Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Please put your pickup/wiring discussions in the Electronics section; and put discussions about repair issues, including fixing errors in new instruments, in the Repairs section.
Dave Hooper
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:12 pm

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Dave Hooper »

Hi Adam

I came across this builder who uses multiple pieces on his acoustic guitar sides.

You can read about it here: http://jrkluthier.co.uk/the_side_jig.php

And you can see a video of him using it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKOsrf2J3O0

The jig he sells for £80 but you can make one for a few quid :)

I hope this helps

All the best
Dave
Len McIntosh
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:51 am

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Len McIntosh »

Reading this thread i cant help but go back to the mid 60's when Martin was running short of BRW and came up with the D35 and its three piece back.
The options we have are infinite and when I do something "different" i imagine a sound unique because i ventured outside box.
I' m now thinking sides of more than two pieces and why not orient the grain of the sides from soundboard to back and use up all my left over scraps. Make sides from 20 pieces or more, the look could be spectacular.
When i go to shows to look at guitars i admire the workmanship, the form, the wood but what really impresses is something totally different, that works.
Love this forum!!
User avatar
Mark Swanson
Posts: 1991
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:11 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan USA
Contact:

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Mark Swanson »

Wood that thin, or any wood really, shrinks a lot along the grain. Making sides with the grain going in the short direction is not a good idea.
  • Mark Swanson, guitarist, MIMForum Staff
Rodger Knox
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:02 pm
Location: Baltimore, Maryland

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Rodger Knox »

Mark Swanson wrote:Wood that thin, or any wood really, shrinks a lot along the grain. Making sides with the grain going in the short direction is not a good idea.
I'm not sure I understand why the different orientation would make a difference. It seems to me that changes in the length of the side (along the grain with normal orientation) would be worse than changes in the width of the side. I agree it's not a good idea, I just don't have a reason....

If it was a good idea, someone would be doing it (and probably hyping it as the latest breakthrough in design). On the other hand, it could be a material thing. I suspect it's pretty difficult to find boards wide enough to do one piece sides with top to back grain orientation, and piecing together sides would be a lot of trouble. They should bend easier, if they don't split!
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disreguards the rest. Paul Simon
User avatar
Bryan Bear
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:05 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Bryan Bear »

Side material (in typical orientation) will get wider/narrower with changes in RH. The box will get deeper or shallower. If the grain is oriented vertically this change in dimension will want to alter the shape of the box (but the top and sides will prevent that). It seems like this is asking for trouble but I can't put my finger on exactly why. I would expect the sides to be prone to splitting as the wood dries itself out. This is all based on thought experiment, I could be way off!
PMoMC

Take care of your feet and your feet will take care of you.
Rodger Knox
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:02 pm
Location: Baltimore, Maryland

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Rodger Knox »

I'm confused. Does wood move more along the grain or across the grain? Mark seems to indicate that it moves more along the grain, while Bryan seems to contradict that. I thought it moved more across the grain, but I doubt the difference is significant enough to make it unfeasable to use the rotated orientation. I still don't think it's a good idea, but I believe it could be made to work.
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disreguards the rest. Paul Simon
User avatar
Bryan Bear
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:05 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Bryan Bear »

I guess we need to all be talking about the same thing when we say things like "along" and " across". . . What i meant to communicate is that Wood tends to expand and contract in width and thickness but not so much in length (thinking of these dimensions as used to describe the typical board). To paraphrase Roy Underhill 'moisture is to wood as age is to a man, it makes him thicker and heavier but not taller.'

All that out of the way, I still don't know if this would work or not. I still would be worried about splitting along the grain but I don't know exactly what would happen. It could be a very cool look though.
PMoMC

Take care of your feet and your feet will take care of you.
Len McIntosh
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:51 am

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Len McIntosh »

Personally i think shrinkage would be minimal.
The fun part here is the mechanics, just how wide and how many pieces.
Width of side pieces (terminology here width means across the grain, length with the grain) can be anything from 4 or 5 inchs down to ?..
May not even have to bend if their small.
Do i kerf the sound board and the back and then connect?
Part of the process will be to think of advantages and take advantage
Think a scoop and a bevel may be easier. Sound ports no problem.
Any style or shape of Cutaway a piece of cake!
Back and top don't have to be the same shape
Mix wood pieces for look
And if you dont like side bending well,,,,,
Doug Shaker
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:21 pm
Location: Palo Alto, California

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Doug Shaker »

I think you might get away with it if you laminated some spruce in the usual direction behind it.

