Any chance for a 33" scale 5 string bass neck
- Thread starter itsRoy
- Start date
SkuttleFunk
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,156
[sarcasm_mode=Full-ON]
but why in the world would you ever ask for something soooo awful and lacking in tonality - don't you know that anybody who knows anything about basses says that you need 35" scale or longer for a good tight low B?? what planet are you from anyway??
[sarcasm_mode=TOTALLY-OFF]
I'm with you in absolutely loving the 33" scale for 4, 5, & 6-string basses. maybe the trend will swing this way some day and you can look back on yourself as a pioneering visionary who was able to see thru the marketing compost and truly understand the beauty of the 33" scale ... and that most people complaining about floppy B's just didn't know how to select strings, perform an appropriately good set-up, and combine these with proper playing technique.
it's a significant investment in CAD and CNC engineering time to produce a neck (and body) that is adjusted for 33" scale. without a guaranteed return within a given timeframe, I doubt you're going to see companies like W taking the financial plunge to this offering anytime soon. they know their business model and how far they can drift off center before incurring too much loss while growing a new offering - nobody can fault them for sticking to a solid plan in tough financial times
all the best,
R
but why in the world would you ever ask for something soooo awful and lacking in tonality - don't you know that anybody who knows anything about basses says that you need 35" scale or longer for a good tight low B?? what planet are you from anyway??
[sarcasm_mode=TOTALLY-OFF]
I'm with you in absolutely loving the 33" scale for 4, 5, & 6-string basses. maybe the trend will swing this way some day and you can look back on yourself as a pioneering visionary who was able to see thru the marketing compost and truly understand the beauty of the 33" scale ... and that most people complaining about floppy B's just didn't know how to select strings, perform an appropriately good set-up, and combine these with proper playing technique.
it's a significant investment in CAD and CNC engineering time to produce a neck (and body) that is adjusted for 33" scale. without a guaranteed return within a given timeframe, I doubt you're going to see companies like W taking the financial plunge to this offering anytime soon. they know their business model and how far they can drift off center before incurring too much loss while growing a new offering - nobody can fault them for sticking to a solid plan in tough financial times
all the best,
R
tubby.twins
Hero Member
- Messages
- 623
A 33" scale would also work well for a "tenor" or "high C" tuning (E-A-D-G-C). The high C string on a 35" scale bass can be a bit thin.
But yeah, the demand probably isn't sufficient to justify the investment. I think a lefty Gecko would be more likely...
But yeah, the demand probably isn't sufficient to justify the investment. I think a lefty Gecko would be more likely...
what is all this significant investment mumbo jumbo, you people always make it seem soooo hard, i never see doug giving this speach,, who would know better than him? well i would know fairly well myself and i say nonsense.
the things i think hold them back are setting up a gang saw to cut the fret slots, storage of additional fixturing and a list of other small reasons. that and depending on the number of programers and operators and machines it may set production back to make a proto type. there experience with demand for such things may not be good either.
but as far as investment and yada yada.. i dont see why you cant produce a production ready prototype including fixturing ect. inside of 3 days. hell i wish i ever had 3 days to produce a part when i was in the airforce. i know that's not really practical, the programmer may have other responsibilities and the machines made be tied up. but that's just my take on it.
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
They have to take all the time involved with every aspect of producing such a neck, which may involve a number of people, convert it to man-hours, then not only spread that cost across projected sales, but determine whether there is any impact on current sales. Once they have a figure, it might turn out that such a neck would be prohibitively expensive. So, it may not sell.
It seems to me it would be a lot easier to just buy an uncut, unfretted 34" scale neck along with a body that hasn't been drilled or routed for any particular bridge or pickup arrangement, then take the raw pieces to a luthier who could cut the slots and fret the neck for a 33" scale and place the bridge/pickup routs properly.
It seems to me it would be a lot easier to just buy an uncut, unfretted 34" scale neck along with a body that hasn't been drilled or routed for any particular bridge or pickup arrangement, then take the raw pieces to a luthier who could cut the slots and fret the neck for a 33" scale and place the bridge/pickup routs properly.
