SD Curlee Hondo II

[itu]

9 hours ago, prowla said:

This talk of shimming…

Doesn’t the bridge sit on the neck extension?

Yes, (No) this is a special construction where the neck extends to the bridge (which is NOT attached to the body, thank you for the correction). This isn't a neck through body, nor a bolt on neck as we usually understand it. 

Edited 11 hours ago by itu
read only memory failure

[Maude]

31 minutes ago, prowla said:

This talk of shimming…

Doesn’t the bridge sit on the neck extension?

 

Yes, that was my initial reaction, but as @Hellzero suggested, you could shim so the bridge end lifted increasing the neck angle, but then shave down the end of the neck the bridge mounts on so that the bridge if effectively lowered. 

 

19 minutes ago, itu said:

No, this is a special construction where the neck extends to the bridge which is attached to the body. This isn't a neck through body, nor a bolt on neck as we usually understand it. 

 

The bridge mounts on the centre section/neck. The body itself is completely unneeded other than to mount the controls (and the outer pickup screws). 

[W1_Pro]

9 hours ago, prowla said:

This talk of shimming…

Doesn’t the bridge sit on the neck extension?

It sits kind of jointly on both the end of the extended neck and the body. So it needs a level base.

[prowla]

8 hours ago, itu said:

No, this is a special construction where the neck extends to the bridge which is attached to the body. This isn't a neck through body, nor a bolt on neck as we usually understand it. 

 

If you look at the pictures, you will see that the bridge sits on the neck extension: the two front screws and 3 of the 5 tail-end bridge screw holes are on it (I didn't say it was a thru-neck).

Edited 11 hours ago by prowla

[W1_Pro]

8 hours ago, Maude said:

 

Yes, that was my initial reaction, but as @Hellzero suggested, you could shim so the bridge end lifted increasing the neck angle, but then shave down the end of the neck the bridge mounts on so that the bridge if effectively lowered. 

 

 

The bridge mounts on the centre section/neck. The body itself is completely unneeded other than to mount the controls (and the outer pickup screws). 

As I said, the bridge and the pickups mount on both the extended neck section and the body so (especially with the bridge) a flat spot is needed to mount it...

[prowla]

7 minutes ago, W1_Pro said:

It sits kind of jointly on both the end of the extended neck and the body. So it needs a level base.

 

Yes, so simply shimming it won't do the trick.

@Maude's suggestion of shaving it could be a workaround, but I think the underlying issue would re-surface in the future.

My guess is that the issue is in that P-bass pickup cutout.

This is similar to the known neck-lift issue on Rickenbacker basses and people are able to fix that, either by heating/clamping to straighten it, or even by inserting carbon fibre strips to strengthen it and make it rigid.

[BigRedX]

I don't think the pickup route is the problem. It looks as though the bolts for the neck attach either side of this which should counter-act any weakness at this point.

 

My suspicion is that the problem is due to the fact that all the "neck" bolts appear to be beyond the end of the truss rod, and the flexing point is between the end of the fingerboard and where the first set of bolts attach to to the body.

 

I wonder if fitting two more bolts that definitely attach the neck at a point where it is also being affected by the truss rod will overcome this flex point.

[prowla]

24 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

I don't think the pickup route is the problem. It looks as though the bolts for the neck attach either side of this which should counter-act any weakness at this point.

 

My suspicion is that the problem is due to the fact that all the "neck" bolts appear to be beyond the end of the truss rod, and the flexing point is between the end of the fingerboard and where the first set of bolts attach to to the body.

 

I wonder if fitting two more bolts that definitely attach the neck at a point where it is also being affected by the truss rod will overcome this flex point.

It could be that.

I guess it'd be easy to confirm/eliminate the pickup bay question by simply putting a ruler on the neck extension and seeing where the gap(s) lie; moving it back & forth to get an idea of the profile.

Doing that on the back side would pesumably show a bump or curve over which the ruler would rock.

I'd suggest that, whatever it is, the wood should be straightened (heat & clamps) rather than simply adding screws to try and pull it back under the assumption that the body is strong enough to force it against.

Also, if it is beyond the end of the brass plate (and assuming that is straight(!), there is only a very short  length there for those screws to exert a quite significant force to straighten it.

Those extra screws could help prevent it reoccurring in the future though.

 

 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by prowla

[BigRedX]

Agreed. Before doing anything else the OP should get a decent straight edge and check:

 

1. The fingerboard. With the stings off it should be either flat or have a slight back bow.

 

2. the top of the neck extension between the end of the finger board and where the bridge attaches. This should be perfectly flat

 

3. The back of the same from big to heel. This should be perfectly flat

 

4. The pocket that the neck extension fits into. This should be perfectly flat. This could be the problem if the others are all correct and bolting the neck in place is imposing a curvature on it.

