So now Happy Jack has a Mike Lull 5-string neck...

[Andyjr1515]

To the younger folks here, the big white area is called paper, the stick thing a pencil, the brown and black object is a T-square and the blue thing a set-square  

 

I've spent my whole working life using CAD CAM...but there are times when it's just quicker to go trad.  Besides, I think better when I have a pencil in my hand

 

 

And the answer to how much of the billet thickness do I need to get the shape I want, with appropriate depth in the right places for all the components and their fixings?

 

All of it!  

 

 

There are a number of things that I am considering to take out more timber, and it probably can go up to 5mm thinner all round, but there is no point pre-judging - I'll just straighten up the jointing faces and glue the blanks at their present full thickness.

 

Which, after my daily argument with the AA (Automobile, not Alcoholics), will be my next job

 

 

 

 

[Daz39]

6 minutes ago, Andyjr1515 said:

 

 

I've spent my whole working life using CAD CAM...but there are times when it's just quicker to go trad.  Besides, I think better when I have a pencil in my hand

 

 

 

 

 

Is this why some builders need a pencil behind EACH ear?

[Andyjr1515]

Using the pencil again (!), I squiggled a line all the way down each glue joint and spent a happy hour or so's workout sledging each side along my long sanding beam until all the pencil lines were gone.  Then, after double checking for gaps when the two sides were held together, out came the Titebond and sash clamps:

 

That will remain clamped until the morning to ensure that the titebond is fully cured.

[Andyjr1515]

Yes - the joint is OK, both sides (phew!)

 

 

And so the next steps, while I still have a flat surface to work from, are the pickup and neck pocket routs...but before that, I am going to try to source a suitable bridge...a nice big heavy one.  In fact, the heavier, the better (and yes, the irony of that has not passed me by  ).  I will leave the external shape excess wood until I can fit the neck and place the bridge and know exactly where the bass edges need to be. After that I can trim to the final shape and the basic weight-reducing carve can begin.  

 

[Happy Jack]

Or you could source a simple BBOT and cantilever it off the back end of the body by 10cm. There is a precedent y'know ...

 

😉

[Andyjr1515]

30 minutes ago, Happy Jack said:

Or you could source a simple BBOT

 

Yup - a BBOT ordered.  That is, a Big Bu**er Other Type  

[Andyjr1515]

And here is the Big Bu**er 

 

Got it from Northwest Guitars.  Very nicely made, solid brass for the desired weight (it comes in at 13oz, which is the sort of weight I was after), top load or through-string, adjustable string spacing, generous intonation adjustment...and half the price of a Hipshot (that wouldn't be heavy enough anyway).  What's not to like?  

 

And with this now in hand (it's always better working with the actual hardware rather than just the tech drawing) I can position the bridge on the body blank and determine the exact positioning of the heel end to then drill/chisel/rout the neck pocket and position and do the same for the pickup chamber...which will be my next tasks 

 

 

[Andyjr1515]

Definitely a time for 'measure 14 times, cut once'

 

I've positioned the low B saddle as far back as I can while accommodating 'normal' silks (around 1") leaving @Happy Jack  the option for through or top stringing, and then wound the middle saddle to a typical 'G' string intonation position to measure the scale from...and remembering that it is a 35" scale:

 

I've marked both the bridge lengthways position and the very back of the neck heel and will then take it apart, reposition to the pencil marks and measure nut to furthest forward saddle...just to make sure it still says 35" !  Not that I ever get such things wrong, of course!   

 

[Happy Jack]

In truth, I've never been convinced by through-body stringing.

[Andyjr1515]

29 minutes ago, Happy Jack said:

In truth, I've never been convinced by through-body stringing.

Nor me, to be honest 

[Andyjr1515]

On a bolt on neck, the neck pocket is pretty much the datum for everything else.  So, after one further check that I have the bridge in the correct potential position, the next step is cutting the neck pocket.  

 

The only router operation I trust is one that is totally captive with a bearing bit involved - and so I personally always start these types of chamber with a Forstner bit and some chisels.  It's generally not the way other builders do it but it works for me:

 

Then a trial fit of the chiselled outline:

 

And, that all good, a top bearing router bit that uses my chiselled outline as the guide.

 

This may be a mm or so higher than final depth - I'll check that once the bridge is fitted when I can again use the captive router bit.  I will then also cut the pocket to length (the extra length at the moment gives me support for the router base if I need to use it any more):

 

Next will be a similar process to create the pickup chamber, and then the carve can begin 

 

 

 

 

 

[Andyjr1515]

Using the Fluence pickup positioning that Fishman used for Mike Inez's 'Moon Bass' special, puts the pickup here, scaled up for the 35" scale:

 

 

And that looks about right to me - I haven't measured it, but I reckon the centre line is probably the same as a Stingray and, like the Stingray, should be able to allow the built in EQ sweep to achieve sufficient treble when needed without sacrificing pure bass 'thump'.

