Official Luthiers Forum!

Exactly, the splitting as shown on the picture is totally sensless....because it is very easy to read the growing rings anyhow... turn your spliting tool by 90 degrees.

Cheers, Alex

How is it sensless? The wood has to be split or sawn, splitting is faster , leaves no sawdust, and you don't lose any wood to the kerf.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

I chose to split my brace wood by hand for two reasons:

1) I don't own a table or band saw and was able to do this without either of those tools. I cannot afford a table or band saw right now, and instead of having to drive 20-30 minutes or more each way to a friend or family member who has these tools, I was able to split the wood by hand.

2) It may be "easy" for some to "read" growth rings and know that there won't be any runout. I can't. I looked at both of the 2x1x22 inch long pieces I had and both appeared to have the same grain lines. Both looked to have been sawn on the quarter very well. However, when I split the two, using the same tools just minutes apart, the second piece had virtually no run out whereas the first had a lot of runout.

To be honest, I hadn't thought about the possible negative effects of runout in braces once they are under tension, but after talking to folks here on OLF and watching the very helpful videos recommended I feel that there was a lot of value in splitting along the grain vs sawing it. I might have never realized the amount of runout in the braces from that first piece and used it for a major brace, like the X, and once under tension had problems.

At the end of the day everyone builds with the methods that work best for them. If you've built 100 guitars that are all holding up fine and have never once had runout cause an issue in your braces, awesome! Personally, for me (a person new to lutherie) this method has proved to be a valuable learning exercise and allowed me to get the wood into a more brace-like state than I could have done without a lot of extra time and trouble, trouble both for me in time spent driving and for my family/friends in having to schedule a time for me to come and use their equipment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assume you surface the wood after splitting, because a split face is not perfectly flat or smooth.
I obtain the best results with a thin hollow ground blade in the table saw, because the surface is almost perfect....needing little or no surfacing.

In the plane parallel with the rings, anyone can read the grain direction. Perpendicular to the rings, it is much more difficult. In other words, it makes sense to split the wood in that plane, but not the other.

_________________
John

I guess you didn't notice that the rings aren't always perfectly vertical? Sure, you can tablesaw it, but there's more waste and you have to keep adjusting the angle to match because the rings don't always stay the same angle, but splitting is easier and faster.

Really, guys.

Plus the OP got a good result.

I guess some people have nothing to offer but false criticism. How sad.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

I simply don't sgree.

_________________
John

(spelling corrected)

A tablesaw kerf is typically 1/8 or 1/10th of an inch thick.

4 sawings equals about half an inch of waste.

Sanding a split face might lose you a 32nd of an inch. At least, when I split it.

But really?

You don't have anything else to add to the conversation?

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

He's giving both of you the key to crack the code, you can look at the rings(on top or bottom or wherever) and see where the grain is running. Now split your brace 90 degrees to the vertical grain and you will see exactly how much runout is in your brace stock.

John's brace wood comes from split stock and you pretty much know what you have upfront. Brace wood from sawn stock is suspect.

Very key piece of information here!

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

It seems to me the most important thing is that our original poster got the job done. And further, he got some good practice doing it. He'll get better at anticipating how his wood will split or saw. He now has his braces and can move on to other construction tasks. He'll acquire saws as time goes on, and he will settle into the methods of his own preference. In the meantime, he got a very useful bit of advice from Arnt on balancing the split and good advice about tool choices from others. I say Good Job!
Patrick

Nor do I. T

I just find that often the wood is often not cut parallel to the grains, even if straight. Splitting at least once along the grain and once perpendicular gives me true surfaces to register my surfacing and cutting tools along.

So I don't see how it's TOTALLY senseless, LOL!

And it's true there are OTHER ways to find the true surfaces and prepare your braces

It just seems to me that when some guys have nothing to add of use they then turn to criticism, often baseless in nature, just to say SOMETHING.

Case in point:



Neither one of those guys added anything, and instead were trying to make what someone else said worth less in the conversation, baselessly.

At least qualify your criticism so that it makes sense.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Hello, slow down now, I agreed with John Arnolds' point with base. A number of people offered differing and experienced opinions during this thread and it seemed to fall on deaf ears. John politely exited the debate by saying he simply disagreed, it was polite. I was reading this thread and a few of the posts stated opinions that were similar to mine; Herr Dalbergia, Arnt Rian, and John. I simply joined that dissenting opinion. It was said that sawing bracewood created more waste than splitting it. I agreed to disagree with that opinion. It was not a personal attack and I am sorry if you took it that way. This is a forum about a complex craft with a very diverse membership. I for one believe nearly everyone here sincerely cares about the craft and has no interest in offending anyone. Soapbox relinquished. Tim

Sorry to have opened a can of worms with this thread, folks.

Here's my opinion on the loss of wood:

I believe it could go either way. I think many of the things we discuss in these forums could. For example, I'm new to building guitars, and while some will swear that using something like hide glue will give the best results, it may not give the best results in the hands of someone who's never built an instrument. If I use hide glue and mess up a joint, it's harder to fix than white wood glue. That doesn't mean that the white glue is better, it means it's a better fit for me for right now.

I think that if I were to saw the wood I have and was unable to spot the runout before hand that could result in more waste because of my inability to spot it ahead of time. That being said, sawing allows greater control and accuracy when dividing the wood up into usable sized pieces. Just a thought.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a misunderstanding of the ease of use of HHG. It is more easily reversed than any white or yellow glue, and you do not have to clean off all the old HHG. It will stick to itself, unlike white and yellow glues. If you mess up a joint with white or yellow glue, you have to remove all traces of old glue, from both surfaces, or you will certainly have a glue failure.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

It's really ot a big deal at all.

I just think disagreement or even criticism should come with clarification, it's not a matter of offense or being offended.

At least, that's how I look at it.

I disagreed and gave reasons, IE add up the thickness of the tablesaw per cut VS splitting and sanding, and it seems obvious to me that there's less waste splitting, on a nice piece of wood.

Others disagreed and poo-pooed without any explanation, just to disagree it seems.

Criticism should come with clarification for the less experienced, if indeed the criticism comes from a standpoint of experience and greater knowledge rather than a desire to run one's mouth.

It's true however, that splitting could easily result in greater waste with unruly wood. You could get more braces by sawing, but the QUALITY could be lower than if you diligently split the wood into useable dimensions, picked out the "good"pieces, and chunked the rest.

That would be a good argument for the wastefullness of splitting in some cases.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Interesting thought though. The "I disagree" opinion seems to be being discussed as the "dissenting" opinion.

Clarification would make it a "Different" opinion rather than "Dissenting".

Better for all.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Read my post. I use a thinner blade....about 1/16".
I also have bandsaw blades that are even thinner kerf. Bandsaws do produce a rougher surface, so after surfacing the waste is about the same as my thin circular saw.



Yes. Split the wood one time, perpendicular to the rings. Saw parallel to the split. If you split every brace, you must surface both sides of the split....meaning that a 1/16" deviation from flat results in 1/8" of material removal. In many cases, the deviation is more than 1/16"....no wood is perfect.

_________________
John

Bracing stock, when compared to other materials for lutherie, is quite cheap as well as plentiful. Frankly I am not at all concerned with saving a saw blade width here and there.

_________________
Doug

Don't let fear or common sense stop you from trying to build something

I split parallel to the rings to give me flat surface to plane.

Then I can run it along whatever fence I'm using to saw parallel to the rings.

Easy!

I don't see the controversy.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!