Official Luthiers Forum!

First of all apologies are in order. First to Mr. Holden then to anyone else I've stolen ideas from. Second to the dial up guys.. Lots of pics.

Ok the earlier discussion on radiusing jigs got me going. I've not wanted to build one until I could incorporate a compound radius set up.

While this is not complete and is UNTESTED, it's pretty close so have a look, and fire away. Let me know what you think. Good or bad.

Looks huge here but it's only 44" long







This is what the radius blocks look like. A 16" on one end and a 20" on the other and I should have the fabled compound radius.








This is the part still to be finished. The sled. Not real sure what I want here. I'd like to incorporate dust collection, but I'm still thinkin.


Thanx for looking. It'll be awhile befor I can really test this on anything but scrap. I still need to build a jig for using Shane's fret slotting blade. Lots of work before the next batch of fingerboardsare ready.RCoates38810.0045949074

Hey Ronn, promising start to an ambitious project. Thanks for sharing the pictures. I plan to do one soon, but without the compound, which is simpler I'm sure.

Good luck with the trial runs when you get farther along.

_________________
http://www.dickeyguitars.com

Hi Ron

Just an observation and mybe you have it covered, but when cutting a compound the position pf the radius guides for the side bars is critical in order to achieve the correct compound.

To give an example if I want to cut a compound that goes from 12 at the nut to 20 at the bridge. You need the first guide level withy the zero fret position and either a 20 at the saddle position or a 16 at the mid point of the saddle and the 12th fret.

Maybe you have this worked out with the maths on your guides ?, but of course these positions change with each new scale length.

I see one end is sixteen inches, what is the other end?

Also Todd when he was describing his cutting of the arches, was computing the difference between the arch, and where the bit was actually cutting, a different radii for sure.

That is a sweet looking jig Ronn.

_________________
http://www.dickeyguitars.com

Besides the comments about the radius values at the actual end supports (e.g. if you want a 12"-20" compound radius on the fingerboard, you may need something like 8" and 24" for the radius guides), also make sure you set the height of each radius guide so that the edge of the fingerboard remains the same thickness at the 0th and 22nd frets.

Since the difference in thickness between crown and the two edges (that is, the 1st and 6th strings) will be less at the end with the higher radius, you will end up with the 22nd fret end of the fingerboard being thicker on edge if you don't compensate. This would typically happen if you adjust the heights of the two radius guides such that the router bit just "kisses" the crown of the fingerboard along it's length.Pete Licis38810.5143634259

[QUOTE=Pete Licis] Besides the comments about the radius values at the actual end supports (e.g. if you want a 12"-20" compound radius on the fingerboard, you may need something like 8" and 24" for the radius guides), also make sure you set the height of each radius guide so that the edge of the fingerboard remains the same thickness at the 0th and 22nd frets.

Since the difference in thickness between crown and the two edges (that is, the 1st and 6th strings) will be less at the end with the higher radius, you will end up with the 22nd fret end of the fingerboard being thicker on edge if you don't compensate. This would typically happen if you adjust the heights of the two radius guides such that the router bit just "kisses" the crown of the fingerboard along it's length.[/QUOTE]

When I first read what you said - the edge of the fingerboard should remain the same thickness , I thought "no - you want the center thickness to be the same at both ends".

But, I think the real answer is that you want both of these to be true. The fingerboard edge thickness should be constant AND the center thickness should be constant.

Isn't that what the compound radius accomplishes? That way, the fingerboard thickness is constant under each string for the whole length of the fingerboard.

If you had a constant radius fingerboard, either the center would be thicker at the wide end, or the edge would be thinner at the wide end. The compound radius (larger radius at the wide end of the fingerboard) should mean that the center-to-edge difference is the same at both ends of the fingerboard.

Phil

THe heights of the radius blocks can be adjusted. The "keyway that they fit into has a separate block down inside that is loose. It sits ontop of the center block of the three blocks that make up the end of the jig. Clear as mud??? it's visible slightly in one pic.

The height of the cutter above or below the level of the radius block will affect the radius that is cut. That's pretty easy to deal with. The blocks are cut at a slightly larger radius than desired. based one the guide bars distance apart (8")I cut the blocks at 16.5". The difference is really abot 13/32" but who's counting?

That should theoretically, give a radius pretty close to 16". The problem is that, just as Russell and Pete said, the distance of the radius blocks (register points for the guide bars) away from the location where either end of the fingerboard is placed for cutting will also affect the radius that is cut. Move the FB back or forth and that affects it also. Change the scale length and that also changes it(although not much).

So lot's more math to do to get it just right. It's been a few years since college so anyone that crunches numbers with some frequency, please feel free to chime in.

