Small Dreadnaught?

[David L]

Let's see if I can put it in other words, if I take a dreadnaught template and transfer it, making it 1 inch smaller all the way around and I don't adjust the templates' "given" location of the bridge plate, when I mount the neck (to the body) and use my bridge locating tool, the bridge will be 1 inch aft of the bridge plate. When I shorten the guitar body 1 inch from the center of the guitar to the neck end, I have in effect moved the neck (and the 12th fret) that same distance aft (1 inch) "in relation" to where the template has me mounting the X-brace and bridge plate prior to reducing the outline of the template. Maybe that will help to understand what I'm trying to say, maybe not, or maybe I'm just "crazy as a coon tick hound dog" (something I've been accused of before).

David L

[David L]

Tim, I hear what your saying and it makes sense, What I was trying to do was just to use a template, which already has the shape I'm looking for and reduce it to the size that I want so that I'm not trying to change an OM shape into a dreadnaught shape but it seems that I wouldn't be able to transfer the bracing "as is" from the template without some mods.

David L

[kencierp]

If you shorten the body shape 1" at the neck block end and still attach the neck at the 14th fret -- the bridge, sound hole and related structure has to be moved 1" toward the end block if you use the same scale length. But if you change the length by shortenning the body from the tail block end the idea might work. The 23" scale on the 7-28 is by design to keep the look of the instrument in proportion. I suggest that you do a full size drawing and verify component locations to get an idea of the look --- the waist curve, bridge and sound hole locations may not appeal to your eye.

[David L]

As Darryl mentioned earlier, the 23" scale may have contributed to the poor sound of the instrument and it's short-lived early demise. I also agree that setting the bridge farther aft to accomodate a 25.4" scale or even a 24.9 scale might make the guitar look "goofy". I also think that shortening the body length at the heel "only" would not look good either, I think it would still look like the bridge was set down further into the lower bout even though it would be the same in relation to the waist, and the shape of the guitar wouldn't be in true proportion with it's "full sized" big brother. My opinions of how these options might look is only speculation as I am only trying to "visualize" in my mind how they may look. Now I'm thinking back to Tim's idea, taking a known shape/size body (OOO/OM) and bastardizing it into a dreadnaught-ish shape and then all of that relocating of the various components wouldn't be necessary, hmmm... BTW, thanks guys for being patient with me while I stumbled my way through trying to explain what I was trying to say!

David L

[kencierp]

D width 15.625" 000 width 15"

D length 20" 000 length 19.375"


You'd go through such a yank for a 2% +/- decrease in size?

I am not getting that idea? The 7-28 is a full 12.5% smaller

[Darryl Young]

No matter the percentage, there is a large difference between playing a 000 sized guitar and a dreadnaught sized guitar. A few bluegrass folks may want the feel of a smaller body but like the traditional Dreadnaught shape. Less bend in the waist shouldn't affect playability but may affect tone. My guess is it would add a bit of bass (or decrease treble) and warm the tone. Also, you would be less likely to break the sides if you don't bend the waist as sharp. So there are a few reasons to consider it.

This doesn't have dimensions nor does it show the bridge location, but here is a 000 sized dreadnaught body I drew a couple years ago using G-Thang software. Not sure how useful it is to you without the bridge located or dimesioned. It is not an exact scale down as I rounded some of the dimensions up/down to "normal" English dimensions. So for example, if a measurement came out to 10.368" when scaled, I would round that measurement to 10 3/8".

Baby Drednaught Try 2.jpg

[Ben-Had]

A few bluegrass folks may want the feel of a smaller body but like the traditional Dreadnaught shape. Less bend in the waist shouldn't affect playability but may affect tone. My guess is it would add a bit of bass (or decrease treble) and warm the tone. Also, you would be less likely to break the sides if you don't bend the waist as sharp. So there are a few reasons to consider it.

That is exactly what intrigued me about this concept. Do you remember what the dimensions were?

[Darryl Young]

Here you go......and this shows the fret and bridge locations in red ticks. Looks like my lower bout width is NOT a standard dimension <smile>........can easily be changed. I did this awhile back so not sure that is exactly where you would want the soundhole located, but again, can easily be moved.

BabyDreadGThangDimensions.jpg

[kencierp]

A "D" is .875" deeper then an OM "000" I think that might have some effect on the base response? Want a more comfortable "D" make it thinner -- that is done a lot. You can draw any size "D" you want. I believe the problem as outlined here is getting the longer scales to look correct on a "significantly" smaller body "D". I personally don't think a player that uses a "D" that is .625" less across the lower bout is likely to even notice the difference in playing comfort.

[Ben-Had]

Here's an intriguing discussion that may or may not shed some light somewhere down the line.

http://www.lutherie.net/12-14-evolution.html

Ken, I'm not sure if it's the depth, width or combination of both of my D's that makes it less comfortable to play than my 000/OM's. Food for thought as I ponder this issue.