Body thickness?

Re: thickness, I think the principal factor is weight. Added mass may affect sustain, but that would be very debatable.

 

If you are using maple for the body that 3/8” could make a noticeable difference in weight.

 

I have one bass that's barely 1 1/8" thick. It's a problem to fit some electronics packages in something that thin, but 1 1/4" may be better. I wouldn't hesitate to build at 1 1/4" if you knew your preamp choice (if any) would fit.

 

Better make sure all the specs are massively separate from Gibson or else they may sue if’n their goons spy your creation.

 

3/8" of hard maple at 45 lbs per cubic foot works out to roughly 2 lbs of weight on a bass the size of a Grabber. Just a thought.

 

I have an '83 Squier P Bass that is nominal P Bass thickness, and a 2017 Squier P Bass that is less than nominal P Bass thickness, and both sound good, so, there you go.

Go forth, and bassify.

 

Rics average around 8.5 lbs at 1-1/4" thick solid maple. Plenty of depth in the control cavity at 1" deep. Cant see much need to go thicker.

 

I make most of my basses at 1 1/4. Audere preamps are nicely small and fit in well. Darkglass, not so much.

 

I'm starting to think 1 1/4" is about ideal. I do have to say, a thinner bass can be comfy if contoured well.

 

If the neck is a Fender style bolt on, and the body is routed the same depth for the neck, a thinner body is going to leave you with much less meat behind the neck cavity, which could be a strength/toughness issue. You'd also need shorter neck bolts, or they'll go all the way through the neck and out the front of the fretboard, Rickenbackers are neck through, which gets around that issue by having continuous grain running through that area. Rickenbackers also run the string further off the body surface - the geometry of things is different because of their body thickness.

Anyway, the point is you have to know the details about how that neck joint is made to say whether or not a thinner body is gonna be OK.

 

I think Aerodyne basses are 1-1/4”, seems to work fine with a Fender bolt on neck design.

 

I really love a 1.25” body. So comfy! No downsides as far as I’m concerned.

 

I find that the thicker my body the harder it is to reach my bass. Really affects my wrists and technique.

 

I have more than 100 bass guitars and the thickness of the bodies varies a lot. Sustain is more the matter of the sort of wood than the thickness of the body.

 

Why not split the difference and go with 1.5”? Most of the basses I’ve owned were/are between 1.5”-1.75”. Seems pretty standard for p basses.

 

Are you going to list them all in your profile?

 

Hold on, this isn't a Weight Watchers thread ...

 

You're right, and the OP even specifically said he didn't care about weight. That said, those basses, and ricks, plus others that are made out of heavy woods usually have design considerations that balance the pros and cons of various construction methods and materials (well all do really). Making the body as thin as reasonable is something that is done to help reduce overall weight and improve overall ergonomics. Anywhere between 7 and 11 lbs is "manageable" but get beyond that and it can be a little cumbersome.

This is not a weight thread, but I was connecting the "why" about the thinness of the Gibson body to a design consideration; in the case of solid maple, it's often weight. It's like a coincidence or something that the OP stated he wasn't concerned about weight. So in this case, he can go ahead and make it out of 1 5/8" thick stuff and not worry about it.