• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Are carbon fiber bars/rods worth it?

roller

roller

Supporting Member
Mar 30, 2014
4,131
15,423
#1
Several years after they've been in use, what is the general opinion of carbon fiber/graphite stabilizer bars when used in maple necks? I'm sure they help in the stabilizing process... but do we think they're really worth the expense?

When most carbon fiber I've been around is thin and narrow in shape, it flexes fairly easily in human hands. I'm wondering if the constant movement of a maple neck in temperature and humidity changes wouldn't simply move these bars with ease... and thus, rendering the bars ineffective.

Does anyone have any information or examples on the bulk/strength of the carbon fiber weave used in stabilizer bars? I'm sure it's beefier than some types of weave.

I recognize I'm walking on a well-trodden path... but is there a better mousetrap to achieve the intended result of stabilizing a Fender-style neck?

Thoughts? Opinions? Thanks!
 
#2
Some collected background reading. Pay attention particularly to Bruce Johnson's posts. He's not much of a fan of the rods, as you'll find out. But, in essence, you are comparing how an isolated strip of material behaves and (mis-)applying that to how it behaves as part of a system. The way that carbon fiber helps necks (when properly applied) is by being very strong in tension (which it's extremely good at) near the backside of the neck beam (which it's only a small part of.) Large portions of the "usual bars" are doing bleep-all as typically applied, but if a small part of them is near where the carbon is useful, they work anyway. A small amount of carbon, embedded in epoxy, at the right location, works just as well, per lots of years of Bruce's experience which he's been kind enough to share.

Reasonably Priced Source for Carbon Fiber Rods?

Less expensive carbon fiber reinforcement

My Les Paul Bass Build - I need a Gibby too...

Winter build off 2019 – Two Birds of Different Feathers

#9

I don't know that any of the typical reinforcements use weave - the cross-ways stuff would be wasted. Some folks have mentioned using tubes, which may be spriral-wound or diamond-weave patterns. "The Church o' Bruce" uses TOW, which is entirely unidirectional, and the 24K TOW I have a big roll of rather tediously calculated out to being something like 836 lbs of loading for a single ribbon. Given that even my upright is only putting 250-300lbs on the string side, plenty (IIRC Bruce mostly uses 12K which is likely about half that (slight variance for different particular products) but still far more than any set of electric strings I can think of having looked at the tensions for put on the front-side of the neck.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: franksidebottom, ctmullins, Bruce Johnson and 1 other person
#3
I've used carbon fiber spars quite a few times. The ones I used were really stiff, and would hardly deflect at all under my attempts to bend them. I cant see how humidity changes would overcome the ones I've used. Most of my necks nowadays are multilaminate plus have reinforcements so mine are probably overkill anyway. :D

I've used narrow aluminum spars in a few necks now too, and those seem equally stable, and way cheaper. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MattZilla
#5
What I don't like about most carbon rods is you have a butt joint at the end of the channel somewhere around the nut. While the rods adds strength to the neck along the length of the rod it creates a weak spot at the end where it often has epoxy filling the gap between carbon and wood. Ultimately I'd like the rod to extend into the headstock or be part of a lamination though that opens up issues with shaping and finishing if any of it is exposed.

I think it might be more practical to run it in the underside of the fingerboard than in the neck wood.
 
#6
I have only anecdotal experience on two basses, one a two piece maple laminate, the other a 5 piece walnut/maple assembly. Both have two 1/8" x 3 /8" pultruded rods set either side of a DA trussrod. The two piece has been done for over a year, so its been through the full range of seasonal changes. So far the neck seems very stable, i havent had to adjust it once since initial setup. I’ll admit I Drank the Coolaid on CF rods, and so far it seems to have worked, or at least done no harm! Bruce has made an exhaustive study on the subject, so I’ll defer to his expertise, but as an "insurance policy" of sorts, they seem to have worked for me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Huw Phillips
#7
I put a strip in below my truss rod and it seems to have worked out, it was very little effort and expense, I went the Bruce route, I routed a channel painted epoxy placed the carbon fiber and flooded the channel with epoxy, leveled it with the router and placed the truss rod then the fretboard, some folks put a strip of wood on top of the carbon I saw no need.
A very kind TBer let me have a 6 ft piece of TOW enough for 2 necks thanks if your reading this
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gilmourisgod
#8
In rod we trust!

latest
 
  • Like
Reactions: nbass03, aproud1 and MYLOWFREQ
#9
TrustRod said:
I think it might be more practical to run it in the underside of the fingerboard than in the neck wood.
Click to expand...
From a structural engineering standpoint (which, in its small way, is what we are doing here) that's just about useless. Why? it's on the compression side of the neutral axis (do an image search, I'm not going to draw it) of the neck beam. Carbon fiber is nothing special in compression - most of the compressive strength in use is that of the epoxy it's bedded in. Of itself, you might as well be pushing on a rope. Carbon fiber excels in tensile strength, which is why locating it near the back of the neck beam, where the tension is, is so effective.
 
