Richard,
I'm building one right now with the star brace in the back and i think it does something good but i'm not an expert, all that i will say is that it's really promising for the stringing up part!
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| OLF SJ Bracing Question http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=10941 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Richard_N [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've been browsing the archives looking for info on the OLF SJ (recieved the plans last week) I've seen posts by Michael Payne in which he says (i) that the bracing as shown on the plans is lighter than most would use (ii) that he no longer uses the x brace pattern as shown on the plans , rather he uses a star pattern. (ie stronger ) So my question is: Those who have built OLF SJs - Did you brace as shown in the plans ? if not what mods did you make ? Thanks |
|
| Author: | Terry Stowell [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
while we're on it, I'm starting one too. The bridge plate seems longer than will fit in between the x brace. It appears that I'm missing something. I cut out the bridge plate from the plans and glued it onto hardboard. The 2 extra lines on the right & left ends of the plate represent a chamfer, but I can't make it fit... No big deal I'm sure |
|
| Author: | Serge Poirier [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Richard, I'm building one right now with the star brace in the back and i think it does something good but i'm not an expert, all that i will say is that it's really promising for the stringing up part!
|
|
| Author: | JJ Donohue [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've completed one so far and it's my best sounding effort to date. I generally followed the back ladder bracing plans. I took some liberty with the top bracing design and among other changes, did not tuck the bridge plate into the X-legs...instead, it is just butted up to the braces. Other changes...lower X-brace legs are not tucked into the liners, the use of Woolson/Fox solid liners and powdered eye of newt sprinkled judiciously throughout. I have a 2nd SJ almost completed and am anxious to compare it to the first. This is already fairly lightly braced and voicing may further lighten it up depending on the top you select. Even if you go strictly by the plans, I believe you're going to have a great sounding guitar. |
|
| Author: | Terry Stowell [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ah, that's what I thought, the plate is tucked under the x-brace, like the stew mac plans I have. Thanks for the confirm JJ. G'day |
|
| Author: | Steve Saville [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Terry Stowell] Ah, that's what I thought, the plate is tucked under the x-brace, ......[/QUOTE] Terry, I think the newer plan does not tuck the plate under the braces. There has been some talk about it and I think the consensus was not to tuck. I've built 2 and tucked both, but I will not do that on future builds. The bracing is plenty strong. |
|
| Author: | Terry Stowell [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Iwould not tuck either. I did on my first hd-28 stew mac kit about 17 years ago, and not done it since. I may do some other tweaking to the brace patterns too. |
|
| Author: | CarltonM [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Terry Stowell] Ah, that's what I thought, the plate is tucked under the x-brace, like the stew mac plans I have.[/QUOTE] The best argument for not tucking the bridge plate is that it will, at some point, have to be replaced, making it a pain in the posterior to remove and replace. |
|
| Author: | Richard_N [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks for the feedback. The detail of the brace shaping is a large part of what drew me to these plans. That and the fact I know that plenty of people her have built from them and been pleased with the results. Theyre certainly a great looking set of plans and I figure I can learn a lot from them. Those who went for the x or star braced options. What were you hoping for when you decided to go down this route ? Did you achieve it? Personaly I'm tempted to try it just to try something different. |
|
| Author: | Serge Poirier [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Don't know exactly, maybe it was both the attractive design and the way the load is spread and allows you to thin your back down to a minimum. Sure taps nice but it could just be my combo. |
|
| Author: | James Ringelspaugh [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote]I took some liberty with the top bracing design [/quote] How so? Why? |
|
| Author: | Richard_N [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Hesh1956] I cut my X brace cut-outs slightly to snug and then turned each brace on it's side and hit it with a plane a bit at a time I could sneak up on a perfect joint fit. .[/QUOTE] Nice tip ! Thanks I notice that the plans caal for a 25' dome on the front and 20' on the back. The dishes I made for my first build are 30' and 15'. Since the doming adds strength Will it be ok to use these radiuses or should I make some more dishes ( I figure the difference is minimal ) |
|
| Author: | Steve Saville [ Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Those dishes will be fine, that's what I used. |
|
| Author: | Richard_N [ Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks Steve |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|