Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

scrumpymike's (a) Rascal


Andyjr1515

Recommended Posts

Well, the time has come to start pulling Mike's Rascal to pieces ;)

The interesting thing about a Rascal is that because of the offset body, visually it really doesn't look like a 30" scale.

The Precision Lyte is 34" - and yet look how much longer the Rascal body is the longer-scale Lyte (my walnut Lyte top is 1:1 scale):
AK27Z85l.jpg

The other difference is that the Lyte neck is 22 frets and the Rascal is 21. This affects where the neck pocket needs to be.

This is basically how and where the neck will fit:
ExLrgw0l.jpg

The bridge will sit well back - in a similar position to the Lyte, although the top horn will be 1/2 fret further forward. The advantage of this is that it should help to avoid any tendency to head-heaviness in spite of this being a much lighter body than the original.

Playing-wise, the new bass will sit differently to the Rascal and very much feel like a short-scale. The Rascal itself, with its quite heavy body and far rear strap button swings the whole bass to the player's left hand side, pushing the nut further away and making it feel more like the stretch of a long-scale. This will new one will sit more in the standard short-scale position.

Should be interesting :)

Edited by Andyjr1515
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there it is, all stripped:
ewFc6DFl.jpg

Fairly standard 'stratocaster' type pickup and electrics arrangements:
Mi31UFvl.jpg



The lipsticks have a standard single-coil type back plate, wider than the protruding part of the pickup, which the fixing and height adjustment screws screw into.
eszBdhHl.jpg

While the lipstick itself appears to be bolted to that backplate, close inspection makes me think that to remove the backplate would leave a reasonable chance of knackering the pickup - so I won't be doing THAT :D

I'll do some careful measuring and thinking of the best way of mounting them.

In terms of the bridge, this is broadly where it will sit:
RlFdyb1l.jpg

Those of you who have followed some of my other builds will know that I break one of the taboo's of guitar building - I use the top as the routing template (please note - this is emphatically NOT recommended by the sensible and conventional wisdom!)

My reasoning is, however, simple in a case such as this:

  • The top here is, 'coincidentally', the same thickness as the neck pocket is deep
  • I therefore just have to scribe the shape onto the walnut around the neck
  • Then I can use the 'safe' tools (safe in terms of unwanted and irreversible gouges out of the wood) such as fret saw, chisels and files to cut the perfect neck pocket
  • Then I will add the sapele back, cut slightly oversize, and use a bearing flush trimmer on the router, using the top as the template, to trim the back flush with the top.


There are times when this approach can add issues - which is why I always emphasise that I describe how I do some of these things and most definitely NOT 'this is how you should do it'. However, in this particular instance, the approach will reduce some of the cock-up potential and not increase it :) Edited by Andyjr1515
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's brilliant Andy! How nice to finally be able to visualise how the 'new' bass will look. Certainly makes the headstock look bigger, although that's emphasised by the current 'green-ness'. In any event, I've always liked chunky headstocks. Your comments about the original quirky design of the Rascal are spot on. Having said that, my problem was with the weight rather than the reach. If it had been a couple of pounds lighter we wouldn't be reading this build diary. Mind you, now that Merv's walnut is part of the project, I'm really pleased we are :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='scrumpymike' timestamp='1510337797' post='3405792']
That's brilliant Andy! How nice to finally be able to visualise how the 'new' bass will look. Certainly makes the headstock look bigger, although that's emphasised by the current 'green-ness'. In any event, I've always liked chunky headstocks. Your comments about the original quirky design of the Rascal are spot on. Having said that, my problem was with the weight rather than the reach. If it had been a couple of pounds lighter we wouldn't be reading this build diary. Mind you, now that Merv's walnut is part of the project, I'm really pleased we are :) .
[/quote]
I'm going to have a go at cutting a headstock over-plate in the morning. I suspect that will make it look a lot less bulky :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

Well done ped and team :)

It all seems to be working...including the easy fix to re-instate pictures :)

So - I'm going to try to do a direct load of photos ;)    It's to show the neck pocket and pickup cuts:

OK - that failed.  So I'll try by adding the URL

For the neck pocket, I used a scroll saw:

UuFFpjml.jpg

For the pickup slots, I drilled either end and then used the scroll saw to cut the straights:

sRMj9YKl.jpg

And this is where I got to :)

e6xVsJYl.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what are the thoughts I have about hiding the Rascal colour of the headstock and still making it a reversible mod?

Well....this may not work but:

I've managed to cut a 1.5mm sliver of the walnut offcut which will scrape down to 1mm:

1ce0Ybbl.jpg

The idea is to try to stick this on with very thin double sided tape.

But what about the bend??

