Hey guys,
I'm building a short scale Thunderbird prototype in the Projects, Mods and Repairs section of this great forum and an idea struck me...
Since I'm building a shortie Bird to adress some key issues (balance, fret acces, length) I thought about going even further!
Has anyone ever thought of doing a headless Thunderbird?
I'm definitely considering it for my next prototype build!
Only problem is could I still tune a headless bridge if there is body under it?
And another question... If I were to cut off the headstock of an existing neck with a headstock truss rod adjust what would happen?
What do you think?
Too many existing Thunderbirds have been headless in their lifetime at one point or another already!!! :mrgreen:
For all the structural weakness and the "accident waiting to happen"-aspect of it, I find the shape and the size of a TBird headstock as important to its overall look as the body. It's ok to reduce the headstock a little in size as they did from 87 on, but a TBird without any headstock at all I find hard to envisage.
I think Peter Cook addressed some of the problems you mention, don't know if he consciously thought about all of them. The original Fenderbird is 1 inch longer than a Jazz bass. I has much less neck dive than a Gibson Thunderbird and no problem with reaching the G tuner. Add a set of Resolites or Hipshot Ultras and there's no reason to lose your head.
Balance is almost as important as weight with any bass under 9 pounds IMO. There are a few different headless designs but generally it seems they have end of the body tuning. Carruthers did an interesting one.
http://www.playawayguitars.com/play_away_guitars_shop.php?itemID=551
Looking forward to seeing what you come up with!
[blasphemous mood=on] I think a headless Tbird would look great, and I mean it. [blasphemous mood=off]
Someone hand the Greek a saw!!! Scott, do you have a spare?
(http://www.best-horror-movies.com/images/texas-chainsaw-1974-leatherface-sunset.jpg)
Hey, why not? It would balance perfect then! :P
You guys have no respect for perfect design ... may it be the Euro or the Thunderbird ... ; - )
Blasphemy ! It looks like a headless chicken ......... :sad: ;D
I know I've seen at least one that had a Stienberger-type arrangement on it. It was a custom project not a production bass. If I remember where it was I'll get a pic up.
But IMO it just doesn't look right.
Doesn't Gibson owns Steinberger? Maybe its time for a marriage of designs. After all, end of world is near.
Quote from: uwe on January 17, 2011, 05:47:20 PM
Someone hand the Greek a saw!!! Scott, do you have a spare?
Will you ever let it go ? I take a saw to one bird (and not even a vintage one at that) I'll never hear the end of it. ;D
Quote from: exiledarchangel on January 18, 2011, 12:09:41 PM
Doesn't Gibson owns Steinberger? Maybe its time for a marriage of designs. After all, end of world is near.
"Gibson and Fender, living together,
MASS HYSTERIA!!"
A TBIV without a headstock from a design and visual point of view is just not right. Somehow we(and I use that term loosely) have come to accept the Fenderbird mainly because JE had it and it was done at a time where he was pushing things to get the best sound/balance/feel with what was available at the time and I will venture to guess even 'looks'. Headless basses are definitely a look and do have their own 'rules' in terms of construction, balance etc. I would say that using the same shape and size as the Thunderbird might require some special considerations and adjustments to perhaps let it stand on it's own so to speak.
Now that brings up the subject and reason once again that all modern TBIV's should all be equipped with BLACK HARDWARE with the exception of white or black finishes!
No, you have it backwards: all modern TBIV's should all be equipped with CHROME HARDWARE with the exception of white or black finishes!
No, I understood him just right and perfectly well. He mean't what he said, good boy!
I like my Reverses the way they were done in the beginning; Honduras, big headstocks and nickel hardware...and Resolites.
Radical thought has its place... (sorry Uwe - don't panic - I grew up)
Kevin - I toyed with taking the head off my RD and fitting Steinberger hardware back in the late eighties - you could use on of their bridges if you partially sacrificed the bodys shape for the bridge/tuner block - the string retainers would also be from the same components - job done...
Hohner used the same components on their "Jack" bass which comes up cheaply on occasion and they are official licensed parts...
Look what I found!
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10197779&postcount=110 (http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10197779&postcount=110)
"w/o losing the classic outline"
Doesn't work for me. At the least it looks like McGruff the Crimedog took a bite out of its ass. With reason.
My '64 TBird II weighs 7.8 lbs with heavy vintage klusons and a big headstock. TBird Reverse neck dive would be almost completely eliminated with a smaller headstock, minituners or ultralites and a THICKER BODY. Weight would be less than 9lbs, possibly 8.5 Better solution IMO
Thicker/heavier bodies would be the solution for most neck divers, I agree. And I don't think the extra weight would be an issue.
Quote from: exiledarchangel on January 29, 2011, 06:07:52 AM
Look what I found!
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10197779&postcount=110 (http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10197779&postcount=110)
Ugh... A Reb Beach T-bird...