 

So todays task is to cut that chamber and, time allowing, start the top carve.

[Andyjr1515]

Same basic process for the pickup chamber as with the neck pocket.

 

I generally aim for 1mm clearance around pickups to allow space not only for the up and down, but also - especially with soap bars - the ability to tilt the pickup a touch to balance the volumes of the bass strings and trebles.

 

I start off by drilling the corners with a drill at 1mm greater radius than the corners of the pickups:

 

Then a Forstner, to hog out the bulk

 

Then take out the resulting 'waves' with a sharp chisel and mallet, creating a depth of 5mm or so dead on the original pencil line - this will then act as the datum for the top bearing bit on the hand router...and because it is already extended into the chamber, there is no possibility of it cutting beyond that chiselled line:

 

And just continue deepening the cut until I have the depth for the full pickup and plug-in connectors:

 

And so - unless I can think of any more excuses not to get on with it - the top carve can begin 

[Andyjr1515]

First step is to cut a plasticard template from the full size drawing I did:

 

Then, with a few pencil marks to stop me going too far, too fast, out comes the plane to take away some of the bulk:

 

While, as far as paulownia goes, this isn't overly soft, it planes pretty easily.

 

Pretty soon, I get to here:

 

Bit further to go, but time to move to the block plane so that I don't overdo it:

 

 

 

 

 

[JPJ]

Andy,

Hope you don’t mind me asking, but what model cutter do you use in your router?
Reason for asking is that most of the top bearing cutters I’ve used have too much cutter below the bearing to make your wonderful safe technique work for me hence why I still make templates for everything. 

[Andyjr1515]

A further 20 minutes with my block plane and this is probably OK for rough shaping of the top at the moment:

 

And so next is the initial scooping of the underside from where I will have a better idea of the final dimensions and weight.  But before that, I'm going to have a ponder about some options relating to the control chamber that might influence the sequence in which I do the various steps

 

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Andyjr1515

[Andyjr1515]

18 hours ago, JPJ said:

Andy,

Hope you don’t mind me asking, but what model cutter do you use in your router?
Reason for asking is that most of the top bearing cutters I’ve used have too much cutter below the bearing to make your wonderful safe technique work for me hence why I still make templates for everything. 

Hi @JPJ

 

It's a diddy one from Axminster - I'll have a peep and see if I can find the actual one on their website

 

[Andyjr1515]

It's this one:

 

From here:

https://www.axminstertools.com/axcaliber-milling-cutter-with-top-bearing-952561?queryID=fbe6f27bc41ad8855bf0416d58540516

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Andyjr1515

[JPJ]

1 hour ago, Andyjr1515 said:

It's this one:

 

From here:

https://www.axminstertools.com/axcaliber-milling-cutter-with-top-bearing-952561?queryID=fbe6f27bc41ad8855bf0416d58540516

 

Ah many thanks Andy - I’m off to Axminster to order one 😎

[Andyjr1515]

1 hour ago, JPJ said:

Ah many thanks Andy - I’m off to Axminster to order one 😎

I'd be lost without this one.  The standard 'short' bits are just too long for many of the chambers and operations we have in guitars and basses...especially if you have a strong aversion to templates (which I do!   )

 

[Richard R]

4 hours ago, Andyjr1515 said:

 

 

I do love the mix of imperial and metric units on machine tools and bits:

'1/2" (12.7mm) diameter with 8mm depth of cut'

[JPJ]

51 minutes ago, Richard R said:

I do love the mix of imperial and metric units on machine tools and bits:

'1/2" (12.7mm) diameter with 8mm depth of cut'

Same in the pipework industry 4500mm of 6” pipe 😎

[BigRedX]

Grrrr...

 

I'm in the middle of trying to convince one of my clients not to mix metric and imperial measurements in a recipe, and if they must, then at least use the most appropriate one for the ingredient being measured.

[Happy Jack]

4 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

Grrrr...

 

I'm in the middle of trying to convince one of my clients not to mix metric and imperial measurements in a recipe, and if they must, then at least use the most appropriate one for the ingredient being measured.

 

Just get all colloquial on their derrières and tell them that three smidges make a dab, and five dabs make a splash.

 

 

[Richard R]

12 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

Grrrr...

 

I'm in the middle of trying to convince one of my clients not to mix metric and imperial measurements in a recipe, and if they must, then at least use the most appropriate one for the ingredient being measured.

 

I once had a client which was a large chemical manufacturer who had bought a number of other businesses. For their standard corporate reporting they required everything converting to US Gallons. Which was fair enough for bulk material, but one company made photolithographic sheets, which were sold by the square metre.  I honestly can't remember if we just made up a thickness, but they didn't seem to understand that there was no direct conversion factor.