Truss rod access

[mandomick]

I was thinking about this awhile back and thought I'd ask those of you who build. Would it be possible to clean up the truss rod cover area by cutting a small ledge around the circumference of the pocket so that the cover would lay flush with the top of the peg head? Seems like it would make for a nice smooth look without alot of extra work.

If not, is it possible to cut the pocket in the back of the peg head leaving the front totally smooth?

[sunburst]

I used to do that. I had a recessed cover, made of wood to match the overlay, inset into the truss rod pocket. I used one screw (a bolt, actually) through the back of the peghead to hold it in place.

It was a lot more work, and presented it's own set of problems, so I decided it wasn't worth it and quit doing it.

I think I've seen guitars with the truss rod cover "inlayed" like you said, but I can't remember where.

A standard truss rod would not allow the pocket to be in the back of the peghead. That would probably require a serious re-design of the system.

[Michael Lewis]

There are some right angle truss rods as used on some electric guitars. Uses an Allen wrench from the side of the neck near the high frets. Perhaps one of these could be modified or duplicated, but as John says, not from the back of the headstock.

You could always do as I do for mandolins and inlay a carbon fiber bar in the neck and never have to adjust it. That leaves a smooth face on the headstock.

[arbarnhart]

Rolfe Gerhardt at Phoenix is another carbon fiber rod fan. Phoenix mandolins don't have truss rods. I think the truss rod is largely a traditional feature these days and tradition dictates that it have a bell shaped cover on top of the headstock. But that's just what I think. In the early Gibsons, there was no truss rod. They selected necks carefully and then had to reject some after making them and testing them. The truss rod changed that. I think it was an improvement to the process, allowing more necks per BF on average with less wasted labor. Alternatives would be metal which would increase the weight. Anyway, I believe the truss rod was invented to improve the process of making mandolins, not to improve mandolins.

Also, there is nothing wrong with the tradition. Truss rods do work. But if you want to break with tradition and make yours less prominent, why not just use an alternative?

As far as your original question goes, think through the logisitcs. The bend in the allen wrench is outside the neck. When the cover is off, the angle of the peg head allows this. From the back side, it would not or at least not easily. It would be difficult to leave enough room to get the wrench in there with enough clearance for the bend.

[Big Joe]

Actually the truss rod was used first in 1921 which allowed the use of thinner necks. This made them more playable and allowed the modern mandolin to become a reality. The tone of the instrument was different with the neck with lower mass. In addition, it was the first time any instrument had a reasonable means of adjusting the action and playability. This was due to two factors. The truss rod and the adjustable bridge. There are materials that may prove to be good alternatives, but they do not allow for any adjustment should they be needed. Carbon graphite is a great way to stabilize a neck, but should it need adjustment in the future, it would not be easy to do. The use of the truss rod had nothing to do with yield per board foot. It was more expensive to use the truss rod than to have a few scrap necks. It was, however, a giant leap in guitar and mandolin and banjo construction at the time and has served well to this day.

[arbarnhart]

Well I stand corrected. I did not realize that older models had significantly larger necks. I played a thicker neck modern mando recently and I hated it. I did say "this is what I think" since it is obviously based on what I have read (not many people who were there to talk to). But the point of the CF (again in my opinion) is that you never need to adjust it. It's dead flat across the frets and it stays that way.

[Rroyd]

You might consider the Bob Givens approach, with the truss rod nut being in the body. Easy to adjust with the oval hole style mandolins, but requiring a specially made very long tool to adjust the neck through the end pin hole in the case of the f-hole models.

[Paul Hostetter]

Joe - I have handled many pre-trussrod Gibson mandolins that had very dainty necks - easily as narrow and small as any later trussrod-era neck. Those necks were also in much lighter woods than the usual F-5 neck: Spanish cedar, cherry, mahogany. I think the connection between neck and trussrod was about the extended neck on the 5-series mandolins and so on, the perceived need for help on those longer necks. Moreover, I think that the trussrod on the mandolin was a byproduct of their deployment on the larger instruments. These ideas are a bit hard to substantiate since you would need a significant body of non-trussrod F-5s to compare to trussrodded F-5s, which of course isn't possible.

I have never felt the trussrod on the mandolin was very important, tonally or structurally. On guitars and banjos, it's arguably a necessity, but on mandolins, it seems the trussrod often just makes up for the structural integrity of the wood lost to the slot for the rod.

[arbarnhart]

I thought I had seen some skinny necks on older ones but I have learned that I sometimes rub folks the wrong way by debating a point too far based on second hand info I dug up, so I dropped it. Speaking of annoying people, I need to go practice...

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif

[BigJoe]

The longer neck was certainly one of the reasons for the truss rod. However, there were not many as thin as far as the post tr era. While some may chose not to use them, we have continued to do so for reasons we think is obvious. We have used graphite rods in repairing unstable necks with and without truss rods. The purpose of the truss rod is not stability, but rather adjustability. I've played many instruments with them and many without. My personal preference is with. Certainly not every instrument would need one no matter the size. However, many have needed them for adjustability. I would rather have the option of being adjustable as to lose that option entirely. Just my opinion. Good people on the other side also.

[mrbook]

I have had mandolins with and without adjustable rods, and even in most cases I've never had to make any adjustments. My main instrument for the last eight years, however, went from being very good to being exactly what I wanted because I was able to adjust the truss rod.