#11
T_Bone_TL said:
From a structural engineering standpoint (which, in its small way, is what we are doing here) that's just about useless. Why? it's on the compression side of the neutral axis (do an image search, I'm not going to draw it) of the neck beam. Carbon fiber is nothing special in compression - most of the compressive strength in use is that of the epoxy it's bedded in. Of itself, you might as well be pushing on a rope. Carbon fiber excels in tensile strength, which is why locating it near the back of the neck beam, where the tension is, is so effective.
Click to expand...
Carbon fiber is not added for its tensile strength unless you play gigs at a zoo and gorillas try to pull headstocks off. Modulus of elasticity is what you should look into. That's what Modulus named their company after.
 
#12
Can’t resist an engineering conversation!

It is true that the fretboard side of the neck is in compression, but a carbon/epoxy composite rod under the fretboard will still act to resist the deflection due to bending more than the equivalent piece of wood you have removed in order to fit it (as long as it is bonded in properly) You cannot decouple stress/strain from bending deflection. Overall you will have increased the modulus of your neck by fitting a carbon rod in this way. Even if you centred it on the neutral axis it would still have some effect due to its own thickness, although that would be a daft place to put it.

What Bruce does is definitely more elegant (in the engineering sense of the word) because it puts the carbon material in the position where you get the most ‘bang for your buck’ in terms of ‘increase in stiffness per expensive strand of carbon’, but routing a channel either side of the truss rod and gluing in some carbon rods is such a simple exercise I would say it is a good compromise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huw Phillips, I-Am-The-Slime and T_Bone_TL
#16
This ‘dead spot’ thing is a bit of a mystery to me never having experienced it, but I guess it’s a resonance thing. In which case adding stiffeners will change the stiffness and the mass, both of which affect resonant frequency. I suspect it’s quite hard to design.
 
#17
5tring said:
This ‘dead spot’ thing is a bit of a mystery to me never having experienced it, but I guess it’s a resonance thing. In which case adding stiffeners will change the stiffness and the mass, both of which affect resonant frequency. I suspect it’s quite hard to design.
Click to expand...

Consider yourself lucky not to have dead spot experience. It's not something you want to become proficient at recognizing or you will notice it much more.

It is definitely a resonant frequency thing where a note is at or near the resonant frequency (or harmonic of Fr) of the neck / body unit. Playing that note puts the neck / body in sympathetic vibration that kinda soaks up the energy of the vibrating string. Use of stiffening material in the neck is one of the methods to attempt to reduce the vibration, which I'm sure helps in most circumstances, but is not a 100% solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kubicki Fan
#18
I think it really depends on what material you are making your bass neck from and how wide / how many strings it's going to hold. I personally think that maple is a really bendy wood material. So yes it REALLY benefits from an old style aluminium U channel truss rod or a pair of carbon graphite rods. If you are making it out of pure wenge...less so. Purple heart...even less so. Wenge and Purple heart are some of the most rigid and unflexing wood materials I've used, it's astonishing how little they move under string tension compared to maple.
I built a 34" scale 6 string bolt on with a single truss rod (shocker) and no carbon rods (more of a shocker) and it's very stable. The neck was a 5 piece laminate with a wide Purple heart center laminate, wenge laminates either side and then the far edges made from maple. The fingerboard was a thick slab of wenge. It looks great and is really stable. I think it might have been a little more stable if I'd used a pair of carbon rods but it's pretty stable and barely moves tuning from week to week. In this image, you can see the rod installed with the maple fillet.
Invalid Link Removed
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kubicki Fan, BritFunk, 5tring and 3 others
#19
Spirit of Ox said:
I always hear MIA Fenders have dead spots and they are using graphite reinforcement. Warmoth states that graphite won't eliminate dead spots but the steel reinforcement will.
Click to expand...
I think my Warmoth neck probably didn't benefit from having CF in it. It's an upcharge that has dubious value. I'd rather have a quarter sawn & laminated neck than one with CF in it. The only deadspots I ever encountered are in my Warmoth neck (half sawn roasted maple with CF reinforcement). I must say for Warmoth though, everythig fits with microscopic precision and aside for the "deadspot" on the 9th fret on the G string every note sustains like crazy. So, I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
#20
5tring said:
This ‘dead spot’ thing is a bit of a mystery to me never having experienced it, but I guess it’s a resonance thing. In which case adding stiffeners will change the stiffness and the mass, both of which affect resonant frequency. I suspect it’s quite hard to design.
Click to expand...
It is a crap-shoot, nature of the beast. QC can catch it in a fully assembled bass but when buying parts basses it is a possibility. G&L has never let me down and even the cheap SX jazz and Chienese Squier don't have deadspots either.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back