You don't hafta be such a jerk about it!!!:scowl:
David King, Bunker, and other builders have better gaphite reinforcement and other reinforcement techniques that were NOT available or mastered at the time when this was most popular. Graphite products were very expensive, limited to a small hanfull of manufacturers, and didn't allow enough flex to have a truss rod at the time, which is why Phil picked his choice at the time. The fact remains that most cheapies don't have the same level of reinforcement and have a higher risk of some form of twisting eventually.
Besides, the Warwick site admitted that these basses were prone to warping when there was still a feature!!!!!!
Until then, I'm sticking with Ned and Phil. They seem to know a thing or two.
Not trying to fan the flames here...actually hoping to quench
them a bit.
Graphite is not the miracle material - I've built many necks
with and many without, and some of the wood-only necks
are stiffer and more stable than some of the graphite-equipped
ones.
Also, even 100% graphite necks require a truss rod.
Modulus has come to terms with this, and almost everyone
that I can think of uses TRs in their graphite necks.
Actually, the only neck I've ever handled that was
to stiff to adjust with the truss rod was a wenge 6-string,
without graphite.
As a builder myself, I have to agree that I can see no logical
reason that a headstock would decrease the likelihood of twist.
Regardless of who's saying it, it's really true - the forces
of the strings on the neck are simple, and the point
at which they anchor should do almost nothing to change that.
(Actually - particularly on a 4-inline HP, I could see the
longer moment arm on the D and G making it MORE likely,
not less, since the string has greater leverage to deform
the treble side of the neck...but this would be a minimal
effect anyway).
Finally, a multitude of reasons could have contributed to the
Warwick's tendency to twist. Some Steinbergers twisted too -
I've worked on them. Many, many, many basses with
headstocks twist also. In my experience, it just can't be tied
to easily to any one factor, except the asymmetrical loads
presented by most 45-105 sets.
Physics are important to bass, but luthiers know certain tricks to make stuff work in their favor. You may know physics, but these guys make a living doing it their way. Armchair engineers are one thing, but I'd put money on Ned and Phil. If regular wood were a more feasible option, they wouldn't have needed reinforced necks and could have sold more units easier and cheaper. Clearly physics isn't the answer to everything or there wouldn't be 30" and 32" scale basses with a good low B.
I have to be honest here too. A lot of the 'innovations'
in modern guitarbuiding are, at best, debatable.
"Selling units", particularly at the smaller scale, often involves
setting yourself apart in some way. I don't doubt that some
part, large or small, of the innovations in the industry are
driven by the desire or need to be different.
Sometimes, different things really can be unique, and even better. The Parker guitar neck is like that - something like
half the weight of a standard neck, and *very* stiff.
Other 'innovations' can be successful from a marketing
perspective, with the only real requirement being that
they don't actually make the instrument worse.
No names mentioned here.
No disrespect meant here (I mean that!), but the phrase
"armchair engineers" applies to a lot of guitar and bass builders,
too. I've met many people whose understanding of the stresses
and physics in instruments was diametrically opposed to mine.
Some of these things, like the Fodera Extended-B headstock,
get debated ad nauseam. Others are more subtle, but
equally debatable.
Who's right, if we both build a good, stable instrument? Does it matter?
Peace,
Martin Keith
im un sure of this bass......i looks like it might have looked better if the body was all there......like a normal bass.