If you went with only typical side woods, but with the grain direction running from back to soundboard, I think eventually you would get cracks in the sides somewhere in the upper bout, probably near where the upper bout is widest or maybe a little closer to the heel.

But that wouldn't be the end of the world. Linear soundports...
-Doug Shaker
jonas baker
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:20 pm

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by jonas baker »

I guess it's all been said, but it's definitely possible if you think along the lines of a violin. A violin has 6 piece sides, though I assume you could do it with 4 pieces. You really need an area for the side pieces to meet up and be glued to: the sides of the guitars join at the neck block and heal block obviously, and violins use the corner blocks to joint the multiple piece sides. So you could definitely do three pieces sides if you use something like the corner blocks in violins. You could also introduce some interesting shapes to the guitar by using corner blocks: I am thinking along the lines of a Kay Kraft "venetian" style guitar:

http://www.gbase.com/gear/kay-kraft-ven ... 0-sunburst

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious here in my post, it's my first or second post, can't remember.

Jonas
User avatar
Barry Guest
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:40 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Barry Guest »

Rodger Knox wrote:Barry's right, 3 piece sides are a bad idea. It will be more work and the result will probably not be as good.
However, as an amateur building for yourself, you have the luxury of pursueing bad ideas. It can be made to work, but it won't be easy. You won't be able to use normal forms on a bender, and there will be a couple of seams in unusual places.
"as an amateur........you have the luxury of pursuing bad ideas." ??? That's an enormous call!!! I would like to think that the pursuance of any idea was worthwhile.
Alumnus of Wood and Strings
Rodger Knox
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:02 pm
Location: Baltimore, Maryland

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Rodger Knox »

Barry Guest wrote:
Rodger Knox wrote:Barry's right, 3 piece sides are a bad idea. It will be more work and the result will probably not be as good.
However, as an amateur building for yourself, you have the luxury of pursueing bad ideas. It can be made to work, but it won't be easy. You won't be able to use normal forms on a bender, and there will be a couple of seams in unusual places.
"as an amateur........you have the luxury of pursuing bad ideas." ??? That's an enormous call!!! I would like to think that the pursuance of any idea was worthwhile.
An idea being worthwhile to pursue falls into a similiar catagory as dumb questions. While there is a widely held belief here that there are no dumb questions, I contend that a dumb question is one to which you already know the answer, particularly if you know the answer because you've asked the question before.

As a professional, I would presume that there is limited "disposable building time" available, so trying something that you know will take longer, be more difficult, and probably not be worth as much is not worth pursueing. As an amateur, it's all "disposable building time"!
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disreguards the rest. Paul Simon
User avatar
Barry Guest
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:40 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Barry Guest »

Was Galileo dumb to ask his fellow scientists and the Church to look through his telescope? They chose not to look because they already knew the answers, just like you.

Sorry to be so blunt, but there is almost nothing in stringed instrument acoustics that cannot be challenged. The existence of the study of psychoacoustics (the perception of sound) is proof that we still have a long way to go in understanding stringed instruments.
Alumnus of Wood and Strings
Clay Schaeffer
Posts: 1674
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:04 pm

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Clay Schaeffer »

"Was Galileo dumb to ask his fellow scientists and the Church to look through his telescope? "
Yup! He was probably sorry he asked! :lol:
Pursuing "dumb" ideas can be fun if you have the time for it. In some cases they even lead to improvements of the product. Amateurs can afford the time to do "research" projects more than people building to others expectations.
Chuck Tweedy
Posts: 1182
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:25 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Chuck Tweedy »

Maybe not "dumb", but certainly "unhealthy". :lol:
Likes to drink Rosewood Juice
User avatar
Ryan Mazzocco
Posts: 605
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:01 pm
Location: Joplin, MO
Contact:

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Ryan Mazzocco »

Barry Guest wrote:Was Galileo dumb to ask his fellow scientists and the Church to look through his telescope? They chose not to look because they already knew the answers, just like you.
but how do you really feel? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Barry Guest
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:40 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Barry Guest »

Not as dumb as dumber!
Alumnus of Wood and Strings
Rodger Knox
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:02 pm
Location: Baltimore, Maryland

Re: Feasibility of three-piece sides?

Post by Rodger Knox »

Clay Schaeffer wrote:"Pursuing "dumb" ideas can be fun if you have the time for it. In some cases they even lead to improvements of the product. Amateurs can afford the time to do "research" projects more than people building to others expectations.
My point exactly!
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disreguards the rest. Paul Simon
Post Reply

Return to “Flat-Top Acoustic Guitars and Bass Guitars”