Ronn,
Good luck on your endeavor, but I think you have a number of obstacles yet to overcome. It took me two years of full time experimentation on my radius jig to achieve the perfect compound radius.
Needless to say I worked my butt off to develop a unique and extremely beneficial product for my fellow luthiers. I guess I should be flattered that you felt it was worth trying to duplicate, but by posting it on the forum, it more or less undermines my business and the money I have invested in sponsoring the forum.
Craig
CT Holden Luthiery and Supplies, Inc.

Ouch!

Craig, the good news is that folks like myself, and I am sure many others, would never embark on this on our own. Some guys really like building equipment and jigs, I am not one of them. If the OLF sponsors sell and make something that will help me in building guitars better, rest assured, I am buying it there. I like improving my shop and skills, however, I like building guitars alot better than equipment and jigs. I started this hobby and did not even know about the OLF. You guys are all great, make quality products and I want you to know all of you have my business.

Sometimes in all of our sharing, an unavoidable toe gets stepped on, and for that I apologize to you and all our Sponsors. I built my own SideBender a few years ago, that is less than good, I could embark on trying again, but I have turned over a new leaf and will be purchasing all my molds, forms, benders and blankets, woods & supplies from OLF sponsors exclusively. When I save up enough of my pennies, you are on my list as well.

Thanks

Mike
White Oak, Texas

I stand by my friend Craig who deserves to feel alienated by this.

you guys could`nt have hurt a better guy, a guy who deserves our support, not be ripped off.

Matt

I also have to chime in on Craig's jig. I have one and use it all the time -- it is great. Certainly there is nothing wrong with trying to build your own mousetrap to accomplish this task, but I see a similar design to Craig's coming to life, and I can assure you there will be LOTS of trial and error to get this worked out. He has really thought of about everything you can imagine.

Again, I am not trying to discourage anyone from coming up with their own solution, but my shop time is so valuable that I find it is more productive to buy the right tool for the job.

Just my .02 worth.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

    To be honest this happens. I don't think it was an intentional thing. I have my stuff copied alot and I know how Craig feels but no one here ever beat the guys that do it.
    WHen designing look at how the load is applied and design so it can be properly supported. I to sponser and have donated alot to the site. This is life and try not to let this be personal.
john halltippie5338811.5731944444

Thanks for your support, guys. And John, although yours is the only one that experienced that issue, I did modify the carriage after your problem. I am 100% confident in its structure and performance.
Don't get me wrong, I expect that those who maybe can't afford it will try to do it on their own, or perhaps there is someone who will come up with a different method all together, and that is great. I support development and advancements, but why bother re-making the wheel? If there is a need to apologize in the beginning of a thread, then you gotta think about that a little more.
Sorry, but obviously it hit a nerve.
Craig

I can see this threads potentional to head directly south, so please let me intervene.

I just want to say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Craig, your jig is ingenious, period point blank!
I seen it at the ASIA symposium and have wanted one every since.

However unless you get some sort of patent on it, its going to be copied.
Great example of this are Charles Fox's side bender, and lately, his Neck tenion jig. The list goes on and on of jig/tool and process duplication.

I understand how this can be an emotionally charged topic, but in truth,
this IS going to happen. Not only here, but in the shop of every builder
that thinks he can "make it" cheaper than he can "buy it", or just plain enjoys
building jigs.

I'm with Brock here, my shop time is so limited that buying jigs is the only way to go
for me. But honestly, I could not feel good about discouraging folks from trying it on there own.

Just for a moment, imagine the slippery slope we'd be on if we could not help someone build there own version of a fox bender, OR more recently, there version of a stewmac circle cutting jig, or Ribbecke's version of a binding cutter. You offer the Fox Tenion jig, and Don Williams binding cutter, does this mean those are off limits? Of course not.
I understand that the radius jig is your pride and joy, but im sure at one point so was CF's bender, and Tenion jig, etc ---

Please don't read any hostility into this, its not meant to be that way at all.

Hops this makes sence..

_________________
Support the OLF! Bookmark our STEWMAC link Today!
Lance@LuthiersForum.com

Lance,
I think Craig's point is more that he is a Sponsor here. While everything on this earth seems to have been duplicated by someone at some time or another, you don't expect to see it on a venue that asks sponsors to pay for advertising.

Also, the fact that Fox, Fleishman, etc. chose not to patent their "inventions" only meant that: a) They didn't know any better b) They knew better and didn't care c) they couldn't afford the patent process d)They couldn't afford to fight infringement or e) any or all of the above.

Any of these reasons doesn't make it right or O.K. for someone to copy an invention because the inventor didn't take the appropriate steps to protect that invention. It only means that they are not infringing on a patent. Which, also doesn't mean the infringement isn't action-able. We can go down the whole trademark road again as well.

