Warwick neck internal component dimensions - anyone know them?

[rojo412]

So this is a somewhat loaded question here and kinda theoretical at this point, but I at least figured it's worth asking.

Has anyone taken the board off of a Warwick neck (circa 2007, say) and seen where the support rods are?
Or does anyone know of the depth of the support and truss rod channels?

I'm asking because I recently acquired a 2007 Warwick where the truss rod was actually repaired... but the thickness of the neck still seems to be making it less than properly effective. It works, but not terribly well. Kinda feels like the wood is vastly more powerful than the rod.

It's also the fattest neck I've ever felt. Not fun to play, honestly. I had a 95 that was WAY more comfy, but it was obviously built a lot differently then.

Being someone who has built many necks from scratch, I can't help but wonder if reshaping this one could not only make it more comfortable to play, but actually ease up the natural wood tension against the rod, making it more useful in this bass.

I know when I build my own necks, I know where my rod dimensions fit in the shape of the neck, so I know just how deep I can shape before exposing anything I don't want to. I feel like if I had the specs for this one, I may be able to make it happen the same way... but without them (and no desire to remove the board completely to find out), it's a bit of a risk.

So yeah... anyone got specs or know where I might find them? Any help is much appreciated.

 

[MPU]

I found these.

 

[rojo412]

Interesting, I never knew that! Thank you.

 

[Reedt2000]

Ive got an 05 warwick 5 string with the thick Ovangkol neck. Truss adjustment takes a full 24 hours to set in. Once it's set, it's really stable and only needs adjustments if I change string guages.

 

[birminghambass]

I remember seeing a diagram of the rods in this era of Warwick (super thick) necks. I hated mine and wanted to shape it down. The picture I found made me change my mind. The support rods were too close to the outside of the neck to make any real difference.

 

[rojo412]

I remember seeing a diagram of the rods in this era of Warwick (super thick) necks. I hated mine and wanted to shape it down. The picture I found made me change my mind. The support rods were too close to the outside of the neck to make any real difference.

This is essentially the fear I had about it.
Though I will say, there is less to worry about in the lower frets. But I'd hate to end up with a weirdly non-traditional neck with a slim low and super chunk high.

Again, thanks for the insights. I'll likely just leave this alone.

 

[Fender_Bender]

If you tighten the rod on a heavy duty neck like that make sure you’re doing the work by pulling the headstock backwards so that the rod only has to maintain the position it’s put in.

 

[MPU]

I had an ovangkol neck Warwick with a baseball bat neck. I shaped it thinner and more c- like with no problems. Not silly thin but thinner.

 

[rojo412]

If you tighten the rod on a heavy duty neck like that make sure you’re doing the work by pulling the headstock backwards so that the rod only has to maintain the position it’s put in.

I've actually gone so far as to heat treat the neck, while it's clamped in a back-bowed position, in an effort to make it easier for the rod itself. I've done this to many a bass and fixed them so they would be straighter under less rod tension...

And while it's helped a bit, this neck is still sturdy enough to fight that treatment more than most.
This is why I kinda felt the need to at least ask.

 

[T_Bone_TL]

There was this thread, but I don't know that it got into the support bar dimensions, but you can see where they are when the board came off in post 43:

Thread 'New project bass day: 1990 Warwick Thumb bass'

Jul 16, 2024

Greetings, everyone. I've always worked on my own instruments. Growing up way out in the country with no money basically made that a mandatory skill. About a year ago I started getting more serious about it and have been finding old, neglected instruments to restore. Recently I purchased an old Warwick that was much worse for the wear than I expected. The frets are probably toast and it has no truss rod installed. The bass is from 1990 when Warwick was still using a removable truss rod. I reached out to Warwick and ordered the correct truss rod directly from them. Unfortunately, it will...

• SC Bassboy
• Replies: 91
• Forum: Luthier's Corner

• 

TL;DR summary: there was a file stuck in the far end of the trussrod slot.

 

[Bruce Johnson]

I've actually gone so far as to heat treat the neck, while it's clamped in a back-bowed position, in an effort to make it easier for the rod itself. I've done this to many a bass and fixed them so they would be straighter under less rod tension...

And while it's helped a bit, this neck is still sturdy enough to fight that treatment more than most.
This is why I kinda felt the need to at least ask.

Jeremy and I did major neck rebuilds on two Warwicks over the last few years. We had the fingerboards off and saw the steel bars, but never pulled the bars out. But I believe that they were 1/8" wide x 3/8" deep straight bar stock. Or maybe 3mm x 10mm stock. If that helps.

You can check the measurements, but there's probably about 3/16" or more of wood under them. It's probably safe to take a little bit of wood off of the back shape.

 

[rojo412]

That's great info, thanks Bruce!

The part that really seems to make it feel large is the "shoulders" of the neck. Not the middle, but as it curves from the middle of the back, towards the fingerboard edges.
If it were a rounder profile, I'd imagine it would feel less large, in all honesty. That is where I'd concentrate on shaping. The fear was if it could possibly interact with the supports. And as has been mentioned, there aren't supports below the 12th fret, so it could be much less risky in that sense.

Knowing how far each one goes beyond the middle of the neck would be the key spec, I suppose. If they gap the slots, say, 6mm to each side of the truss channel, then I'd know that it would likely be somewhere about 15mm off center and only about 10mm below the board itself.

This would essentially be the way I'd try to plot it, if so:

(not to scale, just the idea if I actually could determine positions, then properly plot the "danger zone.")

 

[Reedt2000]

That era neck definitely has more of a D profile than a C

 

[rojo412]

YOU SAID IT! I don't hate that profile shape (LOVE Status basses), but when it's this thick, there is definitely a fight to be had if you're not a fan of chunky necks.

Took it with me to band the other day and basically equated the experience to a baseball player using a "batting donut" to warm up swings. It's so large that when I'd swap to a different bass of mine - ANY of them - that next bass will feel so easy to play. They'd also feel light, as this 11.2 lb beast is not even remotely light. It balances well, which is good, but if I switch to a 10 lb bass with wider spacing and a thinner neck, it's gonna feel downright light.

 

[Reedt2000]

Yeah 11+ lbs is WAY too much for me. My Wick is swamp ash and, even though it's a 5er, it weights a hair over 8 lbs. Ive got a trio of spector 5s too, each between 8-8.5 lbs.

 

[Root 5]

It's also the fattest neck I've ever felt. Not fun to play, honestly. I had a 95 that was WAY more comfy, but it was obviously built a lot differently then.

You should try a double bass sometime if you think Warwick is a fat neck!