ADmwOTHl.jpg

 

OK ... this is why it might not work but - an acoustic guitar side is around 1.5mm thick.  And I have built a couple of acoustics and have a bending iron.  So I'm going to try to bend the walnut to shape.

I told you it might not work! xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that headstock cover is waffer-theen and probably weighs 'naff all, but as it's at the end of the (admittedly short) neck will it give it a bit more dive? I'm sure you've thought about that!

It's really cool to see the reversible mod side of this, as well as building the body! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rikki_Sixx said:

I know that headstock cover is waffer-theen and probably weighs 'naff all, but as it's at the end of the (admittedly short) neck will it give it a bit more dive? I'm sure you've thought about that!

It's really cool to see the reversible mod side of this, as well as building the body! 

Decent question but no, not at all :)

The plate really does, as you say, weigh naff all - but the main thing is that the Lyte top horn is longer.  This will place the strap button at about the 12.5th fret, as opposed to the Rascal which places it at the 14th fret.  This makes a big difference.

That is quite important, also, because the new body will be much lighter than the Rascal and this, if nothing else was done, would certainly give some issues.

I suppose the only slight unknown is going to be the 'sit' of the bass on the strap.  It is likely that it will sit further to the player's right than the Rascal - this will make it feel a very short scale indeed (although still longer than a 6 string electric).  Time will tell on that one ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And...admittedly to my surprise...it seems to have worked.  Once this is sanded flush and stuck round the edges with thin 2-sided tape, I'm pretty sure it's going to look fine. 

DLBKQv1l.jpg

The 2-sided tape will only to keep the edges secure - the plate itself will be secured by the tuner bushes and the string tree :)

It certainly balances the look of the bass a bit better:

QWL8ML7l.jpg

 

Next job is to find the sapele that I'm sure I've got somewhere in the shed for the back ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Bit of a lull while I needed the workbench to sort some of the remaining jobs on the 6-string electric, but we're back on it.

2mm wenge demarcation veneer has been glued to the sapele for the back:

KrS3V1ql.jpg

...and the sapele/wenge sandwich has been cut oversize ready  - once the internals have been sorted - for gluing the top and using that as the template for the router trimming of the back ( that's an Andyjr1515 approach - most luthiers would not recommend doing it that way so please don't assume that's the way to do it!  It's probably not :D).

zrlwHpal.jpg

 

So next job - getting the internal routs and chambers sorted :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, scrumpymike said:

Glad you're back from 'the Dark Side' - and thanks for the update.  Every time I've followed your previous build diaries, I've wondered what it must feel like to be the lucky pink torpedo who's commissioned it; now I am that pink torpedo! :D

xD

 

And I'm the daft pink torpedo who's building it !   xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tomorrow is going to be about more wood cutting...so today has been about making sure I'm going to cut in the right place!

The main thing about routing weight reduction or access voids and cutting chambers out of backs and tops is that you've always got to think 'what's on the other side?'.  Like:

  • The bridge fixing
  • A paunch-relief carve ;)
  • Horn cutaway carves

Although most of tomorrow's cutting and routing is going to be on the back, I mark some of these things on the back of the bass top to see where everything is going to lie and so I don't get any clashes:

n0sUpoal.jpg

The main weight relief will come from:

  • A large swimming pool hole in the back from where the pickups will be inserted and which will be covered by a thin plate of sapele
  • The hole that will become the control chamber, also covered with a sapele plate
  • A part-depth rout in the upper rear bout, which will become a weight relief chamber and will be invisible from top or back
  • The back-relief carve

I can't take any weight out by reducing the thickness, because the depth of the Fender 5-way switch actually dictates a minimum body depth of 45mm to house it - if you've ever wondered why 'traditional' guitars are as thick (and therefore often as heavy) as they were and often still are.  As a comparison, I design to 25mm depth wherever I can (and therefore don't ordinarily use Fender 5-way switches :D).  That reduces, by more than a third, the body weight before you even start chambering!

The thickness also makes for a very deep heel.  I've got some thoughts on that I'll bounce off Mike when I've developed them a bit further :)

 

Edited by Andyjr1515
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ever you wanted proof that wenge is porous, here it is ;)

XflzcPQl.jpg

That's just the titebond that's squeezed through the 2mm wenge veneer.  Good job I anticipated that  and protected the clamping caul with clingfilm!

That's two of the four main weight reduction steps taken.  The swimming pool in the middle (ignore the wavy scrollsaw line that will be straightened up) will be the magnetic-hatched access to fit the lipstick pickups from the back:

nwP6Caxl.jpg

There will be a similar hole cut for the control chamber in the lower main bout, once I've worked out how big and where it needs to be.  That will also take weight out.  More weight will come out from the back relief carve marked in felt tip above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...