[Maude]

This is the back of the neck on mine. I think the issue is the actual cutout for the truss rod adjuster. The two front fixings are 65mm back from the heel, the cutout goes right through the neck, the 'T' section where the nut is is probably about a third of the neck width removed, the fretboard ends about 30mm away so adds no bracing. If the two fixings are holding it down but the strings are trying to pull it up, the weakest point is the truss adjuster cutout. If the neck is bending here then that would account for the nut looking like it changes angle the more tension is put on it. 

@BigRedX suggestion of putting two extra fixings in as far forward as possible would probably alleviate this. 

 

Edit, just to add that if a shim was placed at the bridge end and then all four neck fixings tightened then this would add even more bend into that weak area as the heel pushes against the body, hence my suggestion earlier of shimming both ends (one more than the other) to introduce the angle without the heel becoming compressed. 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Maude

[prowla]

2 hours ago, Maude said:

This is the back of the neck on mine. I think the issue is the actual cutout for the truss rod adjuster. The two front fixings are 65mm back from the heel, the cutout goes right through the neck, the 'T' section where the nut is is probably about a third of the neck width removed, the fretboard ends about 30mm away so adds no bracing. If the two fixings are holding it down but the strings are trying to pull it up, the weakest point is the truss adjuster cutout. If the neck is bending here then that would account for the nut looking like it changes angle the more tension is put on it. 

@BigRedX suggestion of putting two extra fixings in as far forward as possible would probably alleviate this. 

 

Edit, just to add that if a shim was placed at the bridge end and then all four neck fixings tightened then this would add even more bend into that weak area as the heel pushes against the body, hence my suggestion earlier of shimming both ends (one more than the other) to introduce the angle without the heel becoming compressed. 

 

 

Ah yes - that does suggest that the truss-rod cutout is another area of weakness.

Perhaps the earlier comment regarding graphite/fibre inserts along the length of the "plank" could work.

Yes, I'd agree that shims at the end could make it worse.

Indeed I was wondering if the counter-intuitive option of putting a shim midway(!) might work.

[Bassassin]

I think what we can't be clear about with this bass, is whether this is a problem that's developed over the years, or whether it's always been like this. This is a Korean-made bass from the late 70s, a time when factories like Samick (who made this) & Cort were upping their games but still not achieving the QC of the more established manufacturers. I've had a few Korean-made through-neck basses from this era which had unadjustably high actions simply because they came out of the factory that way, rather than deterioration. Here's a Samick-made Satellite I had, which some previous owner's corrected by routing the bridge about 5mm into the body:

 

 

I think before suggesting any remedial action with the SD Curlee, I'd need to know whether we're correcting an age-related problem, or a manufacturing flaw. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the former.

 

 

[W1_Pro]

3 hours ago, Bassassin said:

I think what we can't be clear about with this bass, is whether this is a problem that's developed over the years, or whether it's always been like this. This is a Korean-made bass from the late 70s, a time when factories like Samick (who made this) & Cort were upping their games but still not achieving the QC of the more established manufacturers. I've had a few Korean-made through-neck basses from this era which had unadjustably high actions simply because they came out of the factory that way, rather than deterioration. Here's a Samick-made Satellite I had, which some previous owner's corrected by routing the bridge about 5mm into the body:

 

 

I think before suggesting any remedial action with the SD Curlee, I'd need to know whether we're correcting an age-related problem, or a manufacturing flaw. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the former.

 

 

I think, this as far as this particular bass goes that is destined to remain a mystery. I bought it for £90 (as it says further up the thread) and it was in a bit of a mess. There were no strings on it at the time and I must admit I didnt see this particular issue coming, although in all fairness the construction is not what you might call 'conventional' so I'll give myself a pass there. It is what it is and I'd like to try and correct it if I can, with a budget of precisely no pounds.  I've been messing about with shims  a bit...more info below...

[W1_Pro]

So shims...first of all, I trued some pretty extreme shimming at the bridge. This is two business cards folded in three and stuck one on top of the other..that is the most

shimmage I have ever used by a factor of about three.  Doesnt seem to have made much difference to the action height...

 

[W1_Pro]

So I moved to the neck end and did the same amount of shimming with the same result...by now it was dawning on me that the shims on their own are achieveing nothing, because the bridge moves with the neck.  I  sort of knew this and I should have been able to work it out using a bit of string, a nail and an oil drum but I've always been hopeless at stuff like this so the practical work does help.... What next? 

[W1_Pro]

So this leaves two options as as I see it. Andy's suggestion of taking some material off the heel of the neck and Bassassins idea about routing a hole for the bridge.  I'm inclining towards the latter, as I've seen that done (twice now, once on a bass of mine and once on Bassasins Satellite up the thread) and it seems to be a workable if somewhat heavy handed solution...