That doesn't mean there can't or shouldn't be competition...just that this forum is probably Craig's largest advertising investment (Sorry to make assumptions Craig)and he feels invaded by a non-sponsor. Now granted this fellow isn't selling radius jigs, but he may, and I stress "may" be interfering with possible sales (which is the goal of any sponsor)by offering an alternative "jig" which does seems to have many of the "characteristics" of the Holden Machine. He may also be making a great argument for buying Craig's jig!

Perhaps in the future, an amature's jig section or some other way to allow members to post "my way jigs" and not offend sponsors is in order. I realize we already have a "jigs" section. But currently no requirement to post all jigs in that section is what the problem may be. Maybe a section for "Jigs that work" vs. "jigs that I think will work" I don't know that's your headache...you be da boss!

"The pains of success are great and many" (who said that!)The OLF is a growing, successful, and important advertising medium...sponsors must be protected. But also...Craig...I don't think either of the guys, who posted "their" jigs, comes close to yours. So don't get too excited...Their are plenty of builders who would rather buy a tested, well made machine that does the job, than spend precious hours building something that might do a "half baked", "sometimes works" job. The builders who are selling guitars are the ones who need tools that create efficiency...thereby allowing them to build more guitars with consistant results. The part timer probably isn't going to spend the cash. So he/she probably isn't your target market anyway.

I own one of Craig's machines...I would not think of building my own as my time constraints make it much more economical to purchase a fine, well made jig than spend the time trying to build one. I bill my time out at $175 an hour( not bragging or anything...you should see what my attorney charges!)...I can buy one of Craigs' fine machines and have money left over for more WOOD ( now that warms BobC's heart) in the time it would take me to build.

just my 2 cents...anyone who wants to argue this point call me 941-555-1212 and wait for me to answer. Dave-SKG38811.4445717593

_________________
Dave Bland

remember...

"If it doesn't play in tune...it's just pretty wood"

As a group, guitar makers have always borrowed and tried to improve on the tools that others have made. It's not difficult to see the similarities in tools and jigs that we have all made. There have been a few of these designs that have added to the fame of certain people, Fox, Ribecke, Williams/Fleishman, and perhaps CTHolden will take his place among them. But you will be copied and there is very little you can do to stop that and chances are in the long run it will help you succeed if you do. Being a DIY kinda guy, I thought about using some your pricipal elements in my own design but ended up going a different way combining a couple of other designs I had seen on this great internet. Keep up the good work Craig.

_________________
Tickle your guitar daily, and it'll tickle you back.

I'm having trouble understanding how this jig creates a compound radius.   I haven't studied it real close but wouldn't the bit be traveling in the same radius from one end to the other? I understand that the end guides that the two tubes rest on are different radii.
What am I missing?
Thanks
Nelson

I don't think there is value in allowing the sponsors to dictate what is written
here on OLF. And I applaud Lances statements! Good for you Lance!

RCoates, by all means continue to perfect the jig and post it here or in a new
topic.

That is in fact how it works. Take a look at mine. It works on the same priciple but it swings instead of rocking.
The advantage of Craigs design is you can interchange different radius patterns. I figured I would just decide on one and stick with it.
John How38811.4725

_________________
Tickle your guitar daily, and it'll tickle you back.

John--I understand how yours works but it looks to me, on Ron's jig, that the router bit is going to be traveling in the same arc regardless of where along the slide the carriage is positioned.
I looks like the effective radius, which I don't see as being compound,is a combination of the two different templates. Not sure how you would calculate this "effective" radius though.
Nelson

The parrallel bars follow a different radius on each end so as you move the router from one end to the other, the radius gets smaller or larger.
It does work.

_________________
Tickle your guitar daily, and it'll tickle you back.

[QUOTE=Dave-SKG]just my 2 cents...anyone who wants to argue this point call me 941-555-1212 and wait for me to answer. [/QUOTE]

Now THAT is funny!   

I wonder if that slipped by everyone Dave....
Don Williams38811.5349189815

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

[QUOTE=Phil Marino]

When I first read what you said - the edge of the fingerboard should remain the same thickness , I thought "no - you want the center thickness to be the same at both ends".

But, I think the real answer is that you want both of these to be true. The fingerboard edge thickness should be constant AND the center thickness should be constant.

Isn't that what the compound radius accomplishes?
Phil[/QUOTE]

Well, yes and no. Or perhaps I should say to some extent. in order to keep a constant fingerboard thickness down the crown, as well as a constant edge thickness along the length, the difference in radii would have to work together with the fingerboard taper.