SkuttleFunk
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,156
Dan025 said:
while it may be possible to design 'something' and build its initial prototype in a short period of time, optimizing that design for production coupled together with the R&D to finalize a product worthy of branding and extended warranty are two entirely different things. it's easy to miss this critical larger business perspective. it's one thing to bubblegum a fix to get your plane home from a mission, it's another thing to bring a new non-disposable product to market :sign13:
if it was inexpensive, easy to do, and backed by a market demand that justified this kind of investment, W would have done it by now
all the best,
R
SkuttleFunk said:
in the airforce i worked in a fab shop, we had 3 CNC mills and a lathe as well as a number of manual machines. we completed any type of repair that neeed fabrication on all types of equipment. when there was airframe damage we often had to measure the area to be repaired, draw it up in cad, produce a program and start cutting, if that ever took more than 2 days the officers in charge of maintenance would get on the shop chiefs case and he'd get on our case.
warmoth already makes necks this is not a stretch, they know how they clamp the other necks, they know how fast they can cut the wood, they know alot of the details already. i don't get where the research comes in. they've done that already.
we were also the unoffical airforce plaque shop frequently creating awards for officers and retirees. i made this for another guy in the shop who was PCS'd to another base in my spare time. an hour or two a day for one week. as i had to hide hide it.
Dan025 said:
From a business view you couldn't be further off. While Warmoth needs to earn its own money to keep them from going bankrupt, the airforce just gets a big bag of taxpayer's money from the government. Give Warmoth a nice subsidy and they'll be able to make custom instruments for everyone for free.
baskruit said:
not much money is spent on a one off if you already own the materials and equipment is my point, they even have a process down. this is more of a modification that a new product, money lost is more a case of lost production time. one great advantage of CNC machining is the on the fly flexability. especially in todays world of cad/cam which i know warmoth uses. i can produce a single part of even low complexity as fast on a CNC from scratch as fast as anyone on a manual machine. the more complex the design the more time CNC will save in the cutting process. to blame cost is just closed mindedness. i worded with at least 3 other guys that can do quick work on the CNC in the air force and work with a former prototype machinist now who claims his engineer would draw blueprints of experimental micorwave signal splitters for cell antennas almost daily and he'd produce a new part start to finnish within the same day as getting the blueprint, i know the talent is out there to make this a reality at low cost.
if warmoth said it wasn't viable because they dont see the sales potential i'd believe them but if a customer starts speaking for them about how difficult the idea would be i'm calling BS. i dont know what warmoths situation is as far as #of machines and programmers and operators, maybe one guy does everything, maybe production would have to stop, but if they have but if they have a few guys to run the machines i think they could have one guy modify his shift to work during non production hours and come up with a process.
and if you think we had a big bag of money you obviously over estimate the governments capacity to manage money. we had to fight for tooling all the time. and the money my shop saved far exceeded the cost to maintain it. if we could save a major component on an engine from scrap, an engine overhaul costs $1 million a new engine cost $5 million, do the math. uhf antenna mounting points used to get fatigued and crack, a new bulkhead costs an unimaginable sum never mind man hours and downtime for installation, a repair from our shop costs in the range of hundreds of dollars with only the down time of draining the fuel tanks and a few hours to install it, the part was made while the jet was being prepared, took about 2 hours to write a new better program for that one and 2 hours to cut it out.
this negative attitude everyone give people with ideas is why nothing gets done in america. im sure warmoth has good reason not to due this, i'd just like to hear it from warmoth not a there customers. and i dont ever want to hear my work refered to as bubble gum fixes, from anyone. i'm not talking duct tape over bullet holes type repairs, this isn't WWII we dont do that to a $30,000,000 investment, those plane should have been retired 20 years ago, but the cost for replacments is just to great and they still do a pretty good job. those things dont triple there expected service life and save the taxpayers hundreds of millions because of bublegum repairs.
this'll be my last post on this topic so it doesn't turn into a flame war.