Edited 3 hours ago by W1_Pro

[Andyjr1515]

29 minutes ago, W1_Pro said:

So this leaves two options as as I see it. Andy's suggestion of taking some material off the heel of the neck and Bassassins idea about routing a hole for the bridge.  I'm inclining towards the latter, as I've seen that done (twice now, once on a bass of mine and once on Bassasins Satellite up the thread) and it seems to be a workable if somewhat heavy handed solution...

It's not an easy choice.  If I add skills/ experience and tools to the equation then there are significant pro's and con's for both approaches.

 

1.  The problem with lowering the bridge is that it really has got to be lowered a LOT.  And you have to be confident with a router or chisels to go as deep as it will need to go.

 

2.  The problem with shimming is that, depending where the shim is, the resulting wedge of neck that will now stand proud is over quite a long length.  And ideally you have to be confident in planing/sanding to get that right.  Not for the faint-hearted.  

 

There is, also, a third option - and it would probably, and reasonably, scare the word-not-allowed out of you.  But, now I've had a good look at the unconventional design and construction of the bass, I think it would be the one I would personally do.

 

So, for what it's worth:

3.  I would cut the neck through at the end of the fretboard.  I would take the back plate off and then add two extra screwholes in the neck pocket about 2 cm from where that cut point is, clamp the neck back in its original place and drill into the neck for two extra fixing screws.  These holes would be countersunk so these two new neck screws would sit flush with the body wood.  I would then add a shim underneath that 2cm neck overhang and add the two extra neck screws (with the neck now able to move more like a conventional bolt on neck and the shim needed would be quite thin).  The two new screws, flush with the body wood would then be hidden under the refitted back plate. 

- bridge unaffected

- pickup unaffected

- nothing to see at the back

- two teeny cut marks at the fret end

- great action

 

Answers on a post card....      

[W1_Pro]

1 minute ago, Andyjr1515 said:

It's not an easy choice.  If I add skills/ experience and tools to the equation then there are significant pro's and con's for both approaches.

 

1.  The problem with lowering the bridge is that it really has got to be lowered a LOT.  And you have to be confident with a router or chisels to go as deep as it will need to go.

 

2.  The problem with shimming is that, depending where the shim is, the resulting wedge of neck that will now stand proud is over quite a long length.  And ideally you have to be confident in planing/sanding to get that right.  Not for the faint-hearted.  

 

There is, also, a third option - and it would probably, and reasonably, scare the word-not-allowed out of you.  But, now I've had a good look at the unconventional design and construction of the bass, I think it would be the one I would personally do.

 

So, for what it's worth:

3.  I would cut the neck through at the end of the fretboard.  I would take the back plate off and then add two extra screwholes in the neck pocket about 2 cm from where that cut point is, clamp the neck back in its original place and drill into the neck for two extra fixing screws.  These holes would be countersunk so these two new neck screws would sit flush with the body wood.  I would then add a shim underneath that 2cm neck overhang and add the two extra neck screws (with the neck now able to move more like a conventional bolt on neck and the shim needed would be quite thin).  The two new screws, flush with the body wood would then be hidden under the refitted back plate. 

- bridge unaffected

- pickup unaffected

- nothing to see at the back

- two teeny cut marks at the fret end

- great action

 

Answers on a post card....      

Andy, great minds think alike..or fools seldom differ..😆 What do you think of the following...

I've been staring owlishly at the bass for some time and I have come up with a variant of your plan which I think might be even less visible. Cut the neck at the pickup rout. It would need to follow the rout, rather than be a straight cut but it would be invisible nce the pickup is back on. I could then shim the neck in front of the pickup which would change the action height to something a bit more usable (I hope). This would probably need a couple of extra screws as you suggest...

[Andyjr1515]

1 hour ago, W1_Pro said:

Andy, great minds think alike..or fools seldom differ..😆 What do you think of the following...

I've been staring owlishly at the bass for some time and I have come up with a variant of your plan which I think might be even less visible. Cut the neck at the pickup rout. It would need to follow the rout, rather than be a straight cut but it would be invisible nce the pickup is back on. I could then shim the neck in front of the pickup which would change the action height to something a bit more usable (I hope). This would probably need a couple of extra screws as you suggest...

No problem in theory, but a couple of extra factors to consider.  The first one that springs to mind is that, whether or not the shim was at the back of the cut, nevertheless the shim or gap thickness will be higher the further back the extended neck you go.  As such, you will still have a wedge of centre block wood from the end of the fretboard to the cut - and so some planing or sanding would still be needed if you wanted the centre block to be flush with the body between the cut and the fretboard.

 

But yes, that would work too.  

 

As the saying goes, (all types of) guitars are made up of a bunch of compromises held together by hope...