For example, say you wanted a fingerboard radius of 10" at the nut, and 20" at the other end (numbers chosen for simplicity). In order to do that, and maintain the constant crown/edge thickness, both ends of the fingerboard would have to subtend the same arc in degrees, meaning that the far end of the fingerboard would have to be twice as wide as at the nut. So, for a 1-3/4" nut, the other end of the board would have to be 3.5" wide ... not likely to happen!

Since the fingerboard taper remains more orthodox, you'd have to choose different radii that work out better. As another example, if you have a nut of 1-3/4 and 21st fret of 2-1/4 (more reasonable?), then radii of say 14" and 18" would work. I think most people want a little more delta in there, which means that you won't have constant thickness at the crown, or at the edges, or both.

Since a change in edge thickness may be noticable, I personally would prefer to let the crown thickness vary a little from end to end.

The above is all strictly mathematical. In reality, it doesn't matter all that much it turns out. I had done a quick calculation for the instrument I'm currently working on, and as it turns out, I did go with a constant crown thickness (contrary to what I suggested previously)- whadda ya' know! I used a 10" and 18" radius and widths of just over 1-3/4 at the nut, and about 2.4 at the 21st fret. The edge thickness did vary, but with this combination, not by much, as you can see in the drawing below which I copied from my design drawing.




The three thousandths variation in edge thickness can't be visually discerned over the 18" of the fingerboard.


[QUOTE=npalen] I'm having trouble understanding how this jig creates a compound radius.   I haven't studied it real close but wouldn't the bit be traveling in the same radius from one end to the other? I understand that the end guides that the two tubes rest on are different radii.
What am I missing?
[/QUOTE]

That got me to thinking there could be more potential problems regarding getting an accurate compound radius with this jig. Quite a while ago I had worked out all sorts of potential designs for such a jig, and as the cobwebs cleared somewhat from my memory, the following complication came back to me. (This may or may not clear up any confusion, and it could potentially add more!)

For the jig to work "right", you'd have to abide by the same principle of subtending the same arc on both ends of the jig. So, the radius guide at the end with the higher radius would have to be much longer (over twice, depending on radii) than the one at the nut end. Below is a drawing of what I used for a jig similar in principal, but very different in operation (10" and 18" radii).



Basically, during operation of Ronn's jig, you can think of it in this way. When you move the rails over the radius guides, at any one time you want both ends of the jig to maintain the same tilt angle off horizontal. Picture starting with both ends at no tilt (router at top dead center of each radius guide). As you move off the crown of the radius guide to the maximum tilt of the router/rails on the nut side (say 20 degrees hypothetically), you'd also want the other end of the rails to be tilted 20 degrees, or else you'd have twisting and racking of the rail system. Once the guides do subtend the same angle on both ends (with the guide for the larger radius approptiately longer), at any one time, the position of the rail system on each guide would have to match on both ends in terms of % of maximum. So both would have to be at 0% (top dead center) at the same time, both would have to be at +50%, both at -70% and so on. If you haven't caught on, that means that the rails on the end with the larger radius would have to be moved a lot more linear inches across the radius guide for a given movement on the end with the lesser radius.

Clearer than mud, no?

In answer to Nelson's question, as the router is positioned toward the nut end on the rail system, it will sweep a tighter radius than when positioned on the other end, given that the conditions I just described are true.

What if those conditions are not met - and the jig is used as is and without regard to the % relative motion?? I dunno. Perhaps the result is not enough of a difference to be noticed on the fingerboard, or perhaps you'll see very noticable gaps as you hold a straightedge against the board in line with the different strings. Easy answer of course, would be ... try it!
Pete Licis38811.5446759259

I'm torn on commenting on this one. I see Craig's point, and understand it. His jig is his baby alone. There's nothing else like it out there. He put his time and brain to work for awhile to get it working right.
The reality is though, that as Lance said, people are going to copy what we do, or borrow from our ideas and make them a part of what they do. That's exactly what I did with Harry Fleischmann's binding jig. I make no bones about it, the idea started with him, and I like to think I improved upon it somewhat. Others have improved upon it further I'm sure.
Sometimes they are going to sell them...and there's not much we can do about it. In the case of the binding jig, I don't sell them because I frankly don't want to get into making jigs. I'd rather build guitars. I told Craig about the jig and suggested that he should make them and sell them if he wants to. The design works, and they are easier to make in numbers than one at a time. So he makes them and sells a few. I'm glad he's doing it, and support him in doing so.

The problem with a good concept is that everyone who enjoys making jigs is going to want to borrow from that great idea. That can be a hard reality, but it must be taken into consideration when you step into the world of business.
Fortunately, Ronn doesn't plan to sell these, he's just making one for himself.

Me...I'd rather use a cnc for that! Not that I'll ever be able to afford one or have any place to put it...


Don Williams38811.5491782407

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

I seem to be the bad guy lately, I figure I`ll take a break for a while.

Good luck guys....