sam

Along the same lines as what Sam said, more mass in the middle of the instrument will not help balance, but instead will just make the instrument heavier. Extra mass should be added at the bottommost end of the instrument. For example, acoustic instruments tend to have a large amount of body behind the bridge to counteract the neck's weight (in proportion to the acoustic body).

But when you say "hollowed out headstock", I'm reminded of Robbie's classical guitar-like headstocks.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...d/DSC00428.jpg

Josh

[pilotjones]

Originally Posted by J Lund

For example, acoustic instruments tend to have a large amount of body behind the bridge to counteract the neck's weight (in proportion to the acoustic body).

Not to mention, in order to put the bridge in a position on the body where it can properly vibrate the top. Near the bottom edge wouldn't hack it.

[mikezimmerman]

I also think about the D'Aquisto Solo and some other modern archotop guitar designs:

[roberthabraken]

I gave it a second thought and I think I'm gonna say it's best to get a good balance from the start, together with extra light tuners:

I had a baseball bat like neck and it weighed too much. After I set up the bass and installed the tuners, I decided to thin it down considerably. And so I did (with the tuners still on). But what's my point?

I had the tuners on for like a week or two and constantly handled it like that (took it from the storage spot to the working table and visa versa). After thinning it down, I removed the tuners, because I am going to oil it. And that's where the surprise kicked in: without the tuners, the neck weighed nearly nothing!!! I have regular Gotoh tuners and it feels like they make up half of the weight.

So hollowing out the headstock would save you very, very, very little weight on the neck. It also weakens the construction.

Conclusion: buy ultra light tuners.

[jordan_frerichs]

crap. I have heavy tuners (4 off-brand clover tuners, and 4 gotoh guitar tuners). I will leave the area behind the bridge alone, and chamber the area between the jazz pups instead. Luckily the area behind the bridge is larger than usual, so that may help.