Ive been wondering about this for some time. Would it be a viable option to have a much longer neck that extends into the body of the bass, keeping in mind the neck would be bolt on? I've included a rough mockup of what I mean exactly. Any and all thoughts/comments/suggestions would be great.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Extra Long neck
- Thread starter Spectorphile
- Start date
Yes. The way I would approach this is to start by building a neck like any other one. Get a plank, route the truss rod channel, and then glue the fret board on. Only this time make the fret board extra long. In other words, let it extend past the but of teh neck to whatever distance you want. Almost like an upright bass.
Luke Sheridan
Commercial User
- Dec 30, 2004
- 637
- 51
- 57
- Disclosures
- I build guitars and sell them. Strings, too
is that fretboard actually elevated in the center near the bridge? It appears that way in the photo.
Luke Sheridan said:
I bet it's notched for a spokewheel TR adjustment nut.
Hey, this style of extended neck has been done lots, albeit not with a bolt-on. And you wouldn't guess that it was accomplished by one of TB's most talked about - Wishnevsky! Take a look at his "Peanut" design and you'll see not only the extended fretboard but an uber deep lower cutout allowing access to the entire board.
It's a typical Wish though - Star Trek design, caveman execution.
Look closer- it's not a Tobias. It's one of George Furlanetto's creations! F Basses rock!!
Not only that, but it's the first F bass I've ever seen with a 3-octave neck, and the LightWave system.
Not only that, but it's the first F bass I've ever seen with a 3-octave neck, and the LightWave system.
My original plan was to see about having the whole neck extend into the body and have a more spacious bolt-on arrangement closer to the bridge. You probably noticed its got lightwaves on it and the enormous cavity they require means I cant use that Brubaker method. Id like to have a full length truss rod in there for obvious reasons (yup I believe thats a notch for a spokewheel TR adjustment nut) will that be an issue to have one so long made? BTW the extra long neck isnt for the extended range (though i could still use it for that) its to help with fretless RH technique in the same way a normal ramp would, except even better. 
LOL 3rd try luckyBassic83 said:
. My photoshop skills must be better than i thought! Thats an F Bass custom, you can check it out on their website.
andvari7 said:
You've totally misunderstood my statement.
Anybody with half an eye open can tell that the bass pictured is not a Wishnevsky - me included, surprised?
. My statement ONLY referred to the Wishnevsky "Peanut" bass design. That bass is typical of Wishnevsky - Star Trek design, caveman execution.
Spectorphile said:My original plan was to see about having the whole neck extend into the body and have a more spacious bolt-on arrangement closer to the bridge. You probably noticed its got lightwaves on it and the enormous cavity they require means I cant use that Brubaker method. Id like to have a full length truss rod in there for obvious reasons (yup I believe thats a notch for a spokewheel TR adjustment nut) will that be an issue to have one so long made? BTW the extra long neck isnt for the extended range (though i could still use it for that) its to help with fretless RH technique in the same way a normal ramp would, except even better.
I question the need for a full length truss rod. With such a large portion of the neck being supported by the body, there is no way for the neck to bow in that area. The TR would only be required in the neck in the length from the body to the headstock. Additional length would mess with it's geometry, effectively negating it's counteracting tension. Both single and double action TR's focus their effect near the center of their length. A full length rod in that bass would put most of it's energy being applied just under the upper horn and not at the center of the "active" portion of the neck where most of the bow would be. Of course, any TR shorter than the fingerboard on this bass would have to be a headstock adjuster but that shouldn't be a compromise.
Hambone said:You've totally misunderstood my statement.
Anybody with half an eye open can tell that the bass pictured is not a Wishnevsky - me included, surprised?
Then how is it that people seem to think he's Stradivari?
You certain that's true?Hambone said:
Consider two bendable rods, joined at the far end, like a dual action trussrod, in free space. Displace (stagger) one of the near free ends with respect to the other and they bend into an even curve (or at least the outer one does).
Now release it. Encase the near half of the length of both rods in a fully rigid tube (which still has clearance for the rods to slip through). Displace the two near free ends again. What happens? The rods form a curve, over the entire unconstrained length, starting just past the end of the constrained length.
Try it again, but this time encase the far half of the rods' length and displace. The near half will curve, followed by a straight section where they are constrained to each other.
There are a few patents on file to this end. Ther earliest one I saw was for a simple dual rod, adjusted at the body. A stitch weld is put between the two rods a few inches from the (also welded) headstock end. The result is a rod that bends for most of its length, then takes off in a straight line (under the first few frets).
Hmmmmm don't know what i'm thinking, yes of course you're right. It's just several experiences with too-short truss rods (from either end of the neck) have left me unimpressed with the consistancy of their action. I'm a reall freak about actionHambone said:
Thanks for the reminder.pilotjones you lost me with the whole dual TR thing - im no luthier, im just seeing what the problems are with this design.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
The short of it is that at least with a dual rod, you do not have to worry about the pressure being applied in the wrong pace. The bending will take place wherever along the rod it is easiest to bend. So if part of the neck is in a "rigidified" (due to reinforcement by being joined with the body), the bending will take place beyond that region. This is true both of the bending caused by the string pull, and of the counterbend caused by the rod.Spectorphile said:
Warwick has a patent on running carbon fiber reinforcements only partway up the neck from the body, to produce a neck that will be straight(er) in this area, and more arced beyond. I would expect a singlecut to behave similarly.
