Set-neck guitars with 6-in-a-line headstock?

DannyP

Q: Is there any mechanical reason why a 3-a-side headstock is preferred over a straight-6 for guitars with a set-neck?

Is it just an arbitrary convention? I can imagine that being the case because set neck is a more traditional construction method. Pre-war brands would just carry through the headstock designs from their acoustic instruments.

Conversely, Leo Fender starts from scratch, comes up with the bolt-on neck and the 6-in-a-line headstock, and those things just pass into tradition as co-existing features.

Or am I missing something from an engineering point of view that makes 3-a-side headstock better on a set-neck?

Ta!

WezV

No reason at all, just a few design considerations around headstock angles and wood choice ... but it is all possible 

The early  Bigsby guitars had 6-in line headstocks, which Fender borrowed.  The first fenders had 3 a side.

1948 Bigbsy - this is a through neck, so closer to set than bolt on



1949 fender

Sporky

I think it's mostly tradition. Six a side meant faster construction - no wings to add - and identical tuners throughout. 

DannyP

WezV said:

No reason at all, just a few design considerations around headstock angles and wood choice ... but it is all possible

The early  Bigsby guitars had 6-in line headstocks, which Fender borrowed.  The first fenders had 3 a side.

1948 Bigbsy - this is a through neck, so closer to set than bolt on



1949 fender

Ah yeah, I remember that Bigsby guitar from the old Ralph Denyer book! And of course a snake's head broadcaster/nocaster/telecaster/esquire or what-have-you.

WezV

the snakehead was prototype only.  The first actual esquires had the tele head

DannyP

Sporky said:

I think it's mostly tradition. Six a side meant faster construction - no wings to add - and identical tuners throughout. 

Makes sense. I guess Leo had a design approach that prioritised an efficient production line.

WezV

the main thing to consider is break angle of the string over the nut and the string splay behind the nut. 

Flat headstocks usually need some help with the break angle.   String trees help with this,  but there is less room for them on a 3 a side and a single bar hadn;t really been used at that point.  That is likely why fender didn't stick with the snakehead

An angled 6 a side can be a bit weaker, especially if done in a wood like mahogany.  Firebirds often suffer from having such a large angled headstock.

Another random consideration is overall string length, but this isn't really an issue on most electrics.

bbill335

just a few design considerations around headstock angles

hoo boy. the tip of the headstock on a firebird is so far away from the bridge and angled so far back behind the rest of the guitar. it's an incredibly awkward shape, it is just BEGGING to get knocked and break, and can't fit in 99% of cases/bags. can see why the 3x3 is more common on angled headstocks.

stickyfiddle

Gibson non-reverse Firebird and Vegas models spring to mind for set-neck 6-a-side. 

At the fancy end of things I've always wanted a Probett Rocket as well  

My assumption has always been it had 2 benefits for Leo - cheaper & faster to make, and looked different to anything before, marking Fender out as the "new thing"

WezV

That's before you even consider a Thunderbird bass. Longer skinnier neck with the same stupidly sized angled headstock leading to a massive amount of neck dive.

DannyP

WezV said:

the main thing to consider is break angle of the string over the nut and the string splay behind the nut. 

Isn't that the same consideration regardless of whether the neck is angled back from the body, though?

eg. a tele and a Les Paul have different angles at the heel, but looking at the neck in isolation, once the strings are all but parallel with the fretboard, isn't the issue of break angle at the nut the same for both designs?

So a Les Paul could have and tele headstock and vice versa?

WezV

stickyfiddle said:

Gibson non-reverse Firebird and Vegas models spring to mind for set-neck 6-a-side. 

At the fancy end of things I've always wanted a Probett Rocket as well  

My assumption has always been it had 2 benefits for Leo - cheaper & faster to make, and looked different to anything before, marking Fender out as the "new thing"

Yes.  It's all about being able to make it out of a 1" thick piece of maple, with as few processes as possible.  Using blanks a couple of inches longer will have been much cheaper than using ones a couple of inches thicker or adding a splice join

WezV

DannyP said:

WezV said:

the main thing to consider is break angle of the string over the nut and the string splay behind the nut. 

Isn't that the same consideration regardless of whether the neck is angled back from the body, though?

eg. a tele and a Les Paul have different angles at the heel, but looking at the neck in isolation, once the strings are all but parallel with the fretboard, isn't the issue of break angle at the nut the same for both designs?

So a Les Paul could have and tele headstock and vice versa?

yeah, it's a totally separate design decision to the neck pitch

Sorry misread - the bit in bold is incorrect.

DannyP

So I guess there's nothing inherent in the neck join that dictates headstock design!

WezV

Note it is only the low strings on a flat headstock that have a comparable break angle over the nut.  The rest are much shallower.  String trees help

WezV

DannyP said:

So I guess there's nothing inherent in the neck join that dictates headstock design!

nope, nothing at all.   you can find good and bad examples of all combinations

ICBM

WezV said:

That's before you even consider a Thunderbird bass. Longer skinnier neck with the same stupidly sized angled headstock leading to a massive amount of neck dive.

The odd thing is that I find Thunderbirds less neck-divey than Firebirds - I think it’s because the hardware is so ludicrously far forward on the Firebird, whereas it’s much further back on the T-bird… not just the weight but also the playing position, which also means you rest your right arm on the body edge in the right place to hold it down. I’m pretty short but I can play T-birds without too much trouble, but can’t get on with Firebirds at all.